Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet 4-16-2020 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) April 16, 2020 Electronic Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 12, 2020 3. 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 4. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on approval of Iowa City Housing Authority 5-Year Plan and Annual Plan for FY20 The Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) is required to update the 5-Year and Annual Plans under the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) of 1998. The 5-Year Plan describes ICHA’s mission and long-term plan for achieving that mission over the next five years. The Annual Report provides details about current programs, population served, annual application for grants to support improvements, and ICHA’s strategy for addressing housing needs of currently assisted families and the larger community. The ICHA 5-Year Plan and Annual Report can be found at www.icgov.org/ichadocuments Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by joining the Zoom meeting via the internet by going to https://zoom.us/j/863993233. If you are asked for a meeting ID, enter 863 993 233 to enter a 'Waiting Room' for the meeting. If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you can call in by phone by dialing (312) 626-6799 and entering the meeting ID when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option. 2 If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Erika Kubly at erika-kubly@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. 5. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on approval of FY21 Annual Action Plan (AAP) At the February 20, 2020 and March 12, 2020 meetings, HCDC approved the FY21 budget recommendations for Aid to Agencies and CDBG/HOME housing and public facilities projects. The FY21 (Federal FY20) Annual Action Plan incorporates these recommendations. Staff will provide an overview of the draft, followed by discussion, proposed changes, and consideration of recommending the Plan to Council. The AAP summarizes actions and resources to help address the needs and goals in City Steps 2025 for FY21. The Plan includes the budget for CDBG and HOME funds, a description of the projects to be funded, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)- required information. Upon approval by Council, the Plan is submitted to HUD for approval. A 30-day public comment period for the AAP began on April 4 and will run through May 5, 2020. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public meeting and formally approve the Plan on Tuesday, May 5, 2020. Due to COVID-19 restrictions it is likely that the public meeting will be held electronically. The FY21 Annual Action Plan can be found at www.icgov.org/actionplan (p180-217 of City Steps 2025) 6. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on approval of Citizen Participation Plan for FY21-25 and amendments to City Steps 2025. The Citizen Participation Plan has been updated to be included as part of City Steps 2025. Amendments are also proposed for City Steps 2025 to fund activities to aid in the community response to COVID-19. Staff has additionally amended the minimum amount for a public facility project from $30,000 to $25,000 in response to concerns about the CDBG reversion of assets requirements. City Steps 2025 as amended including the draft Citizen Participation Plan update (p1-14) can be found at www.icgov.org/actionplan. 7. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on approval of Amendment #1 to the FY20 Annual Action Plan and Amendment #2 to CITY STEPS (2016-2020 Consolidated Plan). Amendments are proposed for the FY20 Annual Action Plan and CITY STEPS to fund activities to aid in the community response to COVID-19. Amendment #1 to the FY20 Annual Action Plan and Amendment #2 to CITY STEPS can be found at www.icgov.org/actionplan. 8. Discussion of projects that have not complied with the “Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy” For subrecipients that have not spent 50% of their awarded funding by March 15, the “Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy” allows HCDC to recommend recapturing unspent funds to allow them to retain project funds. Staff will provide an update on any projects that are subject to this policy. 9. Housing & Community Development Information 10. Ad journment MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2020 – 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202 MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Charlie Eastham, V Fixmer-Oraiz, Lyn Dee Kealey, John McKinstry MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Aguilar, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann OTHERS PRESENT: Shirley Tramble, Ryan Holst, Elias Ortiz, Roger Goedken, Carla Phelps, Ashley Gillette, Anthony Smith, Simon Andrew, Whitney Stevenson RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-1 (McKinstry opposed) HCDC recommends the following FY21 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Program budget to City Council totaling $448,000 HOME and $105,000 CDBG: Project CDBG HOME Successful Living Acquisition #1 $0 $48,000 Successful Living Acquisition #2 $0 $48,000 Successful Living Acquisition #3 $0 $48,000 The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops $0 $20,000 Habitat Down Payment Assistance #1 $0 $30,000 Habitat Down Payment Assistance #3 $27,000 $0 Habitat Down Payment Assistance #2 $0 $0 Systems Unlimited New Construction $0 $100,000 City South District #2 $0 $50,000 City South District #1 $0 $44,000 Unlimited Abilities Acquisition $0 $60,000 Little Creations Public Facility $78,000 $0 Total Allocation: $105,000 $448,000 Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 2 of 14 By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends to City Council the following FY21 Emerging Aid to Agencies budget to City Council totaling $16,738 and dividing the remaining $8,262 among Legacy Aid to Agencies applicants (totaling $459 per agency): Grow Johnson County - FY21 Season $0 Houses into Homes - Inventory Mgt $5,438 Successful Living - Snow/Mow $0 Successful Living - Software $0 Unlimited Abilities - Operations $11,300 Total Allocation: $16,738 CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Fixmer-Oraiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Anthony Smith (Pastor, Little Creations Academy) came forward with a couple of questions. First, he was wondering how the agencies are picked for the coalition, it sounds like that happened and he was not privy to how the agencies were picked. Fixmer-Oraiz stated the Agency Impact Coalition was not form by HCDC, it was self-formed and would direct questions regarding the coalition to Becci Reedus, Crisis Center/Food Bank or Nicki Ross, Table to Table. Smith’s follow-up question then is if the coalition is self-formed why it has any impact or any kind of authority at this meeting or before this board? Fixmer-Oraiz wouldn't say it necessarily has authority, the coalition is a gathering of executive directors that have long standing experience with dealing with the Housing Community Development Commission items and wouldn't say that they have a seat at the table. Lehmann reminded everyone that for public comment they're actually not supposed to have conversations, but topics can be put that on the agenda for the next meeting. Smith also stated other thing he was concerned about was the scoring and if there has been some consensus or how that's going to be taken care of and is there an avenue for suggestions on how it might make it a little bit more fair for other agencies to be involved in this. He understands he is just asking the question, it's not a dialogue, per perhaps something to put on your meeting agenda. Lehmann made a general public comment that typically they look at those things (such as scoring criteria) in leading up to the December meeting, so November is typically when the scoring is discussed. Just as a general comment to the Commission in case you're curious for background. MONITORING REPORTS: NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY: Lehmann reported they use the assistance for their early childhood program up to five years, included childcare for 136 infants, toddlers and preschoolers. They had some youth development where over 800 school aged children participated in before and after school programs at the schools. And then family development, they also provide support Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 3 of 14 to families and then some community development where they respond to issues that affect the entire neighborhood. They included a list of things that they did, a snapshot of outcomes which included 91% improved or maintained healthy family functioning problem solving communication, 51 out of 58 which is 88% improved or maintain social supports, 88% increase their connection to concrete supports, 60% improved nurturing attachment between parent and child, and 57% increase knowledge of child development. He shared the the report with the Commission and if they have questions, they can always bring them up at the next meeting or or ask for follow up. 4CS: Lehmann read from their report that during the last half of 2019, they’ve provided over 100 consultations to 23 home-based programs. They work with these providers on a number of things from registration to additional trainings for DHS approval, to talk about safe sleep practices, and early learning activities. These are new providers, childcare providers, so addressing how to market their business so that families can find them is part of the conversation as well. They work hard to get them in the food program, which partially reimburses them for healthy meals and snacks they serve to children they take care of. They’re struggling with landlords that are limiting the number of children that they can have, despite the fact that they are monitored by 4C's and by any number of agencies. 4C’s is pleased that their program continues to grow. They have six who are currently going through the registration process, and it's been a lot of word of mouth activity. Most of the providers are providing infant care and it doesn’t say how many children that they're providing care for, but they assisted 23 home-based programs this year. SHELTER HOUSE: In FY19 they were allocated Home Funds of $94,000 with a loan from the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County to acquire a property at Wakefield Court to be used at Fair W eather Lodge which is a communal living supportive housing environment for folks that had experienced homelessness. They just bought the house, they have five SRO units and they're seeing if they can add another bedroom possibly, but they're not proceeding at the current time. They're waiting due to some rehab delays to fill the units but otherwise the property is purchased, and they are working on the property. For Aid to Agencies for FY20 they have served 674 unique individuals currently in emergency shelter, 99 of whom were children, 47 are non-school aged. That has also been an average of 11 people using overflow and sleeping in the lobby of the Southgate Avenue shelter as the facility is running capacity for the standing 70 beds. The winter shelter has maintained a nightly average capacity of 27. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM: Ryan Holst (DVIP) reported their project was to repair two of their parking lots that were crumbling and needed to be replaced, that has been finished. They finished with the fence right after that, there were some hiccups on that but that had been resolved. The fences are up and working very well, stopping through traffic, making it a lot safer. Finally, they are now finishing up the part of the project of renovating the youth room. They are basically done with that but are waiting on one cabinet door to be brought back. They had an issue with a manufacturing default on one of the cabinet doors, and once that is in they'll be completely finished with the project. DISCUSS FY21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME PROGRAM FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Lehmann started by showing the average by points provided by each Commissioner, he also included the individual Commissioners’ rankings. Lehmann also provided a memo regarding some concerns that staff had under the CDBG program. Most of it is tied to either applicant capacity or risk of repayment of CDBG funds. In CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant Program, there is a required five-year period which is called reversion of assets period. If, for whatever reason a project does not meet its need as shown in the application for five years, then that money gets pulled out of the project. So typically that would come by whatever the asset is for example if you helped someone buy a property, that property would get liquidated or it would be sold off to someone else and the City would get its money back and the City would pay HUD back. That's the typical process. In this case, Staff’s concern is tied to Little Creations Academy because we provided $109,000 last year, the project is close to being closed, but it's not quite there yet, they still need a couple reports from Little Creations. Staff is a little concerned about if another $78,000 is provided to Little Creations Academy then that means that the City is at risk for Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 4 of 14 $187,000 with non-federal funds should the agency close. The concern is that the childcare provider space is provided by a church and there's a number of reasons why churches close or why childcares close and in this case the childcare is located in the church building and poses a bit more of a risk because it is difficult to get that kind of equity back out should Little Creations close within five years. Staff just wanted the Commission to be aware of that, it doesn't mean that they can't fund it, it just means that that's a concern to be aware of as you're making your funding decisions this year and the City needs to be aware it is their funds they will lose should it close. Staff’s second concern is that with HOME funds, there's a similar affordability period of 5 to 15 years. It is often described as CDBG being you're dating the person so it's a shorter-term thing and HOME is more of a marriage where you're together for 5 to 15 years. HOME funds have a lot more requirements that are tied to it over the long-term funding period. In this case, Unlimited Abilities as a new agency doesn't have experience with HOME or CDBG funds and staff is a little concerned about using Home funds with Unlimited Abilities. Again, if they don’t meet their requirement over the period either they'll be forced to sell the property, which would go back to HUD, or if something else happened then the City would be on the hook for that money. Lehmann noted that staff did just want to put out a recommendation that if looking at Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations, that reversion of assets only applies for over $25,000 so they would recommend funding $25,000 as the maximum amount for those and then possibly reopening an application round for CDBG/Home applicants if it's necessary. That's a staff recommendation again, HCDC can recommend what it likes, and Council can recommend what it likes, but staff needs HCDC and Council to be aware of those risks that come with those properties. Fixmer-Oraiz noted that Unlimited Abilities, the acquisition is ranked pretty low but wants to understand the staff concern. Lehmann stated the concern is specifically with HOME funds, and to some extent with CDBG funds, but honestly, the reversion of assets is more of a challenge for Little Creations then Unlimited Abilities because they're purchasing a new building so that reversion of assets should be able to be recouped. In the case of Little Creations, the church may still exist, and no assets would be gained even if the church sold. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if more of the concern with Unlimited Abilities was because they had never done a project with the City before. Lehmann stated the other factors as to why Unlimited Abilities ranked lower was because of the way that the ranking is set up. Leverage is a large part of that, and Unlimited Abilities lost 19 points from that alone, which is a pretty big hit for the application. It did lose points on capacity in history, it only had 4 out of 15, mostly because it didn't have experience with CDBG/HOME funds in the past. Those are really where it lost most of its points in the application. That staff memo was a different point on what it looks like when you have to reclaim funds. McKinstry asked about the Little Creations application, in the chart it says a minimum of $30,000 and staff recommended a maximum of $25,000. Lehmann stated the Consolidated Plan has a minimum written of $30,000 for public facilities and he had written that without thinking about reversions of assets, he based it off past public facilities projects where it used to be $50,000 minimum to get a public facilities project. Lehmann wanted to lower it because they had applications like Old Brick where it was $36,000 so he thought $30,000 was fair. In this case, he would recommend as they're approving the Annual Action Plan to also amend the Consolidated Plan to be $25,000 because that allows for reversion of assets. Lehmann said the Commission could recommend $25,000 and also recommend a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan. Fixmer-Oraiz asked why there needed to be a minimum stated. Lehmann said there had been a time period where they were doing $5,000 projects, and they'd have 12 projects to administer. As staff decreased in the community development department that did not become feasible, similar to what happened with Aid to Agencies with the $15,000 minimum. HCDC could propose a different minimum project amount, another rationale behind having a minimum was that instead of doing a project every year, do one project every five years and have it cover a bunch of stuff. There are tradeoffs. Eastham noted that one of the advantages of having recommendations from the staff is they give him something to ignore. He doesn’t find that reversion of assets argument at all persuasive. It's the same risk that any applicant or any application presents to the City and he doesn’t see any alarming risks from either Little Creations or Unlimited Abilities in terms of not being able to go ahead with the projects over the required time periods to avoid reversion. He noted the staff memo actually doesn’t talk at all about Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 5 of 14 the benefits for these projects and Little Creations presents a huge benefit to the community for a low- cost childcare. Unlimited Abilities also presents a huge benefit to the community for group housing for the folks that their mission is to serve. The staff of Unlimited Abilities has the same abilities and qualifications as a staff of any other of these organizations. He is not at all concerned about the things that the staff raised in their memo. Eastham did note he thinks it's important to support newer groups, they pose a benefit to the communities that they're serving as well as to the general community by opening up a new organization with new staff that can expand the overall ability to provide housing and childcare for the community. He will be sticking with his recommendations, both in terms of scoring and with recommended allocations. Alter stated one of the things that she is noticing from the conversation as well as having gone through the applications is that there seems to be almost like a paradox here that on the one hand, we want larger projects and certainly there's need and there are the funds for it, but on the flip side, there's possibility of risk, which she is attributing primarily, though there are other things outlined here too, to the fact that both agencies in this case are fairly new. She also noted for instance that in the application for Little Creations it does note in two places about past projects having been substantially delayed, but she also noticed that there was one for Habitat that also talked about delays, but obviously the strength of that application was different than Little Creations. So taking those two things into account along with what staff has been describing, in conversation as well as in the memo, it seems like there's an inherent contradiction here that the place to get larger funds that really are desperately needed in the community by different agencies, this is the resource for the funding, and yet there's this hesitancy, at least from staffs part, to perhaps go all in on that because of the possibility of that 5 year or 15 year possibility of the agency going under. Lehmann stated from the staff perspective, when it comes to compliance, local funds are the best to fund starting agencies hands down, it's the right option because the City controls what most of the rules are and can work within those rules to ensure that newer agencies have the flexibility to grow and to learn. In the case of federal funds there is a lot more monitoring, if things are not done properly then funds can get recalled, which can be challenging if funds are spent. In terms of difficulty, generally CDBG is easier to manage than HOME. HOME in 2013 had a substantial rule change and that's made it a lot more challenging, and they’re even just learning as they do the monitoring with existing agencies, a lot of those changes in 2013 are not necessarily there. If HUD comes to monitor, and they find us out of compliance, there's a chance that they could recall those funds. It's a balancing act between saying we want to foster new agencies, but we want to ensure that they are able to spend the funds without the fear of having it recalled at some point over the compliance period. Eastham stated if they all had that perspective then The Housing Fellowship would never gotten started. Drabek noted one question he has for staff is he understands the risk, he doesn’t understand how risky the risk is. He understands Lehmann can't give anything close to a hard number, but for him it would make a big difference to whether there was a 1% chance of the funds getting recalled versus a 25% chance of the funds getting recalled. Lehmann stated in the case of Unlimited Abilities he has never worked with that agency and they're both new agencies so it's hard to say, he can't give a risk amount, what he can say is that CDBG funds are less risky to use. In the case of Little Creations, they've shown a great dedication to providing low cost childcare, that's a great thing for low income people. But, like he said, the City would probably be less risk averse if it hadn't happened once already in a church providing childcare situation. If someone moved who was the champion for that to a different location or retired or anything like that, you never quite know what happens. Lehmann reiterated he can't give any kind of risk analysis, but what staff wants to do is make sure that you are aware that there is a risk, and then go ahead and make your recommendation and either ignore it or make your best guess on saying you think it's going to stick it out for those five years. Eastham asked if the City could attach a lien to the building of the church building itself. Lehmann confirmed the City would have a lien, but churches eventually sell their buildings and do something else. Eastham noted the City's pretty heavily involved in taking long term commitments for housing. Eastham Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 6 of 14 also stated for the benefit of the Commission, he just doesn’t think this is a real issue for them to consider. Eastham stated he does have a question about the City's South District Program. The application indicates or some other source indicates that the staff has received 11 applications for the four units that are currently in the program and he wonders what the racial makeup of those applicants is and where are they living. Lehmann believes at least the two that are moving forward right now are South District residents from Taylor Drive and are currently neighbors, so they're excited to continue being neighbors. Lehmann noted he is not as involved with that program and does not have those numbers with him but thought that was stated in the application. Eastham noted the number of applicants was in the application but there was no demographic breakdown or the residency of the applicants. Lehmann said the program is targeted towards neighbors staying in the neighborhood. He added that the expected incomes is based off of the applicants that they currently have but obviously with one applicant at 61 to 80 and one at 31 to 50 it's not a full breakout but he believes that's representative of what they've got in applications. Fixmer-Oraiz asked with the figures that they have today what is the average. Lehmann stated three households are under 30%, five are 30 to 53 or 60 to 80 but he doesn’t have the racial makeup. Fixmer-Oraiz stated with the average of everything recommended, and then the expected, there's a tiny wiggle room there and is curious where they’re at with everything now that there is an average and given the conversation she is curious if people have thoughts on anything that they want to move or change. McKinstry suggested to see everybody who asked for funds get some this time because of the needs that are out there. He does take seriously all the hard work they put in on the scoring system and trying to make the scoring system actually mean something so that when agency executives are searching for what their next objective is they can count on if they really score high because they really push to do those things they be rewarded. He also thinks it's very important to help out new agencies but is more interested in the services that people actually get in the end, the people who are in need. Therefore, he would like to see Little Creations and Unlimited Abilities get some funding but would recommend that everything above those on the list, due to their scores, be fully funded and that they look at what remains that isn't allocated by fully funding all those of above the bottom two and then they discussed more in more depth the final two and that they use the HOME funds everywhere they can above the bottom two in the ranking. If they use up all the HOME funds first and then have the CDBG funds left over for the bottom two because there is more local flexibility and because they have more recoverability if there is a problem. Eastham stated he looked at the projects and what they actually accomplish. He is really pleased with the group home projects of Successful Living, Systems Unlimited and Unlimited Abilities. They also have though four units for the City South district and three Habitat down payment assistance projects for a total of seven homeowner projects, which, in his mind are useful but not totally essential things for them to be doing. Eastham agrees with McKinstry and feels maybe they’re going in the same direction, but he could certainly remove funding for one of the South district projects and one Habitat down payment assistance project and to bring the Little Creations and Unlimited Abilities up closer to their to their application request. He added one of the things he used in scoring Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations was the leveraging question and the difficulty he has with the way that that leveraging question is being utilized is that they're looking for leveraging for funds outside of the HOME and CDBG things. For him the leveraging question should be looking for funds that are other public funds that are available to the project or to the applications, rather than private because all the private funds are coming from the homebuyers. Lehmann noted it is mostly like mortgages, basically the down payment. Eastham stated he is giving credit for leveraging for money that's coming in from people that are benefiting from project so did his points for leveraging for both Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations to consider that balancing. Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 7 of 14 Lehmann noted the agreement on funding at least the top group homes and then further discussion, all agreed. Drabek stated he also agreed with McKinstry’s general principle of using the HOME funds first for the higher ranks. All other Commissioners agreed. Lehmann said by doing that it that would leave $74,000 of CDBG currently open. Fixmer-Oraiz asked him to calculate the Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations amounts. Drabek noted Eastham wanted to take money from that third Habitat request and then move it to Little Creations or Unlimited Abilities. Eastham agreed noting that still give two Habitat down payment projects funded. Lehmann noted if they do that it would leave $27,000 which could be used for Habitat. Alter noted she may be in the minority here with the South District, she realizes that one of them is funded but was very taken by a discussion or presentation by Habitat a couple of years ago about the impact because it was at that time a low priority and hadn't gotten a whole lot of consensus about getting funding. The explanation that they provided us was about the sort of the ripple effect of impact on homeownership and legacy and bolstering up of neighborhoods. South District, particularly on Taylor and Davis, as Eastham has long fought and been an avid advocate for, really allowing the neighborhood to actually have the potential for home ownership is crucial in the long term but in particular right now because there's actually a lot of violent interaction there. She feels there are multiple ways in which the neighborhood can be strengthened and that don't necessarily have to rely on police action. She is not saying if one is to buy a home they don't have to call the police but that there needs to be other props in place to help strengthen that neighborhood. She thinks that both projects should go through and she realizes it's about risk because this is a new project, but the flip side is that they saw what was done with the one set of units, it's really tremendous. She noted there seems to be consensus on funding at least one she wanted to put that out there to fund both. They have done away with priority rankings and her fear is that something that's really looking forward towards future stability and strength is going to always get pushed down in favor of a more critical need, but both are tremendously important. McKinstry noted he is in agreement and thinks homeownership has a stabilizing effect on whole generations of families in whole neighborhoods and it extends further than just the family that lives within the walls. As he already stated he’d rather see the Habitat and South District things fully funded. McKinstry also noted for many years he was pastor of a congregation that had childcare, it was a HeadStart program, and a lot of federal funding helped. They shared the kitchen, the dishwasher, the range so he understands and is in great sympathy with the need for Little Creations to be funded. Eastham stated he is not inclined to overlook group home support, or down payment assistance or home ownership, his argument is that Council has funds that they can put into homeownership both in the South District and Habitat projects beyond the CDBG and HOME amounts. If Council was persuaded that the South District homeownership project or Habitat’s down payment assistance project is a great boom to the community they have available money in other parts of the City budget to put into those efforts. Fixmer-Oraiz noted the Commission has gone to City Council several times now requesting additional funds. She agrees the City South District is a very strong component because they need neighborhood stabilization in that district, which also shows in the scoring. She agrees there are other funding but is just not sure who's going to take up that mantle at this juncture. Drabek discussed the scenario with the numbers shown as everything fully funded and use the remaining CDBG and allocate it towards the two organizations left. Fixmer-Oraiz questioned is if those two organizations are not fully funded will they still be able to move forward with their projects. Lehmann stated for Unlimited Abilities they could perhaps purchase one Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 8 of 14 home instead of two and Little Creations would just buy whatever they could with the allocation they receive. Alter stated that Unlimited Abilities said in their application they could purchase a home for $75,000 and she sounded pretty confident that there was some way that that was going to work. Therefore, Alter’s recommendation is to fund one home. Fixmer-Oraiz noted that Systems Unlimited is such a great organization and they're asking for $100,000. They also have a fairly robust ability to leverage funds from what she recalls so what if they funded them at most but not all, somewhere in the range of $74,000 or $75,000 and then that would free up other funds for the other organizations. Lehmann stated already bought the lot, their project budget is $478,000, the lot purchase is $65,000, engineering and design and then home construction for $375,000. Fixmer-Oraiz said they're asking for $100,000 which would be spread throughout those specifics and if it were somewhere in the vicinity of $75,000 then they would be able to get a lot purchased plus have a bit extra. Fixmer-Oraiz asked is there anything the Commission needed to know from any of the organizations. Lehmann noted there has been some of the more recent projects delayed a little bit so that FY20 Successful Living acquisitions have gone forward smoothly, Successful Living’s rehab has been a little slower, Habitat’s FY20 has switched to a down payment assistance model, so we're not as involved in the construction so he doesn’t know where those projects are as much. With South District, the challenge they've had, especially since they've been looking in the area and prioritizing lower income folks, it's hard to get them qualified with a mortgage and because it's a new program, working with lenders, get them to understand what the down payment assistance situation looks like, and what's getting forgiven and what the costs are is challenging. With Systems Unlimited the City doesn’t have an active project with them , The Housing Fellowship has a bunch of properties, they're pretty well known, and they have a good compliance. Little Creations has been, especially with the new contractor on that last part of the contract went pretty smooth. Lehmann wanted to reiterate he is not worried about the project getting done or anything, he has no problems with that. He noted it's been an unfortunate situation where they've been delayed this time so now they're just waiting on reports from Little Creations to submit that and they can close that out. Lehmann noted those were just general thoughts, no real concerns. Drabek asked without discussing any specific number here he thinks that the general principle of what is suggested is good. He stated it rewards the higher scoring applicants, it gives money to every agency, it appropriately balances the CDBG versus HOME funds. Lehmann noted one additional thing that might be of interest to the Commission is with the new Consolidated Plan, they are de-obligating old funds that don't get spent on economic development within two years. They have been trying to push childcare as their economic development activity but will likely have funds that will be de-obligated in CDBG, which could then be reallocated and could retroactively fund an agency more. It is not a promise, and the Commission could also do a funding round it would just depend on how HCDC wanted to approach that based on the policies that are in the Consolidated Plan. Fixmer-Oraiz asked when that would be. Lehmann stated it would be July 1 unless projects come through right at the end over the next three months, he believes that it would be around $60,000. Eastham wants to understand what the boost in proposed allocations are again, Lehmann stated the proposed allocations right now are full funding for Successful Living’s three acquisitions, Housing Fellowship CHDO, Habitat’s three purchases or down payment assistance, Systems Unlimited new construction and then the City’s South District program projects. Then for Unlimited Abilities acquisition would be $75,000 and Little Creations would be $24,000 and the Commission would have to amend the Consolidated Plan with a smaller amount. Eastman stated he would not approve only $24,000 for Little Creations as it doesn’t make any sense to him. He said they could move one of the Habitat down payment assistance proposals and increase the Little Creation amount. Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 9 of 14 Drabek noted there is one very small change that would eliminate the necessity of asking for an amendment to the Consolidated Plan and that would be moving $6,000 in CDBG funds from City South District to Little Creations. That would bring the amount to $30,000. Eastham noted that $30,000 still below the average allocation of $40,000. He also stated affordable childcare is a major need in the community and one which there is substantial efforts being conducted by a number of groups in the community to address. Lehmann noted with the Little Creations project the hood is $28,000 roughly by itself, then there's electrical, plumbing, gas range for $3,000, three parts sink for $1,600, commercial dishwasher for around $9,000 and a number of site preparation stuff and then some of the developer oversight stuff. Drabek noted then the allocation of $30.000 would be roughly the amount of the hood budget. Or Lehmann noted the dishwasher, sink, range and plumbing. Fixmer-Oraiz also noted to keep in mind that in July there may be another $60,000 that could be reallocated. Lehmann confirmed that is what they're anticipating. Eastham noted that $60,000 could also use for down payment assistance on one of the other homeownership projects. Lehmann acknowledge it could be for any unfunded project or to fully fund a project or a competitive round could be opened. Eastham suggested reducing the number of home ownership projects. Lehmann stated that would require shifting HOME to Unlimited Abilities and then moving Unlimited Abilities CDBG down and he stated that blending funding is challenging and best to fully fund with one source of funds as they’ve had issues in the past. Lehmann stated they're trying to make it easier, but it's not easy and even experienced agencies do not always comply properly, and he would recommend against doing it. Fixmer-Oraiz asked what if they fully fund Little Creations, she agrees with Eastham and has actually spent quite amount of time on the Johnson County Child Care Coalition and childcare is a serious need in the community for many reasons, so is there a way to just take one of Habitat’s down payment assistance and move it over to Little Creations. Lehmann stated if they wanted to go this route he would recommend on down payment for Habitat under CDBG and one under HOME. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the Commission could ask a question of Unlimited Abilities since they are in the audience. She asked if this was to go through and they get half of the funding now and half of the funding later, is that an issue in terms of timing, given the project that they have. Shirley Trample (Unlimited Abilities) replied she doesn’t think it would be. Lehmann state he would also propose if they were to do that, they still swap out the HOME for CDBG and Habitat can be funded with CDBG. Alter moved to recommend the following FY21 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Program budget to City Council totaling $448,000 HOME and $105,000 CDBG: Project CDBG HOME Successful Living Acquisition #1 $0 $48,000 Successful Living Acquisition #2 $0 $48,000 Successful Living Acquisition #3 $0 $48,000 The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops $0 $20,000 Habitat Down Payment Assistance #1 $0 $30,000 Habitat Down Payment Assistance #3 $27,000 $0 Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 10 of 14 Habitat Down Payment Assistance #2 $0 $0 Systems Unlimited New Construction $0 $100,000 City South District #2 $0 $50,000 City South District #1 $0 $44,000 Unlimited Abilities Acquisition $0 $60,000 Little Creations Public Facility $78,000 $0 Total Allocation: $105,000 $448,000 Eastham seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (McKinstry opposed). DISCUSS FY21 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Lehmann noted the budget for EA2A is $25,000 and he showed the averages. He noted that Successful Living snow/mow is below the $5,000 minimum. Otherwise, if they funded everything, it would all hit that $5,000 minimum. Lehmann noted all requests are above the minimum and noted that two Successful Livings requests are technically over the maximum. Fixmer-Oraiz asked it agencies could put in multiple applications. Lehmann said the guidance that they have so far is that there's a minimum and there's a maximum, but they haven't talked about multiple applications. CDBG/HOME agencies got guidance to put in one application for every property that they want to purchase with the idea that it would be easier to allocate funds. Eastham noted the Successful Living snow removal thing just failed to excite him so he moved the $2,250 down to Unlimited Abilities. Fixmer-Oraiz stated that for people who have access or accessibility problems, not having clear sidewalks, entryways, and driveways is an issue. It is also a strain on their staff who's having to go around to all of these properties, so she thought it was actually a good investment. Lehmann noted that Successful Living is typically chronic mental disabilities, but it does include physical disabilities as well. Alter stated she was trying to look at this through the lens of why emerging aid to agencies was its own separate allocation pot and the purpose of having the emerging aid to agency was really to try and fund organizations that were trying to emerge and getting off of their feet. Which is also the question she had about Grow Johnson County, haven’t they previously been funded. They always have great application, and it's certainly a worthy cause but at what point are they emerging anymore. Similarly, Successful Living is the same. It’s not that she doesn’t think it's worthy and people do need to get around, but rather to reflect on why we had the categories separated. And in that case, Houses into Homes definitely qualifies and Unlimited Abilities as well. Eastham stated an option would be to fund Unlimited Abilities and Houses and Homes as genuine emerging aid and then devote the remainder back to the other HOME/CDBG projects. Other Commissioners agreed to that. Alter also stated it's incumbent upon the Commission to be a little bit clearer on the application as to what emerging aid category is and what that means. They need a clarification statement on the application so they don't waste people's time. She apologizes to those organizations that it really was a failure of the Commission. Eastham is proposing to fund Unlimited Abilities and Houses and Homes and have the remaining $8,262 go the legacy agency projects and be divided equally per agency. Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 11 of 14 Eastham moved to recommend the following FY21 Emerging Aid to Agencies budget to City Council totaling $16,738 and dividing the remaining $8,262 among Legacy Aid to Agencies applicants (totaling $459 per agency): Grow Johnson County - FY21 Season $0 Houses into Homes - Inventory Mgt $5,438 Successful Living - Snow/Mow $0 Successful Living - Software $0 Unlimited Abilities - Operations $11,300 Total Allocation: $16,738 Alter seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. DISCUSS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK ACTIVITIES: Lehmann noted Community Development week is held annually, it's a time to celebrate the projects that are funded by CDBG and HOME and it's a way to get out the word so the Commission can see what's happening. Last year they did those tours of the agencies but are now doing that now on a more personalized basis. There has also in the past been things where the Commission has decided to put on an event or awards, a celebration, it is up to the Commission if that is something that they want to take on. If the Commission is interested in doing that, they can create a subcommittee or discuss. Probably the easiest thing to do is to create a subcommittee and organize something that way. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if there was an interested in creating a subcommittee to come up with some ideas that people want to do, however she acknowledged #Coronavirus. They probably don't want to devote scads of time into something that ultimately may not happen. Lehmann suggested doing something like posters or social media. Fixmer-Oraiz noted she has kicked around this idea of communities of care and could really fit in something like what Lehmann was saying of posters. She had originally envisioned it as letters of care and it would be basically love letters to our partner organizations. However she is not sure if letters fall under spreading coronavirus. They could do emails of care. She came up with that idea while she was sitting in the meeting with the City and with the Agency Impact Coalition, it was very tense but then there was this moment of hey, we're people, and we're really trying to do good work. She just thought there's an opportunity there to tell that story in a way that's actually recognizing the work that our care providers provide do is really from a loving place. Lehman suggested as Commissioners, they have their meetings with each agency and how about after those meetings they write letters thanking them for the work that they do. Alter asked if the audience is just those agencies. Fixmer-Oraiz stated she was trying to get the public to write the letters but obviously it's easier if we just do it because it actually will get done. It was also a way for the City to potentially be a drop off point for the City to receive the letters to them and showing it is full circle of the City and the agencies working together in the eye of the public. Fixmer-Oraiz wondered if there could be something on the City website where people could just write a quick note. Consensus to agree to develop a subcommittee to flesh out ideas. Fixmer-Oraiz asked since they are not promoting large group gatherings at this point, can they potentially move to another week. Lehmann stated it is a nationally recognized week, but they can have a local community development week. Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 12 of 14 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 20, 2020: Eastham moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 2020. Kealey seconded and a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: Lehmann noted the next meeting will be on April 16 at 6:30pm in Senior Center room 202. Agenda will be monitoring updates on Little Creations, Successful Living and The Housing Fellowship, they will discuss projects not conforming with the unsuccessful delayed projects policy, which at this point he believes is only Old Brick and they've actually gotten word from the HUD rep and are moving ahead so very excited about that. They will also review of the FY21 Annual Action Plan and then review of the Citizen Participation Plan update. One thing that staff has been doing is going through the Citizen Participation Plan and will put it as an appendix to the Consolidated Plan as well. They will also consider amendments to the Consolidated Plan, such as the public facilities amount, if that's something the Commission wants to pursue. He asked it there anything else to add to the agenda. Fixmer-Oraiz asked to discuss the method of the meeting on April 16 as she doesn’t think they should meet in person. Lehmann said the City has not yet had consideration for Commission's or Committees meeting virtually but imagines that will change relatively soon. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if they could us Skype or Zoom. Lehmann said they can do digital meetings so long as it is on any open meeting software like Skype or Zoom. He noted there's some additional rules that come with that but for the most part it's going to be the same they just have to make sure that they're posting all the information so that everyone can participate. Eastham added at some point, he’d like to talk about the Agency Impact Coalition but would not necessarily want to do that at an electronic meeting and rather do it in person. Lehmann noted that there is not an HCDC meeting scheduled in June, April will likely be an online meeting, May could as well. They need to have the April meeting but in May they don't necessarily need to meet however that could mean the next meeting would be July. Lehmann also wanted to pass on information from Shelter House, currently the guidance from HUD as to how to deal with the outbreak within a shelter situation versus other situations has not been terribly useful up to this point and so Shelter House is looking for any ideas, right now the City is trying to work through this but it's a challenging situation. Lehmann also noted the City is also trying to figure out how to use public facilities right now, the model is mostly a disaster recovery situation, but this is different than relocating someone from a floodplain, or flood impacted area. Eastham assumes Shelter House has looked at the Department of Public Health and the State Department. Lehmann confirmed they have and there is some guidance out of LA County that's better than HUDs but I mean, it's very different place by place and the shelters are a challenging situation. Shelter House is also looking for donations of sanitary supplies because obviously they're going through a lot of those and it's out at a lot of places. McKinstry pointed out that the Meals on Wheels people have already made sure that all of their clients have seven days of their normal support services food on hand which was really cool but they don’t know where the money for that is going to come from for sure but they went ahead and did it, even though it wasn't in their budget. He stated it was good they looked at the emergency funding last month, because he is sure there's going to be some requests for reimbursement from some of the agencies who are really getting ahead of things and spending money they don't have in order to try to avoid some cataclysm with their clientele. Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 13 of 14 Lehmann noted in terms of agency liaison meetings, McKinstry is done with his visits, Fixmer-Oraiz has April and May, does Eastham want June and July to get them done. Fixmer-Oraiz said she may have to push back her visits due to COVID-19. Lehmann agreed and suggested they delay until June and just plan on starting in June. Final announcements, Lehmann has accepted a different position at the City of Iowa City and will be transitioning to the long-range planner position. He will work closely with his successor to make sure that things transition smoothly and will actually be transitioning March 24. The position is open right now till March 25 if you know of anyone who would be interested in applying for a community development planner position. ADJOURNMENT: Alter moved to adjourn. Kealey seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 6-0. Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2020 Page 14 of 14 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 2/20 3/12 Aguilar, Peggy 6/30/22  X X O/E X X O/E Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X X O/E X X X X Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 O/E X X X O/E X X Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X X X X X X X Fixmer-Oraiz, V 6/30/20 X X X X X O/E X Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook 6/30/22 O/E X O/E O/E X X X McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X O/E X X X X X Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 O/E X X X O/E X O/E Padron, Maria 6/30/20 X X X X O/E X O/E