Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-2023 Housing & Community Development Commission (Rescheduled)HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) February 23, 2023 Special Meeting — 6:30 PM Iowa City Senior Center Assembly Room 28 S Linn Street AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Welcome New Members HCDC will welcome one new member, Kiran Patel. This item provides an opportunity for new and existing Commissioners to introduce themselves. 3. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 19, 2023 4. 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. 5. Question and Answer Session for FY24 Emerging Aid to Agencies (EA2A) Applicants Submissions can be found online at icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting, HCDC will host a question -and - answer session with FY24 EA2A applicants. Applicants are encouraged to send a representative to answer any questions. No action will be taken this meeting. HCDC will make funding recommendations to City Council at the March 30, 2023 meeting 6. Question and Answer Session for FY24 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Applicants Submissions can be found online at icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting, HCDC will host a question -and - answer session with FY24 CDBG/HOME applicants. Applicants are encouraged to send a representative to answer any questions. The scoring criteria found in the Applicant Guide will focus questions. No action will be taken this meeting. HCDC will make funding recommendations to City Council at the March 30, 2023 meeting. 7. Discuss National Community Development Week National Community Development Week 2023 is April 10-15. Staff would like input from HCDC on how to acknowledge the week in Iowa City. Duties of HCDC include actively publicizing community development and housing policies and programs. 8. Staff & Commission Updates This item includes an opportunity for brief updates from staff and Commissioners. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion on updates. 9. Adjournment If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at bthuIC&iowa-citv.orc or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meeting Regular: March 30, 2023 ►r E CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Housing and Community Development Commission February 23, 2023 Meeting Packet Contents Agenda Item #3 • January 19, 2023 Draft HCDC Meeting Minutes Agenda Items #5 and #6 • FY24 Emerging Aid to Agencies submissions can be viewed online at icgov.org/actionplan. • FY24 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Program submissions can be viewed online at icgov.orq/actionplan. • Staff Memo and Attachments — Next Steps for FY24 Funding Rounds o Initial Summary of Applications Received o Staff Summary Sheet for FY24 CDBG/HOME Submissions (7) o Revised FY24 Calendar o FY24 CDBG/HOME Score Sheet Template o FY24 EA2A Recommendation Sheet Template o Computer Resources — ICPL Agenda Item #8 • Staff Emails Regarding the Eligibility of Legacy Agencies for Emerging Funding Agenda Item #3 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2023 — 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Michael Eckhardt, Jennifer Haylett, Karol Krotz, Nasr Mohammed, Becci Reedus MEMBERS ABSENT: Kyle Vogel STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul OTHERS PRESENT: Genevieve Anglin (UAY), Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House), Charlie Eastham (CWJ), Missie Forbes (4Cs), Christi Regan (HACAP), Adam Robinson (RVAP), Nicki Ross (Table to Table), Jennie Schmidt (Free Medical Clinic), Mazahir Salih (CWJ), Delete Thurness (BBBSJC), PRESENT ON ZOOM: Kristie Fortmann-Doser (DVIP), Michelle Heinz (Inside Out Reentry), Kai Kiser (Free Lunch Program), Shelly Zabel (Community and Family Resources), Barbara Vinograde (Free Medical Clinic) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends the following FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget recommendations to City Council (see page 9). CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Beining called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 17, 2022: Reedus moved to approve the minutes of November 17, 2022, Dennis seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved 6-0 (Krotz not present for the vote). PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Shelly Zabel (Community and Family Resources) stated they had a merger and Prelude and Prelude came under Community and Family Resources on July 1 st. At some point she would like to come back and make a more formal presentation but at this time wanted to let them know some of what the merger has entailed. Both agencies provided similar services and had been able to streamline management which provided cost savings to both agencies. They are looking at the strengths from each side and trying to move forward implementing different processes that maybe Prelude did a better job of than Community and Family Resources did so they can learn from each other. While this merger just happened in July, they actually had begun the process of providing consultation services back in September 2020, right after the pandemic began as it was also at a time that the agency director for Prelude was beginning to contemplate retirement. Zabel noted those were some of the reasons for merger and will be happy to come back and do a more formal presentation in the future. Housing and Community Development Commission January 19, 2023 Page 2 of 9 DISCUSS FY24 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES (A2A) FUNDING AND CONSIDER A BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Dennis went back and read through everything again, including the staff comments and recommendations and thought about some of the discussion last time regarding applicants that are late and when their scores are pretty low. Dennis feels they may want to talk a little bit more about not funding Community and Family Resources or not funding Center for Worker Justice because some of the agencies did get cut. Reedus feels that allowing late applicants to compete and to get funding is unfair, especially when the application deadline was clear. She acknowledged they may have had technical problems, but she really believes what happened is that they ran the clock down too far and did not leave enough time to get it in. In the past if they didn't get it in at five o'clock, they'd have to call and have it accepted. She acknowledged that part of the response from the agencies was it took them some time to get a hold of the person, because there are probably a number of agencies trying to get some assistance at the last minute, but that still doesn't change the fact that they were late. If there were real technical difficulties in getting the application submitted like loss or power or their computers went down, they should have called. So again, she does not think its fair to any of the other applicants if they allow late applicants to be able to continue to compete for funding. {Krotz joined the meeting} Dennis noted again, she went back and looked at the scoring and they have a cluster of scores from 82 to 87, and there are several agencies that were cut. They need to be totally equitable and have a rationale of how they decide these things so she would put Center for Worker Justice back to zero. Krotz agrees and also had been troubled a little bit the past couple of months with funding Center for Worker Justice. It has nothing to do with anything other than the scoring not the late application. Going back and reading staff recommendations there were a number of things listed that supported their decision to suggest it not be funded and would ask the commission members to consider that also when making their decision. One example is them was asking for money for which the grant wasn't intended. Kubly believes that was one of the things Center for Worker Justice clarified later is that they wouldn't be using funds for things that weren't eligible for outside of Iowa City. Haylett was wondering - with the late applications could they just provide like a little bit more detail. How late it was and was it the case that they just didn't turn it in, and someone reached out to them, or what exactly happened in that situation? Thul noted these applications are accepted through United Way and not directly by the City. Two applications were submitted late, within 30 minutes of the deadline. The agencies stated they had technical issues and reached out to United Way. That's the reason that United Way accepted it. Mohammed thinks the applications being accepted means they should come to the floor for discussion. He doesn't think it's that a technical glitch for about 30 minutes or so should void their status. Reedus stated they would then have to define what else can fall outside guidelines, is 45 minutes too late? Is an hour too late? Is midnight too late? What does an application deadline mean? Dennis noted they are still a Legacy Agency, so they'll come back every year. Additionally, they will also be reviewing the HOME and CDBG applications soon and a lot of the agencies that they're dealing with tonight will probably come in for an application for HOME and CDBG. That's a hard and fast rule from the City that they have to have them in on time or they're not considered. For this process, they can't do anything about what United Way does. Her biggest concern is cutting Habitat, Aging Services, RVAP and Horizons when they could use that $15,000 from CWJ and add more to them. Housing and Community Development Commission January 19, 2023 Page 3 of 9 Beining asked if they are suggesting they take away the funding from Center for Worker Justice and disperse it amongst the others, or would they like to honor the funding that they had decided in November? Reedus stated they have two options. Either they can disperse that $15,000 by taking it away from the recommendation of Center for Worker Justice, or they could also reach a little bit into the Emerging Agency fund. Beining would be a proponent of taking the funds away from the Center for Worker Justice allocation and dispersing them amongst the others. Dennis had suggested, possibly even utilizing the previous score rankings to come up with a distribution amount. Reedus suggested they break that down into first deciding on Center for Worker Justice, and then another decision separately on how to handle the $15,000 it if that passes. Haylett asked if the reason folks want to take the money from the Center for Worker Justice is the lateness only, or is it something in addition to that? Beining thinks it would be a good idea to take it away because as others have spoken - where do they draw the line of acceptable versus unacceptable on deviance from what the application says? So, it may be most equitable to consider it late, because it was late - even if it was minuscule and disperse it to those who were able complete the application on time. Eckhardt is a bit apprehensive about just removing their funding. The Commission agreed last time that the Center for Worker Justice is still sort of new to the process and they did have difficulties and they were not very late. Regarding exactly how late is too late, that's where a commission should be able to do - to make that judgment. If they could write down exactly rule for rule what to do in every single case, well, then they wouldn't really have a role for this commission. He is apprehensive about just simply removing the funding. He absolutely wouldn't give them more than the minimum right now but does believe that they provide an important service for the community. It would not be good giving them no funding. Dennis noted again that they can't control what the United Way does as far as accepting applications, but they can consider the City's policy about accepting late applications. Dennis is really concerned about applicants who scored very high and got cut. The Center for Worker Justice is still a Legacy Agency and they'll come back next year, so she votes to not fund them. Reedus wanted to clarify if they would be eligible for second year funding since Legacy funding is a two- year application. Kubly confirmed the year two allocations will be prorated based on FY24 allocations. Reedus stated that doesn't change her mind at all and noted this is not a happy decision on her part as she advocated for them to become a Legacy Agency. A rule is a rule, and she will not be in favor of allocating Center for Worker Justice or Community and Family Resource Center any funding because of late applications. Mohammed is in favor of funding the Center for Worker Justice Krotz is in favor of not funding them at this time for all the reasons previously stated and thinks that it not only amounts to fairness to the other applicants, but also fairness to all the applicants to come for the other grants that this Commission helps distribute. Haylett agrees that if they were in control of the applications and they were being submitted directly to the City with a firm deadline in terms of not accepting things late, then she would be for it. But because United Way accepted it and put it front of this Commission, that complicates things. She can imagine situations in the future where people would be late. They would not get the application and wouldn't even Housing and Community Development Commission January 19, 2023 Page 4 of 9 know that they were late because that message wouldn't be conveyed. She is actually against taking away the funding. Kubly noted staff can see when an application was submitted because they are time stamped. When it was noticed they were late, staff reached out to United Way to ask about it and they stated there were technical difficulties, so staff accepted the applications based on the information from United Way. Beining noted that makes it four to three commissioners in favor of not funding Center for Worker Justice Mazahir Salih (Center for Worker Justice) stated actually they were not late. They were ready to submit the application almost 10 minutes before the deadline, but it was not submitting. When it became like seven minutes left, she freaked out and called the United Way to ask what happened - they said sometimes, like when everybody is submitting at the same time, this happens. While she was on the phone with United Way, they suggested to get out and get in again and do this and do that, and then another person called because they have also had trouble submitting. Their application was ready to be submitted and they had been working all day long on that day to submit it. Again, she contacted United Way seven minutes before the deadline to get help and they told her it was definitely a technical difficulty Beining finds it unfortunate but does still stick with his vote for no funding. Beining has noted four in favor to remove the funding and three in favor to keep it so now they have to decide how they would like to disperse the money that was allocated towards Center for Worker Justice, or if they would like to refill the Emerging Aid Agencies pot. Krotz would like to see it go back to the Emerging Agencies. Beining and Reedus agrees Mohammed is in favor of putting the money back towards Emerging Agencies. He noted they have currently $24,300 in the emerging agency pot, if they put the $15,000 back in, they will go above the 5% and he is okay with that. Reedus asked if a Legacy Agency who receives zero funding in this process eligible to ask for Emerging Agency money. Thul stated she believes Legacy Agencies would be ineligible for Emerging Aid to Agencies funding. Reedus asked if that's an actual rule that's written someplace, noting part of her problem with this whole process is she doesn't know what the rulebook is. Kubly is unsure if it is written anywhere so if the Commission wanted to provide input on that they could consider it. Haylett asked what the Emerging Agency budget is for. Thul replied the Emerging Aid to Agencies budget can be up to 5% of the total Aid to Agencies pot, and that funding goes towards agencies who are not Legacy Agencies, so newer nonprofits. Emerging Aid to Agencies started around FY20 and in the last couple years it has been about a budget of about $30,000. Haylett asked if there is a deadline to apply for those funds, or is it a rolling thing? Thul explained the application opened at the end of December, and applications are due at the end of January. The Commission will be seeing those come through next. Dennis asked typically when the Emerging Agencies apply, is there money left over, or is there usually more asked for than they have to distribute? Kubly stated typically there are more applications than funding, but it varies by year and how much agencies will request is an unknown. All were in favor of replenishing the Emerging Agency budget with the money remaining from the Center for Worker Justice. Reedus motioned to make the following FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget recommendations to City Council Seconded by Krotz. Passed 7-0. Housing and Community Development Commission January 19, 2023 Page 5 of 9 Reedus also would like to propose that they allow any agency that did not receive money to apply in the Emerging Agency funding round. Others agree. Kubly noted the applications for Emerging Aid to Agencies are due on Monday, January 30 at noon, and that they are available online. HCDC - FY24 en Legacy Aid FY23 Allocation to Agency Funding HCDC Average 96 Recommendations Staff Funding Recommendations $99,790.00 HCDC Fundingn Recommendationsndations $99,790.000.00 e in n from FY24 HCDC 1$13,2191.00 FY24 Re us $99,790 Shelter House $90,810 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson Cou $58,759 $110,000 95 $70.000.00 $70 000.001.00Communi ' $74.037 $69,086 95 $69,086.00 $69,086.001.00Free Medical Clinic $26,709 $40,000 94 $34,954.00 $40 000.001.00 DVIP $53,418 $60,000 91 $60,000.00 $60 000.00 $e 582.00 United Acton for Youth' $35,256 $34,500 89 $34,500.00 $34 500.00 -$756.00 Table to Table $33,119 $45,000 89 $34,774.95 $40 000.00 $6 881.00 Big Brothers Big Sisters $26,7D9 $27,125 88 $27,125.00 $27125.00 $416.00 Iowa Valley Habitat for Human $26,7D9 $30,000 87 $28,044.45 $27 029.00 $320.00 4Cs $26,7D9 $30,000 86 $28,044.45 $28 000.00 $1 291.00 Aging Services (Pathways) $26,709 $27,000 83 $27,000.00 $15,000.00 -$11 709.00 Houses into Homes $0 $15,000 82 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 RVAP $26,709 $30,000 82 $28 044.00 $28 000.00 $1 291.00 Horimns $47,007 $47,007 82 $40,000.00 $38,000.00 -$9,007.00 Inside Out Reentry $42,734 $45,000 81 $40,000.00 $31 000.00 -$11 734.00 Arc of Southeast Iowa $21,367 $30,000 80 $22,435.35 $22400.00 $1033.00 HACAP $26,709 $27,510 80 $27,510.00 $27270.00 $561.00 Dream City $0 $30000 76 $15,000.00 $25000.00 $25000.00 Free Lunch $19,230 $25,000 72 $20,192.00 $15.000.00 -$4,230.00 Community and Family Resources (formerly Prelude $42,734 $41,788 52 $0.00 $0.00 -$42,734.00 Center for Worker Justice $0 $45,000 52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 HTFJC $0 $0.00 NA NA NA NA $712,200.00 'Recommendations show a decrease in funding for Comm Unity and UAY from FY23 to FY24. Please note this is due to a decrease in agency request. DISCUSS CREATION OF A SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE AID TO AGENCIES PROCESS Beining stated this agenda item is to see if they have a consensus on willingness to create a subcommittee, and then to identify commissioners to serve. They may also want to decide how the reporting would be handled, how often they would meet, and how often they'd report to the full Commission. Dennis noted this was her first time to go through this process with Emerging and Legacy Agencies and feels there is a lot of confusion. Dennis thinks a subcommittee is a great idea. She does have one suggestion for the makeup of the committee, because these Legacy Agency applications go through the United Way, she feels it behooves them to ask the United Way to have a representative at these meetings because they've talked a lot about how the application needs to change, that they're not getting the information that they need to make good decisions. If a lot of agencies that fill out the United Way application are also filling it out for Legacy Agency money, it just makes sense to get them on board also. Krotz wondered if it is necessary for the United Way and this Commission to be joined on the application, or is it possible to sever that? Reedus noted this Commission went through the application and made specific recommendations for changes and that United Way didn't want to make them all. She is in favor of splitting the process from United Way and doing their own application and process. Also thank you to Agency Impact Coalition for providing them with the correspondence regarding how this funding process began, back before the pandemic. It is was the result of some big changes made in the amount of funding that was allocated to the Aid to Agencies process. Those recommendations from the Agency Impact Coalition were spot on in terms of having site visits which would be beneficial to make sure that there's a flow of information of the successes to meet community needs, etc. Anyway, she is in favor of doing this as their own subcommittee of just HCDC, and once they're down the line and start talking about the application, if they want to include United Way in those discussions fine, but starting with their own subcommittee, with staff, HCDC members, and maybe a couple of representatives from AIC if people are willing to serve on the subcommittee. Mohammed is in favor of creating this subcommittee but would like to know more about the purpose on the scope of the subcommittee and what they would like to see on the application. Krotz motioned to form a subcommittee of HCDC to review the Aid to Agencies process. Seconded by Eckhardt. Passed 7-0. Next to decide on parameters, such as the how often they should report - are they reporting when they have a recommendation, or is it a report at every meeting? They should also specify exactly who is volunteering for that subcommittee making sure it is not enough to have a full quorum. Eckhart asked how often a subcommittee would meet. Reedus thinks that depends, her hope would be in 30 to 60 days to come up with a goal and a calendar or a timeline of activities. Reedus, Krotz and Eckhart volunteered to participate. Next to establish parameters around when they would meet, or when they would update. Or should they simply form the subcommittee and then figure that out at a later time? Reedus suggested deadlines are good. Why don't they ask for a for a report on timelines by the March meeting giving 60 days to get it together? Krotz asked how they going to include the other organizations in terms of their membership on the subcommittee? Housing and Community Development Commission January 19, 2023 Page 7 of 9 Reedus asked if they should ask two members or AIC to appoint two members to attend? Kubly noted not all of the Legacy Agencies that apply to this program are on the AIC, so how do they want to consider other agencies and their involvement? Dennis stated the subcommittee would also need to have minutes so all of the Legacy Agencies could receive the minutes at least. Otherwise, it's going to be a pretty big committee of everybody who could be involved, which is going to take more than 60 days. Reedus noted Adam Robinson and a couple other people from AIC are here so does he think it would that be sufficient for everybody if AIC reached out to all agencies and AIC will appoint a couple of representatives? Robinson agreed. Reedus volunteered to chair the subcommittee - to organize the meetings, and to keep the Commission updated on information. PROPOSED CHANGES TO AUDIT POLICY Kubly shared that in about 2018, the City Council asked staff to come up with an audit policy for accountability with the agencies that they would be funding with public funds. The current audit policy is based on the agency's total annual budget. If they are less than $100,000, the City requires year-end financial statement signed by the director and board president. From $100,000 to $499,999, they require a review by a certified public accountant annually. If the budget is over $500,000, they would require an actual audit. Staff has been reviewing this requirement because with COVID funding, some of the smaller agencies are having a larger budget and that's triggering the audit requirement. There were some instances where maybe the City is only funding about $15,000 for their project and the rest is COVID funding or other funding. For these smaller agencies, an audit can cost up to $10,000 and so staff is feeling that this policy is going to be burdensome on agencies potentially. Staff is proposing to revise the policy and instead of the different levels of budget for all agencies, it will be the same requirements which would be to see copies of their 990 tax forms and then a year end profit and loss statement approved by the board. Many agencies already do audits and staff will be able to review those. To be fair to all agencies and not cause a financial burden, staff is proposing to Council to revise this audit policy. Reedus agreed it can be financially burdensome, however, is concerned about the plethora of differences that they get in the application process and wonders if the financials are correct. She is concerned, especially about the smaller agencies and their ability to provide accurate profit and loss statements. Maybe there is a way there can be some sort of fillable form or guide for some of the smaller agencies. Otherwise, she is in favor of the changes, although she does think audits are good. Dennis noted in her experience, audits are very expensive and if the revenue of a nonprofit is less than $50,000 in one year there's no 990. It's just a postcard that is sent into the IRS. She feels it is good to get profit and loss statements, but thinks they should require a balance sheet as well. Dennis noted it's up to the boards of the nonprofiit's because they're the ones that have the fiscal responsibility. If the nonprofit doesn't have the board capability to oversee their fiscal activities, then that would be a concern to even give them any money. Krotz stated 501 C(3) are required to have a board of directors. Reedus noted but that doesn't mean that they see their financials so again would suggest there will be the creation of a simple fillable form type thing. She likes the board approval as that was one of her recommendations during the process that they require a year-end financial statement that's been approved by the board, but she would also ask them to include a copy of their minutes that shows that the financial statement were reviewed and approved by the board. Housing and Community Development Commission January 19, 2023 Page S of 9 STAFF & COMMISSION UPDATES: Thul stated that they are now moving on from Legacy Agencies to the next funding round. At the end of January, the CDBG and HOME applications will be due. Those projects will be affordable housing and public facility projects. Additionally, the Emerging Aid to Agencies applications will be coming through for the newer nonprofit agencies. When staff receive those, they will send them to the Commission for review along with the staff review sheets. Staff review sheets will summarize things and help with calculations for the scoring. Thul also wanted to mention was there will need to be a slight adjustment to the timeline that was in the agenda packet. The March meeting was originally going to be on the fourth Thursday of the month due to spring break, but there's a conflict with the meeting space. There are five Thursdays in March, so staff is proposing to meet on March 30 instead. Commissioners agree. ADJOURNMENT: Krotz moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and the motion passed 7-0. Housing and Community Development Commission January 19, 2023 Page 9 of 9 Housing and Community Development Commission Name Terms Exp. 7/21 9/15 10/20 11/17 1/19 Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X O/E X X X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 X O/E X X X Haylett, Jennifer 6/30/25 X X O/E O/E X Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 O/E X X X X Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth 6/30/23 X O/E Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X X X X X Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 O/E X X X O/E Eckhardt, Michael 6/30/25 X X X Attendance Record 2022-2023 Resigned from Commission Key., X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant p Agenda Items #5 and #6 CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OFFIOWAOWA CITY ITY MEMORANDUM UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: February 9, 2023 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Re: Next Steps for FY24 Funding Rounds FY24 Funding Rounds The purpose of this memo is to provide an outline of next steps for the FY24 funding cycles. As you know, two funding opportunities closed January 30, 2023 at 12pm: FY24 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) & HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME). o $700,000 HOME (housing activities including acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, or direct assistance for renter- or owner -occupied housing). o $78,000 HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) reserve (housing activities). o $240,000 CDBG (housing activities or public facility projects). • FY24 Emerging Aid to Agencies (EA2A). o $37,575 estimated available following final Legacy Aid to Agencies recommendations. EA2A provides flexible operational funding for qualifying nonprofits providing public services. Submissions for both opportunities were made available for your review January 31, 2023. As a reminder, applications and associated materials can be viewed online at icgov.org/actionplan. To aid in your review, staff have provided summary sheets for each CDBG/HOME submission. Printed materials are available upon request and information on public computer access at the Iowa City Public Library is attached. Next Steps The following provides information on next steps for HCDC: A question -and -answer session with CDBG/HOME and EA2A applicants is scheduled for the February 16, 2023 HCDC meeting. This is an opportunity to clarify any points of the submissions that are unclear. 2. Following the February meeting, Commissioners should begin to score CDBG/HOME submissions using the criteria attached. There is no score sheet for EA2A so each commissioner will make their individual funding recommendations on the sheet attached. CDBG/HOME score sheets and EA2A funding recommendations must be submitted by March 16, 2023 for staff to compile data ahead of the March 30th meeting. The original deadline of March 2"' has been extended due to the change in meeting date for March. This adjustment will give commissioners an additional two weeks. A revised tentative timeline is attached. February 9, 2023 Page 2 • Commissioners can submit information to staff via email, mail, or drop off at City Hall. Information can be typed or handwritten. 3. Staff will provide composite scores and funding recommendations to commissioners for review by March 3rd, 2023. HCDC will meet March 30'h. 2023. This meeting will include a budget recommendation to City Council for FY24 CDBG/HOME and EA2A funding. Opportunities for Assistance Staff are available to meet with Commissioners via Zoom, phone call, or in -person to help answer questions that arise during the review and scoring process. As mentioned, summary sheets have been provided for CDBG/HOME submissions and staff will make funding recommendations for HCDC consideration by March 3rd. For assistance during this process, please contact Brianna Thul at bthul cDiowa-citv.orq or 319-356-5240. Attachments Initial Summary of Applications Received Staff Summary Sheet for FY24 CDBG/HOME Submissions (7) Revised FY24 Calendar FY24 CDBG/HOME Score Sheet Template FY24 EA2A Recommendation Sheet Template Computer Resources - ICPL o 0 - d D o O U U U a n = O c O o c O - _ m - m N p N 2 2 o G G N N G 0 W m a W d d '� m °im o o t 5 U � UUU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID0 0 O 0 O 0 p O 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 C WN 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 W M fA n'1 f» fA N (q N N f» fA O N fA N (9 O ffAA N 0 N M C O A O U CO U O U ld N N i N t Q C Q G p c 0 c awi a a � h c ?5 E Z E T N N Q O V! lL m z z Q N C x O ap w a E m W 0 O O o = U D N L LL LL 0 -ICN 0 m C m C m C C O U p— p J 0 0 0 LL QUO x �NH H I-� C O N E N W 2 0 x 0 m O U O J Q W L OI O t.. N � LL 0 O 2 a m a - c LL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N ) m m ! � di f9 f9 f9 f9 N C 0 O E Q n n O F yy U (m m O N N mO p ry w 0 2� V q a_ w p C cvi N av > E d wF O O U 0 9 N O O y d T l0 0 N O. p o N V OO. 0 0 w O d w U y N w E V C L m ra C m m� O C C ` E C O L O-E O v 0.0 M o > p E 0 0'C N .2 w$ CL W aLL= n m m d o.� an 2 QN O a0 ww°N ° 00 uoi U c U w C C O w o m N r m c O m C w E O N a c C Ea N m US o d a Q m o Q 2 Y U N c W E t U U J N c E m E Q 0 m FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Agenda Item #6 Applicant Agency City of Iowa City, GreenState Credit Union, & Hills Bank Eligible Activity Downpayment Assistance - MM.. City Steps Goal and Priority Support homebuyer activities. High priority. Staff Concerns Timeliness if funded with CDBG. Total Estimated Project Cost $3,845,000 Funds Requested $300,000 Funds Leveraged $3,545,000 Ill. FeasibilitV and Communitv .. Primary Target 70% of estimated beneficiaries between 61-80% AMI. with 30% of total estimated beneficiaries between 51-60 /o AMI. Special Populations None Encouraging Housing Distribution The program allows the buyer to choose the location of their home as long as within the approved HUD certified census tracts. Timeline Project to be completed by January of 2025 unless funds are depleted sooner. Affordability/Compliance Period Affordability period for assistance of $15,000 requires a 10-year period of affordabili . IV. Capacity/H !story Past Projects The City currently administers a downpayment assistance program through a partnership with GreenState with federal funds. Iowa City receives a single audit (low -risk auditee). The City has Capacity administered federal funds for over 40 years. GreenState Credit Union has provided residential mortgages in Iowa since 1938. Hills Bank has provided residential mortgages in Iowa since 1904. Project designed to serve those in underserved neighborhoods and households who have not been able to qualify for a mortgage. Equity Applicant anticipates that the program will increase the number of homes acquired by persons of color, but the program won't be limited to only persons of color. Questions and Considerations • Disclosure: Staff preparing the summary sheets also work directly with the City's downpayment assistance programs. • Eligible for both CDBG and HOME. • Maximum purchase price limit for existing homes is currently $259,000. Inventory of units available at this price point is a consideration along with increasing interest rates. • What education is available for potential buyers? Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. 92% - 20 points 11.5 Primary percentage of median Majority between 61-80% AMI - 5 points income persons targeted. 111.8 Experience with applicable federal Yes, adequate experience demonstrated — 20 points requirements. IV.14 Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Bonus Points (V) Staff Risk Assessment 2 points (letters of support) Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to ❑ Yes (3 pts.) recapture of funds in the last five ® No (0 pts.) 0 ears? Does the applicant have more than ® Yes (1 pts.) one other federally funded El No (0 pts.) 1 projects current) underway? Has the applicant triggered the City's Unsuccessful and Delayed ❑ Yes (2 pts.) Projects Policy in the last five ® No (0 pts.) 0 years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. ❑ Yes (1 pts.) 0 late reports, incomplete reports, or M No (0 pts.) failing to submit required reports)? Has the applicant experienced ❑ Yes (1 pts.) turnover in key staff in the last 12 ®No0 ( pts.) 0 months? Does the applicant have a lack of experience undertaking projects of ❑ Yes (3 pts.) 0 similar size and scale ® No (0 pts.) successfully? Are factors present that indicate a ❑ Yes (3 pts.) concern for financial capacity M No (0 pts.) 0 such as audit findings? Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance ❑ Yes (3 pts.) for projects during the period of ®No (0 pts.) 0 affordability or compliance period in the last five ears? Are other factors present that ❑ Yes (1-3 pts.) 0 indicate risk? Is yes, explain. M No (0 pts.) Total Points 1 Point —Low Risk Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Agenda Item #6 Applicant Agency Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) Eligible Activity Public Facilities — New Construction City Steps Goal and Priority Serve people experiencing homelessness/reduce homelessness. High priority. CDBG timeliness. The City must expend funds in a timely manner to Staff Concerns meet deadlines from HUD. $425,000 of CDBG was awarded in FY23 that has not been expended to date as of 2/9/23 . JdRL..- Total Estimated Project Cost $6,574,777 Funds Requested $350,000 (Exceeds the amount of CDBG available) Funds Leveraged $5,299,777 (Not including FY23 CDBG or HOME -ARP award) ImpactIll. Feasibility and Community Primary Target 64% of estimated beneficiaries below 30% AM with 79% of total estimated beneficiaries below 50 /o AMI. Special Populations People experiencing intimate partner violence. Encouraging Housing Distribution NA — this is not a housing activity. Project is slated to break ground in May of 2023. Typically, a project Timeline starting before the fiscal year begins would be ineligible, but the City has already completed the environmental review work for the project due to the previously awarded CDBG funds. Affordability/Compliance Period Varies based on CDBG funds awarded. Example: $225,000 = 20- ml2liance eriod. Capacity/H !story Applicant has completed numerous public services activities with Past Projects CDBG funds. Recently, DVIP was awarded FY23 funds for the same construction project and the applicant also completed a public facilities rehab project in FY20 with $120,000 in CDBG funds. Capacity Applicant has a 10-person board and receives a single audit (low -risk auditee). Scale of project is larger than prior CDBG project. Applicant notes serving victims of intimate partner violence, stalking, Equity and human trafficking and does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, race, color, age religion, political beliefs, disabilit , economic standin , or other beliefs and affiliations. Questions and Considerations Applicant has experience successfully undertaking other CDBG projects, however, the scale and scope of this proposal is larger than previous projects. • Timeliness and spending deadlines. • The proposed activity was also awarded $500,000 of HOME -ARP funds. The agency has also applied for ARPA nonprofit capital funding in the amount of $1,000,000. • Project is not eligible for HOME funds. • Agency did not attend the applicant workshop but has discussed the project and associated requirements with staff. • Applicant notes the first round of CDBG will be spent on materials. What specifically will the newly requested funds be used for? • Do any other funds invested in the project havespending deadlines that may impact CDBG spending? Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. 80% - 20 points 11.5 Primary percentage of median Majority under 30% - 20 points income persons targeted. 111.8 Experience with applicable federal Yes, adequate experience demonstrated — 20 points requirements. IV.14 Bonus Points (V) Staff Risk Assessment 2 points (letters of support) Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to ❑ Yes (3 pts.) recapture of funds in the last five ®No (0 pts.) 0 ears? Does the applicant have more than ® Yes (1 pts.) one other federally funded El No (0 pts.) 1 projects current) underway? Has the applicant triggered the City's Unsuccessful and Delayed ❑ Yes (2 pts.) The next checkpoint is March Projects Policy in the last five ® No (0 pts.) 0 2023. years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. ❑ Yes (1 pts.) 0 late reports, incomplete reports, or ® No (0 pts.) failing to submit required reports)? Has the applicant experienced ❑ Yes (1 pts.) turnover in key staff in the last 12 ®No (0 pts.) 0 months? Does the applicant have a lack of Applicant has successfully taken experience undertaking projects of ® Yes (3 pts.) 3 other federally funded projects, similar size and scale El No (0 pts.) but the size of this project is successfully? substantially larger. Are factors present that indicate a ❑ Yes (3 pts.) concern for financial capacity ®No (0 pts.) 0 such as audit findings? Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance ❑ Yes (3 pts.) for projects during the period of ® No (0 pts.) 0 affordability or compliance period in the last five ears? Due to the amount of CDBG Are other factors present that ® Yes (1-3 pts.) invested in this project, any indicate risk? Is yes, explain. ❑ No (0 pts.) 1 untimely expenditures may impact the City's compliance with HUD spending deadlines. Total Points 5 Points — Moderate Risk Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Agenda Item #6 Applicant Agency Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity Eligible Activity Downpayment Assistance .. - City Steps Goal and Priority Support homebuyer activities. High priority. Staff Concerns Timeliness if funded with CDBG. 11. ..It n Total Estimated Project Cost $538,100 Funds Requested $80,000 Funds Leveraged $458,100 .1m .. Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries between 51-60% AMI. Special Populations Other; Applicant mentions larger households of five people. Encouraging Housing Distribution Project is located in proximity to existing affordable housing units. Timeline Applicant anticipates the sale of one unit in 2024 and the second unit in 2025. $40,000 per unit = 10 years, but affordability period may vary based Affordability/Compliance Period on the amount of assistance the buyer is eligible for based on underwritin . Capacity/H !story Applicant has completed numerous similar projects in the past. Two Past Projects units will be sold to eligible buyers in 2023 with HOME downpayment assistance. FY20 funds were voluntarily returned to the City due to andemic disruptions. Applicant has a 11-person board and has undertaken similar projects Capacity of size and scale successfully in the past. Financial statements submitted — agency does not expend enough federal funding annually to require a single audit. Applicant serves, a significant number of permanent US Equity residents that were born in other countries and takes steps to design and construct homes that are adequate for persons of varying physical abilities. Questions and Considerations • Downpayment assistance is eligible for both CDBG and HOME. • Maximum purchase price for a newly constructed home is $261,000. Will the unit be sold under this threshold given the cost of construction? • Increasing interest rates are also a consideration. • What education is available for potential buyers? Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. 85% - 20 points 11.5 Primary percentage of median All between 51-60% AMI. - 10 points income persons targeted. 111.8 Experience with applicable federal Yes, adequate experience demonstrated — 20 points requirements. IV.14 Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Bonus Points (V) Staff Risk Assessment 2 points (nonprofit housing developer in good standing) Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to ❑ Yes (3 pts.) recapture of funds in the last five ® No (0 pts.) 0 ears? Does the applicant have more than ❑ Yes (1 pts.) one other federally funded ®No (0 pts.) 0 projects current) underway? Has the applicant triggered the City's Unsuccessful and Delayed ❑ Yes (2 pts.) Projects Policy in the last five ® No (0 pts.) 0 years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. ❑ Yes (1 pts.) 0 late reports, incomplete reports, or M No (0 pts.) failing to submit required reports)? Has the applicant experienced ❑ Yes (1 pts.) turnover in key staff in the last 12 ®No0 ( pts.) 0 months? Does the applicant have a lack of experience undertaking projects of ❑ Yes (3 pts.) 0 similar size and scale ® No (0 pts.) successfully? Are factors present that indicate a ❑ Yes (3 pts.) concern for financial capacity M No (0 pts.) 0 such as audit findings? Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance ❑ Yes (3 pts.) for projects during the period of ®No (0 pts.) 0 affordability or compliance period in the last five ears? Are other factors present that ® Yes (1-3 pts.) 1 FY20 funds voluntarily returned. indicate risk? Is yes, explain. ❑ No (0 pts.) Total Points 1 Point —Low Risk Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Agenda Item #6 Applicant Agency Shelter House Eligible Activity Public Facility Improvements. High Priority. City Steps Goal and Priority Serve people experiencing homelessness/reduce homelessness CDBG timeliness. The City must expend funds in a timely manner to Staff Concerns meet deadlines from HUD. $225,000 of CDBG was awarded in FY22 that has not been expended to date as of 2/9/23 . Total Estimated Project Cost $307,200 Funds Requested $240,000 Funds Leveraged $67,200 ImpactIll. Feasibility and Community Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries below 30% AMI. People experiencing homelessness. Special Populations Encouraging Housing Distribution NA — this is not a housing activity. Project is anticipated to be completed before the end of the calendar Timeline year. Applicant notes project would go out for bid in June, which is before the beginning of the Ci 's fiscal year. Affordability/Compliance Period Varies based on CDBG funds awarded. Example: $225,000 = 20- ear maximum compliance period. Capacity/History Applicant has successfully completed numerous federally funded activities such as public services, rental acquisition, and rental construction. Recently, the applicant completed the 501 Project which Past Projects provided 36 units of permanent supportive housing. The applicant does have one CDBG public facilities project currently behind schedule. $225,000 of FY22 funds have not been expended to date as of 2/9/23 . Applicant has a large board and receives a single audit (low -risk Capacity auditee). Scale of project is on par with projects completed in the past, however, new Section 3 requirements may apply. Applicant notes serving a wide variety of clients from different Equity backgrounds and abilities. Examples of populations served include women, children, transgender people, nonbinary people, veterans, people with disabilities. Questions and Considerations • Project is not eligible for HOME. • Timeliness and spending deadlines. Staff has concerns about the applicant's ability to expend funds within the project year. Delays on large projects substantially impact the city's overall timeliness status with HUD. • Project schedule — if awarded funds, applicant would need to make sure they do not take any choice limiting action before an environmental review is completed. • Typical Davis Bacon and procurement requirements apply. Depending on the amount of funds awarded, additional federal requirements such as Section 3 may also apply. Additional requirements increase project complexity and require additional staff time. Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. • Shelter House has requested ARPA nonprofit capital funds in the amount of $837,477 for this and other facility improvements. Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. 22% - 5 points 11.5 Primary percentage of median Majority under 30% - 20 points income persons targeted. III.8 Experience with applicable federal Yes, adequate experience demonstrated — 20 points requirements. IV.14 Bonus Points (V) Staff Risk Assessment 2 points (nonprofit housing developer in good standing) Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to ❑ Yes (3 pts.) recapture of funds in the last five E No (0 pts.) 0 ears? Does the applicant have more than E Yes (1 pts.) one other federally funded El No (0 pts.) 1 projects current) underway? Has the applicant triggered the City's Unsuccessful and Delayed N Yes (2 pts.) Projects Policy in the last five El No (0 pts.) 1 FY22 HVAC improvements. years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. ❑ Yes (1 pts.) 0 late reports, incomplete reports, or E No (0 pts.) failing to submit required reports)? Has the applicant experienced ❑ Yes (1 pts.) turnover in key staff in the last 12 E No (0 pts.) 0 months? Does the applicant have a lack of experience undertaking projects of ❑ Yes (3 pts.) 0 similar size and scale E No (0 pts.) successfully? Are factors present that indicate a ❑ Yes (3 pts.) concern for financial capacity N No (0 pts.) 0 such as audit findings? Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance ❑ Yes (3 pts.) for projects during the period of N No (0 pts.) 0 affordability or compliance period in the last five ears? Are other factors present that ❑ Yes (1-3 pts.) 0 indicate risk? Is yes, explain. E No (0 pts.) Total Points 2 Points — Low Risk Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Agenda Item #6 Applicant Agency The Housing Fellowship Eligible Activity Rental Rehab City Steps Goal and Priority Rehab/improve renter occupied housing units. High priority. Staff Concerns No major concerns. Staff to verify that noise level at potential project site is within HUD's required threshold. Total Estimated Project Cost $100,000 Funds Requested $78,000 Funds Leveraged $22,000 ImpactIll. Feasibility and Community Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries between 51 - 60% AM Special Populations None. Applicant notes need for units that can accommodate large families. Encouraging Housing Distribution Project is located in proximity to existing affordable housing units. Timeline Project anticipated to be completed within the fiscal year. Affordability/Compliance Period 15-year affordability period. Capacity/History Past Projects Applicant has successfully completed numerous projects in the past of similar size and scale. The agency is also a certified CHDO. Applicant has a board that meets the CHDO requirements. Financial Capacity statements submitted — agency does not expend enough federal funding annually to require a single audit. Applicant notes that 65% of their tenants identify as a person of color. Equity Agency operates a number of accessible units and also works with immi rant families. eConsiderations • Project is CHDO reserve eligible. Eligible for both CDBG and HOME. • Site is in close proximity to railroad and Highway 6. Site must be within HUD noise limits. Staff will review. • Developer fee appears reasonable at 10% of request. • Fair Market Rent for a three bedroom is currently $1,510 (minus tenant paid utilities). Applicant plans to charge $950. • Applicant notes that one unit is currently occupied, will tenants be required to temporarily relocate to complete rehab work? • Federal procurement regulations apply. Davis Bacon will not apply unless funded with CDBG. • Applicant did not attend applicant workshop but has discussed project with staff. Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. 22% - 5 points 11.5 Primary percentage of median 100% between 51-60% AMI - 10 points income persons targeted. 111.8 Experience with applicable federal Yes, adequate experience demonstrated — 20 points requirements. IV.14 Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Bonus Points (V) Staff Risk Assessment 4 points (CHDO and nonprofit housing developer in good standing) Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to ❑ Yes (3 pts.) recapture of funds in the last five ® No (0 pts.) 0 ears? Does the applicant have more than ® Yes (1 pts.) Applicant has closed many one other federally funded El No (0 pts.) 1 projects that were delayed due to projects current) underway? the pandemic in the last year. Has the applicant triggered the City's Unsuccessful and Delayed ❑ Yes (2 pts.) Projects Policy in the last five ® No (0 pts.) 0 years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. ❑ Yes (1 pts.) 0 late reports, incomplete reports, or M No (0 pts.) failing to submit required reports)? Has the applicant experienced ❑ Yes (1 pts.) turnover in key staff in the last 12 ®No0 ( pts.) 0 months? Does the applicant have a lack of experience undertaking projects of ❑ Yes (3 pts.) 0 similar size and scale ® No (0 pts.) successfully? Are factors present that indicate a ❑ Yes (3 pts.) concern for financial capacity M No (0 pts.) 0 such as audit findings? Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance ❑ Yes (3 pts.) for projects during the period of ®No (0 pts.) 0 affordability or compliance period in the last five ears? Are other factors present that ❑ Yes (1-3 pts.) 0 indicate risk? Is yes, explain. M No (0 pts.) Total Points 1 Point —Low Risk Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Agenda Item #6 Applicant Agency The Housing Fellowship Eligible Activity Rental New Construction . - - City Steps Goal and Priority Increase affordable rental units. High priority. Staff Concerns No major concerns. Implementation of Section 3 is a consideration. Total Estimated Project Cost $400,000 Funds Requested $200,000 Funds Leveraged $200,000 . . .. Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries between 51 - 60% AMI Special Populations None. Applicant notes need for units that can accommodate large families. Encouraging Housing Distribution Project is located within the northside of Iowa City — a traditionally expensive neighborhood. Timeline Project schedule anticipates completion in 2024. Affordability/Compliance Period New construction requires a 20-year affordability period. IV. Capacity/H !story Applicant has successfully completed numerous federally funded projects in the past. Projects completed with HOME funds are Past Projects typically rehab or acquisition, however, the agency did complete a complex LIHTC development project within the last five years of a larger scale. The agency is also a certified CHDO. Applicant has a board that meets the CHDO requirements. Financial Capacity statements submitted — agency does not expend enough federal funding annually to require a single audit. Applicant notes that 65% of their tenants identify as a person of color. Equity Agency operates a number of accessible units and also works with immigrant families. Questions and Considerations Project is CHDO reserve eligible. Not eligible for CDBG. • Project is located within a historic district and will require review from State Historic Preservation Office as a part of the environmental review. • Fair Market Rent for a three bedroom is currently $1,063 (minus tenant paid utilities). Applicant plans to charge $800. Achieving this rent target on a new construction project would require a large subsidy to keep the monthly debt service low. • Affordable Housing Design Guidelines apply. • Federal procurement regulations apply. Davis Bacon will not apply if funded with HOME. Depending on the amount of funds awarded, additional federal requirements, such as Section 3, may also apply. Additional requirements increase project complexity. • Applicant did not attend applicant workshop but has discussed project with staff. • How did the aoDlicant determine the estimate for construction cost? Staff Calculations Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Percentage of funds leveraged. 50% - 10 points 11.5 Primary percentage of median 100% between 51-60% AMI - 10 points income persons targeted. 111.8 Experience with applicable federal Yes, adequate experience demonstrated — 20 points requirements. IV.14 Bonus Points (V) Staff Risk Assessment 4 points (CHDO and nonprofit housing developer in good standing) Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to ❑ Yes (3 pts.) recapture of funds in the last five ®No (0 pts.) 0 ears? Does the applicant have more than ® Yes (1 pts.) Applicant has closed many one other federally funded El No (0 pts.) 1 projects that were delayed due to projects current) underway? the pandemic in the last year. Has the applicant triggered the City's Unsuccessful and Delayed ❑ Yes (2 pts.) Projects Policy in the last five ®No (0 pts.) 0 years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. ❑ Yes (1 pts.) 0 late reports, incomplete reports, or M No (0 pts.) failing to submit required reports)? Has the applicant experienced ❑ Yes (1 pts.) turnover in key staff in the last 12 ®No (0 pts.) 0 months? Does the applicant have a lack of experience undertaking projects of ❑ Yes (3 pts.) 0 similar size and scale ® No (0 pts.) successfully? Are factors present that indicate a El Yes (3 pts.) concern for financial capacity M No (0 pts.) 0 such as audit findings? Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance ❑ Yes (3 pts.) for projects during the period of ®No (0 pts.) 0 affordability or compliance period in the last five years? ® Yes (1-3 pts.) 1 Section 3 reporting requirements. Are other factors present that indicate risk? Is yes, explain. ❑ No( pts.) Total Points 2 Points — Low Risk Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Agenda Item #6 Applicant Agency United Action for Youth Eligible Activity Acquisition and Rehab. City Steps Goal and Priority Serve people experiencing homelessness/reduce homelessness. High priority. Staff Concerns Agency experience and financial stability of the project. Total Estimated Project Cost $800,000 Funds Requested $400,000 Funds Leveraged $400,000 ImpactIll. Feasibility and Community Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries below 30% AMI. Special Populations People experiencing homelessness. Encouraging Housing Distribution Unknown as a property has not yet been identified. Timeline Anticipated completion in 2024. Six months estimated for rehab work. Affordability/Compliance Period Likely 20-year maximum compliance period for CDBG or HOME. Capacity/History Applicant successfully completed a CDBG-CV public services project Past Projects recently but has not undertaken a federally funded housing project with the City since FY12. HOME program regulations have changed significantly during that period. Applicant has a 10-person board. Does not currently require a single Capacity audit. Financial statements on file. Scale of project is larger than prior CDBG project. Applicant notes serving victims of intimate partner violence, stalking, Equity and human trafficking and does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, race, color, age religion, political beliefs, disabilit , economic standin , or other beliefs and affiliations. Questions and Considerations • Eligible for both CDBG and HOME. • Applicant does not have any funding secured for this project at the time of application and is not contributing any agency funds. • No proforma was submitted. It is unclear how this project will meet City underwriting requirements or cashflow, as no rent is charged. • This project has the potential to trigger many complex federal requirements including lead -based paint, procurement, relocation, and/or Section 3. Davis Bacon would not be triggered unless funded with CDBG. • Applicant did not attend the applicant workshop — is the agency aware of the scope of federal requirements that would apply to thisproject? Does the agency have the capacity to administer? Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. 50% - 10 points (if awarded HTFJC) 11.5 Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Primary percentage of median Majority under 30% - 20 points income persons targeted. 111.8 Experience with applicable federal Inadequate experience demonstrated/unclear — 0 points requirements. IV.14 Bonus Points (V) Staff Risk Assessment 0 Points Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to ❑ Yes (3 pts.) recapture of funds in the last five ®No (0 pts.) 0 ears? Does the applicant have more than ❑ Yes (1 pts.) one other federally funded ® No (0 pts.) 0 projects currently underway? Has the applicant triggered the City's Unsuccessful and Delayed ❑ Yes (2 pts.) Projects Policy in the last five ® No (0 pts.) 0 years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. ❑ Yes (1 pts.) 0 late reports, incomplete reports, or M No (0 pts.) failing to submit required reports)? Has the applicant experienced ❑ Yes (1 pts.) turnover in key staff in the last 12 ®No (0 pts.) 0 months? Does the applicant have a lack of Applicant has successfully taken experience undertaking projects of M Yes (3 pts.) 3 other federally funded projects, similar size and scale ❑ No (0 pts.) but the size of this project is successfully? larger and more complex. Are factors present that indicate a ®Yes (3 pts.) pts. No funds are currently committed concern for financial capacity El No (0 3 to this project. Request if 50% of such as audit findings? total project budget. Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance ❑ Yes (3 pts.) for projects during the period of ®No (0 pts.) 0 affordability or compliance period in the last five ears? Proforma not submitted, lack of Are other factors present that ® Yes (1-3 pts.) 3 experience with similar projects, indicate risk? Is yes, explain. ElNo (0 pts.) and complexity of regulations applicable. Total Points 9 Points — Moderate Risk Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Agenda Items #5 and #6 ► r wr®IC�� Tentative Timeline for FY24 CDBG/HOME and �"�- Emerging Aid to Agencies CITY OF IOWA CITY 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 23, 2023 Housing and Community Development Commission meeting: (rescheduled) Question and answer discussion with CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies applicants. Applicants are strongly encouraged to attend. March 16, 2023 Housing and Community Development Commission members submit CDBG/HOME score sheets and Emerging Aid to Agencies funding recommendation to City staff for compilation. There is no score sheet for Emerging Aid to Agencies. March 30, 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. Dates may be subject to change. `Please note the March meeting is the 5'" Thursday of the month to accommodate for spring break. 2 [ 2 k El •_ , •«z!! /�`i`�Q\ ��{!l;a, ®�/\{\ i - �|,l,rl,!) • - --- - \! ! - - - !,;l= t t .•| !; . ! i=,=l=, ) t ` / ] i) • | ! l,•,•,. .,|=r r ! !!, ,!!! ! , ,•,,,,,,!( § |� � \))f )/,\i!|i i) )�! !!\ ! � | � !_,•�`!` � a \# ;2599#I \ g n, 26B,,,aal56| ! ! !.|;:I�. | !£§ww l�=,=;§��f !l-;;| �Ra - }�\\ - _ -,•!!.! \/a£l=a22g2: ( ,cgs 3. !\! )\\ \!I - -is Qh|�- \/§| ( \ \//| a a ) |\ � - ,i!) !\!i;{!\ky!!)\\` ••= 1 - - ���\`��\�\_\�t\� .|.f;� Z u w- m E- /{/\;l,,f/|;lr |;:. & |{\{ /Ei0i !! - E -.,\-- !!_ . . - i.{)f- G/2 - ,!3{//` _ !BR-K ! •, _ p / !! /\;! §/R //;I\) % g,S!„ \d2 ee,e9«s� MGM e� . \g.e!!E\\\ \/h\ '/ 8/ :2 /// \ 8 mq 8 0- iWgeo o�A soo0 s iageo 8 m n° o- 's s al 3 00. 00. `o o o 05 m$ o� <` osoEE o.', n dZ -ai g" e r£ � E � e g a S 5 G • � - 5 8 y e g W a c A o 'E Bfr fr 5 LY b E E E � & S• €, c;3 a$s a 9 � :�g W g�• _ _ F `m 'E £ mE "Eyam g g s• E !�` _ g _� o �odogm: �aP E� EbE _^, a fr o� o_ i m$�gEEv mfr � '"v o44` -'�°Ea�oB do > `��• �^:N -gB4b E BvB� m8 g•E�{ •o YS SB •a va 9d fr_ Er �c - s`S g�8"a "m�rEEPEEB ayY q- So L-m ps O=�ppE bxx „�e Flc €@ T Tci`c'��~$d'o mE ~'ig am m'E iE %n b m'Ee mUn'U�@~e6h E a) c m ., i O O Q O C N E L E d x WO L O OLO 4-- 60 N D i 0 O m W� C m E U m 0 0 0 d. c O m a d E E 0 U m rn c LL LL CD O O O O O O O O O O Lo Lo O O l0 l0 LO N N m e EA I - EA fA e9 6q 69 64 a :3 a1 a) 7 m C O 0 E Q m U F Q a ca (M M U) U) a) y co C coo) t J_ m 0)Q O O y 'O y C nN N nm i > £ m yF- H O O O V O =p m O 0 U 'C m T �O a m m O O D. a) O D. E a) 'a O a O N D. 0 E2 N CL Vl n w 7 n w 7 ul a) D. 7 O. 2 d 7 N C Vl m N 7 a) Vl E w m L C m C 0).r C (a C m C p i O O vio = p 0 0'c 0 > n 0.c C. a) C a) E m m ur Z. :? n o D. = n E 0 C0 a . a— Z Qtom0D.Or'nwv)°OO_30 n 'vc U W c m c O — u7 O_ N t m m c O rn c E OC. O y > c L m J m U U) a E ;O U 0 4 O Q Q _T '0 v U) N Y m W U E L U U J J m m m Q CO = o 0 0 F 0 m Agenda Items #5 and #6 Home I Servicev I Computers & Technology Computers & Technology Jump to: Commuters I PmHig.&. Copyi 2 I Scanning I Famq I Wifi I Equipment The DOT Kiosk is no longer available. You can set up an appointment to renew in -person or you may be able to renew online. Check the Iowa DOT website for requirements. Computers Computers with internet access and a variety of software applications are available on the second floor. Use your ICPL card for at least two hours of computer use per day. Visitor cards are available from the Page Station on the second floor and provide one two-hour session per day. Software + Printing & Copying Self-service printing and copying are available on the second floc. For remote printing needs, send as an attachment to printQicpLorg and we'll notify you when they are ready for pickup. • Black and while for 100 per page • Color for 500 per page More printing options in the Digital Media Lab Scanning Public Internet Station Scanners Three computers are equipped with Canon F910111 flatbed scanners which can scan at 1200 x 2400dpi resolution. It also has mufti -photo mode which allows you to create individual automatically cropped files from a single scan pass of up to 10 separate photos, business cards, or other originals. Express Scanner Station Quickly scan a document and send it via email, save it to a flash drive, upload it to online storage, or send to the black and white or color printer. Can accommodate photographs or documents up to 11 x 17 inches and is located on the second floor near the copy machine. Archival Scanner The Epson Expression is a large -format flatbed scanner which can scan photographs or documents up to 12 x 17 inches, at up to 2,400 x 4,800 optical resolution, and with a simple attachment can be converted to view or scan negatives and slides. Great for artists, archivists, and others who need high resolution and size options. Faxing Outgoing domestic faxing is available with help from staff on the second floor. The first five pages are free, $1 for each additional page. Wifi Wifi is available throughout the building. Our wilt name is Iowa -City -Public -Library. No password is required. Equipment Laptops, OVD players, and !Pads are available for use inside the Library. Laptops for adults can be checked out at the second floor Page Station with your library card. DVD players can be checked out at the Page Station on the second floor or Children's and Help Desks on the first floor with your library card or government issued ID. iPads for children (6th grade and under) can be checked out at the Children's Desk on the first floor and the Page Station on the second floor with your library card. More equipment options in the Digital Media Lab View equipment you.can borrow Agenda Item #8 Brianna Thul From: Erika Kubly Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 4:10 PM To: 'michelled @cfrhelps.org'; 'shellyz@cfrhelps.org' Cc: Brianna Thul Subject: Emerging Aid to Agencies eligibility update Attachments: 2018-07-17 Resolution signed.pdf Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Michelle & Shelly, Flag for follow up Flagged Since the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) meeting last week, the city attorney's office has reviewed the Emerging Aid to Agencies eligibility criteria and determined that Legacy Agencies are not eligible for Emerging funds. This determination was based on resolution 18-214 passed by City Council in 2018 which defines the funding sources (attached). As shown on page 3, Emerging Agencies are defined as "any agencies that have not existed as a legal entity for at least two years or have not received A2A funds in any of the last five years". Community and Family Resources would not meet this criteria. While HCDC expressed interest in allowing agencies that weren't recommended for Legacy funding to be eligible for the Emerging fund, we must follow city policy as adopted by city council. I'm sorry for the confusion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, ®I4DWA CITY A UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE WWW.ICGOV.ORG ©©00 Erika Kubly AicP Neighborhood Services Coordinator She/her/hers p:319-356-5121 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Agenda Item #8 Brianna Thul From: Erika Kubly Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 4:04 PM To: 'Mazahir Salih'; Brianna Thul Cc: Charlie Eastham; Emily Cray Subject: RE: HCDC Meeting A2A Follow-up Attachments: 2018-07-17 Resolution signed.pdf Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Mazahir, Since the HCDC meeting last week, the city attorney's office has reviewed the Emerging Aid to Agencies eligibility criteria and determined that Legacy Agencies are not eligible for Emerging funds. This determination was based on resolution 18-214 passed by City Council in 2018 which defines the funding sources (attached). As shown on page 3, Emerging Agencies are defined as "any agencies that have not existed as a legal entity for at least two years or have not received A2A funds in any of the last five years". Center for Worker Justice would not meet this criteria. While HCDC expressed interest in allowing agencies that weren't recommended for Legacy funding to be eligible for Emerging fund, we must follow city policy as adopted by city council. I'm sorry for the confusion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Erika Kubly AICP Neighborhood Services Coordinator p:319-356-5121 From: Mazahir Salih <mazahir@cwjiowa.org> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 5:45 PM To: Brianna Thul <BThul@Iowa-City.org>; Erika Kubly <ekubly@iowa-city.org> Cc: Charlie Eastham <eastham@outlook.com>; Emily Cray <emily@cwjiowa.org> Subject: Re: HCDC Meeting A2A Follow-up RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello Brianna, I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to inquire about the Emerging Aid to Agencies grant. From our review of the application, it seems that this grant is primarily intended for project - based funding, while Legacy funding is typically allocated for general operations. Given that the HCDC has made an exception for legacy organizations that have not been included in their recommendation for funding for Fiscal Year 24 to apply for the Emerging Aid to Agencies grant, we were wondering if it would be possible for us to apply for general operation funding through this application as well.