Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet - January 2022If 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 Meeting Regular: February 17, 2022 & March 24, 2022 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) January 20, 2022 Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM Environmental Education Center 2401 Scott Boulevard SE AGENDA: 1.Call to Order 2.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 18, 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.Officer Nominations HCDC must elect a new vice chair for a partial term due to a recent vacancy. The elected vice chair will serve until July when a new chair and vice chair are elected. 5. Discuss Legacy Status Applications – Aid to Agencies Per HCDC’s request, an application was developed for eligible agencies (previous recipients of Emerging Aid to Agencies funds) to apply for Legacy Agency status. The application was open for a period of two weeks in December and the City received five submissions which are available for review at icgov.org/actionplan. HCDC will discuss the submissions and consider recommending Legacy Agency status for the applicants. Adjusting the list of approved Legacy Agencies requires a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan, City Steps 2025. The next application cycle for Legacy Aid to Agencies funding will begin in fall of 2022 with funding available in FY24. Legacy Agency status is not a guarantee of funding. 6.Review Timeline for FY23 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies Funding Staff will provide an overview of key dates in the funding round and review the process. 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.Staff Updates 9. Adjournment Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Meeting Packet Contents Agenda Item #2 •November 18, 2021 HCDC Draft Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #4 •Housing and Community Development Commission Bylaws Agenda Item #5 •Submissions are available for review at icgov.org/actionplan •November 11, 2021 Staff Memo – Aid to Agencies Legacy Applicant Process •Hypothetical Scenarios for Legacy Agency Funding after Adding New Agencies Agenda Item #6 •FY23 Tentative Timeline •FY23 Press Release Agenda Item #8 •Successful Living Email Regarding Return of FY21 Funds – Roger Goedken, Executive Director MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2021 – 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Peter Nkumu, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Nasr Mohammed STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul OTHERS PRESENT: Heath Brewer (Habitat for Humanity), Karen Fox (Center for Worker Justice), Roger Goedken (Successful Living), Caitlin McGowan (Successful Living) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of Substantial Amendment #1 to the FY22 Annual Action Plan. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 21, 2021: Dennis moved to approve the minutes of October 21, 2021, Reedus seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the minutes were approved 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Roger Goedken (Executive Director of Successful Living) thanked HCDC for their efforts and time on the commission. Goedken wanted to point out that Successful Living met the vacancy benchmark requested by HCDC at the October meeting. The Commission set a metric for Successful Living to go from 10 vacancies to seven or fewer, which they did meet and exceed. He acknowledged they’re not through all the steps that they need to get through but are at the point where they hope to be able to move forward with the underwriting and utilize the funds. ANNUAL PROJECT MONITORING PRESENTATIONS: Heath Brewer (Habitat for Humanity Executive Director) gave an update on their unexpended FY20 and FY21 funds. They currently have a project with the foundation and some walls built and progress on that place is slated to complete in June. He noted it’s a big project to get that going again when volunteers ramp back. For the other three funds, they have roughly $25,000 without assistance for each. They have five homes slated to be built on Indigo but will have to design requirements to make sure that they fit for working with Homes for Iowa as for that project they were contracted to provide affordable housing with their habitat partners and homebuyers, getting them some help cash flow and project management. That Agenda Item #2 Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 2 of 13 2 is also slated to be built this next summer and completed by the fall. Brewer noted they were delayed in using funds because of the pandemic, obviously, and then this opportunity was one that they couldn't pass. The initial home design did not work with the people, the housing design criteria, so the next round of homes that they have purchased for next year, they will work with the builder to get some of those things changed. Reedus asked if they are seeing more volunteers now, noting since the pandemic they obviously had interruptions or loss of volunteers, so what is the percentage of returning volunteers. Brewer noted they have been active throughout with Restore, so that hasn't been terrible for them, but in the home construction areas it's probably 40% to 50% of what they would be expecting in a normal year, especially considering groups such as the university or other community groups that come out and work on weekends. They are reducing the amount of folks that are allowed on site to be safe. OVERVIEW OF AID TO AGENCIES – LEGACY AGENCY REQUEST: Drabek noted the Commission discussed in their last meeting a request from the Center for Worker Justice to be added to the list of legacy agencies and the Commission expressed desire to look at how this would work. Drabek met with Kubly and Thul a couple weeks ago and what came out of that was the idea to give a presentation of the history of Aid to Agencies and then to have a discussion to put together a vision for what these sorts of requests should look like how they should handle them. Kubly gave an overview of the Aid to Agencies program since there were newer commissioners who haven't been through the application process. Aid to Agencies may also be called the human services or public services and is intended to provide a flexible operational funding for Iowa City nonprofits who provide services to low-income residents based on the funding priorities set in City Steps. This Commission typically looks at CDBG and HOME projects and those are for specific projects, whereas the Aid to Agencies is operational funding that is not eligible through CDBG or HOME. This is for things like staffing and is really desirable by agencies and it's really necessary for other projects. This is primarily funded by the City's general fund but they also use 15% of the CDBG allocation for this purpose, which ends up to be about $100,000 to $120,000 annually. That is the maximum that's allowed by CDBG to be put towards Aid to Agency. The current CDBG budget is about $719,000. Regarding the whole history of agencies, Kubly could not comment on that because she hasn’t been with the City that long but she could comment on the recent changes over the past couple years. The first one is that the Commission eliminated the high, medium and low funding priorities that were in the previous City Steps 2016 - 2020. Previously homeless services was listed as high, senior services as medium and legal services as low and the Commission had to categorize each agency but they found that was really difficult because agencies don't fit neatly into a category and many provide a variety of services. Additionally, they decided that all the agencies are high priority and put that in the new City Steps. The other change was newer agencies were coming into the picture that really couldn't compete with the more established agencies, so HCDC developed the Emerging Agency program and set aside funds for new or emerging nonprofits. At that time they defined who the legacy agencies were in the five year Consolidated Plan, City Steps 2025 and then HCDC and agency leaders worked with Council to increase the budget substantially for the Aid to Agency program. Kubly noted on the spreadsheet that was included in the Commissioner’s packet it shows that increase between FY19 And FY20 and right now they're looking at a 3% increase in the City’s budget annually. The emerging agencies were developed and intended to help agencies grow and develop capacity. Because the legacy agencies are listed in the Consolidated Plan and City Steps, essentially any nonprofit that’s not a legacy is eligible for emerging agency funds. Similar to legacy they must provide services to low-income residents in Iowa City and meet a City Steps priority. HDDC sets aside 5% of the total Aid to Agency budget for this purpose and that’s usually around $30,000. Funding for the emerging agencies can be between $5,000 and $15,000 for an agency, and the application runs alongside the CDBG/Home application annually. Kubly noted it is a much more simplified application than the legacy application, the applications for emerging agencies will be due in January for funding in the following July. The legacy agencies are a core group of agencies that are identified in the City Steps 2025 Consolidated Plan and Kubly put a list of those agencies in the Commissioner’s packets. The number was limited to return the program to its original intent of providing an ongoing and stable Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 3 of 13 3 funding source for those agencies. There's a minimum funding of $15,000. The agencies apply through the United Way joint funding process, which is a pretty extensive application, and the City also has questions specific to Iowa City within the application. HCDC reviews these applications and then make a recommendation to Council, similar to CDBG and HOME. The City is accepting applications on a two year cycle currently. There are 19 agencies in City Steps 2025, but the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County doesn't currently apply because they receive funding through the City's Affordable Housing Fund for operational costs. Kubly next discussed the City Steps 2025, the current process is to review the legacy agencies every five years during the consolidated planning process so the next timeline to do that would be 2024. Any changes to the Consolidated Plan right now requires a substantial amendment with a 30 day public comment period, HCDC will review the requests, and then make a recommendation to City Council. As discussed at the last meeting, City staff received a request for an agency to be added as a legacy agency, which then triggers that substantial amendment process. They provided a written request to staff and staff then asked them for a description of services provided, their need for funding, how they meet the priorities of City Steps, and the population that they serve, specifically in Iowa City. Kubly also shared the scoring criteria that they use for the legacy agency applications, it's based on needed priority, impacted delivery, and evidence of financial and administrative capacity. Staff has listed some questions they have such as under what circumstances would an agency be considered for legacy status, and if any agency comes along can staff vet those and decide when or if they want to pass those onto HCDC or when they would maybe refer them to another funding source or to emerging agency funds. When will HCDC review requests for legacy status, Kubly would recommend those be no more often than every two years when they do the applications. Staff also wants to know any other information that HCDC would want the agency to provide in the written request. Regarding the timeline of the application process and the City budgeting process, she suggests the requests will need to be reviewed before August for them to be eligible in the next application process but they won't know the City's fiscal year budget at that time so the decision will have to be made without any budget amendments. Drabek asked if every five years there is a certain window where it would not require a more substantive process to add an agency to the legacy list correct. Kubly replied every five years the City rewrites the Consolidated Plan but they’ve never done this before because this is the first time that the legacy agencies have been listed in the Plan. The Plan review does go through a whole public input process and they could make the change as they develop the new Plan and that goes through HCDC and Council similarly. It’s not really less of a process, but rather just intertwined into the consolidated planning process. Reedus stated she thinks it should be more frequent than five years but does agree it makes sense to follow the two year funding cycles and that is then someplace in the middle where they open up the process and do a public notice that they’re going to be considering agencies and have some sort of formal process that's tied to the calendar. Dennis asked if Reedus is suggesting the Consolidated Plan be done every two years. Reedus clarified no, only the review of legacy agencies every two years. She has other issues that she would look at in terms of the length of time an agency has been incorporated or operating, because it's closely tied to their ability to succeed long term and they want their money to go to things that produce measured outcomes. Five years is such a large window of time that none of them are going to have that history from one time to the next so won't be a continuity, so to speak. The other thing is it would probably result in leaving agencies who are really not ready to become legacy agencies to apply for it. It makes sense to her to tie to the two-year funding cycle. She also thinks United Way operates like that with their partner agencies, they have a period of time to become a partner, etc. That is what Reedus would recommend Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 4 of 13 4 Drabek agrees with the two-year idea as anything longer than two years would present the continuity issues. Drabek noted while this topic is open for discussion, they might start with essentially answering the three questions staff presented. They are discussing the timeline and length of time of a cycle, but the second question is what the criteria are needed to be considered legacy. Alter agreed they need to discuss the criteria, Reedus had talked a little bit about the output in terms of what the agency is providing, so what is the data needed and what is enough output and service, should there be some version of what legacy agencies have to fill out. Since the emerging agency application is a much-simplified smaller application than the legacy one. Some of the criteria that they might be looking for is how many people they are serving, who they are serving and that type of thing. She suggests they find some of the specific criteria of what are the hallmarks that they want to actually look at and what they're asking legacy agencies to provide. Reedus noted the first bullet point for under what circumstances would be considered legacy status can be answered in two ways. One is based on experience, years ago she went to Community Foundation Cedar Rapids and heard a presentation about life cycles for organizations and for new organizations they keep the funding low for the first seven years because there's such a high rate of failure. Reedus believes that is true and can name a couple of organizations that have tried for three or four years and then realized they couldn’t get it done because they couldn’t get the infrastructure they needed. She is not suggesting that an agency has to be around for seven years, but does think they should have cut-off, or a point at which they should have been in existence for, maybe three years, five years or something, so that they can take a look at their track record of performance. The other thing is, she knows from personal experience a number of years ago a legacy agency came in and totally changed what they asked for and it was one of those hot topics at the time like backpack food or one of those kinds of things were really hot for a while. And so Council approved that agency to get the money and it took money away from elder services, like $15,000 or $20,000, out of senior Meals on Wheels and then the next year the agency didn’t apply for it again so to her that was just like taking that money and tossing to something new and not on an ongoing program. She feels they do need to look at legacy agencies to make sure that what they are using the funds for City Step priorities, are they purchasing shelter services, food services, youth services, things like that. Drabek agreed and stated they need to see how well the agency meets the City priorities, what are the services and then also the continuity, he would expect a legacy agency to want to continue to be a legacy agency for years to come and not just a one or two years thing. Vogel noted this must have been discussed when the legacy agencies were created, which was not that long ago, and 39 agencies got whittled down to 19, so what were the criteria then. What were the requirements and what were the circumstances? He noted they should not be creating a new whole new concept; this was all decided by a previous group at some point before. Kubly stated they looked at who was funded over maybe the past 5-10 years and consistency of funding and there was a clear number of agencies that received funding each year for the past five years so they determined that those were legacy agencies. Reedus noted prior to that it was handled in a different department, or maybe by the same department but different individual and does anyone know what that criteria was because Reedus believes that staff member directly gave recommendations to City Council. Vogel noted ICARE, Red Cross, MYP were all organizations that were getting money every year and then it just stopped and he is assuming that is maybe because of new requirements. He is wondering if there is any documentation from staff at that time about a matrix that was put together to define a legacy agency. He doesn’t feel they should be rewriting it all now. Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 5 of 13 5 Reedus doesn’t believe there was every any criteria written and when agencies were defined as legacy agencies there weren’t 35 or 40 agencies. Some of those agencies that dropped out some years ago was due to lack of services, lack of funding priorities, maybe direction of Iowa City, but the legacy status only happened prior to the Commission going to the Council and asking for more money in 2019. No agency was considered legacy much before that, that’s relatively a new word. Kubly confirmed the first year that they had legacies was FY20. At that time they came up with a list based on past funding and they put it in the Plan and had everyone review the Plan. Essentially it was based on prior funding but Kubly added all these agencies have to do reporting quarterly so staff looked at their reports for trends and outcomes. Vogel stated they could set a guideline of an agency having to be in existence for five years to be eligible for legacy status, they could still get emerging agency funds during those five years. Reedus noted they don't have to get any emergent agency funds in order to be added to legacy, she just has a preference that they would just have to be in inexistence for a set number of years, say three years or five years, to make sure the City is investing the money with an organization has got some sort of track record of being able to handle it, do the reporting and use that money wisely. As public stewards of money she thinks that's important. Vogel agreed they need to set a baseline of an organization having been in existence, so should it be three years, five years, seven years or what. It was noted earlier that seven years is normally the line where organizations fail so there's more risk in the first seven years. Reedus agreed there is more risk in the first seven years however the rest of that cycle is most organizations also reinvent themselves every 20 years so every 20 years of an organization's life they have some risk because they're reinventing themselves, which could be one of the reasons why some of the old agencies on that list are no longer funded because they change. Alter feels they need to look at an agency’s track record, who they're serving, and other such metrics rather than a hard and fast rule of X amount of years, that doesn't necessarily account for all of the other components that go into the success of an agency. Reedus suggested the stated an organization must be in existence for at least three years, preference for five year, to be considered legacy but to also note in those years have they met the metrics used in ranking other legacy agencies who are funded. Drabek agrees, they could pull information from the current legacy agency application and write it as these are the 12 things they're looking for and they'd like to see most of these before an organization can be made a legacy and then HCDC would make a decision yes or no. Alter noted it also could be contingent on budget availability, because adding legacy agencies will decrease the amount every legacy agency gets unless Council increases the overall budget and they don't want to penalize agencies by welcoming someone who deserves to be a legacy agency into the fold. This is not something that Council has deal with but is something that does need to be thought about on a regular basis. So while there should be a certain amount of criteria for an agency to become a legacy agency, she feels there needs to be guardrails or caveats that may also be contingent upon availability of funds in order to be fair to all of the agencies. Reedus agreed, if they apply to become legacy and apply for funding and score high, there is a minimum of $15,000 they will be requesting and will take a minimum of $15,000 from another agency's allocation. Vogel asked then why the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, which hasn't asked for any funding in the last three years, or hasn't gotten funding in the last few years, still listed on the legacy list. They could show up next year and request money that will also take away money from the other 18 that have been Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 6 of 13 6 receiving funding last three years. So if they are concerned about putting more people into the pool and everybody less from the pool, that could happen now by the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund so he doesn’t think that should part of the discussion of whether or not to add a new agency to the legacy list. Either they are a qualified agency that deserves funding for their operating expenses, because they have shown worth in this City, or they're not. City Council could just choose not to give anybody money in two years, and that wouldn’t take away from an agency's value as a provider of services in the City. He doesn’t like making a statement that they’re not going to give them legacy status/value, because it may end up getting less money in other groups pockets. If an organization applies for legacy status, it is HCDC’s place to determine whether they are a value and should be added to the list of legacy agencies. Drabek agrees with that and is actually really sympathetic to a point and that point is where the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth applications get added to the legacy list and if the City did not add funds it would really cut into the funding quite a bit. So he is sympathetic to having some sort of clause that says that availability of City funds may be a factor the decision Dennis suggested they also add if a legacy agency hasn’t applied for funding for a number of years, say three years, they then have to reapply to be a legacy agency. It’s a unique situation for the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund because they do still get funding, it just now comes from a different pot of money. Reedus noted another thing is there been a lot of new agencies or new services pop up because of the pandemic because there's a lot of pandemic money to help with a little bit of this, a little bit of that and unique special kinds of needs that popped up because of the pandemic. This is why it would be necessary to see a mission statement and to be in existence for at least three years because it may be a need that won’t be as necessary three years from now. It also raises the question of duplication and how do they deal with duplicative services and that's something they should consider in the application, not just is another agency doing it, but maybe the service is provided in some other way and it's just thinking outside the box a little bit and taking a look at how people's needs can get met, not necessarily through agency services, but in some other way. Dennis noted these funds are for operational expenses and this Commission is the stewards of the money in making recommendations to Council. So she feels there is value in asking what percentage of the request that they're asking is their operational budget. Typically, the operational budget would be about 25% of their overall budget. They need to look at what their budgets are, look at their most recent 990 and see what their operational costs was based on their entire budget. Dennis noted as Commissioner’s it is hard to say which ones are more valuable than the others as far as what their missions are, what they do for the community, and for the low-income people in this community. What they need to decide the money part of their budget, their operational plan and are they getting other funds. Alter agrees the budget should be part of that consideration. Just to actually kind of summarize, they are looking at minimum years of existence, without it being hard and fast, she likes the minimum of three, preferably five, next to show the track record, a historical narrative, to show the consistency of mission, and a consideration from the commission about whether it's duplicative services or not, where's the value to the community, noting there are multiple ways in which the same populations can be served and finally to consider budget. Reedus asked if Houses to Homes is a legacy agency. Kubly replied no, they received funding once through emerging agencies. Alter noted they are one of those truly unusual agencies because they're only three years old and they have just exploded in terms of providing services. Reedus agrees but wants to make sure that the services are needed, that they have the capacity, because what she doesn’t want to have happen is for an agency to pass around the Commission and go straight to the City Council because they have a budgetary crisis, because they weren't planning well, or because of whatever reason they sought money out. Houses to Homes was one that did go around the Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 7 of 13 7 process because she thought that they had gotten $25,000, but maybe they did only get $15,000 as an emerging agency. Kubly stated they only got $5,400 from emerging agency funding, but they also did get a direct allocation from Council through the emergency request process and that was more like $25,000. Reedus takes exception to that process and thinks Council should be directing agencies to come in through the front door because it's just not fair to others. Dennis noted when they are talking about duplicative it's also important to say how they may partner with other similar agencies. For example, the Center for Worker Justice is an emerging agency as is the Sudanese American Community Services, maybe they're related but if somebody walks into CWJ and doesn’t feel they can support their needs, perhaps the CWJ directs this person to another agency they have some working relationship with that is providing similar services. Reedus thinks it's helpful to encourage collaboration, partnerships, and coordinated entry is an excellent example of agencies working together to have a better outcome for client’s needs and that those that need the help don't have dozens of application processes to go through. She would personally love to see some collaboration grants, perhaps have a pot of money, for organizations who come forward with a great opportunity to collaborate. Vogel is questioning the role of the Commission overall in this process, the Commission is just making a recommendation to Council. If there are three applications to legacy status and the Commission only recommends one, can Council go ahead and approve all three. Kubly replied the Commission will make their recommendation to Council in the form of substantial amendments and recommend that this one agency gets added to the legacy list and the Consolidated Plan. However, Council is going to see all the meeting minutes and are able to read the discussion so they can go with the Commission’s recommendation, or they could change it and do whatever they chose. Most of the time Council takes the recommendation of the Commission, even if the agency goes to Council directly. Kubly feels staff now has a good list of everything the Commission wants to consider for adding new legacy agencies and that seems like everyone's in agreement with those items. She did want to know if the Commission felt it should be required for an agency to be funded through emerging funds first. Could someone who has never even applied for emerging funds be eligible for legacy funds just right off the bat. The Commissioners agreed they should apply to emerging agencies first as it would be desirable if emerging agencies were 5 or 10 years old so the Commission has more of a track record to look back upon. It will be a requirement that they have successfully received at least one year of emerging agency funding before they can apply for legacy status. Kubly thinks that'd be helpful and noted they do require reporting for emerging agencies and then could provide that as part of the application. Reedus noted they do have one agency that has indicated that they want to apply for legacy status, so are they going to have an application process upcoming in the next few months and put that information out so that others can also apply. Vogel stated his opinion is Center for Worker Justice has already put in an application request and any rules they make now should not be grandfathered back to them. His opinion is they just present and the Commission figures it out. Drabek asked if there is any existing language at all. Kubly replied no, she doesn’t believe the intention was to have like an application route, it was just for those who expressed interest they would direct them to this process. She added they did get an inquiry from another agency recently as well. So staff will go through the checklist and see how the agencies compare with the categories. There isn’t an application, staff just asks them to provide a written request. Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 8 of 13 8 Reedus was suggesting at the onset that they actually have an application process and the reason why she doesn’t like considering one at a time and that's exactly what they're doing. They're not put through the same type of comparative process so she would advocate that they have an open door, whether that's every two years, where they state they will be considering new applications for legacy agencies, and then close the door. Otherwise, they could be doing one every single meeting, literally. She would advocate that they create a process of a timeline for consideration, and then close that door until it happens the next time again. She suggests every two years because that is also when the legacy agencies are reviewed for funding, every two years. Alter believes the question right now is specifically about CWJ, she agrees moving forward there should be an application and process in place. Kubly said they can make CWJ wait until an application process is open, but they just need to know because the emerging agency cycle is coming up and they probably want to know if they need to apply there. Reedus stated the next legacy application process is not happening until next fall, the applications will be next fall, so they should continue to apply for the emerging funds, because the legacy application process is not until fall and the funding will not be until the next fiscal year, July of 2024. She also thinks they need to get the word out to other agencies. It needs to be open and transparent for everyone. CWJ isn’t going to get any additional funding by getting legacy now. Staff will notify agencies that have received Emerging Aid to Agencies funds previously that HCDC will be considering applications to become Legacy Agencies at the January meeting. The Center for Worker Justice will be asked to fill out the application once developed to make the process fair for all qualifying agencies. {Vogel had to leave the meeting} Reedus asked if Drabek or Alter had meet with the City Manager yet to talk about increasing the funding for Aid to Agencies. Drabek replied he has just met with Kubly and Thul as discussion of the budget would be at a much later time. Kubly confirmed the City hasn’t even approved the FY23 budget at this time so they're not even thinking about FY24 yet. Reedus asked when the Commission makes decisions recommendations for funding would that fall before budget requests go to the City. Kubly confirmed the Commission would be making their recommendations prior to the City's budget being approved. Reedus asked if the budget is going to be different if they have two new emerging agencies that become legacy and therefore want more money for the budget. Kubly said they will be working off an estimated budget that's not approved. Drabek noted the date is next spring for when they will want to put in a request for an increase in budget. REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT #1 TO THE FY22 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN: Thul noted this is a vote on the updates the Commission recommended at the last meeting to the Annual Action Plan. Dennis motioned to recommend approval of Substantial Amendment #1 to the FY22 Annual Action Plan to Council. Seconded by Drabek. Passed 7-0. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FY23 CDBG/HOME AND EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATION MATERIALS: Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 9 of 13 9 They began with the FY23 CDBG/HOME application materials. Drabek noted what they have is a reworking of the current year's rubric. Thul noted staff tried to take some of the feedback that has been mentioned in the last several meetings and adjust the criteria to hopefully respond to some of that. Drabek stated the questions are more detailed and have more detailed criteria, and the number of points is standardized at 20 for each question. Thul stated they also changed the weight distribution that was discussed last time to make the sections more even, the previous scoring criteria didn't have very even weight per section. Reedus noted she could see some of her issues incorporated in here because during the last round she struggled through how to do the income levels. She appreciates the more detailed questions and the more detailed criteria for awarding partial points. Drabek stated he didn’t want to comment too much on this because he is not going to be using this rubric next year but he appreciated the offer to give staff scores for the a couple of very objective type questions. Dennis asked about the feasibility as far as the median income of the person is targeted. She has never understood why the City would require applicants, especially for HOME funds, to be more restrictive than what the HOME program allows. For example, if The Housing Fellowship came in and applied for HOME funds and said that everybody they were going to serve that lived in those houses had to be zero to 30% of area median income. What if they had a mother come into apply and be literally $2 over 30% of the area median income and staff would have to say, sorry, you're over income. The rule is it has been under 60% so why did the City put even more restrictive criteria on that then what’s required by HUD. Drabek believes that was an earlier commission that probably just wanted to put an extra emphasis on zero to 30%. Dennis noted in her opinion that was a wrong decision. Thul noted they did adjust the weight on that question, it used to carry a ton of weight in the scoring criteria which really skewed the whole thing, so they did try to adjust for that to make it more fair. Reedus agrees it is concerning to hear a $2 difference would cut somebody off from receiving something because $2 at that level isn't doesn't make anybody stable, one can’t even buy a loaf of bread for that much money. Drabek noted the change in the real estate space being taken up by the LP AMI question, it went from 20 points out of 100 points to 20 points out of 320, so he was worried that that might have gone a little bit too far. He thinks the issue Dennis is raising is a another one, which is do they need the fine-grained distinctions within AMI, is there such a meaningful difference between zero to 30%, 31% to 50% and 51% to 60%. Dennis is stating that for the HOME funds, HUD has requirements, and the City has always added additional requirements. They added more than what it requires and it’s HUD funds, so why was that, as long as the project meets the HOME/HUD requirements. Alter stated she can't say where that came from exactly but does know on previous commissions there were some commissioners who really emphasized making sure that the lowest AMI’s got more funding. That may be some of that community impact piece. But in terms of fairness and transparency it does make sense to have it in sync with what the HOME requirements are and would allow for those horrifying examples of being $2 over. Not to mention if they are concerned with affordable housing throughout, there's the missing middle, and it's really expensive to live here. She would agree to put it to the HOME requirements, there's a symmetry there that makes sense. Thul also mentioned they are using the same scoring rubric to also score public facilities projects so that makes it complicated. Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 10 of 13 10 Reedus asked if those are the actual questions that are asked on the application. Thul replied they tried to fine tune this to make it more parallel to the application, some of them are almost verbatim and some of them are broader. For example, they added that third column to look at specifically what question it relates to in the application. Reedus asked regarding question number nine, will the project assist any special population, that is a good question and she’d actually like to see more information than a yes or no, like how the agency will demonstrate because oftentimes some agencies might eyeball something and she’d just like to know how the agency gathers that information. She had a similar question about the racial equity, she would like the organization to illustrate how the project promotes racial equality and inclusivity for marginalized populations. Alter recalls the question invites explanation, and this is one place where if an agency just does say yes and they don't provide any explanation, as a commissioner, she would questions their judgment and perhaps not give as high of a score. Reedus agreed but then instead of having to wait until the meeting where the agency could explain, she rather encourages that information up front. Thul noted she changed the scoring on the application based on looking at other cities scoring criteria that seemed easier to have a flat number, there's one question in here that still uses range, it doesn't mean that they have to do it that way, but at the last meeting she heard Commissioners say that they felt it was subjective, so this was just an idea to try to make it more straightforward. Dennis noted she really appreciates number three where they get to a point where it says the budget appears questionable and reasonable and the budget is substantially mathematically incorrect. Reedus noted the criterial needed for number 12 is what she is looking for in back up in question number nine, the project assists special populations, yes or no, but under 12 it states the proposal clearly demonstrates some long-term efficient use of funding. She would like to see number nine have more like three tiers of options, same with the question on racial equality and inclusivity. Alter moved to approve the FY23 CDBG/HOME application materials as amended that the question 9 scoring criteria be changed from a two-tier score to a three-tier score. Seconded by Drabek. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Moving on to the FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies application, Thul noted it didn't change much from last year, staff didn't make any major adjustments. Reedus stated she knows they're looking for project budget but are they also looking for overall agency budget. She’d like to see an overall agency budget and a project budget. She’d also like to see their 990 because that demonstrates what kind of operating funds they have and if they actually have the financial capacity to do the programming. Additionally, she’d like to see the fund balance, if they have that as that's something she is going to want to see from legacy agencies also because that's part of running a strong organization. Dennis asked if that wasn’t already part of the United Way application. Reedus said they should look at it anyway because there can be times when an agency has too much money and then the question is are they actually using the annual dollars to meet a need in the community or increase an agency's fund balance. Even as a new organization these are things that they should be thinking about and it goes with their financial competency to manage a program. Alter stated to give a little bit of historical perspective there are certainly some agencies whereas they talked about creating the emerging funds was to actually help some agencies get that first start. So while Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 11 of 13 11 asking for this demonstrates seriousness but the weighting of it should be taken into account. There was one situation where they gave an agency a minimum of $5,000 just to get furniture to go into an office space. They didn't have that in their budget, per se, and that’s why they were coming here to try and get funding for furniture. So again, in the past, some of this was intentionally supposed to help some get up on their feet rather than for them to demonstrate that they already were. Reedus acknowledged that's a good point but question number nine is asking them to describe sustainability because hopefully the City's money isn't 100% of their budget. She wants to see they are writing other applications or have a fundraising plan and to show the goals they intend to raise. Dennis suggested they asked for the list of board of directors, or board of trustees. Thul stated they can add that as a requested field or make it required as an attachment. Dennis would like that added. Reedus agreed, they want to see a level of no conflict and don't want just see friends of Becky in Becky's organization that are going to vote her way instead of their right to vote for the good of the organization. Reedus would also like more information on question number six, why is the project needed. She wants to know did they start because of some need that came out of the pandemic and if so are they're still going to see a need. She would like a little bit of background in terms of why they're still in existence and how they morphed into something else, because she thinks that's going to be a big question for some organizations who started during the pandemic, are those services still needed. She would like to see a little bit more in the historic history. Also do they ask about duplication or working with partners. Thul noted question seven asks about how the project fills a gap in the community, but not really about partnerships. Reedus noted Coordinated Entry is a partnership of agencies that utilizes a lot of their individual strengths and each agency making some tactical type of issues and comes up with a great product that every single agency benefits from and more importantly individuals in the community benefit from. Everything doesn't have to be a defined collaboration or anything like that but just a note of who they are partnering with. For example, Table to Table has over the past four or five years done a lot more special projects with agencies where they might partner with a church or small program to help feed kids after school or something like that. She feels it’s important for them to become part of that larger picture by partnering with others if they can. Alter agrees it’s great advice for an emerging agency to think of partnering but if they have only been in existence for a year or so it might be too daunting to think of that. Dennis agrees and again, if it's only $5,000 she thinks they are getting a little bit too much in the weeds for an agency that's only been in existence for three years. Reedus is concerned about duplicating services. Alter noted that can be discussed during the discussion part, a lot of information can be found out during those informational sessions. Reedus wants to see a budget and an attachment of 990 or financial statements. The Commission agreed they should request additional attachments from applicants including agency budget, board of directors list, and agency financial information (990 form, financial statements, or similar). Reedus moved to approve the FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies application materials as amended. Seconded by Drabek. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. 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. Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 12 of 13 12 Alter noted at the last meeting Council approved a lot of P&Z stuff. There was an explanation of fringe areas, and basically how they work with the County to be able to expand in anticipation of City growth and to how to create city-friendly growth in fringe areas. They also had the next voting for the South District Plan, which has to do with rejuvenating the area in terms of building. Dennis stated this Commission will have a presentation on the form-based code at some point. Council is doing a work session on the ARPA funds and Council is allocating some funding to nonprofit agencies. Dennis asked if that will come through this Commission. Kubly did not believe they would, however the HOME ARPA funds will come before this Commission for distribution. The Commissioners discussed who would attend upcoming Council meetings. Reedus volunteered to watch the upcoming meetings in 2021 and Drabek will watch the January ones. Reedus asked regarding the ARPA allocations she is assuming agencies that are involved will have to submit to the Agency Impact Council a needs assessment. If that actually happens, can this Commission get a presentation from the Agency Impact Council in terms of how they're going to do that because she thinks it might be a good idea for somebody from this group to monitor that process because the needs assessment will probably be a more in depth needs assessment than has been done a long time. She thinks they plan on hiring a professional group or finance consultant to do it she has seen the proposed funding options so it looks like it's going to be funded. Reedus asked when Council is going to do the final vote on the APRA funds. Alter is not sure, they are working with the County as a partner to figure out which things they should partner on and what they shouldn't. After that then the City will work among themselves to distribute the rest of their monies. HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: Kubly noted at the last meeting staff got a request for a presentation about the South District form-based code which was approved by Council this week. The planning and zoning staff have a meeting the same night on Thursday nights as well so it's kind of challenging to get a staff to present but Anne Russett did provide a memo about the code changes for this Commission to review and also the presentations that they've given to Council and Planning and Zoning Commission are online as well. Thul noted the next meeting is in January with project presentations. They are going to open the FY23 funding round on December 29th and it will be open until January 31. The Commission vacancy is posted so Council will do an appointment for the next HCDC member in December. Drabek congratulated Alter for her election to City Council and thanked her for her three plus years of service on this Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Dennis moved to adjourn, Reedus seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Housing and Community Development Commission November 18, 2021 Page 13 of 13 13 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. 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18 Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X O/E X X Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X X X O/E Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X Vacancy 6/30/23 Agenda Item #4 Date: November 10, 2021 To: Housing & Community Development Commission From: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Re: Aid to Agencies Legacy Applicant Process – Guide for Discussion Legacy and Emerging Agencies Background: Aid to Agencies (A2A) provides flexible operational funding for nonprofits providing services to low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents of Iowa City based on funding priorities set in the City’s Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025). Funding is split between Legacy Agencies and Emerging Agencies, where the bulk of the budget is allocated to Legacy Agencies and up to 5% of the budget can be set aside for Emerging Agencies. Legacy Agencies are a core group of service providers who are eligible Iowa City Aid to Agency funding. The list of agencies was approved by HCDC in July 2019 and incorporated into City Steps 2025. The purpose of limiting the number of Legacy Agencies was to return the A2A program to its original intent of providing an ongoing stable funding source for human service agencies serving LMI residents based on the funding priorities set in City Steps 2025. The priorities as well as agencies allowed to apply will be evaluated with each new Consolidated Plan (every five years) to address changing priorities or gaps of service in the community. Applications are accepted from Legacy Agencies every two years through the United Way joint funding process, which streamlines the request for funding through the City of Iowa City, City of Coralville, Johnson County, and United Way. Staff and HCDC score the applications for City of Iowa City funding based on identified priorities, history of funding, outcomes and capacity, and make funding recommendations to City Council. Legacy Agencies have a minimum funding amount of $15,000. The application for this funding is extensive and agencies are required to report quarterly on their progress throughout the year. Emerging Agency applications are accepted annually by nonprofits who are not Legacy Agencies. Applicants can request between $5,000 and $15,000 through a shorter application which is intended to help agencies grow and develop capacity through small projects. This program was created by HCDC and is relatively new, with the first funds allocated in Fiscal Year 2020. Questions for Discussion On November 18, 2021 the HCDC agenda will include a discussion on the process for an organization to become a Legacy Agency. Staff recently received a request from an agency to be included as a Legacy Agency in City Steps 2025 so that they would be eligible to apply in the next funding cycle. This addition would require a substantial amendment to City Steps 2025 which involves a 30-day public comment period, HCDC recommendation, and City Council approval prior to being submitted to HUD. This is the first request we’ve received for an agency to become a Legacy Agency and the process for inclusion is somewhat unclear. As such, staff would like HCDC to consider when and under what circumstances they will consider future additions to the Legacy Agencies identified in City Steps 2025. Agenda Item #5 November 10, 2021 Page 2 In making this decision, staff requests that HCDC to consider the following questions: 1.Under what circumstances will an agency be considered for Legacy status? 2.When will HCDC review requests for Legacy status? 3.What information should be included in the request? Timing & Budget Considerations Applications for Legacy A2A funds are accepted in the early fall for funding that would be available in July of the following year. A new Legacy Agency would need to be added to City Steps 2025 ahead of this process. An estimated schedule for the upcoming A2A application cycle as well as an estimate of the city’s budget process timeline is provided below. Estimated Application & Review Process Timeline: -Jan 2022: HCDC reviews Legacy request -Mar/Apr 2022: Substantial Amendment to City Steps 2025 (if Legacy request approved) -Sept 2022: Legacy A2A applications due through the United Way joint funding process for a two-year funding cycle. -Jan 2023: A2A applications reviewed by HCDC; funding recommendation to Council -April 2023: A2A funding recommendations approved by City Council -July 2023: Agreements executed, and funding payments begin for FY24 allocations Estimated FY24 City Budget Timeline: -Fall 2022: Staff budget proposals due -January 2023: Council begins budget discussions -March 2023: City Council approves FY24 A2A budget -July 2023: FY24 funding available to agencies in accordance with agreements HCDC must weigh the opportunity to provide funds for an additional agency with the potential to “water down” or decrease funds available for all other agencies in the future. Due to the timing of the application process and city budget process, the decision to add a new Legacy Agency to City Steps 2025 will need to be made well ahead of the City’s FY24 budget approval in order for that agency to be able to apply for FY24 funds. Other Considerations •Are the agency’s proposed services consistent with public service priorities identified in City Steps 2025? •Has the agency applied for and received Emerging Agency funds in the past? •Is the agency providing new or increased services that address the problem/need in the community? •Has the agency increased the number of LMI households served? •Has the agency demonstrated capacity and ability to provide outcome measures? •How many years has the agency been serving the community? •Does the agency collaborate with other service providers to reduce costs and utilize community partnership to further goals? Attachments -List of current Legacy Agencies (excerpt from City Steps 2025) -City Steps 2025 Public Service Priorities -Summary of past funding for Aid to Agencies Background Possible Scenarios Current Legacy Agencies get a 2% decrease in funds in FY24 Current Legacy Agencies get a 4% decrease in funds in FY24 Current Legacy Agencies get a 6% decrease in funds in FY24 Current Legacy Agencies get a 8% decrease in funds in FY24 Assumptions Hypothetical Scenarios for Legacy Agency Funding after Adding New Agencies Fund four additional agencies at $15,000 in FY24 Fund five additional agencies at $15,000 in FY24 Current Legacy Agencies get a 1% increase in FY24 Current Legacy Agencies get a 3% increase in FY24 The scenarios above are estimates only intended to show the potential impact that additional agencies might have on funding for current Legacy Agencies. The estimates are based on current (FY22) funding allocations. The City's Aid to Agency budget was projected to increase by 3% in FY23 and FY24. However, the FY23 and FY24 budgets have not yet been approved by City Council. Actual funding amounts for all agencies will be determined in the FY24 Joint Funding Process. Estimates cannot account for the amount of funds that Legacy Agencies may request in FY24. The last funding round for Legacy Agencies took place before the COVID-19 pandemic and it is difficult to predict need and circumstances ahead of FY24. Per HCDC’s request, an application was developed for eligible agencies (previous recipients of Emerging Aid to Agencies funds) to apply for Legacy Agency status. The application was open for a period of two weeks in December and the City received five submissions which are available for review at icgov.org/action plan. The next application cycle for Legacy Agencies is planned for FY24. Due to the timing of the application and City budget process, the decision to add a new Legacy Agency to City Steps 2025 must be made ahead of the FY24 budget process in order for any new agencies to be eligible to apply for Legacy funds. No changes in FY24 Fund one additional agency at $15,000 in FY24 Fund two additional agencies at $15,000 in FY24 Fund three additional agencies at $15,000 in FY24 Agenda Item #5 City of Iowa City FY23 Funding Allocation Tentative Timeline Dates Subject to Change *March meeting has been adjusted to March 24th (the 4th Thursday of the month) to accommodate for spring break. December 29 2021 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies applications are available. January 11 2022 CDBG/HOME Virtual Applicant Workshop via Zoom 11:00 AM. Registration link available at icgov.org/actionplan. January 14 2022 CDBG/HOME Virtual Applicant Workshop via Zoom 3:00pm (Upon request). Registration link available at icgov.org/actionplan. January 25, 2022 CDBG / HOME Applications and Emerging Aid to Agencies Applications due to City of Iowa City by noon (12 pm). February 17 2022 HCDC meeting: question and answer discussion with applicants. Applicants are invited to attend. March 4 2022 HCDC ranking forms due to City staff. March 24* 2022 HCDC meeting: review of groupings and consensus funding scenario. Make award recommendation to City Council on CDBG/HOME and A2A Emerging funding. April 1 2022 30-day comment period begins for draft Annual Action Plan. April 21 2022 HCDC meeting: review Annual Action Plan and recommendation to City Council. April 30 2022 30-day comment period ends for the draft Annual Action Plan. May 3 2022 City Council: public meeting for the Annual Action Plan and resolution. May 15 2022 Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD. July 1 2022 New fiscal year begins. September 15 2022 Execute CDBG and HOME agreements with grant recipients. Agenda Item #6 1 Brianna Thul From:City of Iowa City: Do Not Reply <CityofIowaCity@public.govdelivery.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 10:02 AM To:Brianna Thul Subject:CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies funding applications now available Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: 12/29/2021 Contact: Brianna Thul, Associate Planner Phone: 319-356-5240 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies funding applications now available The City of Iowa City is now accepting applications from organizations for public services, public facilities, and affordable housing projects for Fiscal Year 2023. Applications are due by noon on Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2022. Emerging Aid to Agencies (A2A) provides flexible operational funding for nonprofits providing public services. The City expects approximately $30,000 to be available for agencies not classified as “legacy” agencies in the City’s consolidated plan, City Steps 2025 (p.150). The plan is available online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs help develop viable urban communities by providing safe and decent affordable housing, suitable living environments, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. The City expects $950,000 in CDBG/HOME funds to be available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for this competitive application. Of this, around $450,000 must be allocated to affordable housing activities: acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, or direct assistance for renter- or owner-occupied housing. The remaining $500,000 may be used for housing or public facilities projects. The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) and City Council will review applications and allocate funds to projects through a public process based on the needs and priorities in City Steps 2025. Funds become available for use on July 1, 2022. HCDC and City staff strongly encourage applicants to attend an applicant workshop before applying. Agenda Item #6 2 The applicant guide, application materials, and a calendar of key dates in the funding cycle, including applicant workshops, are available at www.icgov.org/actionplan. Upon request, staff will email or mail application materials. Questions about these grants or the funding process may be directed to Neighborhood Services staff at 319-356-5240 or brianna-thul@iowa-city.org. Questions? Contact Us STAY CONNECTED: SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences | Unsubscribe | Help This email was sent to brianna-gabel@iowa-city.org using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of Iowa City ·410 E Washington Street · Iowa City, IA 52240 From:Roger Goedken To:Erika Kubly; Brianna Thul Cc:Kevin Sanders; Ashley Gillette; Caitlin McGowan; (luke.d.prottsman@ampf.com); Rhamy, Tasha (Tasha.Rhamy@rsmus.com); Rochelle Honey; Ross Nusser; Valerie Kemp (keval43321@gmail.com) Subject:Release of HUD Funds Date:Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:27:34 AM Good day, Following much diligence and discussion between staff and the Successful Living Board of Directors, we have reached a consensus to release the down payment funds of $99,010, originally granted 7/2020, back to the City of IC. We realize that, notwithstanding the great efforts and improvements made with tenancy in our housing program, we’d like to focus increased efforts in these and related areas to further strengthen our program. It is our hope that others may make good use of these funds, which can do a lot of positive for our community. We also hope to again to realize circumstances in which Successful Living might pursue and utilize HUD grant funds again when conditions are more favorable. I would like to offer my sincere thanks in having been granted the opportunity to make use of these funds. Although not the outcomes we’d all prefer, Successful Living did realize a measure of success in managing to procure one of the three houses we’d originally intended, and under uniquely trying circumstances. As a result, a positive is that the 1340 Hollywood house we did purchase is being enjoyed by low-income individuals currently, which is a mutual achievement we can all share in. Thank you for your time and expertise throughout, I and our staff have appreciated your professionalism in this grant process. Please let us know any further steps in pursing the release of funds? Roger Goedken, BA, BS, QPRP Executive Director Successful Living 2406 Towncrest Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52240 http://www.icsuccess.org/ Agenda Item #8 O: (319) 358-6800 x105 F: 319-358-6807 Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead This electronic message transmission contains information from Successful Living, which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please delete from your system or notify us by telephone (319)358-6800.