HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet 08-15-2019Agenda
Housing & Community Development
Commission (HCDC)
Thursday, August 15, 2019
6:30 P.M.
Senior Center, Room 202
28 S. Linn Street, Iowa City
Use the Washington Street entrance or
2nd floor skywalk via Tower Place parking garage
1. Call meeting to order
2. Approval of the July 11, 2019 minutes
3. Public comment of items not on the agenda
4. Welcome new HCDC members and introductory presentation
5. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on the Tax Exemption
memo dated May 24, 2019
6. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on allocating City LIHTC
funding to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC)
7. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on approval of the
finalized 2019 Fair Housing Choice Study (Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice)
8. Aid to Agencies Recommendations Follow Up
9. Staff/commission comment
10. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please
contact Kirk Lehmann at kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly
encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Date: August 9, 2019
To: Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC)
From: Neighborhood Services Staff
Re: August 15, 2019 meeting
The following is a short description of the agenda items. If you have any questions about the
agenda, or if you are unable to attend the meeting, please contact Kirk Lehmann at 319-356-
5247 or Kirk-Lehmann@Iowa-City.org.
* Indicates Action Item ** Indicates Possible Action Item
Item 1. Call Meeting to order
Item 2. Approval of the July 11, 2019 minutes*
Item 3. Public comment of items not on the agenda
Item 4. Welcome new HCDC members and introductory presentation
Staff encourages new HCDC members to introduce themselves and will provide a brief
overview of the HCDC, its funding sources, and the schedule for the upcoming year.
Item 5. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on the Tax
Exemption memo dated May 24, 2019*
On May 17, 2019, a special committee of community members and City staff developed a
recommendation about how to use tax exemption for incentivizing affordable housing. HCDC
members requested to review this recommendation prior to consideration by Council.
Item 6. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on allocating City
LIHTC funding to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC) *
Iowa City shares a LIHTC application with the HTFJC. On August 6, 2019, City staff
recommended allocating its LIHTC funds to the HTFJC. Currently they are allocated by
HCDC. Staff asks HCDC to review this recommendation prior to consideration by Council.
Item 7. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on approval of the
finalized 2019 Fair Housing Choice Study (Analysis of Impediments)**
At their June 20, 2019 meeting, HCDC recommended the 2019 Fair Housing Choice Study
for consideration by Council subject to changes as discussed. Per U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) requirements, the Study identifies impediments to fair
housing choice and provides recommendations to overcome those impediments over the next
several years. Upon integrating these changes and minor corrections, staff is providing a final
draft to HCDC. A recommendation is only required if further changes are needed. The public
comment period for the Study began June 15 and will run through August 20, 2019. City
Council is scheduled to hold a public meeting and formally approve the Plan on Tuesday,
August 20, 2019. Public copies are available at the Iowa City Public Library, Neighborhood
Services at City Hall, and online at www.icgov.org/actionplan.
Item 8. Aid to Agencies Recommendations Follow Up
This item provides an opportunity for updates regarding HCDC’s changes to the A2A process.
Item 9: Staff/Commission Comment
Item 10: Adjournment*
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JULY 11, 2019 – 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, John McKinstry,
Maria Padron
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Drabek, Lyn Dee Hook Kealey, Peter Nkumu, [vacant]
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly
OTHERS PRESENT: Delaney Dixon, Nicki Ross, Adam Robinson, Amy Greazel, Ellen
McCabe, Ron Berg, Michelle Heinz, Missie Forbes, Crissy Canganelli,
Christi Regan, Heath Brewer, Ellie Paxson, Genevieve Anglin
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends to City Council modifications to the Aid to Agencies
process and approve FY21 Aid to Agencies forms as with changes as discussed.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Fixmer-Oraiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 20, 2019 MINUTES:
McKinstry moved to approve the minutes of June 20, 2019. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) submitted correspondence dated July 2, 2019 to provide corrected
information from the minutes of the Human Rights Commission heard by the Commission at their
previous meeting. Lehmann read the correspondence:
Good Morning:
I am writing to provide a correction to information provided to the Human Rights Commission
during its May 15, 2019 meeting. The draft Meeting Minutes which are available to the public
indicate that County Supervisor Porter reported to the Commission that, “Johnson County just
gave Shelter House $630,000.”
The Johnson County Board of Supervisors allocated a total of $630,000 to the Housing Trust
Fund of Johnson County which was made available for affordable housing initiatives over the past
fiscal year. Of the funds awarded to Shelter House by the HTFJC, $250,000 came from Johnson
County. Funds were awarded as a loan, are repayable to the HTFJC, and were restricted for a
new construction project at 820 Cross Park Avenue.
The Human Rights Commission minutes were included in the June Housing and Community
Development Committee Meeting packet, as such, I request this correction in fact be provided to
both the Commission and relevant Iowa City staff.
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 2 of 12
I am deeply grateful for the partnership and support of the City of Iowa City in all aspects of
Shelter House programming and would be happy to provide any additional information that would
be helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me by phone or email.
Crissy Canganelli, Executive Director of Shelter House
RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL MODIFICATIONS TO THE AID TO AGENCIES PROCESS AND
APPROVE FY21 AID TO AGENCIES FORMS:
Kubly began by summarizing a memo from staff regarding Aid to Agencies (A2A) recommendations dated
July 3, 2019. Overall, staff recommends returning A2A to its original intent of providing stable funding for
human service agencies serving low- and moderate-income residents based on the priorities set in CITY
STEPS. Every five years, these priorities are reviewed. Staff is currently developing the new five-year
plan, to be adopted by Council and the federal government by July 1, 2020. During the planning process,
staff recommends limiting A2A applicants to a core group of service providers which meet its established
priorities. These agencies would then competitively apply based on these priorities, their history of
funding, and their capacity. Beginning with FY22, agencies would apply on a two-year cycle. The priorities
and agencies allowed to apply would be reevaluated with each new five-year plan to address changing
priorities or gaps of service as identified. If needed, the City could modify eligible agencies during the five-
year period as well through the Consolidated Plan amendment process.
Kubly continued that because the FY21 Joint Funding Application process will begin before the adoption
of City Steps 2025, staff recommends limiting FY21 A2A applications to agencies who applied for Legacy
funds in FY20, consistent with the expectation of a two-year funding cycle when Legacy agencies applied
last year. For the remaining fiscal years covered by City Steps 2025, staff recommends that the Plan
identify 15-20 core agencies to be funded through A2A. Applicants will continue to apply through the
United Way Joint Funding process. Every two years, HCDC will review and approve the ranking criteria
for evaluation of the public service applicants. With the FY21 allocation cycle, staff will rank applications
based on these criteria and make a funding recommendation for HCDC to consider. HCDC can
recommend changes to staff’s recommendation. The HCDC recommendation would be submitted to City
Council for their consideration and adoption.
Kubly noted staff also recommends discontinuing the emerging agencies set-aside due to available
alternative funding opportunities, such as Climate Action Grants and the Social Justice/Racial Equity
grants. Project-based CDBG/HOME grants are also available These sources can help agencies build
capacity and establish a track record. As an agency demonstrates its ability to meet priority needs and
grant requirements, they may be incorporated into the A2A funding cycle based on addressing priorities.
Eastham noted that the staff recommendation does not discuss the budget and asked if the Commission
can recommend a higher budget amount. Kubly noted the City Manager is leading that discussion and
has invited agencies to meet this month prior to the establishment of next year’s budget.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated that the alternative project grants discussed are unclear as to whether they allow
operational funding. She noted it is important for the Commission to show support for agencies to help
them get off the ground, and operational funding is often the first step.
Eastham added that he would like more discussion with agencies to see how they would like to see
newer agencies gaining access to the newer larger agency funding during the five-year City Step timeline.
Alter added that in the memo it does note as an agency becomes more established and demonstrates
they meet grant priorities and requirements they may be eligible to be incorporated. Alter asked how an
emerging agency would be able to prove that if they don’t have access to funds to help them.
Fixmer-Oraiz suggested the Commission discuss the Agency memo and then take comments from the
audience. Fixmer-Oraiz read the memo the Commission received from the Agency Impact Coalition
regarding the Aid to Agencies process dated July 10, 2019.
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 3 of 12
The Housing and Community Development Commission’s leadership and determination
demonstrated throughout the FY20 Aid to Agencies funding process compelled and inspired local
agencies identified by the City of Iowa City as Legacy Agencies to form a coalition known as the
Agency Impact Coalition. The Coalition has been meeting regularly with much of the discussions
focused on how to better advocate for the work of our organizations and the collective impact we
have throughout the community. HCDC is continuing its drive to improving the Aid to Agencies
process and recently sent out a survey to solicit feedback from funded agencies. However the
survey questions did not get to the heart of recommendations and concerns that have been
consistently articulated during Coalition meetings and we realize the majority of our feedback fell
under the category of “other”. As a result we are submitting this single response, the suggestions
below are made in the spirit and hope of creating a better informed and more participatory
collaborative process with Aid to Agencies and CDBG/HOME awards.
• Inclusion of annual site visits to the funded agencies and more as part of the orientation
and onboarding for HCDC members. Local not-for-profit executives bring decades of
experience for the complexity and nuances of our services, the constituencies they serve
and the challenges we face. This may be time intensive but would create an entirely
different context for which to work.
• Joint meetings outside the funding cycle for HCDC, not-for-profit executives and
neighborhood services development staff to thoroughly debrief City staff on the Annual
Action Plan and other relevant plans underpinning and guiding the allocations process for
both Aid to Agencies and the annual CDBG/HOME competitions. Components of these
conversations can include updates on trends, gaps and needs.
• Better leverage of professional experience and practical knowledge of the neighborhood
services departmental staff. City staff add valuable perspective which is not being fully
integrated into the process and dialogue.
• Create a data-driven process that aligns with City Steps and reorganize the dialogue to
be driven need as opposed to managing scarcity.
• Our collective impact has substantially economical multipliers and substantial benefits
that positively impact our community. Is there a method to more formally recognize this to
better inform policy makers and as a component of the City’s annual budget process.
• Specific to the applications and review therein, assure additional questions to the
applicants are standardized and made available to everyone in advance.
In addition to these suggestions we support staff recommendations made at the July 3, 2019
memo to HCDC and the approaches recommended to reorient the process back to the original
intent of “providing a stable funding source for human aid agencies serving LMI residents aligning
funding with priorities set in City Steps”. Please note it is with the highest regard we write,
members of this Commission have approached their charge with determination, integrity and
compassion and empathy. You have languished over the decisions to be made and taken an
unprecedented and bold position to which the Council responded. Please note you have inspired
and motivated us, we are eager to work more collaboratively to face the challenges and
opportunities ahead and recognize we come with a common intention of improving the health,
safety and wellbeing of our community.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated for the record she is deeply moved by this memo and thanked the Coalition for
putting it together, HCDC appreciates and recognizes the absolute impact the agencies have on our
community which is why HCDC feels so passionate about making this work.
Eastham would appreciate hearing overall thoughts on the question of setting an amount for Aid to
Agencies in the City’s budgeting. He wants to understand what the agencies are actually interested in, is
it the overall amount of agency funding or if it is a single, reliable process for knowing how much funding
the City is going to provide from year to year for each agency.
Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) responded by saying they are interested in both. The City Manager
reached out to the agencies and asked if they would be able to meet as Kubly mentioned before the end
of the month. Canganelli added that this cannot be separated into parts, it is all connected, and they want
to build relationships and have more of a participatory and collaborative process which allows all groups
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 4 of 12
to learn from one another. She noted that the City has never looked at funding as to what is the need
versus managing scarcity. In the past it has been approached from the managing scarcity end. She
added they need to understand they all want to do good and do the good work well, they don’t understand
what the baseline is yet, so they need to work better together to inform that, she has every confidence
they will be able to move that line item up. There are other parts of the conversation as well, they need to
look at how agencies could manage resource differently, and open things up in a different way.
Eastham said the process staff proposed says the annual amount of Aid to Agencies funding is going to
be determined through negotiations between agencies and the City Manager directly. He notes that
might work out well but wants to know if agencies have an idea for the role of the HCDC in that process.
Canganelli said the Commission brings the balance to the conversatio n, it should be a combination of all
three parts. She doesn’t feel is it up to the agencies to define who plays what role or how much of a part,
but they want to segment out the different voices within this process to avoid excluding them, so the
combination would be City staff, HCDC, and nonprofits informing the conversation from an early point.
Not only in the budgeting process but also for the Commission to get to know the agencies a little more
before they are at the point of reviewing and analyzing applications.
Alter said it is a relief to hear of a desire for a more collaborative process, it is too much to shoulder on
one part. She loves the idea of annual site visits and would like to increase those. The site visit s HCDC
did recently really helped make everything fall into place for her and makes it real. They got to have
candid conversations with residents, staff, and executive directors.
Fixmer-Oraiz liked adding to the conversation the trends, gaps, and needs to take into consideration.
She feels it will be important to learn what agencies are seeing and experiencing versus an application.
She notes there is a need for collaboration and everyone having a better understanding of one another.
Fixmer-Oraiz wonders when the Agencies meet with the City Manager if it would be beneficial to have a
member of HCDC present. Eastham agrees it would be helpful.
Eastham liked the memo, the name Agency Impact Coalition, and the points about creating a data-driven
process and looking at collective impact. The collective impact point is intriguing, Padron put together a
data-filled PowerPoint presentation which helped persuade Council, so the more data the better.
Fixmer-Oraiz wants to look at short- versus long-term goals, things that could be accomplished easily
such as increasing site visits, and wants to discuss actionable items to take from this conversation.
Lehmann said staff has discussed some of these ideas in terms of short- and long-term items. He said
the idea of having liaisons to schedule site visits is a good one, with nine commissioners there would be
two or three agencies per person, and that could be accomplished early into this fiscal year and have the
liaisons schedule visits for the different sites.
Padron said the liaison would schedule the visit but every commissioner would have the freedom to go on
the visit. Lehmann said that would be correct, and if they could avoid having more than four at one visit it
would help logistics to avoid having trips be a formal meeting.
Lehmann said with regards to the timeline review, he likes the idea of joint meetings outside of the
funding cycle for nonprofit executives, staff, and HCDC to meet at one of the HCDC’s meeting for an
agency debrief and discussion.
Eastham would like site visits and the conversational get together but also likes the idea of staff making a
funding recommendation which has not been done in the past. Lehmann agreed and noted he matched
the questions on the application to a point system staff would use to make recommendations. He wants
there to be transparency on how decisions are being made for staff recommendations.
Alter asked if there has been discussion amongst staff or the agencies regarding the prioritization of high,
medium and low priority, because it has been something they have struggled with. Lehmann said for the
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 5 of 12
next year’s funding cycle, where the new City Steps will not be done yet, it will be incorporated into one of
the questions on the scoring criteria under community need, the need has to be listed as a high priority to
get all 15 points, but the difference from a high to medium priority throughout the whole application
however is only a difference of two points out of 100. In the future the City Steps will discuss how to
prioritize or reallocate priorities based on the survey, which explicitly mentions priorities, and try to use the
general public input rather than just HCDC. Lehmann feels there needs to be some sort of prioritization.
Alter said often high priorities are at crisis level with high need and high impact but the flip side low
priorities are often preventative or helping to avert crisis so she would hate to lose those. It will be
important to remember that when looking at data and the results from the survey.
Fixmer-Oraiz read a comment received on the survey. “I believe the choices made regarding low,
medium and high priority are somewhat subjective, children services are important as are women
services, aging services and mental health. My fear is when start segregating groups in this way it
minimizes growth opportunities for programs and hurts populations in our community that simply don’t
have access to other resources. Maybe if there was more clarity in how/why the rankings came to be it
wouldn’t be as much of a concern.” Fixmer-Oraiz just wanted to put that quote out there because it
speaks to the subject at hand. Fixmer-Oraiz asked where the rankings came from, she assumes City
Steps. Lehmann believes they came from HCDC after City Steps was adopted.
Genevieve Anglin (United Action for Youth) noted that it has been difficult that her agency does a lot of
different things but because they have the word youth in their title they have always been classified into
youth services. Over half their budget is used for homeless services and mental health services, so that
complicates how they answer the questions on the application.
Fixmer-Oraiz feels there needs to be a discussion on what questions should be on the application, a
discussion between the Commission and the agencies so they don’t miss the mark. However they are at
the point now where the funding cycle is upon them so they will hav e to put up with some of the issues,
there won’t be time for a total overhaul.
McKinstry stated he was pleased the Agency Impact Coalition was supportive of the staff
recommendations and staff is supportive of the agencies so that is a good basis to proceed, looking at the
points both have made and fuse them together.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if it is as simple as to adopt the Agency Impact Coalition’s and staff memo
recommendations. Lehmann said what would be good to go through the main framework in the staff
memo and add in the items (maybe all) from the Coalition memo and then go through the ranking criteria
so there is a basis for ranking this year and next year it can be tweaked after City Steps is complete.
Kubly added they will need to adopt the draft application or make suggestions for changes so it can be
given to The United Way to be released.
Fixmer-Oraiz suggested they discuss from the staff memo the emerging agency funds, and asked if the
two new funding sources were project based grants or could they be operational. Lehmann said they are
project based but believes an agency could pay for staff. Fixmer-Oraiz noted keeping the emerging
agency funds would be good because there just aren’t a lot of funds available for operations and the
category was created with an amount based on staff salary. Lehmann said the $15,000 for legacy funding
was created due to staff salary needs – not the $5,000 minimum for emerging agency funds.
Eastham suggested a recommendation that the other two sources of funds, social justice grants and
climate action grants be available for operational needs. Kubly said they could make that
recommendation but they do not have the authority to make that change. Lehmann suggested that
HCDC send a representative to each of those commissions to make that recommendation during their
public comment process. Lehmann said from staff perspective it is nice to have the distinction between
project based and operational grants because project based grants have very concrete accomplishments
whereas operational funding is harder to evaluate success. Fixmer-Oraiz said that is why most grants
won’t fund operations and why perhaps HCDC should keep the emerging agency funding set-aside.
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 6 of 12
Lehmann said if HCDC is adopting the staff memo as their recommendation the Commission will need to
add something about having Council look for funding sources, perhaps the two listed or others, to fund
operational costs for newer agencies to help them get off the ground. Fixmer-Oraiz noted the survey had
a few comments supporting the emerging agency funding and others that said it wasn’t enough funding to
even help. Fixmer-Oraiz feels they need to keep the emerging agency funds and perhaps with this data-
driven process they can show the need for increasing the amount of funding to emerging agencies.
Padron asked overall how this new process will be more permanent or secure for the legacy agencies. Is
the only difference the five years? She thought there would be a group of agencies, older agencies, who
will get money for sure every year, but if there is a process of ranking and voting then how are we
assuring them they will get the money every year. Lehmann said with staff recommendations, there
should be more consistent viewpoints over time, whereas with HCDC every year the membership
changes by at least three people and that can change the direction. Additionally concrete ranking criteria
should provide more stability. Padron said in the few years she has been on the Commission even with
clear ranking criteria people find a way to rank differently so she would like to ask Council to commit to a
certain amount for some agencies. Fixmer-Oraiz said that is the hope of the meeting between the
Coalition and the City Manager to come to an agreement for stabilization. Padron asked if it was possible
to just promise some agencies an amount of money for several years, they would still have to apply and
have applications reviewed, but less ranking and more like an entitlement grant. Lehmann said
theoretically that is possible, but that is very different from what has been done. Padron doesn’t feel the
process described in the staff memo is different than what is being done now, other than the five years of
funding, but could be stuck for five years with a low amount of funding. Fixmer-Oraiz said that is why she
wanted to focus on short-term and long-term goals, changes they could make tonight and then others that
would need further discussion.
McKinstry added this is a political process, new City Council members are elected all the time, HCDC
members change, needs in the community change, there are many variables so there needs to be some
flexibility. He appreciated the Agencies noted that part of their job is to inform the community about what
they do so Council members could have the correct information and create relationships with agencies
and make decisions. He feels getting started in the process earlier and being more collaborative will help.
Alter stated there are however some constants, need is there, the executive directors and people working
in these agencies are subject matter experts and know best what the needs are and how to best use the
funds. She added having stability would help agencies do the work they need instead of going through
this process every year or couple of years. And then if there is a spike in trends or crisis moment
agencies can modify or amend ongoing needs to show the new needs. Alter agrees with Padron that
doing this would be radical but having bureaucracy not be a barrier.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated the only real answer moving forward is to be more collaborative and to have open
communication to make sure changes are made and informed. She feels a recommendation at this time
would be to adopt the staff memo with the additions from the Coalition memo, she added she would like
to keep the support of the emerging agency funds. Eastham agreed and added the City Manager needs
to hear clearly what amount of funding Aid to Agencies needs to be.
The recommendation is the staff memo recommendation, paragraphs one through four, plus the Agency
Impact Coalition memo points integrated, with the addition of a HCDC liaison to each agency for site visits
recommended in bullet point one, paragraph five from the staff memo would be edited to note HCDC
recommends continuing the emerging agency funding at its current 5% set aside. Eastham agrees but
adds Council should still look at the other two sources of funding for emerging groups. With regards to the
application, staff is interested in asking for LMI breakdowns in question six, which says “provide us with
succinct specific description of your primary target population, describe client groups in terms of their
primary needs and strengths, what barriers do they face. If the agency serves a regional area provide
percent of overall clients that are Johnson County residents.” Lehmann said the way they have graded
that in the past is specific to 30% area median income or equivalent, 50% AMI or equivalent or 80% AMI
or equivalent. He said they could potentially include that in a separate question in the appendix for
agency demographics, knowing not all agencies have this data so they could say “or provide strong
evidence of AMI served” or leaving it open to have “or those at similar standard of income level such as
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 7 of 12
poverty line” leaving it open for the agency describes their services.
Fixmer-Oraiz is curious of the agency perspective on this question of providing LMI demographics and
the points assigned to the LMI. Having the data helps HCDC with their deliberations but she knows not
all track the data, such as Free Lunch Program or Table to Table.
Chelsey Markle (the Arc of Southeast Iowa) said it is complicated for them, they do disability services and
it is not necessarily a large LMI population but the funding received goes 100% towards the ones who can
use the services.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if there was any way to just offer a comment box for the agencies to allow agencies
to explain special situations.
A member of the audience who was a former Table to Table board member stated a comment box would
be very helpful so they could explain they do not keep actual statistics on the people who are eating the
food, however they do their due diligence with the organizations who are giving out the food.
Lehmann said adding a comment box to every question would double the number of questions which
complicates the application. McKinstry suggested just one extra question at the end that is an open
comment box to address in detail answers to questions above. Fixmer-Oraiz feels that could get
complicated and would rather have a comment box after each question and go for quality and not worry
about quantity of questions.
Alter noted the LMI in particular, time and time again is hard to quantify when filling out the scoring if there
isn’t LMI data and it is such a large chunk of points and the comment box would be useful.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted there was a comment in the survey about the funding question and the way it is
asked in the application doesn’t fit every organization. Lehmann said there have been questions/issues
with the financial fee structure question as well as Form C and the auto calculations also causes hiccups.
Kubly believes those hiccups have been resolved but will check with United Way to make sure it is taken
care of.
Lehmann said the Commission discussed cutting down the financial section, he as staff would primarily
look at agency revenues, expenses and in-kind support, that he doesn’t look as closely at fund balances
or restricted funds so that may simplify the application. Padron is interested to see how much goes out to
the programs and how much is salaries and operations. Lehmann said that is spl it out in the expenses.
The Commission agreed they would only need a comment box for question six regarding the LMI served
or benefits to LMI populations.
Fixmer-Oraiz also noted they would need to be clearer moving forward to let the agency partners know
when they needed to attend meetings for questions/answer periods.
Kubly asked if they will be doing a memo to Council with all these recommendations included. Fixmer-
Oraiz agreed it would be best, have staff put together a memo and the chair will sign it.
Lehmann said the final piece is the scoring criteria. First is taken directly from question one “what specific
need of the community is being addressed” so the first criteria is community need. 15 points describes a
high priority need the completely addresses the community need and will solve the need; 10 points is high
priority which addresses the community need and would have a major impact; 8 points would then be
medium or low priorities that completely address the community need and have impact; 3 points for
indirectly supporting the need or no supporting documentation or statistics, significant areas are missed in
addressing the area; 0 points if it is not identifying a need described in City Steps.
McKinstry stated there are high quality agencies and people who provide good documentation and while
it may be hard to differentiate high from medium or low priorities (they are all priorities) he doesn’t have
any recommendation for a better system.
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 8 of 12
Fixmer-Oraiz feels this is an area the Commission needs to work on, it’s not perfect, so maybe keeping it
as is for this round but digging into it in the future.
Lehmann said with this new system staff will score all the applications, provide a rationale for the scores
to the Commission and then the Commission will decide if they accept the staff recommendations or wish
to make changes.
Lehmann reviewed the rest of the other questions and scoring and the Commission agreed it was a good
range of scores and criteria to move forward. He also noted they would look at the previous year’s
applications to note progress and outcomes from the agencies on previous awards. Fixmer-Oraiz noted
that outcomes questions can be quantitative and some are qualitative, for example Habitat for Humanity
does great work, but serves less people than other agencies. Eastham noted it must be looked at by
individual agency, how their outcomes benefit the people they serve and compare to similar agency, such
as did this Habitat chapter serve the same number of people that another Habitat chapter did and that is
what they should be asking for. Lehmann liked that idea, they struggle with the depth of service versus
the breath of service. Alter felt there is no need for some many categories or ranges of outcomes, it
should be an either you are doing it or not. Lehmann agreed and noted staff can use its knowledge of
other agencies to know what is happening. They also look at the success and experience of working with
agencies in the past. Fixmer-Oraiz suggested combining the last two scoring criteria into a single
question.
McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council modifications to the Aid to Agencies process and
approve FY21 Aid to Agencies forms as with changes as discussed. Alter seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE SOUTH DISTRICT HOME INVESTMENT PROGRAM:
Kubly updated the Commission, noting staff went back to Council in May because staff was having
trouble locating properties. Since then, they located a property and have a purchase agreement out that
will go to Council next week (1232-1234 Sandusky Drive). The purchase price is $124,000 for the duplex
so they are excited about the affordability of the property. It is currently vacant because it sustained fire
damage earlier this year and tenants were relocated after the fire.
Eastham asked if there were any insurance proceeds used to repair the fire damage. Kubly assumes
there were for the property owner at that time.
Lehmann added one of the units was already stripped down to the studs so that will make the renovation
on that unit easier. After the fire, the owners replaced the roof and furnace. This is a side-by-side duplex
so it will be two units. Of the two tenants that were renting the units, one left the state but the other might
be interested in purchasing one of the units.
Kubly stated even with the fire damage they are confident they can repair and rehab the units within the
budget. They will have to condo the units so they can sell them separately and there is a building
code/fire requirement that may have some additional costs.
Eastham asked if staff was proposing to proceed with selling the units to a program qualified buyer under
the requirements of the South District Home Investment Program, which was already approved by
Council but now the purchase has to go back to Council. Lehmann said Council directed staff to reach
out to property owners to locate properties based on the staff South District memo from December. Kubly
said this specific acquisition will go before Council next week.
Eastham asked the Commission to discuss the m odifications to the Program as proposed by Habitat.
Heath Brewer (Executive Director, Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity) stated in terms of the purchase of
property and the larger portion of investment the City would have to make is to stabilize the neighborhood
by balancing affordable homeownership opportunities with affordable rental options and they understand
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 9 of 12
it will not be easy because the City has struggled to find properties. However, Brewer feels opportunities
will come along, but meanwhile the City can partner with Habitat to make homeownership in that
neighborhood attainable and Habitat will be in that neighborhood for likely three to five years to have a
more holistic neighborhood revitalization plan. They have outlined this all in a three year plan in ways to
engage the neighborhood whether they are renters, homeowners, landlords, or any stakeholder in the
South District. They hope to not only renovate previous rental properties for homeownership for residents
in the South District, but to also use educational classes to prepare families for this transition. Brewer
recognized it might take some time but they are willing to make this investment and purchase the
properties, rent them out while helping renters to transition to homeownership. Habitat plans to be part of
this neighborhood and work with residents to do many different things. They need to look at how to serve
the aging population that is many of the homeowners in that area, how they serve homeowners with
disabilities, how do they beautify the neighborhood and maintain the space a little better. They are looking
at this as a neighborhood revitalization project, there is actually a branded program through Habitat
International that gives them guidance.
McKinstry stated there was an actual track record showing how this was done in other areas. Brewer
acknowledged that there was and there was a neighborhood in Memphis that did similar projects to what
they want to accomplish here in Iowa City’s South District. He stated they understand the benefits of the
neighborhood and how they are accessible, although the bus line is not as accessible as they would like it
to be, but there are schools, parks, recreation and lots of opportunities and they can help organize
community partners to work with and he sees neighborhood revitalization being a bigger part of what they
will be doing, even if not funded by the City. He stressed it is more than just the buying of the houses, it
is a long-term approach to lifting up a neighborhood.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if Brewer could talk through a scenario where they would identify a building currently
being rented and what will happen to the renters in the house. Brewer stated one reason they are
involved is because Council stated they did not want any involuntary displacement of residents and as
they go in and purchase homes they will agree to allow the renter to continue renting, they may need to
adjust rents, but the hope is the renter will want to turn into a buyer and Habitat will help them assess
their finances and ability to borrow money and how they can help them. As long as the renter wants to
stay in a unit they will allow it. Once the renter is either able to purchase or decides to leave on their own
accord, then Habitat would sell the property. Fixmer-Oraiz asked what would happen if it is not feasible to
do rehab while the renters are living there. Brewer said the renovations will ideally be done when the units
are vacant. If they are renovating a home so the current renter can purchase it, they may have to relocate
that renter for a bit of time while the renovations are completed.
Lehmann asked if there are any renovations Habitat might do while a tenant was living in the space.
Brewer said it would depend on the project, they might be able to do some work on the units without
disturbing the residents too much. They will need to have vacant units to do some work however, they
plan to replace all the systems with high efficiency units, install high rated insulation, the goal being to
have a holistically affordable unit when completed. The units need to be affordable not only for purchase
but to live in for years to come. Habitat has great partnerships, they get all their appliances donated from
Whirlpool, so they don’t have to spend their budget on appliances, they get paint donated, etc.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked about home maintenance, is there training for the new homeowners on maintaining a
home. Brewer said they offer homeowner education that covers minor repairs and home maintenance.
He is also hoping for opportunities for the homeowner to help with renovations, obtain some sweat equity.
It will not be required however as it is with a traditional Habitat family. The hope is to control the costs
enough and keep the renovation costs down and utilize down payment assistance to make it affordable
and partner with local lenders so Habitat would not be the mortgage lender.
McKinstry feels this is an exciting project and great for the neighborhood and City.
Eastham read the proposal carefully and thinks it is a well thought out and a very beneficial plan. He has
a couple suggestions of possible changes. One, is to lower the costs or arrange financing so lower
income buyers are eligible, many of the renters on Taylor and Davis streets don’t have incomes in the
$30,000 range and are actually in the less than $25,000 range. Brewer said the number they were
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 10 of 12
aiming to be below was the average rent for a two bedroom in that area, which is $1100 but understands
Eastham’s point and will look at their numbers and try to make it work at a lower cost. The other point
Eastham wanted to make was he does not agree with the notion of removing rental units from that part of
town, many people he has talked to in the area object to removing rental units. Residents may be
interested in purchasing houses in other parts of the South District that are not Taylor and Davis. His
preference is to not buy rental units and change them to homeownership but to buy units that are already
owner-occupied and make them affordable homes. Brewer said the City got involved due to an effort to
balance rental and homeownership because studies show homeownership promotes resident stability.
Eastham believes those studies are wrong. Brewer also noted that to purchase other homes in the South
District, single family homes, the purchase price is higher and therefore might not be as affordable.
Eastham surveyed properties using the City Assessor’s website looking at houses sold in the last one to
two years in the South District and there are a fair number being sold for $150,000 or less. Some may be
condominiums or multi-family units but people may have interest in buying those. One of the first
comments Eastham heard when this idea was being talked about a year and a half ago was the City is
offering people to buy something only on those two streets in the South District and people are looking for
more opportunities in the larger area. Eastham feels Habitat is a good organization to work on this
because they will work with the residents, find out what they want, and meet their interests. Brewer
agreed and stated that is why the proposal includes taking time to work with the residents. They want to
earn the trust of the neighborhood, Habitat is here to listen and do what residents feel is best for them.
Eastham also believes the City could apply the UniverCity program to this area and supply $60,000 in
down payment assistance which would make some of the single family homes affordable for lower
income residents.
Fixmer-Oraiz has a house purchased though the UniverCity program and there is a 30 year rule that the
home must remain owner-occupied (cannot be made a rental) – is that also included in the proposal for
this program. Brewer said it will be included, likely to a 21 year restriction (because after 21 years you
have to go back and reapply). Fixmer-Oraiz noted this helps with neighborhood stabilization, she has
seen it in her neighborhood.
Eastham feels neighborhood stabilization is also obtained by giving the people who live in a
neighborhood the opportunity to buy houses in their current neighborhood, but not changing the balance
of rental versus owner occupied options in the neighborhood. Lehmann said the City chose this area
based on complaints. Eastham responded that creating programs off complaints is a mistake as it feeds
into racism. Eastham feels Habitat can work with other groups and find what residents really want in
terms of homeownership.
Brewer said this is a good way for Habitat to show they are trying to help more people, there are different
ways they can do that with homeownership, whether supporting the current stock of homeownership or
helping find new stock of homeownership. They will work in this neighborhood and gather information to
do what they can to support it. They are excited about getting into the neighborhood for revitalization.
Eastham said what the residents of the South District want is for the reputation of the area to be improved
because the reputation is vastly different then the actually livability of the area. Eastham said there are a
lot of people who live in that area who are low income, black and Hispanic and historically excluded from
homeownership opportunities and this is an opportunity to change that.
Eastham noted the major differences in his proposal from the one Habitat did is the financing, having a
larger down payment assistance to allow lower income households to qualify and to expand the area of
where purchases could come from.
Padron asked if the City contacted Habitat on this project. Lehmann said the City reached out to the
South District and to the Affordable Homes Coalition and the Coalition got in contact with Habitat as a
partner for this.
McKinstry noted that he feels as the President of the Affordable Homes Coalition that he should not vote
on this proposal. Lehmann stated that means there is no quorum, so there will not be a vote to
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 11 of 12
recommend at this meeting.
NOMINATE AND ELECT OFFICERS:
Padron moved to nominate Fixmer-Oraiz as Chair. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the
motion passed 5-0.
McKinstry moved to nominate Padron as Vice Chair. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 5-0.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT :
Lehmann said with regards to the Fair Housing Study, based on HCDC recommendation, staff wanted to
come back to HCDC with the final version to vote on it, they will also bring Stefanie Bowers in to answer
questions directly, so that would mean HCDC would hold a meeting in August, on August 15.
Lehmann said they would also do the new member orientation/welcome at the August meeting.
With regards to the Comprehensive Plan survey, July 19 is the deadline. They have translated the Arabic
survey and that will go out Monday.
They are closing FY19 and gearing up for FY20.
Lehmann noted they have a tax exemption opinion from the City Attorney also, that could be discussed in
August as well.
ADJOURNMENT:
McKinstry moved to adjourn. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0
Housing and Community Development Commission
July 11, 2019
Page 12 of 12
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 7/11
Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 O/E
Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X
Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 6/30/20 X
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook 6/30/22 O/E
McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 O/E
Padron, Maria 6/30/21 X
{Vacant} ---
I r
1
P-z -4
Date: May 24, 2019
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director
Re: Affordable Housing Action Plan — Tax Exemption Recommendation
Introduction:
The City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Action Plan in June of 2016 to address ways
the City could retain our existing affordable housing stock as well as create and support additional
affordable housing in our community. The 2018-19 City of Iowa City Strategic Plan supports this
plan as the need for safe, decent and affordable housing that is accessible to all is critical in
fostering healthy neighborhoods, promoting environmental sustainability and advancing social
justice and racial equity.
The Affordable Housing Action Plan identified 15 action steps to support affordable housing. To
date, 13 of the 15 steps have been completed. One of the remaining action steps was to set up a
committee of staff, developers and other interested stakeholders to determine the viability and
potential parameters of a tax exemption program that would support affordable housing.
Property tax exemption is a tool provided by state law to encourage the construction or
rehabilitation of residential, commercial, and industrial properties by temporarily reducing property
taxes. For affordable residential housing, state law sets the maximum exemption at 100% for ten
years for new construction. Affordable housing is for families who are low and moderate income
defined by state law as those households earning no more than 80% of area median income. The
City can design its plan with less benefits, but it cannot exceed the state maximum benefits.
A committee of six community members and City staff was formed in January of 2017. The
committee was tasked with the question if tax exemption was a viable option for incenting
affordable housing, and if so, how. After much discussion and analysis, the committee met on
May 17, 2019 to formulate their recommendation to City Council.
Committee Recommendation:
The committee determined tax exemption is a viable tool for new construction of multi -family
housing for developments with six or more rental units. To provide the developer with a level of
predictability, the committee recommended that the City Council support a 40% tax exemption on
all units in the development for a period of 10 years based on the following:
At least 15%, but not more than 20% of the total units are leased to households under
60% of median income.
The maximum rent is limited to what a household at 40% of median income could afford
minus the estimated utility allowance for tenant paid utilities. Based on HUD's income
limits effective 6/1/2018 and estimated utility allowances, this would be $805 for a three-
bedroom, $683 for a two-bedroom and $578 for a one -bedroom.
The development must be located outside the Riverfront Crossings district and the
developer may not use this incentive in combination with tax increment financing (TIF) as
exempted taxes do not generate a TIF increment.
Due to a concern about placing additional affordable housing units in areas the City's
Affordable Housing Location Model (AHLM) discourages, tax exemption will not be
May 28, 2019
Page 2
approved if any additional local, state or federal incentives are provided for affordable
housing in areas the AHLM discourages.
Similar to the Riverfront Crossings requirements, full time college students may qualify for
an affordable unit if they are income eligible and financially independent of their
family/parents (i.e., not claimed as a dependent on another's tax form and they have
sufficient income to rent the unit).
The developer/owner must annually recertify tenant income for the affordable housing
units to the City. If the total household income goes above 80% median income, rent for
that unit can be raised to the private market rent and the next available unit must be rented
to an income eligible household at the restricted rent.
A developer may request different terms than the ones outlined above, however before granting
a tax exemption, the City would consider the capacity of the developer/project manager to
administer the program, including income certification of households and annual reporting
requirements, the number of affordable units proposed in the development, the household income
level targeted and the proposed rents for the affordable units as compared to the market rate
units.
The committee did also consider tax exemption for the rehabilitation of existing units and the
construction of new homes for homebuyers. The committee determined that there is not enough
incentive to induce developers to rehabilitate existing structures. While tax exemption has worked
in other Iowa communities to encourage new construction, the committee determined that without
further subsidy, tax exemption alone would not produce homes in Iowa City affordable to those
under 80% of median income.
If the City Council wishes to proceed, staff will market the incentive to the development
community. If a request is received based on the provisions outlined, staff would create an Urban
Revitalization District for that property. If a developer requests different terms, a development
agreement would be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
Staff can provide additional information, if needed, and is available for questions.
Copy to: Committee Members
Date: August 9, 2019
To: Housing and Community Development Commission
From: Tracy Hightshoe, NDS Director
Re: Staff Recommendations
The City Council directed staff to review the Affordable Housing Action Plan and consider new
strategies to improve the availability and affordability of housing in Iowa City. At their August 6,
2019 work session, Council reviewed a memo from staff dated July 29, 2019 and approved all
recommendations, except two that relate to the Housing and Community Development
Commission (HCDC).
The City Council requests the commission’s input on the following items:
1) Allocating Council’s set-aside for Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects to the
Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC). For FY20, this is $200,000; and
2) Altering the preference and scoring criteria for CDBG/HOME assisted projects to promote
housing applications that reduce rents or housing costs for owner-occupied properties that
are lower than the HUD maximum limits.
HCDC will review CDBG/HOME application materials, including the scoring criteria, this fall as
part the CDBG/HOME funding process. This item will be on HCDC’s October agenda for
consideration.
At the August 6 Council meeting, staff recommended allocating the Council set-aside for LIHTC
projects to the HTFJC for the reasons noted below. Council directed staff to solicit input from
HCDC on this recommendation. Since making this recommendation, staff learned the upcoming
LIHTC Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), which outlines the scoring criteria, is not expected to
include a preference for local trust fund dollars. If this is the case, the City would retain these
funds for a direct allocation and continue to have HCDC review and make a recommendation.
• The LIHTC application process is extremely competitive. In recent years, applicants were
awarded points if they received funds from a local housing trust fund but not for allocations
from the City. This can make a difference in whether a project is funded. If not funded, the
City loses out on millions of dollars for affordable housing from the Iowa Finance Authority.
• The process would be more efficient for developers and the City. The City currently
allocates funds to the HTFJC for affordable housing and has a direct LIHTC allocation
process that is currently in conjunction with the HTFJC. An applicant must apply through
two different entities for essentially City funding for the same project.
• The Board of the HTFJC has considerable experience reviewing complex housing
projects. If the applicant requests additional funds or an amendment to the project, the
applicant would go through one entity who would complete a comprehensive review.
• The HTFJC is in a unique position to leverage outside funding and attract private
partnerships that can extend the impact of the City’s dollars. It is also staff’s hope that the
City’s contribution to the HTFJC will help encourage other local governments to contribute
so that regional affordable housing solutions can be more effective.
The Commission’s recommendation will be placed in the City Council’s August 20 packet in hopes
that it will be discussed at their work session. The HTFJC is preparing for their fall LIHTC
allocation process. Staff will be present for any questions.
Date: August 8, 2019
To: Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC)
From: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner
Re: Fair Housing Choice Study Modifications for Final Review
Introduction:
At their June 20, 2019 meeting, HCDC recommended the 2019 Fair Housing Choice Study for
consideration by Council subject to changes as discussed. Per U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) requirements, the Study identifies impediments to fair housing choice
and provides recommendations to overcome those impediments over the next several years. This
memo lists these changes, along with additional minor clarifications/revisions for HCDC
consideration. Public copies are available at the Iowa City Public Library, Neighborhood Services
at City Hall, and online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. A recommendation is only required if further
changes are needed.
Integrated HCDC Changes:
• Replaced references to disparate access to quality schools with references about
affordable childcare throughout (p. 15, 133, 175)
• Changed Strategy 2-3 to “Enhance Mobility linkages…” (p. 15, p. 176)
• Changed Strategy 3-1 from “increase” to “improve” (p. 15, 178)
• Added language about mobile home occupants (p. 174)
• Moved Strategy 4-4 (“Increase Fair Housing Enforcement Transparency”) to 4-1 and
changed to “Improve Fair Housing Enforcement and Transparency.” (p. 16, 176)
Additional Minor Clarifications/Revisions:
• Updated Dates for Process (p. 9)
• Removed specific examples that do not apply (p. 127)
• Clarified statements, removed redundant language (p. 151, 164, 180)
• Legal language corrections
o Change codify to support (p. 94)
o City Code, not City Property Maintenance Policy (p. 113)
o Settlements are not public (p. 151, 180)
• Minor factual corrections and clarifications
• Typo and formatting corrections
Recommendation:
Staff recommends no additional changes. The public comment period for the Study will run
through Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at which point City Council is scheduled to hold a public
meeting and formally consider adoption of the Plan.
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz <vfixmeroraiz@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July 31, 2019 10:30 AM
To:Charles Eastham; John McKinstry; Maria L. Padron; Maria Padron Personal; Megan Alter; Peter Nkumu
Cc:Kirk Lehmann; Erika Kubly
Subject:Aid to Agencies and City Meeting Re-cap
Hello fellow HCDC members,
I wanted to follow‐up with a quick email about the meeting I attended yesterday with Agency Impact Coalition (AIC)
members and City staff. I am certain that Kirk will provide staff notes and highlights to our group but I wanted to also
provide some information of my own.
The meeting was attended by City staff: Geoff Fruin (City Manager), Ashley Monroe (Assistant City Manager), Simon
Andrew (Assistant to the City Manager), and our Neighborhood Services staff: Tracy Hightshoe, Kirk Lehman, and Erica
Kubly.
There were several agency directors present: Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House), Kristie Forman‐Doser (Domestic Violence
Intervention Program), Brian Loring (Neighborhood Center of JC), Barbara Vinograde (Free Medical Clinic), and a few
others I did not catch their names/organizations.
The highlights:
City staff opened with stating that they were primarily here to listen to the agencies and set the tone for an
informal and meaningful dialogue.
AIC members disclosed agency specific issues they face regarding budgets and grant opportunities, as well as
shared issues.
AIC members regularly communicate about larger grant applications to coordinate who should apply.
City staff discussed the overall city budgeting process, including a timeline. They indicated a 2% increase in the
City allocation to the grant program would be in line with other city departments, and would result in a change
from $250,000 to $304,000. City staff requested the AIC put together a proposed budgetary number that should
be considered for the grant program.
AIC members felt that the changing processes in the grant application are welcomed, they have historically felt
side‐lined and frustrated, and are very encouraged by the inclusive direction the HCDC and City staff are taking.
AIC members encouraged City staff and HCDC members to look at their overall impact on the community as an
asset that includes economic multipliers and community health. This was in response to the budget feeling like
just another line item, and one that could be easily under‐valued.
AIC members would like to discuss how they can be a part of The Next Great Thing Iowa City can do with human
services! Community partnerships are best for everyone.
City staff will look into other city examples regarding funding human resource agencies, although this may prove
difficult to compare given that different cities use different funding sources to address this issue (e.g.
hotel/motel tax).
Overall it was a very encouraging discussion that feels progressive in nature. I am happy to provide a more in‐depth
update during our next meeting, but wanted to get this out to you all while it was fresh in my mind. I am really excited
that we are a part of this conversation and look forward to a more inclusive and equitable process moving forward.
Please let me know if you have any questions/concerns and PLEASE remember to reply to me and not the whole group :)
Thanks,
Vanessa