HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 2023 HCDC PacketIf you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at brianna-
thul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings
Regular: February 16, 2023
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (HCDC)
January 19, 2023
Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM
Iowa City Senior Center Assembly Room
28 S Linn Street
AGENDA:
1.Call to Order
2.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 17, 2022
3.Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda
Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 5 minutes. Commissioners
shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items.
4. Discuss FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies (A2A) Funding and Consider a Budget
Recommendation to City Council
Legacy A2A applications are available online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting,
HCDC will discuss funding allocations developed at the November meeting. HCDC will
consider a recommendation to City Council for FY24 Legacy A2A funding. City Council will
provide final funding allocations in May. Applicants are strongly encouraged to attend.
5.Discuss Creation of a Subcommittee to Review the Aid to Agencies Process
Commissioner Becci Reedus has requested that HCDC form a subcommittee to review the
Legacy Aid to Agencies process following the FY24 round. A similar request was submitted
by the Agency Impact Coalition. HCDC will discuss and consider the formation of a
subcommittee.
6.Proposed Changes to Audit Policy
Staff will provide an update on proposed changes to the City’s Audit Policy. Adjustments to
the Audit Policy will be presented to City Council in the spring.
7.Staff & Commission Updates
This item includes an opportunity for brief updates from staff and Commissioners.
Commissioners shall not engage in discussion on updates.
8.Adjournment
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 19, 2023 Meeting Packet Contents
Agenda Item #2
November 17, 2022 Draft HCDC Meeting Minutes
Agenda Item #4
HCDC FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies Draft Funding Recommendations
Completed HCDC Funding Worksheet from November 17, 2022 Meeting
November 1, 2022 Staff Memo - FY24 Aid to Agencies Staff Scores and Funding
Recommendations
Agenda Item #5
January 3, 2023 Memo to HCDC from Agency Impact Coalition Regarding Aid to
Agencies Process
July 9, 2019 Memo to HCDC from Agency Impact Coalition Regarding Aid to Agencies
Process
Agenda Item #7
Tentative Timeline for FY24 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies
Press Release for FY24 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies Funds
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 17, 2022 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Michael Eckhardt, Karol Krotz, Nasr
Mohammed, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jennifer Haylett
STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Genevieve Anglin (UAY), Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes), Sarah Barth
(CommUnity), Jon Brown (FLP), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House),
Charlie Eastham (CWJ), Scott Hawes (Habitat), Michelle Heinz (Inside
Out Reentry), Kai Kiser (FLP), Talia Meidlinger (UAY), Amy Miller
(CommUnity), Christi Regan (HACAP), Adam Robinson (RVAP), Nicki
Ross (Table to Table), Mazahir Salih (CWJ), Mark Sertterh (Shelter
House), Shel Stromquist (CWJ), Daleta Thurness (BBBSJC), Barbara
Vinograde (IC FMC)
PRESENT ON ZOOM: Kristie Fortmann-Doser (DVIP), Angie Meiers (CommUnity), Shelly Zabel
(Community and Family Resources)
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Beining called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 20, 2022:
Vogel moved to approve the minutes of October 20, 2022, Reedus seconded the motion. A vote was
taken, and the minutes were approved 6-0 (Mohammed not present for the vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
FY24 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES (A2A) FUNDING DISCUSSION:
Beining proposed that they look at the November HCDC funding template and start with the top scoring
agencies based on the HCDC average scores and work down the list so they can fill in the funding as
they go and come back through and make changes at the end as needed. He reminded the Commission
that they are not actually voting on these today, however if they can come to a consensus that will make
voting in the January meeting quicker. He noted that staff shared the November HCDC funding template,
and it looks like the highest scoring agency was Shelter House.
Beining noted for Shelter House it looks like they have 100% recommendation, and he feels that Shelter
House has done a good job of fulfilling on their obligations.
Agenda Item #2
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 2 of 13
2
Dennis agrees and thinks going with the top scores is the best way to proceed as there seems to be
consensus on several of the applications. She did have a question of if an agency minimum allocation
has to be $15,000. Kubly said it is a policy as it's in the consolidated plan.
Krotz asked for those that scored less than $15,000 do they get no funding then. Thul replied the
Commission could choose to not fund them or could fund them the minimum award amount of $15,000.
Reedus asked if they are allowed to spend over the recommended amount of $713,925. Thul responded
that staff estimated the total pot and then took the maximum amount for emerging agencies of 5%, which
came out to about $37,000. The last couple years, the standard pot for that has been allocated for
Emerging Agencies has been about $30,000 so staff made recommendations with the Emerging
Agencies budget at $30,000. This would free up some money for Legacy Agencies and make that total
budget would be $721,500.
Reedus remembers a funding round that they didn't spend all the money and questioned if that was
Emerging Agencies where they didn't spend the entire $30,000. Kubly noted whatever they don’t spend
on Emerging Agencies goes to the Legacy Agencies as a reallocation of that funding which can be done if
they want to spend less on Emerging Agencies.
Vogel noted his recommendation is if an agency is in the 90+ percentile, they fund them completely, and
everybody below 80%, give them the bare minimum. Everybody else in between he allocated from the
standard deviation of what he got on the mean, which is about 82% so those get funded at 82% of what is
requested.
Reedus stated she believes the problem is the application itself and that the application is so flawed and
until they correct that it makes this process difficult. A few months ago, the Commission went through the
application, there were very few recommendations to change, a lot of agencies cannot provide
demographics, because of the way they are set up, etc., and the application didn't get changed because
the United Way didn’t change it. She also absolutely will not support increasing funding to an agency by
taking it by taking away to another just because the score is higher, because she thinks that application
needs a lot of work.
Vogel noted every application deserves at least the bare minimum, they voted as a group to allow new
Legacy Agencies in and so that will take from the whole pot of money.
Reedus asked about the applications that were late, should they deserve the same allocations. Vogel
noted he took into consideration if they were late and they didn't get high scores, but they still get the bare
minimum.
Beining doesn’t think tonight is a good night to refine the application.
Reedus disagrees and feels she still has to give some consideration to the fact that the application
process is flawed, because it does not allow all agencies to put the kind of information about services that
they want to see and that's why they have to have the follow up questions. Using Table to Table as an
example, they don't fit that demographic in terms of reporting their numbers, but they provided substantial
information in follow up about their services. Reedus is not going to give them low scores because they
couldn't fill out that application because of the way that it's set up. The application is set up so that
everybody can't report accurately. She will not use the application scores as 100% indicative of an
agency should be receiving.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 3 of 13
3
Dennis understands the frustration about the application, but it is what they have to work with right now.
HCDC can work on changing it in the future if we want. For those of them who've been involved in this
process for some time it can hardly ever be 100% objective, people have different thoughts and different
relationships with different agencies. It’s a hard process to do, but we have what we have and that’s what
we need to work with.
Mohammed agrees with Vogel on funding the lower applications the bare minimum amount. Looking at
the other scoring criteria, an organization that joined as a Legacy, for example, doesn’t have more money
to leverage for the project so will get a lower score. Also, on the experience, if they didn’t get funded
previously by the City, they will also get a lower score and that will make it hard for the new organizations
to get funded. Mohammed asked for an explanation on how the leveraging funding formula works.
Kubly stated they looked at the amount they're requesting and the total budget and what percentage of
the total budget they are requesting, assuming that all the other funds are being leveraged for this
program. She noted the way it's scored there wasn't a lot of difference amongst agencies. She believes
most everyone got the same score because everyone is leveraging quite a bit of funds.
Thul confirmed. She believes the only agency that did not receive full points on this was Inside Out
Reentry because the percentage that they were asking for was a high percentage of their budget.
Dennis noted if they look at the total HCDC average funding recommendation, they are under budget so
there is some money to work with, not a lot, but they could get the new Legacy Agencies at least up to the
minimum and still be within the budget.
Reedus noted she would like to draw attention to four organizations, comparing two at a time. First Big
Brothers Big Sisters and Dream City and the number of clients that are served. Big Brothers Big Sisters
has 120 clients and Dream City has 160 clients so she thinks that their allocation should be somewhat
similar. She feels the allocation for Dream City should be increased to $25,000 to put them more in line
with Big Brothers Big Sisters, because they’re serving more clients. The other area she has a lot of
concern with is the whole food insecurity issue and they have two organizations that are providing meals,
one is Free Lunch Program and also Meals on Wheels. With the Free Lunch Program, it is hard to figure
out the demographic information, but they serve an average of 92 plates of food a day, six days a week,
52 weeks a year. Meals on Wheels (Horizon) are serving 177 individuals in Johnson County four meals a
week and the allocation is so different in terms of how much money so she changed them and did lower
Free Lunch Program because basically some agencies are getting too high a percentage of their budget
and they need to lower that a bit, so she recommends $18,000 for Free Lunch Program and doubled that
for Meals on Wheels to $36,000 but couldn't see giving Meals on Wheels more than that. It costs $8 and
something per meal to make half of it is refunded from the Older Americans Act, but it's still a unit of
service. She thinks it behooves them to take a look at what they're purchasing a little bit with some of
these organizations that are providing similar types of services, or their output is somewhat similar.
Dennis noted there are six applicants or agencies who have the same funding recommendation as the
HCDC and staff so perhaps they start with those.
Dennis noted regarding Free Lunch Program and Meals on Wheels she thinks there's a big difference.
They both serve provide a valuable service, but the difference is that with the Free Lunch Program people
have to get there themselves and Meals on Wheels on the other hand, has to have the transportation to
deliver the food and they talked about in their application the ability to do a quick welfare check when
delivering the food. There's transportation involved in Meals on Wheels and logistics that that are different
than the Free Lunch Program.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 4 of 13
4
Reedus acknowledged that and noted they both they a volunteer element to it, because the Free Lunch
Program reduces some of its costs by food that's donated and through the volunteer teams that cook for
them. But for 177 residents, their request is $47,000 and she doesn’t know how they can justify that.
Vogel notes he was at $38,000 so a little lower on his. Beining asked if the group would entertain
$38,000.
Reedus noted these are not written in stone yet. Reedus noted these numbers are the starting numbers,
what they're receiving now is in part because the housing commission a few years ago funded requests,
some agencies request the lot more some agencies didn't, because they didn't think they could get it.
Therefore, she doesn’t think the starting point is necessarily a good number. She looked at the services
they provide to the community and compared them. How else could she do it when two organizations are
providing similar types of services. I think the starting point is wrong.
Beining suggested starting with $38,000 for Horizons and making adjustments from there.
The Commission discussed some of the initial scores and allocations. Reedus states that Free Medical
Clinic that is an organization that does something that nobody else does and can't really compare them
with another organization. They do a good job and are very frugal. Dennis agrees.
Eckhardt believes that it's valuable to point out that some of these agencies are comparable to other
agencies and it's important to consider what needs are only being met by one agency that's on this list.
So, for instance, there's nobody else providing medical care so he feels they shouldn’t reduce their
allocation.
Beining suggested they take some of the excess funds and bump them up to about $40,000. Others
agreed.
Beining moved next to Table to Table. Currently an allocation of $38,000, their request was $45,000.
Reedus supports giving them $45,000 because they are facing a food crisis coming up. Additionally, they
can't increase Communities because she believes they probably made an error in their request and
requested an old number. Table to Table provides to 30+ organizations in Iowa City with food. They
rescue food and get it out to an organization right away that further reduces waste. They have adapted
their model, so that they can rescue large quantities of food, which is extremely important. For every
organization that they deliver food to it saves that organization money and they have a small budget, and
their fund balance is declining. If they were to cut funding to them, as Vogel did, it could easily cost them.
to result in them getting less food.
Vogel explained that he feels he had to have a baseline and said if they can’t give the demographics then
he felt he looked at it completely objectively and numerically based on the information provided. Vogel
has no issue with the other recommendations.
Reedus says she is not calling Vogel out, except that if they were to cut them as he suggests, they could
easily lose a position, which means it's going to have a bounce effect to 30+ organizations in Iowa City,
and it's going to result in them getting less food. Would like to propose full funding.
Vogel understands and stated his only issue with that is it's a 27-28% increase from the previous year.
Additionally, if Reedus wants to compare agencies, if they compare Table to Table to Horizons Meals on
Wheels, why wouldn't $38,000 be equitable for both? $45 is a big bump especially when as Reedus said,
it takes money from someone else.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 5 of 13
5
Reedus suggests Vogel is selectively hearing what she is saying. She will not take money away from
another organization just to give someone else more money. There has to be a reason to cut funding.
Reedus noted Table to Table has rescued 2 million to 2 ½ million pounds of food and that also has value.
Vogel doesn’t disagree but just noted that 27% is a big bump. Reedus doesn’t think so and would like to
allocate Table to Table $45,000. Dennis thinks they should leave them at the $38,258 with is 85% of the
request. Vogel suggested they allocate $40,000 and see how that fits in after everything else is
discussed. Beining agreed with Vogel.
Next discussed was Big Brothers Big Sisters, Beining asked if Commissioners were agreeable to $27,125
which is what they requested. Dennis suggests $27,125. Beining and Vogel agree.
Reedus can’t talk about Big Brother without talking about Dream City. Dream City allocation is only
$15,000 and doesn’t agree with Big Brother Big Sisters when Dream City is only at $15,000. She
suggests the group can move on but doesn’t want it so sound like she is in consensus.
Beining moved on to Habitat for Humanity, it looks like the Commissioner’s average came in a little under
staff at $27,029 and is there a consensus on that allocation. Commissioners agree with the HCDC
average.
Next discussed was 4 C’s and Beining noted a little bit more of a variation between staff and
Commission’s amounts. 4 C’s request was $30,000, staff allocated $28,044 and the Commissioner’s at
$24,915. Reedus asked what 4 C’s was allocated this year. Vogel replied $26,709 which would be a
reduction. Reedus is concerned because childcare is one of the huge issues and she is concerned about
cutting them. Beining proposed they bump them up to $26,000 to help alleviate some of that variance
between the Commission recommendations and staff as well as match what they had last year so that
they're not bombarded with a reduction.
Vogel noted this is another situation where there are not a lot of childcares at least on of this list of
agencies, and 4 C’s is the only one that in his line of work he’s dealt with regularly as far as trying to get
affordable childcare in homes around the City. He would argue they are a provider that is providing a
unique role and would hesitate to take them to give them less than what we've given them in prior years.
He is actually okay with staff’s recommendation on this one.
Dennis asked if the City's ARPA funding budget included childcare. Kubly stated there's a portion of the
business development that she thinks will incorporate childcare but that hasn’t been finalized at this point.
Dennis noted the State just came out with their preliminary ARPA funding administrative plan and
considerable amount is available for childcare but who knows when that funding will be available, it could
be another year or two. She is fine with either giving them to what they received last year or what the staff
recommendation is, which is higher than last year.
Reedus would like to do the staff recommendation, she does not want to give them a cut. She agrees it's
a unique organization and cutting support to childcare right now just doesn't seem like the wisest thing to
do. The Commissioners agrees to an allocation of $28,000.
Beining next moved on to Aging Services (formerly known as Pathways), the Commission average is
$23,000, the agency requested $27,000 and staff recommended $27,000. Reedus wished they could find
out if they're receiving regular funding from ECR. When she looks at their budget, she notes they really
aren't an organization that raises money and are consistently spending under their revenue. One of the
questions she has is with their East Central Mental Health region this year they got about $29,000 and in
FY 23 they got $26,000 and should the City really be funding them if they're getting money from the
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 6 of 13
6
region. City funds should not be used to build a fund balance, they should be used to provide services to
residents.
Vogel noted in that regard, this is 1% of their budget, they are not dependent on City funds to maintain
services. Reedus noted in FY21 they had $12,000 revenue over expenses, FY22 they had $64,000
revenue over expenses and this year FY23 they have $35,000 revenue over expenses. It's one thing if
they're raising money and building a fund balance, but this is different.
Krotz agreed it is concerning that they're not using all of their money every year which does pose the
question should the City be giving them money. Reedus asked if they can find out, noting that some
ECR money is ARPA money, but otherwise she is going to recommend the flat minimum of $15,000 and
could go to zero easy.
Vogel would be comfortable with the $15,000 from the standpoint of having the concept of a Legacy
Agency in place and not doing a minimum. A Legacy Agency has gone through the process, a
commission and the staff said yes, they have long standing relationships with the City, and they have long
since relations the County, giving them $15,000 minimum keeps them in that Legacy status. However, in
a time where they are dealing with adding five agencies and having a smaller pool for everybody, it
makes sense that somebody like Aging Services maybe doesn't need the funding as requested to get
through this year so he would be comfortable with the $15,000 minimum funding for this year. There was
agreement for $15,000. He would not be comfortable with zero. Several agree.
Eckhardt stated he can stand behind that recommendation but wanted to generally say on some of these
he has concerns in general about radically cutting budgets that have been consistently given because it is
his understanding this is supposed to be a consistent revenue stream for these agencies. He did
acknowledge he is not particularly as concerned about it in this case because it is such a small
percentage of their budget, and it is like they are putting money away, and there's other agencies that it
seems need this money more.
Dennis suggested they could put $15,000 on every remaining applicant then they would have $7,970 to
spend to still be within the budget.
Houses into Homes requested $15,000 which is the minimum. The commission average was $10,000
while the staff recommendation was at $15,000. Dennis noted they can’t have $10,000 and the minimum
would need to be $15,000.
Mohammed asked why they can’t get $10,000 when another organization can get zero? It doesn’t make
sense.
Reedus states she already clarified this before we even started this last month. They have to get a
minimum of $15,000 if they are funded.
Dennis is okay with $15,000 and the group agreed.
Dennis suggested they take out Community and Family Resources (formerly known as Prelude) and put
them at zero, Reedus agreed and noted half of their application was for something that isn’t funded under
this process, repairs, and the other half was for rent which is being funded through another organization.
Additionally, it was a late application, and she doesn’t feel they should be funding late applications. Krotz
agrees with that. Reedus feels they need to draw the line somewhere.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 7 of 13
7
Dennis also agreed with upping RVAP, they requested $30,000, staff recommended $28,000 and the
Commission average was $26,500. Last year they got $26,700. The decision was to put the allocation at
the $28,000 staff recommendation. Vogel would bump them up if there is extra money at the end.
Inside/Out has requested $45,000, the Commission average is at $31,500 and staff is at $40,000.
Reedus noted this is a really tough one for her because the cost per Iowa City resident is huge. She also
has difficulty with the fact that half of the services are provided to Coralville residents. She would
recommend the lower amount for funding and would support the lower amount of $31,500.
Vogel had the same concerns, because it is a small number however at the same time he understands
where those numbers come from because people coming back from incarceration with nothing. The
question about the Johnson County/Iowa City thing is tough because he doesn’t really understand when
someone's getting out how they're determining where they're choosing to live because they could fund
this and theoretically no one wants to come back and live in Iowa City. Also last year they were allocated
$42,000 so $31,000 is a big drop, that's 50 people or so that don't get served next year that got served
this year, this funding is 20% of their budget.
Krotz asked if they get funding from other municipalities. Reedus replied not really and also noted their
expenses were interesting because they have that other line item in there that was $340,000 and that's
their home that they've gotten funding for. If they back that out, because that's not ongoing expenses for
them, they are closer to a $160,000 budget, of which Iowa City is paying a third of. She feels they have
to draw the line and say that organizations have to diversify their funding, whether it's through fundraisers,
special events, or something else.
Vogel noted there is no harder funding to get than for ex-cons. Reedus agreed although said maybe drug
addiction is just as hard. Reedus states she knows what is easy and what is hard. Fundraising is hard
but is Iowa City prepared to take on the lion's share of the budget? She just asks the question about
whether or not Iowa City should be funding 33% of any program, it’s just it's too much money. The
organization needs to see if there's community support for it and there's probably some way that they can
raise additional money, it shouldn’t all be from Iowa City. Vogel also noted this agency has gotten zero
money from Coralville.
Dennis noted they have $39,970 left on the budget.
Eckhardt again wanted to say that they do seem to be one of the only agencies that's providing this sort
of service and the legacy aid to agencies is intending to be a relatively consistent source of funding. Also,
the fact that Iowa City is a relatively large part of their budget and given they are local, and they are
providing services to the region, which Iowa City benefits from, if they significantly cut that and that
significantly cuts their total budget, that's going to significantly impact their ability to provide a significant
amount of services which he believes are important.
Reedus acknowledged what Eckhardt is saying but how can they justify funding that agency to 30% of
their budget, it's just too much. Reedus suggests they get the Commission average of $31,500. Vogel
noted that means 60 less people they can help in the upcoming year. Or Reedus countered, it pushes
them forward to seek funding from someplace else. Maybe they will go to Coralville.
Dennis noted sometimes the people who are leaving the prison system go to Shelter House, so there are
other agencies giving these services. Vogel agreed.
Eckhardt acknowledged that however also does think that this agency is also probably providing more
intensive services than a lot of other agencies that are serving more people so what they're providing is
going to cost more per person to serve as a result of what it is.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 8 of 13
8
Dennis says she goes back to the scoring then.
Vogel noted the Coralville/Iowa City thing is really at the crux of it for him, because it is 104 Iowa City
residents and 102 Coralville residences supported last year and they got zero money from Coralville and
$42,000 from Iowa City which was 20% of their budget. He would hate to hit them with a 50% reduction
in services for Iowa City residents though.
Dennis asked if is it really fair, back to Pathways, that they get cut to $15,000 and Inside/Out Reentry who
scored lower gets more money?
Reedus feels the starting point is wrong.
Vogel noted he also gave Inside/Out Reentry $15,000 on his scoring sheet because they were in that 70
percentile.
Dennis stated it's hard to score these because it's not always perfect information, but they cut Habitat.
Perhaps they could bump Habitat up to $30,000.
For Inside/Out Reentry the determination was to give the Commission average of $31,000.
Arc of Southeast Iowa bumped up to $22,400.
Next to discuss HACAP, Vogel noted they all seem to agree they should be funded closer to the 100%
ask which would be $27,500. This is for Head Start programming, and Reedus noted she appreciates
that they have zero fund balance and spend what the City gives them. The Commission agreed to put
them at $27,200 due to the score and that being the Commission average.
Dream City, they asked for $30,000 and the Commission average was $15,000 as was staff
recommendation.
Reedus noted this is where she has some difficulty because as she said before they're very similar to Big
Brothers Big Sisters, but they provide services to more kids. There score was low, and she wondered
why they scored so low. Thul stated staff funded them at the minimum amount, some of the scoring was
just lack of experience, the fact that they are a newer agency, and they haven't received Aid to Agency
funding in the past. Reedus stated one of the problems that she had with the new agency applications
were their outcomes, and if they didn't have outcomes they could share, so how to score them?
Dennis is okay with a funding of $15,000. Vogel agrees and notes it is a 50% increase from what they
got as an Emerging Aid to Agencies previously.
Reedus recommended $25,000 for Dream City to be closer to what Big Brothers Big Sisters was getting,
but she is okay with $15,000.
Dennis proposed the remaining $3,000 to Free Lunch. Reedus disagrees.
The Commission moved on to discuss Free Lunch Program, Center for Worker Justice and Community
and Family Resources.
Reedus asked why are they recommending zero for a Community and Family Resources? Vogel states
he thought it was because Reedus said they were five minutes late on their application. Reedus wanted
to hear from others.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 9 of 13
9
For the Free Lunch Program, Krotz supports giving them the rest of the funding. Eckhardt agrees noting
that would put them very close, basically right up to where the staff recommendation was.
Reedus noted it’s been a problem for years that agencies that score low get higher funding.
Dennis stated for Community and Family Resources the reason she thinks that it's okay not to fund them
is because it's a pretty recent merger with a much larger agency and they have to get their feet on the
ground.
Reedus agreed and noted another thing that concerned her was she looked back at the previous
requests, because they were saying they were 1 million or 2 million in the hole and it was a result of the
merger, but Reedus found nothing when she went to GuideStar and looked at 990s for Prelude, she saw
no deficit like that. Additionally, there was no deficit projection in the previous application for Legacy
Agencies, so she thought that the financials were wrong. Plus, they are asking for housing and that was
being funded elsewhere, the rental deposits, also they were a late application.
Vogel wanted to discuss the Center for Worker Justice, he understands the late thing, there was a
technical issue or whatever it was that that caused them to be late, and there was an explanation for that
because they had to call United Way and United Way had to fix it. He also feels that the Center for
Worker Justice is once again an organization that is doing work that isn’t done by anybody else in town,
translation services, and working directly with providers from the private sector side to help immigrants.
He does feel their ask of $45,000 is a big ask and he is not comfortable saying yes to that but does
believe this is a new Legacy Agency and they do deserve the minimum.
Krotz asked if they missed the deadline why HCDC would fund them.
Reedus noted the bottom line is the application was late and it's not unusual in the funding world that if
the application deadline is missed, they don't get funded. That's a hard fast rule with a lot of
organizations. This would be giving the Center for Worker Justice special treatment that they shouldn't
get. She totally supported them getting Legacy Agency status, she supports the organization, but bottom
line is they were late in applying and she believes that they should not be eligible for funding because of
that. Reedus states if they are trying to do this at the 11th hour that they are going to have problems and
they did go to the training from United Way.
Vogel says that if it is your first time filling one out you might not know all of that. Vogel stated he couldn’t
get his scores on time either so should all of his arguments be thrown out because I was late? No. The
answer is discussions can still be had. Reedus worked really hard to get her scores in and she thinks it
comes down to the bottom line. If you miss the deadline you don’t get funded. Funding this is giving CWJ
special treatment, and they should not be eligible.
Krotz asked if they were late because United Way hadn’t completed their piece of the puzzle. Reedus
responses that 30 other organizations got their applications in on time. Krotz doesn’t understand why they
wouldn’t work on it early.
Vogel said you are making an assumption that they didn’t work on it early.
Dennis comes back to the scores. It’s disheartening when agencies work hard and get high scores to get
cut when a low scoring application gets more. It’s not fair. Vogel doesn’t think that is what is happening.
Mohammed supports CWJ and feels they are a unique organization. They are assisting marginalized
people and immigrants.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 10 of 13
10
Krotz doesn’t understand why giving CWJ $0 is a problem when that is what they are doing for
Community and Family Resources.
Overall, the Commission decided, with objection from Reedus and Krotz, to give the Center for Worker
Justice $15,000.
Next discussion was on Neighborhood Centers, Dennis noted they have a huge score. Reedus agreed
but stated it looks like they have traditionally underpaid their employees, and she supports raising
employees’ wages, but noted they've got quite a fund balance. They have already been moved up quite a
bit in funding and she is concerned.
Reedus propose to move Dream City to $25,000 and reduce the Emerging Agency pot leaving $24,300
as the Emerging Agency budget for this year instead of $30,000.
The Free Lunch Program recommendation is $15,000.
Horizons is $38,000.
Vogel noted he feels RVAP is lower than he'd like but once again there's a point where they just keep
taking out of the Emerging Agency pot.
Dennis suggested they could follow the rule that late applications get nothing and take the $15,000 from
the Center for Worker Justice. However, she feels the Community Family Resources application had so
many more concerns other than just being late, and she also accepted the Center for Worker Justice
explanation of why it was late.
Thul noted in January the Commission will vote on the recommendations. Dennis reminded everyone that
these are just recommendations from HCDC, and the Council can change it. Reedus confirmed although
this is usually unlikely.
A majority of HCDC is in agreement with the current recommendations with two expressing opposition
(Reedus and Krotz) to the late applicants receiving funds.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FY24 CDBG/HOME AND FY24 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A)
APPLICATION MATERIALS:
Thul noted the applications are due January 30 and this process opens at the end of December,
Reedus noted she had not had time to review these application materials as they had so much on their
plates with the Legacy Agency application reviews. She suggested they do something about scrunching
everything in at one time because it's impossible to do a good job.
Thul explained that normally the schedule is a lot lighter in November, because they don't have the
Legacy Aid to Agencies every year. This year was heavier than normal.
Beining asked the Commission members if there are any requested changes on the FY24 CDBG/HOME
or FY24 Emerging Agencies application materials.
Dennis noted on the application, the applicant has to report the AMI they're using and whether or not the
recipients of the project would be below 80, below 60, or below 30. She stated it used to be that if an
applicant said they were serving people between zero and 30% AMI the City was going to monitor that
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 11 of 13
11
they stuck to that, is that still the case. Thul replied the reporting requirements are different based on the
funding source and project, but people still have to report their beneficiaries. Dennis stated it used to be
on this City application, which was more restrictive than the HOME and CDBG rule, that everybody on
that project had to be under 30% to get the City money and is that still the case? Kubly replied it depends
what they write into the agreement, it might vary based on what type of project it is. For example, it they
say that they're doing two unis under 30% AMI and two under 50% AMI, the City would probably write the
agreement for under 50% AMI for simplicity. Dennis noted however there is a score on that, they get a
higher score if they do 30% AMI or below and it’s very hard for HOME projects to do that. Thul
acknowledged that used to be more of an issue with the old scoring criteria, before it was revised, and
this question previously could really sway a project score. Now they get the additional points, but it's not
the only determining factor of who might get funding overall.
Dennis noted if it's a HOME, a rental project, and somebody moves in and they're under 30% AMI and in
the next year they get a job and then they're between 51% and 60%, if the City said they have to have
everybody under 30% then either the project's out of compliance or the people have to move, but the
federal government says they can stay. It gets a little bit wonky because they get a lower score if they
say everybody's going to be below 80%, because 30 is below 80.
Reedus stated based on the application process that they just had, they talked about leveraging money,
and could staff identify some areas of the application that they might want to give the Commission some
training on at the end of the meeting so that they can come closer to scoring everything appropriately.
Thul stated the CDBG, and HOME applications are pretty different, when they do the CDBG and HOME
rounds they do the staff summary sheet and will usually write out the calculation of leverage for the
Commission. The reason they didn't do that on the staff summary sheets for the Aid to Agencies was
because the scoring criteria left discretion in there for commissioners to determine if they wanted to score
in a different way.
Thul also noted a couple of other things that have changed this year. Staff did try to simplify questions if
they felt like they were duplicative, so people aren't answering the same question twice in different spots.
Another change was the Affordable Housing Location Model is no longer applicable so that's something
that has changed in the applicant guide.
Kubly explained the Affordable Housing Location Model was rescinded by Council and applicants no
longer have to comply by that. Thul added that they did add a question that came out of the Affordable
Housing Action Plan last year, where one of the City's goals is to encourage the distribution of housing
and residential facilities throughout all neighborhoods in Iowa City, so what they plan to do is provide a
heat map of where there is existing subsidized housing, it's not exact, but if there's clusters it would reflect
that.
Dennis noted she is really glad that the map is gone but asked if somebody does a Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit project and wants City HOME funds to do a pretty big multifamily project, then the heat map is
going to get hot in that spot, so is that going to have an impact on anybody else for the next time. Kubly
replied no, it's not like the Location Model where they are prohibiting housing anywhere, an applicant
might just get extra points if that if the location that they're choosing does not have any other affordable
housing, it's more of an incentive rather than prohibiting locating projects in certain areas.
Krotz asked when they keep talking about affordable housing and location maps, is that determined by
who applies for tax credits, or who determines what places are affordable. Kubly said they are looking at
housing that is subsidized by the City or through federal funding, and they are typically are monitoring
those properties.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 12 of 13
12
Thul also pointed out one more thing that was added to the scoring criteria, two bonus points for
applicants that are nonprofit housing developers in good standing. She explained that the change came
out of the Affordable Housing Action Plan recommendations.
Vogel made a motion to approve the FY24 CDBG/HOME and FY24 Emerging Agencies application
materials. Dennis seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 7-0.
STAFF & COMMISSION UPDATES:
Thul noted in the packet there's a training opportunity for boards and commissions, it is a free training,
online on Zoom, and it just talks about open meetings, open records, etc. Thul attended last year and
would recommend it.
ADJOURNMENT:
Vogel moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and the motion passed 7-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 13 of 13
13
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2022-2023
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 7/21 9/15 10/20 11/17
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X O/E X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 X O/E X X
Haylett, Jennifer 6/30/25 X X O/E O/E
Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 O/E X X X
Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth 6/30/23 X O/E * * * * * * *
Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X X X X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 O/E X X X
Eckhardt, Michael 6/30/25 -- -- X X
HCDC FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies Draft Funding Recommendations
Agency FY24 Request
HCDC Average
Score
HCDC Funding
Recommendations
Change from FY23
to FY24 Based on
Recommendations
Shelter House $99,790 96 $99,790.00 $8,980.00
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson
County
$110,000 95
$70,000.00 $11,241.00
CommUnity*$69,086 95 $69,086.00 -$4,951.00
Free Medical Clinic $40,000 94 $40,000.00 $13,291.00
DVIP $60,000 91 $60,000.00 $6,582.00
United Action for Youth*$34,500 89 $34,500.00 -$756.00
Table to Table $45,000 89 $40,000.00 $6,881.00
Big Brothers Big Sisters $27,125 88 $27,125.00 $416.00
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $30,000 87 $27,029.00 $320.00
4Cs $30,000 86 $28,000.00 $1,291.00
Aging Services (Pathways)$27,000 83 $15,000.00 -$11,709.00
Houses into Homes $15,000 82 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
RVAP $30,000 82 $28,000.00 $1,291.00
Horizons $47,007 82 $38,000.00 -$9,007.00
Inside Out Reentry $45,000 81 $31,000.00 -$11,734.00
Arc of Southeast Iowa $30,000 80 $22,400.00 $1,033.00
HACAP $27,510 80 $27,270.00 $561.00
Dream City $30,000 76 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Free Lunch $25,000 72 $15,000.00 -$4,230.00
Community and Family Resources
(formerly Prelude)
$41,788 52
$0.00 -$42,734.00
Center for Worker Justice $45,000 52 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
HTFJC $0.00 NA NA NA
Total $908,806 NA $727,200.00
FY24 Budget Estimate
$727,200.00
$24,300.00
$751,500.00
FY24 Legacy A2A
*Recommendations show a decrease in funding for CommUnity and UAY from FY23 to FY24. Please note this is due to a decrease in agency
request.
Total FY24 A2A Budget (Legacy and Emerging)
FY24 Emerging A2A Budget
Agenda Item #4
Completed November HCDC Funding Worksheet
Request November HCDC Meeting Recommendations
Agency
FY23
Allocation
FY24
Request
HCDC Av.
Score
HCDC Av. Funding
Recommendation
% of
Request
Staff Funding
Recommendation
% of
Request
November HCDC Meeting
Recommendations % of Request
Shelter House $90,810 $99,790 96 $99,790 100%$99,790 100%$99,790.00 100.00%
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson
County
$58,759 $110,000 95
$70,000
64%
$70,000 64%$70,000.00 63.64%
CommUnity $74,037 $69,086 95 $69,086 100%$69,086 100%$69,086.00 100.00%
Free Medical Clinic $26,709 $40,000 94 $36,651 92%$34,954 87%$40,000.00 100.00%
DVIP $53,418 $60,000 91 $60,000 100%$60,000 100%$60,000.00 100.00%
United Action for Youth $35,256 $34,500 89 $34,500 100%$34,500 100%$34,500.00 100.00%
Table to Table $33,119 $45,000 89 $38,258 85%$34,775 77%$40,000.00 88.89%
Big Brothers Big Sisters $26,709 $27,125 88 $27,142 100%$27,125 100%$27,125.00 100.00%
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $26,709 $30,000 87 $27,029 90%$28,044 93%$27,029.00 90.10%
4Cs $26,709 $30,000 86 $24,918 83%$28,044 93%$28,000.00 93.33%
Aging Services (Pathways)$26,709 $27,000 83 $23,000 85%$27,000 100%$15,000.00 55.56%
Houses into Homes $0 $15,000 82 $10,000 67%$15,000 100%$15,000.00 100.00%
RVAP $26,709 $30,000 82 $26,584 89%$28,044 93%$28,000.00 93.33%
Horizons $47,007 $47,007 82 $38,667 82%$40,000 85%$38,000.00 80.84%
Inside Out Reentry $42,734 $45,000 81 $31,667 70%$40,000 89%$31,000.00 68.89%
Arc of Southeast Iowa $21,367 $30,000 80 $21,620 72%$22,435 75%$22,400.00 74.67%
HACAP $26,709 $27,510 80 $27,270 99%$27,510 100%$27,270.00 99.13%
Dream City $0 $30,000 76 $15,000 50%$15,000 50%$25,000.00 83.33%
Free Lunch $19,230 $25,000 72 $17,731 71%$20,192 81%$15,000.00 60.00%
Community and Family Resources
(formerly Prelude)
$42,734 $41,788 52
$0
0%
$0 0%$0.00 0.00%
Center for Worker Justice $0 $45,000 52 $5,000 11%$0 0%$15,000.00 33.33%
HTFJC $0 $0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Total $705,434 $908,806 NA $703,913 NA $721,500 NA $727,200.00 NA
Remaining to Allocate NA ($187,306)NA $17,587 NA $0 NA -$5,700.00 NA
Budget Estimated with $30,000 to EA2A Final Budget Estimate
$751,500.00 $751,500.00
$30,000.00 $24,300.00
$721,500.00 $727,200.00
Estimated FY24 A2A Budget
Emerging A2A Budget
Legacy A2A Budget with HCDC LA2A Recs
HCDC Individual Score Summary Staff Recommendations
Estimated FY24 A2A Budget
Recommended Emerging A2A Budget
Recommended Legacy A2A Budget
Agenda Item #4
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Housing and Community Development Commission
From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner
Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Re: FY24 Aid to Agencies Staff Scores and Funding Recommendations
The purpose of this memo is to provide staff composite scores and funding recommendations
for the FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies (A2A) funding round. Commissioners may consider this
information during their independent evaluation of the submissions. The table attached contains
staff scores, funding recommendations, and a five-year funding history for the Legacy A2A
program.
Staff Comments on Funding Recommendations:
In general, staff funding recommendations were developed by awarding the largest funding
increases to the highest scoring submissions. The following are instances where members of
HCDC may benefit from additional explanations to inform the decision-making process.
CommUnity and United Action for Youth
Commissioners will observe that the recommendations show a funding decrease for
CommUnity and United Action for Youth compared to the FY23 Legacy A2A allocations. This is
due to a decrease in the FY24 requests submitted by the agencies rather than a staff-imposed
reduction in the funding recommendations. Staff recommend full funding to the agencies at their
FY24 request.
Inside Out Reentry
In FY20, the A2A budget was increased and as a result, Inside Out Reentry began receiving
funding that was a comparatively large portion of the agency’s total operating budget. A majority
of Legacy Agencies are funded at a level between one and five percent of their agency budget,
and the FY24 request from Inside Out Reentry was over 20% of their total budget. Staff
recommend a slight decrease in funding from FY23 levels due to the size of the agency budget
and the percentage of the request. The decrease in funding recommended is less than $3,000
and should avoid any significant disruptions to agency operations.
Community and Family Resources (formerly Prelude)
Staff support the mission of the agency, but do not recommend funding Community and Family
Resources based on the quality of the application and use of funds. The proposal was one of
the lowest scoring applications and some of the narrative responses did not adequately address
the questions. Additionally, the agency proposed using funds for security deposit and rent
assistance, as well as facility repairs. While the Legacy A2A program is designed to provide
flexible funding for operations, City resources for the program are limited and there are other
opportunities for funding for housing through federal CDBG or HOME programs, as well as the
city’s Affordable Housing Fund. Lastly, the application was submitted after the deadline of 5pm
due to technical difficulties.
Agenda Item #4
November 1, 2022
Page 2
Center for Worker Justice
Staff support the mission of the agency, but do not recommend funding for Center for Worker
Justice based on the quality of the application, use of funds, and other funds in place for
proposed services. The proposal was one of the lowest scoring applications and issues arose
regarding the agency’s financial capacity and oversight. Additionally, some services proposed to
be provided with Iowa City funds are ineligible, such as work with communities outside of Iowa
City. Center for Worker Justice has been allocated funds for wage theft through the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and additional need has not been demonstrated. Lastly, the
application was submitted after the deadline of 5pm due to technical difficulties.
New Legacy Agencies
Of the three new Legacy Agencies, staff recommend funding Houses into Homes and Dream
City (Dream Center) at the minimum award amount of $15,000.
Free Medical Clinic and Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County
The largest increases in funding compared to the previous fiscal were allocated to Free Medical
Clinic and Neighborhood Center of Johnson County. While not fully funded, the proposals were
both tied for the third highest scoring submissions.
Conclusion
Iowa City is fortunate to have many qualified nonprofit organizations serving the community.
Although these decisions are challenging, staff feel that the information provided is fair,
objective, and reasonable. Commissioners are reminded that the deadline to submit
independent scores and recommendations to staff is November 8, 2022. Staff will compile
scores and post them in the meeting packet on November 10, 2022 ahead of the November 17,
2022 HCDC meeting.
Attachments
FY24 Staff Legacy Aid to Agencies (A2A) Recommendation
Agency FY19 Allocation FY20 Allocation FY21 Allocation FY22 Allocation FY23 Allocation FY24 Request
Staff
Recommendation
Change from FY23
to FY24
Percentage of
FY24 Request
Funding Request
as a percent of
FY23
Staff
Score
CommUnity $40,000 $66,000 $69,086 $72,402 $74,037 $69,086 $69,086 93%100%93%95
Shelter House $50,000 $85,000 $84,738 $88,808 $90,810 $99,790 $99,790 110%100%110%94
Free Medical Clinic $15,000 $17,500 $24,923 $26,119 $26,709 $40,000 $34,954 131%87%150%92
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County $34,300 $55,000 $54,830 $57,000 $58,759 $110,000 $70,000 119%64%187%92
Inside Out Reentry $15,000 $30,000 $39,877 $41,839 $42,734 $45,000 $40,000 94%89%105%90
DVIP $40,000 $50,000 $49,846 $52,000 $53,418 $60,000 $60,000 112%100%112%89
Aging Services (formerly Pathways)$15,000 $25,000 $24,923 $26,119 $26,709 $27,000 $27,000 101%100%101%88
United Action for Youth $27,400 $33,000 $32,898 $34,525 $35,256 $34,500 $34,500 98%100%98%87
Big Brothers Big Sisters $15,000 $25,000 $24,923 $26,119 $26,709 $27,125 $27,125 102%100%102%86
Table to Table $15,000 $20,000 $30,904 $32,387 $33,119 $45,000 $34,775 105%77%136%86
4Cs $15,000 $20,000 $24,923 $26,119 $26,709 $30,000 $28,044 105%93%112%84
RVAP $20,000 $23,000 $24,923 $26,119 $26,709 $30,000 $28,044 105%93%112%81
Arc of Southeast Iowa $0 $20,000 $19,938 $20,895 $21,367 $30,000 $22,435 105%75%140%80
HACAP $15,000 $25,000 $24,923 $26,119 $26,709 $27,510 $27,510 103%100%103%80
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $0 $25,000 $24,923 $26,119 $26,709 $30,000 $28,044 105%93%112%80
Free Lunch Program $15,000 $16,000 $17,944 $18,805 $19,230 $25,000 $20,192 105%81%130%78
Houses into Homes NA NA NA NA NA $15,000 $15,000 NA 100%NA 77
Horizons $20,000 $40,000 $43,863 $45,968 $47,007 $47,007 $40,000 85%85%100%76
Dream City NA NA NA NA NA $30,000 $15,000 NA 50%NA 70
Center for Worker Justice NA NA NA NA NA $45,000 $0 NA 0%NA 64
Community and Family Resources (formerly Prelude)$16,000 $20,000 $39,877 $41,788 $42,734 $41,788 $0 0%0%98%64
HTFJC $24,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA NA
Total $367,700 $595,500 $658,262 $689,250 $705,434 $908,806 $721,500
Estimated FY24 A2A Budget $751,500.00 Fully funded
Emerging A2A Budget $30,000.00 New Legacy Agency
Legacy A2A Budget $721,500.00 Decreased funding
FY24 Staff Legacy Aid to Agencies (A2A) Recommendation
Agenda Item #5
Agenda Item #5
Tentative Timeline for FY24 CDBG/HOME and
Emerging Aid to Agencies
Dates may be subject to change.
*Please note the March meeting is the 4th Thursday of the month to accommodate for spring break.
December 28, 2022 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies applications are available.
January 10, 2023 CDBG/HOME Virtual Applicant Workshop via Zoom 12:00 PM.
•Please note: Emerging Aid to Agencies Applicants are not required
to attend.
•Registration link available at icgov.org/actionplan.
January 30, 2023 CDBG/HOME Applications and Emerging Aid to Agencies Applications
due to City of Iowa City by noon (12pm).
February 16, 2023 Housing and Community Development Commission meeting:
•Question and answer discussion with CDBG/HOME and Emerging
Aid to Agencies applicants. Applicants are strongly encouraged to
attend.
March 2, 2023 Housing and Community Development Commission members submit
CDBG/HOME score sheets to City staff for compilation.
There is no score sheet for Emerging Aid to Agencies.
March 23, 2023* Housing and Community Development Commission meeting:
•Review and discuss the score summary for CDBG/HOME
submissions. Commissioners will make award recommendations
to City Council for CDBG/HOME funding.
•Review and discuss Emerging Aid to Agencies submissions.
Commissioners will make award recommendations to City Council
for Emerging Aid to Agencies funding.
April 1, 2023 30-day comment period begins for draft FY24 Annual Action Plan.
April 20, 2023 HCDC meeting:
•Review FY24 Annual Action Plan and consider recommendation to
City Council to approve the document.
May 2, 2023 City Council meeting:
•Public meeting for the Annual Action Plan and resolution finalizing
awards.
May 15, 2023 FY24 Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD.
July 1, 2023 Fiscal year 2024 begins.
September 15, 2023 Execute CDBG and HOME agreements with grant recipients.
Agenda Item #7
1
Brianna Thul
From:Brianna Thul
Sent:Wednesday, December 28, 2022 2:18 PM
To:Brianna Thul
Subject:FW: CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies funding applications now available
Hi all,
Please see the press release below regarding the availability of CDBG/HOME funds. Applications are due
January 30th at 12pm. More info at icgov.org/actionplan.
Thank you!
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Brianna Thul (she/her/hers)*
Community Development Planner
p: 319-356-5240
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
*Why these pronouns matter
From: City of Iowa City: Do Not Reply <CityofIowaCity@public.govdelivery.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 2:01 PM
To: Brianna Thul <BThul@Iowa-City.org>
Subject: CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies funding applications now available
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: 12/28/2022
Contact: Brianna Thul, Associate Planner
Phone: 319-356-5240
CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies funding
applications now available
Agenda Item #7
2
The City of Iowa City is now accepting applications from organizations for public services, public
facilities, and affordable housing projects for Fiscal Year 2024.
Applications are due by noon on Monday, Jan. 30, 2023.
Emerging Aid to Agencies
Emerging Aid to Agencies (A2A) provides flexible operational funding for nonprofits providing public
services. The City expects approximately $24,300 to be available for agencies not classified as
“Legacy Agencies” in the City’s consolidated plan, "City Steps 2025." The plan is available online at
www.icgov.org/actionplan.
CDBG and HOME
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
programs help develop viable urban communities by providing safe and decent affordable housing,
suitable living environments, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for low- and
moderate-income persons.
The City expects about $940,000 in CDBG/HOME funds to be available from the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for this competitive application.
Around $700,000 must be allocated to affordable housing activities: acquisition,
rehabilitation, new construction, or direct assistance for renter- or owner-occupied housing.
The remaining $240,000 may be used for housing or public facilities projects.
An additional $78,000 is estimated to be available for certified Community Housing
Development Organization reserve activities.
The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) and City Council will review
applications and allocate funds to projects through a public process based on the needs and
priorities in "City Steps 2025." Funds become available for use on July 1, 2023. HCDC and City staff
strongly encourage CDBG/HOME applicants to attend the applicant workshop before applying.
The applicant guide, application materials, and a calendar of key dates in the funding cycle,
including applicant workshops, are available at www.icgov.org/actionplan. Upon request, staff will
email or mail application materials. Questions about these grants or the funding process may be
directed to Neighborhood Services staff at 319-356-5240 or bthul@iowa-city.org.
Questions?
Contact Us
STAY CONNECTED:
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES:
Manage Preferences | Unsubscribe | Help
3
This email was sent to bthul@iowa-city.org using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of
Iowa City ·410 E Washington Street · Iowa City, IA 52240