HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet 02-14-2020If 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.
Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings
Regular: March 12 / April 16
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (HCDC)
February 20, 2020
Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM
Senior Center Room 202
28 S. Linn Street
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order
2. Public comment of items not on the agenda
Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 5 minutes. Commissioners
shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items
3. Presentation about the Census 2020
The 2020 Census is a count of the population of the United States mandated by the
Constitution. The results provide data to decision makers, guide billions of dollars in federal
funding and help determine representation in legislative bodies. This item provides an
opportunity to share awareness and information about the 2020 Census.
4. Discuss FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies (A2A) funding requests and consider budget
recommendation to City Council
FY21 Legacy A2A applications and staff funding recommendations are available online at
www.icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting, HCDC will discuss applications, rankings, and
funding. HCDC will consider a recommendation to City Council for FY21 Legacy A2A funding
of up to $675,000, in addition to a contingency plan in case funding varies. Applicants are
strongly encouraged to attend. City Council will provide final funding allocations in May.
5. Question/Answer session for FY21 applications: Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emerging A2A Programs.
Applications can be found online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting, HCDC will
host a question and answer session with applicants. Applicants are encouraged to send a
representative to answer any questions. For CDBG and HOME applications, ranking sheets
found in the Applicant Guide will focus questions. Emerging A2A applications do not have a
ranking sheet. No action will be taken this meeting. HCDC’s funding recommendations for
Council will be made next meeting (currently scheduled for March 12).
6. Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Report Discussion
In November 2019, the Mobile Home Task Force released their final report, which can be
found here: www.jcaffordablehousing.org/post/mobile-home-task-force. Council wants HCDC
to review the report and provide a recommendation as to how to proceed.
7. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 19, 2019
8. Housing & Community Development Information
9. Adjournment
CENSUS 101: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
The 2020 Census is closer than you think!
Here’s a quick refresher of what it is and why it’s essential that everyone is counted.
Everyone counts.
The census
counts every
person living in
the United
States once, only
once, and in the
right place.
It’s about fair representation.
Every 10 years,
the results of the
census are used to
reapportion the
House of
Representatives,
determining how
many seats each
state gets.It’s in theConstitution.
The U.S. Constitution mandates
that everyone in the country be
counted every 10 years. The first
census was in 1790.
It’s about $675 billion.
The distribution of
more than $675 billion
in federal funds,
grants, and support to
states, counties, and
communities are
based on census data.
That money is spent
on schools, hospitals,
roads, public works,
and other vital
programs.
It’s about redistricting.
After each decade’s census, state
officials redraw the boundaries of the
congressional and state legislative
districts in their states to account for
population shifts.
Taking part is your civic duty.
Completing the census
is mandatory: it’s a way
to participate in our
democracy and say
“I COUNT!”
FIND OUT HOW TO HELP AT
2020CENSUS.GOV/PARTNERS
Census data are being used all around you.
Residents use the census to
support community
initiatives involving
legislation, quality-of-life,
and consumer advocacy.
Businesses use census
data to decide where
to build factories,
offices, and stores,
which create jobs.
Local governments
use the census for
public safety and
emergency
preparedness.
Real estate
developers use the
census to build
new homes and
revitalize old
neighborhoods. Your privacy is protected.
It’s against the law for the
Census Bureau to publicly
release your responses in any
way that could identify you or
your household.
By law, your responses cannot
be used against you and can
only be used to produce
statistics.
2020 will be easier than ever.
In 2020, you will be
able to respond to the
census online.
You can help.
You are the expert—we need
your ideas on the best way to
make sure everyone in your
community gets counted.
AgencyFY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation RequestStaff Rec.CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $39,756 $40,000 $66,000 $69,300 $69,300 93Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic$7,500 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $17,500 $25,000 $25,000 914 C's Community Coord. Child Care$5,000 $0 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 88.5Neighborhood Centers of JC$50,000 $50,000 $43,700 $43,434 $34,300 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 88.5Domestic Violence Intervention Program $45,000 $45,000 $40,000 $39,756 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 88Shelter House$45,000 $45,000 $50,000 $49,696 $50,000 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 87.5Prelude Behavioral Services$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $16,000 $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 86.5Big Brothers / Big Sisters$30,000 $30,000 $25,000 $14,909 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 85Rape Victim Advocacy Program$10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $20,000 $23,000 $25,000 $25,000 83United Action for Youth$49,000 $39,700 $40,000 $34,788 $27,400 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 79Pathways Adult Day Health Center$5,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 78Inside Out Rentry Community$0 $0 $0 $14,909 $15,000 $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 76HACAP$12,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 75.5Table to Table$0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $20,000 $31,000 $30,000 72.5Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity$5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $24,000 71.5Arc of Southeast Iowa$5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $19,000 71Free Lunch Program$5,000 $15,000 $16,000 $15,903 $15,000 $16,000 $18,000 $16,000 70Horizons, A Family Service Alliance$30,010 $30,000 $25,000 $24,849 $20,000 $40,000 $44,000 $38,700 65Total Request:$397,510 $378,700 $378,700 $376,400 $391,700 $625,500 $660,300 $650,000Budget Request AllocationLegacy Funding96% $650,000$660,300$650,000Emerging Funding 4% $25,000$49,288 TBDTotal Funding100% $675,000$709,588FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies History/Staff Recommendation ‐ Sorted by ScoreFY21Staff Score
AgencyFY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation RequestStaff Rec.4 C's Community Coord. Child Care$5,000 $0 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 88.5Arc of Southeast Iowa$5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $19,000 71Big Brothers / Big Sisters$30,000 $30,000 $25,000 $14,909 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 85CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $39,756 $40,000 $66,000 $69,300 $69,300 93Domestic Violence Intervention Program $45,000 $45,000 $40,000 $39,756 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 88Free Lunch Program$5,000 $15,000 $16,000 $15,903 $15,000 $16,000 $18,000 $16,000 70HACAP$12,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 75.5Horizons, A Family Service Alliance$30,010 $30,000 $25,000 $24,849 $20,000 $40,000 $44,000 $38,700 65Inside Out Rentry Community$0 $0 $0 $14,909 $15,000 $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 76Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic$7,500 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $17,500 $25,000 $25,000 91Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity$5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $24,000 71.5Neighborhood Centers of JC$50,000 $50,000 $43,700 $43,434 $34,300 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 88.5Pathways Adult Day Health Center$5,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 78Prelude Behavioral Services$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $16,000 $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 86.5Rape Victim Advocacy Program$10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $20,000 $23,000 $25,000 $25,000 83Shelter House$45,000 $45,000 $50,000 $49,696 $50,000 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 87.5Table to Table$0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $20,000 $31,000 $30,000 72.5United Action for Youth$49,000 $39,700 $40,000 $34,788 $27,400 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 79Total Request:$397,510 $378,700 $378,700 $376,400 $391,700 $625,500$660,300$650,000Budget Request AllocationLegacy Funding96% $650,000$660,300$650,000Emerging Funding 4% $25,000$49,288 TBDTotal Funding100% $675,000$709,588FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies History/Staff Recommendation ‐ Sorted by NameStaff ScoreFY21
Ave. Score per Question Community Need Service Provided Benefit to LMI Persons Equity Outcome Measures Persons to Benefit Collaboration Budget Leveraging Funds Quality of App Experience & Success Ave.
Score
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care 10 10 15 2.5 8 3 5 5 10 5 15 88.5
Arc of Southeast Iowa 8 10 15 2 8 2 3 5 10 3 5 71
Big Brothers / Big Sisters 10 10 12 3 8 2 5 5 10 5 15 85
CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank 10 10 15 3.5 10 5 5 4.5 10 5 15 93
Domestic Violence Intervention Program 10 10 15 3 8 2 5 5 10 5 15 88
Free Lunch Program 3 8.5 12 1.5 10 2 3 4 7 3 15 70
HACAP 10 10 12 2.5 8 5 3 5 10 5 5 75.5
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance 10 7 15 3 5 2 3 2 10 3 5 65
Inside Out Reentry Community 8 10 15 2 8 1 5 5 7 5 10 76
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic 10 10 15 3 8 5 5 5 10 5 15 91
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity 8 7 12 3.5 5 1 5 5 10 5 10 71.5
Neighborhood Centers of JC 10 10 15 4.5 8 3 3 5 10 5 15 88.5
Pathways Adult Day Health Center 10 7 15 3 5 1 3 4 10 5 15 78
Prelude Behavioral Services 10 10 15 2.5 10 2 3 4 10 5 15 86.5
Rape Victim Advocacy Program 10 10 9 3 10 5 3 5 10 3 15 83
Shelter House 10 10 15 2.5 8 2 5 5 10 5 15 87.5
Table to Table 10 10 12 1.5 8 3 5 5 10 3 5 72.5
United Action for Youth 10 10 9 3 5 5 3 4 10 5 15 79
Total Possible Score 15 10 15 5 10 5 5 5 10 5 15 100
*The numbers above represent the averages of staff ranking scores. C omments on scoring are available upon request
2
NEED AND PRIORITY (25 Points)
Community Need
(Primarily Question 1)
15 pts Need is directly identified as a high priority in City Steps 2025. The goals and activities are innovative and
clearly consistent with addressing this need. Applicant clearly and completely describes the significance
of the need, and provides supporting documentation and statistics fully substantiating this need. The
agency addresses the described need and successfully resolves the problem completely. The
achievement of results is realistic and reasonable.
10 pts Need is directly identified as a high priority in City Steps 2025. The goals and objectives are consistent
with addressing this priority need. Applicant clearly and completely describes the significance of the need,
and provides supporting documentation and statistics substantiating this need. The agency would have a
major impact on addressing the described need but would not completely resol ve the problem. The
achievement of results is realistic and reasonable.
8 pts Need is directly identified as a medium or low priority need in City Steps 2025. The goals and objectives
are somewhat consistent with addressing this priority need. Applicant explains the significance of the
need and provides some supporting documentation and/or statistics that somewhat relate to the need.
The agency would have a major impact on addressing the described need but would not completely
resolve the problem. The achievement of results is somewhat realistic and reasonable.
3 pts Need is identified indirectly in City Steps 2025. Applicant describes the need, but not clearly or completely
and provides minimal or no supporting documentation and/or statistics that relat e to the need. The
proposed program would have some impact on addressing the described need, but significant areas are
not addressed. The achievement of results is not realistic and reasonable.
0 pts Need is not identified as a priority need pursuant in City Steps 2025 or the need, as described, appears
questionable as to its significance and seriousness to the community. The agency does not clearly
address how the described need would be addressed or the agency would be ineffective in resolving the
described need.
Services Provided
(Primarily Question 4)
10 pts Services are consistent with City Steps 2025. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need,
and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is comprehensive and provides
reasonable and clear indication that funding will help satisfy an unmet strategic goal and activity and will
fully generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps 2025.
7 pts Services are consistent with City Steps 2025. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need,
and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is not as clear and comprehensive, but
it appears probable that funding will help satisfy an unmet strategic goal and activity and will generate the
expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps 2025.
5 pts Services are consistent with City Steps 2025. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need,
and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is minimally sufficient; however, it also
appears that funding will only somewhat help address, and it is unclear as to the degree of which it will
satisfy, an unmet strategic goal and activity and generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City
Steps 2025.
2 pts Services are consistent with City Steps 2025. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need,
and are identified activities. Information is incomplete, inaccurate or contradictory to the need it proposes
to address OR the City Steps 2025 goal and expected outcome has already been fulfilled and/or the
problem/ need has already been addressed.
0 pts Application is inconsistent with City Steps 2025 (does not address a strategic goal, problem/ need or
activity identified in City Steps 2025).
3
IMPACT AND DELIVERY (35 Points)
Benefit to Low Income Persons
(Primarily Question 6)
15 pts Direct benefit will primarily serve extremely low-income persons (<30% AMI) or those at a similar
standard income level (such as the poverty line).
12 pts Direct benefit will primarily serve very low-income persons (<50% AMI) or those at a similar standard
income level (such as the approximately 150% of the poverty line).
9 pts Direct benefit will primarily serve low-income persons (<80% AMI) or those at a similar standard income
level (such as the approximately 250% of the poverty line).
0 pts Direct benefit will not primarily serve low-income persons or those at a similar standard income level
Racial Equity and Inclusivity for Marginalized Populations
(Primarily Questions 6 and 7 and Form B; specifically disabled, 65+, non-white, LGBTQ, or other populations)
5 pts Applicant documents that it actively and robustly promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized
populations. 90-100% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated.
4 pts Applicant documents that it actively promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations.
70-89% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated.
2 pts Applicant documents that it promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. 30 -69% of
clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated.
0 pts Applicant documents that it does not promote racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations.
<30% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated.
Outcome Measurements
(Primarily Prior Year Reports and Question 10)
10 pts Applicant met or exceeded the outcome objectives in the past five years . Agency also had a maximum
impact and benefit for those served.
8 pts Applicant was close to meeting its outcome objectives in the past five years. Agency had a substantial
impact and benefit for those served.
5 pts Applicant did not meet their outcome objectives in recent years. Agency still had at least a moderate
impact on those served.
2 pts Applicant met some outcome objectives in recent years. Agency had minimal impact on those served.
0 pts Applicant met few or none of the outcome objectives in recent years or had no impact on those served.
Persons to Benefit
(Primarily Forms B and C; Alternatively, Questions 9 and 10)
5 pts Cost of $1-$19.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides strong evidence that the
cost for the number served are highly cost effective for the extent of services.
3 pts Cost of $20.00-$49.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides strong evidence that
the cost for the number served are cost effective for the extent of services.
2 pts Cost of $50.00-$149.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resid ent OR provides evidence that the
cost for the number served are cost effective for the extent of services.
1 pt Cost of greater than $150.00 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides minimal
evidence that the cost for the number served are somewhat cost effective for the extent of services.
4
EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY (20 Points)
Collaboration/Operations Plan
(Primarily Question 5 and 6 and Form C)
5 pts Application shows strong evidence of collaborating with other service providers to reduce costs and of
utilizing community partnership to further goals. Application fully and thoroughly identifies the major
critical factors to implement and maintain its objectives over the long term. The application addresses
how factors will be resolved to sustain results and ensure continued success through funding or
continued partnerships. The approach is sound and reflects a clear understanding of factors involved and
how they will be resolved.
3 pts Application shows evidence of collaborating with other service providers to reduce costs and of utilizing
community partnership to further goals. Application identifies most major critical factors to implement and
maintain its objectives over the long term. The application somewhat addresses how some factors will be
resolved to sustain the results and ensure continued success through funding or continued partnerships.
1 pts Application shows limited evidence of collaborating with other service providers to reduce costs and of
utilizing community partnership to further goals. Application identifies some major critical factors to
implement and maintain its objectives over the long term but does not address how factors will be
resolved to sustain results and ensure continued success through funding or continued partnerships.
0 pts Application shows no evidence of collaborating with other service providers to reduce costs and of
utilizing community partnership to further goals. Application does not address major issues to implement
and maintain its objectives over the long term, nor how factors will be resolved to sustain results and
ensure continued success through funding or continued partnerships.
Agency Budget
(Primarily Question 8 and Form C)
5 pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, budget appears accurate, comprehensive and detailed. Costs
are clearly documented and appear reasonable and justified.
2 pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, budget appears reasonable, but not clear, comprehensive, or
detailed. The budget is substantively mathematically accurate (i.e. minor errors noted), and/or does not
appear complete.
0 pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, budget appears questionable and/or unreasonable. The
budget is substantively mathematically incorrect.
Leveraging Funds
(Primarily Question 9 and Form C)
10 pts Funding needs are clearly identified to address the proposed needs. Other sources of funds have been
secured and maximized. There are $5 (or more) of other sources of funds for every $1 requested in the
application. (>5:1 ratio)
7 pts Funding needs are clearly identified to address the proposed needs, but not completely secured or
additional funds could be leveraged. Plans to secure or leverage other sources of funds are underway
and information is presented to conclude that it is probable other sources of funding will be obtained.
There is at least $2 of other sources of funds for every $1 requested. (4 -2:1 ratio)
4 pt Funding needs are clearly identified to address the proposed needs. The project is mostly reliant on
requested funds to finance the project with minimal leveraging. (<=1:1 ratio)
0 pts Funding needs are identified to address the proposed needs. Plans to secure other sources of funds have
been developed and/or underway, but it is questionable whether these funds will be secured and/or if they
will be available upon approval of funds in a timely manner. Alternatively, funding needs are identified, but
incompletely addresses the proposed needs. Funds would have little impact and no other resources are
identified.
5
EVIDENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY (20 Points)
Quality of Application
(Overall Application)
5 pts Application is logical, clear, well written, accurate and attentive to detail, but also concise with appropriate
statistical information and supporting documentation provided to thoroughly support any conclusions
provided.
3 pts Application is adequately written, but statistics, obser vation and/or conclusions are not well documented,
and inconsistencies and/or errors were noted.
1 pts Application is adequately written, but statistics, observations and/or conclusions are not well documented;
inconsistencies and/or errors were noted; and some application instructions were not followed. The
credibility of information and statistics provided appear questionable.
0 pts Application is poorly written, statistics, observations and conclusions are not documented, and apparent
and substantive internal inconsistencies and material errors were noted. Most of the application
instructions were not followed. The credibility of Information and statistics provided is questionable.
Experience and Success
(Past performance and Form A; alternatively, overall application)
15 pts Applicant clearly shows evidence of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity,
professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and implement the activities listed.
Applicant has extensive experience with Grant Funds and/or other C ity funding programs. The applicant
has been directly involved in 5 or more City funded projects within the past 5 years, 4 of which have been
favorably completed. This applicant has had no problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past
projects. This applicant has been timely, complete and accurate with reporting requirements.
10 pts Applicant clearly shows evidence of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity,
professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and im plement the activities listed.
Applicant has adequate experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funding programs. The applicant
has been directly involved in 3 or more City funded projects within the past 5 years, 2 of which have been
favorably completed. Applicant has realistically identified any problem(s) relating to its application, but
they appear relatively minor and the applicant exhibits the understanding and capacity to address these
concerns. The applicant has had some problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past projects, but
any problems were fully resolved. The applicant has been timely, complete and accurate with reporting.
5 pts Applicant appears to have most of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity,
professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and implement the activities listed, but
it is not well documented. Applicant has some experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funding
programs. The applicant has been directly involved in 1 or more City funded projects within the past five
years and has favorably completed it. The applicant may have difficulty complying with program
requirements. Applicant has realistically identified action(s) and/or problem(s) relating to its application or
other issues may exist. The actions are somewhat complicated to resolve, but the applicant has
developed and implemented a plan and is in the process of addressing these concerns. The applicant
may have experienced some problems in implementing past projects, but the problems were fully
resolved. This applicant has had minor problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past projects. The
applicant may have difficulty complying with program requirements.
3 pts Applicant appears to have some of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity,
professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and complete the activities listed
(documentation is unclear). Applicant has little experience with Grant Funds and/or City funded projects.
Applicant has realistically identified action(s) and/or problem(s) relating to its application or other issues
may exist. The actions are complicated to resolve, but the applicant has developed a plan to address
these concerns. The problems appear to be fully resolvable, but expending funds may be problematic.
0 pts Applicant appears to have minimal or none of the necessary competencies, skill set, and capacity to
successfully manage the activities listed (documentation is unclear). Applicant appears to have no related
professional experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funded projects or had extensive problems in
6
implementing past projects timely, substantiating compliance, and/or meeting reporting requirements or
requests for information by the City. Extensive actions and/or problems have been identified or pose a
potential significant concern. The applicant appears unsure as to how to address the issues and/or the
problems do not appear to be fully resolvable without negatively impacting im plementation. The applicant
does not appear knowledgeable, committed, and/or able to complete the project.
Requested
CDBG
Recomm.
HOME
Recomm.
Staff
Pts
Successful Living Acquisition #1 48,000$ 88
Successful Living Acquisition #2 48,000$ 88
Successful Living Acquisition #3 48,000$ 88
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #1 30,000$ 83
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #3 30,000$ 83
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops 20,000$ NA 82 Max : $24,000
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #2 30,000$ 80
Systems Unlimited New Construction 100,000$ NA 79
City South District #2 50,000$ 74
City South District #1 50,000$ 72
Unlimited Abilities Acquisition 121,607$ 57
Little Creations Public Facility 78,160$ NA 47
Min : $30,000
Total 653,767$ ‐$ ‐$
Expected CDBG/HOME 542,000$ 94,000$ 448,000$
CDBG/HOME Applications Summary
HCDC RANKINGS AND CDBG/HOME ALLOCATIONS: FY18‐FY20
Project Name
Ave. Score
(Max. 100) Requested Allocated
Percent
Allocation Amended
DVIP - Shelter Repair 72 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 100% 120,000 $
Little Creations Academy - Renovation Phase 3 53 51,968 $ - $ 0% - $
Old Brick - ADA Improvements 59 40,553 $ 36,000 $ 89% 36,000 $
Old Brick - Structural Fortification/Water Mitigation 58 67,670 $ - $ 0% - $
Habitat - Lot Acquisition 69 120,000 $ 53,000 $ 44% 53,000 $
MYEP - Lot Acquisition 79 200,000 $ 186,000 $ 93% 186,000 $
Successful Living - Rental Acquisition 78 240,000 $ 173,000 $ 72% 173,000 $
Successful Living - Rental Rehabilitation 63 75,000 $ 62,000 $ 83% 62,000 $
THF - CHDO Operating 66 26,500 $ 22,000 $ 83% 22,000 $
THF - Rental Rehabilitation 64 69,108 $ 74,000 $ 107% 74,000 $
Project Name
Average
Score (Max.
100) Requested Allocated
Percent
Allocation Amended
Arthur Street Healthy Life Center 80 100,000 $ 51,000 $ 51% - $
NCJC Siding Improvement 68 51,467 $ 41,000 $ 80% 41,700 $
THF - CHDO Operating 88 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 100% 25,000 $
THF - Rental Acquisition 76 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100% 100,000 $
Habitat for Humanity - Ownership 83 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 100% 80,000 $
MYEP - Rental Acquisition 81 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 100% 75,000 $
Successful Living - Rental Acquisition 80 310,000 $ 194,000 $ 63% 194,000 $
City of Iowa City - South Dist. Part. 59 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100% 100,000 $
Prelude - Transitional Housing Impr. 62 82,010 $ 34,000 $ 41% 34,000 $
Unlimited Abilities 21 200,000 $ - $ 0% - $
Habitat - Lot Acquisition 1 NA 40,000 $ - $ 0% - $
Habitat - Lot Acquisition 2 NA 40,000 $ - $ 0% - $
MYEP - Lot Acquisition NA 80,000 $ - $ 0% - $
THF - Rental Rehabilitation (Round 2) NA 91,362 $ 87,034 $ 95% 87,034 $
Shelter Housing - Rental Acquisition (Round 2) NA 185,000 $ 93,966 $ 51% 94,000 $
Project Name
Average
Score (Max.
100) Requested Allocated
Percent
Allocation Amended
Crisis Center Food Pantry 83 100,000 $ 85,000 $ 85% 95,000 $
Successful Living 81 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 100% 87,000 $
CHDO operations - Housing Fellowship 75 25,000 $ 18,000 $ 72% 18,000 $
Habitat for Humanity 74 90,000 $ 50,000 $ 56% 50,000 $
The Housing Fellowship Rehab 67 100,000 $ 86,000 $ 86% 86,000 $
Housing Authority Rent Assistance 62 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 100% 200,000 $
Little Creations Academy Daycare 54 107,934 $ 73,000 $ 68% 109,141 $
MYEP Facility 52 60,000 $ 31,000 $ 52% 31,000 $
Mid-Year Habitat for Humanity N/A 70,000 $ 35,000 $ 50% 35,000 $
Mid-Year THF Rental Construction N/A 245,000 $ 100,000 $ 41% - $
Mid-Year MYEP Rental Acquisition N/A 75,000 $ 50,000 $ 67% 50,000 $
Mid-Year Successful Living Rental Rehab N/A 74,895 $ 50,000 $ 67% 57,994 $
Mid-Year Successful Living Rental Acqusition N/A 100,000 $ - $ 0% - $
FY20
FY19
FY18
Staff Report: Little Creations Academy
Public Facility Rehab
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
Our current kitchen equipment over is 40 years old and not capable of handling meal prep for our childcare
facility. The kitchen must be upgraded to commercial grade equipment for meal preparation for a maximum
capacity of 54 children and staff. Requesting $78,160 to benefit 22 children; only eligible for CDBG funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Improve Public Facilities (Childcare); evidence of
current projects, project description supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 9
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on thorough estimate
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 2 No specific partnerships, limited in-kind and
sparse description overall
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 2 8% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 20
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 15 <50% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 0 No
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 2 $3,552/person served; higher than recent
comparable projects (NCJC was $17/ person
served, DVIP was $29/ person, MYEP was $55/
person, CU was $8/ person); received ~$109,000
for rehab in 2018
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 3 Project timeline will reach completion within one
year, but past project has been substantially
delayed
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 0 Little discussion of long-term sustainability in
application
Capacity/History 15 8
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 2 85% complete, expected 100% complete; Project
was substantially delayed, budget was inaccurate
and needed substantial amendment to complete
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 3 Staff has experience in providing services, some
experience with federal funds, though lack of
capacity to administer projects without
experienced general contractor (source: recent
projects)
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 3 Yes, organization has completed one federal
public facilities project and has ability to operate
the center. Past projects have had delays
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 47
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, competitive
procurement, Davis Bacon wage requirements, 7-year compliance; depending on the use of the kitchen for
faith-based activities, may need to apportion cost by time.
Staff Report: City of Iowa City
South District Program #1
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
The City plans to continue the South District Program by purchasing a duplex in the South District project
area, rehabilitating the units, and selling them as affordable owner-occupied homes with monthly housing
payments at or below the HOME Fair Market Rent. Preference for purchasing units will be given to residents
currently living in the neighborhood and no tenants will be displaced as a result of the program's property
acquisition. Goals of the program are to preserve the unique character of the neighborhood, re-establish a
balance of rental and owner-occupied homes, encourage reinvestment in the neighborhood, ensure the
neighborhood is a safe, affordable and attractive place to live and work for both renters and homeowners,
and provide affordable home ownership opportunities for income eligible residents. Requesting $50,000 in
funds for 2 units; eligible for CDBG or HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Rehab/Improve Owner-Occupied Housing Units;
evidence of current projects, project description
supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 29
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on thorough estimate
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 3 Yes, evidence of good partnerships though no in-
kind contributions
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 21 82% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 19
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 9 <50% AMI based on applications, though new
program. Averaged 15 and 2 for final score
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 0 No
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 3 $25k/property, $25k/unit, $17k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 2 Project timeline will not reach completion within
one year, but will be completed within HOME
guidelines; past project has experienced delays
due to restructuring of policies.
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 5 Homeownership for low income households can
stabilize payments compared to rents; funds
recaptured if doesn't meet affordability period
Capacity/History 15 14
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 4 78% expended, expected 90%; applicant has
successfully completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with acquisition/rehab
projects and with administering federal funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 5 Yes, organization experienced with federal
rehab/acquisition projects, no major compliance
issues
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 72
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, competitive
procurement, underwriting standards, sales price caps, 10-year affordability
Staff Report: City of Iowa City
South District Program #2
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
The City plans to continue the South District Program by purchasing a duplex in the South District project
area, rehabilitating the units, and selling them as affordable owner-occupied homes with monthly housing
payments at or below the HOME Fair Market Rent. Preference for purchasing units will be given to residents
currently living in the neighborhood and no tenants will be displaced as a result of the program's property
acquisition. Goals of the program are to preserve the unique character of the neighborhood, re-establish a
balance of rental and owner-occupied homes, encourage reinvestment in the neighborhood, ensure the
neighborhood is a safe, affordable and attractive place to live and work for both renters and homeowners,
and provide affordable home ownership opportunities for income eligible residents. Requesting $50,000 in
funds for 2 units; eligible for CDBG or HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Rehab/Improve Owner-Occupied Housing Units;
evidence of current projects, project description
supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 29
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on thorough
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 3 Yes, evidence of good partnerships though no in-
kind contributions
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 21 82% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 21
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 9 <50% AMI based on applications, though new
program. Averaged 15 and 2 for final score
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 0 No
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 3 $25k/property, $25k/unit, $17k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 4 Project timeline will reach completion within one
year, though past project has experienced delays
due to restructuring of policies.
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 5 Homeownership for low income households can
stabilize payments compared to rents; funds
recaptured if doesn't meet affordability period
Capacity/History 15 14
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 4 78% expended, expected 90%; applicant has
successfully completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with acquisition/rehab
projects and with administering federal funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 5 Yes, organization experienced with federal
rehab/acquisition projects, no major compliance
issues
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 74
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, competitive
procurement, underwriting standards, sales price caps, 10-year affordability
Staff Report: Habitat for Humanity
Down Payment Assistance #1
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
An IVHFH approved applicant(s) with income below 50% AMI upon acceptance into the program will receive
down payment assistance for the purchase of a newly constructed home. IVHFH will construct the home and
base payments on approximately 28% of the applicant's Gross Adjusted Income in order to reduce monthly
mortgage payments. This will allow a very low income buyer to afford the purchase of a new home that is
safe and decent. Requesting $30,000 in funds for 1 unit; eligible for CDBG or HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Support Homebuyer Activities; evidence of
current projects, project description supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 31
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on thorough estimate
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 5 Evidence of both notable in-kind assistance and
specific examples of partnerships
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 21 85% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 27
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 15 <50% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 0 No
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 3 $30k/property, $30k/unit, $5k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 4 Project timeline is well within one year, but past
projects have experienced delays
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 5 Homeownership for low income households can
stabilize payments compared to rents; funds
recaptured if doesn't meet affordability period
Capacity/History 15 15
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 5 81% expended, expected 91%; applicant has
successfully completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with down payment
assistant projects and with administering federal
funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 5 Yes, organization experienced with federal
rehab/acquisition projects, no major compliance
issues
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 83
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, underwriting
standards, sales price caps, 10-year affordability
Staff Report: Habitat for Humanity
Down Payment Assistance #2
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
An IVHFH approved applicant(s) with income below 50% AMI upon acceptance into the program will receive
down payment assistance for the purchase of a newly constructed home. IVHFH will construct the home and
base payments on approximately 28% of the applicant's Gross Adjusted Income in order to reduce monthly
mortgage payments. This will allow a very low income buyer to afford the purchase of a new home that is
safe and decent. Requesting $30,000 in funds for 1 unit; eligible for CDBG or HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Support Homebuyer Activities; evidence of
current projects, project description supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 31
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on thorough estimate
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 5 Evidence of both notable in-kind assistance and
specific examples of partnerships
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 21 85% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 24
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 15 <50% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 0 No
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 3 $30k/property, $30k/unit, $5k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 2 Project timeline is just outside of one year,
though within HOME guidelines; past projects
have experienced delays
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 5 Homeownership for low income households can
stabilize payments compared to rents; funds
recaptured if doesn't meet affordability period
Capacity/History 15 15
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 5 81% expended, expected 91%; applicant has
successfully completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with down payment
assistant projects and with administering federal
funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 5 Yes, organization experienced with federal
rehab/acquisition projects, no major compliance
issues
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 80
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, underwriting
standards, sales price caps, 10-year affordability
Staff Report: Habitat for Humanity
Down Payment Assistance #3
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
An IVHFH approved applicant(s) with income below 50% AMI upon acceptance into the program will receive
down payment assistance for the purchase of a newly constructed home. IVHFH will construct the home and
base payments on approximately 28% of the applicant's Gross Adjusted Income in order to reduce monthly
mortgage payments. This will allow a very low income buyer to afford the purchase of a new home that is
safe and decent. Requesting $30,000 in funds for 1 unit; eligible for CDBG or HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Support Homebuyer Activities; evidence of
current projects, project description supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 31
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on thorough estimate
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 5 Evidence of both notable in-kind assistance and
specific examples of partnerships
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 21 85% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 27
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 15 <50% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 0 No
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 3 $30k/property, $30k/unit, $5k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 4 Project timeline is just within one year, but past
projects have experienced delays
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 5 Homeownership for low income households can
stabilize payments compared to rents; funds
recaptured if doesn't meet affordability period
Capacity/History 15 15
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 5 81% expended, expected 91%; applicant has
successfully completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with down payment
assistant projects and with administering federal
funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 5 Yes, organization experienced with federal
rehab/acquisition projects, no major compliance
issues
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 83
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, underwriting
standards, sales price caps, 10-year affordability
Staff Report: Successful Living
Rental Acquisition #1
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
We will house 5 chronically mentally ill adults who are without resources, which serves to reduce
homelessness or potential homelessness. We intend to house these ill people, who are high risk and high
needs, and who may live in our affordable housing for as long as there is need. We then deliver services to
them and generally support them in their progress toward recovery. Requesting $48,000 in funds for 1
property, 5 Single Room Occupancy units; eligible for CDBG or HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Increase affordable rental housing units;
evidence of current projects, project description
supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 28
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on current projects
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 2 Evidence of partnerships, though no description
of how they are leveraged; no in-kind assistance
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 21 83% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 37
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 20 <30% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 5 Persons with disabilities
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 4 $48k/property, $9.6k/unit, $9.6k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 4 Project timeline is within one year, but past
projects have experienced delays
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 4 Intent is to keep as permanent affordable
housing; agency has recently sold past
affordable housing projects
Capacity/History 15 13
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 4 69% expended, expected 79%; since December,
SL has expended additional funds which may
warrant consideration for full points; applicant
has successfully completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with acquisition projects,
providing services, and with administering federal
funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 4 Yes, organization experienced with federal
acquisition projects, though has had some issues
with compliance in the past 5 years
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 88
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, competitive
procurement, federal displacement/relocation requirements, underwriting standards, rent limits, 5-year
affordability
Staff Report: Successful Living
Rental Acquisition #2
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
We will house 5 chronically mentally ill adults who are without resources, which serves to reduce
homelessness or potential homelessness. We intend to house these ill people, who are high risk and high
needs, and who may live in our affordable housing for as long as there is need. We then deliver services to
them and generally support them in their progress toward recovery. Requesting $48,000 in funds for 1
property, 5 Single Room Occupancy units; eligible for CDBG or HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Increase affordable rental housing units;
evidence of current projects, project description
supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 28
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on current projects
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 2 Evidence of partnerships, though no description
of how they are leveraged; no in-kind assistance
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 21 83% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 37
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 20 <30% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 5 Persons with disabilities
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 4 $48k/property, $9.6k/unit, $9.6k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 4 Project timeline is within one year, but past
projects have experienced delays
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 4 Intent is to keep as permanent affordable
housing; agency has recently sold past
affordable housing projects
Capacity/History 15 13
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 4 69% expended, expected 79%; since December,
SL has expended additional funds which may
warrant consideration for full points; applicant
has successfully completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with acquisition projects,
providing services, and with administering federal
funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 4 Yes, organization experienced with federal
acquisition projects, though has had some issues
with compliance in the past 5 years
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 88
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, competitive
procurement, federal displacement/relocation requirements, underwriting standards, rent limits, 5-year
affordability
Staff Report: Successful Living
Rental Acquisition #3
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
We will house 5 chronically mentally ill adults who are without resources, which serves to reduce
homelessness or potential homelessness. We intend to house these ill people, who are high risk and high
needs, and who may live in our affordable housing for as long as there is need. We then deliver services to
them and generally support them in their progress toward recovery. Requesting $48,000 in funds for 1
property, 5 Single Room Occupancy units; eligible for CDBG or HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Increase affordable rental housing units;
evidence of current projects, project description
supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 28
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on current projects
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 2 Evidence of partnerships, though no description
of how they are leveraged; no in-kind assistance
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 21 83% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 37
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 20 <30% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 5 Persons with disabilities
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 4 $48k/property, $9.6k/unit, $9.6k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 4 Project timeline is within one year, but past
projects have experienced delays
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 4 Intent is to keep as permanent affordable
housing; agency has recently sold past
affordable housing projects
Capacity/History 15 13
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 4 69% expended, expected 79%; since December,
SL has expended additional funds which may
warrant consideration for full points; applicant
has successfully completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with acquisition projects,
providing services, and with administering federal
funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 4 Yes, organization experienced with federal
acquisition projects, though has had some issues
with compliance in the past 5 years
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 88
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, competitive
procurement, federal displacement/relocation requirements, underwriting standards, rent limits, 5-year
affordability
Staff Report: Systems Unlimited
Rental New Construction
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
Systems Unlimited seeks to build a 4 bedroom, fully accessible single family home at 913 N. Dodge St. in
Iowa City. This home will serve people with intellectual and physical disabilities in a 24 hour supported living
environment. This project will provide long term, affordable and accessible housing to low or moderate
income tenants. Requesting $100,000 in funds for 1 property, 4 Single Room Occupancy units; eligible for
HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Increase affordable rental housing units;
evidence of current projects, project description
supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 26
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 4 Yes, estimate looks adequate but lacks detailed
supporting documentation
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 3 Evidence of in-kind assistance, but lacking
specific examples of partnerships
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 19 75% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 29
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 15 <50% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 5 Persons with disabilities
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 0 $100k/property, $25k/unit, $25k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 4 Project timeline is well within one year and has
already made ground prior to application;
however, has had to return funds in the past
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 5 Intent is to keep as permanent affordable
housing; no recent known sales of affordable
units
Capacity/History 15 14
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 4 64% expended, expected 100%; part of past
project never moved forward, though all past
projects are closed out and in their periods of
compliance; applicant has successfully
completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with acquisition projects,
providing services, and with administering federal
funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 5 Yes, organization experienced with federal
acquisition projects, no major compliance issues
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 79
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, competitive
procurement, Section 3 requirements, underwriting standards, rent limits, 20-year affordability
Staff Report: The Housing Fellowship
CHDO Operational Funds
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
Provide operational support for The Housing Fellowship, a certified Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) providing quality affordable rental homes to people with limited incomes. The request
specifically supplements the salary of THF's Chief Financial Officer. Requesting $20,000 in funds; eligible for
HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Provide public services (affordable housing
organization); evidence of current projects,
project description supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 29
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 5 Yes, based on salary of existing staff person
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 4 Has in-kind support and some evidence of
partnerships, though it could be clearer as to how
these are leveraged for the project
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 20 80% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 28
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 15 Majority of beneficiaries are <50% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 0 None
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 5 Similar positions have similar pay/benefits
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 5 Project pays for one year's salary and will
support a CHDO reserve project
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 3 Supports permanent affordable housing units;
however, operating subsidies by their nature are
not a long-term solution towards a self-sustaining
nonprofit as they must be paid every year
Capacity/History 15 15
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 5 82% of past funding is expended (would expect
approximately 93%); applicant has successfully
completed past projects
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 5 Yes, staff experienced with affordable housing
projects, and with administering federal funds
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 5 Yes, organization experienced with federal
CHDO operations projects and with CHDO
reserve projects, no major compliance issues
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 82
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices
Staff Report: Unlimited Abilities
Rental Acquisition
Max
Pts
Staff
Pts Staff Comments
The purpose of the Unlimited Abilities’ Housing Justice Project is twofold: to address the inequity in housing
for those experiencing chronic mental illness (CMI), and to provide support services to this population. Folks
experiencing CMI often have few viable housing options beyond residential care facilities, psychiatric
hospitals, homeless shelters, and jails and prisons. Unlimited Abilities seeks to create a more just community
by increasing the number of affordable rental units available to our clients and by assisting our clients in
managing their day-to-day activities. Requesting $121,607 in funds for 2 properties, 6 Single Room
Occupancy units; eligible for CDBG or HOME funds.
Need Priority 10 10
How well has the applicant documented
the ability of the project to meet a primary
goal identified in City Steps 2025?
10 10 Provide Public Services; evidence of current
projects, project description supports
Leveraging Resources/Budget 35 9
Does the project have realistic cost
estimates?
5 2 Estimate looks low for purchasing 2 3-bedroom
homes (application notes ~$75k/ property);
possible but needs evidence supporting that
budget. Professional costs are well-documented.
Does the project leverage community
partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
5 1 In-kind appears to be cash rather than in-kind
and looks to be UA's contribution to the project.
Lacking specific examples of partnerships
Does the project leverage other financial
resources?
25 6 25% non-federal funds
Feasibility/Community Impact 40 34
What primary percent of median income
persons are targeted?
20 20 <30% AMI
Will the project assist any specific
vulnerable populations?
5 5 Persons with disabilities
Does the project have a reasonable per-
person/unit cost compared to other
projects of similar scope?
5 2 $60.8k/property, $20.3k/unit, $20.3k/person
Does the project schedule adequately
demonstrate the project will be completed
within the required time period?
5 2 Project timeline is unrealistic, but project may be
completed within one year; fundraising
completed after purchase does not make sense
Does the project provide a long-term
solution to the need identified?
5 5 Intent to keep as permanent affordable housing;
no recent known sales of affordable units
Capacity/History 15 4
Has the applicant demonstrated it can
successfully complete projects and that
the current request is necessary? (i.e.
past projects are substantially complete)
5 0 No experience/history with City projects; would
benefit from working with local funds prior to
federal funds
Does the organization have the capacity
to complete the project based on current
description of staff?
5 2 Staff experienced in providing services, though
no noted experience with federal or City projects
Does the organization’s activities and
portfolio provide evidence of ability to
undertake the project as described?
5 2 Experience providing services, but no experience
with federal projects; past compliance issues with
rental permits/Housing Choice Vouchers
Bonus: Is public facilities project
documented in City Steps 2025? 5 0
Total Points 100 57
Federal requirement considerations: Federal financial practices, environmental review, federal
displacement/relocation requirements, underwriting standards, rent limits, 10-year affordability
CDBG/HOME EVALUATION CRITERIA PFHCDC Member: PointsLittle Creations Public FacilityCity South District #1City South District #2Habitat Down Payment Assistance #1Habitat Down Payment Assistance #2Habitat Down Payment Assistance #3Successful Living Acquisition #1Successful Living Acquisition #2Successful Living Acquisition #3Systems Unlimited New ConstructionThe Housing Fellowship CHDO OpsUnlimited Abilities AcquisitionI.Need Priority (max. 10 points)1 How well has the applicant documented the ability of the project to meet a primary goal identified in City Steps 2025?0-10 PointsII.Leveraging Resources/Budget (max. 35 points)1 Does the project have realistic cost estimates? 0-5 Points2 Does the project leverage community partnerships and/or volunteer resources?0-5 Points3 Does the project leverage other financial resources? Guide:0-25% = 0-6 pts26-50% = 7-12 pts51-75% = 13-19 pts76-99% = 20-25 ptsSubtotalIII.Feasibility/Community Impact (max. 40 points)1 What primary percent of median income persons are targeted? Guide:0-30%=20 pts31-50%=15 pts51-60%=10 pts61-80%=2 pts2 Will the project assist any specific vulnerable populations? 0-5 Points3 Does the project have a reasonable per-person/unit cost compared to other projects of similar scope?0-5 Points4 Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be completed within the required time period? 0-5 Points5 Does the project provide a long-term solution to the need 0-5 PointsSubtotalIVCapacity/History (max. 15 points)1 Has the applicant demonstrated it can successfully complete projects and that the current request is necessary? (i.e. past projects are substantially complete) 0-5 Points2 Does the organization have the capacity to complete the project based on current description of staff?0-5 Points3 Does the organization’s activities and portfolio provide evidence of ability to undertake the project as described?0-5 PointsSubtotalBonus: Is public facilities project documented in City Steps 2025?5 PointsMaximum Points: 100 TOTAL:Housing
Requested
EA2A
Recomm.
Grow Johnson County ‐ FY21 Season 10,000$ Max : $15,000
Houses into Homes ‐ Inventory Mgt 5,438$ Min :$5,000
Successful Living ‐ Snow/Mow 9,200$
Successful Living ‐ Software 13,350$
Unlimited Abilities ‐ Operations 11,300$
Total 49,288$
Recommended EA2A 25,000$
Emerging Aid to Agencies Applications Summary
All EA2A
HCDC EA2A ALLOCATIONS: FY20
Project Name Requested Allocated
Percent
Allocation Amended
CWJ - Forest View MH Park Redevelopment 15,000 $ 5,000 $ 33% 5,000 $
Grow JC - 2019 Production 15,000 $ 9,000 $ 60% 9,000 $
Johnson Clean Energy District - Start Up 12,000 $ - $ 0% - $
Little Creations Academy - Smart Board 6,970 $ - $ 0% - $
Successful Living - Additional Staffing Pay 15,000 $ 5,000 $ 33% 5,000 $
Unlimited Abilities - Building Acquisition 15,000 $ - $ 0% - $
FY20
JOHNSON COUNTY
MOBILE HOME
TASK FORCE
FINAL REPORT
NOVEMBER 2019
2 | Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Final Report, November 2019
SUMMARY
The Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force has issued a set of twelve
recommendations to be adopted by city and county governments. The recommendations
comprise policy solutions, improvements to practices, funding priorities, and public
advocacy.
In addition to recommendations for city and county leaders, this report details needed
state-level funding vehicles and improvements that will protect the rights of
manufactured housing residents. The report also contains existing data about
manufactured housing communities in Johnson County.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Sara Barron Johnson County Affordable Housing
Coalition
Rockne Cole
Iowa City City Council
Terry Donahue
Mayor, North Liberty City Council
Charles Eastham
Center for Worker Justice
Candance Evans
Vice President, Golfview Residents
Association
Meghann Foster
Coralville City Council
Lisa Green-Douglass Chair, Johnson County Board of
Supervisors
Jim Kringlen Iowa Legal Aid
John McKinstry Johnson County Affordable Housing
Coalition
Rafael Morataya
Center for Worker Justice
Royceann Porter
Johnson County Board of
Supervisors
Larissa Rosenquist
Cole Mobile Homes
Mazahir Salih
Iowa City City Council
Leonard Sandler
University of Iowa College of Law
Pauline Taylor Mayor Pro Tem, Iowa City City
Council
Zach Wahls Iowa Senate District 37
Paula Vaughan Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition
3 | Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Final Report, November 2019
INTRODUCTION
Manufactured housing communities, also referred to as “mobile home parks” or “trailer
parks,” provide housing to approximately 3,000 households in Johnson County 1 and are
one of our nation’s most “naturally-occurring” (i.e., unsubsidized) affordable housing
sources.2
It is critically important to preserve the affordability and quality of manufactured housing
communities. The monthly cost of lot rent in Johnson County manufactured housing
communities averaged $250-450 in 2019. Nationwide, 80% of mobile home residents
own their home.3 Even for those paying a loan or rent on the dwelling itself, the total
housing cost is often significantly below the monthly cost of a modest two-bedroom
apartment.4 Thus, manufactured housing communities provide a level of housing
affordability that is otherwise unmet in the private market.
Because of this lack of options, owners of manufactured housing communities who
dramatically raise the monthly lot rent can be assured that residents lack reasonable
alternatives. Residents can quickly become severely housing insecure as rents rise, forced
to choose between housing costs and meeting other basic needs.
Before 2019, few manufactured housing communities in Johnson County were owned by
large, non-local companies (Breckenridge, located on Hwy 6 southeast of Iowa City, and
Regency, located on Old Highway 218 southwest of Iowa City are notable exceptions). In
April 2019, a new-to-the-area private equity group purchased three local parks: Golfview
in North Liberty, Sunrise Village just east of Iowa City, and West Branch Mobile Home
Park. This same company completed the purchase of Western Hills in Coralville in
September.
Immediately following their purchase of Golfview, the new owners announced a steep
hike to lot rents—an up-to 63% increase. Following pushback from residents, the
company modified their approach and staggered the increases over a one-year period.
Still, residents face unprecedented uncertainty and continued concerns with ongoing
management practices that threaten the stability of their neighborhood.
The purchase of manufactured home communities by large, multistate corporations is a
nationwide trend. National advocacy group MHAction provides insight into the intentions
1 See Appendix A
2 Ehrenfeucht, Renia. “Moving Beyond the Mobile Myth: Preserving Manufactured Housing Communities.”
Grounded Solutions Network. https://groundedsolutions.org/sites/default/files/2018-
11/Moving%20Beyond%20the%20Mobile%20Myth.pdf
3 Ibid
4 Housing and Urban Development Fair Market Rent was $958 for a two-bedroom unit in the Iowa City Metro Area in 2018. Purchase prices for manufactured homes vary widely, ranging from $5,000 or less to $80,000 or more, depending on age and size. Monthly rent or loan payments generally range from $200-600, based on a survey of residents and mobile home listings and a survey of manufactured housing community managers.
4 | Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Final Report, November 2019
of these owners in their 2019 report, “Private Equity Giants Converge on Manufactured
Homes”:
Over the past 20 years, manufactured home communities increasingly have gone
from “mom and pop” enterprises to ownership by large, multi-state corporations…
With limited affordable housing options to turn to, the homeowners are forced to
choose between paying for increasing housing costs and other basic necessities, like
food and medicine, or abandoning their homes. This economic trap is not a side
effect but a building block of the business model. RV Horizons co-owner Frank
Rolfe notoriously said that a manufactured home park “is like a Waffle
House where the customers are chained to their booths.” emphasis added
The report estimates that the top 50 manufactured housing community owners now own
around 680,000 home sites, representing a significant and growing segment of the
nation’s mobile homes.5
In response to increasingly predatory practices from private equity firms, “resident-owned
communities” are growing in popularity. Under this model, residents cooperatively own
and manage the parks for themselves. National advocacy groups like MHAction and ROC
USA provide technical assistance and, in the case of ROC USA, funding for residents
seeking to purchase and manage their manufactured housing community.
Because of Iowa state laws that offer little protection to manufactured housing residents,
residents impacted by new ownership found they had very limited legal recourse, and our
cities struggled to respond to this unexpected crisis. The task force was convened to
identify what local government can do to protect residents. Our recommendations
include but are not limited to strategies that would encourage and financially support a
transition to resident-owned communities in Johnson County.
THE BASICS OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING
Manufactured housing communities consist of land, rented by the parcel, or “lot,” to
residents; roads; utilities; and recreation amenities. Private ownership of the land by an
individual or corporation generally means that the community owners are responsible for
maintenance of infrastructure. Communities outside of city limits are not connected to
municipal water or sewer, and individual homes are not generally metered for these
utilities.
Many residents of manufactured housing own their home (and rent the land on which it
sits), while others rent both the home and the land. In Iowa, mobile homes are regarded
as “personal property,” rather than real estate.6 This impacts many economic factors for
5 MHAction. “Private Equity Giants Converge on Manufactured Homes” (February 2019). https://mhaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/PrivateEquityGiantsFinal.pdf
6 If a mobile home is permanently placed outside a mobile home park, the home is assessed and taxed as real estate.
5 | Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Final Report, November 2019
mobile homes, including their eligibility for traditional mortgages, their assessed value,
rates of taxation, and the process required to transfer ownership.7
Although manufactured homes are referred to as “mobile,” moving a manufactured home
is costly and often structurally infeasible. The local rate for relocating a mobile home from
one community to another is $5,000-7,000 per unit.8 The moving process involves
removing any attached structures, such as porches or ramps; packing and securing every
object, from the largest to smallest, inside the home; raising the home onto a trailer bed;
navigating the oversized load around roads and obstacles; leveling the home on its new
site; and unpacking and reattaching structures. Even with care and expertise, many
manufactured homes in Johnson County are not possible to relocate because of their age
and/or lack of stability.9
RECOMMENDATIONS
Funding
1. Make rental assistance and/or relocation assistance available to residents
harmed by unexpected, sharp rent increases
Although it is not financially feasible for municipalities to provide rental assistance or
relocation assistance to every household that faces eviction, displacement, or rent
increases, the large number of residents impacted at once through the sale of their
manufactured housing community justifies one-time funding that can mitigate the
damage caused. Because of the difficulty residents of manufactured housing will have
in finding another comparable option that fits their monthly housing budget, a short-
term investment that keeps them in their home is preferable to other outcomes, such
as homelessness or severe housing instability. Temporary assistance will give a
household more time to find a suitable alternative.
The task force recommends a maximum period for rental assistance of 180 days, with
each municipality determining for itself the extent of the assistance, including
household eligibility criteria. Similarly, each municipality should create a relocation
assistance program that meets the needs of its residents. Some considerations
include the feasibility of moving the dwelling itself and if lots are currently available in
other parks. For households that need to leave a mobile home, relocation assistance
should evaluate whether the owner is able to sell their home or loss of assets due to
relocation, security deposit costs for a suitable rental and moving and other expenses.
7 Freddie Mac. Manufactured Homes website. https://sf.freddiemac.com/working-with-us/affordable-lending/duty-to-serve/manufactured-housing
8 Local estimates provided by manufactured housing community owners of Regency and Holiday Lodge in 2019
9 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. “A Study of Older Manufactured Homes in Johnson County: Too Dangerous to Ignore” (March 2010).
6 | Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Final Report, November 2019
The federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (1970)
provides a comprehensive model for administration of a relocation program and a
complete list of household costs to consider when assessing the expense associate
with relocation.
2. Partner with local banking institutions to back loans to owner-occupants of
manufactured housing
Because manufactured homes are considered personal property and not real estate,
and because residents do not own the land on which their home sits, the value of
manufactured houses depreciates over time. When owner-occupants need financing
for repairs or updates, they find that they do not have enough equity in their home to
secure a loan, regardless of their credit history or income. Cities and counties can use
their resources to enable secured loans and can work with financial institutions to
fulfill the institutions’ obligations for community reinvestment.
3. Establish Urban Renewal districts, triggering the option of tax-increment
financing and revenue, which can then help to fund the purchase of
manufactured housing communities by resident cooperatives
Urban Renewal districts can extend up to 2 miles outside a city’s limits, providing
protections even for communities that exist just outside incorporated areas (e.g.,
Sunrise Village or Modern Manor). Using this lever, cities can generate revenue—
beyond general revenue and without a referendum—to be used toward the financing
of manufactured housing communities purchases by resident cooperatives. Each
municipality can execute this strategy based on need and the opportunities it may
present.
Local Policy
4. Strengthen zoning ordinances for manufactured housing communities
Johnson County, Coralville, and North Liberty have zoning ordinances (Class RMH,
R-5 Mobile Home Park District, and R-FB, respectively) that affirmatively designate a
neighborhood as manufactured housing. Iowa City’s manufactured housing
communities have a more general zoning, but each has an additional planned
development overlay that designates manufactured housing. In order for an owner to
redevelop these properties, they must gain approval from Planning and Zoning and
the city/county elected body. This protection is significant, as new owners have raised
the threat of redeveloping properties and displacing current residents. The rezoning
process grants more power to municipalities to prevent redevelopment and resulting
displacement/loss of affordable housing.
Another function of zoning ordinances may be to allow for smaller, individual lots
which together with a manufactured or modular home can be sold and owned as real
estate.
7 | Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Final Report, November 2019
Adopting the best practices from each municipalities’ zoning for manufactured
housing communities will lead to quality improvements in safety standards,
amenities, etc. as well as uniformity in requirements and protections, countywide. The
task force recommends reviewing the zoning ordinances of other cities and counties
in Iowa to develop the strongest zoning ordinances allowed by existing law.
5. In case of annexation, implement zoning and conditional zoning agreement
standards that assure the continued presence of manufactured housing and
that assure protections for residents
Benefits to being annexed by a city include infrastructure investments and
redistributed responsibilities for maintenance, etc. In order to access these benefits,
owners should be expected to retain manufactured housing and to offer protections
to residents. Annexation agreements should consider the opportunity to extend
protections for residents such as rental increase caps and stronger just-cause eviction
standards.
Practices
6. Be specific about manufactured housing as a housing type when drafting
plans, reports, and programs
In the task force’s review of housing documents and housing programs,
manufactured housing was often not included or marginally included as a housing
type. Because manufactured housing is a significant segment of our community’s
affordable housing, it is critical that we more intentionally discuss and plan for its
future. Residents of manufactured housing who own their homes exist somewhere in
between “owners” and “renters,” and municipalities must be more specific in
acknowledging this housing scenario in housing overviews.
Additionally, we found a high degree of uncertainty among residents of
manufactured housing and service providers about whether manufactured homes
were eligible for repair programs, loans, or other housing assistance. Stating clearly
whether owners or renters of manufactured homes are eligible for a program will
make it clear when services are available and when there is a gap in services for
manufactured housing residents.
7. Commit to a regular review of manufactured housing communities housing
stock, assessed value, and other data
Included in this report is data compiled by University of Iowa College of Law students
under the direction of Len Sandler, task force member and faculty at the UI College of
Law. In order to make effective public policy and implement effective programs, cities
and the county need reliable and current data. Cities and the county should establish
a mechanism for collecting and reporting this data on a regular, ongoing basis.
8 | Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Final Report, November 2019
8. Issue a public, joint statement in partnership with all Johnson County elected
bodies against predatory ownership practices and in support of increased
rights for manufactured housing residents.
Although local government cannot prohibit the sale of manufactured housing
communities to predatory owners, elected officials can be vocal about expectations
for owners of manufactured housing communities who want to do business in
Johnson County. This statement can include a commitment to preserving
manufactured housing communities (rather than redeveloping them), disapproval of
steep rent increases and other predatory management practices, and unequivocal
support for state law changes that protect residents’ rights. We need our leaders to
publicly rebuke new ownership that threatens housing stability for our some of our
most economically vulnerable neighbors. The task force recommends that each
elected body collaborate on a joint public statement.
9. Divest from private equity funds that generate returns for investors using
predatory manufactured housing community management practices
Institutional investments such as public pensions and government retirement plans
may be funding private equity firms with predatory ownership practices. For example,
research is currently underway to uncover whether IPERS is investing with companies
that make their money by exploiting manufactured housing residents. The task force
recommends a review of municipal investments and amending municipal investments
as appropriate.
10. Connect with an organization like ROC USA, which assists residents in forming
cooperatives to purchase and manage their manufactured housing community,
e.g., “resident-owned communities.”
From rocusa.com 10:
“ROC USA is a non-profit social venture scaling resident ownership of manufacture
home communities since 2008. Together with ROC USA Network, a group of nine
regional non-profit affiliates, and ROC USA Capital, a CDFI lending subsidiary, we
work with 250 resident-owned communities in 16 states.”
In order to protect our manufactured housing communities, we need to ensure that
these communities are owned by good-faith operators who will not sell the land to
predatory owners. ROC USA provides both capital and technical assistance to
residents who want to purchase their community.
Municipal leaders can facilitate this connection, ensuring that residents have the
knowledge and resources, with city/county support and guidance, to acquire
ownership if they so choose.
10 https://rocusa.org/about-roc-usa/
9 | Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Final Report, November 2019
Cities may also consider amending zoning ordinances in order to allow current lease
lines to become separate lots for purchase (which are likely to be smaller lots than
currently allowed). Resources for the purchase of land by residents include ROC USA’s
CDFI, Urban Renewal funds, state funding, and/or financing specifically designated for
manufactured housing through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
State advocacy/laws
11. Support, through lobbying and relationships with other municipalities, the five
advocacy statements from the Iowa Manufactured Housing Residents’ Bill of
Rights 11:
Rent protection Right now, with only 60-day notice, park owners can impose rent
increases of any amount they choose. We can no longer allow predatory out-of-state
investors to target Iowa residents of manufactured housing communities with rent
gouging. We need statewide protections against unjustified rent increases, including a
statewide cap on frequency and percentage of rent increases and a much longer
notice period for proposed increases.
Good Cause Eviction Standards Owners must be required to show good cause
before evicting a resident. Standards for good cause must be consistent and enforced
across the state.
Fair Fees Fees must be capped at reasonable levels and tied to good cause, so that
owners cannot abuse fee systems to circumvent rent protections or target individual
families for eviction. We need statewide limits on how much owners can charge in late
fees, and a standard time frame before late fees can be assessed.
Fair, Legal Leases State law must require lease provisions that spell out park owners’
responsibilities to maintain clean and safe parks and prohibit abusive lease provisions.
The state must adopt a clear, effective mechanism for enforcing these guidelines and
requiring owners to remove illegal provisions from leases.
Resident Rights if Property Up for Sale To prevent mass displacement of low-
income Iowans and destruction of affordable housing stock, local residents must be
offered first right of purchase when their communities are up for sale. Current owners
should be barred from evicting residents for a period long enough to allow residents
to pursue local ownership. If residents are forced to move as a last resort, owners
profiting from the sale of park must be required to provide significant relocation
assistance.
12. Support, through lobbying and relationships with other municipalities, a tax
credit program that incentivizes the transfer/sale of land to residents of the
community.
The sale of land to residents protects against “bad-actor” ownership and allows
residents to build equity. The tax credit works by refunding, to the seller, capital gains
taxes assessed after the sale of a manufactured housing community, when the sale is
11 This Bill of Rights will be circulated as a petition and presented to the Iowa Legislature for the 2020 session.
10 | Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Final Report, November 2019
to the residents of the community. Tax incentives to encourage sale to residents are
currently available in states like Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.12
CONCLUSION
These twelve recommendations outline the opportunities and limitations of local
municipalities to protect and stabilize manufactured housing as a continued source of
affordable housing in Johnson County. The Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force
urges Johnson County and the cities of Coralville, Iowa City, and North Liberty to
collaboratively enact each of the recommendations in a manner which will best serve our
community.
These recommendations will not fully reverse the harm caused by predatory owners. They
can, however, set a course for a future where the rights of manufactured housing
residents are strengthened and preserved, where cooperative ownership by residents of
manufactured housing communities and the stability it can provide is nourished by
partnerships among local and national resources, and where manufactured housing can
continue to be a stable, safe, and affordable housing option for Johnson County
households.
12 National Consumer Law Center. “Promoting Resident Ownership of Communities” (February 2015).
https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/manufactured_housing/promoting-resident-ownership2.pdf
APPENDIX
Data on Manufactured Housing in Johnson County
Data compiled by students with the UI Law Clinic (under the supervision of Len Sandler,
Task Force Member)
Narrative
Private equity firms earn huge returns on their investments by taking advantage of mobile home
owners’ insecurity. These firms maximize profits by jacking up lot rents. For example, available
numbers on mobile home parks in Johnson County shows an average increase in lot rent since 2012
of over $170 for parks purchased by private equity firms. This well exceeded the $40 uptick for those
that have not been purchased by equity firms. At one park owned by an equity firm, the current lot
rent is the highest in the county: $510. Indeed, of the lot rents we could obtain, the three highest lot
rents in Johnson County are all at parks owned by investment firms. See chart 2019 + 2012 Snapshot.
Investment firms have also made lease agreements harder to understand. One park’s lease agreement
is 24 pages long, saturated with dense legal terminology.
Johnson County’s mobile home park market is attractive to potential investors. According to the Iowa
City and Johnson County assessors’ offices, mobile home park values have skyrocketed. See
chart Iowa City Assessor’s Original. From 2012 to 2019, numerous mobile home parks have more than
doubled in value, several have doubled in value, and many others have substantially risen in
value. See chart 2019 & 2012 Compared. For one park, the assessed value leaped from about $1
million in 2012 to around $10 million in 2019. See chart 2019 & 2012 Assessments Compared. Even
these assessed values are far less than the sale prices of recently-sold mobile home parks. See
chart 2019 Assessment & Recent Sales Compared. A majority of the parks that have sold since 2014
have sale prices approximately twice that of their 2019 assessed values. See chart 2019 Assessment &
Recent Sales Compared. Based off the assessed values, we can’t predict mobile homes’ market values,
and market values are what drives equity firm investment. So, with these charts, we can’t predict
which mobile homes are at risk of being purchased by equity firms.
Johnson County thrives only when all our communities are thriving, and the displacement of families
has negative impacts on our entire community. It is unfair for a families’ housing security to depend
on whether they live in a manufactured or traditional home.
Sincerely,
Joe Porter
Clinic Law Student
On behalf of Len Sandler, Zack Martin, and Cailin Smith
From Brad Comer, Iowa City Assessor, 10/3/2019
Johnson County Mobile Home Parks
Parcel Number Owner Name Spaces 15 Assmt/Space 2017 Assmt 17 Assmt/Space 19 Assmt 19 Assmt/Space Sale Date Sale $$/space
10-33-177-001 Regency 233 9,578$ $1,967,600 8,445$ 2,839,500$ 12,187$
05-22-177-002 / 05-23-326-001Parkview Development 104 10,083$ $1,134,200 10,906$ 1,206,100$ 11,597$
09-32-252-002 Iowa City Mhp, LLC 104 13,004$ $1,396,900 13,432$ 1,550,600$ 14,910$ Jun-14 1,250,000$ $12,019
06-13-152-002 Holiday Mobile Lodge, Inc 262 17,459$ $4,683,700 17,877$ 5,056,600$ 19,300$
17-10-302-005 Burr, Richard 20 18,890$ $380,800 19,040$ 388,400$ 19,420$
09-19-251-002 Hames Manufactured Homes 132 19,339$ $2,650,640 20,081$ 2,658,400$ 20,139$ Apr-19 5,500,000$ $41,667
06-28-464-006 Cocr Castle Mhp (Tiffin)74 21,792$ $1,638,500 22,142$ 1,661,300$ 22,450$ Jan-19 3,500,000$ $47,297
06-13-426-008 Golfview Investors LC 274 21,947$ $6,117,249 22,326$ 6,154,100$ 22,460$ Mar-19 12,300,000$ $44,891
09-18-351-018 / 09-18-351-016Modern Manor, Inc 314 23,332$ $6,208,430 19,772$ 6,208,300$ 19,772$
06-26-301-001 Western Hills 285 24,267$ $7,018,610 24,627$ 7,035,700$ 24,687$
10-21-376-050 Lake Ridge 392 25,748$ $9,878,280 25,200$ 9,878,300$ 25,200$
County Totals & Weighted Average 2194 20,100$ $43,074,909 19,633$ 44,637,300$ 20,345$
19,339$
Iowa City Mobile Home Parks
Parcel Number Address Spaces 15 Assmt/Space 2017 Assmt 17 Assmt/Space 19 Assmt 19 Assmt/Space Sale Date Sale $$/Space
10-04-101-001 1205 Laura Dr (Forest View)155 11,965$ 2,216,880$ 14,302$ 3,121,130$ 20,136$ 1/6/2016 4,000,000$ $25,806
10-22-135-002 2018 Waterfront Dr (Hill Top)152 12,457$ 2,156,070$ 14,185$ 3,744,060$ 24,632$ 7/28/2017 6,425,000$ $42,270
10-22-329-006 2128 S Riverside Dr 137 13,917$ 2,252,370$ 16,441$ 2,951,850$ 21,546$ 5/1/2013 $3,000,000 $21,898
10-24-376-003 2801 Hwy 6 (Bon-Aire)406 15,221$ 6,873,920$ 16,931$ 8,455,090$ 20,825$
10-25-203-006 Heinz Rd (Saddlebrook)150 20,093$ 3,335,400$ 22,236$ 3,935,370$ 26,236$
10-22-351-009 2254 S Riverside Dr 55 21,941$ 1,433,730$ 26,068$ 1,653,800$ 30,069$ 12/1/2014 $2,200,000 $40,000
Iowa City Totals & Weighted Average 1055 15,218$ $18,268,370 $17,316 $23,861,300 22,617$
14,569$ $16,686 $23,089
Assessment Asessment Per
Space Assessment Asessment Per Space
Lake Ridge 392 9,878,300$ 25,200$ 1,017,618$ 2,596$ 8,860,682$
Western Hills 285 7,035,700$ 24,687$ 5,850,500$ 20,528$ 1,185,200$
Modern Manor, Inc 314 6,208,300$ 19,772$ 2,386,300$ 7,600$ 3,822,000$
Golfview Investors LC 274 6,154,100$ 22,460$ 4,940,600$ 18,031$ 1,213,500$
Holiday Mobile Lodge, Inc 262 5,056,600$ 19,300$ 4,468,520$ 17,055$ 588,080$
Regency 233 2,839,500$ 12,187$ 3,300,000$ 14,163$ (460,500)$
Sunrise 132 2,658,400$ 20,139$ 1,141,300$ 8,646$ 1,517,100$
Clear Creek 74 1,661,300$ 22,450$ 1,020,400$ 13,789$ 640,900$
Breckenridge 104 1,550,600$ 14,910$ 1,434,700$ 13,795$ 115,900$
Parkview 104 1,206,100$ 11,597$ 517,050$ 4,972$ 689,050$
Burr, Richard 20 388,400$ 19,420$ ---
Totals & Weighted Average 2194 44,637,300$ 20,345$ 26,076,988$ 11,886$
Median $19,772 13,792$
Assessment Asessment/ Space Assessment Asessment/ Space
Forest View 155 3,121,130$ 20,136$ 1,257,120$ 8,110$ 1,864,010$
Hill Top 152 3,744,060$ 24,632$ 1,353,180$ 8,903$ 2,390,880$
Cole's 137 2,951,850$ 21,546$ 1,414,480$ 10,325$ 1,537,370$
Bon-Aire 406 8,455,090$ 20,825$ 4,985,180$ 12,279$ 3,469,910$
Saddlebrook 150 3,935,370$ 26,236$ 2,604,450$ 17,363$ 1,330,920$
Cole's 55 1,653,800$ 30,069$ 860,030$ 15,637$ 793,770$
Totals & Weighted Average 1055 $23,861,300 22,617$ 12,474,440$ 11,824$
Median $23,089 11,302$
2012
Change in ValueNameSpaces
Johnson County Mobile Home Parks: 2019 and 2012 Change in Assessed Value
Iowa City Mobile Home Parks: 2019 and 2012 Change in Assessed Value
2019 2012
Change in ValueNameSpaces
2019
University of Iowa Law and Policy in Action Clinic, October 2019
Sale Date
Name Spaces Assessment Per Space Date Sale Price Per Space
Lake Ridge 392 9,878,300$ 25,200$ --
Western Hills 285 7,035,700$ 24,687$ --
Modern Manor, Inc 314 6,208,300$ 19,772$ --
Golfview Investors LC 274 6,154,100$ 22,460$ Mar-19 12,300,000$ 44,891$
Holiday Mobile Lodge, Inc 262 5,056,600$ 19,300$ --
Regency 233 2,839,500$ 12,187$ --
Sunrise 132 2,658,400$ 20,139$ Apr-19 5,500,000$ 41,667$
Clear Creek 74 1,661,300$ 22,450$ Jan-19 3,500,000$ 47,297$
Breckenridge 104 1,550,600$ 14,910$ Jun-14 1,250,000$ 12,019$
Parkview 104 1,206,100$ 11,597$ --
Burr, Richard 20 388,400$ 19,420$ --
Totals & Average 2194 44,637,300$ 20,345$ ---
Sale Date
Name Spaces Assessment Per Space Date Sale Price Per Space
Forest View 155 3,121,130$ 20,136$ 1/6/2016 4,000,000$ 25,806$
Hill Top 152 3,744,060$ 24,632$ 7/28/2017 6,425,000$ 42,270$
Cole's 137 2,951,850$ 21,546$ 5/1/2013 3,000,000$ 21,898$
Bon-Aire 406 8,455,090$ 20,825$ --
Saddlebrook 150 3,935,370$ 26,236$ --
Cole's 55 1,653,800$ 30,069$ 12/1/2014 2,200,000$ 40,000$
Totals & Average 1055 23,861,300$ 22,617$ ---
Johnson County Mobile Home Parks 2019 Assessment & Recent Sales Comparison
Iowa City Mobile Home Parks 2019 Assessment & Recent Sales Comparison
2019 Recent Sale
2019 Recent Sale
University of Iowa Law and Policy in Action Clinic, October 2019
Name Owner Year Location Acres Total
Lots
Empty
Lots Assessment
2012: Baculis MH Lodge
David Sr. and Karen
Baculis 1970 Iowa City 20 115 10 $1,414,480 $300 ALL
2019: Cole's MHP BTM & J Ltd.1970 Iowa City 17.95 139 $2,951,850 $345 ALL
2012: Bon Aire MH Lodge
Bon Aire Mobile Home
Lodge Inc.1967 Iowa City 61.11 351 52 $4,895,180
$275
$290
SW
DW
2019: Bon Aire MH Lodge
Bon Aire Mobile Home
Lodge Inc.1967 Iowa City 61.11 384 $8,455,090
$345
$360
SW
DW
2012: Breckenridge
Estates
Dennis & Connie
Huedepohl 1959
Johnson
County 12.49 94 5 $1,434,700 $290 ALL
2019: Breckenridge
Estates Iowa City Mhp LLC 1959
Johnson
County 32.77 104 $1,690,154 $445 SW
2012: Clear Creek MH
Park James F. Riggan Tiffin 62 11 $1,020,400
2019: Clear Creek MH
Park Cocr Castle Mhp, LLC 1973 Tiffin 14.26 76 $1,810,817 $420 All
2012: Forestview Trailer
Ct Btm & J Ltd 1950 Iowa City 15.6 153 2 $1,257,120 $290 SW
2019: Forestview Trailer
Ct North Dubuque LLC 1950 Iowa City 15.6 154 $3,121,130 $310 All
2012: Golfview MH Park Golfview Investors LC 1984
North
Liberty 48.581 222 30 $4,940,600
$275
$285
SW
DW
2019: Golfview MH Park Mh Golfview, LLC 1996
North
Liberty 48.58 274 $6,201,200
$475
$450
Corner
Other
Reported Lot
Rent
Page 1 of 3
Name Owner Year Location Acres Total
Lots
Empty
Lots Assessment
2012: Hawkeye Trailer Ct Hawkeye Trailer Court 1966 Iowa City 1.89 10 1 $192,320
2019: Hawkeye Trailer Ct TP Holdings 1966 Iowa City 1.89 10 $338,260
2012: Hilltop MH Park MJ Dahlen Hilltop LLC 1957 Iowa City 15.38 147 3 $1,353,180 $290 SW
2019: Hilltop MH Park Cole Family Investment, Inc.1957 Iowa City 15.42 152 2 $3,744,060
$335
$350 SW DW
2012: Holiday MH Court Holiday Mobile Lodge Inc.1966
North
Liberty 32.77 248 25 $4,468,520 $255 ALL
2019: Holiday MH Park Holiday Mobile Lodge Inc.1966
North
Liberty 32.77 262 $5,056,600
2012: Knollwood MH Park
Knollwood Mobile Home
Park LLC 1960
Johnson
County 3.5 12 $337,510
2019: Not in operation
2012: Lake Ridge Estates Jebb LC 1994
Johnson
County 74 400 5 $1,017,618 $325 ALL
2019: Lake Ridge Estates Jebb LC 1994
Johnson
County 113 428 $10,000,700 $350 All
2012: Michael F Camp
Prop.Michael F. Camp 1960 Iowa City 0.99 7 0 $140,140 $230 SW
2019: Not in operation
Reported Lot
Rent
Page 2 of 3
Name Owner Year Location Acres Total
Lots
Empty
Lots Assessment
2012: Modern Manor Modern Manor Inc.1983
Johnson
County 48.48 313 2 $2,386,300 $350 ALL
2019: Modern Manor Modern Manor Inc.1982
Johnson
County 48.85 315 $6,210,900 $340 All
2012: Parkview MH Parkview Development 1970 Oxford 79.82 79 62 $517,050
2019: Parkview MH Parkview Development 1970 Oxford 79.82 $948,400
2012: Regency MH
Community Regency Iowa City Inc.1971
Johnson
County 41.26 186 54 $3,300,000 $400 ALL
2019: Regency MH
Community Regency Iowa City Inc.1971
Johnson
County 41.26 234 $2,843,900
2012: Saddlebrook Paddock LLC 1999 Iowa City 31.66 136 0 $2,604,450
2019: Saddlebrook Paddock LLC 1999 Iowa City 28.63 133 $3,935,370
2012: Sunrise MH Village
Hames Manufactured
Home Communities LP 1971
Johnson
County 26.72 133 3 $1,141,300
2019: Sunrise MH Village Sinrise Village, LLC 1971
Johnson
County 24.42 132 $2,658,400 $510 All
2012: Thatcher MH Park Jim Hammes 1974 Iowa City 14.36 53 0 $860,030 $310 ALL
2019: Cole's MHP (former
Thatcher)Cole's Community LLC 1974 Iowa City 14.36 55 $1,653,800 $345 ALL
2012: Western Hills M
Estates Gordon Family Trust etc.1972 Coralville 81.43 209 70 $5,850,500 $325 DW
2019: Western Hills M
Estates Gordon Family Trust 1972 Coralville 72.1 $6,942,400
Reported Lot
Rent
Page 3 of 3
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 19, 2019 – 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Aguilar (via phone), Megan Alter, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa
Fixmer-Oraiz, Lyn Dee Kealey, John McKinstry
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Drabek, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly
OTHERS PRESENT: Nicki Ross, Sofia Mehaffey, Lindsay Glynn, Barbara Vinograde, Ellen
McCabe, Delaney Dixon, Missie Forbes, Lucy Barker, Jason Barker,
Sara Barron, Adam Robinson, Cady Gerlach, Roger Goedken, Becci
Reedus
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC requests a joint meeting with Council about Aid to Agencies being a priority for
budget allocations.
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends to City Council approval of the City Steps 2025 draft, Consolidated
Plan for 2021-2025, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC approves FY21 Application Materials, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Fixmer-Oraiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes) noted that they asked to come and share with HCDC about what
Houses into Homes does, so staff invited them to speak during public comment. Barker walked through a
handout they provided. Since November 2018, they received 197 referrals which included 661 individuals.
Nearly half of referrals came from the School District and another quarter came from DVIP. The
remainder comes from other agencies such as PATH, UAY, Shelter House, and others. During that same
time, Houses into Homes delivered to 157 households, serving 598 individuals. Their current waiting list
went from 10 households to 40 households which was a sudden large increase in demand. Barker noted
they need a paid staff person who can dedicate the time to the program because right now they have her
and Selena, who has more than full time job. They’re both doing this work as volunteers and it takes
nearly two full time positions a week to get it done. They talked to some City Councilors who suggested
they make a request of City Council because 60% of their deliveries are to Iowa City residents and also it
covers much of the school district. Lehmann stated the result of the meeting was City Council allocated
$25,000 but part of that was going to possibly come from a grant. Barker noted they have already been
working with the landfill and recycling and applied for a grant, and Willis Dady is going to work on a
mattress recycling, where they take apart all the pieces and use those. Barker stated they are the only
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 2 of 18
reliable mattress recycling in eastern Iowa or at least in the area. Barker confirmed Council approved
$25,000 with $10,000 most likely coming from that grant and then the other from the affordable housing
fund.
Eastham stated the school district doesn't have any source of funds that the district itself can use to offset
a service like this, and he made that point to the council last Tuesday night.
McKinstry asked what is the annual budget for the coming year and total budget for Houses into Homes?
Also in the future in terms of sustainability, do they plan to participate in the Aid to Agency's funding
process? Barker confirmed they do and stated they are young enough that they don't qualify for the
legacy funding so they will be applying for the aid to emerging agencies in the next round that comes up
in January.
Jason Barker (Houses into Homes) stated he is Lucy's husband and ended up as the bookkeeper, driving
the 26-foot truck, and he’s a physician at the hospital and an educator at the College of Medicine. With
regards to the question on yearly budget, he’d like to clarify if that means what they anticipate with adding
on a full-time position, or for the 12 months going forward. McKinstry asked what they spent in the last
year and they anticipate spending this year, and if they have a projection for next year. Barker stated he
can give estimates, for the last year to date, it is in the order of $40,000 in expenditures. They have had
approximately $50,000 in income; they have been trying to maintain a cash amount that in the event that
all income dried up they would not get kicked out of their 3500 square foot building because that's really
what makes this possible. Barker added they’ve been paying about 0.4 FTEs for Selena for about the last
six months, so she's had some partial support but that really only covers two days. Going forward, he
estimates that they could take that $40,000 in expenditures and add on the order of $65,000 total payroll
expense. Barker doesn’t believe there will be major changes from that, but they haven't had the official
board meeting to give the blessing on this, so it is just a good faith estimate for right now. The space they
have is very good, it's really well located. Barker foresees probably a bit of an increase in some
expenditures and will increase the number of deliveries per month from one to hopefully two so an
increase in gas and rental.
Lucy Barker added that their ask of City Council was one time because they just can't get ahead on
fundraising and grant writing. Part of the plan is becoming sustainable
Fixmer-Oraiz commented the Commission has been working closely with many nonprofit organizations,
and everybody does amazing work. It cannot be said what one does is any more important than what
everybody else does so the Commission has worked hard to make sure they create a funding process
that's transparent for agencies that have been long standing. Fixmer-Oraiz agrees emergency funding
would be great and is something she thinks is a good thing, but to give perspective, there's quite an
extensive process, an application requiring organizations to show their budgets and proposed budgets
and the demographics they serve. Therefore, it took a lot of the Commission by surprise that this
allocation happened the way it did, and that Houses into Homes asked for more money than is given to a
lot of organizations that have been around for 15, 20 or 30 years. Fixmer-Oraiz acknowledged what
Houses to Homes does is obviously important to the community however, this is an opportunity to have a
conversation about the process and then also to potentially talk with City Council. Fixmer-Oraiz notes
there has to be goodwill between these organizations and the City, everyone cannot just show up and talk
to Council and get some money. Fixmer-Oraiz stressed this is not about Houses to Homes, she just
wanted to put that out there because there has been some sidelining and the Commission has worked
hard to make a transparent process that makes it fair for everybody. Fixmer-Oraiz also recognizes there
is an incredible community of nonprofits that do phenomenal work and we need to support them all. The
best the Commission is make recommendations, but this process caught a lot of them by surprise.
Fixmer-Oraiz would like to continue working with Houses to Homes and others on how the Commission
can make things better, perhaps do more education with City Council members or City staff or wherever
to remind them there is a process in place and they really need to honor it in fairness to everybody.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 3 of 18
Lehmann noted this conversation should continue but on upcoming meeting agendas.
QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION FOR FY21 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES (A2A) APPLICATIONS:
Fixmer-Oraiz noted the applications have been online, some Commissioners may have questions and
there are folks in the audience.
Lehmann began by noting HCDC said they would only ask questions in advance with the idea that people
would be able to come prepared to the meeting to answer them. He noted they ended up having three
questions and he received two written responses.
Lehmann stated the first questions was to Horizons as it was noticed there seemed to be smaller
amounts of nonwhite and Hispanic folks that they serve, they serve an elderly population, but it's always
important to talk about ways to improve inclusion or how are they trying to address any potential gaps.
The response was from Sophia Mehaffey with Horizons who wrote “Good morning. Because I get this
question frequently from this group I have data printed from February when I researched it again. So the
percentage breakdown for older adults does not match the overall percentage breakdown for either Latinx
or black people. Put another way, there are far more young people of color than older people of color in
Johnson County. In the Latinx community, the total percentage of Johnson County in 2017 was 5%. Only
0.1% of Johnson County residents would be both Latinx and older adults eligible for Meals on Wheels or
congregate dining and of those not all will actually want the service. For the black population, the total
percentage in Johnson County in 2017 was just over 6%. However, only 0.16% of Johnson County
residents were both black and older adults who will also be eligible for Meals on Wheels. The increase in
diversity in our communities is absolutely phenomenal change and as a black woman I welcome that with
open arms. By and large, the people coming to this community are younger than my client base. As this
group ages we will be honored to provide services to all who are of age to qualify for them but must also
unfortunately point to our lower life expectancy, it may impact the data in the future. In the meantime, we
are working to ensure that information about a program is available in an accessible way into that and we
are currently seeking translation services for our print materials. I'll be in attendance at the upcoming
meeting will be happy to discuss it further, if it's helpful.”
Lehmann noted again the question was HCDC noticed there were discrepancies in the number of black
and Latinx populations that Horizons was serving and HCDC wanted to provide them an opportunity to
talk about it.
Sophia Mehaffey (Elder Services, Horizons) noted the way it was phrased when she looked through the
minutes is that as an agency they are serving a smaller percentage as compared to other organizations.
The other organization noted as serving lower numbers was Pathways, which happens to also serve
older adults and would be impacted in the same way. Mehaffey acknowledged it's not 2017 anymore and
there is going to be another census coming up that will supply new data and it might look a little bit
different, though she does not think it's going to swing completely the other way, so it probably still won't
completely match the overall percentage of youth in terms of people of color.
Eastham stated he is interested among older adults who are eligible for Meals on Wheels, older eligible
adults who are over 60, what percentage of that population is Latinx, Black, Asian and white and how do
those percentages compare. Mehaffey replied that the question he’s asking is, in terms of the population
they actually serve, does that match the population that is here? She confirmed yes, it's a small number
of people, it's like one or two or three, but in this city they are only serving 150 people roughly total.
Eastham noted in in advocating for the Commission, having data on the demographic breakdown for each
agency, which he recognizes is difficult to do for some services, he believes the Commission has a
responsibility to see what they can do to understand how well they are serving people of color in the
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 4 of 18
community, no matter their ages. He is not criticizing any agency; he is trying to exercise what he thinks is
the responsibility.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted she’d like to hear from all organizations as they go through the process what can the
HCDC do for them? Mehaffey noted that is an interesting question, she’s never been asked that before.
Fixmer-Oraiz said it doesn’t have to be answered today but wants the Commission to be held
accountable to the agencies that they give recommendations on. Mehaffey thinks one helpful value add
would be serving as a liaison, helping the organizations to understand the City priorities and how they can
either frame or shape the work that they do in order to help the City achieve its goals. Fixmer-Oraiz
thanks Mehaffey for that answer and believes that is something the Commission should talk more about.
Lehmann stated the second question they had was to the Free Lunch Program. HCDC asked them to
explain the carryover balance and they were supplied the minutes from the last meeting for clarification
on the question. Rhonda Lipsius responded, “Dear. Kirk, thank you for your question and documentation
so I can address the questions from the committee. Quoting from the minutes “Fixmer-Oraiz has a
question with the Free Lunch Program that's red items for fund balance the caregiver balance from the
previous year and their ending fund balance was also negative. Lehmann stated he hasn't talked to them
about it when he was going through the applications, his hunch was that it was more an error of the boxes
and misunderstanding, possibly is what carryover funds meant. Or maybe they don't have carryover funds
and so they're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It is something that Commission can ask
about.” My response is you are correct in that I have made an error in submission of the figures. I assure
you we're not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I did not add the certificate of deposits we have in
the carryover balance I listed them in the reserve funds line. Perhaps I should have listed them in both
places, I'm going to visit with Patty at United Way to ask for help and understanding this better. There's
three CDs and a checking and savings account that total $180,000 and some change. I will work with
Patty to get this area on the application corrected. I would like to clarify the FY21 Form A which is agency
salaries and benefits. Please note that the $31,673 director salary is for two part time directors one at 15
hours a week and one to 10 hours a week. Regarding the second question, quoting from the minutes,
“Padron noted regarding the two agencies not serving enough diversity, she feels it's unfair to ask them
about diversity when every year they receive no information from the free lunch program on who they
serve so she doesn't think it can be held against one agency that said enough people when another
agency doesn't report it all. Lehmann stated they're trying to quantify some of these things, asking
agencies to address it in their narrative so it's going to be a less subjective measure than the ones that
provide the data. It's more as they added the question regarding if agency promotes racial equity and
positivity from marginalized populations within the LGBTQ, immigrants, refugees and those disabilities.
Padron said they specifically added that the question because the free lunch program they state they do
not discriminate they serve whoever comes to the door” Respecting the dignity of the guests has been the
cornerstone of our service “an open door, a full plate, no questions asked.” This guiding principle of
unconditional respect and hospitality is the mission the free lunch program, we do not document serving
our guests, we serve a free, nutritious meal that anyone and everyone who enters our door with no
questions asked. We do not and are not going to document our guests they are treated as a guest in our
home would be or a member of the family. Our guests are very diverse group males, females, LGBTQ
individuals, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Caucasians, elderly, middle age, college age and
children. Those who are physically or mentally disabled and those individuals with drug and alcohol
dependencies are welcome. All of the committee members area welcome to come to free lunch any day
Monday through Saturday at 11:30am and get in line with this wonderfully diverse group of human beings
and share delicious meal at noon with them engaging in conversation. Since we do not document guest
this may be the only way to see for yourselves. We do not discriminate against anyone I'm open to any
suggestions as to how I could fill out Form B, Agency Demographics, when I have no documentation of
backup in the numbers I would enter here. I do list the number of meals we serve per year, which is
averaging 40,000 meals per year this summer shows that the program works. I'll be out of town the date
of the meeting so if you have any further questions please contact via email or phone.”
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 5 of 18
Lehmann noted it was as they suspected. Fixmer-Oraiz stated she will follow up with Rhonda that they
did add that question specifically for Free Lunch because they knew that there was no demographic
information collected. Fixmer-Oraiz wants to reiterate with her they understand and that wasn't the
question sent, it was just noted in the minutes and she desired to respond to it, which is perfectly okay.
Last question was sent to Pathways, it was the same question that was sent to Horizons.
Lindsay Glynn (Executive Director of Aging Services, Pathways) stated Pathways Adult Day Center is
part of their agency. Her answer mimics Mahaffey’s exactly, she can happily say who they serve at
Pathways is a reflection of older adults of color. She actually started in the same boat as Mehaffey
comparing if who they serve is a reflection of the community and when one looks at the data, it is. She
wants to make sure that we're serving everyone, and she’s put a lot of thought into this because it's
important to make sure they are serving all individuals that need assistance. One of the specific things
that came up in the question is regarding outreach in order to make sure that people are aware of the
services. However the topic is deeper than outreach, there's been little research on older adults of color,
how they age, how caregivers respond to their caregiving role. But what the research shows, in the little
amount that it is, older adults of color experienced this differently than the white community. For example,
they're much less likely to seek out help because of their own feelings of responsibility. They actually
have lower stress levels than white caregivers because of culture, they're raised to have stronger family
attachments and as people age, they're less likely to fear or feel overwhelmed by that role. There are also
other data points that's been found in research. Glynn noted her whole point is that as a white person,
she doesn’t fully understand what people of color are experiencing. So as they move forward, Aging
Services is dedicated to get a better understanding of how to actually serve that population. Doing
customer discovery, sitting down having conversations about what it's like to be an older adult of color,
what it's like to be a family member of color, and how can their organization best serve those folks. She
would love to see the life expectancy of black older adults grow and as a society continuing to make
strides to ensure that we are serving all people, regardless of their color throughout the lifespan. Aging
Services is dedicated to being part of that and being part of helping older adults of color as they age.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked how can HCDC help their organization? Glynn replied helping older adults in this line
of work, it consistently feels like older adults are put on the back burner or the last population to be
thought of. Therefore, just continuing to be mindful that older adults are here and they need our help, it's
incredibly rewarding to work with them. Glynn noted there is a lot of attention and focus on young
families, which they need our help too, but older adults are important as well.
Lehmann noted that answers the three questions that were submitted in advance of the meeting.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted the Commission is not taking any action at this meeting, but opened the floor for any
other questions or comments.
Becci Reedus (CommUnity Crisis Services) asked how and when they will know what the total funds to be
distributed will be determined. Kubly stated Council budgeting will start in January and they'll determine
that. Reedus asked if the Commission will have input into recommendations. Kubly stated they have done
staff level budgeting; it goes to staff and then to Finance and then the City Manager and then the Council.
Reedus asked if Kubly could share with them what the recommendation is, is it going to be reduced from
$675,000 from last year. Kubly said it's likely to be reduced but she doesn’t have the exact number.
Eastham still maintains the Commission has a vital role to play in recommending the Aid to Agency
budget to Council.
Reedus stated she spoke to two City Councilors who would support a minimum of $675,000 and Reedus
suggested a 5% increase over that. Reedus said they were told last year that Council would fund Aid to
Agencies at the $675,000 but not to expect it the next year. Therefore that's where they went into the
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 6 of 18
process and $564,000 is what agencies requested, which would be a 60% increase over the $400,000
that had historically been considered. That does not mean that they don't need the $675,000. Reedus
noted the other issue is in finding new funds for the Housing into Homes organization. She is only
speaking for her organization but knows many agencies are holding their breath for the next 30 days to
see what the federal tax code change is going to do. CommUnity Crisis Services is already seeing some
reductions and they’ve seen an increase in need in the first quarter, they had an 8% increase in clients.
Last year they distributed 2 million pounds of food and in this year’s first quarter they distributed 200,000
pounds more than that, over 500,000 pounds in a quarter. So with the additional funds they received this
year they put it into a Saturday food pantry, which they can't do without having staff people and they have
two or three working because they can't open a pantry with only one staff person. Reedus noted all the
other agencies likely have similar stories. They’ve had some great discussions with City Council and great
discussions with staff. The discussions with staff were forward reaching in terms of where they were going
to look for new funds. They talked about the utility tax, and staff decided that they shouldn't move forward
on utility tax that local option sales tax is a possibility, but that's two or three years down the road.
Meanwhile there is this gap and we don't even know if we can get local option sales tax passed. Reedus
stated in her last discussion with Geoff Fruin (City Manager) she told him that she was going to
encourage the Commission to advocate for $675,000 plus a 5% increase over last year. There is now
another agency, Houses into Homes. Reedus is not suggesting that each agency is given an increase on
top of what they got last year, that is just the pot of money to be distributed. The Commission will make
the decisions in terms of distributing up that money based on applications and need. Reedus reiterated
they need an increase over last year and that's where they should start.
Lehmann noted this year $660,300 in funds were requested. Reedus asks that they don't go backwards,
that they keep moving forward, because they’ve got a critical next couple of years to get through before
they can really solidify funding first agencies with local option sales tax.
Alter asked how many years funding was stagnant. Reedus stated at least 10.
McKinstry noted the new Consolidated Plan has a commitment to local funding for Aid to Agencies.
Alter stated there was the notion that we can't do this every year, but there's a commitment to incremental
increases. However, if it was stagnant for so long, and the need is so great, and with new tax changes
and a dip in giving, there's a basis for this as a good model moving forward for the City's responsibilities.
Eastham really appreciates Reedus’ recommendation, it gives him and the Commission what he is
looking for which is a recommendation from agencies about what the Aid to Agencies budget should be.
Fixmer-Oraiz is curious to talk amongst the Commission to request another joint meeting with Council and
invite an Agency Impact Coalition (AIC) representative. It is the Commission’s role to help advocate and
she is trying to think about what the best way would be. She acknowledged some have talked to City
Councilors and would highly recommend everyone do that, it really helps. Fixmer-Oraiz thinks they
should request having a joint meeting and similarly giving an update on need.
Reedus believes her guess is going to be that because they were told they would not be able to get that
money again, people reduced the amount they requested, and everybody should request what their need
is because even if the City can't fund it, it's important for them to know what it costs to do the programs
that serve the community. Reedus stated an education of the services they provide to problems that exist
in the community, education that it doesn't matter if they’re large or small. Earning $1 is hard work and the
larger wealth in the community in terms of fundraising is not there. Even as a larger organization, they
can't tap into that wealth. Oftentimes there's the larger university campaigns or large arts campaigns and
agencies are forgotten. However they serve the neediest populations and that need is not getting any
smaller, it's getting bigger and they are struggling in their facilities, with their budgets, and figuring out
how they’re going to keep it going. Reedus was asked today by a board member which programs would
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 7 of 18
be on the chopping block if they have to eliminate a program. CommUnity is about to enter the 50th year
so to think about which of the program to cut is hard. Is it basic needs, the food bank, crisis intervention
services? Those are things that as a business they have to begin to look at if they can't start to figure out
where they’re going to get increases. They are going to have a difficult time trying to serve more people,
they don't turn anybody away. The Food Bank closes at five o'clock and at five o'clock the waiting room
was completely full standing room, volunteers and staff didn't get out till eight o'clock because the doors
were locked but they continued serving everybody. So those are the problems that they have, the
capacity is overwhelming and it would be nice to hire more staff but they don’t have the funds to do that.
Reedus stated agencies such as theirs shouldn't be an afterthought and asks the Commission to keep
moving them forward into a first thought in people's mind in terms of importance, we are a community that
cares about people, we have a wonderful volunteer rate that speaks to our compassion for others and it
should show in the kinds of funds that are contributed to keep us strong and keep us going.
McKinstry commended legacy agencies for getting together, talking to each other, and coming up with a
plan for influencing the process. If there's any way that the Commission can make a recommendation
early enough in the budgeting process to assist agencies making their case with Council he is in favor .
Fixmer-Oraiz suggests requesting a joint meeting if they can.
Lehman stated last time HCDC requested a joint meeting in their recommendation to Council in January.
Alter noted there are new Council members coming in so this is going to be great for them to learn, plus
repetition helps this not be an afterthought. The agencies are serving the community well and shouldn't
be considered a handout. The city is growing and so is the need. It's important to have recurring meetings
at budget time and other times to talk about the needs of the community.
Eastham noted anyone who is vaguely familiar with the City's budget understands that a $300,000 to
$400,000 increase for Aid to Agencies is a small part of what's available to the City in terms of revenue.
Reedus also noted it is important to keep local option sales tax moving forward if that's going to be a
mechanism get the funds they need. She is afraid it's going to linger for a while so that movement needs
to keep pushing forward and get on the table and start to talk about what an agency allocation would be.
Fixmer-Oraiz would like to get some education on what getting local option sales tax moving even looks
like, what is the process. Lehmann noted it should be a future agenda item after the funding cycle.
Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) stated the Affordable Housing Coalition has discussed
whether to weigh in on the Aid to Agencies process, all the things being discussed. They decided their
role is to advocate for making the pie bigger. They don't need to weigh in on how money is allocated, their
job is to say all these agencies are underfunded right now and they’re going to continue to support the
Agency Impact Coalition and all of the agencies who look to the City for funding. Barron wanted to point
out that the services provided by these nonprofits that get money through Aid to Agencies are services
that you could make an argument that the government should provide, helping people meet their basic
needs, so she encourages the Commission to advocate for these nonprofits as vendors to the city, that
they could present a bill for the work they're doing on behalf of the City and get it paid. The City routinely
does a sidewalk improvement project or capital improvement project, that is a million dollars or two million
dollars, and that's for one little project. If the City were to get a bill from all these nonprofits for the
services that they provide to the residents of Iowa City it would be far greater than $700,000. So instead
of thinking of this as a charity or handout really this is paying a bill to vendors who are providing needed
services to the community on behalf of the local government. And how lucky are we to have skilled
professionals, they're not laying bricks, they're not laying sidewalks, they're providing another type of
professional, vendor based skill of social services that support our residents and they deserve to be
treated like the professionals that we contract with for any other City service.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 8 of 18
Barbara Vinograde (Iowa City Free Medical Clinic) stated she echoes everything that has been said by
colleagues from other nonprofits. She acknowledged the investments the City makes in the nonprofits is
invaluable. She was talking with the medical director today about when someone comes in for a visit at
the free clinic they receive not only an exam, but medications on site, labs on site, radiology procedures,
education, and referrals to other agencies and institutions. The complexity of what they’re seeing at the
free clinic, the complexity and diversity of the people we're serving now, it's challenging. But it's also
incredibly exciting and rewarding to be able to meet the needs of the people who are out there. Vinograde
knows all the nonprofits in town are doing this, so she feels like she is preaching to the choir but wanted
to reiterate in interactions with the council that what they’re providing is basic needs for people. Think
what it would be like if you woke up sick and rather than thinking about calling the doctor to make an
appointment, you had to think I can't afford to go to the doctor. It's something to be reminded of every
day. Vinograde has never asked for much money from the City because they haven't received it. They
receive generous funding from Johnson County and the United Way, she would love to see that matched
by Iowa City. So as far as what she wants from HCDC, it’s being done, you are asking us what we're
doing, how we're doing, what the needs are out there. Vinograde appreciates everything the Commission
is doing and advocating for nonprofits.
Eastham asked if an increased request can be included in the Agency Impact Coalition request.
Vinograde stated that the Agency Impact Coalition has been a wonderful group to work with.
McKinstry asked the Commission what to do to move things forward? Should they put some language in
a motion. Fixmer-Oraiz thinks that would be best. Kubly said if they are making a recommendation for
funding, then they’ll need to vote on that, but if they’re just using a joint meeting they can just do that.
Lehmann noted that as part of a conversation at today’s meeting the Commission can send a request to
Council that they would like a joint meeting. He thinks they should still vote on it, but no action can be
taken on funding.
Alter moved and Eastman seconded and by a vote of 6-0 HCDC requests a joint meeting with
Council about Aid to Agencies being a priority for budget allocations.
Lehmann suggested sending a memo to Council stating the Commission discussed this and is requesting
a meeting in January. Eastham asked for a simple, straightforward memo a couple of paragraphs at most.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if they are requesting a joint meeting is there interest from AIC members to have a
representative attend? Lehmann said it would be a public meeting so AIC members could attend and be
ready to make comments.
Fixmer-Oraiz suggested putting in the memo a request to have a member of AIC at the meeting to speak.
Alter noted the meeting should be framed about what are the priorities of Council moving forward as
they’re solidifying City Steps and as they’re looking at budgeting what is the agenda priority wise. These
are basic needs of the City and we encourage City Council to start envisioning that way and how does
that fit into the priorities and goals of City Council.
CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STEPS 2025 DRAFT, CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR 2021-
2025:
Lehmann stated the City Steps 2025 is the Consolidated Plan, they’ve been talking about for a while, it
identifies the needs of low and moderate income households in Iowa City, the federal resources that the
City of Iowa City has to address those, specifically CDBG and HOME, and then different ways that the
City plans on allocating those funds over the next five years. It contains a broad strategy along with the
needs assessment and the housing study, all to be approved by the Commission today. Additionally it
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 9 of 18
includes the annual action plan for FY21, and future annual action plans will also be approved every year.
Everything will get sent to HUD in May when they approve that final part of the Plan. Lehmann noted one
reason that this is being reviewed now is to get through the funding process because the CDBG/HOME
round has to wait until after some of these items are approved to solidify what the application would look
like and how that's going to work over the next five years.
Lehmann talked briefly about the Plan, noting they had a few comments so far in the public comment
stage which is happening right now, and people are welcome to share comments at this meeting. Any
verbal comments and the minutes of this meeting will be incorporated in the document. They also have
several comments from individuals that will also be incorporated in the document. Lehmann distributed a
memo of potential changes and he’ll discuss those as soon as he’s done talking about the broader
changes that are in this Consolidated Plan specifically.
With this Consolidated Plan some of the biggest changes are tied to the Aid to Agencies process, as well
as some preferences for capital improvements for those that responded in advance about their capital
needs. Lehmann noted he will jump around as he goes through these. The first change about agencies is
on page 145. On that page, they added in a section to talk about the Aid to Agencies process specifically
that in the future, legacy agencies will be named in the Consolidated Plan which will support continuity
over the next five years. Thereafter at the next plan, in five years, that list can be updated. Lehmann
added just because an agency is on the list doesn't mean that they would be funded, but it means that
they would be considered a legacy agency for the purpose of those grant funds. Legacy agencies listed in
the Plan are those agencies designated as legacy agencies this year, or that have been since that
distinction was created. Lehmann stated there are opportunities to change the list through Consolidated
Plan amendments if agencies come or go, depending on how HCDC wants to deal with that. HCDC will
review the Plan every year too so there is always an opportunity to change legacy agencies at that point
in time. This was something that is brand new, and he wanted to call attention to.
The capital improvements preference is on page 39, it's a brief section that will be added into ranking
criteria. This page talks about which agencies responded to the public facility surveys and what agencies
listed as their capital improvements needs over the next five years. This does not restricting public
facilities projects to mentioned projects, but the fact that they're thinking about needs in advance will give
them bonus points because they had some forethought and responded. Lehmann reiterated things can
be amended. This will help the City and HCDC try to better plan how it's going to allocate CDBG funds.
Alter asked if there would be anything regarding possible emergency items, like an agency wasn’t
planning on anything but then an emergency (like storm damage and needing a new roof) happens.
Lehmann stated the points for CDBG/HOME was not changed as much as it was for Aid to Agencies
because it's generally easier to score these kinds of projects. It's a guide and implies that the Commission
values forethought, though there are also a bunch of other criteria that are in the rubric.
Lehmann stated when talking about different projects, the City maintains several project categories that
we lump things into, such as “other affordable housing,” “economic development”, or “planning,” one such
category is infrastructure, called Neighborhood Improvements. For neighborhood improvement projects,
they added the ability to do sustainability improvements. In the past, this category has been used for park
projects in low income areas or curb cuts to improve accessibility in low income areas. The idea is that if
there's work that needs to be done, or street drainage, or, they wanted to be able to fit in and especially
call out that sustainability should be a part of those projects, such as through green infrastructure.
Lehmann stated, regarding economic development projects, there have been fewer applicants recently.
These can either help pay for technical assistance to low income business entrepreneurs who want to
start businesses, or it can be provided as direct loans to low income entrepreneurs. Typically, the City
sets aside $50,000 annually for economic development activities. Lehmann noted they have just over two
years’ of funds right now so they are reaching out to banks to let them know but credit is looser now and
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 10 of 18
people aren't enthusiastic to jump through federal hoops to get funds if they don’t need to. Alter asked
what else can be done with the funds. Lehmann said a for profit entity can use them to start a business if
it is owned by a lower income household or 51% of employees are low income employees, then they can
apply for those funds and go through the underwriting process. Kubly added microenterprises can also
apply and the City has funded technical assistance for 4C’s through that money. Lehmann stated one
thing they’ve been trying to do recently is to encourage childcare providers to apply if they're for-profit, if
they are a nonprofit they can apply for public facilities funds. It is another way to meet the needs of the
community. Lehmann stated a change they’re making is if it's not spent within two years, it goes back in
the public facilities fund. Historically, they’ve held these funds because usually there's a lull and then
there's a bunch of applicants, and then another lull. Now they want to keep funds moving.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked about 4C’s technical assistance. Kubly stated they provide technical assistance to
low income people who want to start an in-home childcare, who want to meet the DHS requirements.
Lehmann stated they’ve helped around 25 businesses, a lot of it is making sure that they're registered so
that they can accept childcare assistance, with a focus on immigrants and infants of zero to two years.
Lehmann next moved on to funds that are set aside for activities, discussed on page 9. 15% of CDBG
funds are used for public service activities, that is, Aid to Agencies. Other set asides are $235,000 CDBG
for homeowner rehab for low income and then $90,000 HOME for the City's rehab program which
includes both owners and renters. Those are all for low income residents making up to 80% AMI with
renters receiving HOME funds being restricted to 60% AMI.
Eastham notes on page 134, there is a bulleted list that says assisting households with incomes less than
60% AMI particularly those with incomes less than 30% AMI has been identified as a priority by the City.
Eastham asked then why are they set aside up to $235,000 in CDBG funds for households with incomes
up to 80% of AMI income. To him those two statements are not compatible.
Lehmann noted he doesn’t have the numbers in front of him, but that a lot of the CDBG funds assist
households below 60% AMI already. Kubly stated that a lot of the CDBG funding for mobile homes, at
least half of them are mobile home projects. Many are likely not closer to 80%.
Eastham asked why not lower the income eligibility to 60% of AMI for the rehab set aside. Lehmann
stated HCDC could recommend that, but it would mean there are households that still need assistance
but could not be served, that they don’t need to make a restriction to help prioritized households with
lower incomes. Eastham asked if most requests for rehab funds are coming from households at less than
60% AMI, then setting that as a maximum should serve more households with lower incomes. Fixmer-
Oraiz agreed noting at the least it should be aligned, the priority should be aligned with what is actually
happening. Kubly stated they don't have data on incomes served right now. Fixmer-Oraiz understands but
is stating that we’re committed to that priority. Not necessarily saying that it has to align with the data, but
it should because that's the priority that the City is set, and it should align just for that sake. Lehmann
stated the priority is basically the lower the incomes is the priority of the City. To state just 60% of AMI will
reduce flexibility and there are less owners in that range. Eastham stated they could extend the flexibility
by setting the upper income 120% of AMI. Kubly stated they can't do that because they’re federal funds.
Lehmann noted they have City programs that go up 110%. Eastham feels those are misguided.
Kubly asked to confirm that HCDC is recommending that CDBG have the 60% AMI max. Lehmann will
keep notes of things the Commission wants to recommend for the Plan, and will incorporate by approving
“as discussed.” So the rehab set aside will be 60% AMI.
Lehmann stated another thing they are changing in this Plan is to make CHDO funds a set aside. Until
now CHDO funds come before the Commission as part of the competitive request for funds, but they are
a federal set aside. Staff is recommend that it be a separate set aside to be requested from staff as
projects arise. Typically, CHDO set asides are rehab projects, but it has recently been used for
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 11 of 18
acquisition. Currently the City has two CHDOs, The Housing Fellowship and HACAP. He has heard
interest from at least one other agency. Historically they’ve only recently received applications from The
Housing Fellowship. This set aside only includes CHDO reserve funds that create or rehab affordable
housing, it would not include CHDO operations, that would still come as part of the competitive part. Staff
recommends in this Plan that that it be a set aside rather than joining the general pot.
Eastham feels the regulations make it a set aside anyway. Lehmann agreed, so their thought was to
simplify it for CHDOs. As staff gets more applications, assuming another agency becomes a CHDO at
some time in the future, staff will probably return with application guidelines and develop a program, right
now it would be more of a request as needed process since they must be a CHDO.
Lehmann talked about economic development initiatives; those serve households up to 80% AMI and
then set asides for administration of funds. In terms of other requirements that come with projects, they're
included below the bulleted list on 135, it's basically that same list that was on page nine. He stated
housing projects have a minimum of $1,000, some might be under $1,000 if it's an emergency rehab,
such as mobile homes or replacing water heaters, weatherization stuff, etc. Lehmann stated $15,000 as a
minimum for public service activities, which includes both federal and city funds, that's a rule that they've
had for a while. Lehmann stated they are putting in $30,000 for public facilities activities. In the past, they
did not have a minimum but had a preference for projects over $50,000 and it seems easier to have an
actual minimum and the $50,000 threshold wouldn’t meet all of the projects approved recently so they
figured $30,000 was realistic and should be enough to make a difference. Finally, for economic
development activities, there's a $25,000 maximum. For the homeowner and rental rehab activities for the
City's housing rehab program the maximum is just under $25,000 per unit because federal lead rules kick
in after that which adds complications. Lehmann stated they still will give first consideration to projects of
$50,000 or more, but the rest of them are hard limits. So that explains how funds will get allocated in the
future. Beyond these, public facilities activities are mostly going to be other CDBG funds that are part of
the set aside, and every other HOME fund that's not part of admin or CHDO set aside would go to the
competitive round that the Commission sees every year.
Lehmann stated starting p. 136 contains the priority needs that they see. Priority needs are expansion of
affordable rental and owner housing options, preservation of existing affordable rental and owner housing
options, housing and services for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, provision of public
services, public facility improvements, public infrastructure and neighborhood based climate action (the
technical phrase for what was discussed), economic development and then administration and planning.
Lehmann noted they also incorporated the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice into this
document. There are a couple places where it's talking about barriers to affordable housing and really
those are just lifted from the AI because a lot of the fair housing issues are related to affordability. He also
pointed out that pages 130 through 133 are the geographic priorities. In the past, they just said City-wide
was the priority but because there are actually geographic priorities, staff figured that should be
incorporated. One is the affordable housing location model which is on page 131. That determines areas
eligible for new construction or acquisition of rental units for non-elderly, non-disabled households.
Lehmann stated the application also shows preferred areas to put affordable housing which are areas
with low free and reduced lunch rates because that is one of the primary factors in determining the
location model, in addition to clusters of affordable housing. They also have the housing rehab targeted
areas, which they use, which are areas where the City's housing rehab program will forgive half of funds
and they are also eligible for the City's rental rehab program. It's determined by low income areas and
that have more single-family homes which is what the rehab program is generally for and they wanted to
incorporate it because is used by the City’s rehab program.
Lehmann noted those are the big changes in the document. He added the public input received at
meetings was great. They’ve encouraged other staff at the City to look at the public input because it is a
good record. Next Lehmann wants to get into staff other recommendation following public comments.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 12 of 18
Alter noted she appreciates the addition of the geographic information because a lot of times even though
those things are functionally interconnected, it is disparate and people can’t put the pieces together.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated it is a great opportunity to recognize the immense amount of work the staff has done
putting this together.
Lehmann said staff got some comments, so he created a memo distributed at the meeting recommending
a few additional changes to the document that are not in the draft. First on page 53, adding a sentence
talking about the number of Housing Choice Vouchers and their waiting lists, which demonstrates that
need for affordable housing in Iowa City. Lehmann noted McKinstry provided some excellent comments
about manufactured housing with the Mobile Home Task Force so staff wanted to incorporate those. On
page 88 they want to add in some references to the work that's been done. Also on page 137 where
there's a description they wanted to add in that manufactured housing communities are important part of
affordable housing in the City is committed to supporting the continuance of these as relatively low cost
housing type in Iowa City and so they're included in the goal of preserving affordable housing. Also an
addition on page 162 where they’re talking about barriers to affordable housing, adding in a paragraph
about the recent purchase of local manufactured housing communities and subsequent significant
increases in lot rents demonstrates a barrier to affordable housing by reducing the number of naturally
occurring, affordable units, this has brought to light the need to support such communities to ensure that
they continue to be a relatively low cost housing type in Iowa City. Next, on table 106 where they talk
about different housing for homeless populations, adding in Cross Park Place to the table because it was
omitted, and specifying that it's the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition on page 151. Specifying
on page 154 they’re talking about the local Homeless Coordinating Board noting they are not funded
strictly from outside funds and they can carry out stuff without external funding and additionally their
mission can be supplemented or expanded with external funding, such as landlord risk mitigation fund.
Lehmann stated one of the larger changes that staff is recommending in this memo is adding the Housing
Trust Fund of Johnson County as a legacy agency. The Housing Trust Fund had left as a legacy agency
with the understanding that assuming the Affordable Housing Fund wasn't funded, it would be able to
come back and apply for funds as a legacy agency. Lehmann noted they recommend adding them back
to that list with the understanding that they wouldn't apply unless needed.
Finally, adding in estimated funding amounts, though they are subject to annual action plan allocations
which is what they're typically based off. However, staff figured it is best to estimate funding amounts for
different needs, especially if the Commission is going to make a recommendation to Council. So
Lehmann compiled a table of different funds and how that would align with the table on pages 155 to 157
specifically.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted appreciation for McKinstry for introducing the manufactured housing information,
some of which was incorporated, however the paragraph that McKinstry had put together is not in the
table, will that be somewhere else. Lehmann said he did not incorporate the full paragraph; he took bits
and pieces that he thought best fit in. He noted the entire paragraph was very specific, which is
challenging for a Con Plan, it would make more sense in an action plan. Fixmer-Oraiz would like to
advocate for it to have its own section because of the national crisis being seen with the manufactured
housing communities having predatory acts. She thinks it would be good to tie in something from a
national perspective to a more local focus. It is something that is emergent and is quite frankly terrifying.
She feels they need to show the City is serious about supporting it moving forward.
McKinstry noted there are a couple ways to look at this, having its own section might draw attention,
which would be helpful, also for instance on page 163 where it says facilitate a range of housing types,
including manufactured housing. They need to point out again and again throughout the document that
when they’re talking about affordable housing, whether it's rental or homeownership, they’re also talking
about manufactured housing.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 13 of 18
Kubly noted the language on page 163 is taken directly from the Fair Housing Study so they don’t want to
change it.
Fixmer-Oraiz also noted per McKinstry’s other point, the need to showcase Forest View as something
different Iowa City is doing. Lehmann stated he would add in the paragraph about the issue and barriers
to affordable housing on page 162, maybe on page 163 he can mention furthering the work of the
Johnson County Housing Task Force. This will be in addition to the others mentioning that it's important
preservation and mentioning in the housing assessment.
Eastham noted establishing the new Forest View neighborhood is still ongoing process so when this Plan
takes effect on July 1 that process may not be finished so it should be mentioned as plans are underway.
Lehmann noted also on page 165 where they’re talking about helping families avoid homelessness would
be a good spot to bring up the Forest View plans.
Lastly Lehmann just wanted to talk briefly about the goal’s summary, pages 155 and 157, about the
actual budget amounts and what that might look like. It is based off of the last five years of expenditures
plus set aside, that's how they came up with this amount. For goal one, increase the number of affordable
rental housing units, the funding for would be $1.42 million in HOME; tenant based rental assistance
would be around $265,000 in HOME; homebuyer activities would be around $280,000 in HOME; for
rehabilitating and improving owner-occupied housing units, they’re assuming $1.175 million in CDBG and
around $225,000 in HOME; for the rental rehab, which is on page 156, around $625,000 in HOME; for
those serving homelessness, in planning terms around $200,000 in HOME, but in all reality, serving
homelessness overlaps with so many of the things that are here, so they really only report the public
services funds that they give to Shelter House, so that's about what they’re anticipating coming from
CDBG. Lehmann noted those are estimates based on past trends. For public services, they’re estimating
around $330,000 in HOME and $330,000 in CDBG which is the public services funds minus those for
Shelter House, and then $95,000 in HOME which would be the CHDO operations, around 3-4% of
HOME. For public facilities projects they estimate around $745,000 in CDBG over the next five years; for
public infrastructure/neighborhood-based climate action activities would be around $375,000 in CDBG;
economic development $250,000; admin planning around $710,000 in CDBG and $270,000 in HOME.
Again, Lehmann stressed those budget amounts are based on past trends and set asides that they’re
anticipating. Staff would propose that if the Commission makes a recommendation, either they use that
as the base and tweak things as they go based on goals and such. He added the climate action line is a
new addition with this Plan with the idea that a lot of those infrastructure projects should be incorporating
sustainability, street trees, storm water, etc.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked how they arrived at $375,000 for neighborhood improvements. Lehmann said
$375,000 is based on the set aside of $75,000 over five years which was initially created by Council.
Kubly added the neighborhood improved set aside is not new they just added the ability to use that for
Climate Action Plan. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the $375,000 would only be used for Climate Action Plan
related things? Or is it embedded in neighborhood services and can be used for all those things? Kubly
stated it's embedded in the neighborhood improvements under the public infrastructure goals.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if there is a section in the Plan about the Climate Action Plan. Lehmann replied not
specifically but that is a good point and they should add something about that.
Eastham believes the city's overall policy should be anything that could be funded by capital
improvements funds should not use federal funds (such as HOME or CDBG), because it diverts federal
funds from things like building houses. He noted in the budget now there is $800,000 to $1 million in
capital improvement eligible activities that are drawing money from the general fund and that is money
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 14 of 18
that could be used for Aid to Agencies. Capital improvements should be funded through general
obligation bonds.
Lehmann stated CDBG funds are specifically for projects that are not planned for in the capital
improvements plan, that one can't supplant local funds with federal funds so it has to be above and
beyond what they would do in a general CIP. For example, the splash pad was one of the things in
Wetherby Park where it was something that they would have liked to do but it wasn't part of the capital
improvements plan, so they worked with CDBG funds to be able to fund it. Lehmann understands
Eastham to be saying the City shouldn't use federal funds for local projects with the idea being that local
funds should go to it. Also, additional federal funds could not go for Aid to Agencies because it’s capped
at 15% of the CDBG allocation.
Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) stated another way to ask the question is
who pays for these projects in not LMI neighborhoods and why then does CDBG pick up the tab in LMI
neighborhoods. The conversation has shifted since they’ve started targeting money for affordable housing
to other things that are tangentially related to poor people and it was decided to fund it out of the
Affordable Housing Fund, which the idea of investing in closing the gap between what we have and what
we need. The more things that they pay for like ongoing services, other functions that the City should
already be providing to the entire community, out of set aside to close the gap, the longer it takes to close
the gap.
Cady Gerlach (Shelter House) wanted to correct the numbers on the facilities and housing targeted to
homeless individuals. The Shelter House has 24 through Cross Park Place that are permanent supportive
housing beds. Also, to clarify within the city limits of Iowa City they have three fair weather lodges within
the City, a six-bedroom on Amhurst, newly purchased from HOME funds five-bedroom home Wakefield
Court and a six-bedroom on Ashely Drive. Their emergency shelter numbers are also underreported in
terms of the number of beds available, they have 70 emergency shelter beds available year round, they
have 30 overflow beds in that facility seasonally and they have 30 temporary winter shelter beds, and
those are all filled to capacity right now. Lehmann asked Gerlach to send that to him in written comment
so he can add it into the report.
Ellen McCabe (Housing Trust Fund) wanted to reiterate the Housing Trust Fund accepted the
recommendation to leave the Aid to Agencies field this year with the understanding that over the next five
years they could go back and be a legacy agency if need be. They have no plans to do that as they hope
to continue to have their administrative funds come from the affordable housing fund.
Barron wanted to add a few formal comments about their review of the strategies. She noted the FY21
proposed budget is out and on page 260 something or 270 something is the Neighborhood Services
section that would say how much is being proposed for Aid to Agencies. Regardless, they support the
variety of strategies that are listed for both rental and homeownership and appreciate the inclusion of the
tenant based rental assistance, it would be a big deal if they use HOME funds in that way and to keep
doing it in this kind of conscientious way that could potentially expand the number of households that get
vouchers. They want to make sure that they’re continuing to use a comprehensive mix of data informed
strategies to meet the areas of greatest need, and to evaluate once they are using those strategies, what
the impact of them is on those areas. Barron stated they are just going to keep pushing and encouraging
as more of a building habits thing than any kind of criticism of what’s been done. But now that they’re
recognizing there have been some gaps in how they’ve addressed manufactured housing in documents
and in programs they’re just going to keep saying this isn't specific about manufactured housing. There
are some things, for example, in the strategies that specifically would apply to manufactured housing, but
it is just not clear when they aren't listed, does that mean it doesn't apply to manufactured housing? The
specificity is required in both directions in order to know where the potential gaps might be. Barron also
noted there is some small percentage of the CDBG funds that are committed for areas like trails and
sidewalks, and again if looking at closing gaps with this federal investment, then they need to make sure
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 15 of 18
that that services that are being provided city wide by other departments, like Parks and Rec, really
encourage LMI areas to be included in their budgets and to use the money from the federal sources to be
invested specifically in housing creation and public services that only benefit LMI individuals. CDBG funds
are best used to close the gaps in services that are not currently available to LMI individuals because of
their increased need based on their income, rather than providing an amenity to their neighborhood that
should be provided as it's provided to every neighborhood. Lehman noted that the intent of the CDBG
funds is to provide something to the LMI neighborhoods above and beyond what would be provided
otherwise. He gave the example of a park improvements plan, where you do a park each year, but CDBG
funds help move park improvements in LMI neighborhoods improvements up the list of priorities, while
also providing amenities and services that are above what is typically provided.
Eastham stated the City doesn't need to use CDBG funds in that case, they just use the regular or non-
LMI area way of funding park improvements for LMI areas.
Barron noted of course, they want to avoid anything that's connected to LMI residents starts to get
scooped out of those funds that are set aside to close those gaps. They are not necessarily seeing that in
the decision making yet, but they are certainly seeing it in the conversations and the proposals about how
to fund new projects. Barron added lastly to support McCabe’s request that the Housing Trust Fund be
added as legacy agency.
McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council approval of the City Steps 2025 draft,
Consolidated Plan for 2021-2025, with changes as discussed in the meeting. Alter seconded the
motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF FY21 APPLICATION MATERIALS:
Lehmann noted for the emerging agencies application is mostly the same as last year as he didn’t hear
any major complaints with it.
Alter asked about the emerging agencies application, on the fourth question how it addresses the goals of
City Steps 2025 and the City's Climate Action Plan, and those may be two separate questions. She
suggests they are separated out and asked for the City’s Climate Action Plan, does it address the Plan,
and if so how. Of course the new Climate Action Plan is the way we want to have people thinking and
doing business, but it seems a little unreasonable to require it at this point. Lehmann noted that could be
made as a separate question.
Lehmann stated with regards to the CDBG/HOME application, funding timelines is the first thing he’ll point
out. Council will look at the Con Plan in January and that's when they'll be able to get the applications out.
He stated they may be able to put up emerging agency ones earlier. They will have workshops and hold
office hours again as that worked well last year. There will be an optional workshop in January. Pre-apps
would be due January 31, HCDC would have the question and answer session on February 20, then
HCDC would review at the March 12 meeting and it would be incorporated into the Annual Action Plan.
After that point full applications will be due to staff. One thing discussed last year was trying to simplify the
process for agencies and it seemed like there was a lot of front end work that was premature in terms of
agencies being asked information about projects that were months down the line when they don't even
have a property. So the way that Lehmann attempted to address that is a shorter pre-application which
only asks the questions that are important for the Commission to make their allocations, anything beyond
that, such as the pro forma, can be determined on a staff level, the Commission doesn’t have to go
through them. The information follows the same general framework as last time, there is the general
information, the project need, the type of project, and the goal that it addresses in the City Steps 2025,
which are specifically listed in this application. The applicants need to list budget resources, source of
funds, in kind contributions, that use of funds and then some narrative if they have additional things that
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 16 of 18
they need to describe. With feasibility and impact, the same percent for AMI that we always ask, asking if
there are any special populations that they help, so whether it's domestic violence victims, elderly,
homeless, persons with disabilities, migrant farm workers, persons with AIDS, a lot of these come from
HUD regulations so some of them are kind of bizarre like migrant farm workers, we don't have as much of
that here but HUD gives them some deference and this Commission should as well. Proposed contract
rents or proposed sales price was something that was added in last year that we're keeping, and then
timetable, and asking how they promote funds over long term, how they provide affordable housing lower
than market rates and describing the manner that it will proceed if it's not awarded full funding. The final
section is the capacity and applicant history where they talk about what was their budget that they were
awarded if awarded funds within the last five years, how much is spent, and if the project is complete
what day was it complete. They also describe the organization's experience and capacity to administer
programs, identify any program funds that are unspent because if unspent there would still be some
program funds to use. There are also the general questions about staff organization, structure office staff,
educational experience of key staff, their operations and business approach and relevant factors about
how they identified the demand for the projects, organizations, activities and portfolio, including projects
currently underway. If it's a housing provider, what do they manage, how many units, those sorts of stats.
They are questioned if any conflicts of interest may come up. The final question is to describe how they
would incorporate sustainability initiatives into the project. So the change is this year this would be a pre-
app, the Commission would review and then staff would work to get details and do a final app. Appendix
A on the back lists the things will be required with the full app that are not required with the pre-app.
Lehmann noted the applicant guide is mostly the same, it's got the updated timeline and has all the
updates from the Con Plan. It talks about minimum funding amounts of $30,000 for public facilities, the
updated affordable housing location model is in there as well. One slight change is the two policies, one is
an investments policy and the other is the delayed projects policy which have been adopted by Council in
the past. Those two policies will be incorporated into City Steps to update it all at the same time.
Lehmann also specifies the differences between CDBG and HOME where that wasn't as clear before.
Finally, evaluation criteria will pretty much the same as last year with the addition of the public facilities
bonus points for projects that are mentioned in the ConPlan.
The Commission all agreed the changes were all good and thanked Lehmann for his work on this.
Alter moved to approve FY21 Application Materials, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
Kealey seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 17, 2019:
McKinstry moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2019. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was
taken, and the motion passed 6-0.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Lehman noted the next is January 16 at 6:30pm in Senior Center Room 202. The agenda will be the staff
Aid to Agencies funding recommendation and HCDC will make a budget recommendation. There’s been
a request to have Houses into Homes plus other agency requests being agenda item.
Regarding the Mobile Home Task Force, he encourages the Commission to look at it.
In terms of projects, Habitat has closed on a house and will close on another one Friday, and its final
house would be closed shortly. Successful Living just closed on a house as well.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 17 of 18
Regarding the rental permit moratorium, it's been deferred twice so far, please take time to review it as it
is something that ties into community development.
Agency monitoring will begin that shortly at the end of the year.
ADJOURNMENT:
Kealey moved to adjourn. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 6-0
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 18 of 18
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 8/15 9/19 10/17 12/19
Aguilar, Peggy 6/30/22 X X O/E X
Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X X O/E X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 O/E X X X O/E
Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X X X X X
Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 6/30/20 X X X X X
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook 6/30/22 O/E X O/E O/E X
McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X O/E X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 O/E X X X O/E
Padron, Maria 6/30/20 X X X X O/E
Emergency Funding Policy
Effective February 4, 2020
Introduction:
The City of Iowa City offers several funding opportunities for area nonprofits including Aid to
Agencies, Social Justice & Racial Equity Grants, Community Climate Action Grants, and
Community Development Block Grants. Funds are provided annually through competitive
processes which require agencies to meet specific qualifications and apply during a specific time
of year. For some grants, the allocation process can take several months, and funds are not
awarded until the subsequent fiscal year. These processes are in place to ensure that grant
recipients have a need, have enough capacity, and will be using City funds to benefit the
community. However, they are not likely to meet an urgent or emergency need due to the timing
of the process. This policy establishes a process for the City to review requests for emergency
funding from local non-profit agencies that might occur outside of existing funding processes .
Emergency Funding Criteria:
The following criteria shall be used for one-time emergency funding requests that c annot be
fulfilled through existing city grant opportunities. To meet an emergency need, the applicant must
certify that the proposed activity is designed to alleviate existing conditions which:
a. Pose a serious and immediate threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community;
b. Are the result of unforeseeable or unavoidable circumstances or events;
c. Are of recent origin or recently became urgent (within six (6) months);
d. Have no know n alternatives or actions that are more feasible than the proposed project;
e. Other private or public funds (including local, state or federal funds and existing City
programs) are insufficient due to either availability or accessibility within the time frame
necessary to address the problem. This includes certifying that the organization is unable
to finance the activity on its own.
Examples of proposals that may qualify as an emergency:
• Loss of rental space due to sudden, unanticipated displacement that directly relates to a
critical purpose.
• Non -insured loss that prevents the non-profit form operating critical space.
• Sudden, substantial loss of expected, annual funding that results in an immediate
reduction in services .
Process for Emergency Funding Requests:
Written requests can be made to city staff at any time during the year. The request must include:
• A description of the condition, illustrating how it meets the criteria for emergency
assistance (this includes demonstrating the nature and degree of seriousness of the threat
posed);
• Information on the timing of the development of the serious condition;
• Evidence certifying that a proposed activity or project is designed to address the urgent
need; and
• Evidence confirming that other financial resources to alleviate the need were not available.
Neighborhood Services staff will review the requests and provide a written response to the
applicant within five (5) business days. This may include a request for additional information. If
staff determines that the request meets the emergency funding criteria, the request would be
presented to the City Manager or City Council for approval. City Council approval will only be
necessary when the request exceeds the City Manager’s spending authority. If staff determines
that the request does not meet the emergency funding criteria, a written letter of denial will be
provided to the applicant.