Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-2012 Housing & Community Development CommissionAGENDA (REVISED) HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET, IOWA CITY THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012 6:30 P.M. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the March 8 and March 22, 2012 Minutes 3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda 4. Staff/Commission Comment 5. Discussion Regarding FY13 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Requests • Review Financial Terms for Housing Projects 6. Review of the FY13 Annual Action Plan • Recommendation to City Council 7. Discussion of FY12 & FY11 Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy • Consider Request to Amend FY11 City of Iowa City Park Land Acq. & FY12 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity Projects 8. Discussion of the Community Development Celebration 9. Monitoring Reports • MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation • ICCSD Grant Wood Elementary — Fiber Optic Cable • Table to Table — Operations • (FY11) Isis Investments — Rental Housing • (FY11) Wetherby Condos South LLC — Rental Rehabilitation • (FY11 & FY10) The Housing Fellowship — Rental Housing • (FY11) Free Medical Clinic — Facility Rehabilitation • (FY08) Habitat for Humanity - Homeownership 10. Adjournment � r 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM TO: Housing and Community Development Commission FROM: Community Development Staff DATE: April 13, 2012 RE: April Meeting Packet Thank you for your time and dedication during the allocation process. The following is a short description of the April agenda items. Discussion Regarding FY13 CDBG and HOME Funding Requests — Financial Terms for Housing Projects If staff recommended different terms than those proposed by a housing applicant, those terms are identified in the Annual Action Plan. You can find the recommendations on the page that identifies each project activity and in the HCDC Justification Memo. This applied to two housing projects: HACAP and Charm Homes LLC. Review of the FY13 Annual Action Plan At the March 22 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 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 13 and runs through May 14. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Plan on Tuesday, May 15 and formally approve the Plan that same evening following a public hearing. Public copies are also available at the Iowa City Public Library, Planning Department, City Hall and online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. Discussion of FY12 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. Community Development Celebration Staff will provide updates concerning this year's Community Development Celebration. Comments and suggestions will be reviewed. Monitoring Reports MECCA, ICCSD, Table to Table, Isis Investments and Wetherby Condos South LLC (Zimmermann Smith) The Housing Fellowship, Free Medical Clinic and Habitat for Humanity (staff) 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-hiahtshoe(cD-iowa-city.orq. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2012 — 6:30 PM EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Michelle Bacon Curry, Scott Dragoo, Charles Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Jim Jacobson, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Cheryll Clamon STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, David Purdy, Jeff Vanatter OTHERS PRESENT: Zari Wilken, Mike McKay, Sherri Zastrow, Mark Patton, Ron Berg, Mary Palmberg, Becci Reedus, Heather Harney, Jane Drapeaux, Charlie Eastham, Maryann Dennis, Roger Goedken, Roger Lusala RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Andrew Chappell at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 16, 2012 MINUTES: Zimmerman Smith moved to approve the minutes. Hart seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Chappell introduced and welcomed the newest Commission member Jim Jacobson, who was appointed two days ago. Hightshoe said that she had emailed members of the Commission about a training for boards and commissions that's done by the Iowa Institute of Public Affairs. For those interested she HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 2 of 11 wanted to know if there was a certain time or day that worked best for the training. She said that the City Clerk's office will schedule training according to the preferences of the majority of interested members of all the boards and commissions. After discussion, there was no consensus among the four interested members of the Commission. PUBLIC MEETING: DISCUSSION REGARDING FY13 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM REQUESTS Chappell said that the Commission needed to review the project rankings and discuss the average allocation worksheet. For the two members unfamiliar with the process, he explained that the Commission used this meeting as the first real exposure to everyone's scoring and rankings. He said this is the opportunity to ask each other questions and to tell everyone why you were so high or low on a particular project. He explained that the projects in bold are high priorities and if it's not bold it's a medium or low priority. He explained that the CHDO operating funds has to come from HOME funds Hightshoe stated Successful Living, Rental Rehab has to come from CDBG funds Habitat for Humanity — Owner Rehab Chappell stated the highest ranked project was Habitat for Humanity - Owner Rehab. Several were in full to majority funding. Chappell told the commission that there were agency representatives present and questions could be addressed to them if necessary. Commission member stated this one scored pretty high for him, which is why he recommended full funding. He stated he liked the rehab. of the existing housing stock and the need to maintain the stock of affordable housing we have. Member stated some didn't fully fund as had higher priorities and the money they had remaining was allocated to this project. Bacon Curry stated she agreed with the rational to maintain our current stock of affordable housing. Drum asked if a consensus for funding should we make that determination. Chappell stated the purpose of the meeting was to review our allocations and rankings, ask questions, determine why others funded some projects and not others and come back next meeting and make the final funding recommendations. Charm Homes LLC Chappell stated that there appears to be a lot of consensus for several projects. The second on the list is Charm Homes. Four of the seven recommended full funding. Jacobson stated he was just shy of half funding. Hart said she provided funds to this project in different funding scenarios. While the sheet submitted stated $0, she would be willing to consider funding this project. Chappell stated that after this meeting if anyone wanted to revise their rank or allocation they could do so by notifying Hightshoe before the March 22 packet is sent out. Hightshoe stated they would be due by Monday, March 19. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 3 of 11 Drum stated for Charms he didn't provide funding because this is a for -profit entity and funding is tight for all affordable housing providers. He was not inclined to give public funds to a private entity, even though he understood that they do good work. Bacon Curry stated that was one of her justifications for funding. She valued the property tax payment, estimated at $7,000 per year. She also liked all the private funds that were contributed to the project and not totally funded by public dollars. She thought the project was innovative. Chappell agreed about the percentage of public funds for the overall project. Zimmermann Smith stated she thought it was creative too and serves a population that really needs those services. City of Iowa City Owner Rehab. Four members funded at the $200,000+ range. Chappell stated he partially funded as he gave the project a lower score. He tried to fully fund those applications that were the highest in each category and then not recommend funding for those that were the lowest and then somewhere in the middle unless they were some exception. Chappell clarified that this allocation is in addition to the set -aside amount for rehab. Hightshoe stated that was correct. This application is in addition to the regular entitlement. The purpose of these funds is to target older neighborhoods in Iowa City with better financial terms to stabilize, improve the housing stock for low -moderate income homeowners. Hightshoe stated Jeff Vanatter was here from Housing Rehab and can explain the financial terms. She stated in the regular rehab. program the amount is fully repaid in loan payments or when the home is sold. Under this program, a portion is forgiven. Vanatter stated for targeted neighborhoods, 50% of project costs forgiven if the homeowner stays there. If HOME funds, if they remain in the home for 10 years, 50% would be forgiven. For CDBG funds, 50% forgiven after five years. Hightshoe stated the rehab. program use to receive $500,000+ to operate the program. Due to funding cutbacks over the past 7-8 years and the significant cut again this year to HOME, their set -aside amount is $200,000. Chappell asked if this additional application gets the program back to where they normally would have been? Vanatter said yes. Bacon Curry asked if the targeted neighborhoods have been selected. Vanatter stated Towncrest neighborhood, Miller Orchard neighborhood, southeast part of Iowa City around the Grant Wood area and an area around downtown where there's a little bit higher owner occupied than some of the other areas downtown. There was a map on the application. Chappell stated it seemed somewhat odd or interesting that the City is applying to this commission for the funds that it controls — it's just the way it's always been done. It's a competitive process. City departments have applied for trails/sidewalks previously and not been funded, but they come to the table just like everyone else. Any questions about that particular project? The PowerPoint screen showed a photo of a recent rehab. Member questioned what work was performed. Vanatter stated new windows, new wiring/electrical and new siding — everything was falling apart. Habitat for Humanity Homeownership Chappell stated there was a consensus not to fund. Dragoo allocated funds; Chappell asked if he wanted to weigh in about his recommendation. Dragoo stated he rated it highly, so he funded it. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 4 of 11 Chappell stated that with limited funds, he often only allocates to one project if an applicant submits multiple applications. He funds what he views as higher priority. Housing Fellowship Rental Chappell stated there are four who are recommending no funding and two who are recommending a pretty broad range —just under $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 THE was requesting $258,000. Chappell recommended $0 as the project was middle of the road based on his scoring. He would have recommended some partial funding, but when asked the question was this an all or nothing project, the applicant stated that was a correct statement so he didn't fund it. He asked the applicant if that has changed. Dennis, THF, stated she would have to review the finances again. It may be possible to borrow more than originally planned. Chappell asked what minimal allocation would allow the project to proceed. Dennis stated without going through it, but preliminarily it might work at $150,000. Bacon Curry stated that if you look at the recommended funding from the Commissioners she didn't think it would fly because the average recommendation is quite a bit lower than that amount. Chappell asked if those that didn't fund previously would consider it now at $150,000. Hart stated she had a version in mind. She would consider funding this project at that level. Dennis stated the amounts in the proforma are based on the underwriting criteria from the Iowa Finance Authority and they have very strict criteria. There is a mandatory operating expense per unit, reserves, limitations on developer fee and a required debt coverage ratio during the compliance period. As THE is submitting a HOME application to the Iowa Finance Authority, she wanted to submit the same proforma to the City and State that met the requirements for both programs. Costs appear higher in their proforma compared to other agencies. Zimmerman Smith stated she allocated zero because there are less funds and she wanted to focus on rehab. of existing affordable housing this year, basically take care of what we already have rather than build more. She stated that was sort of her theme throughout with the exception of Charm Homes, which is providing an actual service, so it's a business and it's the reason she didn't fund the Homeownership project for Habitat. Gatlin stated as the person who allocated the most for the Housing Fellowship Rental project he believes that rental housing is the largest need in the community and that we have an opportunity to acquire/build more units this year. Drum agreed that it is a high priority. Chappell stated if you didn't fund because you thought it an all or nothing project, if you can fund at $150,000, revise your allocations and submit to staff or advocate at our next meeting. The Housing Fellowship CHDO There was a clear consensus on this. It's $20,000. Chappell stated he thought HUD encouraged support of CHDOs for operating expenses. Bacon Curry stated she thought it was required. Hightshoe stated it's eligible, but it's not required. CJ's Construction Rental Hightshoe stated that they lost their site as a different entity purchased it. The commission will have to consider the application with an unknown site, which is common for most housing projects. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 5 of 11 Chappell asked if at this time do we have any idea where that future site may be? Hightshoe stated the applicant was not present, but she could email the applicant. Chappell asked if applicants are told they must be here or they're encouraged to be here. Hightshoe stated that applicants are encouraged to attend but it's not mandatory. If they are unable to attend, they are told staff will follow up with them if there are any questions. Chappell asked about the March 22 meeting. Hightshoe stated that for that one, there's no follow-up because you make your recommendation that evening. They are encouraged to come to both, but it is not required. HACAP Rental There is a consensus to fund it at least the $200,000 and several are at $300,000. Bacon Curry stated that the site visit made a big difference. When she first read the application she was not convinced. The condition of the units and with the previous City investment of $900,000 at the property directly south, she felt funding was the way to go on this. She stated you have a frontage property on the highway in a neighborhood that we're trying to boost up. This could assist the neighborhood and greatly improve the units that are in disrepair. Zimmerman Smith asked if provided the funds, how can we ensure the applicant maintains the property as one of the problems she had with the application initially was that it said such things as the neighborhood had deteriorated and the property has deteriorated without taking any actual responsibility or formulating a plan for not having that happen again. She stated that she felt there should be a condition about maintenance. Hightshoe stated that when she analyzed the proforma, she made significant changes. She adopted the State's requirement for the operating costs per unit and reserve amounts. She would recommend a conditional occupancy loan based on annual review of the rent revenue and documentation that shows funds placed in a reserve and an annual review of expenses from such account. Bacon Curry stated there were approximately 40-60 kids living at the property. The changes would be quite beneficial and the neighborhood could be drastically improved Gatlin stated that he was on the opposite end, realizing that we did put so much money into Broadway (Southgate's project) just a year ago and he had it as a lower priority. He understands that the area does need additional help, but was concerned about putting all of our resources in one specific area. Dragoo thought very similar, but looking at the big picture he thought this could be the tipping point for the neighborhood. Bacon Curry stated it seemed that there are quite a few affordable housing projects in this area and we need to support what is in this neighborhood. Hightshoe noted that when we consider priorities, transitional housing is a high priority despite its low ranking. CITY STEPS states non -student renter under 50% of median income, but if you read the narrative, transitional housing is specifically identified. Whether it is the acquisition of new transitional housing or to maintain the transitional housing that we have. This would also apply to Successful Living. HACAP provides transitional housing for families with children and Successful Living is primarily for people with chronic mental illness; but they both are transitional housing. Successful Living Chappell asked if anyone wanted to speak for the majority who recommended zero funding. He stated they were kind of middle of the road scoring for him. Zimmerman Smith stated this is one HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 6 of 11 where I think it makes a difference also in the opposite direction because I felt like there's almost no amount of money that was going to be able to fix it all as it is a very old building. It's going to have continuing problems and it affects a relatively small number of people that live there although they are people with mental illness. Drum stated that was the whole reason he didn't fund it. He thought there's going to be a lot of money poured into that building. For the number of people that it's going to serve, he couldn't support it. Bacon Curry stated that the building may not meet our goal of safe, affordable, decent housing. She would hate to see SROs not supported because we don't have a good supply of them, particularly for those for people in recovery from various conditions, it's just that facility is really degraded. Hart suggested some funding as would at least assist in providing some needed repair. Gatlin suggested the same. Hart asked what the $100,000 was for. Chappell stated HVAC and the roof. Bacon Curry stated there were holes in the walls and the ceilings. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County. Consensus to fully fund by five members. Chappell stated you may recall that we gave them money last year to acquire an additional facility, but the project didn't proceed and the money returned for reallocation. Drum stated this request is much lower, but serves many children and families. Chappell stated for the new member's benefit that it is usually not a good thing when an applicant has to give back money that they can't spend. In this particular case the money was for purchasing an additional site and through no fault of their own they've been unable to. Zimmerman Smith stated it's a good project and she liked that they didn't get to do what they were planning to do and they sort of turned right around and rebounded and came up with a different plan. She felt like she was saying yes again to the same project but cheaper this time. Chappell stated it scored very highly. Member stated they allocated partial funding for replacing the roof and repairing the parking at both facilities. Crisis Center Chappell stated he fully funded as they were the top score for him. He talked to the City Attorney about this particular application as he represents Johnson County in a myriad of different things. He has not had anything to do with this particular project. In fact the first he heard about it is when he read the application in the HCDC packet. He stated the Johnson County Board isn't his employer, but the County Attorney is his employer. The purchase agreement is not contingent about funding by HCDC/City. At least at this point he and the City Attorney's office don't believe he has any conflict. His worry was more about the appearance of a conflict because there are so few real conflicts and all he can do is say he thinks it's pretty obvious he ranked this one on the score. He scored it high because he liked the collaboration between entities. His big concern was if they would receive site control. He knows governments move slowly, but it didn't dissuade him from recommending because if they don't get it, the funding comes back for reallocation. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 7 of 11 Reedus, from the Crisis Center, stated they made a proposal February 16th and the Board of Supervisors liked the proposal. The Supervisors like the collaborative nature of the project; however if to sell below the appraised value they must issue a RFP for the site. An RFP was issued and is due April 2"d. They have met with some of the supervisors and gone through a time line. They are not quite sure when it will be on the formal agenda but they think within two weeks of April 2"d. There would be a public hearing process and looking at some time around mid -May. The Supervisors told us they're considering a number of factors in their RFP process including the kinds of services, the collaborative nature of organizations working together for the project and also an important factor for them is the recipient's ability to leverage other funds that could include block grant funds for the project. Bacon Curry asked if they know if anyone else is planning on submitting a proposal? Reedus said she didn't know. Bacon Curry asked are they only considering non-profit organizations. Reedus said yes. Bacon Curry stated she allocated zero for that reason. She loves this project in the collaborative sense, but felt like we didn't really have a project yet because they don't have site control. She stated her zero is not firm, but needs more information and still kind of do. Another concern is if renting to other non -profits; do they have money to pay rent? Reedus stated it's been an incredible process and the community support behind this has been amazing. We have the support of United Way of Johnson County. We've met with the Community Foundation. We've already sought some money from some corporations in terms of capital campaign. We are pretty confident that with the money we are looking at getting - and part of that is block grant money — that we are going to be able to pass on zero cost and low rent — rent which is really going to be occupancy costs. Those kinds of things you have to pay anyway — heat, utilities, maintenance kinds of things — at a cost that is now less than what we originally thought when we were looking at actually purchasing the building for less than its value — we've never looked at our ability to purchase a building for $550,000, that was just out of the question. So I think that makes it exciting for us because one of the things we discussed with United Way today was if we can do that, not only do we collaborate but we don't add any operating costs to existing agencies and they can continue to put money back into programs and that should be the point. That if this were going to raise any of the four agencies operating costs, we'd be out looking for money in order to support that and we really do believe that we can do this without raising that, so that all of the four agencies will be able to continue to provide programs, maybe even have more money to provide programming. We're really excited about it. Bacon Curry asked if they allocated funds, and Crisis Center doesn't get the building what would happen. Hightshoe stated it would depend on the amount of money that you allocate. If it was a significant amount then we would have a mid -year allocation and open it up for people to apply. If it was a smaller amount we'd just roll it into the next year. To have a separate allocation round we would be looking at $150,000+. HACAP Five at full funding. Chappell stated that some of the reasons that were discussed for supporting the HACAP housing project certainly rang true for this one as well. Bacon Curry stated that you can't tell from the photo, but there are actually wood studs sticking out. She also stated there is a smaller, second play area but the equipment is broken. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 8 of 11 DVIP There is a consensus of four to fully fund. Zimmermann Smith stated that she thought the floor really needs repair and would be willing to allocate money for that. She thought it's a pretty deluxe project when there are other needs and probably cheaper ways of providing food than a giant commercial kitchen. She realizes there is a social aspect with the kitchen where the people that live there get together, but not sure if worth $200,000. Drum stated he really liked this project. He likes that the agency is thinking about the community and thinking about supporting the people they serve and their future and not just housing them — not just sticking them there and not trying to help them out. Bacon Curry stated she would second Drum's comments. She had the same questions that Rachel did, but she wasn't sure how much they would save if a different way to provide meals at the site. Doser, DVIP, stated there are three stoves, but they have 40 people living there all the time. Zimmermann Smith stated that the floor was an emergency need so could fund that and would be willing to negotiate a little bit. Community Mental Health. Chappell stated at this point a consensus — actually — it's sort of three for all and four for nothing. He's one of the four that was nothing and that was strictly because it wasn't high enough to warrant full funding and it was an all or nothing project. Staff stated Zastrow, CMHC, provided written notice that they could contribute $20,000 due to a recent contribution. Chappell stated that could be put as the proverbial skin in the game for this project, whereas before — he thinks every time we've seen it — it's been strictly 100% public funding so that's about — it's over 10% of the project. The project request is now for $163,564. Hart stated she funded it fully because it is very needed and felt like we had all talked about how much it was needed but never given them the money. She stated it is a vital facility that serves medical needs that is not medically accessible to people who require accessibility. Chappell stated he thought the same, but the difficulty for him was that accommodations are made so that no one is denied services. Bacon Curry stated that she thought about what Shaw had stated about maintaining downtown structures that are historic. She believes in historic preservation and this project does both — preservation and needed accessibility. She wanted to maintain this site for its current function. Zimmermann Smith stated that the accessibility was more her reason for funding, but maintaining the property was as well. Drum stated that seeing exactly the same project we saw a year ago was a reason he didn't fund it. He believed they weren't doing anything other than applying to us for the money to get the project done. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 9 of 11 Hart stated it's not a very sexy project. Fundraising for an elevator at the community mental health center is not an easy sell. It's not like raising money to support playground facilities or other services such as DVIP. Chappell stated he appreciated the additional information that they've found something to contribute to the project especially if you're like him and didn't even bother with any partial funding because it was viewed as an all or nothing. MECCA Facility Rehab There is a consensus for funding, but just barely. Gatlin stated he funded the security cameras as thought very important. Bacon Curry stated she tried to fully fund other projects and didn't have any money left over. It's a pretty well maintained facility, so that's why she ended up with zero, but she could understand the security cameras. Mayor's Youth Empowerment Consensus for no funding. Member stated that they had received some help recently and when reviewing the other applications, other needs were more important. Chappell stated electrical work and HVAC were their first priorities and those would total right around 38,000. Extend the Dream There were five for no funding. Hart funded as both entities do important work and wanted to fund the accessibility. PATV she liked because they offer trainings and you can actually join them for free and especially people needing or wanting access to the communications or marketing skills. They offer that. Even though we can't overtly support them I think it was a nice joint venture for those two entities. Member stated he could understand the necessity for access to the building but ranked as low as it was and then tracking low income benefit (PATV) made it difficult for him to fund partially. Hart stated the low income benefit could be tracked at Extend the Dream. Hightshoe agreed. Jacobson had a question as to why funds were returned last year. Hightshoe stated that Extend the Dream Foundation can track the LMI benefit with their customers. The funding got pulled last time because you have to complete an environmental review before you can start projects and this organization started the project before the environmental review was completed. A building permit was pulled and work commenced before we received clearance from HUD. This negates the entire project and no federal funds can be used. Staff has ongoing concerns with the agency's capacity to administer federally funded projects. Chappell stated if any revisions in rankings/allocations to submit to Hightshoe by 5:00 PM Monday, the 19tn The Commission agreed to receive their packets late, after March 19th HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 10 of 11 ADJOURNMENT: Hart moved to adjourn. Dragoo seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2012 — 6:30 PM EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Michelle Bacon Curry, Scott Dragoo, Charles Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Jim Jacobson, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Cheryll Clamon STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, David Purdy, Jeff Vanatter OTHERS PRESENT: Zari Wilken, Jeffery Ford, Heather Harney, Mary Palmberg, Becci Reedus, Beth Ritter Rubach, Bruce Teague, Roger Lusala, Mark Patton, Maryann Dennis, StephenTrefz RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 8-0 to make the following recommendations to City Council for the FY13 CDBG/HOME funding: Housing Requested Amount HCDC Recommendation 'CHARM Homes LLC - Rental Housing $61,650 $61,650 CJs Construction, Inc. — Rental Housing $650,000 $0 Hawkeye Area Comm. Action Program — Rental Rehab. $360,000 $290,014 The Housing Fellowship — CHDO Operating Funds $20,630 $19,260 The Housing Fellowship — Rental Housing $258,239 $0 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Homeownership $120,000 $0 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Owner -occupied Rehab. $90,000 $90,000 City of Iowa City — Owner -occupied Rehabilitation $220,000 $200,000 Successful Living — Rental Rehabilitation $300,000 $0 Housing Total $2, 080, 519 $660, 924 Public Facilities Community Mental Health Center - Accessibility $163,564 $100,000 Crisis Center of Johnson County — Rehabilitation $300,400 $160,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Facility Rehab. $172,076 $172,076 Extend the Dream/PAN— Facility Rehabilitation $26,360 $0 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 2 of 12 HACAP - Playground $40,000 $40,000 Mayor's Youth — Facility Rehab. $119,424 $0 MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation $339,767 $12,500 NCJC — Facility Rehab. $111,500 $111,500 Public Facilities Total $1,273,091 $596,076 TOTAL REQUESTED: $3,353,610 $1,257,000 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Andrew Chappell at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Hightshoe explained that Single Family New Construction Round 4 Development Plan was submitted to the Iowa Economic Development Authority, and in the next couple of weeks staff will know if it was approved. Round 4 will provide acquisition assistance to an additional 33 homes for income eligible homebuyers. She explained that this is a flood recovery program to make up for the homes bought due to the flood of 2008. The program assists the City in replacing lost tax base in addition to providing affordable homeownership. She said that so far 108 homes have been allocated to Iowa City. All are built and sold except for 15 in a new subdivision. Construction to be complete on these 15 homes this summer. She said the selling price on the Round 4 homes is capped at $150,000 and buyers must be at or below 80% of median income. In reply to a Commission member question, she said that these are federal Community Block Grant dollars that was awarded to the State due to the disasters of 2008 (floods). It is a state program and the City is a recipient based on the State's guidelines and restrictions. Jacobson asked if the people who were bought out have the right of first refusal. Hightshoe explained that more first time home buyers than flood victims applied for these homes because the flood victims had other programs for assistance and had already relocated by the time the Single Family New Construction Program was announced/available. PUBLIC MEETING: Discussion Regarding FY13 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Requests • Discuss FY13 CDBGXHOME Applications • Develop FY13 CDBGIHOME Budget Recommendation to Council HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 3 of 12 Chappell said that on the allocation worksheet several of the applications are bolded because they are considered by CITY STEPS to be high priority. He explained that Hightshoe has directed the Commission to go through those applications first. Habitat for Humanity Owner Rehab Chappell said they requested $90,000. He said that the allocation worksheets reflect some changes from three Commission members. He suggested they pencil in the full $90,000, a high priority. Drum asked about how Bacon Curry had arrived at her allocation. Bacon Curry explained that she had funded one home by funding half and when she discovered that Community Mental Health didn't need quite as much for the elevator, she parceled out that difference. There was a consensus to make the preliminary allocation $90,000. Charm Homes LLC, Rental. Chappell said they requested $61,650, and there were four Commission members supportive of full funding. He asked if anyone had changed their minds or wanted to discuss anything. Jacobson asked what rationale the other Commission members had for their funding recommendations on this one. Chappell said Charm Homes was one of his top three or four, for whom he recommended full funding, while he recommended no funding for his bottom three or four and he allocated some percentage of their requests for the ones in the middle range. Zimmerman Smith said she liked that it was rehab of existing homes and that she was trying to do as much rehab as she could this time around rather than new construction. She also said that this one, like Habitat, does pay property taxes. Chappell said that this project in particular leverages quite a bit of private funding as well. There was a consensus to preliminarily allocate $61,650 to Charm Homes. City of Iowa City, Owner Rehab Chappell said that there was a consensus to fund at least $200,000 of their requested $220, 000. Gatlin said that everyone has agreed to fund it at some level and he thinks $200,000 or close to the average of $185,000 would be agreeable to him. Zimmerman Smith said the average doesn't really reflect the will of the majority, as there are four members recommending funding at a higher level. Jacobson's said he thought that funding for half of the requested amount would be a good starting point. He wanted to know the rationales for the higher levels by the other Commission members. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 4of12 Zimmerman Smith explained that it is a rehab project to help a neighborhood and the City will not be getting funding from any other sources this year and it's for owner -occupied houses, which allows people who might otherwise not be able to afford to invest in the neighborhood. Bacon Curry questioned if fully funded, is it still a cut to the overall program. Hightshoe said that the Rehab. program is allocated $200,000 through a Council set aside that is derived from a percentage of the CDBG and HOME entitlement. Funding from HUD has continued to decrease over the last several years, so Rehab's allocation has continually gotten smaller. This amount limits the number of projects they can do. She said that in past years they received approximately $400,000 to $500,000. Last year they were allocated about $300,000. Chappell said that he thought Bacon Curry's point was that the funding that is requested is really to get them to a status quo. Vanatter affirmed that is true. There was a consensus to use $200,000 as a starting point. The Housing Fellowship, Rental Chappell said that it was previously understood by the Commission that it was an all or nothing deal, which is why he chose to allocate nothing to them. He said that the chart Maryann Dennis from The Housing Fellowship provided to them makes it clear that they could make their project work with $150,000. Dennis affirmed this. Hart said that this time as she was distributing the money, she was focusing more on rehab. Chappell said he knows that other members had allocated nothing to The Housing Fellowship because they had been told that it was all or nothing. He said that even with the revised amount, he would still recommend partial funding less than $150,000. The Commission agreed to assign no money to The Housing Fellowship as a starting point. The Housing Fellowship, CHDO. Hightshoe said they had received the City's final HOME allocation from HUD. The maximum amount the City can allocate to this project is $19,260. The Commission agreed to make $19,260 the starting amount. Chappell said HACAP rental rehab had a consensus among the members of at least $200,000. He suggested that they make the preliminary allocation equal to Hart's recommendation of $200,000, Zimmerman Smith asked if HACAP could go forward on their project with that amount. Harney responded that they could do the exterior, but would need more to work on the kitchen and central air and new furnaces. The Commission agreed to make $200,000 the starting point. CJ's Construction Inc., Rental Chappell said they had asked for $650,000. He asked if anyone of the five who had recommended no funding had changed their minds. No one had. Successful Living, Rental Rehab Chappell asked if any of the four who had recommended funding nothing had changed their minds. Jacobson asked why other members were at zero funding. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 5 of 12 Bacon Curry said that it was a beautiful location and bones of a home that would probably be worth quite a bit on the private market, and she thought they might be better off selling it. She said it would require substantial investment and that the requested $300,000 for improvements doesn't even cover the things you can see that need improved upon. Zimmerman Smith said they did allocate to another Successful Living home. She said they do a great service but that particular property needed too much in funds. The Commission agreed to make no funding allocations as their starting point. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County Chappell said they had requested $111,500 and five members had recommended full funding. No one had changed their minds, and the Commission agreed to make $111,500 their starting point. The Crisis Center Chappell noted that this got mixed levels of funding. He said there is a consensus to recommend some funding up to $160,000. Zimmerman Smith asked to get an update on where the project stands right now. Reedus said they have met with all the supervisors and they are confident that they are going to be able to proceed with the project. Zimmerman Smith asked how partial funding would affect their bid. Reedus said they asked for $300,400 which she thinks is about one-third of the rehab costs. She said there will probably be donated labor and materials. She said they can move forward with less support than the requested amount. She said the County really wants to see support from the City and the investment in this project by the community is one of the criteria they are looking at. Jacobsen asked if the project doesn't proceed, what happens to the funds. Hightshoe replied that it would depend on the amount the Commission allocates. She said that if it's a substantial amount there would be a mid -year allocation for those funds. She said that if only $50,000 was allocated, then they would just wait for next year and reallocate at that point. Chappell said the current consensus number of $60,000 would be considered. Jacobson asked if the requested amount was for purchase and rehab. Reedus said it would be just for rehab. She said if there's going to be a purchase; the Crisis Center will purchase the building. Chappell asked Drum if $160,000 was still where he was at and Drum confirmed that it was. Chappell said they would start at this number because it's the number at which there are four votes. HACAP Chappell said they are requesting $40,000 and they have received six votes for full funding. Hart said she would be willing to change her allocation from zero. Zimmerman Smith said that if the Commission is going to give them $40,000 then maybe it would better put in kitchens and HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 6 of 12 housing because playgrounds would be easier to get donated materials and supplies for. She asked Harney if she has a preference if $40,000 extra is put into housing project versus the playground project. Harney replied that the playground would be easier to do a capital campaign for than the interiors of the building, but she doesn't know if the interiors are as needed as the playground. She said that they could probably go either way on that. Community Mental Health Center Chappell said they requested $183,564 but that the Commission had been informed that the organization had come into $20,000 of funding, so their request was down by that amount. He said he would not be able to recommend $160,000 as partial funding. He said he would probably be in the $60,000 range if he allocated funds, and the reason he didn't was because they were all or nothing at the time. The Commission agreed that their starting point would be zero. MECCA, Facility Rehab Chappell said they requested $339,767 and the allocation recommendations are mixed. He said that Drum was the highest at $171,000 and there would be consensus at about $12,500. Gatlin said that the $12,500 would be for the cameras. Hart said that was her thinking as well. Extend the Dream Chappell said there is not a consensus for funding. Chappell said they had requested an additional $35,000 and he asked Hightshoe how much was eligible. Hightshoe said $26,360 was eligible as any type of portable or personal equipment is a public service expense and is not eligible as a public facility. Hart said she was interested in advocating for the accessibility upgrades for both Extend the Dream and PAN. Habitat for Humanity, Home Ownership Chappell said that for him they were middle of the road ranking -wise. He said he's usually only comfortable if they fund one project fully, and he's fairly consistent in not funding two projects, especially given the amount of funds they have this year. Hart said she had similar thoughts to Chappell on this one. Chappell said he thought some members had preferences for taking care of existing housing stock. Drum said they also seem to have a lot on their plate. Chappell added that they might also have the $90,000 from this round on their plate as well. Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) Chappell said they had requested $172,076. Hart said she would support full funding. Jacobson said he was about half of what was the average allocation. Chappell said he had recommended $60,000 reflective of where they were on his rankings, and he assumed they could do something with that. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 7 of 12 Drum advocated for the project and stressed its importance in assisting families in crisis with daily activities. Hart said she had only funded flooring, trying to allocate more funds around, but the question was whether they needed all of the kitchen improvements. She didn't think if they went to the alternative model that they would save that much. Jacobson asked about CITY STEPS rankings and why facilities for the homeless were not high priorities. Hightshoe explained that sometimes a low or medium priority does not mean that it's not needed in the community. She said that when they were compiling CITY STEPS, they had just funded the new shelter and previously funded DVIP. The commission and Council may have felt that they had already met a lot of the shelter's physical needs, so it got rated a medium priority. It does not mean that the service provided is not needed. Chappell said that ultimately an organization gets a priority ranking because at some point an HCDC Commission decided that was the priority and City Council adopted that recommendation. Hightshoe said that battered, abused spouses for public services ranked only a medium so if the Commission is interested in changing that, there is the annual review when the priorities are considered. She explained that in the past, everything was ranked a high priority, so it was difficult to prioritize. Gatlin said he is unwilling to consider moving his number but he wanted to look at some of the rental housing applications because the Commission is leaning toward funding a lot of rehab and hasn't funded much rental. He said he thinks it's incredibly important and suggested that the Commission take a look at that. Bacon Curry said she is okay with putting in $172,000 for DVIP for now and then seeing how much would be left. Gatlin explained that he would like to advocate for more, new rental and increase the stock because they have done a lot of rehab in the last two years. Mayor's Youth Chappell said at this point there is not a consensus to fund this application. He said he thinks it's a nice facility and a great organization and they have gotten a fair amount of funding in the past several years. Gatlin said he would be okay with changing his number to get a consensus at zero. Chappell said this was time to talk about the considering changes in allocation. Gatlin said he was considering funding $150,000 to The Housing Fellowship for Rental Housing. Bacon Curry said that the neighborhood for this site is surrounded by affordable housing already. She said that all of the housing is a mix of rental and owner occupied. Town and Campus is in close proximity. Gatlin asked if the same thing couldn't be said about HACAP. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 8 of 12 Bacon Curry said that it true but the difference is that the Commission just allocated $900,000 to Southgate to revitalize that area and there is no other investment coming into the Towncrest area as of right now. Gatlin said he understands, but if the Commission is willing to put $900,000 into that one area and HACAP is another rehab project, why wouldn't the Commission look at potentially creating some new rental housing. Zimmerman Smith said that part of the scoring system is for innovation and innovative solutions to a problem, and she doesn't feel that The Housing Fellowship offers a new or innovative solution to the problem of rental housing. She said it's just creating more of the same kind of housing in an area that already has a lot of that. She said HACAP is really in need of repair and giving them money gives the City a little bit of say in how they upkeep that property and keeping it affordable. Zimmerman Smith said that it revitalizes the entire neighborhood; one that has very negative perceptions. She said it's a frontage property, the first thing you see, and it looks terrible. It would help to improve and stabilize the neighborhood. Gatlin said he doesn't know if changing the outside of the building lifts up the community. Bacon Curry explained that changing both the interior and exterior along with other vast areas of that community being changed simultaneously might. She said that The Housing Fellowship does maintain their properties very well, they have great tenant screening, they do a wonderful job of facilities maintenance but she thinks the Commission has given them money to build new construction rental time and again, and they haven't given HACAP money to rehab since they purchased the property years ago. Chappell asked if Hightshoe had any concerns about the numbers they had received from Dennis. Hightshoe's only concern was that the narrative stated that the loan will be repaid from their current rental portfolio. She said she doesn't like that funds from the rest of the portfolio will subsidize this project as those funds may be needed to maintain their existing properties. Staff reviews each project and needs to see that each project will be self-sufficient throughout the period of affordability in terms of property management, reserves, maintenance, etc. She stated, unfortunately, in the early years of the HOME program - up to about 8-9 years ago, staff did not require or enforce if recipients had enough in replacement reserves. Many proformas were so tight that repair and replacement was neglected or postponed as the applicant tried to secure additional grant funding. She said staff now reviews proformas differently and reviews for viability throughout the compliance period. Staff makes sure that in their pro forma that they are budgeting for replacements reserves and upkeep of the property. She said they are now more like the State and requiring adequate replacement reserves, but older properties previously funded did not have that. Chappell asked Dennis if they would still be able to maintain their properties with the numbers she had given the Commission assuming they get the State funds. Dennis replied that she believes so, since they received a pretty large grant from the IJOBS funding, which is a State program as a result of the flood, and they were able to significantly rehab 23 homes. She said additionally, they were able to partner with HACAP to do a lot of weatherization. She said they just received a Housing Trust Fund allocation for rehab on some of the houses that they have owned for some time. She said they have also been able to establish some reserves. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 9 of 12 Chappell noted that even factoring in these potential State HOME funds, $150,000 represents less than half of the private funds that are being potentially put into that project. Zimmerman Smith asked if that included the $198,000 developer fee. Chappell stated that the developer fee being requested was $92,000. Dennis said the fee comes in at the very end only if they have done the new buildings with their approved budget and construction costs. She said if not, they don't get that money. Ford said with the low rents they are collecting due to program restraints, they keep the organization running by developing new projects. Chappell said he would like to see the developer fee lower, but he understands it. He said that for this type of project and organization you can't consistently expect not to have a developer fee. He said they would still have $336,500 in private funds. He said that the site doesn't bother him because it's within the City Council's matrix. Bacon Curry stated she also had concerns about the site as its right in the middle of a business zone that the City is trying to redevelop so everything else is commercial. She said she thinks it's a bad site on a major arterial for a family with children. Chappell stated that the location was not a concern of his as the Council adopted a matrix and allows city assistance to rental housing in areas not prohibited. This site is not prohibited and is allowable. Zimmerman Smith said there are still four people with zero allocation, and she would rather see the Commission fill out the Crisis Center or give Community Mental Health the elevator or fund HACAP. Jacobson said he had wanted to fund the Housing Fellowship at about $100,000 and he thinks having a nice apartment building at that location would be great and would achieve some very good goals. He said he will defer to members of the Commission with more experience but is not thrilled about not funding it at any level. Dragoo said his concern was not improving our existing rental stock, while expanding new rental housing. He would feel comfortable focusing on maintaining our existing older stock and then next year looking at additional new rental housing. Hart asked Community Mental Health if with $100,000 they could get the elevator. Trefz said that would put it within reach. He said it's a major access point to their building so it's a significant investment to keep the building accessible. Jacobson asked how people had been getting in and out of the building up to this point and wanted to know if the current condition kept people from accessing services. Trefz replied that individuals had been getting into the building using the ramp and the ramp and the steps have deteriorated significantly since the picture that the Commission members had in their possession had been taken. He said they are probably on the cusp of shutting off that means of getting into the building. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 10 of 12 Hart said she liked this project because it was a one-time expense and needed because of the clientele and their need for access. Chappell said if he had thought that $90,000 would have worked, he probably would have recommended it. He said he suspects that having $20,000 in hand and $100,000 pledged will be as much incentive as they are ever going to have to do a capital campaign, because they have to spend 50% of the allocation by March 15th or it comes back to the Commission. Chappell and Gatlin stated that they could raise their allocation to $100,000. Bacon Curry suggested they put $100,000 toward Community Mental Health and the $90,000 back in HACAP. Drum asked if anyone was interested in putting the $90,000 into the Crisis Center. The Commission concurred to put the $90,000 in HACAP. Gatlin asked if there was any way to persuade the Commission to increase allocations for rental. Chappell said he was persuaded, but that there is not a consensus among the rest of the Commission. Gatlin said he could agree with the allocations as they are. Chappell said that he also agreed with the allocations because it represented a true consensus. Hightshoe said in reply to Chappell's question that they do not need a contingency plan for additional or decreased funding because HUD notified them of the City's final allocation amount. Chappell asked for a motion to adopt the spread sheet as the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Drum moved to accept the discussed funding allocations on the spread sheet as the Commission's final recommendations to City Council. Zimmerman Smith seconded. Housing Requested Amount HCDC Recommendation CHARM Homes LLC - Rental Housing $61,650 $61,650 CJs Construction, Inc. — Rental Housing $650,000 $0 Hawkeye Area Comm. Action Program — Rental Rehab. $360,000 $290,014 The Housing Fellowship — CHDO Operating Funds $20,630 $19,260 The Housing Fellowship — Rental Housing $258,239 $0 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Homeownership $120,000 $0 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Owner -occupied Rehab. $90,000 $90,000 City of Iowa City — Owner -occupied Rehabilitation $220,000 $200,000 Successful Living — Rental Rehabilitation $300,000 $0 Housing Total $2, 080, 519 $660, 924 Public Facilities HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 22, 2012 PAGE 11 of 12 Community Mental Health Center - Accessibility $163,564 $100,000 Crisis Center of Johnson County — Rehabilitation $300,400 $160,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Facility Rehab. $172,076 $172,076 Extend the Dream/PATV — Facility Rehabilitation $26,360 $0 HACAP - Playground $40,000 $40,000 Mayor's Youth — Facility Rehab. $119,424 $0 MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation $339,767 $12,500 NCJC — Facility Rehab. $111,500 $111,500 Public Facilities Total $1,273,091 $596,076 TOTAL REQUESTED: $3,353,610 $1,257,000 Chappell invited discussion. Hart asked what the allocation was for the Crisis Center. Chappell replied that they were at $160,000 and this was the consensus. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0. Hightshoe explained to the applicants in attendance that these recommendations will go to City Council and there will be a 30-day public hearing. She said she expects the Annual Action Plan to be available the second week of April and there will be a 30-day public comment period and after that the Council will vote on it in May. She said any organization that was recommended funding should NOT proceed with their projects as they could jeopardize their entire funding award. Expenses can't be incurred until the organization enters an agreement with the City and an environmental review is completed. More details will be sent to successful applicants. Chappell stated that regardless of the Commission's recommendations, Council will have the final say on them. Zimmerman Smith and Drum agreed to write the justification memo. Hightshoe explained that typically in May a committee is formed to start planning the Community Development celebration, which is a way to highlight the impact that CDBG and HOME dollars make to the community. She said they had an offer by the Free Medical Clinic to host the Community Development celebration in conjunction with their own open house on June 20`h. The Commission had consensus that this was a good idea and a separate committee was not needed. ADJOURNMENT: Zimmerman Smith moved to adjourn. Jacobson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0. z O U) T) O U H z Cw L IL O J W W z O U 0 N N zs- N 0 ZN.N- cn=w D 2 q Oda z O y U) O v z w rl aR 00 JV W W W w N Q N Z� �z �H OQ U Z Q C� Z N O 2 M x x x x x x x x x x LU x x x x x x M O N x x LU x x x x i x x x o x x x x x CL x W IT o N 0 IT 0 M 0 cM 0 N 0 M 0 'IT 0 N 0 N N N N N N N N N W Qi ai 0) CF) Qi ai 6i Qi 0) r J LU J J W = V 2 V v W Z Q W a J W Z a O y O g J a V a ' W >. O = � z O N 100 = N a lz w Z m 0 U 0 o 0 2 N (D U) X W +� C C N a ` Q z° a Housing and Community Development Commission Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy Adopted by City Council March 2, 2004 in Resolution 04-68 From time to time there may be Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and/or HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) projects that do not meet the anticipated schedule for implementation as presented to the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC). These circumstances may be due to unforeseen events (e.g. unfunded applications for other financing). HCDC recognizes the need to utilize CDBG, HOME and other funding as effectively and efficiently as possible to meet the needs of low -moderate income household for housing, jobs and services within Iowa City. To assist HCDC in evaluating a project's status and ability to proceed the following policy is hereby adopted to begin with Fiscal Year'04 projects beginning July 1, 2003: 1. All CDBG and HOME projects will have entered into a formal agreement with the City of Iowa City for the utilization of federal funds by September 30 each year. Should a recipient fail to meet this threshold, the project will be reviewed by HCDC to evaluate if extenuating circumstances exist if extenuating circumstances exist and it is anticipated the project will proceed, a new timeline will be established for the completion of the project. if circumstances do not warrant an extension of time, HCDC may recommend the recapture and re -use of the funds to the City Council. 2. All CDBG projects (except applicants for LIHTCs) will have expended a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the assistance provided for the proposed project by March 15 each year. This provides the recipient with approximately 255 days following the start of the fiscal year to reach this threshold for CDBG projects. All HOME projects will expend their funds on a timely basis per the applicable HOME regulation. Should a recipient fail to meet these thresholds, all unexpended CDBG/HOME funding will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and recommendations be made by the HCDC for re -use of the funds or HCDC may allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved project. 3. If housing projects are applying for other funds through various state or federal agencies, the recipient must apply for those funds in the first available application period offered. Should a recipient fail to meet this application threshold, all CDBG/HOME funding will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and recommendations be made by the HCDC for re -use of the funds. 4. Should a recipient be unsuccessful in obtaining the funds listed in the application in the application round immediately following the allocation of local CDBG\HOME funds, and the project will not be able to proceed without the aforementioned funds, all CDBG/HOME funds will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and recommendations be made by the HCDC for re -use of the funds or HCDC may allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved project. If the project is unsuccessful in obtaining the required funds listed in the application after two consecutive funding rounds following the allocation of local CDBG/HOME funds, the City of Iowa City will recapture all CDBG/HOME funds. city of iowa city PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 220 S. Gilbert Street TO: Andy Chappell, Chair HCDC Commission FROM: Mike Moran, Parks & Recreation Director DATE: Annual Action Plan Amendment RE: April 19, 2012 I would like to request an amendment of the Annual Action Plan for CDBG funding. The Parks and Recreation Department was awarded $280,000 for purchase of the Chadek property for parkland in Census Tract 15 Block Group 2. It looks like this purchase will not be feasible as the family turned down the City's proposal to purchase, based on our appraisal of the property. The amendment of this plan would be to utilize the funding for the construction of a splash pad at Fairmeadows Park. This park is in Census Tract 18 Block Group which is estimated to have 55.8% of low to moderate income households comprising mostly of young families. Fairmeadows Park is also directly adjacent to Grant Wood Elementary School which has had a free/reduced lunch participation percentage of over 60% in previous years. Any remaining funding could be used twofold; one to add to the amenities at Fairmeadows Park or to add additional parking to the existing parking lot at Wetherby Park to provide more space for those visiting the park. The number of visitors has greatly increased since the placement of the splash pad. All construction will be completed by the end of this construction season. The extreme popularity of the splash pad at Wetherby Park would make the additional pad at Fairmeadows Park a very viable option for the neighborhoods in the southeast quadrant of Iowa City. The attendance of the park far exceeded our expectations with public coming from around the county to use the facility. There were several times when complaints were called in due to the popularity and the unavailability to use the pad due to high numbers. (A great problem to have!) If there is any additional information that I can send you please feel free to contact me. CC Tracy Hightshoe Planner Chad Dyson- Superintendent of Recreation Iowa Valley • ' • Habitat for Humanity "the excitement is building" March.31, 2012 To: HCDC Re: Repurposing of 2012 CDBG/HOME funds Dear Committee members, 2401 SCOTT BLVD, IOWA CITY, IA, 52240 PH 31 9.337.8949 FAX 319.354.3527 WWW.IOWAVALLEYHAHITAT.ORG We were awarded $40,000 from the 2012 CDBG/HOME funds for work with low income families to carry out handicap accessibility work. To date, we only have a couple of families who have submitted an application for assistance and we expect to begin to draw down some of the funds within the next 30-45 days. However, we keep running into homes in dire need of weatherization (and energy audit work to assess true need) and we are requesting permission to expand the authority you granted under last year's award to include both energy auditing and weatherization work as well. We were awarded a Dept. of Energy grant to train two staff to become certified energy auditors and purchase $8000 worth of auditing equipment to carry out audits but there has not been enough funding to make the energy upgrades. If you were to allow for expanding the intended use of this grant (we would still carry out the intended handicap accessibility work) it would help more low income home owners to pay lower utility bills and remain in their homes longer. Thank you for considering this request. Mark Patton Executive Director