HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-30 Rules Committee Agenda Packet� r
�A� 107"&,
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 3S6-5000
(3 19) 3S6-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
City Council Rules Committee Agenda
Tuesday, August 30, 2022
2:00 PM
Helling Conference Room - CKY Hall
410 E. Washington St
1. Call to Order
2. Community Police Review Board By -Laws
Discuss DRAFT Community Police Review Board By -Laws
3. Housing & Community Development Commission By -Laws
Discuss DRAFT Housing & Community Development By -Laws
4. Adjourn
DRAFT
IOWA CITY
COMMUNITY POLICE
REVIEW BOARD
BY-LAWS
(Revised _/_/22, Res. 22-)
BY-LAWS
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY
POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ARTICLE I. AUTHORITY:
The Community Police Review Board formerly known as the Citizens Police Review Board (hereafter
referred to as the Board) shall have that authority which is conferred by Chapter 8 of the City
Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and through the adoption of these by-laws stated herein.
ARTICLE II. PURPOSE:
The purpose of the by-laws stated herein is to provide for the general welfare of the Iowa City
community by establishing a Board to advise the Police Chief, City Manager and City Council on
matters pertaining to the policies, practices and overall performance of the Iowa City Police
Department. Further, in an effort to assure that the Iowa City Police Department's performance is
in keeping with community standards, this Board is created to review investigations into
complaints of police misconduct to ensure that such investigations are conducted in a matter which
is fair, thorough, and accurate, and to maintain a central registry and to provide City Council with
an annual report on all such complaints.
ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP:
Section 1. Qualifications. The Board shall consist of five (5) seven 7 members appointed by
the City Council who shall be eligible electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and shall meet the criteria
contained in Chapter 8, City Code, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Appointments to the Board shall
include one current or former "peace officer" as that term is defined by state law. The City Council
may waive the residency requirement for good cause shown and may waive the requirement that
the Board include one current or former "peace officer" for good cause shown.
Section 2. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed
for expenses incurred for travel outside the city on designated Board business. Such expenses
must be submitted to the City Manager for approval and reimbursement.
Section 3. Orientation for New Members. Prior to the first regular meeting following their
appointment, new members shall be provided with copies of the ordinance creating the Board, the
written policies of the Iowa City Police Department, the Board by-laws, open records law, open
meetings law, the name of the council member appointed by the City Council to serve as the
liaison to the Board and other documentation that would be useful to Board members in carrying
out their duties. They shall also be given an orientation briefing by the appropriate City staff and
the Board as is deemed appropriate.
Section 4. Absences. The Board may recommend to the City Council that the City Council discharge
any Board member who: (1) is absent from two consecutive regular or special meetings without
excuse as determined by the Board on a case by case basis; or (2) is absent from four consecutive
regular or special meetings, whether excused or unexcused; or (3) is absent from at least four out
of six consecutive regular or special meetings, whether excused or unexcused.
Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy on the Board because of death, resignation, long-term illness,
disqualification or removal shall be filled by the City Council after at least 30 days public notice of
the vacancy.
z
Section 6. Terms. Members shall be initially appointed for staggered terms as outlined in Chapter
8, City Code, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Thereafter, Members shall be appointed for terms of four
years, with terms expiring on June 30. If a position becomes vacant by reason of resignation or
otherwise, and results in an unexpired term of six months or less, the Council may choose to fill
the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only through
the unexpired term, but also through a subsequent regular term.
Section 7. Resignations. Resignations shall be submitted in writing to the Mayor with a copy to
the City Clerk and the Chairperson of the Board at least 30 days prior to the date of intended
departure.
ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS:
Section 1. Number. The officers of this Board shall be a Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson, each
of whom shall be elected by the members of the Board.
Section 2. Election and Term of Office. Officers of the Board shall be elected by a majority of all
members as soon as practicable after formation of the Board, and thereafter annually at the first
regular meeting in October each year; if the election of officers shall not be held at such meeting,
such election shall be held as soon thereafter as is convenient.
Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal,
disqualification or other cause shall be filled by the members for the unexpired portion of the term.
Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings, appoint
committees, call special meetings and in general perform all duties incident to the office of a
Chairperson, and such other duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to time.
Section 5. Vice -Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson, or in the event of death, inability
or refusal to act, the Vice -Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and when so
acting shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson.
ARTICLE V. BOARD MEETINGS:
Section 1. Regular Meetings. The Board's regular meeting will be held the second Tuesday of
each month. This meeting time may be rescheduled upon agreement by a majority of the Board.
Section 2. Special meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson and shall be
called by the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson at the request of three or more Members of the
Board. At least one (1) full day's written notice of meeting place, time and agenda shall be given
to each Member and the media.
Section 3. Agenda. Insofar as possible, at regular and special meetings only matters included on
the agenda may be discussed and formal votes taken. Care shall be taken to avoid discussion of
non -agenda items.
Section 4. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum at any
meeting.
3
Section 5. Place of Meetings. Meetings, both regular and special, shall be held in an accessible
City facility. Meetings which are forums solely for community input may be in other appropriate
meeting places in Iowa City.
Section 6. Notice of Meetings. Notice of meetings shall be required; meetings may be called upon
notice not less than twenty-four (24) hours before the meetings unless such notice is impossible
or impracticable, in which case notice shall be provided as outlined in the Iowa Code. The news
media shall be notified by staff. Board meetings shall be public except where provided in the Iowa
Code.
Section 7. Proxies. There shall be no vote by proxy.
Section 8. Public Discussion. Time shall be made available during all meetings for open public
discussion.
Section 9. Motions. Motions may be made or seconded by any member of the Board, including
the Chairperson.
Section 10. Exported Contacts_ A member who has had a discussion of an agenda item outside of
a public meeting with an interested party shall reveal the contact, name the other party and share
specifics of the contact, copies if in writing or a synopsis if verbal.
Section 11. Conflict of Interest. Members who believe they have a conflict of interest on a matter
about to come before the Board shall state the reason for the conflict of interest, leave the room
before the discussion begins, and return after the vote.
Section 12. Voting. A majority vote is required for adoption of any motion, except for a motion to
close a session as provided for in the Iowa Code. Upon request, voting will be by roll call and will
be recorded by yeas and nays. Every member of the Board, including the Chairperson, who is present
at_a metria wLI.Pt.to vot is required to cast a vote upon each motion.-, °tee
whe abstains shall unless h m m er states a valid tl}e reason for abstention.
Section 13. Roberts Rules of Order. The rules in the current edition of Roberts Rules of Order
Newly Revised shall govern the Board in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they
are not inconsistent with ih2__Qk1? ter 8. Title EQLlhe lQwa CityCode-of Ordinances, these bylaws
a -Rd or any special rules or order the Board may adopt.
ARTICLE VI. GENERAL AND LIMITED POWERS AND DUTIES:
The Board shall have the powers and duties set forth in Chapter 8 of the City Code of Iowa City.
ARTICLE VII. PUBLIC RECORDS; -EXCEPTIONS
Section 1. All records of the Board shall be public, except:
(a) Complaints, reports of investigations, statements and other documents or records obtained in
investigation of any complaint shall be closed records unless a public hearing is held or a
contrary determination is made by Counsel to the Board pursuant to the provisions of the
Iowa Code.
(b) The minutes and tape recordings of any session closed under the provisions of the Iowa
Code shall be closed records.
M
(c) No member of the Board or of its staff shall disclose information protected by the Iowa
Open Records Law or the Iowa Open Meetings Law. Nothing in this provision shall prevent
the Board from releasing such information concerning alleged or acknowledged practices
to the Iowa City City Council, the City Manager and/or Chief of Police, either in the form of
its required annual report or otherwise. This section does not prevent any complainant,
witness or other person from publicizing the filing of a complaint or the matter therein
complained of. Violation of these provisions by a member of the Board or its staff shall
constitute grounds for removal.
ARTICLE VIII. CONDUCT OF BOARD BUSINESS
Section 1 . Agenda. The Chairperson, or a designated representative, together w i t h staff assistance
shall prepare an agenda for all Board meetings. Agendas are to be posted at least 24 hours before
the meeting and shall be sent to Board members and the media prior to meetings. Copies will be
available to the public at the meeting.
Section 2. Minutes. Minutes of all meetings are to be prepared and distributed to Board and City
Council members. Specific recommendations requiring Council action are to be set off from the
main body of the minutes and appropriately identified.
Section 3. Review Policy. The Board shall review all policies and programs of the City relating to
the Board's duties as stated herein, and make such recommendations to the City Council as are
deemed appropriate.
Section 4. Referrals from Council. From time to time letters, requests for information, requests for
recommendations, and other matters are referred to the Board by the City Council. The Board will
initiate consideration of each item at the next regular Board meeting and shall notify Council of its
disposition.
Section 5. Annual Report. An annual report detailing the activities of the Board shall be prepared
by the Chairperson, approved by the Board, and submitted to the City Council.
ARTICLE IX. SUBCOMMITTEES:
The subcommittees of this Board including composition, duties, and terms shall be as designated
by the Chairperson.
ARTICLE X. AMENDMENTS:
These by-laws may be altered, amended or repealed, and new by-laws adopted by an affirmative
vote of ^^+^ss +h,n three a majority of the members of the Board at any regular meeting or at any
special meeting called for that purpose. Amendments shall become effective after approval by the
City Council.
Approved/Final
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — JULY 12, 2022
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Amanda Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT_: Ricky Downing (5:50 p.m.), Melissa Jensen, Jerri MacConnell,
Saul Mekies, Amanda Nichols, Orville Townsend, Stuart Vander Vegte
MEMBERS ABSENT None
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Tammy Neumann, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford
OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Chief Dustin Liston
RECOMMENATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept the proposed amendments to the CPRB Bylaws and Ordinance - See memos from
-� CPRB Legal Counsel Ford included in the 6/2/22 and 7/28/22 information packet.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Townsend, seconded by Jensen to adopt the consent calendar as presented.
® Minutes of the meeting on 06/14/2022
ICPD General Order 99-03 (Prisoner Transport)
® ICPD Use of Force Review/Report March
ICPD Memorandum - Quarterly Summary Report IAIR/CPRB, 2nd Qtr. 2022
Motion carried 6-0, Downing absent.
NEW BUSINESS
Proposed Revisions to the CPRB Bylaws:
Memos re: Proposed Revisions to CPRB Bylaws - Patrick Ford
Legal Counsel Ford reviewed his proposed revisions to the CPRB Bylaws. Amendments include
updating Section 1 of Article III to seven members (previously five); an addition to Section 12, Article V
that states that a "majority vote is required for adoption of any motion... by every member of the board"
to "who is present at a meeting where a motion is put to vote"; Section 13, Article V adding that the
newly revised Roberts Rules of Order "shall govern the Board in all cases to which they are applicable
in which they are not inconsistent with the Chapter 8, Title 8 of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances"; and
Article X revised to state that an affirmative vote of "no less than three" to "a majority of the members of
the Board..."
MacConnell noted that the bylaws do not mention that there is a requirement that one of the seven
board members be a peace officer who has been retired for five years and that as far as she knew
there wasn't a vote to remove that requirement. Ford explained what MacConnell was referring to is
CPRB
July 12, 2022
included in the ordinance and not the bylaws. Ford then asked if the amendment to the ordinance had
been voted on by City Council. Chief Liston said his recollection was that the Council discussed the
request and voted to reimplement the requirement that an officer that was employed by the City of Iowa
City not be appointed to the board until they had been absent from that position for at least two years
(previously five years). Townsend expressed he thinks the ordinance should state "whenever possible"
the board will include one peace officer. Jensen pointed out that she can serve the role of peace officer
on the board.
Proposed Revisions to the CPRB Ordinance:
Legal Counsel Ford recommended a revision to Ordinance 8-8-8(B)(2) which currently states, "The
Board shall decide the level of review to give the Police Chief's or City Manager's report by a simple
majority vote of all members of the board" to "...approved "by a simple majority vote." Ford noted that
there is a conflict, as it reads now, between sections 8-8-8(B)(2) and section 8-8-7(B)(1). Ford stated 8-
8-7(6)(1) provides a vote to set the level of review is made on a simple majority vote which means the
vote is approved by a majority of the members in attendance and 8-8-8(B)(2) is written as it would
require a vote be approved by a simple majority of all members of the board.
Townsend expressed his concern when voting on a critical matter that perhaps it should be by a vote of
the entire board explaining that if only four members were present and three of them are considered a
majority, it may not be a good representation of the entire boards' preference. Ford noted that it is
something to consider and that it would be up to the Board. Mekies noted that requiring a majority of
the entire board could complicate the process. Ford explained to those present that the ordinance
addresses the guts of what the board does while the bylaws state, in general, how a meeting is run and
how the items are voted on.
After some discussion, the board agreed with the changes presented by Ford.
Motion by Mekies, seconded by Vander Vegte to accept the proposed amendments to the CPRB
Bylaws and Ordinance.
Motion carried 6-0, Downing absent.
Language Interpretation tions:
During the June 14, 2022 meeting, board members asked what options were available to the Board if
interpretation services are necessary. Neumann distributed the "City of Iowa City Translation &
Interpretation Guidelines" provided by the City Manager's Office. Neumann shared that the City does
not provide interpretation services for public meetings and that most individuals will provide their own
interpreter at their own expense. Nichols asked if the complaint forms are available in other languages.
Neumann stated that forms are not available in other languages, however, the online information
regarding the complaint process includes a language selection option through Google. The City has
access to interpretation services such as Language Line at a cost of $1.95 per hour. Staff has the
ability to use an iPad for Google Translate. Townsend asked if someone needed translation services
and could not provide their own, would the City deny their request. Neumann said that the City would
investigate all available alternatives.
(Downing arrived at 5:50 p.m.)
CPRB
July 12, 2022
CPRB Board Powers 8-8-8(B)(1):
At a previous meeting, Nichols asked if the Board had the power to initiate a complaint if they had
concerns regarding a situation that was made public through videos posted on social media, television,
etc., and where no complaint had been filed. Ford shared that the ordinance states in section 8-8-
8(B)(1), "On its own motion, by a simple majority vote of all members of the board, the board may file a
complaint." MacConnell, Mekies, and Downing all asked what kind of a situation would be cause for the
board to file a complaint. Nichols noted that there was a recent incident where videos were released on
social media and that because she had some concerns, of which she will elaborate on during executive
session, she wanted to know if the board had the power to file a complaint. Jensen asked if this item
came up from a previous discussion or if this was a proposed change to the ordinance. Nichols
explained that at the June 14, 2022 meeting she had asked to add this item to the July agenda as she
wanted clarification of this rule. Ford explained that what is being discussed is in a situation where no
one on the board had personal knowledge of an incident but had seen a video that was broadcasted on
television or shared on social media and had concerns, a board member could propose that the board
file their own complaint.
OLD BUSINESS
Proposed revisions to Ordinance 8-8:
The board continued discussion from the June 2022 meeting regarding a proposed revision to the
ordinance. This revision would allow the Police Chief and/or the Board to request that the City Clerk
contact a complainant for the purpose of clarifying any illegible words within the handwritten complaint.
Neumann shared concerns from the City Clerk, Kellie Fruehling. Fruehling is not comfortable with staff
gathering information solely over the phone without a signature from the complainant. At the June
meeting, Townsend suggested that once the Clerk receives a complaint, that staff read through it and if
they see anything of question that they then contact the complainant for clarification prior to routing.
Fruehling explained that staff's role includes receiving the complaint and then routing through the
necessary channels, and to support the board. It is not to determine if something is illegible or
incomprehensible within the complaint. That is for the Board to determine. Chief Liston added that
Fruehling does not want staff to get in the middle of the process. He added that the Police Department
contacts a complainant when they find something of question, however, they often do not receive a
return call/email from the complainant. Nichols noted that she thought this was covered within the Level
of Review option 8-8-7(B)(1)(b), "Interview/meet with complainant." Townsend said that he has difficulty
reading reports due to the light print. Neumann noted that these complaints are color, and the print
does appear light, however, when changing the option to black and white, the type in the complaints
have better clarity. She also noted that staff is still working with the I.T. Department to increase the size
of the type within the reports. The board unanimously agreed to refer to the Level of Review Process 8-
8-7(B)(1)(b) in cases where there is a question regarding legibility or the meaning of a complaint.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None
BOARD INFORMATION
None
CPRB
July 12, 2022
STAFF INFORMATION
Neumann discussed the current process of sending complaints out to the Board. At this time,
complaints are sent to the Board members upon receipt by the Clerk's Office. She reminded Board
members that there is no video available and that the Board cannot discuss a complaint until after the
Chief's Report is submitted to staff. She asked if Board members would agree to staff sending out the
complaints with the Chiefs Report as it seems to be causing some confusion when she is sending them
prior to these items being available. Nichols agreed that this would help to lessen the confusion.
Townsend expressed concern that if the complaints are received at the same time as the Chiefs
Report that the report could influence the board members view of the complaint. Ford asked Chief
Liston how long it takes to process a video before it is ready for board members to view. Liston said
that the videos are not available until after release of the Chiefs Report.
Motion by MacConnell, seconded by Jensen for staff to send out the CPRB complaints with the Chief's
Report.
Motion carried, 4/3, Downing, Mekies, Townsend voting no.
MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS
August 16, 2022, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room
September 13, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J. Harvat Hall
October 11, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J. Harvat Hall
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Nichols, seconded by MacConnell, to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section
21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or
federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's
possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential
personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school
districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized
elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are
made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to
the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of
government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to
that government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion Carried 7/0. Open session adjourned at 6:34 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 7:06 p.m.
Motion by Nichols, seconded by Mekies, to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #22-06 at 8-8-
7(B)(1)(a) on the record with no additional investigation.
Motion Carried 7/0.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Nichols, seconded by Townsend to adjourn the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
Motion carried 7/0.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2021 - 2022
(Mee tin Cate
8+21±1 8/30/21 9/20/21 10/12/21
11/1/21
1119/21
12/13/21
01/11/22
02/08/22
03/08/22
04/08/22
04/20/22
FORUM
05/10/22
06/14/22
07/12/22
08!16122
NAME
"-'
--
—
X
X
X
x
X
X
Ricky-�- ---- —
--
—
—
Downing
Jensen
Jerri X X x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
MacConnell
sant rvlckics X X x
X
Xx
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Amanda X x X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
Nichols
Theresa X
Seebergcr
Orville X X X
X
X
O/E
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
Townsend
---
X
X
O/E
O/E
x
RIE
Stuart ---- — ----
—
--
—
—
Vander Vcg[e
—LLL
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 13, 2022
TO: City of Iowa City Council
FROM: Community Police Review Board Members
Re: proposed amendments to the By-laws of the Community Police Review
Board
At their July 12, 2022 meeting, the members of the Community Police Review Board
adopted certain amendments to the board's By-laws. Pursuant to Article X of the By -
Laws, the amendments become effective after approval by the City Council. The CPRB
members request that the City Council approve the following amendments (suggested
additions are shown with dp 3ttZdetfil _ and suggested deletions are shown with
The first sentence of Section 1 of Article III shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 1. Ctzggrations. The Board shall consistOHR 3 haven L members
appointed by the City Council who shall be eligible electors of the City of fovea
City, Iowa and shall meet the criteria contained in Chapter 8, City Code, City of
Iowa City, Iowa.
2. Section 12 of Article V shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 12. Votina. A majority vote is requited for adoption of any motion,
except fora motion to close a session as provided for in the Iowa d nays. Spon
request; voting will be by roll call and will be recorded by y Y ry
n S �LESErIt�_.Li]$�I
member of the Board, f>ncluding the Chauperso ,
yotg, is required to casta vote upon each motion,—. A
i�era abs �n�l'.�Such_r� stat+e� thereason for
abstention.
Section 13 of Article V shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 13. Roberts Rules of Order. The rules in the current edition of Roberts
Rules of OrderNewiy Revised shall govern the Board in all cases to which they
are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent wi.Title 8 of
the�ow� Ga 4� . these bylaws, and gLany special Wile or order
the Board my adopt
4. Article X shall be amended to read as follows:
These by-laws may be altered amended orrepealed, and newbwy-laws adopted
affirmative
by an vote of net less 9;an throe -a liar of +il members ofphe
Board at any regularmeeting or at any special meeting called forthat purpose.
Amendments shall become effective after approval by the City Council
DRAFT
BY-LAWS
ARTICLE I THE COMMISSION
Section A. The name of the Commission is the Housing and Community Development Commission
of Iowa City, Iowa, as established by Resolution No. 95-199 of the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, pursuant to Chapter 403A, Code of Iowa (1995).
ARTICLE 2 PURPOSE
Section A. The purpose of the Commission is to assess Iowa City's community development needs
for housing, jobs, and services for low and moderate income residents, and to promote public and
private efforts to meet such needs.
ARTICLE 3 DUTIES
Section A. Duties of the Commission shall include: 1) assess and review policies and planning
documents related to the provision of housing, jobs, and services, for low and moderate income
residents of Iowa City; 2) review policies and programs of the Public Housing Authority and
Community Development Division and make recommendations regarding the same to the City
Council; 3) review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the use of public
funds to meet the needs of low and moderate income residents; 4) actively publicize community
development and housing policies and programs, and seek public participation in assessing needs
and identifying strategies to meet these needs; 5) recommend to the City Council from time to time
amendments, supplements, changes, and modifications to the Iowa City Housing Code.
ARTICLE 4 MEMBERSHIP
Section A. The Housing and Community Development Commission shall consist of nine (9)
members appointed by the City Council of Iowa City. All members shall be qualified electors of
the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and shall serve as such without compensation but shall be entitled to
the necessary expenses, including traveling expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties.
Section B. In order to satisfy the purpose and intent of this eit+zen commission, when possible, at
least one person shall be appointed to the Housing and Community Development Commission with
expertise in construction, a+A at least one person with expertise in finance-, at least one person with
nonprofit management experience, and at least one person with property management experience.
In addition, when possible, the Commission shall include one person who receives rental
assistance. Appointments shall take into consideration persons of various racial, religious, cultural,
social, and economic groups in the city.
Section C. The term of office for each member shall be three (3) years. In order to ensure a
staggered turnover, initial appointments shall be three (3) members for each of one, two, and three
years respectively.
Section D. The Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson will be elected annually (in July) from the
Commission membership. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings, appoint
sub -committees with the approval of the Commission, call special meetings and in general perform
all duties included in the office of a Chairperson and such other duties as may be prescribed by the
members from time to time. The Vice -Chairperson shall take over the above duties of the
Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson's absence.
Section E. Three (3) consecutive, unexplained absences of a member from regular meetings will
result in a recommendation to the City Council from the Commission to discharge said member
and appoint a new member.
Section F. If a position becomes vacant by reason of resignation or otherwise and results in an
unexpired term the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the
appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term but also through a
subsequent regular term.
ARTICLE 5 MEETINGS
Section A. Meetings of this Commission shall be on a regular monthly basis. A meeting date and
time will be established by the Commission. A regular meeting may be cancelled if no urgent
business requires a meeting.
Section B. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the Chairperson and shall be
called by the Chairperson at the request of a majority ofthe membership.
Section C. Meetings shall be held in an accessible, public meeting place. Notices of meetings
(agenda) for all regular and special meetings shall be posted and distributed to members and the
media at least 24 hours before any meeting is held. All provisions of the State Open Meeting Law
shall be followed. The Chairperson or a designated representative, together with appropriate
members of the City staff shall prepare an agenda for all meetings. Agendas shall be sent to
Commission members at least three (3) days prior to the regular meetings.
Section D. A majority of the members of the Commission (five or more) shall constitute a quorum
of any meeting and the majority of votes cast at any meeting, at which a quorum is present, shall
be decisive of any motion or election.
Section E. There shall be no vote by proxy.
Section F. Time shall be made available during all regular meetings for open public discussion.
Section G. Minutes of all meetings shall be prepared and distributed to the City Council within
three (3) weeks of the meeting in the manner prescribed by the Council. Minutes of all regular and
special meetings will be mailed to all the Commission members during the week prior to the next
meeting. Specific recommendations for the Council shall be set off from the main body of the
minutes.
ARTICLE 6 AMENDMENTS
Section A. The By -Laws of the Commission shall be amended only with the approval of at least a
majority of the Commission (at least five votes) at a regular meeting or a special meeting.
Section B. Policy changes or By -Law changes may be adopted at the meeting following the
meeting at which open discussion was conducted on the specific changes.
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JUNE 23, 2022 — 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Karol Krotz, Elizabeth
Marilla-Kapp, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nasr Mohammed, Peter Nkumu,
STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Ellen McCabe, Zachary Slocum
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 16,2022:
Vogel moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 2022, Krotz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and
the minutes were approved 6-0 (Reedus not present for the vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DISCUSS THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTION PLAN DRAFT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RELATED TO HCDC:
Drabek noted in the agenda packet there was quite a bit of information that pertains to a historical
discussion the Commission had on the preliminary recommendations.
Vogel noted he watched Hightshoe's presentation about the plans put together for Council to act on and
thinks they hit important notes. One thing that struck him odd was there's one section about how staff
should really make recommendations to HCDC before discussions, and he thought that was weird
because staff has always given recommendations to the Commission and there has never been a
decision without a recommendation from staff. He stated there was also some discussion about wanting
HCDC to be more transparent.
Drabek noted Kubly may have historical information on that because staff may have not always made
recommendations to the Commission. Kubly confirmed that for Aid to Agencies, which they haven't gone
through in about three years, and will this fall, staff hasn't historically given recommendations for
that program. Additionally in one of the more recent rounds of funding staff gave recommendations but
the Commission chose to ignore the recommendations. With CDBG and HOME funding cycles, staff has
historically always given a recommendation in that way or another.
Reedus noted at one of her first meetings she brought it up because she just thought it was foolish not to
have staff give their thoughts on things.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 23, 2022
Page 2 of 9
Dennis added historically, as someone who's been involved in the process for many years, there was a
time where the Commission said they didn't want staff recommendations, but she agrees it's very
important, the staff are hired because they're educated and experienced and they know the rules. This is
a volunteer commission and other commissions such as planning and zoning have staff
recommendations, so it's a great recommendation and this was noted because historically it wasn't done.
Vogel noted overall he thought the plan is great, obviously now it's going to come down to Council and
staff having to figure out all the parts, finding the funding and making it work, a three percent increase
every year is fantastic. From the private landlord side the discussion of the risk mitigation fund to help
offset some of those risk concerns from landlords who don't take Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) is very
important, the Greater Iowa City Apartment Association has been beating that drum for 10-15 years. He
also loved the discussion of the LIHTC (Low -Income Housing Tax Credit) about taking away the zoning
requirements if it's on a certain arterial road that it doesn't have to go through a secondary request that
fits affordable housing, he likes the fact that they are talking about expansion to four bedrooms, the
national level is four or five but Iowa City has ruled that LIHTC can be more than three which he can
attest to how many families they cannot house because there are more than six people in the family and
he can't put them in a three bedroom.
Marilla-Kapp asked about the other issues in this letter about how the funding is allocated and the
inconsistent scoring or lack of experience and other items in the second of the two recommendations
about HCDC.
Drabek stated to share a brief history basically it refers to the Aid to Agencies funding, which is now done
every two years, there's usually some sort of imbalance in the amount of funds so the Commission has to
decide what to do with the rest of the money and this becomes contentious in do they give it all to the
high scoring agencies or do they spread it evenly. He believes that was a recommendation that they set
some sort of consistent process for that which he would agree with and would recommend strongly that
the Commission do that next time they do Aid to Agencies funding.
Reedus asked if that that recommendation was referring to Aid to Agencies or the HOME funds. Vogel
stated they didn't specify it was just a vague mention in Hightshoe's presentation, it might be more
specified in the report. Reedus is not going to disagree and does think there are problems with the
scoring and the funding and having been on the other side of the table for years she has had tremendous
issues with decisions that this commission has made about who to start with, why be a high priority
agency if the commissioners were going to decide to start with a low priority, but that's an Aid to Agencies
issue and she hopes they can tackle that next year because that's the reason she's here.
Kubly confirmed the things Reedus has mentioned, things that have happened in the past such as
agencies wanting to know how the scoring is going to take place is where that recommendation is coming
from. For example, the Human Rights Commission have it set for the highest score to get the full
requested allocation and they just work their way down with the scores whereas with CDBG and HOME
this Commission might weigh other factors. So Kubly agrees this recommendation is mostly from Aid to
Agencies, but the Commission would have to decide how they want to score. Kubly also noted that at
the next meeting in July they are going to review the scoring criteria and the application for Aid to
Agencies because that's starting up soon so those decisions will have to be made next month ahead of
that funding round.
Vogel stated he ignored both the recommendations entirely because if they have a committee of people
who are going to sit down and have discussions as a community as to making the best decisions there
can never be a completely non -subjective scoring system that just outlines well if this rule happens than
this is the score. He has been on this Commission for a couple years and has never seen the
Commission not be able to come to some kind of common agreement. Maybe that's not historically true
and in the past, there may have been other problems, but even in those times that they have made some
decisions to give money maybe to some of the lower scores because they want to give them a chance, in
every single in situation, even the ones he didn't always agree with, it was the right thing to do as a
committee. Vogel acknowledged he is coming from standpoint having never had to be out here begging
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 23, 2022
Page 3 of 9
this committee for money, so he has never had to feel let down or cheated or screwed over because of a
decision, he's coming from purely a citizens committee member viewpoint of they're sitting here and trying
to make the best decisions to recommend a Council for how money is spent.
Drabek agrees they can't specify every rule in every scenario but there is one specific scenario that
they've and a couple people have mentioned, which is to specify how to how to deal with the Aid to
Agency money.
Reedus remembers something Vogel stated at a recent meeting that if the City really wants to help take a
look affordable housing they should look at the approval process for zoning permits so the City could help
landlords make it a little bit cheaper to rent out housing, which is something she learned from him
because she doesn't know the housing side. That being said she does not like to hear that a funding
process is junk because it's not just begging for money but it's livelihood and last month she specifically
asked the agencies what they were paying their employees in effort to keep employees. For example
Shelter House went from a pre -pandemic rate of $11/hour to a post -pandemic rate of $15/hour. That is a
40% increase and it's got to come from somewhere and this Commission has a responsibility to take a
good hard look at that, they can't be just a group of citizens. If they need help in in figuring out how to
come up with the best funding model possible and how to make those decisions, then they should get
some training. The agencies are counting on this Commission for money.
Vogel doesn't disagree, his statement is what they have been doing is learning from each other, he has
learned from Reedus and Dennis about what matters to these agencies and it does help him make
decisions. His statement is simply the way it was presented was that this Commission just subjectively
randomly throw dice into a bowl and that's the way it was presented in that presentation. He simply
ignored that part of the presentation because he has sat here for two years and listened and had
agencies and professionals come here and explain why things are important. Reedus apologized for
misunderstanding Vogel's statement.
Dennis noted last year she was impressed how the Commission really tried to get it as non -subjective as
possible and that's the message they can get to Hightshoe and to Council. The truth is it's never going to
be perfect because they don't have enough money but she noted it's much improved over the last 30
years.
Reedus stated one of the things that she has found helpful is having the agencies come in and give
progress reports, but even for the ones they've just funded she would like to see some regular reports,
maybe quarterly, they could be written reports or some sort of synopsis, but it would be good to see what
an agency is doing versus what they said they were going to do. She acknowledged there are always
changes, and City staff is really good about creating contracts for agencies with a little bit of wiggle room
but she'd like to see regular reports if they are hitting the markers they said when applying for the money.
Dennis agreed with Reedus on making sure projects they fund are working on time and hitting their
markers however she thinks that's the job of the staff and that when staff have concerns they bring it to
the Commission. Staff is receiving the quarterly reports and monitoring the projects and it's not this
Commission's role to monitor every applicant every quarter.
Reedus agrees and said it could just be a brief report, she just has serious some serious concerns about
some of the applicants and whether they can meet their milestones. She doesn't have to see the
quarterly reports but perhaps just a staff report each month with a little bit of information about whether
some of the projects are hitting their milestones.
Kubly suggested the year-end reports that staff collects would be more helpful than quarterly if that's
something the Commission wants to see, staff can put those on the website or get them to the
Commission otherwise. Kubly did stated for Aid to Agencies she looks at the quarterly reports before she
gives their next payment to make sure they're reporting and still doing everything they said they would.
Staff then gets year-end reports from those agencies and prepares a report showing how many they've
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 23, 2022
Page 4 of 9
served. Reedus felt that would be helpful to see. Kubly noted the fiscal year is ending at the end of this
month so in a month or two she'll have all those reports and be able to share.
Dennis stated back to the Affordable Housing Action Plan she wanted to go on record to say it would be
really wonderful if they would get rid of the affordable housing location model. Vogel noted that was
recommendation number one and he agrees wholeheartedly.
Drabek noted he felt both recommendations that applied to this Commission were good, the first one
they've already been trying to implement which is that they see staff scores before they do the
CDBG/HOME allocations. The second recommendation, so far as it applies to Aid to Agencies, he would
encourage this Commission to implement some sort of process for that. He agreed with every word of
what the recommendations say about this Commission with the notable exception of the following
sentence: discrepancies with staff scores should be included in the final recommendations to City
Council. Drabek stated no they shouldn't, absolutely not, if this Commission is functioning properly they
will have already considered staff scores when making a recommendation to Council. The Commission
receives the staff score, do their own scores, have a discussion and recommendations are then send to
Council. He would encourage the Commission to not send staff scores to Council as it's just going to put
the Commission in conflict with staff.
Kubly stated it may not necessarily be the scoring that's really the situation with staff but there have been
a couple instances and projects that this Commission has reviewed where staff had to recapture funding
where staff recommended against the project and spent a year and hours and hours of staff time on this
project to not have any accomplishments or any outcome or any spending. So if there's a discrepancy in
staffs making a recommendation against a project she thinks Council should be considering that because
it's based on staff's knowledge of the federal programs and the timelines and the capacity of the agency.
It's not really the scoring in particular but there are certain things that staff is looking and they know if a
project might not be able to move forward. Kubly stated staff will have a memo with their
recommendations explaining things that can't really be seen just from the score so the Commission would
have that information.
Drabek stated he could see there being a case for sharing a specific staff recommendation against
funding a particular agency on certain grounds, that makes sense and that's defensible, he just wouldn't
send all staff scores and wouldn't send all recommendations.
Dennis noted Council gets all of the Commission minutes so they can read and see the scores and
recommendations and discussions.
Vogel agrees, if Council is actually going to look at a recommendation comes from this Commission that
staff disagrees with, the implication there is that these people are dumb and made a wrong decision and
Council should go with staff, that is the implication, and that's exactly what happens with Planning and
Zoning. If Council wants to know staff scores they can absolutely at any point email Kubly or Thul and
ask.
Reedus noted however if there are real concerns about an application from staff this Commission needs
to heed those recommendations so that there are not issues in the future, and if not then staff should go
to Council and Council should probably override it.
Zachary Slocum noted that looking through the Action Plan it clearly states here's what an individual is
able to pay based on SSI or what a single person can pay for a one -bedroom apartment whereas prices
in Iowa City continually go up because brand new buildings are being built and those have brand new
appliances and he is just curious with this new affordable housing plan how the Council plans on bringing
about more affordable housing, is it through generating better practices with construction, especially with
the City trying to become more green and taking that into account as well. So what is the plans with
building brand new construction and making it affordable to people coming in because the City is just
growing and running out of housing. How do they plan on building brand new sustainable housing for
everybody, especially considering the population is only continuing to rise within the community.
4
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 23, 2022
Page 5 of 9
Vogel noted that's a great question to ask the people who put the plan together which was not this
Commission.
Krotz agrees, they come back to all the time the word affordable and that is so subjective in itself, there
are many people who don't make enough money to be able to afford the fair market rent which is what
HUD puts out and so many landlords who have obtained tax financing for their buildings and then in
return they have so many low-income units but if they put it at the fair market rental rate, which right now
is $803, there's still a lot of people who can't pay that.
Vogel did acknowledge if one goes through this whole packet they did get input from the home builders
association, they did get ICAR input, and there is a lot of discussion about exactly what Slocum is talking
about like putting money into "age -in" properties for people who want to be able to stay and how they
make those changes so they don't have to get pushed out because now they need handicap. There are a
lot of discussion about that and recommendations made to Council in the packet for development
recommendations that address those issues as well as getting rid of that affordable housing location
model that says they can only build in these specific spots and making some allowances for additional
dwelling units (ADUs) which right now Iowa City has a very restrictive policy but that is addressed in the
packet.
REVIEW BY-LAWS AND DISCUSS PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE AN HCDC MEMBER WITH
NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE:
Drabek noted this is a discussion of adding a potential amendment to Article 4 Section B which is the
list of um requirements for members of this Commission. They can't vote on it yet because it has to
appear on two agendas, so this is the first discussion.
Reedus reiterated this is regarding Article 4 Section B, membership, where it talks about the specific
appointments of individuals and when possible at least one person with the expertise in finance, expertise
in construction, one person who receives rental assistance, and she thought she had seen something
else where they wanted somebody like Vogel with a background in housing, which she finds helpful and
has learned actually quite a bit. This was last amended in 2017, which was about five years ago, and her
suggestion is for the Commission to consider adding a person with non-profit management experience.
Reedus thinks it's helpful to have somebody with a non-profit background on here because there are
unique circumstances and learning that somebody has with a non-profit and a lot of the work is in terms
of making decisions about non-profit budgets and funding approvals.
Reedus also wanted to point out when they did emergency agency awards one of her big questions was
with regard to the lack of submission of any funding from other municipalities or other sources and it
looked like a hundred percent of the funds were going to come from Iowa City to do work in Johnson
County and it was something she could easily identify because she had done so many applications over
the years. And that's why she feels it's helpful having somebody from non-profit management
experience, who's written funding requests, to be here to give a different perspective.
Krotz agrees with Reedus that this would be very beneficial to this Commission to have that kind of
expertise because a non-profit person does have a special understanding of all the inner workings and
day-to-day things of non -profits and can take a look at things in a more unique way such as what the
strengths are in terms of completing projects that they're applying for funding.
Marilla-Kapp asked when the agencies are applying, especially the emerging agencies, how much
support the Commission or the staff gives those applicants in the application process in terms of grant
application fluency, a lot of folks don't have the capacity to submit the best grant application but do have
the capacity to do the project that they're proposing. If this Commission offers support of that kind to
prospective applicants she thinks having folks with that experience in support roles for prospective
applicants could be great.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 23, 2022
Page 6 of 9
Reedus stated the Commission does not give that support, nor is there much support in the community
either, they used to do some leadership trainings five or six years ago but that went away. She thought
Community Foundation was going to do some training surrounding grant applications. However, being on
the other side now, making decisions, she isn't bothered by lack of information on applications, she will
just ask questions, and she doesn't believe the agencies feel like that, they get an opportunity to speak to
the Commission.
Dennis noted staff also offers training before the CDBG/HOME applications are due. Kubly confirmed but
noted not for Aid to Agencies because that's through the joint funding process, but for the other programs
staff does a workshop or an orientation. Dennis doesn't think it would be the role of the Commission to
provide support on application preparation and then decide who's going to get the money because that's
sort of thing that can get muddy.
Vogel stated if they are going to add in a clause of "whenever possible have someone from the non-profit
sector" can they also add "when possible a member shall come from the private residential property
management side". Others agreed that would be a good addition as well.
Drabek noted if they are looking for categories one that jumped out to him is an immigrant seat on the
Commission as a group he would include.
Reedus said that can be brought up as she wants to also discuss Section A of the bylaws, diversity.
Vogel noted that part of this Commission's responsibilities as well is to go over those regularly and make
recommendations to the public housing authority and community development division and to
recommend to City Council from time -to -time amendments, supplements, or changes and modifications to
the Iowa City Housing Code, which is what he is dealing with on a daily basis as a residential property
manager. Whether it's how many square feet of occupancy they need or how many parking spaces they
have in order to get four people in a house versus three or how many times a year houses with more than
four units get inspected, why is it every two years but if a duplex or a single-family property now has
inspections every year. These types of discussions all tie into affordability, landlords who have seen their
inspection costs double in the last three years will raise their rents. Also when talking about building
properties, it's way easier to build it in Coralville because they inspect the place once and then don't show
up again unless there's a complaint.
Dennis suggested they change it to "when possible a property manager" it doesn't have to be private
sector. Vogel would be fine with just using the phrase property management.
Krotz just wanted to point out with regards to inspections, the low-income renters, especially the lowest
lowest of the income, won't make a complaint because they need their housing and if they complain the
chance of retaliation is very high and so a lot of times renters won't complain about something even if it's
a really major issue. Vogel wasn't suggesting changing to only inspecting when there are complaints, he
was pointing out that up until two years ago every property in Iowa City was on an every two year
inspection schedule and then two years ago they switched to single family and duplex being every year
so there is an issue of increased cost, increased manpower, especially for those in the property
management, and having to raise fees which causes rents to be raised due to the additional time and
work which then has an effect on affordable housing.
Reedus wanted to move onto a conversation that was had post -meeting with staff where she thought she
had read someplace that there was reimbursements for expenses like parking or something like that. The
section she is questioning is: all members shall be qualified electors in the City of Iowa City and shall
serve as such without compensation but shall be entitled to necessary expenses including travel
expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties so to her that could include parking and
accommodating individuals. If they wish to have a diverse population, they may have a language barrier,
a transportation barrier, childcare barrier and she thinks the City should be encouraging people of all
diversity and any individual to participate in the commission process and the City would help with any
accommodations that they would need that might preclude them being on the commission. Therefore,
11
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 23, 2022
Page 7 of 9
Reedus thought that maybe they could make a statement about promoting diversity and inclusion of
individuals with different kinds of backgrounds, whether that's race or ethnicity or even just a single mom
who needs childcare assistance. Is this something other commissions do.
Kubly stated this came up with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and did go to Council and they
opted not to provide funding. Reedus stated that was a totally different issue, they wanted to be paid a
salary and she is suggesting something entirely different and thinks the City should be doing this
Commission -wide city-wide. It would be helpful if somebody doesn't have transportation and has to take
a bus but can't afford the bus fare, why can't the City reimburse for that.
Thul think the City may do that and can look into it. Reedus asked if they can extend that to other things.
Dennis points out the language does state necessary expenses including travel expenses so the current
language would allow for it. Thul is unsure about other expenses but in the time that she's been here
there were discussions of City provided reimbursement for a bus ticket or similar. Reedus would like it to
be better spelled out if it's beyond just travel expenses and that's where that inclusion comes in.
Thul will take information based on the discussion today and flesh out something for next month's agenda
packet to discuss and vote on, she can also get some details on any travel reimbursement info and bring
that to the next meeting.
Dennis next wanted to discuss Article 4 Section F of the bylaws. Because she was appointed to the
committee to fill an unexpired term it states: in such manner that the appointee shall continue in the
position not only through the unexpired term but also through a subsequent regular term but she had to
reapply. Thul believes Council tries to give preference to people that didn't get a full term. Dennis notes
the language makes it sound like she didn't have to reapply. Kubly stated that Council has the discretion.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Marilla-Kapp reviewed last month's Council meetings starting with the June 61h meeting where there was
a lot of the public comment was about the recent video circulating of the ICPD using force on a young
woman. Marilla-Kapp noted she thinks this is connected to the Commission's work in so far as
houselessness and rapid development of certain kinds gentrification are linked to over policing. Councilor
Bergus was the only member of Council to address the incident and to remind the Council of their
commitment in the summer of 2020 to change the equation regarding law enforcement funding relative to
social services funding in the community which directly impacts activities here. Council also mentioned in
that meeting that inflation is hitting City projects including those relevant to this committee,
Escucha Mievos talked about their constituents' experiences accessing direct payments funded in part by
City ARPA funds and barriers to completion of the application. Marilla-Kapp suspects that some of that
direct payment did go to housing for folks experiencing housing insecurity. City Council voted to deny the
Catholic Worker House a social and racial equity grant for a Spanish language newsletter and education
around political engagement. Marilla-Kapp explained the Catholic Worker House serves folks
experiencing houselessness and are now offering showers and food and also coordinate protective
accompaniments for those facing deportation defense and basic needs like food and rental assistance.
The second meeting Marilla-Kapp reviewed was Tuesday June 21 st and much of the public comment was
around preservation of the Robert E Lee pool which is related to this Commission's work in that it's helpful
to consider what kinds of public amenities will or won't exist in neighborhoods where new affordable
housing is being developed. Similarly there were discussions around the bike and pedestrian trail along
Highway 6 in southeast Iowa City and connectivity there for modes of transportation other than vehicles.
Then there were several items related to approval of the FY23 Annual Action Plan part of City Steps
2025 and the City passed resolutions based on this Commission's recommendations for FY2023 CDBG
and HOME projects as well as FY23 Aid to Agencies. Council members had questions about why there
are so few applications for the emerging Aid to Agencies grants which were answered by staff who noted
that adjusted for inflation these programs have lost funding over the years and showed a graph about
trends and funding for these programs. Council concluded noting it will be a difficult upcoming budgeting
7
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 23, 2022
Page 8 of 9
year and that programs should expect their budgets not necessarily to grow in accordance with the stated
goals for growth.
STAFF UPDATES:
Thul gave a couple updates, first the next meeting will be July 21 st and at that meeting they'll do officer
nominations and welcome two new members. At that meeting they will also review the Aid to Agencies
process looking at the application materials. Staff initially intended to have HOME -ARP on today's
agenda. The HOME -ARP money is supplemental funding that the City received somewhat similar to the
annual HOME funding but a larger pot of money with different rules. The City received applications in last
week and had some IT issues and weren't able to fully review them so staff pushed it back a month to
have more time to review. Additionally, staff is also learning that the State has some HOME -ARP money
which may require a local match so they want to make sure that the applicants are able to access that
State funding and might have to consider that in the allocations.
Thul acknowledged this is Drabek and Nkumu last meeting and thanked them for their time on HCDC.
ADJOURNMENT:
Dennis moved to adjourn, Reedus seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
8
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 23, 2022
Page 9 of 9
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Name
Terms Exp.
8/19
9/16
10/21
11/18
1/20
2/17
3/24
5/18
6/23
Beining, Kaleb
' 6/30/24
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Drabek, Matt
6/30/22
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dennis, Maryann
6/30/22
-- --
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Krotz, Karol
6/30/24
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- -
X
X
Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth
j
1 6/30/23
1
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
X
Mohammed, Nasr
6/30/23
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
Nkumu, Peter
6/30/22
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
Reedus, Becci
6/30/24
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vogel, Kyle
6/30/23
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Attendance Record 2021-2022
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JULY 28, 2022 — 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Jennifer Haylett, Elizabeth Marilla-Kapp,
Nasr Mohammed, Becci Reedus
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karol Krotz, Kyle Vogel
STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends Council increase United Action for Youth funding from
$30,000 to $45,000 with the $15,000 increase coming from the HOME -ARP reserve funds.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends Council approve the HOME -ARP Allocation Plan with the
$15,000 increase for United Action for Youth.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of the FY24 Aid to Agencies Application
Materials with the understanding that requested changes to Form A and Form B will be sent to United
Way.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of the ICHA Annual Plan to Council.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends Council approve the amendment to the HCDC By -Laws as
written in agenda item #9 with the addition that "nonprofit experience" be changed to "nonprofit
management experience".
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Beining called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 23,2022:
Dennis moved to approve the minutes of June 23, 2022. Mohammed seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the minutes were approved 6-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS:
Beining welcomed new member Haylett. Haylett noted she has lived in Iowa City for 8 years and she is
an associate professor of instruction in the department of sociology and criminology.
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 28, 2022
Page 2 of 8
OFFICER NOMINATIONS:
Reedus nominated Dennis as Vice Chair, Marilla-Kapp seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the
motion passed 6-0.
Dennis nominated Beining as Chair, Reedus seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion
passed 6-0.
DISCUSS HOME -ARP ALLOCATION PLAN AND CONSIDER BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL:
Kubly explained the City received about almost 1.8 million dollars in HOME -ARP funds through the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) but this isn't the ARPA funds that the City received this is a separate
pool of money was received because the City is HOME funding recipients, but it did come out of the same
federal act. Eligible activities are development and support of affordable housing, tenant -based rent
assistance, provision of supportive services, and acquisition and development of non -congregate shelter
units. Kubly stated when they do HOME projects such as a rental project they're typically serving
someone under 60% of the area median income so they're looking at income as the qualifying factor that
makes them eligible for the program, however these HOME -ARP funds have a phrase called qualifying
population so it's not technically based on income but the eligibility is people experiencing homelessness,
or at risk of homelessness, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stopping human trafficking
and other populations with high risk of housing instability. Some of the HOME rules are the same and
some of them are very different so staff developed an allocation plan and that's what they must submit to
HUD in order to get the funds. A portion of the money is going to be for the City staff who's administering
the programs and then for the rest of it they did an application process for people to apply for those funds.
Kubly stated they ended up getting four applications, Shelter House with supportive services for
permanent support housing, Iowa Legal Aid for legal services to increase housing stability, Domestic
Violence Intervention Program for construction of the shelter that they're building, and then United Action
for Youth applied for their transitional living program. Staff scored the applications and made a funding
recommendation which is within the allocation plan, staff is looking for a recommendation of the plan as a
whole but also if the Commission has edits to the allocation staff is open to hearing about that as well.
The process for this plan was staff had to do some consultation with agencies that serve the qualifying
populations and they started at the local homeless coordinating board and talked to all those agencies
and then had some consultations with various agencies outside of that. Staff also completed a needs
assessment and gap analysis and identified what gaps there are in services and how they can fill those
gaps. Kubly included the scoring criteria that staff used and how they got those scores and how they
allocated it in the agenda packed. Cassie Gripp is administering these funds and she wrote a memo of
the thought process as staff were evaluating the projects. The next step would be to take this
recommendation from the Commission to City Council for approval and then submit it to HUD and with
their approval the City could start the projects.
Dennis asked if the budget received is set in stone because the amount that was budgeted for non -
congregate shelter was $500,000 but DVIP applied for $750,000 so is that okay? Kubly explained their
recommendation was $500,000 for that project based on the scores. Dennis acknowledged that but
could they apply for $750,000 when there is only $500,000 in that fund. Kubly explained when they
solicited the applications, they did not have the money into different categories, they did that after they
received the applications. Kubly also mentioned they have about $300,000 in reserves because the State
has HOME -ARP and they're offering if Iowa City organizations want to apply for State funding, they need
to have a local match, so staff set aside money to leverage that State funding down the road. The state is
not ready to do their process yet, but staff is thinking that an agency might need a local allocation to
obtain that State money.
Marilla-Kapp stated the only question she had was whether that was the reason for giving those two
agencies with lower scores a percentage of their request, is that a standard way of operating that an
agency would get a percentage rather than the total based on scores. Kubly responded if the City has
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 28, 2022
Page 3of8
the funds to use then and projects were eligible, they'd probably fully fund everything, they just also
wanted to make sure that they had a sufficient pot to match the State money.
Dennis asked if the applicants here could apply for State funds and Kubly confirmed that is correct, if it
was a separate project that the City didn't already fund locally, they wouldn't be eligible unless the City
gave them local HOME -ARP money.
Reedus asked if both the DVIP and Shelter House are projects that the Commission funded just a couple
months ago. Kubly believes so, the DVIP shelter construction was given $425,000 in CDBG money for
the same project and for Shelter House this is for the 501 project for operational expenses.
Reedus noted for United Action for Youth, she is a little troubled by them, number one they're the lowest
score and they're only getting half their recommendations - $30,000. She understands that they scored
low because they didn't specifically identify homeless youth as a subpopulation with greatest need, did
staff reach out to them to ask if that was a mistake or is it that homeless youth are not going to be the
population served. Kubly stated they would be serving homeless youth or at risk of being homeless youth
but when staff did their consultation that wasn't one of the strongest needs identified.
Mohammed asked why these applications are only graded by the staff and not by the Commissioners.
Kubly replied because this is funding that the City doesn't typically get, and it was more of a timing issue.
It is a complicated program but if the Commission felt strongly about wanting to score these applications,
they could defer this and do that process.
Reedus asked if it would it be a problem if the Commission wanted to move United Action for Youth up to
$45,000 and take $15,000 from one of the other large pots. Kubly noted they could do that, but staff cut it
in half because they were doing two different properties and with half, they would be able to serve one
property. She is sure that they could work with additional funds and maybe serve an additional
household so that would be an option. They could take it from the reserves and still have about
$300,000.
Marilla-Kapp asked if they have had other agencies reach out after this application process to suggest
that they might want to pursue that reserve pool or is it just for in case they're not disqualified from the
State. Kubly replied they did have a couple agencies reach out and if the City ends up not getting any
requests for a local match with State funds, they could just do another funding round.
Dennis noted DVIP has to raise a lot of money to do this project and so what's the timeline to commit the
funds and then to have them expended for the HOME -ARP funding. Kubly stated they have until
September 2030 to spend these funds, but the plan is to try to keep within the HOME statutory
requirements of a two-year commitment and a four-year completion.
Dennis stated she is comfortable with the staff recommendation and also supports adding $15,000 to
UAY. She did ask with the UAY teen mom transitional housing aren't those residents of those homes
considered homeless because it's really transitional housing. Kubly confirmed they would be homeless or
at risk of homelessness, which shows a need and meeting the criteria and definitely be eligible for the
HOME -ARP funds, but staff was trying to tie it the needs assessment to what they heard that was the
greatest need in the community.
Reedus moved to recommend that Council increase United Action for Youth funding from $30,000
to $45,000 with the $15,000 increase coming from the HOME -ARP reserve funds. Dennis seconded
the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Dennis moved to recommend that Council approve the HOME -ARP Allocation Plan with the
$15,000 increase for United Action for Youth. Marilla-Kapp seconded the motion, a vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0.
3
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 28, 2022
Page 4 of 8
REVIEW AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FY24 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATION
MATERIALS:
Beining noted the packet includes proposed application materials for FY24 Aid to Agencies and a staff
memo on the upcoming process.
Reedus asked if the recommendation was that they're not going to make any changes to the Legacy
Agency process this year. Thul confirmed the staff recommendation was to go through the process with
the current scoring criteria once to see if there are flaws or things that they'd want to change in the future.
Staff felt that the scoring process hadn't truly been tested yet.
Reedus noted this is a joint funding application and she knows recommendations have been made for
United Way to change it and it never gets changed. Reedus wants to know if they are wasting their time
by making recommendations and asked if the City has the ability to get the changes made to the
application. Thul confirmed the City met with United Way and that they can make changes to the
application itself. Reedus has two things on the application, on page 7, agency demographics, those
should be program specific and there are some agencies that are so small that they only have one
program that they're asking their money for because everything they do is dedicated to the one mission.
An example of that might be Big Brothers Big Sisters or the Free Lunch Program. And then there are
other agencies that are very large and have different programs they support, for example Community has
one side of its agency dedicated to crisis intervention and the other side dedicated to food insecurity and
then there's another side dedicated to financial assistance, so asking for agency demographics can be
difficult. The information that's presented in an application should help the decision maker to make the
best decision possible about how to allocate funds and if she sees that the numbers are substantially
increased in a program that they've been funding because of specific need. Again, using Community as
an example, right now housing and food insecurity are huge issues, the cost of groceries is going up and
she is interested to see what they are are looking at in terms of numbers. And there may be another
agency or program that they're funding that may be stagnant, or their numbers may be dropping and
that's going to play a part for her and how she wants to recommend funding. Reedus feels they should
be asking for program specific information and not for demographics on the whole agency, just the
demographic for the specific project.
Marilla-Kapp asked if, when they allocate the Legacy Agency funding, are they limiting the funds to
certain programs or are they allocating to programs as they see fit? Reedus replied yes and no, an
agency will ask for specific program requests and an agency like the Free Lunch Program that's basically
all they do is do the lunch so it could go to operating expenses and it's fine to get statistics or data from
the Free Lunch Program that's whole agency because that's what they're funding, but when they're
funding a specific program within a larger agency - she would like to see the data from that specific
program to see if the funding is going to make an impact.
Kubly noted on the next page of the budget the applicant can select the level of the budget is agency
level or program specific and then county specific. Reedus still wants to see program specific numbers,
this application should be giving the information that's going to help the Commission make the best
decision and if housing has become an increased need or domestic violence numbers have increased,
and they need more money, she'd rather be able to say 'this is why' she chose to give an increase to that
agency and decrease another agency. It has never made sense to her why they do these agency wide
demographics - plus some agencies have no ability or choose not to share that information. There's at
least one organization that doesn't gather that kind of information. Again, citing Community as an
example, if they ask for money for the food bank and they did agency -wide numbers they're going to see
numbers that go up in the thousands not because of food bank but because of crisis intervention calls, so
that information is absolutely useless if it isn't program specific.
4
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 28, 2022
Page 5 of 8
Dennis asked if agencies often apply for operational funds. Reedus noted they can. Dennis asked then
what budget they would use. Reedus noted something like Free Lunch Program would do their whole
agency budget. Reedus also noted that it does ask applicants to identify budget type - agency level,
program specific, or county specific. Maybe having those at the top of the agency demographics would be
good too and an explanation that says to them - the Commission wants to see the numbers for the
program which they are applying. Reedus also noted if they want to look at whole agency numbers, then
they have to provide unduplicated numbers or raw data because not all agencies can collect the
demographics.
Reedus also wanted to know from staff knowledge, do all agencies provide quality indicators in both the
application and the quarterly reports? Kubly stated everyone does the quarterly reports and staff reviews
those, they do quarterly payments for the Legacy Agencies, and they review the first quarter report before
doing the second quarter allocation.
Reedus noted another area where information isn't gathered well - maybe because the agencies don't
understand how to do it, or they just don't do it in a uniform manner. Page 6, which is the agency salaries
and benefits. Reedus believes it would be helpful to see what agencies aren't paying livable salaries and
feels that they should be asking the questions about why they aren't paying livable salaries. Also, not all
agencies are providing benefits and that's a shame too because that just further pushes people into
poverty. The objective is to fund programs to stop homelessness and poverty and some of the agencies
are just pushing their people further into it.
Thul noted if commissioners feel they need more information from the agencies based on the
submissions received, they can always ask for follow-up at the q&a session.
Reedus stated that she is not a fan of the application and feels that it is long and tedious. She noted it
was her least favorite things to do every year when she was a director.
Marilla-Kapp want to second the attention to the salaries and benefits, she thinks the direct service jobs in
the community are some of the hardest and lowest paid. It's not just about quality of life for the
employees, but it also impacts client care when there is so much turnover due to these not being
sustainable jobs to stay in, and that's not good for the folks most impacted.
Reedus also stated regarding budgets, she will be interested in reserve funds and if they have plans for
those kinds of things. Those are questions she can probably ask either after she reviews applications or
at the q&a.
Dennis asked, when the applications are turned in, if an agency is only asking for money from the Iowa
City - do those applications come directly to the City? Kubly confirmed they all go into an online system
and the City can take out the ones that only apply to Iowa City.
Kubly understand the reasoning of what they are saying but asked what specific change commissioners
would like to see on the actual application.
Reedus shared that agencies use the information submitted on this application to scan salary levels to
determine if they are paying competitively. Boards use this information to determine starter salaries.
When you don't get all the information, it really skews the data. Reedus feels they need everyone to
complete the form the same way.
Dennis has an issue with listing the actual salaries - she would rather see a salary range because, for
example, an executive director that's been there for a long time will likely have a salary higher than
another executive director that was newly hired. Reedus noted a lot of agencies don't have ranges for
those top positions. Reedus understands it could be a salary range - she is just asking to make it uniform
so it's useful. It's not useful as it is right now. Dennis agrees it's helpful for direct care staff and feels it
would make sense to know if direct care staff are hired in at $15 an hour or whatever with no benefits.
Reedus noted some agencies do averages and that's helpful, however, United Way has been getting
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 28, 2022
Page 6 of 8
4
these for a long time and it has never been applied consistently. Reedus feels that there needs to be
added instructions or something that helps agencies figure out how to list this information. Or if too many
agencies say they don't want to give those salaries out, then stop asking for it so because some agencies
list salaries and others don't so it's just not helpful. Reedus is not holding her breath that staff will be able
to get any changes made to the application.
Thul asked for clarification. Instead of the chart, are they are looking for a narrative answering those
specific questions? Reedus confirmed they need added instructions and that they should be asking what
kind of cost -of -living increases are they giving, what concerns do they have about staffing levels, what's
the turnover, etc.
Mohammed doesn't understand how the salaries can affect the application and scoring. How much is a
good salary that they can consider it on the application? Reedus replied it's not what is considered a
good salary, it's more about if it's being asked, it needs to be answered consistently.
Marilla-Kapp noted it could affect scoring if they were paying their staff low salaries or a large disparity
between the leadership staff versus other staff.
Marilla-Kapp noted knowing the health insurance costs and what the total premium is relative to the
contribution of the agency for both individual and family is good to know as well. Reedus agreed, first ask
if they're offering insurance and then follow-up questions might be what the barriers are to doing that or if
they're offering it what their plan is in terms of agency or employee contribution. Reedus noted often low-
paying jobs get crappy insurance and that again pushes people further into poverty. Retirement is
another issue; she is really impressed with Iowa City that the non -profits here encourage retirement
plans, but it would be good to know if agencies participating in an IRA or 401 K.
Reedus believes this would be some really good information for not only this Commission to see, but also
to pass on to City Council to push to increase that pot of funds.
Reedus moved to recommend approval of the FY24 Aid to Agencies Application Materials with the
understanding that requested changes to Form A and Form B will be sent to United Way. Dennis
seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF IOWA CITY
HOUSING AUTHORITY ANNUAL PLAN FOR FFY22:
Kubly stated this is a report from last year from the Iowa City Housing Authority and she will highlight a
few things that are interesting. The Iowa City Housing Authority serves Johnson County, Iowa County
and Washington County north of Highway 92. They have about 1500 vouchers or units that they provide,
a majority of that is a standard housing choice voucher but they also have 95 veteran vouchers and 78
main -stream vouchers that serve non -elderly persons with a disabling condition currently experiencing
homelessness. Last year they received emergency housing vouchers and for 69 of those the City
partnered with Shelter House who selected those and make referrals through the coordinated entry
process. The project -based voucher report reflects Cross Park Place, there are 24 vouchers for the
residents in Cross Park Place and the City has added 36 project -based vouchers for the 501 Project
which is the second housing first project at Shelter House. Kubly noted that's not in this report because
that just happened this year. Moving on they have 86 standard site public housing units and then we
have 16 City -owned affordable housing units that they operate similar to public housing but are not
federally funded. 10 are out at the Peninsula and 6 are at Augusta Place which is on Iowa Avenue. 58%
of the clients are disabled or elderly head of households. Kubly next highlighted the Family Self -
Sufficiency Program explaining its benefit of being on a program, it acts as a savings account and as a
recipient's income increases and they can withdraw the funds for things, they set goals that they want to
become self-sufficient and then withdraw those funds to reach those goals. For example, if a goal is to
finish a degree but they need a laptop for class they can withdraw from escrow funds for that purpose or
another common one is someone's goal might be to maintain employment but their car broke down so
they could withdraw funds for car repairs. The average escrow savings account balance is $6370, she
It
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 28, 2022
Page 7 of 8
saw one recently that was like $55,000 which was really impressive. They also have a homeownership
program so people who have a voucher and meet certain criteria and are in a position they could convert
their voucher to homeownership, they've done 48 of those since 2003. The housing assistance payments
which are the monthly rent payments that go to landlords, they're expecting that to be about $8.3 million
for the calendar year 2022. The total housing choice voucher program is almost $9.7 million for the year
and then our public housing program is about $634,000.
Marilla-Kapp moved to recommend approval of the ICHA Annual Plan to Council. Dennis
seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL_ ON APPROVAL OF HCDC BY-LAWS
AMENDMENT:
Beining noted this item was based on discussion at the June meeting motion to recommend that Council
approve the amendment to the HCDC bylaws with the inclusion of the non-profit management
experience.
Thul noted that Krotz was not available to meet tonight, but that she passed her comments to staff. Krotz
felt that the "nonprofit experience" requirement should be changed to "nonprofit management
experience." Reedus agrees with that and wanted to ask about encouraging diversity in appointments.
Thul explained that all boards and commissions use the same application so if HCDC were to make
additional statements like some of what was discussed at the last meeting, then they would need to ask
additional questions on the application. For example, encouraging diversity in familial status was
mentioned, but the application doesn't necessarily collect that information. The language suggested was
drawn from the Human Rights Commission as a template.
Reedus moved to recommend that Council approve the amendment to the HCDC By -Laws as
written in agenda item #9 with the addition that "nonprofit experience" be changed to "nonprofit
management experience". Seconded by Dennis. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
STAFF & COMMISSION UPDATES:
Thul noted that there will not be an August meeting. By the September meeting, staff should have the
Legacy submissions in then. In September they will also review the CAPER.
Thul explained at the last meeting Commission members brought up travel reimbursements for board and
commissions and staff dug into that. Staff learned that in the past, the City has reimbursed for things like
events or trainings that are directly related to the work of the commission. At one point the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission did make a recommendation to Council to do more reimbursements for things
like childcare. Staff can put this on a future agenda if this Commission wants to do something similar and
make a recommendation to Council, but the decision is ultimately up to Council.
Finally, Thul noted there is another vacancy on HCDC because one of the new commission members
resigned due to employment at the City so that vacancy is reposted.
ADJOURNMENT:
Dennis moved to adjourn, Reedus seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 28, 2022
Page 8 of 8
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2022-2023
Name
Terms Exp.
7/21
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
Beining, Kaleb
6/30/24
X
Dennis, Maryann
6/30/25
X
Haylett, Jennifer
6/30/25
X
Krotz, Karol
6/30/24
O/E
Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth
6/30/23
X
Mohammed, Nasr
6/30/23
X
Reedus, Becci
6/30/24
X
Vogel, Kyle
6/30/23
O/E
Vacancy
---
---
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
N