HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet - June 2022If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at
bthul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access
needs.
Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings
Regular: July 21
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (HCDC)
June 23, 2022
Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM
The Center Assembly Room
28 S Linn Street
AGENDA:
1.Call to Order
2.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 19, 2022
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. Discuss the City’s Affordable Housing Action Plan Draft and Recommendations
Related to HCDC
The Commission will review the Affordable Housing Action Plan draft document and discuss
recommendations related to HCDC. The full draft can be viewed online at
icgov.org/affordablehousingactionplan.
5. Review By-Laws and Discuss Proposal to Require an HCDC Member with Nonprofit
Management Experience
The Commission will review the By-Laws and discuss a potential change to Article 4 Section
B.Commissioner Reedus proposed amending the By-Laws to require at least one member
with nonprofit management experience. HCDC will discuss but may not vote on the matter
until the following regular meeting. An amendment to the By-Laws requires a majority of at
least five votes. If passed, the amendment goes to the City Council Rules Committee for
approval and will then be placed on the City Council agenda.
6.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.
7.Staff Updates
A special thank you to outgoing Commissioners Matt Drabek and Peter Nkumu for their
service to the community!
8.Adjournment
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 23, 2022 Meeting Packet Contents
Agenda Item #2
•May 19, 2022 Draft HCDC Meeting Minutes
Agenda Item #4
•The Affordable Housing Action Plan draft can be viewed online at:
icgov.org/affordablehousingactionplan.
•Excerpt from August 19, 2021 HCDC Meeting Minutes – Discussion Regarding
Preliminary Affordable Housing Steering Committee Recommendations
•Excerpt from August 19, 2021 HCDC Packet – Letter from Commissioner Nkumu
•Excerpt from August 19, 2021 HCDC Packet – Preliminary Recommendations and
Concerns from a Subcommittee of the Affordable Housing Steering Committee
Agenda Item #5
•HCDC By-Laws
Agenda Item #7
•Tentative FY23 HCDC Calendar
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MAY 19, 2022 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Drabek, Karol Krotz, Elizabeth Marilla-Kapp, Nasr Mohammed,
Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Peter Nkumu,
STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House),
Trevor Conrad (MODUS), Charlie Eastham (CWJ), Karen Fox (CWJ),
Ashlee Hopkins (DVIP), Brian Loring (NCJC)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends approval of the FY23 Annual Action Plan to Council.
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends approval of the proposed Substantial Amendment to City Steps
2025 to Council.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS:
Marilla-Kapp introduced herself and noted she is mobile crisis responder at Community and what brings
her here is how often she sees the intersection between housing and mental health crises and she does a
lot of direct service so it's just pulling her to think about systems change in addition to supporting people
when it becomes an emergency.
Krotz introduced herself and stated she is here on the Commission because of her interest in low-income
housing and from personal experience has seen this section of the population that don't meet the ability to
pay fair market rent and fall way below way below poverty lines and sometimes it feels like they aren't
welcome in Iowa City. She is hoping at some point in her tenure they can discuss ways that the City
might be able to help people with housing needs because there are a lot of people that this affects.
AORTA MEETING FACILITATION:
This item was included in the agenda packet and the two new Commissioners should have received it in
their training. Drabek noted they should go back and take another look at it at some point but the idea
was to try to do what they can to bring out all the different voices of the members of the Commission and
think about what is the strength of HCDC what does it add to the City government that other facets do
not. HCDC has a unique reach into lots of different communities in Iowa City and this is to create a space
Agenda Item #2
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 2 of 9
2
at the meeting where everyone can each bring their own perspectives and those guidelines are some
things to help.
Reedus would like to address how commissioners can get agenda items on the agenda because right
now the chair and the vice chair are setting the agenda but earlier in the year when the bylaws were in
the packet she had asked about them and noted she’d like to review them as a future agenda item.
Drabek noted the typical process is to let the chair know of any items and the chair will talk about it with
staff. Staff meets quarterly with the chair and vice chair so commissioners can bring items to the chair or
vice chair and they can bring it to staff to put it on the agenda.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 24, 2022:
Reedus moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 2022, Vogel seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the minutes were approved 6-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED PROJECTS UPDATES:
Neighborhood Center of Johnson County - FY22 Public Facility Improvements ($37,242 CDBG)
Brian Loring (Executive Director, Neighborhood Center of Johnson County) gave a quick update to say
they conducted their first project meeting with the contractor on May 4th for putting a new roof on the
Broadway Center and so the trajectory for completion is probably the end of the month or maybe the first
week of June. Bids are open for the repavement of the parking lot at the Pheasant Ridge Center and
that closes on May 27th. Loring did note things have been a little bit challenging in terms of finding
contractors but he thinks they will probably get a bid and hopefully that would be completed this summer.
Reedus asked is there any concern from staff with the agency's response in terms of HUD when a project
is delayed the concern for the money having to be repaid.
Kubly noted for these projects they haven't spent any money yet so they wouldn't have to be repaid, the
timeliness letter is a checkpoint that HUD gives cities and it's really for all of the CDBG projects at once
so if several projects are behind the City is not going to meet the HUD checkpoint because they haven't
spent enough money for these projects. Knowing they're moving forward staff is not concerned about
them being able to complete it within the next couple months and therefore aren’t recommending
recapture of these projects funds tonight. Staff did include that letter just so the Commissioners could get
an idea that when all the projects are behind for different reasons, not always at the fault of the agencies,
that can get the City in trouble with the HUD timeliness.
Reedus asked what's a total dollar amount for the two projects. Thul replied the Shelter House project
was $225,000 and both Neighborhood Centers totaled a little more than $37,000.
Drabek asked if the Commission decides to or recommends recapture then of course they would have to
take a vote but if they don't recommend recapture no vote is required for this item. Thul confirmed that is
correct, these are just updates, no action is required of the Commission. Kubly added the reason staff is
bringing these forward tonight is because they haven't spent 50 percent of their project allocation by a
certain time so that's what triggers their the checkpoint.
Shelter House - FY22 Public Facility Improvements ($225,000 CDBG).
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 3 of 9
3
Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) introduced Trevor Conrad (MODUS) who is the expert on the HVAC
project. Conrad noted the construction industry has been difficult the past year and a half with staffing
challenges and everything but they're committed to getting this done and his goal is by the end of the
month to have documents ready to go, bid in June and they can start that project. Conrad acknowledged
the project is a challenge because of some of the compromises and design decisions they made with the
initial building 10 years ago and a lot of the issues they're running into is just phasing and how to keep
this building functional and occupiable for the tenants while this construction is going to happen so those
are just the problems and issues that they were running into. Conrad believes they have got that
resolved and again are shooting for the end of the month have documents prepared and ready to go and
then to bid in June. They’ve already had to do part of it as the water heaters in the building completely
failed a few weeks ago so as an emergency they had to get that done so they phased that part of the
project out.
Canganelli noted they used private dollars from the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County to pay for that
component as they didn't have any hot water.
Reedus asked once they get the bids back how long does it take to complete the project. Conrad replied
it really depends on availability of things, right now everything is unavailable as school work is about to
get started and the schools suck up a lot of material and equipment that's out there. He would like it to be
done towards the end of the year but they’ll have to see. They are in constant communication with
different vendors and contractors to see what's going on because it is a challenge right now trying to get
materials and long lead times of up to 32 weeks whereas prior to all the things that have happened it
would have been 8 to 12 weeks.
Mohammad noted he sees a lot of construction now going on at the Shelter House, is this project for the
new building or for the old building. Conrad stated it's for the existing building. Canganelli stated the new
building is just getting completed and they’re looking at potentially having occupancy around June 10th
Marilla-Kapp asked if they are planning to reduce the bed spaces for any length of time during the project.
Conrad noted the overall building is not going to change so but there will be phasing so components will
have to be taken out and there may not be heating and cooling for that particular area for a matter of
days, maybe hours, but overall nothing will change but there will be temporary inconveniences here and
there as they have to shut off things and replace them. Cangenelli stated they are hoping they can hit a
sweet spot where they won't need heating or cooling for certain periods of time like in early fall or late fall
but otherwise they do have the ability to go back into the winter shelter space and utilize that space to
provide any additional beds if they do have to shut down any areas. Conrad added they should be
available to avoid a lot of the heat of the summer at this point and get into that late summer/early fall
when it's starting to cool down again.
Vogel is personally not concerned that either of these projects are not going to be able to get the projects
done and expend the monies so he has no interest at all in recapture.
PROJECT MONITORING UPDATES:
Shelter House. Canganelli reported Shelter House received $78,800 for FY22 through Aid to Agencies,
$15,000 of which was resourced through CDBG funds and they dedicated those funds for the emergency
shelter which has a budget of a little over a million dollars. For the first three quarters of FY22 they have
sheltered 593 unique (unduplicated) individuals and in a typical year they'll have about 25,000 shelter
nights provided. 14% of the individuals served were children, 10% were veterans, and they had 51% self-
reporting at least one or more disabling conditions. All operations are ongoing with emergency shelter,
they are back at full capacity and has been for quite some time. Canganelli noted they have had some
recent very significant challenges, as previously mentioned they lost all hot water capacity for a number of
weeks and the HVAC system is in need of replacing, which should happen soon. Staffing continues to be
a real challenge, specifically second and third shifts, finding people who are interested in doing the work,
are willing to show up and follow through, they have increased pay rates and benefits, so they feel they
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 4 of 9
4
are very competitive for those positions. Things are starting to get a little better but been pretty heavy
especially as they're opening up another facility and that has to be staffed 24/7.
Reedus noted it's a double-edged sword for agencies, on one hand it’s good to see the pay rates go up
and the better benefits but on the other hand a lot of contracts don't raise those rates. She asked about
the rate increase. Canganelli replied pre-Covid it was $11/hour for the frontline evening overnight shift
and now it is $15/hour.
Reedus noted it’s great that agencies are increasing the their pay and their benefits to become more
competitive but where is that money's going to come from so this Commission needs to be verbal and
proactive with the Council in terms of the pot of money that gets handed out to agencies, whether it's
emerging agencies or the legacy agencies, that's a huge concern that she has. Canganelli noted in the
short term they've been able to resource that through additional Covid related federal funds but long term
that's additional fundraising. She added it's a curiosity that they are providing an essential service a public
service and there's widespread understanding that they prevent people even through emergency shelter
from being in jail, from being in emergency rooms, from facing death, but they are supported as a charity
as opposed to other public services and facilities that are funded almost entirely, and this would include
Guide Link Center, through public funds.
Reedus agreed there should be a discussion about separating those activities out and is concerned about
how they're going to get through legacy agency funding again next year as they're still going to be
struggling with the same issues that they've had before in terms of the pot of money and will have new
legacy agencies which will be vying for money. She has a lot of concerns that they haven't really even
decided how they can address some of these issues.
Marilla-Kapp asked if these agencies funds are restricted to things like facilities or can those funds go
straight to staffing costs. Kubly replied they're operational funds so they're flexible and agencies can use
them how they see fit.
Mohammad thanked Shelter House for serving the community, those are incredible numbers and the face
of the City would be very ugly without the Shelter House services. He asked what the biggest challenge is
facing them right now. Canganelli replied the biggest challenges is continuing to grow and ensure that
they have trained, competent and fairly compensated staff, they're passionate but being able to retain
those employees and ensure that they are maintaining a safe work environment and living environment
for clients and for tenants weighs on them pretty heavily. They've got really good programming are
recognized statewide as a leader for the work that they're doing and are showing the impact in all of the
areas that HUD requires. The numbers within the population that they're serving is increasing, the
number of people who have systemic health issues, not just one disabling condition but multiple,
substance abuse, people are using poly substances in combination with serious mental illness and the
challenges of working with those individuals in congregate environments is challenging. When they get
them into housing it’s super exciting to see it all working.
Marilla-Kapp asked is staffing the biggest obstacle to running the low barriers year-round. Canganelli
stated all shelter is low barrier, the entire organization is low barrier, there's really little to no difference
between what is understood as the winter shelter and the 429 24/7 – 365 shelter, it's just additional
capacity and tends to really focus more on folks that just don't want to come into the other shelter and
don't want to be around families, so they see single adults in that winter shelter. Canganelli explained
that wasn't always the case, it used to be that there was a differential between, and that low barrier has
definitely increased the challenge and the need to make sure that they're preparing and supporting staff in
ways that they know how to work and engage with the individuals safely and supporting. They have
committed to housing first in low barrier, other systems and other entities with which they intersect and
with which clients and tenants they need to work, they haven't made those changes and they haven't
come closer so they have barriers and they have limitations and that's the next real big work they have
ahead.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 5 of 9
5
Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Ashlee Hopkins (Development Coordinator) reported these
funds go towards their shelter services and hotline. DVIP provides emergency shelter 24/7 - 365 and in
their shelter they house the hotline and provide housing assistance, safety planning, help with protective
orders and counseling for victims of abuse, human trafficking and harassment. DVIP does serve eight
counties, the shelter is here in Iowa City and the majority of the people that they help are in Iowa City.
They also do educational pieces within the community on relationships and how to help a friend. Most of
the people that seek their services hear about it through word of mouth and many call the hotline first so
it's always important to get that number out there. The hotline person is in the shelter, it's a full-time
position and in the last six months they've had 601 hotline calls taken. The hotline calls are a myriad of
questions from victim survivors, friends, families, and co-workers about how they can get help. In the
shelter they've served 85 people, 49 women, 1 male and 35 children in the last six months, with the
average stay being 40 days. Hopkins stated the funds received have always gone towards their shelter
services.
Krotz noted Hopkins mentioned that DVIP serves eight counties but did she have a rough estimate on
what percentage of the clients are from Iowa City. Hopkins replied about half are from Iowa City, in FY21
they served over 2,000 victim survivors in eight counties and 1100 were from Iowa City, about 1500 from
Johnson County.
Krotz asked what other counties they serve. Hopkins replied, Iowa, Washington, Cedar, Henry, Des
Moines, Van Buren and Lee Counties as well as Johnson County.
Mohammad asked if they are able to shelter of all the clients that seek their help. Hopkins replied yes
and explained as far as sheltering they do have to come up with different ways of supporting clients with
emergency shelter because their shelter is full 365 days a year, so they are finding hotel stays that are
temporary and then potentially working them into the shelter or looking at permanent housing solutions or
options. Since they serve eight counties it can also mean a bus ticket to families somewhere else.
Sometimes it's just connecting someone with resources in the communities and a lot of safety planning
but emergency shelter is the number one request.
Reedus asked what are some concerns that they have coming forward. Hopkins stated this fiscal year
they are facing a 15% to 22% federal cut through VOCA funding, next fiscal year will there's been a
VOCA fix enacted that will reallocate those funds into the VOCA fund and so by next fiscal year they’ll be
back at where they were but that is going to be a challenge for them this year. Therefore, they’ve already
been trying to diversify their funding for the last several years to have more individual donors and to get
away from the state and federal funding but are still at about a 60/40 split on that so that is a huge
challenge.
Reedus asked about staffing. Hopkins replied they are having similar issues as the Shelter House is
having, she can't speak necessarily to the pay rate as she is just the development coordinator but could
note they are having some turnover issues and a lot of it is definitely burnout from Covid and just the
extra stress that the advocates went through and also the tremendous effects of Covid on those that they
serve. They saw a 25% increase in hotline calls in the last couple of years because of Covid and an
increase in those that they serve. Just in Johnson County it was a 300 person increase in those seeking
services and people reaching out for help.
Krotz asked if they have a core of volunteers who can assist when they are a little short on staff. Hopkins
acknowledged they do utilize volunteers and are talking about potentially having some more direct service
volunteer options. During Covid they were limiting the interaction in the shelter and with the clients to
very minimal interaction with outside public so volunteers were helping sort donations and things like that,
but the board of directors were discussing more volunteers doing direct service. Hopkins noted it does
take quite a bit of training to do direct service and a commitment of two year for a volunteer to do that, but
it is something being talked about.
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 6 of 9
6
Thul did their monitoring visit and while she can't speak to the project in specific detail she does know
their funding is on track to be spent and meet their accomplishment target by the end of the fiscal year.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF FY23
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN:
Thul stated the Annual Action Plan is basically a piece of the City’s Consolidated Plan and says what
they're going to do for the next fiscal year. The fiscal year starts July 1 and runs through June 30. This is
a document that contains the recommendations that HCDC just made recently and it's a long document.
Thul gave the preface that the format of this report is what is required by HUD in the federal database so
staff doesn't have a lot of flexibility in editing it or trying to make it more user friendly. Staff has tried to
make changes where they can and include extra tables that maybe make the information a little bit
clearer. The most interesting part of this for this Commission is probably appendix B, that's where HCDC
funding recommendations are. The public comment for this plan starts tomorrow and it will run through
June 21. The next step after the public comment period will be the plan going to Council for approval and
then submitted to HUD for approval. Once the plan is approved staff will then process the grant
agreements.
Drabek noted some of the things in the Action Plan are of course very promissory which is probably
because they're going to be decided later but he did want to ask about the section where the City owned
certain properties that may be used for affordable housing, one was on Muscatine and the other on
Ronald’s. Kubly replied there's a HUD question that they ask if there's any City property that's available
for affordable housing and the City just lists essentially what they own that could be developed and those
are two of the properties that the City has actually had for a little while. The Muscatine one is more suited
for economic development, more like a commercial property, and the Ronald's one had a dilapidated
structure on it and was demolished last week. Kubly is unsure of the plans but the City may be partnering
with another agency for housing.
Vogel asked if there was a final presentation of the steering committee's affordable housing plan. Kubly
replied there is a draft of the report and it has gone to Council but Council hasn't discussed it yet. Vogel is
interested in the section 12 AP75 where they're talking about tools to remove barriers to affordable
housing such as building codes, fees, charges, growth limitations, policies affecting the return on
residential investment, and he is curious if there's actually any action planned or proposed to address
some of those things directly. He noted sometimes it seems the City acts against its own interests, it
makes comments about increasing affordable housing and making rental properties more affordable but
the turnaround of that is $30,000 between properties last year for radon testing and radon mitigation for
what ended up being only a 1% of all properties actually had any radon issues. Switching rental permits
from every two years to every year for four units or less so instead of properties having an expensive
$300 every two years now that's $300 every year and from a residential investment side that gets passed
on through higher rents. He will be curious to see what that committee came up with for ideas to
somehow counteract what seems to be shooting ourselves in the foot a lot which is making these claims
that the City wants more affordable housing but they haven't seen the security deposit program that's
been talked about for years, they haven't seen the affordable housing, there was discussion at one time
for a maintenance pool of money for damages for HCV tenants or HCV properties, but none of it has
come to fruition.
Kubly noted they do have a security deposit program that's administered by Community which helps.
Vogel agreed they do help pay double deposits in some cases but it's not always available to everybody.
They've had a lot of times where Shelter House can only pay two months’ worth of rent and that's just not
enough for people to get back on their feet and get an income started before HCV takes shape or may
there's only so many emergency housing vouchers because there's a limited amount of vouchers and
how many people are sitting out there on the waiting list. He is just curious if there's any intent to start
putting some of these monies into a more direct rent relief programs at the local level because at some
point the Iowa Finance Authority thing is going to disappear, they're already making it harder and harder
for tenants to get rent relief. So he is just curious if there's been any discussion from the housing plan for
more direct action.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 7 of 9
7
Thul noted she doesn't know all the ins and outs of the plans yet but knows it was just finalized in the last
month the draft plan just went to Council very recently so she can keep the Commission apprised of those
discussions.
Reedus asked why this affordable housing plan doesn’t comes to this Commission before it goes to
Council. Kubly explained the committee had representation from HCDC as part of that group (Peter
Nkumu was the representative) and the plan incorporated a lot of different affordable housing issues such
as land use issues and it didn't go to Planning & Zoning, there was just representatives from different
commissions on the committee. Council could bring different issues to HCDC once they have discussed
the draft report – the decision to bring things to HCDC is up to Council. Reedus agrees Vogel brought up
some good points.
Reedus noted this annual plan is a one-year document that is part of the bigger five-year comprehensive
plan so a lot of it was pretty routine reading but wanted to reiterated that if they’re going to make any real
changes in the way in which they fund legacy agencies, she believes the City should be contracting for
some services and some agencies can be treated a little bit differently because of the kinds of services
that are provided. This Commission needs to take some real time to explore that kind of thing and she
doesn’t want her three years on this Commission to be spent just coming to Thursday meetings and hand
stamping things, she wants to make some positive changes to the way in which the legacy funding is
allocated.
Thul made a quick note that the majority of this plan deals with federal funding and only a slice of that can
use for public services but the Commission will be diving into the legacy agency stuff coming up in the
next few months.
Reedus thanked staff for that but stated in Geoff Fruin's plan, 21 points for restructuring, there's still
money in there for a community needs assessment and that would give the Commission a
comprehensive look at the types of services that we do need in the community and she would like to see
HCDC involved with that in some way whether it's a liaison type of role or something.
Vogel motioned to recommend approval of the FY23 Annual Action Plan to Council. Seconded by
Reedus. Passed 6-0.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO CITY STEPS 2025, THE CITY’S CONSOLIDATED PLAN:
Thul noted this is a formality that starts the official amendment process. HCDC will make the
recommendation, it will go to Council for final approval. HCDC has already made their agency decisions
and had those discussions, however to inform the two new members - the Commission had a discussion
as to whether and how to add agencies to the legacy agency list and approved the adding of three
agencies and this is making it official by sending this along as a substantial amendment to the
Consolidated Plan which is called City Steps.
Drabek motioned to recommend approval of the proposed Substantial Amendment to City Steps
2025 to Council. Seconded by Marilla-Kapp. Passed 6-0.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Drabek noted he appeared about a month ago at a Council meeting to accept the mayoral proclamation
for National Community Development week.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 8 of 9
8
Reedus stated in the second meeting last month she noted Council did finalized the Forest View
relocation which doesn't really have anything to do with HCDC but is noteworthy to highlight. Also at that
meeting Council appointed Marilla-Kapp and Krotz to fill long-awaited vacancies in the Commission.
Marilla-Kapp volunteered for the June meetings.
STAFF UPDATES:
Thul noted staff would like to have the Commission’s feedback on an upcoming item so there will need to
be a meeting in June, likely June 23 but she will send out an attendance survey to see if they can get a
quorum.
Three more people were appointed last night to the Commission, Maryann Dennis was reappointed;
Zachary Slocum and Jennifer Haylett were also appointment so the Commission will be back up to nine
on July 1.
Thul noted staff put a handout in the agenda packed of a quick guide that might help during meeting
discussions regarding so many acronyms and other things with federal funding. If there are other things
the Commission can think of that might be helpful for new commissioners definitely let staff know.
Kubly stated regarding the timeliness letter for CDBG funds they City can only have one and a half times
the current allocation in the HUD account. When they do a project the City funds it and then draws from
HUD and they reimburse the City, that's how that works. Ideally with CDBG they get the money for the
program year and they'd spend it all within one year, but as seen from the delayed projects report that
that doesn't always work out. The City has certain procedures in place to spend the money within the
year but for certain projects like the rehab program if they don't spend the set-aside within the year it gets
lumped back into the pool for the next allocation. Certain categories can only be spent within the year,
like the public services that are funded by CDBG they have to be spent within the fiscal year, as well as
admin which is like the staff salary fund, but when they get several projects that are delayed for whatever
reason they get this letter that they need to have less than one and a half times the allocation in the
account. The City received this letter in April that they had to spend down $168,000 and they were able
to that thanks to Thul hounding people and getting their invoices in and getting their projects done. The
consequences of not spending the money in a timely fashion is HUD can start reducing the yearly
allocations which they really don't want.
Reedus wants to get a review of the bylaws on the future agenda because there are certain requirements
of individuals, experience requirements on the Commission, but there's no requirement that anybody
have a non-profit background and so she suspects the bylaws were probably last approved before Aid to
Agencies became a function of this group and she thinks that there should be a requirement on HCDC for
somebody to have a background in nonprofit management administration.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, Vogel seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 9 of 9
9
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 1/20 2/17 3/24 5/18
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X X X X O/E
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X X X O/E
Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X X X O/E X X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X O/E O/E X O/E
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X X O/E X X
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2021 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Kaleb Beining, Matt Drabek, Nasr Mohammed, Peter
Nkumu, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Theresa Lewis
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Rackis, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Caitlin McGowan (Successful Living), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House)
DISCUSS AFFORDABLE HOUSING STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS:
Nkumu is on the Affordable Housing Steering Committee and was to give an update last meeting but
there were some technical difficulties. There is a statement in the agenda packet as well.
Nkumu stated these are recommendations this Committee will be making, and he will be able to take
discussions from HCDC to the Committee Meetings.
Hightshoe stated the steering committee looked at all affordable housing policies and funds that the City
had, and there is a subcommittee from that group that chose to look at the policies more in depth after
staff went through each one. This committee looked at certain things and they commented on the
affordable housing location model, on the way recommendations for housing were made, and the
distribution model. Those are the three things out of all the different affordable housing programs and
policies that the City had that they wanted to make recommendation on. That will go back to the larger
committee will look at it before they make any type of recommendation to Council but when they saw that
some of the recommendations are related to the Housing and Community Development Commission,
they wanted input about their comments so that they can take that back to the larger group.
Drabek noted this Commission then needs to give some form of feedback as some of these
recommendations will go to City Council
Vogel stated with the first one, he has no problem at all, he doesn’t think the current affordable housing
location model works. He doesn’t like the way it is currently trying to redirect to that new southside
development, it doesn’t work with code base zoning. He has brought up some issues in the past with the
fact that they do affordable housing everywhere else except these areas. Either affordable housing is
important for everybody everywhere in the City, or someone at the City level is getting to pick and choose
where affordable housing happens. Vogel is fine with the first recommendation and feels there's got to be
a better way. The HCDC thing really rubbed him wrong, first off the process of trying to prioritize staff
recommendations and the Commission's review and ranking should be based on objective established
criteria, priorities, and data and staff scores should be included. He doesn’t have a problem staff’s scores
being included, he also feels that they already use very well established criteria, priorities and data in the
scoring system but there is absolutely no way to make them completely objective, there is always going to
be subjective opinions on what a score is based upon variables for projects that are drastically different
from each other.
Excerpt from August 2021 HCDC Minutes Agenda Item #4
Housing and Community Development Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 2 of 4
2
Drabek stated to that point, there is a way to do it, they would have to have a rubric that they follow
mindlessly. The problem is if they come up with a way to make it completely objective, where there's
simply no question, they would produce worse decisions then have been made in the past. They have
always had a rubric since he has been on the Commission, they have seen staff scores at times and
those have been very valuable. But then sometimes additional information has come up or additional
priorities that would modify the scores here and there. As a result, the Commission has made better
decisions than just from a straight rubric.
Vogel also questions the whole prioritizing staff recommendations, what is the purpose of having a
community driven committee like this if staff recommendations are always going to be the weighted scale.
He acknowledged not just this committee, but communities across the board, generally direct towards
what staff recommends, because they are the professionals that put the data together. But it is during the
discussions as a community that helps the Commission understand needs and allows this group of
members of the community to help make a difference. If they are to just prioritize staff scores then they
don’t need a Commission. He has a real problem with the wording, and that this housing task force feels
somehow the Commission is not doing a good job. He doesn’t even really understand where this
recommendation came from.
Alter agrees and is curious about where these impressions came from, because with these being open
meetings and recorded a lot of very authentic discussion, including some doubts and wonder, including
information about the rubric and about how they're applying it has all been public. That’s important for
transparency. This is a difficult process, and it appears at times messy, and she wonders if in fact some of
the register from the steering committee was based on like actually hearing, or seeing notes, because
they do have notes verbatim as opposed to just a summary. Alter wonders if that transcription has colored
some of the impressions so that it appears that they're more wishy washy and don't know what they're
doing then if they just showed scores. This Commission has robust conversations and uses the rubric,
and the priorities, and get input from staff about the potential stability of the ask, in terms of some of the
more complex grants and they have to balance all of that. But she is wondering if sometimes that
discussion might have actually indicated confusion, rather than the messiness of the process. She
wholeheartedly agrees that they take a lot of direction from the work that the professionals do, and they
also have a rubric to follow but it is not a checklist and that's why they have the opportunity to be able to
talk about applications.
Nkumu stated that people in on the Committee are like members on this Commission and may not always
have the same experience so bring different perspectives and different experiences. Again these are just
recommendations and they are asking for HCDC input so they need to look at the conditions and see
what they can improve and what doesn’t need improvement.
Reedus commented that she has a unique perspective as she has been on the other side of the table.
She feels it important to recognize the Commissioners change and over the years it's changed a lot. The
turnover for this group is pretty high so on the issue of staff recommendation, it is good to know what staff
is recommending, they may disagree with the staff recommendation however should appreciate getting
the input and expertise. Reedus did note however that one of the toughest things is being consistent with
this group, a lot of people have been on this Commission that are making decisions about funding and it’s
not been consistent. The agencies face new challenges each year and there were always surprises
coming forward the agencies had to meet, whether they were a high priority agency, where they were
ranked, etc. Just the example of priority ranking on the scoring, every agency has a rank in terms of
priority service, and this Commission decided to start from the bottom and that was a total shock and a
surprise to the agencies. There has to be some consistency, it is not okay for the agencies or the groups
that are applying for the money to be totally surprised by a decision that's made by this group, especially
at the time that the Commission is scoring applications, because they have no time to react to that.
Reedus is hoping to bring her experiences to this Commission to make things a bit better and to be a
voice for anybody who's applying for funding to make sure that we're not changing the rules for them at
the last hour.
Housing and Community Development Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 3 of 4
3
Drabek agreed with what Reedus just said, in particular, he acknowledged there were a couple of years
where they had to make on the fly decisions as to whether they were going to prorate extra funds or sort
of top off some of the top scores or go bottom up. He feels the second bullet under number two on the
recommendations is a good recommendation because they have had make decisions on the fly before.
He remembers his first year on the Commission and how he didn’t really have a strong basis for how to
make decisions. This change could help eliminate one particular source of surprise and consistency.
Vogel asked if the Commission’s scoring matrices/rubrics are included with the application. Thul
confirmed it is in the applicant guide.
Drabek remarked the other point about the staff scores is he finds staff scores a very valuable source of
information. However, he does very strongly believe they should send one score to Council and he
doesn’t think staff scores should go to the Council. It's an important source for the discussion and helps
the Commission make a decision but ultimately it is HCDC’s role to make these funding recommendations
so having a separate score there doesn't really make sense and changes the purpose of the Commission.
Vogel stated in regard to the third bullet point, recommendation, the affordable housing distribution model
he would love to see what they’ve been talking about with the security deposit assistance and risk
mitigation funding from the City be part of that discussion. He remembers even back to 2002 sitting with
the City Housing Inspector at the time and the City Manager at the time how it would be nice to have
something like this for risk mitigation for landlords to get deposits and stuff but it just never has
developed. Vogel stated it is important because it can push those landlords who are on the fence for
doing affordable housing to know that if there are problems at the back end of a residency or tenancy, the
City is there to back them up to make sure they can keep providing affordable housing. Vogel agreed it is
an important discussion to have, the entire distribution model as a whole and getting into that 0-30%,
30%-60% AMI stuff and whether the City should still continue. Sometimes it seems like they use fair
market rent as the guideline for something, then sometimes they use the AMI guideline for other things, it
would be nice to see a unified structure for all decisions made.
Vogel stated he supports recommendation one and three wholeheartedly. I can support suggestion two
but as others have stated there's just a point where if they just want support from staff and not ask for
community involvement that is not acceptable.
Alter noted she definitely thinks that looking at some of the potential suggestions of how decision making
gets done are things they should discuss and make some decisions on. Do they allocate money to top
rated applications, or prorated partial funding to applicants based on scores, it is fair for the agencies to
have an expectation of how that's going to work. Consistently has been a constant struggle and she has
heard from agencies it depends on the dynamic or who's on the Commission at that time as to where the
discussion goes. So instead of just fully funding from the top applications, they may have wanted to fund
more agencies and spread the allocations thinner. Which either can be fine, but overall this is a
Commission for people and it needs to be fair for the applicants and clear. Alter acknowledged it can feel
like the agencies are being blindsided in the moment during these discussions so that is something that
would be helpful for them to iron out so that they do have that transparency. Perhaps they can come to
consensus or conjunction in conversation with agencies about what would be most helpful. Obviously,
every agency wants to have their full funding but based on the budget that's not necessarily going to be
possible. So if they come to an agreement or a consensus, at least within this Commission, that seems
fair and appropriate that agencies can rely on that would be good.
Drabek noted with regards to the expertise point, he also want to encourage every member of the
Commission to reach out and chat with him on funding round questions and if there is anything he might
be able to help with along the way.
Drabek asked if the Commission needs to give a formal statement or are they just to give informal advice
to Nkumu to take back to the steering committee.
Housing and Community Development Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 4 of 4
4
Hightshoe replied the steering committee wanted some type of input from the group here. Thul can share
the minutes as a summary.
Drabek noted a quick summary for the minutes as far as these three recommendations go, he heard no
opposition or no consternation with the recommendation one and three, whereas the second one, there
was quite a bit of openness to taking a look and considering staff scores as a part of the Commission
decision process and also quite a bit of openness to some of these considerations about full funding
versus prorated applications. There was however less support for the idea that staff scores would be
completely centered and the Commission would just vote them up or down.
Hightshoe asked if the Commission would like for staff to provide a funding recommendation for the
upcoming funding round in September. The consensus was the Commission would like staff to provide
scores and funding recommendations.
Affordable Housing Steering Committee Update
Greetings fellow commissioners,
I apologize for not being able to provide an update of AHSC meetings yesterday due to technical issues I
was having with my zoom connection. As your representative in the Steering Committee, it is my duty to
report back to you what is happing so far.
The committee is made up of 12 members drawn from a diverse group of local people with a lot of
expertise and background in affordable housing issues. The committee meet via zoom once a month and
the first meeting happened in February with the goal of wrapping up everything by September or
October.
In the first couple of months, we spent time reviewing Housing data, existing Programs and Policies and
forming subcommittees. After the review of data and existing programs and policies, committee
members were asked to express their view on keeping or dropping specific programs or policies with
specific recommendations. Last month, a compilation of all opinions and recommendations from
committee’s members was presented and discussed. All programs and policies were reviewed and
specific recommendations were made. One particular program that drew comments from most
members of the committee is the CDBG/HOME Programs.
I did check with Tracy Hightshoe and the City Manager if I can share this information with you and they
said yes because it is public information and this is only recommendations, not final resolutions
approved by the City Counsel.
Here are issues members cited with how HCDC allocates housing funds.
1.The ranking process is not objective
2.Commission members have various levels of expertise/understanding of housing issues, some
have no background in housing
3.The scores are not consistent among members and the final scores are a guide. Commission
members do not have to fund based on final scores.
4.Allocations don’t follow the Council approved comprehensive plan for priorities and , at times,
commission members ignore or discount staff concerns for capacity, compliance and program
issues. Staff administers these programs and have extensive knowledge on compliance, program
rules and process. Commission makeup changes annually.
5.Members are meeting with non-profits to get more familiar with services. Question the
sustainability or effectiveness due to commission turnover.
Suggestions: more in-depth orientation about the process, established priorities, and compliance issues.
Allow agencies to respond to questions outside of their Q/A session. Recommendation was made that
similar to Planning, Zoning, and other commissions, staff provide a funding recommendation and HCDC
then reviews and considers for approval or modification.
Excerpt from August 2021 HCDC Packet
Agenda Item #4
The next step in our process is to determine which programs/policies the subcommittee, which I am part
of, will look at more in depth and report back to the full committee. There are seven subcommittees
created to look at different things such Existing Program/Policies, Development Regulations
(Zoning/Code), Public Outreach, Affordable Housing Resources (public/private), Recommendations :0-
30% MI, Recommendations : 31-60% MI, Recommendations : 61-100% MI
Besides subcommittees work, there will be Public input sessions before compiling all
recommendations/data from subcommittees follow by drafting of report, committee review/comment
and finally the release of final plan to City Council.
Thank you
Peter Nkumu
HCDC Commissioner/ Affordable Housing Steering Committee Member
Preliminary Recommendations and Concerns from a Subcommittee of
the Affordable Housing Steering Committee
The following are initial ideas from a subcommittee of the Affordable Housing Steering
Committee. The items below have not been finalized by the Steering Committee as a whole.
The Steering Committee would like input about these concerns/recommendations before they
finalize and present to Council this fall.
1.Affordable Housing Location Model
Discontinue. Focus on incentivizing projects/development in neighborhoods and areas that
offer relevant amenities, access to public transit, etc.
2.HCDC
Restructure the process to prioritize staff recommendations and scores.
•The Commission’s review and ranking should be based on objective and established
criteria, priorities, and data and staff scores should be included.
•Policy should be developed upfront as to how funds will be allocated to further
improve transparency in decision-making (e.g. full funding to top-rated applications,
or applications will be pro-rated, or partial funding to applicants based on scores,
etc.).
3.Affordable Housing Distribution Model
The overall funding should be increased with consideration given not indexing the increase
to the budget.
•Increased funding for the HTFJC including an increase in the administrative set
aside.
•Allow for greater flexibility in targeted use of funds for example:
o Prioritize deeply affordable housing (0-30%) but do not restrict to the use
o Include LIHTC funding with the HTFJC allocation. However, set as a
preferred use but not restricted/required. If funding is awarded to LIHTC
project and the project does not get funding from IFA, allow HTFJC withdraw
award and make available for general applications rather than waiting for the
next LIHTC cycle.
•Maintain Security Deposit Assistance and prioritize moving forward with Risk
Mitigation Fund
•Increase marketing and communications of availability of the different funds.
•Review specific programs in the affordable housing distribution model to ensure they
match desired policy outcomes.
•Consider establishing policy for preservation of affordable units and value added with
collaborations with not-for-profit affordable housing developers.
Excerpt from August 2021 HCDC Packet Agenda Item #4
Agenda Item #5
Tentative HCDC Calendar
Meetings typically held on the 3rd Thursday of each month
Meeting Date Regular Agenda Items Notes
Fiscal Year 2023
July 21, 2022 •Welcome new members
•Officer nominations
•Review Aid to Agencies process
•Approve Legacy Aid to Agency application materials
August 18, 2022 Fall Break
September 15, 2022 •Public meeting and approval of FY22 CAPER
•Receive Aid to Agencies submissions for review
•Project monitoring presentations
October 20, 2022 •Discuss CDBG projects without agreement - Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy
checkpoint
•Q&A session with FY24 Legacy Aid to Agency applicants – commissioners to score
submissions ahead of November meeting
November 17, 2022 •Approve FY24 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agency application forms
•Discuss Legacy Aid to Agency score summary, rankings, and staff recommendations
•Project monitoring presentations
December 15, 2022 Winter Break
January 19, 2023 •Discuss and consider Legacy Aid to Agency budget recommendation to Council
•Project monitoring presentations
Session includes group discussion to
form funding recommendations to
Council.
Staff scores and recommendations will
be provided to HCDC.
February 16, 2023 •Q&A session with FY24 CDBG/HOME applicants
•Discuss Community Development Week Activities (April)
March 23, 2023*
*4th Thursday
•Discuss and consider FY24 CDBG/HOME budget recommendation to Council
•Discuss and consider FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies budget recommendation to
Council
Session includes group discussion to
form funding recommendations to
Council.
Staff scores and recommendations will
be provided to HCDC.
April 20, 2023 •Review FY24 Annual Action Plan and recommendation to City Council
•Discuss projects not conforming to the City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy
•Project monitoring presentations
May 18, 2023 •Project monitoring presentations
June 15, 2023 Summer Break
May be subject to change.
Agenda Item #7
Tentative Project Update Calendar
May be subject to change.
Meeting Date Agency Projects
September 15, 2022 City of Iowa City CAPER overview of City accomplishments – Neighborhood Improvements, Economic
Development, Housing Rehab, South District, and Green State Partnership Program
October 20, 2022 Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy Checkpoint
November 17, 2022 The Housing Fellowship Remaining housing rehab projects (if applicable), FY22 Acquisition; FY23 Acquisition; other CHDO
activities
Habitat for Humanity FY21 Down Payment Assistance
January 19, 2023 Free Medical Clinic FY23 Public Facilities
Inside Out Reentry FY23 Acquisition
April 20, 2023 Shelter House FY23 Aid to Agencies, FY22 New Construction, FY22 Public Facilities (if applicable)
DVIP FY23 Public Facilities; FY23 Aid to Agencies
NCJC FY23 Aid to Agencies, FY22 Public Facilities (if applicable)
Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy Checkpoint
May 18, 2023 TBD – as needed TBD – as needed