Loading...
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