Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2008 Housing & Community Development CommissionAGENDA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 6:30 P.M. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the March 27, 2008 Minutes 3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda 4. Staff/Commission Comment 5. Targeted Area Rehabilitation Program - Program Change • Recommendation to Council 6. Review the FY09 Annual Action Plan www.icgov.org/actionplan • Recommendation to Council 7. Review of the Iowa City Housing Authority FY2008 Annual Plan 8. Discussion of the Community Development Celebration 9. Discussion of FY08 Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy 10. Discussion of the Housing Market Analysis www.icgov.org/affordablehousing 11. Discussion of the Commission's Role in Advocating for Community Development Needs — Housing, Jobs & Services 12. Review of the FY09 Allocation Process 13. Adjournment CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM TO: Housing and Community Development Commission FROM: Community Development Staff DATE: April 15, 2008 RE: April Meeting Packet Thank you for your time and dedication during the allocation process. It is a long and sometimes difficult process, but we appreciate your efforts and ability to form a consensus and make the necessary recommendations. With your recommendations complete, we can now concentrate on the administration of current projects and finish the remaining monitoring reports. The following is a short description of the April agenda items. Targeted Area Rehabilitation Program — Program Change Please review the staff memo. Staff will be requesting HCDC to make a recommendation to Council about the proposed program changes. This item will be on the April 29 City Council agenda. Discuss Recommendation to Council: FY09 Annual Action Plan At the March 27 meeting, you made your budget recommendations to Council. As you may know, the budget is only one part of the Annual Action Plan. The Plan includes the budget for FY09 CDBG & HOME funds, a description of the projects and activities to be funded and several HUD -required documents. The 30-day public comment period began on April 11 and runs through May 12. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Plan on Tuesday, May 13 and formally approve the Plan that same evening following the public hearing. A draft copy of the executive summary is included in the packet for review. The entire document can be found online at http://www.icgov.org/actionplan. Public copies are also available at the Iowa City Public Library and at the Planning Department; City Hall. If you would like a copy of the entire draft plan, please contact staff. Review of the Iowa City Housing Authority FY2007 Annual Plan The Housing Authority's FY2008 Annual Plan has been approved by the City Council. A copy of the plan is included in this packet for your reference. Community Development Celebration We will need to discuss the future of the community development celebration. Comments and suggestions will be reviewed. (Over) Discussion of FY08 CDBG Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy Staff will identify the projects that have not spent at least 50% of their CDBG award by March 15th and provide project updates. The Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy states that HCDC may recommend the recapture of unspent funds or HCDC may allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved project. Discussion of the Housing Market Analysis The Commission will discuss the role of HCDC in regards to the recommendations of the Analysis. Please contact staff if you do not have a copy of the revised study. The study can be found at www.icgov.org/affordablehousing. Discussion of the Commission's Role in Advocating for Community Development Needs — Housing, Jobs and Services The commission will consider creating a sub -committee to review the commission's current duties as stated in HCDC's by-laws (enclosed) and discuss how to best implement those duties. Review of the FY09 Allocation Process With the FY09 allocation process fresh in your mind, staff is interested in hearing your suggestions for next year. The commission may decide to appoint a subcommittee for further review or simply offer suggestions for next year. The April monitoring reports will be on the May agenda. If you have any questions about the agenda, or are unable to attend the meeting, please contact Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5244 or by email at trace-hightshoe _iowa-city.org. MINUTES DRAFT HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Jerry Anthony, Steve Crane, Marcy DeFrance, Andy Douglas, Charles Drum, Holly Jane Hart, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw (via telephone) Members Absent: Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long Others Present: Arvind Thakore, Mike Warden, B. Knapp, Bill Reagan, Deb Briggs, Steve Rackis, Pat Kelley, Sandy Pickup, Bill Warner, Tracy Falcomata, Sharon Locke, Ron Berg, Heidi Cuda, Maryann Dennis, Charlie Eastham, Dennis Craven, Jody Braverman RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action): Housing and Community Development Commission Funding Recommendations: FY09 CDBGIHOME Projects PROJECT NAME Housing - Home Eligible Activities Chauncey Swan LP — Rental Housing Dolphin International - Homeownership HACAP — Transitional Housing ICHA — Homeownership ICHA — Tenant Based Rental Assistance Isis Investments LLC — Rental Housing Southgate Development - Homeownership The Housing Fellowship — CHDO The Housing Fellowship — CHDO Pre-Dev The Housing Fellowship — Rental Housing Housing Subtotal: HCDC RECOMMENDATION $18,000.00 $68,000.00 $80,000.00 $107,500.00 $60, 000.00 $94,000.00 $80,000.00 $28, 000.00 $13, 000.00 $180,000.00 $728,500.00 Public Facilities, Non -HOME Eligible Activities Arc of Southeast Iowa — Facility Rehab. $3,000.00 DVIP — Facility Rehabilitation $10,000.00 IC Free Medical Clinic — Building Acquisition $90,772.00 MECCA— Facility Rehabilitation $11,400.00 NCJC — Facility Rehabilitation $14,600.00 Twain Elementary — Playground $40,000.00 Public Facility Total: $169,772.00 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Public Services Arc of Southeast Iowa $1,000.00 Compeer $1,000.00 Extend the Dream Foundation $1,000.00 Free Medical Clinic $2,500.00 Local Foods Connection $1,500.00 MECCA $1,000.00 Shelter House $2,000.00 Public Service Total: $10,000.00 Total Available to Allocate: $908,272.00 Shaw moved to recommend to Council the above -decided allocations for FY09 CDBG/HOME funds (as listed on the spreadsheet), seconded by McMurray. Motion carried 9-0. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 12 (two meetings), FEBRUARY 20, AND MARCH 13, 2008 MINUTES: Anthony asked if anyone had any modifications or changes to the above -named minutes. Anthony did note that members need to speak into their microphones as the meeting is being recorded. Hart moved to accept the minutes of February 12 (two meetings), February 20, and March 13, 2008 as presented; seconded by Drum. Motion carried 8-0. (Shaw not connected via the telephone to the meeting at this point) PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Hightshoe reported that she had some follow-up information for the members. She noted that Michael Shaw will miss some of the meeting, but that he will be joining us by phone shortly. She also noted he wanted to share his recommendations for funding, and that he had also included his explanations for why he funded the way he did. Hightshoe handed out this information to members. Hightshoe then noted that the members had asked for a building report on Free Medical so they could see the condition of the building they are considering purchasing, or to know the condition of the building before funds are allocated. She stated that they did get a building inspection performed, and Hightshoe noted that she has a summary of that for the members. She also noted that she has the full report, in case any members are interested in reading this, as well. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL The final item Hightshoe addressed was that the Commission had asked MECCA about their funding priorities. Ron Berg of MECCA emailed their priorities. A copy of the email was distributed to the commission members. DISCUSSION REGARDING FY09 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) REQUESTS. Discuss FY09 CDBG/HOME Applications — Anthony began the discussion, stating that members have now had a lot of opportunity to review and discuss the applications and projects, and that tonight they will move forward with final amounts. He suggested that they cover public services first as they have the least amount of money to discuss. Anthony added that in going forward they can discuss each project, come to some consensus on each project, come to some consensus on the entire block, such as public services, and then have one motion for the entire allocation at the end of the evening. Public Services: Arc of Southeast Iowa — Operations. The question was asked if the minimum for a public service agency is still $1,000, and Anthony stated that that is still true. Anthony asked if anyone wanted to suggest a number for this allocation. The suggestion of $1,000 was made. Anthony asked if anyone wanted to increase this number. Hart noted that she gave a similar amount to everybody, but that she did notice that some members have done the opposite by giving nothing to some applicants. She stated that she wanted to spread it out in order to give everyone something. Richman asked if it would help to facilitate the discussion by putting some numbers up for public services so the members would have a starting point for their discussions. Anthony agreed that they would put Douglas' numbers in for a starting point in this discussion. Richman began the conversation then, stating that he would like to see increased amounts for several of the applicants — Free Med being one of them. Local Foods Connection and Shelter House — Operations are other applicants that Richman would like to see increased. DeFrance stated that she agreed with Richman, that both Free Med Clinic and Shelter House should receive increases. She noted that she was one of the members who gave allocations to specific applicants, instead of spreading it out over all of the applicants, stating that her reasoning for this was wanting to give specific applicants a tangible amount of money to work with and not just partial allocations. She stated that she feels very strongly about the Free Med Clinic as it helps a large number of people in the community. Richman noted that the average for IC Free Medical Clinic - Operations is around $2,600 and that he would like to propose taking that up to $3,000. Other members noted their agreement to the $3,000 amount. Anthony moved the discussion to Compeer — Operations next, asking the members if $1,500 is a suitable amount. He noted that the average allocation for Compeer is $511. With no discussion happening, Anthony stated that they need to move this process along faster. He added that the average allocation for five projects in the public services N HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL category is significantly below the minimum of $1,000. He asked if they should put them all at zero to get discussions moving. Members agreed with this thinking, and they proceeded by putting the allocations at zero for those applicants whose average is less than $1,000. Richman then started the conversation with Local Food Connection — Operations, asking what others' thoughts are on this allocation. Anthony asked if $1,500 seems reasonable to the Commission. Members agreed with this. MECCA — Activities/Transportation was addressed next, with Anthony stating that they do not have an amount for this allocation. The group then moved to Shelter House — Operations. Crane stated that he would put $1,500 on Shelter House, which is about the average. Members agreed with this. Richman then stated that he is interested in others' thinking regarding Shelter House, stating that in the past there has been some consensus that Shelter House leveraged the allocation they received very well. DeFrance stated that she believes Shelter House does do a good job, and they help a lot of people, which is why she allotted $2,500. She added that she would like to see this amount increased. Anthony asked if anyone was opposed to moving this allocation to $2,500. Richman stated that he would also support $2,500 for Shelter House. Drum stated that as the new member he is finding it difficult to decide on the allocations as he would like to see everyone get some of the money. He added that he would, however, support the $2,500 for Shelter House. Drum stated that he would like to speak up for MECCA — Activities/Transportation and that they do some very difficult work there. He stated that he would allocate $1,500 for them. Richman explained his thoughts on this allocation, stating that he would prefer to give MECCA the allocation under public facilities, rather than public services, but that he would be open to the $1,500 Drum has suggested. Anthony asked the members if they wanted to address any of the remaining public services' allocations. DeFrance stated that she is interested in Arc of Southeast Iowa — Operations and that she was very impressed when they took a tour of the facilities. She noted that she would like to see them receive $1,500. Anthony noted that this now brings them to the $10,000 allotment maximum. He asked if the members are comfortable with this distribution. Hart stated that she questions if some of these applicants couldn't seek funds from other sources, noting that an applicant such as Extend the Dream Foundation — Operations could greatly use a smaller amount, such as $1,000. She noted that she would also like to put in a word for Compeer — Operations. She gave the members her reasoning for these allocations, stating that there is a critical need for these two organizations. Richman agreed, stating that he would also like to see Extend the Dream receive an allocation as they do such a good job with what they have. He suggested $1,000 for the Extend the Dream allocation, and taking $500 from perhaps the Arc and $500 from another allocation to fund the $1,000. Anthony suggested taking $500 from Free Medical. Crane suggested MECCA, as they have another allocation under public facilities. Anthony then noted that the Extend the Dream request is for help with accounting and bookkeeping, which he explained has been a problem for them. He noted that they have lost a lot of funding opportunities because of this. He added that he believes if they can improve in this area, it will be very helpful to the organization. Richman noted that Compeer, Life Skills, and VNA are all at zero now. Pat Kelley then spoke for Compeer regarding their request. Anthony asked what the members would like 11 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL to do at this point. Hearing nothing, Anthony stated that they would move on to the next group of allocations, and that if members want to make any further changes, they may do so before the final vote is taken later in the evening. Housing Activities: Hightshoe reminded members that they have to spend at least $622,358 on HOME - eligible activities, and that they can always, after review of public facilities, come back to housing if there is extra money. Anthony again stated that he would like to plug in some beginning amounts to get the discussions going. Chauncey Swan LP — Rental Housing was first up, with $12,500 as the allocation. Richman asked if, given the size of this project, if this is an all or nothing - type of funding, stating that perhaps they need to decide if they support the study or not. McMurray asked for some clarification, asking Hightshoe if the Council had made any recommendations yet. Hightshoe responded that they have not, and that the question of what happens if this project does not proceed was answered in her email. She stated that basically if the project does not proceed, or a different applicant is awarded the project, the funds become uncommitted funds. Drum stated that that is why he is recommending zero, due to the uncertainty of this project. He added that he does not want to deny funding to another agency in order to fund something that is so uncertain. Richman stated that he agrees with Drum, that he feels there are some policy decisions to be made by the Council before moving forward with a project like this. Drum added that the organization could always come back next year and request funds. Richman asked Hightshoe when the Council would be addressing this issue, and she referred him to Long, who stated it would most likely be May or June before these discussions are held at the Council level. Drum asked if staff had any advice on this decision. Long responded that a conversation regarding this parcel has begun and that the City if they decide to go forward with this project could use other city funds than CDBG/HOME funds. Richman asked if allocating money for this would help to further the discussion or not. Members discussed this, stating that the Council will be addressing this issue and for now they would agree to not fund this at this time. Richman asked if anyone supported the project, and DeFrance stated she did. She added that she has seen other projects that Burns and Burns have done, and that they do a good job with their money. DeFrance said that she supported this project at $18,000. Anthony agreed, stating that Burns and Burns is a trusted name in the area. He added that no other developer is going to come forward for this project, and that the $18,000 would be a good stimulus to get something going. Anthony stated that this is not something that can be funded by any other source. Drum reiterated that his concern is that this project will not move forward. (Michael Shaw joined via telephone.) Drum asked for some clarification, stating that he was under the impression they needed to wait until the City had made some decisions regarding this property, and that there is no guarantee the project will move forward. Richman stated that he agrees it is a different type of project, as the City still owns the land. Drum added that, again, the organization could come back next year and request the funds, as there will be time between now and then to get some decisions made at the Council level. 5 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Crane stated that he supports the project, as well, but that he is open to what others are saying and passing on this request for this year. Richman proposed putting in zero for now on this allocation. Dolphin International LLC — Homeownership — Anthony stated that a few members voted to not fund this project, and he asked for their reasons on this. Crane stated that he put a zero on this due to not knowing the developer's prior projects and budget concerns. Hart stated that she had not put anything down for this, but that she would be open to funding as she likes the amount of units being proposed in this project. Richman added that he also put zero in and that he agrees with Crane. He noted that the property does need some rehab, but that he feels he does not know the developer well enough yet. Drum agreed with Richman, but added that the passion and enthusiasm that the applicant has shown have been impressive in his view. He agreed that he is still hesitant to allocate funds, as the other members have stated. DeFrance stated that she would like to do something for this request as she would like to see things done at Lakeside, since it does need some rehab. Drum asked if they had a breakdown on the per unit cost for this project, stating that perhaps they could come up with an allocation that would allow them to do a set number of units. Anthony asked if a representative from Dolphin International could respond to this question. The reply was $8,000 per unit. Anthony noted that he initially had some concerns about this company, but that he has now seen their prospectus and some other material, and that his concerns have been substantially addressed. He also noted that this company is one of two companies that are asking for money and are already committed to their project — around $9 million according to Anthony. He asked staff if they are satisfied with this company's track record, adding that if staff is comfortable with them, so is he. Long responded, stating that they have met with various building departments and are addressing items with Housing & Inspection Services. Hightshoe added that her concern is regarding the sprinkler issue. The building must be sprinklered for the condominium units to meet current code. She asked if the cost for accessibility and the sprinkler system has been built into their projected sales figures as discussed. Thakore stated that while some items needed were not in the budget, the developer will eat the costs so that the projected sales amount does not change. DeFrance stated that when this company does a renovation of the apartment complex, in order to sell these units as condos they have to have an occupancy permit. Therefore, all of the codes will have to be met before the property can be marketed. She added that the downpayment funds will not be used until this is completed. She stated that they have already put up the money to purchase the complex, and that they are only asking for downpayment assistance. Hightshoe added not all 20 buildings will convert to owner - occupied condominiums at once. The work will be done in phases. If the market for condos starts to fail, it was noted that the remaining buildings could remain rental units. Thakore stated that they are working on meeting the requirements to turn units from rentals to condos. Shaw asked for some clarification on this issue, and DeFrance asked what the timeframe would be to try and sell units. Anthony asked Thakore if any of the money they may get from this allocation would be used for remodeling. The answer was that the money would be used once they find a potential buyer for a unit, and it will go directly to that person. Richman asked how many buildings will be in this first phase, and the answer was three out of 20 total buildings, with two types of units — townhouses 2 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL and regular apartment styles. Dolphin representative stated that there is a project in Cedar Rapids that is the "sister" complex of Lakeside, bought by the same company at the same time back in the 60's. He noted that this complex has been renovated and has been very successful since. He added that Dolphin has talked with them regarding their procedures in doing this and that they are going to assist Dolphin in this process. Richman asked how long they have been working together. Dolphin representative stated that it has been a month. Drum suggested that they put in an amount that is a multiple of eight, somewhere around the average figure, so they can move on with the discussion. $80,000 was suggested — the average is approximately $52,000. Anthony stated that he would like to go higher than the average. Richman stated that he continues to have several concerns, one being that he feels some of these issues have come to light late in the discussion, such as that the developer not knowing he needed to bring the property up to a different code. He added that he could support some funding, but that he is also hesitant due to the possibility of there being only a few owner -occupied in a huge complex of rentals, which will make their condos difficult to sell in the future. He asked if they could allocate funds for this project with the condition that no money will be released until the entire first phase is completed, so that there is the security of knowing that three full buildings can be sold as condos. Anthony stated that he doesn't necessarily agree with this, and that he feels they should fund one entire building, 12 units, which would all be owner -occupied units. Others agreed with this. Drum added that he understands Richman's point, but that it should be noted that the applicant is covering the cost of meeting these new codes, and that that is a positive thing. Members stated that they could agree to either the eight units, or one building, 12 units, in this allocation, and the final decision was for $96,000 — one building, 12 units. HACAP — Transitional Housing. McMurray asked if they knew how many houses this allocation would provide for. Anthony stated that the average unit cost is $108,000, and the proposal is for three. DeFrance asked if they shouldn't put $108,000 (one unit) for now, to which Anthony agreed. Shaw asked for some clarification of what is occurring (on telephone), and Anthony gave him a quick rundown of what the Commission is doing this evening. Anthony asked if anyone wanted to increase or decrease HACAP funding. McMurray stated that she would like to allocate funding for two units, as she believes this is a very good project. Anthony asked if anyone else is interested in increasing the HACAP allocation. Members agreed to the $108,000 (one unit) allocation for HACAP. Iowa City Housing Authority — Homeownership was discussed next. Crane stated that he put the highest amount here, mainly because people would have options as to whether they want to go to Southgate's project or Lake Pointe or elsewhere, but due to funding; he would be comfortable reducing this amount somewhat. He does, however, feel it is a needed project. Anthony asked if this is a downpayment assistance program as well, to which it was answered that it is. Long responded that administrative costs are part of the budget and that approximately $30,000 of the $330,000 request would be for administrative costs. Richman stated that he could support something around what they have on this one. Anthony suggested they make it a multiple of the number of units. $127,500 was the agreed upon allocation for this application. Richman stated that this would be $115,000 for downpayment assistance, and $12,500 for administration. 7 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Anthony suggested they put the cost per unit, $9,000, and then make it a multiple of nine instead. This led to a discussion about the affordability period - five years versus ten. Member agreed to the ten-year figure. Anthony asked if the Dolphin International assistance program wouldn't come under the same conditions. He stated that they should match this and be fair to everyone. Anthony asked what the difference is between the two options — asking the Housing Authority to keep the housing affordable for ten years. Hightshoe responded that they could have all downpayment applicants under the same affordability requirement. Briggs responded to this, stating that whichever they decide upon, both should have the same requirements. Long and Briggs responded, agreeing that both should be the same. Richman asked if they would be comfortable with the structure where if the person sells the unit, up to year five, the money comes back to the HOME program. If the person sells any time in years six through ten, there is essentially a declining balance owed. Hightshoe gave some further clarification on how this works, responding to members' questions. Basically, if the homeowner sells in years 1-5, 100% of the funds are returned to the HOME program (city) upon sale, in years 6-10, 20% is forgiven annually. If the homeowner remains in the home over 10 years, the lien is released and no repayment is necessary. Iowa City Housing Authority — Tenant Based Rent Assistance. Drum asked if Anthony would comment on why he did not have anything for this allocation. Anthony stated that he feels this is a much -needed program, but his concern is that it is a program that does not create any fixed asset for the community — once this money is gone, it's gone. He added that it does not add any rental housing, or any ownership housing. He stated that with the limited amount of dollars available, he feels that this program should make a transition away from HOME funding to a more stable City -tax -based funding source for rental assistance. Anthony stated that in theory any organization in the city can ask for TBRA, rental assistance, and he feels that the Housing Authority is the only trustworthy one to handle those dollars, but that in general, this is not the pool of money for those dollars to come from. He added that he would go along with the consensus of the group though. Hart asked how likely it is that the City would go for that type of funding, and Anthony stated that he believes it is time for that discussion. With the Housing Market Analysis, he believes the opportunity is here. Drum recommended keeping some funding for this program, until other sources can be positively lined up, because it is needed. Richman asked if anyone wanted to propose a higher or lower amount, and McMurray stated she believes they should go lower, perhaps to $85,000. Anthony stated they should come up with a per unit amount again and have it be a multiple of this. Long stated that he believes the per unit cost in their proposal was about $370 per family, per month, and in using this, he believes the $220,800 would serve 50 to 55 families for two years; cut in half, it would be 25 families for one year. This comes to roughly $4,500 per family per year. Twenty families for one year would be $90,000, or ten for two years at $90,000. Isis Investments LLC — Rental. Crane asked how many units the requested $235,000 covers. Anthony stated that he believes it is three units, and Hightshoe added that it was originally five, at $47,000 per unit. Crane suggested $94,000 for two units, stating they have a good project. Anthony agreed, stating that it is good to get a new entity in the housing mix. Anthony stated that he does have one question regarding the project 8 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL though, and that it was mentioned that these units could be converted from rental to ownership, and he asked what happens to the subsidy if they are converted to ownership. Hightshoe stated that if they would convert, there is a lien on the property and the City would get their original $47,000 back. Richman asked for some clarification on this, and Hightshoe responded. Drum stated that he would like to suggest they take a break, and Anthony agreed, stating they would reconvene in five minutes. (BREAK) Southgate Development — Homeownership — Crane began the discussion, stating that what he likes about Southgate is their previous projects and their success in converting to condos. Anthony asked what the per unit cost is on this one. It was reported to be approximately $6,500 per unit. Richman stated that he would agree with Crane and would support something in the $100,000 range for this project. He added that Southgate has really solid projects and a good track record. Drum stated that his amount here was lower due to putting the money elsewhere, but that he was trying to spread the money over more projects. Shaw stated that he was concerned about Southgate being able to place tenants in new locations if they did not want to own a unit. Craven responded to this, stating that this will be the third time they have relocated tenants, and that they have around 300 units within a two -block area of this project. He added that timing is very good right now due to summer leasing. There are available rental units in the south and east quadrants of Iowa City that they will rent to the tenants at the same rent they are paying now. He added that with the Coronet project, they used maintenance staff to move people and they provided relocation assistance as well for tenants. It was suggested they allocate $100,000, to which Richman agreed. Anthony stated that that would be 16 units. McMurray asked for some clarification on the Housing Fellowship projects. She asked if the $347,000 will buy up to ten units, to which the answer was approximately seven or eight units. Hightshoe further explained what the Housing Fellowship is planning to do. Richman stated that perhaps they need to talk about the housing picture and the public facilities picture, that he sees two issues. One, they have approximately $65,000 left for public facilities, which he stated, is too low of a number to work with. This means that they have put too much into housing then. Secondly, Richman stated that he believes a bigger issue is that they have a real imbalance right now of rental versus owner -occupied housing. He noted that the two real rental projects, real bricks and mortar projects are the Housing Fellowship, where currently $180,000 is allocated, and Isis, where $94,000 is allocated. He stated that it comes down to there are more people in need of affordable rental housing, and he wonders if they are not under funding this area. Member stated that the rental assistance serves to keep some balance on rent rates overall, as landlords participate in these programs have to follow these regulations. Richman added that he agrees that the Tenant Based Rental Assistance program is a good thing, and that his concern is what's going to put affordable units in the city that are going to stay affordable units for 20 years. Anthony stated that he believes they need to balance it, and that for ownership housing they currently have $323,000 and for rental they have $292,000 allocated. Anthony added that as they continue with the Housing Fellowship requests, this will add more to the rental side. E HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Anthony began with Housing Fellowship — CHDO Operating Funds, stating that the request is for $50,000, but that they are eligible for only $30,685. Hightshoe agreed, stating this is true, unless the members want to fund the remainder from the public services category. Anthony asked if this has changed, in light of the reductions last week. Hightshoe stated that it is very minimal. Anthony noted that the average allocation for this is $27,628. He asked if $28,000 is agreeable, to which members responded it was. CHDO Pre -Development Loan. Anthony noted that they have asked for $15,000 and the average allocation is $12,778. He suggested $13,000 for this. Rental Housing - McMurray asked for some clarification, as she questioned her original allocation. Richman stated that he believes the amount should go up, that he would support $50,000 to $100,000. Anthony suggested $150-200,000. Richman stated that he would support something more in the $250,000 range. Shaw noted that they are going to have to do some "chipping" at their allocations in order to do this. Members agreed to cover the four units on this — at $200,000. Shaw asked that before they move on to round two of discussions if he could hear the reasoning on the Chauncey Swan allocation being at zero. Hightshoe stated that the summary of the rationale was the uncertainty of the project, other funds would be available, and if the City decides to develop the parcel they would use city funds to pay for predevelopment site costs. Anthony noted that this is a beginning point, and they can always revisit this discussion. Richman stated that from his perspective, and others as well, everyone is supportive of downtown housing, but that the City needs to decide what they are going to do with this lot before anything like this is funded. Drum asked if they were going to move on to public facilities now, or go back over housing activities allocations. It was noted that they have less than $45,000 for public facilities, at this point. Others agreed that with only $45,000 to cover facilities, it would be pointless to move on, that they need to review housing allocations a second time. Anthony suggested they try to knock off about $100,000 from the housing total. It was noted that with HACAP, they have to keep this at $108,000 as that is one unit, to which others agreed. Hightshoe noted that HACAP could possibly finance a portion of the building because there would be no repayments. Their request was for a conditional occupancy loan requiring no repayment so they may be able to finance, through a private loan, a portion of one unit. She noted that the HACAP reps are not present currently to ask this question. Anthony noted that they can lay that information out for each one, showing number of units, cost per unit, etc., and review each of these. He noted that Dolphin is $96,000 at $8,000 per unit, which would be 12 units. Next is HACAP Transitional, which is $108,000, which is one unit. ICHA Homeownership is $8,500 per unit, with 15 units. TBRA is $4,500 per unit, 20 families. Isis is $47,000 for two units. Southgate is $6,250 per unit, for 16 units. Housing Fellowship is $50,000 per unit, at four units. Anthony noted that under "ownership" totals they have Dolphin, ICHA, and Southgate. Dolphin is $96,000, ICHA is $127,000, and Southgate is $100,000, at a total of $323,000 to produce 43 units of ownership housing. On the "rental side", Anthony noted that there 10 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL is TBRA at $90,000, Isis at $94,000, Housing Fellowship at $200,000, and HACAP at $108,000, for a total of $492,000 for 20 TBRA units, plus seven other units, for a total of 27 rental units. Richman noted that one thing they need to think about is with the ownership projects they get affordable projects for five to ten years, and with the rental projects, they potentially get something for 30 years. Anthony stated that they could strike a balance between the two, and to do this they could reduce the rental side somewhat. Members discussed their feelings about this, noting the difference in number of units. Richman stated that he is not comfortable lowering rental housing, and that he in fact would rather see this go up. Long responded, stating that the demand for rental is stronger than ownership based on the recent housing market analysis. This led to a brief discussion of how the numbers were arrived at on the recent housing study, and Anthony stated that he believes some of these numbers are off. He believes the city needs both ownership and rental housing, and that he goes with what Richman says — they should balance the allocations between the two. Richman clarified his standing, stating that he is not suggesting they have equal dollar amounts, but that they need to focus more on dollars for rental housing. McMurray asked Richman if he is suggesting taking the $100,000 from "homeownership" money. Richman stated that his personal concern is that they have three owner -occupied projects, and he believes they can only afford two of them. He added that he is truly concerned that they do not under fund rental housing, as he believes this is where the biggest shortage is. Anthony reviewed where they stand on "rental" versus "homeownership" allocations, stating that if you look at just the cost per rental unit, it is around $19,000 per rental unit, versus approximately $8,000 per ownership unit. Anthony continued, stating that of the 27 units of rental, 20 are one-year and seven go beyond the one-year mark. The discussion continued, with members voicing their concerns. Anthony suggested they take $100,000 from the Housing budget and then review public facilities to see how this allocation works there. Hart suggested taking $50,000 from the Housing Fellowship — Rental Housing and the remainder from ICHA — Homeownership, to get the $100,000. McMurray stated that they could take a few units off of the Southgate project and a few units off of the Dolphin project to get the $100,000. It was also suggested to take a third from each of the "homeownership" projects, and leave rental housing alone. Anthony stated that would be about $16,000 from each of the "homeownership" projects. Members continued to suggest different scenarios, and Shaw stated that he is hearing a philosophical difference in where the cuts need to come from, whether it's from the "rental" or "homeownership" projects. Shaw also noted that transitional housing is very important in this mix, as well. The discussion continued, with members weighing in on how they should handle the allocations. It was decided to put HACAP-Transitional Housing at $90,000. Anthony noted that they still need to find $86,000 more in the housing allocations. Crane proposed they reduce Dolphin International, stating that there are more positives for the Southgate project. He added that on the rental side, he would suggest reducing 11 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Isis by half. After a brief discussion among members, Crane stated that he would suggest reducing Dolphin by half. Members continued the discussion, with Anthony suggesting taking $20,000 off of TBRA, $20,000 from Housing Fellowship -Rental, and then $20,000 off of each of the three ownership projects. This will leave the Commission $114,000 for the public facilities allocations. Members stated that they would support this. Public Facilities: Anthony noted that the requests total approximately $572,000, and that they have $156,000 to allocate. The discussion began with the Dolphin International LLC — Playground Equipment project. Anthony stated that he gave this a high allocation as this is a pretty visible eyesore for the entire area, and he feels something should be done here. He noted that a park is not sellable space for a developer. Anthony suggested they look at their rankings for these projects, and take off the lowest ranked three projects from the list, due to the limited amount of funds. He suggested taking off the requests for 0-6 (MECCA — Facility Rehabilitation), 0-7 (Arc of Southeast Iowa — Alarm System), and 0- 8 (Dolphin International LLC — Playground Equipment). McMurray asked about the IC Free Medical Clinic — Building Acquisition project, and why the change of heart on giving this project more funding. She noted that at the last meeting, members stated that they would not fund this project at the rate requested, as it would take up most of the allocation money available. Crane stated that he originally had zero, but later changed his allocation to $100,000 for this project, stating that after hearing about this project at the last meeting, the $100,000 was the minimal amount to get this project going. Shaw then explained how he arrived at his allocations. Richman stated that he had zero originally, as well, but that he would support some funding. He was under the impression that it was an "all or nothing" type of funding for this. He suggested an allocation in the $50,000 range, instead of the $100,000 being discussed. The discussion continued, with members giving their opinions on how they should set up the allocations, and whether or not they should drop off the lowest three -ranked projects. This led to members discussing which projects could go forward with less funding, and which need to have a specific amount in order to have the allocation be useful to the requestor. The MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation project was discussed next, with Shaw noting that they could fund the bathroom project or the painting project, as both of these are priorities for them. Anthony suggested dropping MECCA to $11,400, which would cover the bathroom remodel, instead of taking them off the board altogether. Members next discussed Neighborhood Centers of JC — Facility Rehab, stating that the priority here was for window replacements, which is $14,600. The Arc of Southeast Iowa — Alarm System was discussed to see if members wanted to allocate or not for this year. Shaw noted that there was a project cost for this, and that it has to do with lighting the rear of the building, as this is the main entrance. Hightshoe noted that the lighting is $5,100; $750 is for the alarm itself. Shaw asked if $3,000 would even cover part of this project, such as the back of the building lighting, and the response from the applicant was that $3,000 would accomplish this for them. Richman suggested they look at the two largest allocations — Free Med and Twain. Hightshoe interjected that the members may 12 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL want to check with Dolphin regarding the proposed $8,000 allocation. For only $8,000 the private developer may not want a city lien placed on the property. Anthony asked the Dolphin rep if he would be interested. Thakore stated the money could be allocated elsewhere. Their main priority is for downpayment assistance. Members opted to take this $8,000 from this project. DeFrance spoke next to the Extend the Dream Foundation, stating that she has concerns. She added that she does not want to use a band -aid approach here. Hightshoe added that they are not in compliance with their permit from the original purchase. She spoke to Inspection Services recently, who told her that a lot of the issues have been resolved, but they still need to install light covers, grab bars, and fix a stair issue. DeFrance was asked to clarify her concerns. She stated that from the two bids received, there was quite a bit of difference between them. She noted that prevailing wages (Davis Bacon) were not figured in on one of the estimates. She questions if this will even get fixed correctly the first time at this low bid, and if they'll be revisiting this with even worse problems. Members then discussed this project, agreeing that there is quite a bit of difference in the two bids. Hightshoe noted staff concerns for this project, stating that the building must pass the building permit before additional federal funds are awarded. The prior agreement required the applicant to follow all building codes. Members continued to voice their concerns on the Extend the Dream request. Shaw asked if they could recommend to the Council, when doing their rationale for their allocations, those organizations/projects that really need help, to see if other funding would be available, such as Economic Development funds. It was suggested to leave the $3,000 for the Extend the Dream Foundation and move on to other allocations for now. IC Free Medical Clinic — Building Acquisition. Richman stated that he missed the discussion on this at the last meeting, and he asked Sandy if the $100,000 is needed to make this a viable project. It was noted that anywhere in the $90,000 range would work. Domestic Violence Intervention Program — Rehabilitation. Drum stated that when he looked at the security concerns he believes this is a very important one to fund. McMurray asked what the cost of the security is, and what was fencing cost. Crane stated that the fence is the biggest security issue for DVIP. It was noted that the fence cost is at $1,170, security improvement at $280, and that there is also a bathroom repair of $12,000 in this request. Hightshoe noted that the fencing and security part of this request come to only $1,500 of the $13,979 originally requested. It was decided to lower the DVIP amount to $10,000. The discussion turned back to Free Med, with Anthony stating that this is one of those projects that provide services that are for the survival of people, and that it serves such a huge population; he does not want to see any funds cut here. McMurray then suggested they put Twain Elementary — Playground Equipment at $40,000. Members continued to discuss how much they have left to cut in this category. Richman agreed to take Twain to $40,000, adding that he would like to take the $94,000 for HACAP out, which covers the last $15,000 of the public facilities allocations, and leaves them with approximately $80,000. Richman then suggested taking that $80,000 and giving $10,000 each to the owner -occupied projects (Dolphin, Southgate, and Housing Authority), and put the remaining $50,000 into the Housing Fellowship for an additional rental unit. This is 13 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL creating five to six additional owner -occupied units, and a net loss of zero rental units. McMurray asked for more discussion on where the needs are, and Shaw spoke to this briefly, explaining why the transitional housing is needed. Hightshoe stated that they could reduce the $94,000 by 10%, which would still allow them to find a unit in the $80,000 range, leaving them with only a 5 to 6% private loan. Anthony then reviewed the numbers — HACAP reduced to $80,000; and under the public facilities list, take out the Extend the Dream request. Anthony then asked the members if they had any concerns about the allocations as they stand. Shaw asked for some clarification on allocations that were gone over before he arrived at tonight's meeting, specifically the Life Skills request. Hightshoe noted that there was not much conversation about this request, and that the applicant has stated that any amount would be helpful to them. Anthony reminded the members that they could revisit any of the allocations at this point. At this point, it was requested that a break be taken. Anthony agreed, stating they would take a five-minute break at this time. (BREAK) Anthony asked the members if they had any thoughts on the numbers so far. McMurray stated that she would like to see more funding for mental illness, as DeFrance had suggested, and she suggested moving $500 to $1,000 from Shelter to either Compeer or VNA. It was suggested that they also give something to the Life Skills program. Anthony stated that they should give $1,000 to Compeer, and take $500 from Free Med and Shelter House in order to do this. Members agreed with the public services allocations at this point. Public Facilities was reviewed next. Shaw asked for some clarification on the top two allocations. It was noted that the playground at Mark Twain Elementary serves the entire neighborhood, not just the school. Anthony and others agreed that they do not want to cut funding here. Members continued to discuss possible changes in allocation amounts, weighing in on where this most likely could occur. Anthony asked again if anyone had any changes they wanted to make, or if they all felt comfortable with public facilities as allocated. Extend the Dream was brought up again, with Drum asking if anyone wanted to put $3,000 on this allocation, taking it from Free Med. Others stated that they did not want to do this, and members stated that they agree with the public facilities allocations as they stand. Housing Activities was then reviewed again. Anthony asked members for their thoughts on these allocations. Anthony stated that he has one proposal — he suggested funding Chauncey Swan because five of them originally felt they should, and four felt the full amount should be given. He added that it is the second ranked project in the housing list, and the money will be used for an environmental review, which will be needed no matter who develops this. Hightshoe further clarified this for the members. Anthony asked Burns and Burns if they would be okay with returning the money, if the project does not go through. They responded that they would have no problem with that. Anthony then suggested that as there is no net loss involved, he believes they should fund Chauncey Swan LP — Rental Housing at $18,000. He also suggested taking $8,000 from Dolphin International LLC — Homeownership and take TBRA down by $10,000 to cover this. 14 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2008 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Another suggestion was made to take $2,000 from all of the other projects to cover this. Members questioned what happens to this money if the projects don't happen, and Hightshoe stated that the money would come back if that occurs. Drum stated his concerns about taking money from projects that are a sure thing, versus projects that may not occur. Anthony responded, stating that he believes the Chauncey Swan project will move forward. He further explained some of the scenarios that have happened before. Hightshoe reminded the members that projects funded with HOME funds have to be completed within five years. Members continued to discuss Anthony's proposal of putting $18,000 in Chauncey Swan. Richman stated that he could support this, that he believes it is a good project. Shaw moved to recommend the above -decided allocations for the FY09 CDBG/Home Funding (as listed on the spreadsheet), seconded by McMurray. Motion carried 9-0. Anthony noted that now that they have finalized their recommendations, this will go before City Council. HCDC must put together a subcommittee that will provide arguments for the recommendations. He added that generally he is part of this subcommittee, and that two or three other members are needed. He noted that staff puts most of this together, and that the subcommittee will meet to finalize their arguments. The question was asked what the timeframe for this is. Staff noted that this needs to be completed by April 7, 2008. Hightshoe asked for a clarification on the downpayment assistance programs, asking if they will now all have the same terms. Anthony responded that this is correct. Anthony also noted that at the last meeting they had discussed placing conditions on the public facilities allocations, and he asked if they could have those same conditions in the other contracts. She stated that they will take care of this. Anthony asked for volunteers again for the subcommittee. Hart offered to help, as did Shaw. Shaw then asked about making the Housing Commission more proactive. Anthony asked if others are willing to be part of a subcommittee for this. Hightshoe stated this conversation must be placed on an upcoming meeting, as it was not on the agenda. Shaw asked that they do this, and he also stated that he would like to put a discussion about co- chair. Anthony added that for the agenda, he would like to add a discussion on the Housing Market Analysis, that he believes the Commission needs to discuss their role in this. ADJOURNMENT: Crane moved to adjourn, seconded by Hart. Approved 9-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 17, 2008, at 6:30 P.M. at City Hall. 15 r so i CITY OF IOWA CITY I T MEMORANDUM Date: April 14, 2008 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: David Powers, Housing Rehabilitation Specialist Re: Proposed changes to the Targeted Area Rehabilitation Program The Community Development Division has run the Targeted Area Rehabilitation Program (TARP) since it was implemented in October of 2001. The program is directed towards homeowners with household incomes below 110% of median who often find it difficult to afford market rate financing due to short loan terms and higher interest rates. TARP projects are funded with general obligation bond funds, range from $10,000 to $40,000 and are low interest loans with a 20 year term. Homeowners can utilize TARP for making repairs and improvements to their existing home. The attached map shows the five targeted areas where TARP is currently available. TARP was created after the Community Development Division conducted a "windshield study" of basic exterior housing conditions in several limited areas of Iowa City in the Spring of 2000, the results of which were summarized in the Exterior Housing Survey Report. The program was designed to address the needs identified by the visual survey by providing qualifying homeowners with the financial means and technical expertise required to make major repairs and improvements to their homes. Due to the spread of information about TARP, which is available on the City's website and from word of mouth by participating homeowners, awareness of the program has extended beyond the borders of the originally designated neighborhoods. As a result of this, staff has been forced to turn away an ever increasing number of inquiries about the program by homeowners outside of the targeted neighborhoods. In part as a result of this demand, staff determined it was time to consider changing the boundaries of the program. Unfortunately, the original survey excluded much of the city when it was done due to limitations on staff time and funding. It was determined that a new survey of the entire city should be done to establish if there was sufficient need to justify expanding the TARP program. Housing Rehabilitation staff worked with several interns to survey all of the single family homes in the city and to evaluate this information. In total, 13,161 homes were surveyed and the data then compiled and broken down by census tract and block group. The resulting information was reviewed by Community Development staff to determine if patterns of need could be identified to add new neighborhoods to the TARP Program. What emerged from the review of the data were two remarkably consistent themes. The first is that, overall, the condition of single family housing in Iowa City is in very good shape. The second is that there is a fairly constant percentage of homes in nearly every block group that has at least one major exterior housing component that is due or is rapidly coming due for replacement. The properties surveyed were rated based on a visual assessment of the exterior of the home as seen from the public sidewalk. Staff looked for problems or deficiencies in the major exterior components such as the roof, siding, windows, concrete flatwork, foundations, and water drainage. This criteria looked for issues that would require the replacement or major repair of a component within the next five years or else risk damage to other parts of the home and therefore reduce its value. Each home was given a rating: homes that had no major problems or deficiencies were rated as green. One problem or deficiency had homes rated as blue, two problems were red, and three or more caused a home to be rated as black. April 14, 2008 Page 2 Commercial properties and University of Iowa properties as well as multi -family apartments were not included in the survey which is why there are several block groups with zero housing units on the summary spreadsheet. While all 31 block groups in the city were surveyed, only 27 have owner occupied single family homes that could potentially utilize this program. All but three of the block groups with surveyed housing had some homes rated as red or black and in need of repair. Homes rated red and black combined made up 10% or more of the homes in 17 of the 27 neighborhoods with qualifying housing. The majority of problems observed during the survey stemmed from deferred maintenance and building components that are reaching the end of their expected lifespan. It is very common for homeowners to try to combine needed repairs with desired improvements when arranging for work to be done. Most of the past participants in TARP have come to us with to do lists combining repair/replacement of building components as well as improvements such as updating kitchens and baths. Conclusion The broad based potential need identified in the survey combined with the difficulty many qualifying homeowners have with getting affordable conventional home equity financing led us to the conclusion that the expansion of our existing TARP Program should be city wide rather than continuing to target limited areas. The name of the program would be changed to the General Rehab & Improvement Program (GRIP) when it is opened up city wide, but the qualification criteria and types of projects done would remain the same. Cc: Davidson Long Vanatter .r C: ,Y d V o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 \° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r ('M O O O qi O r O r O N 1- U) r r O) N r O O O r 0 0 0 d m CL r 0 \�\e\°\\\\ (� dOMo 0 0 UONo N0 Oo 0 00r--M0 Mo �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000rC404-M~rNNMNOrMrM 00tN000 tV a = y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO U') U7 O M M �- r 1,- O O 0) Iq r M CO M 00 00 r NU') Iq O O r C)O O Lb CO to In CD l-- (D M CD CO V) N LO U) � In (O (0 CO U) 't (D M a d d \\\o\ \\\o\ \\ o \\°\\ 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� o 0 0 0 0 �� o o �� o ` v�t-U70000U7OMr01-011-(D%T00 NU7000)(D00LOI`00U a 4M 00 r N N CV r N N U) N N ('M tO r r r N N N N'q CO (D M N mti�000 V U)MO4q N4TrM()NcoMU7(D V M` OOO �1OMOO 7 to P M M I- COU7 (D 1- W O 1- CY r CD co I- M U7 C:)r r U') V) (1) CDO N CO CO C)r O O M M CDO C)Cn 00 00 tf) t` u7 N d N V N M r r r r r d M r N . fJ) (OI O r 0 M N O M 1I- r M C) it (D (D O LO 1- r M CM r (D O d M LO -q O M M CO LO T (D r M 00 11 (D U) 00 N M M M r LO 1- O O 4t N O O N ,a m ('M N r I- N N r CV N N N r CN r N N r N r N CM r r C O V C /9 C) q(Od 00 (DM 1-"t MO M O N O `000NITNM1-_co1-00`-MM(DM(DU)M M00McMM00oo1—OOU.) C) N 00 C) M r r I' N M N U) O 2 C d U) C O 0000d O1-N(Dr1`O(DNrN1l-00OM1l- d'� 00 C) 00 1- I� U7 (D M O 0 "1 M to M (D 0 r- ti O M N NV NV C)O M 0 0 0 I- _ L)00U)M �cMMNMMLO V C4''tiITU)N�vMMMO NIq u7 O C d d VM ti M 1,- Co 1- (D C) O 00 O M V) ti r 00 CO (O r O Co N U) 1- CD r 1` (D O CO (D 00 O ti N OO M to M O M CM 1- N U-) 00 tO CD 1-� M 't O M r M N M 0 (D Nt m CM (D tf) r 0 1-- I- 1- N q M (M r M U) M CD M (`') r 0 0 OO co 0., PI.:_ IT 0)M 00 N CMr (ACNM 00(Dco14-rIgMO1-NNN00q(Ogco V NM(000DI- C (D V Ct) 'q It N (V - U7 U7 I- (O CO' U) U) M LO N r 'q 'q M co (M V). r V' N M M V' `N :a Vi 63 V3 Vi 69 69 64 69 V% 69 69 69 EA V> 69 64 69 VR? VI Vi 64 64 69 Vi V)-69 69 63 69 6% d c}' r r N N r N r N M r N r N - N CO r N N r- N M Q Q r N N r C1 0. CL CL CL CL t1 CL CL CL CL cx Q. a a a CL n a a 0 7 (1 cL cL cL cL 3 7 7 7 7 7= 7 7 7 7 7 O 7 7 7 O O 7 3 7 7 7 O O = 0 0 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y Y Y Y Y ,x ,X U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 0 U U U U U U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m O O O O O O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Qmmmmmm NNC M� V' V U7tO(O(DIz1-1`0000.- C MChOO c- Cr U) lf) CD r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N r r U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F` F- F` F`- N fA N N to N w N N to N U N N N to N 0 N N to 0 to N 0 0 N U 0 N N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 O 7 7 3 7 7 7 7 3 7 O 7 7 7 7 7 N N N N N N N !n to N N to fA (n N N N N N N C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C CU N (U CU N N N N N (U N (U N N N N N (U O N N O O N N N N N N CU N U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 2I:3 ommoommorIla !/ ■ MWVAMM OMAN 1 �i�A013 ©�1\■ mil � �A �i MEN Flo►mmomij ..a �. oil -� r l _ 46;rfl"th RM CITY OF IOWA CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP FUNDS (HOME) May 2008 Section 1- 91.220 (b) Executive Summary Concise executive summary that includes objectives and outcomes identified in the plan, an evaluation of past performance and a review of the citizen participation process. The City of Iowa City is an entitlement community and therefore is qualified to receive financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on an annual basis. Specifically, the City qualifies for Federal entitlement funding made available through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Programs (HOME). Past performance has demonstrated that the City has administered both of these programs efficiently and effectively. The City's fiscal year for these programs is July 1Stthrough June 30th, and funding may be utilized to implement a variety of housing and community development activities. These must either: (1) provide benefit to low and moderate -income persons; (2) reduce or eliminate slum and blight conditions; or (3) address an urgent need. Program goals are to: (1) "Provide Decent Housing; (2) "Provide a Suitable Living Environment; and (3) "Expand Economic Opportunities". To remain eligible for this funding, the City is required to prepare a HUD mandated Consolidated Plan, known locally as CITY STEPS. This comprises both an Annual Action Plan and a Five -Year Strategy. The Annual Action Plan primarily presents a budget for proposed activities to be implemented during the course of the program year and to address needs identified as part of the overall five-year strategy. This FY09 (Federal FY08) Annual Action plan is for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 and comprises the fourth annual increment of the Five -Year Strategy (July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010). To budget activities to be implemented each program year, the City invites funding applications each December prior to the upcoming program year beginning July 1. All applicants are required to apply according to a prescribed format, including City departments, for -profit and non-profit entities. Specific efforts to broaden public participation include publicizing the availability of application forms in the City's local newspaper (the "Iowa City Press -Citizen"), cable television's government channel as well as posting them on the City's web page. Applications are reviewed by the City's Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) and Community Development staff. HCDC is an ad -hoc, City Council appointed advisory commission with nine community representatives. By HUD categories (Public Service, Public Facility & Housing), HCDC recommends to the City Council which proposed activities should be funded and at what amount. The City Council may either accept, reject, or modify the Commission's recommendation(s) and approves a draft Action Plan that is made available for at least a 30-day public review and comment period. A public hearing follows the comment period. A comprehensive schedule of the consolidated planning process, including public review/comment, hearing, and Council action dates is directly conveyed to all applicants. This year's Action Plan was approved by the City Council on May 13, 2008, with the public review and comment period designated from April 11th through May 12th. A large display ad ran in the Iowa City Press -Citizen newspaper on April 26 to outline the Statement of Objectives as supported by Iowa City's Consolidated Plan, to summarize the proposed FY09 CDBG and HOME funded projects and to announce the public Hearing on May 13th. The public comments received can be found in Section VII, Citizen Participation Process and Public Comments Received. -16- From the entitlement grants, $713,731 was allocated to qualified activities under the HOME Investment Partnership Program and $826,005 was allocated to qualified activities under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. One hundred percent of the CDBG funds will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. The projects are individually identified and described within this plan, along with other areas of concern that address issues such as: geographical distribution of funds; outcome performance measurement; leverage and match; homelessness; anti -poverty strategy; continuum of care; fair housing; monitoring; and certifications. Objectives and Outcomes After the Five -Year Plan was initially approved, the City subsequently began to specifically include within its respective incremental annual plans more executive summary information related to outcome performance measures. Below is a summary of stated objectives and outcomes relative to activities that were allocated funds as stated both in the Annual Action Plan and by amendment in the Five Year Plan: Generally, three outcomes are relative to program funding objectives: - Availability/Accessibility Applicable to activities that make up services, infrastructure, housing or shelter available or accessible to low- and moderate -income people, including persons with disabilities. In this category, accessibility does not refer only to physical barriers, but also to making the affordable basics of daily living available and accessible to low- and moderate - income people. - Affordability Applicable to activities that provide affordability in a variety of ways in the lives of low- and moderate -income people, including: the creation or maintenance of affordable housing; basic infrastructure hook-ups; or services such as transportation or day care. - Sustainability Applicable to (multiple) activities or services that are directed toward improving communities or neighborhoods (to make them livable or viable) by providing benefit to low- and moderate -income people or by removing or eliminating slums or blighted areas. Each FY09 funded activity must fit into one the objectives and outcomes as identified below. Outcome 1: Outcome 2: Outcome 3: Availabili /Acc ssibility Affordability Sustainability Objective #1 SL-1 SL-2 SL-3 Suitable Living Accessibility for the Affordability for the Sustainability for the Environment (SL) purpose of creating purpose of creating purpose of creating Suitable Living Suitable Living Suitable Living Environments Environments Environments Objective #2 DH-1 DH-2 DH-3 Decent Housing Accessibility for the Affordability for the Sustainability for the (DH) purpose of providing purpose of purpose of providing Decent Housing providing Decent Decent Housing Housing Objective #3 EO-1 EO-2 EO-3 Economic Accessibility for the Affordability for the Sustainability for the Opportunity (EO) purpose of creating purpose of creating purpose of creating Economic Opportunities Economic Economic Opportunities Opportunities -17- Evaluation of Past Performance Past performance has demonstrated the City has administered both the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Programs efficiently and effectively. This is reinforced by consistent approvals of the City's Annual Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) by HUD and as evidenced by regulatory compliance that includes satisfactory timeliness of expenditure ratios with extraordinarily high benefit to low and moderate income persons. The stated goals should be considered the City's best approximation and are dependent upon: 1) the receipt of funding, which is unknown in advance for an entire 5 year plan; 2) the receipt of activity proposals from applicants, which may or may not propose to undertake activities that align with goals for each respective fiscal period; and 3) citizen participation that has wide discretion in terms of setting allocation priorities among competing interests with resources available for any given fiscal year. Goals are not reported for City fiscal years 2006 and 2007 as HUD's directive was not implemented (and wasn't required when initiated) until the third incremental year of the City's Plan. Actual accomplishment data for FY08 will not be available until July 15, 2008. Objective "SL" TO CREATE OR ENHANCE SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENTS Outcome 1 Through new, improved, or continued availability/accessibility ... for (Activity) Code Activity Funding Performance Indicators Year Goal Actual S.L -1.1 Public Services CDBG Number of Low/Mod Income Persons Assisted/Served FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 4,250 FY09 4,250 FY10 4,250 S.L -1.2 Accessibility CDBG Number of Public Facilities Assisted FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 2 FY09 2 FY10 2 S.L -1.3 Homeless CDBG Number of Low/Mod Income Persons Assisted/Served FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 900 FY09 900 FY10 900 Objective "SL" TO CREATE OR ENHANCE SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENTS Outcome 2 Through new or improved afford bility for Activi Code Activity Funding Performance Indicators Year Goal Actual S.L - 2.1 Homeless CDBG and/or HOME Number of Low/Mod Income Households Assisted FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 3 FY09 3 FY10 3 -18- Objective "SL" TO CREATE OR ENHANCE SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENTS Outcome 3 Through new or improved sustainabili ... for(Activity) Code Activity Funding Performance Indicators Year Goal Actual S.L - 3.1 Public Facilities CDBG Number of Public Facilities Assisted/Served FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 5 FY09 5 FY10 5 Objective "DH" TO CREATE OR ENHANCE DECENT HOUSING Outcome 1 Through new, improved, or continued availability/accessibility ... for (Activity) Code Activity Funding Performance Indicators Year Goal Actual D.H - 1.1 New Housing CDBG and/or HOME Number of Low/Mod Income Units Assisted: FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 30 FY09 30 FY10 30 D.H - 1.2 Rental Assistance CDBG and/or HOME Number of Low/Mod Income Units Assisted FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 10 FY09 10 FY10 10 D.H - 1.3 Homs Assistance tance CDBG and/or HOME Number of Low/Mod Income Units Assisted FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 25 FY09 25 FY10 25 Objective "DH" TO CREATE OR ENHANCE DECENT HOUSING Outcome 2 Through new or improved affor bility for(Activity Code Activity Funding Performance Indicators Year Goal Actual D.H - 2.1 Existing Rehabilitation CDBG Number of Low/Mod Income Units Assisted FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 30 FY09 30 FY10 30 D.H - 2.2 Existing Acquisition CDBG and/or HOME Number of Low/Mod Income Units Assisted FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 8 FY09 8 FY10 8 MUZ Objective "DH" TO CREATE OR ENHANCE DECENT HOUSING Outcome 3 Through new or improved sustainabili ... for(Activity) Code Activity Funding Performance Indicators Year I Goal Actual D.H - 3.1 Homeless (Shelter) CDBG Number of Low/Mod Income Persons Assisted/Served Such as: DVIP, Shelter House FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 2,000 FY09 2,000 FY10 1 2,000 Objective "EO" TO CREATE OR ENHANCE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Outcome 1 Through new, improved, or continued availability/accessibility ... for (Activity)) Code Activity Funding Performance Indicators Year Goal Actual E.0 - 1.1 Employment Training CDBG Number of Low/Mod Income Persons Assisted FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 5 NA FY09 5 NA FY10 5 NA -20- Objective "EO" TO CREATE OR ENHANCE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Outcome 2 Through new or improved affor bility for(Activity) Code Activity Fundina Performance Indicators Year Goal Actual E.O - 2.1 Micro- Enterprise Assistance CDBG Number of Low/Mod Income Businesses Assisted FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 1 FY09 1 FY10 1 E.O.- 2.2 Direct Financial Assistance CDBG Number of Low/Mod Income Jobs Created/Retained FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 5 FY09 5 FY10 5 Objective "EO" TO CREATE OR ENHANCE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Outcome 3 Through new or improved sustainabili ... for(Activity) Code Activity Funding Performance Indicators Year Goal Actual E.O - 3.1 None Proposed CDBG No proposed activity. With declining federal resources, the City relies on other available incentives. FY06 NA NA FY07 NA NA FY08 0 NA FY09 0 NA FY10 0 NA Allocation Priorities The Allocation Priorities - Estimated vs. Actual Table as shown below identifies the City's progress is directing funds to the five CITY STEPS categories. Based on this table, the funds directed to Public Services, Economic Development and Administration have met the goals originally established in CITY STEPS. The City has allocated significantly more funds to housing and less funds to public facilities than anticipated. The City hired a consultant to complete a Housing Market Analysis in 2007. Based on the analysis, affordable housing is a critical need in the Iowa City metro area. The study also indicated that there is a larger demand for rental housing than owner -occupied housing. The City has allocated substantially more funds to rental housing activities than anticipated (target 25%, actual 44%) and fewer funds to tenant based rental assistance (target 20%, actual 10%). No funds were allocated to housing counseling. The City has not received applications for this type of activity and many local providers state the need is being met elsewhere. This fall the city will conduct an annual review of CITY STEPS. Based on the recommendations and information in the housing market analysis, the City will consider if changes in funding goals are necessary. -21- CO Z CO E 11 y C 7 LL W 2 O t m O U �i c'+o E W 0 N 9 O O O O O O O O O O O O y p O O O O O O O o o o C5 C5 0 O U) O O O Lo h O C LO CD CD 0T LL 6M9 tO 69 � o o O aLO .2'- N 00 00 T O a c CD E a 0 a> a> > c U O 0 :C 'a) 0 0) LL U y .V U o .� N =°aa-w< a N N v U)FTN U aR m * * * e o Q w v****be (}/! 'o-) w N SO SO Lo CO) F� ~ U 0 c M 0 o QT rn N cro rn rll� cic o It 00 00oo 00 rn N N� � O � � � o O O o 0 69 69 69 E9 T 0 0 0 0 0 69 61� 69 69 d9 O O h n O w O O O CO Ki CM T d LO L CO t 00 CA O } 10f) 00 Cf) O O CD r to T r (V 00 ffl if cM T N M Efl LL b9 ffl 64 tO n r N M 1- Iq o b09 ^ M 00 N O n It vy 00 O 0 O Cn T CO r O } CO Ki �O• ffl ^ r O N 69 r N O LL ^ t4 LL r E9 E9 E9 T m o o N N O� M O n 0 COO M r N E9 E9 E9 fA vi � O U-) t\ (T O O n O � CO CV cM O ` N r r M N M LLT. Ln N r N N M 69 69 69 E9 69 O U c a) 0 v 0 U u Z U m LL N U U 0 C 7 0 ° = a ' a w Q F- Citizen Participation Process Throughout the year the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) holds public hearings to oversee the operation of the Community Development Division and the Iowa City Housing Authority, monitor CDBG and HOME projects, and listen to public input into these and other programs. The City of Iowa City's current 5-year Consolidated Plan (2006-2010 CITY STEPS) was adopted in December 2004. Numerous public meetings and hearings were held to solicit public comment regarding the development of the CITY STEPS plan. In addition, HCDC and the City Council have held < FY09 Annual Action Plan and other HUD related participate in all of the meetings and efforts w( participation. The following is a chronology of the taken in relation to the FY09 Annual Action Plan and CITY STEPS). Dec. 7, 2007 Dec. 19, 2007 Jan. 10, 2008 Jan. 23, 2008 Feb. 20, 2008 March 13, 2008 March 27, 2008 April 11, 2008 April 29, 2008 April 24, 2008 April 26, 2008 May 12, 2008 May 13, 2008 May 13, 2008 Anticipated Dates May 14, 2008 May 26, 2008 June 13, 2008 July 1, 2007 number of meetings for the preparation of the documents. The public has been invited to ire made to encourage and increase citizen events, meetings, public hearings and actions Iowa City's 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. Public notice that CDBG and HOME applications are available CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop Applications due to City of Iowa City by 12 noon HCDC meeting question/answer discussion with applicants HCDC meeting review of rankings & average funding HCDC meeting: recommendation on funding awards Draft Annual Action Plan - 30-day comment period begins Council Sets FY09 Action Plan Public Hearing Public Hearing Notice Appears in Press -Citizen Display Ad Appears in Press -Citizen Expiration 30-day comment period on the FY09 Annual Action Plan City Council: public hearing on the FY09 Annual Action Plan City Council: resolution -approving the FY09 Annual Action Plan FY09 Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD Submission of Environmental Review Record and FONSI (as applicable) Submission of Request for Release of Funds Start FY09 CDBG and HOME projects PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED A 30 day public comment period regarding the FY09 Annual Action Plan ran from April 11, 2008 to May 12, 2008. During that time Council received ? written comments and received additional comments during a public hearing held on May 13, 2008. The written comments received can be found in the Appendix. -23- FY09 CDBG/HOME BUDGET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Fund* HOUSING PROJECTS Chauncey Swan LP - Rental Housing Dolphin International LLC - Homeownership HACAP - Transitional Housing ICHA - Homeownership ICHA - TBRA Isis Investments LLC - Rental Southgate Development - Homeownership The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Pre-Dev. Loan The Housing Fellowship - Rental Housing City of Iowa City - Housing Rehabilitation* PUBLIC FACILITIES PROJECTS Arc of Southeast Iowa - Facility Rehabilitation DVIP - Facility Rehabilitation IC Free Medical Clinic - Building Acquisition MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation NCJC - Facility Rehabilitation Twain Elementary - Playground Equip. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS Arc of Southeast Iowa - Operations Compeer - Operations Extend the Dream Foundation - Operations Free Medical Clinic - Operations Local Foods Connection - Operations MECCA - Operations Shelter House - Operations (STAR program) Aid to Agencies* ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING HOME Program Administration CDBG Program Administration and Planning HCDC 3/27108 Recommendation or Request Council Earmark* $82,890 $82,890 Subtotal $82,890 $82,890 $18,000 $18,000 $425,000 $68,000 $325, 000 $80, 000 $330, 000 $107, 500 $220,800 $60,000 $235,000 $94,000 $200,000 $80,000 $50,000 $28,000 $15,000 $13,000 $499,750 $180,000 $230,000 $230,000 Subtotal $2,548,550 $958,500 $5,851 $3,000 $13,979 $10,000 $300,000 $90,772 $48,523 $11,400 $54, 200 $14, 600 $60, 000 $40, 000 Subtotal $482,553 $169,772 $2, 500 $1,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,500 $1,000 $10, 000 $2, 500 $8,000 $1,500 $5,600 $1,000 $7,500 $2,000 $105, 000 $105, 000 Subtotal $143,100 $115,000 $61, 373 $61, 373 $152,201 $152,201 Subtotal $213,574 $213,574 TOTAL $1,539,736 -32- Phone: (319) 356.5400 using FAX.- (319) 356.5439 TDD: (319) 356,5404 UTH0RITY410 E. Wlashington Street - Iowa City • Iowa • 52240.1826 Thursday, March 27, 2008 TO: City Council FROM: Steven J. Rackis, Housing Administrator SUBJECT: Iowa City Housing Authority Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Plan The Public Housing Reform Act requires submission of both a Five -Year and an Annual Plan. The Five-year PHA (Public Housing Agency) Plan describes the agency's mission and the long- term plan for achieving that mission over the subsequent five years. • The Iowa City Housing Authority's current 5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2005 — 2009 was submitted to HUD in April 2005. The Housing Authority participated in the consultation process organized and offered by the City of Iowa City Community Development Office in the development of CITY STEPS, Iowa City's Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs, and Services for Low -Income Residents 2006-2010. • In the summer and fall of 2004, five (5) public hearings were co -sponsored by CITY STEPS and the Iowa City Housing Authority's Resident Advisory Board. The strategies for meeting the Housing Authorities mission, goals, and objective are detailed in the Iowa City Housing Authority's 5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2005-2009 and are contained in CITY STEPS Iowa City's Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs, and Services for Low - Income Residents. • Copies of the 5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2005 — 2009 are available in print in the ICHA Iowa City Housing Authority office and the internet via the e-documents section of the ICHA website: www.icgov.org/ich The Annual Plan provides details about the PHA's current programs and the resident population served, as well as the PHA's strategy for addressing the housing needs of currently assisted families and the larger community. • A copy of the Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Plan is attached and is also available in print in the ICHA Iowa City Housing Authority office. Once adopted by City Council copies will be available on the internet via the e-documents section of the ICHA website: www.icgov.orglicha Annual Report — 2008 l_ W, UTH0RITY 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City • Iowa • 52240.1826 To improve quality of life, the Iowa City Housing Authority acts as a community leader for affordable housing, family self-sufficiency, and homeownership opportunities. Date: Tuesday, April I, 2008 Annual Report — 2008 Table of Contents Pages Staff 3 New Initiatives: "Good Neighbors— Strong Neighborhoods" 4 Funding 5 Analysis of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program 6 Analysis of Public Housing 7 Promoting Self -Sufficiency 8-9 Promoting Home Ownership 10-1 1 Family Characteristics 12 Family Characteristics & Working Families 13 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List 14 Public Housing Waiting List 15 Program Coordinating Committee Members 16 Partners and Other Community Collaborations 17 Executive Summary 18-19 Page 2 Iowa City Housing Authority Staff Housing Assistant Joan Kramer Housing Program Assistant Robin Butler Housing Program Assistant Denise Kinnison Housing Program Assistant Carri Fox-Rummelhart Housing Program Assistant Stephanie Thomas Housing Program Assistant Kym Stevenson Housing Program Assistant Diana Huff Office Manager Virginia Stroud Self -Sufficiency Programs Mary Abboud Coordinator Public Housing/ Deb Briggs Homeownership Coordi- nator Housing Choice Voucher Heidi Wolf Program Coordinator Housing Administrator Steven J. Rackis Page 3 Annual Report — 2008 New Initiatives: "Good Neighbors —Strong Neighborhoods" The Iowa City Housing Authority and the City of Iowa City Neighborhood Services launched a new initiative: "Good Neighbors —Strong Neighborhoods". The idea is to partner with Neighborhood Associations to develop strategies to promote the peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhood for all residents. Primary "stakeholders" included: Grant Wood Neighborhood Association; Wetherby Neighborhood Association; Iowa City Community Schools; Johnson County Neighborhood Centers; City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation; Burns & Associates; Saddlebrook; Iowa City, City Council; Iowa City Police; Reclaiming Roots; Iowa City Area Association of Realtors; The University of Iowa; Habitat for Humanity; Iowa Department of Human Services. Through 3 strategy meetings, the "stakeholders" decided to focus on the Grant Wood Neighbor Association. The neighborhood needs identified were: 1. More programming at the Grant Wood Family Resource Center; 2. Lack of Atten- dance at Neighborhood Association meetings; &, 3. Need to create a "pride in property" by renters and owners. Regarding programming at the Grant Wood Resource Center, parents of stu- dents attending Grant Wood elementary & Housing Authority program partici- pants residing in the Wetherby & Grant Wood Neighborhoods were surveyed. The City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation Department, Iowa City Community Schools & the Grant Wood Neighborhood Association created ongoing activi- ties scheduled for evenings & weekends. These new activities are published in the Winter/Spring 2008 Parks & Recreation Activities Guide. Utilizing new marketing techniques (e.g., flyers distributed door-to-door & and personal phone calls) the initial attendance increased from 4 to over 20. This Spring we will reassess the results of these efforts. Reclaiming Roots organized & lead the neighborhood clean-up efforts. On Octo- ber 20, 2007, 31 families received yard & household assistance from 61 volun- teers. 20 homes used the hazardous waste trailer with a total of 3,219 pounds of waste removed. For Phase 2 of the "Good Neighbors —Good Neighborhoods", we hope to partner with Reclaiming Roots & the Wetherby Neighborhood Association. Page 4 Iowa City Housing Authority Funding The United States Congress allocates funding and passes laws for all housing programs. The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) role in the locally administered housing programs is to allocate money to the local housing authorities and to develop policy, regulations, and other guid- ance that interprets housing legislation. The Actual Funds Received for CY07 and Projected funding for CY08: Housing Choice Voucher Program CY07 • Annual Contributions Contract = $5,991,887 • Self-Sufficiency/Homeownership Grant = $1 17,271 • Port -in Administrative Fees = $5,028 Public Housing CY07 • Rental Income = $169,407 • Capital Funds Program (CFP) = $155,093 • Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy = $214,505 • Resident Opportunities Self -Sufficiency Grant = $55,555 HOME Funds CY07 (Tenant Based Rental Assistance) = $294,605 Fraud Recovery CY07 = $22,610 Total Housing Authority Funding CY07 = $7,024.688 Housing Choice Voucher Renewal CY08 • Annual Contributions Contract = $5,888,326 • Carryover Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) = $470,772 • Self-Sufficiency/Homeownership Grant = $1 18,294 Public Housing CY08 • Capital Funds Program (CFP) = $143,602 • Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy = $103,490 HOME Funds CY08 (Tenant Based Rental Assistance) = $179,823 Total Housing Authority Funding CY08 = $6,904,307 Page 5 Annual Report — 2008 Housing Choice Voucher Program The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) is funded by the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with the intent of increasing affordable housing choices for low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Families with a HCV voucher choose and lease safe, decent, and affordable privately owned rental housing. M participants must be income eligible and have no incidents of violent or drug related criminal activity for the post five (5) years. Total number of available HCV vouchers = 1,214. HCV Economic Impact for the City of Iowa City: • For CY07, the Housing Choice Voucher program paid approximately $3,800,000 in Housing Assistance Payments to landlords/owners of rental properties in the City of Iowa City. • An additional $1,800,000 was paid to all other landlord/owners of rental properties participating in our HCV program (i.e. North Liberty, Coral- ville). City # of Active % of Active General % of Vouchers Vouchers as { Population, Johnson as of of 2/28/2008 , as of County 2/28/2008 6/28/2007* Incorporated Iowa City 888 68% 62,649 64% Coralville 268 20% 18,017 18% North Liberty 87 7% 9,994 10% Johnson County N/A N/A 98,113 Incorporated Total 1,309 Vouchers (* Sources: State of Iowa Data Center, W....._..®_..._.._..._........__ Population .... ._._.__..___..............____.._....._..,.._........._.___.__....____.__..___........_ Estimates 6/68/2007. Page 6 Iowa City Housing Authority Public Housing Public housing was established to provide affordable, decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the eld- erly, and persons with disabilities. The Federal Department of Housing and Ur- ban Development (HUD) distributes fed- eral subsidies to the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA), which owns and man- ages the housing. The City of Iowa City owns eighty-one (81) public housing units; the ICHA serves as the landlord and rents these units to eligible tenants. They are low - density units scattered throughout Iowa City and were constructed to conform and blend into the existing neighborhood architecture. Unit type Number of units: Single Family 33 Duplex/Zero Lot 36 Multi -Family 8 Town House 4 Public Housing Economic Impact for the City of Iowa City: • The 81 Public Housing units represent 1/2 of 1% of the total number of rental units in the City of Iowa City. • Total CY07 rental income from our Public Housing properties = $169,407. • Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) paid to the Johnson County Assessor for the Public Housing properties in FY07 = $12,000. • In CY07, the Housing Authority paid approximately $300,000 to private sector Iowa City contractors for the capital improvement, general mainte- nance, and repair of the Public Housing properties. Page 7 Annual Report — 2008 Promoting Self -Sufficiency The lack of safe, decent, affordable housing under- mines quality education, public health, and eco- nomic growth. Affordable housing is a contributing factor to stabilizing families. Stable families are bet- ter equipped to take advantage of educational op- portunities. Opportunities for and access to ad- vanced education and training increases employabil- ity. Sustainable employment offers opportunities to attain self-sufficiency. Economic self-sufficiency leads to a better society and strengthens the "sense of community." Through our Self -Sufficiency programs, the Housing Authority is helping low income families bridge the economic gap by building assets, improving employ- ment opportunities, and transitioning from renters of units to owners of homes. The Family Self -Sufficiency (FSS) Program: Promotes self-sufficiency and asset development by providing supportive services to participants to in- crease their employability, to increase the number of employed participants, and to encourage increased in savings through an escrow savings program. Resident Opportunity Self -Sufficiency (ROSS): A grant -funded program that provided participants with resources to improve their employ- ment skills through job coaching and educational opportunities. The program also links clients to resources to meet such needs as child care, transportation, education and job training opportunities, employment, money management and other similar needs necessary to achieve economic independence and self- sufficiency. The ROSS program officially ended on August 31, 2007. The Housing Authority continues to monitor grant opportunities to replace the services funded through the ROSS program. Current FSS Enrollment Data: • Total FSS participants = 128 • Participants with an escrow savings account = 87 (68%) • Average monthly escrow savings deposit (participants with an escrow balance) _ $170 • Average escrow savings account balance (participants with an escrow balance) _ $2,476 • Highest escrow savings account balance = $16,899 Page 8 Iowa City Housing Authority Promoting Self -Sufficiency (Continued) Workshop Accreditations: • "A Framework for Understanding Poverty — Bridges out of Poverty": Na- tional Association of Social Workers Continuing Education (NASW CE) Approved. • "Money Smart": Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation (FDIC). FY2007 FSS/ROSS Services or Activities and Outcomes • 130 families participated in FSS/ROSS; 84 of these families increased their earned income. • 15 families completed their FSS Contracts of Participation: 15 Eliminated cash Welfare Assistance; 10 moved to non -subsidized rental housing. • 16 persons enrolled in a Generalized Education Degree (GED) program: 8 obtained a GED. • 80 persons participated in educational development; 12 received certifica- tions from post -secondary schools. • 10 persons completed post -secondary classes: => 7 obtained an Associates Degree; 3 obtained a Bachelor's Degree; 15 earned income greater than 50% of their previous annual in- come; 15 moved to non -subsidized rental housing. • 50 persons enrolled in Financial Management Counseling; 20 improved their credit scores. • 70 persons received Employment Counseling; 40 were placed in employ- ment: => 40 remained employed for 6 months; 25 remained employed for I year; 10 were employed part-time; 30 were employed full-time. • 70 persons enrolled in Credit Repair Counseling; 20 improved their credit scores. • 70 persons enrolled in Homebuyer Education; 8 purchased a home. • 15 families explored the HCV Homeownership option; 3 purchased a home. Page 9 Annual Report — 2008 Promoting Homeownership HCV Homeownership Pro- gram: The HCV Homeownership program permits eligible participants in the HCV Program, including partici- pants with portable vouchers, the op- tion of purchasing a home with their HCV assistance rather than renting. Eligible participants for the HCV Homeownership Program must have completed at minimum a one-year lease term with HCV rental assistance. HCV homeownership assistance pay- ments may be used to purchase new or existing single-family units, condomini- ums, cooperatives, lofts, and/or manufactured units within Johnson County. • Twenty-eight (28) HCV Vouchers were used to purchase homes since January 2003; Tenant -to -Ownership Program (TOP): The Tenant -to -Ownership Program is funded by HUD. The Tenant to Ownership Program offers opportu- nities for low to very low-income families to purchase a single-family homes owned by the Housing Authority. • Twenty-six (26) homes sold and nine (9) resold since May 1998. Affordable Dream Home Ownership Program (ADHOP): The Affordable Dream Home Ownership Program is operated, managed and funded solely by the ICHA. It offers opportunities for income eligible families to pur- chase newly constructed or newer homes. • Twelve (12) homes (four "Universal Design" homes) were built and sold since May 1999. Two (2) "Universal Design" Homes are currently on the market. Four (4) "Universal Design" homes will be built in Longfellow Place for Fall 2008 ownership. Page 10 Iowa City Housing Authority Promoting Homeownership (Continued) Family Self -Sufficiency: Through our FSS program, many families have used their escrow savings accounts and private mortgages to attain homeowner- ship independent of the Housing Authority programs. Fifty-eight (58) FSS graduates have moved to homeownership forty-six (46) independent of the Housing Authority Homeownership programs; twelve (12) participated in Housing Authority Homeownership programs. Since 1998, one Hundred and Twelve (1 12) families became. home- owners through their participation in the four (4) Iowa City Housing Authority Homeownership programs. The Iowa City Housing Authority continues the partnership with the Iowa Area Association of Realtors to deliver the Homebuyer Education program. The Homebuyer Education program is offered twice per year with attendance capped to a manageable 50 families/session. Fannie Mae, The Federal Home Loan Association, the Iowa Finance Authority, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have certified our curriculum and require first time homebuyers to attend and complete the course before they finalize loans. Habitat for Humanity, the University of Iowa Community Credit Union, Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust, and Keokuk State Bank also require first time homebuyers to attend and complete the class. If a developer is seeking HOME or CDBG funds to acquire or develop homeownership opportunities, the City of Iowa City Planning and Community Development Department will require the homebuyers of these properties to attend and complete a program approved by the City of Iowa City. The Iowa City Housing Authority successfully completed the Iowa Homeowner- ship Education Project (IHOEP) Program Certification fulfilling the six compo- nents of a successful homeownership education program. With this certification, the Housing Authority applied for and secured a grant of $4,429 from IHOEP to deliver the Homebuyer Education Program. Through this grant, grant funds re- ceived through the National Association of Realtors, fees charged to non - Housing Authority participants, we are meeting our goal of maintaining the Homebuyer Education program as a self-sustaining program. Page I I Annual Report — 2008 Family Characteristics ICHA Participant Characteris- tics. Definition of Participant (participant family): A person or family that has been admitted to the Iowa City Housing Authority's HCV or Public Housing program and is currently assisted in the program. Head of Household Charac- teristics. Total Families = 1,345 as reported to HUD: October I, 2006 January 31, 2008. (Totals do not add up to 100% because individuals can be counted in multiple categories): A • Elderly, Disabled, Working = 1,157 (86%) • White Head of Household = 847 (63% ) • Elderly and/or Disabled = 820 (61 %) • Disabled = 673 (50%) • With Minor Children = 659 (49%) • 1 person households = 632 (47%) • Female Head of Household with Children = 605 (45%) • Working = 578 (43%) • African American Head of Household = 484 (36%) • Disabled and/or Elderly and Working = 350 (26%) • Elderly = 161 (12%) Income Sources (All Family Members: Families Have Multiple Sources of Income): • Social Security (SS)/Supplemental Security (SSI) = 59% • Employment = 43% • Family Investment Program (FIP/Welfare) = 14% • With any Other Income = 19%* • With FIP/Welfare as Sole Source of Income = 4% * Child Support, Self -Employment, Unemployment Insurance, Other Non -Wage Sources. Page 12 Iowa City Housing Authority Family Characteristics & Working Families Currently assisted families (Length of Par- ticipation) • Less than I year = 512 (38%) • 1 to 2 years = 118 (9%) • 2 to 5 years = 310 (23%) • 5 to 10 years = 272 (20%) • 10 to 20 years = 116 (9%) • Over 20 years = 14 (1 %) Where did they live prior to admission (Participants as of 2/28/2008)? • Johnson County, Iowa = 1,017 (74%) • All Other State of Iowa Counties = 139 (10%) • State of Illinois = 167 (12%) • All Other States = 47 (03%) Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) Information: • Total ICCSD Enrollment K-12 = 11,718 • Total ICCSD Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch (25.8% of total) = 3,023 • Total ICHA children K-12 age = 1,063 • Total ICHA Children Eligible for Free/Reduced = 1,034 Businesses employing 10+ Housing Authority Participants. • Goodwill Industries of SE Iowa 74 • University of Iowa including Hospitals & Clinics 62 • Reach For Your Potential 33 • Hy-Vee 31 • Iowa City Community School District 25 • Team Staffing 22 • Durham School Services 17 • Employment System 16 • Wal-Mart 15 • ACT 14 • McDonald's 12 • Mercy Hospital 10 Page 13 Annual Report — 2008 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List February 28, 2008 # of families % of total families Waiting list total 2,934 Extremely low income <=30% AMI 2,720 93% Very low income >30% but <=50% AMI 204 7% Low income >50% but <80% AMI 6 .20% Families with children 2,066 70% Elderly families 59 2% Families with Disabilities 521 18% Race/ethnicity-Black 2,206 75% Race/ethnicity-White 615 21 % Race/ethnicity-Asian 12 <1% Race/ethnicity-All Other 29 1 % Characteristics by Bedroom Size 0 BR 443 15% 1 BR 898 31 % 2 BR 988 34% 3 BR 490 17% 4 BR 98 3% 5+ BR 15 <1% Applicant (applicant family): A person or family that has applied for admis- sion to the Iowa City Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) or Public Housing program but is not yet a participant in the program. Eligibility fQr housing progwms is not established until Applicants reach the tob of the waiting list and their Preliminary Applications for Assistance are processed. Page 14 Iowa City Housing Authority Public Housing Waiting List February 28, 2007 # of families % of total families Waiting list total 1,906 Extremely low income < 30% AMI 1,772 93% Very low income >30% but <=50% AMI 122 6% Low income >50% but <80% AMI 7 < 1 % Families with children 1,231 65% Elderly families 55 3% Families with Disabilities 469 25% Race/ethnicity-Black 1,348 71% Race/ethnicity-White 488 26% Race/ethnicity-Asian 10 <I% Race/ethnicity-All Other 25 1% Characteristics by Bedroom Size IBR 693 36% 2 BR 856 45% 3 BR 272 14% 4 BR 84 4% 5+ BR I <1% Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) waiting list geographic distribution: HCV— ICHA Jurisdiction = 30% (884 families) HCV—Outside ICHA Jurisdiction = 70% (2,053 families) Public Housing—ICHA Jurisdiction = 37% (704 families) Public Housing —Outside ICHA Jurisdiction = 63% (1,202 families) Page IS Annual Report — 2008 Program Coordinating Committee — 2008 Advisory Board for the Iowa City Hous- ing Authorities' Self -Sufficiency Programs: Family Self -Sufficiency (FSS), Resident Opportunity & Self -Sufficiency (ROSS) PCC Mission Statement: To ensure wide access of supportive services that enable families to achieve self-sufficiency by securing commitments of public and pri- vate resource. • Amy Correia, Social Services Director, Johnson County. • Jon Weih, Student Life Director, Kirkwood Community College. • Karla Fay, Farmers & Merchants Savings Bank. • Laz Pittman, Attorney, INS Immigration. • Cindy Lynch, Iowa State Bank Home Loan Center. • Linda Severson, Human Services Planning JCCOG. • Hanan Abdelgadir, Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County • Judith Siebert, Cornell College & Back on Track Solutions • Ladiester LaMaster, Horace Mann Elementary Family Resource Center • Lynette Jacoby, United Action for Youth • Perla Flores, Neighborhood Centers of Johns County • Shannon Hammen, Roosevelt Elementary Family Resource, Center • Steve Federspiel, Liberty Bank Page 16 Iowa City Housing Authority Partners and Community Collaborations Iowa City Housing Authority Programs and Services: • University of Iowa School of Social Work. Women's Resource and Action Center (WRAC). Montessori School. Goodwill Industries of SE Iowa. Farmers & Merchants Bank. Iowa City Area Realtors. Habitat for Humanity. Iowa State University (ISU) Exten- sion. Iowa City Junior Service League. Liberty Bank. Iowa Women's Foundation. Hawkeye Community Action Program (HACAP). STAR Program. Iowa State Bank. Foster Grandparents Program. The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC). "Good Neighbors -Strong Neighborhoods". Reclaiming Roots. City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation City of Iowa City Neighborhood Services Current Homeownership Programs Lender List: • Iowa State Bank • Liberty Bank • West Bank • Countrywide Home Loans • Cornerstone Mortgage • Freedom Security • American Bank & Trust • Hills Bank • University of Iowa Credit Union • Farmers & Merchants Bank • Habitat for Humanity • U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Page 17 Annual Report — 2008 Executive Summary Legislation to reform the "Section 8" Housing Choice Voucher Program passed the United State House of Representa- tives in July 2007, by a vote of 333-83. A companion to the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act (SEVRA) is now being consid- ered by The United States Senate. Highlights of the legislation include: • Consistent with the last two appro- priation acts, Housing Authorities annual appropriations are based on actual leasing and costs in the last com- pleted calendar year. Appropriations are adjusted by HUD's formula annual adjustment factors. • Housing Authorities administrative fees will again be based on the number of units leased in the Calendar Year v. a prorated fee structure based on each Housing Authority's share of the total fees earned in 2003. • The legislation directs HUD to set Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for smaller communities, rather than vast metropolitan areas, to ensure that voucher payment standards accurately reflect local market conditions. • Families' portability rights remain, but the financing of "portability" moves changes. "Receiving" Housing Authorities are required to "absorb" the vouchers of families moving to that community. Housing Authorities that incur additional subsidy costs due to portability would receive additional funds. After the voucher is absorbed, the initial Housing Authority would be able to reissue the voucher to a family on their waiting list. • Changes the funding policy to provide additional funds to Housing Authori- ties related to costs of Family Self -Sufficiency (FSS) escrow savings ac- counts. Currently, the costs are taken from the Housing Assistance Pay- ments (HAP) budget. • Administrative fees for FSS Coordinators would be distributed by formula rather than through a competition in which HUD can change the criteria annually, as has occurred in recent years. • Homeownership assistance for families that are not elderly or disabled is limited to 10-15 years, depending on the term of the mortgage. • Housing Authorities may use funds to assist a participating family to meet downpayment costs. On average, the maximum would not exceed$7,000 in 2007, and would be less for families with higher than average incomes. • Families that voluntarily enter into FSS contracts are required to work in order to receive their escrow savings. Otherwise, work requirements are Page 18 Iowa City Housing Authority Executive Summary (Continued) not permitted, unless a Housing Authority is in the Moving to Work Dem- onstration and HUD approved the policy change. The House rejected an amendment to impose 20-hour work requirements after 7 years by a vote of 197-222. • Time limits are not permitted for rental assistance, unless a Housing Au- thority is in the Moving to Work demonstration and HUD approved this policy change. The Iowa City Housing Authority once again achieved "High Performer" status for both the HCV and Public Housing programs. In 2007, the Housing Authority implemented HCV program changes designed to increase eligible families' ability to more quickly find and lease -up suitable units. As a result, the Housing Authority maintained a 100% lease -up rate of HCV participants for the Calendar Year 2007. The utilization of HOME Funds for Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) shortens our waiting list for residents in our jurisdiction. Leveraging these funds to serve more families provides the Housing Authority with the opportunity to maximize the amount of HCV funds we receive from HUD. Regarding the placement of a police officer in a Public Housing unit, anecdotal comments from Public Housing tenants in the Whispering Prairie/Whispering Meadow neighborhood suggest the placement has had a calming effect on the neighborhood. Tenants also report that the officer has served as a valuable re- source to the neighborhood; especially, in the area of improved communications with the Iowa City Police Department. In July 2008, we will run a comparative analysis of 2007 & 2008 crime statistics in the neighborhood. On a lighter note, the Housing Authority is contemplating changing our logo. We would like to highlight the continuum of services we provide — housing assistance, self-sufficiency, homeownership! Kay Irelan of Planning & Community Development designed the following draft logo & letterhead: 6housing aut horlW 410 e washingion street, Iowa city, iowl 52240.1826 Eommunit/leader (c ho.a ir�J,fmunil, ., !sr lil,ri� rer5h,purl�71r!rill s Page 19 Annual Report — 2008 L1sin UTHORITY 410 E. Washington Scree! Iowa City • Iowa - 52240 •1826 We provide: • Information and education, • Housing assistance, • Public and private partnership opportunities. Phone: (319) 356-5400 FAX: (319) 356-5459 Web: www.icgov.org/icha Page 20 BY-LAWS ARTICLE l THE COMMISSION Section A. The name of the Commission is the Housing and Community Development Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, as established by Resolution No. 95-199 of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to Chapter 403A, Code of Iowa (1995). ARTICLE 2 PURPOSE Section A. The purpose of the Commission is to assess Iowa City's community development needs for housing, jobs, and services for low and moderate income residents, and to promote public and private efforts to meet such needs. ARTICLE 3 DUTIES Section A. Duties of the Commission shall include: 1) assess and review policies and planning documents related to the provision of housing, jobs, and services, for low and moderate income residents of Iowa City; 2) review policies and programs of the Public Housing Authority and Community Development Division and make recommendations regarding the same to the City Council; 3) review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the use of public funds to meet the needs of low and moderate income residents; 4) actively publicize community development and housing policies and programs, and seek public participation in assessing needs and identifying strategies to meet these needs; 5) recommend to the City Council from time to time amendments, supplements, changes, and modifications to the Iowa City Housing Code. ARTICLE 4 MEMBERSHIP Section A. The Housing and Community Development Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Council of Iowa City. All members shall be qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and shall serve as such without compensation but shall be entitled to the necessary expenses, including traveling expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties. Section B. In order to satisfy the purpose and intent of this citizen commission, when possible, at least one person shall be appointed to the Housing and Community Development Commission with expertise in construction and at least one person with expertise in finance. In addition, when possible, the Commission shall include one person who receives rental assistance. Section C. The term of office for each member shall be three (3) years. In order to ensure a staggered turnover, initial appointments shall be three (3) members for each of one, two, and three years respectively. Section D. The Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson will be elected annually (in September) from the Commission membership. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings, appoint sub -committees with the approval of the Commission, call special meetings and in general perform all duties included in the office of a Chairperson and such other duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to time. The Vice -Chairperson shall take over the above duties of the Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson's absence. Section E. Three (3) consecutive, unexplained absences of a member from regular meetings will result in a recommendation to the City Council from the Commission to discharge said member and appoint a new member. Section F. If a position becomes vacant by reason of resignation or otherwise and results in an unexpired term the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term but also through a subsequent regular term. ARTICLE 5 MEETINGS Section A. Meetings of this Commission shall be on a regular monthly basis. A meeting date and time will be established by the Commission. A regular meeting may be cancelled if no urgent business requires a meeting. Section B. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson at the request of a majority of the membership. Section C. Meetings shall be held in an accessible, public meeting place. Notices of meetings (agenda) for all regular and special meetings shall be posted and distributed to members and the media at least 24 hours before any meeting is held. All provisions of the State Open Meeting Law shall be followed. The Chairperson or a designated representative, together with appropriate members of the City staff shall prepare an agenda for all meetings. Agendas shall be sent to Commission members at least three (3) days prior to the regular meetings. Section D. A majority of the members of the Commission (five or more) shall constitute a quorum of any meeting and the majority of votes cast at any meeting, at which a quorum is present, shall be decisive of any motion or election. Section E. There shall be no vote by proxy. Section F. Time shall be made available during all regular meetings for open public discussion. Section G. Minutes.of all meetings shall be prepared and distributed to the City Council within three (3) weeks of the meeting in the manner prescribed by the Council. Minutes of all regular and special meetings will be mailed to all the Commission members during the week prior to the next meeting. Specific recommendations for the Council shall be set off from the main body of the minutes. ARTICLE 6 AMENDMENTS Section A. The By -Laws of the Commission shall be amended only with the approval of at least a majority of the Commission (at least five votes) at a regular meeting or a special meeting. Section B. Policy changes or By -Law changes may be adopted at the meeting following the meeting at which open discussion was conducted on the specific changes. ppdcdbg\bylaws.hcd