HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-2022 Housing & Community Development CommissionIf 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.