Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet 07-16-2020 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) July 16, 2020 Electronic Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM Zoom Meeting Platform AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 18, 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. Welcome New Members HCDC will welcome three new members: Theresa Lewis, Nasr Mohammed, and Kyle Vogel. 5. Officer Nominations Per HCDC Bylaws, the Commission nominates and elects a Chair and Vice Chair each July. The Commission will nominate and vote for these two positions. 6. Update on COVID-19 Funding Availability Staff will provide an update on programs and funding related to COVID-19, specifically the availability of CDBG-CV funds and eviction prevention efforts. 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 comment on an agenda item by going to: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYtf-GqqjwrG9c61IjyoMl34H4NDUaUNmRc to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration page and submitting the required information. Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to join the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number found in the email. 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 935 7786 6280 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 Brianna Gabel at brianna-gabel@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. 7. FY22 Legacy Aid to Agencies Application Process Staff will provide an overview of the current Legacy Aid to Agency application process. Legacy Agencies will be given an opportunity for input. HCDC will vote on the application and scoring criteria for FY22 Aid to Agency funding ahead of the Joint Funding process with United Way which is anticipated to begin in August. 8. Discussion on Aid to Agency Visits HCDC will discuss how to proceed with Aid to Agencies visits with consideration of COVID- 19. 9. Follow up Discussion on June Recommendations to City Council HCDC will discuss any follow up from the two recommendations made to City Council in June on the subjects of utility bills and racial justice. 10. Housing & Community Development Information 11. Adjournment MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2020 – 6:30 PM ELECTRONIC MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Aguilar, Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Charlie Eastham, V Fixmer- Oraiz, Lyn Dee Kealey, John McKinstry, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Brianna Gabel, Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Simon Andrew, Roger Goedken, Sara Barron, Kathleen Crawford RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 8-0 (Aguilar not present) HCDC recommends to City Council to support local efforts to provide utility assistance for households in need. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Fixmer-Oraiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 16, 2020: Eastham moved to approve the minutes of April 16, 2020. Alter seconded and a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 (Aguilar, Pardon, Kealy and Nkumu not present for the vote). PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. 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. Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2020 Page 2 of 10 MONITORING UPDATES: The Housing Fellowship: Simon Andrew (Executive Director) gave an update on the low-income housing tax credit for 628 South Dubuque Street and noted they’d like to have a certificate of occupancy next week and start filling the units by July and per the tax credit process they need to have 14 units filled by July 31. Andrew noted the construction was delayed by a couple of weeks when contractors had to be pulled off the site due to coronavirus, but feels they are back on track. 20 of the 33 units will be targeted for 60% area medium income rents and are 2-bedroom or 1-bedroom units. The rest of the units are market rate units. Eastham asked if there were very many Housing Fellowship tenants who are in arrears on rent payments. Andrew replied that has been increasing every month, as of today they are at $24,000 in late rent for June rent, he did note a lot of folks are starting to catch up but are using stimulus and unemployment payments to do so and may not have funds moving forward. He noted they were able to forgive several thousand dollars in rents due to a donation from The Community Foundation of Johnson County but understands that the economic effects of this pandemic are going to continue for some time. Eastham asked if the Housing Fellowship is trying to develop a plan moving forward to assist tenants unable to pay rents and avoid eviction. Andrew said they are and noted historically they do not evict tenants for inability to pay rents, it is contrary to their mission they do whatever they can to keep families in their homes. Long-term plans include restructuring debt, two of the LIHTC projects are reaching year 15 and at that point the nonprofit has the opportunity to acquire at a very small price, taking on the debt and restructuring their cash flow, so if they acquire those units they will add those units to their pools and strength the Housing Fellowship. Andrew said debt restructuring and partnerships with their lenders will be very important moving forward. They need to look at all their units and see which ones would be affordable at current market rates and perhaps sell those and acquire new properties that would be less expensive to maintain. Successful Living: Hightshoe gave an update from the report Successful Living submitted as of June 2020 which summarized their projects. They completed their FY18 rental rehabs, the FY20 rehabs and they have acquired their units for FY19. For the FY20 units they are looking to acquire three buildings but due to COVID and hiring staff they have not been able to take on tenants for all those units yet. Successful Living did note they used to have approximately 37 beds available in the 2 large houses and they sold the one house that had 20 beds and have recoup those beds in smaller houses with up to 5 beds and as of today they have 50 beds. Doing this they have found it to be a much more efficient and effective model. Eastham commented in reading the report he felt Successful Living has done a remake of their program starting in 2016 to go from living units with larger number of folks in them to smaller numbers because that works better and he feels that is a very admirable thing on the part of the organization. They were able to note their program model was not working out so well and take a substantial capital improvement project to purchase more homes and provide a better service and Eastham thinks that is a commendable plan on their part. Alter agreed and appreciated the report because it helped her understand what Successful Living’s goals were and it expanded upon their applications which don’t always have the space to tell the full story. Roger Goedken (Executive Director) thanked HCDC for all they do and did note they have been under a major overhaul of their housing program, they had just three houses a few years ago and now they are at 10 and looking at 13 for the next fiscal year and they have a huge waiting list. Drabek noted that the house on Johnson Street is his neighbors and he has seen over the past few years the transformations and stated their programs seem to be working very well. Little Creations Academy: Hightshoe gave an update, they were awarded a total of $109,00 and they utilized $108,876 to do quite a few things; remove the asbestos floor tiling, install new floors, install new doors, build a shed out back, install cubbies, room dividers and new h-vac units. Hightshoe stated the Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2020 Page 3 of 10 project is complete and now the City is just waiting for some annual reports so they can close the project. In FY21 Little Creations is awarded $78,000 for a kitchen rehabilitation and the City is currently awaiting the environmental review for that and the release from HUD (which should come by July 1) so they enter into the agreement and Little Creations can proceed with the project. UPDATE ON COVID-19 FUNDING AVAILBILITY Hightshoe noted as the Commission is aware the City approved an amendment on May 5 that included how the City would spend their COVID dollars, the City will receive $410,422 from HUD to directly administer for those impacted by COVID, whether it be agencies or individuals. In the plan that was approved, 60% of the funds would go direct aid for households, 40% would be set aside for nonprofits that would apply through a competitive process and award funding based on applications. Hightshoe said they submitted the amendment in the Annual Action Plan and Consolidate Plan to HUD, the City has called and emailed HUD for updates and to answers questions and have not yet got a response back nor have the funds been sent to the City yet so they are still waiting and cannot yet proceed with releasing funds at this moment. Hightshoe said she has been in many webinars and meetings to learn about what documentation is needed to award these funds, as they have to all be spent in direct impact to COVID. They have been told HUD will send out a federal register notice that will explain guidance but they have not seen that yet. They are hoping to receive guidance by the end of this month but Council decided while the City is waiting to get the funds from HUD the City would start a program out of the Affordable Housing Fund for emergency evictions to cover both rent assistance and utility assistance if someone is in arrears, they would have to be in arrears for at least two months, and it would have to be April, May or June. The City has entered in a contract with Shelter House to administer these funds. If someone is eligible for the State’s eviction program they must apply for the State funds first, if not eligible for the State funds then they can apply through the Shelter House. Hightshoe noted this program just started on June 10 and have had 20 inquires, but out of those inquires no one had submitted an application to the State so they have to go through that process first. Hightshoe reiterated this will just be bridge funding until the HUD funds become available. Eastham asked if the City funds are available to people who are not documented. Hightshoe said they would be eligible, as long as the residence is in Iowa City. Additionally mobile homes are available if they are paying lot rent. She added the program has not been available to homeowners but she did talk to Shelter House today and they haven’t had any requests from homeowners yet, it has been all renters. Eastham asked if this program has been marketed or publicized. Hightshoe said they have sent notification to all the legacy agencies, the Center for Worker Justice, Iowa City Compassion, and also the Affordable Homes Coalition listserv. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the notifications were translated or if it was up to the nonprofits to do so. Hightshoe said the City has not translated it yet, they are hoping this is just a bridge program and the agencies would market it to the folks that are not applying to the State program. The City is still relying on the Federal funds and hoping they come in soon. Fixmer-Oraiz was just hoping by translating it would be a little more user friendly. Hightshoe said when they get the Federal funds and work with the Community Crisis Services they will translate all the information into Spanish and other languages as well. Alter asked if there was a chance this money from HUD won’t come through. Hightshoe said she has a high degree of confidence the City will receive the funds from HUD it is just unsure when they will receive the funds so that is why they needed to implement this bridge program. Nkumu noted that Johnson County has a similar program for rent and utility assistance and wondered if the City would be working with Johnson County to avoid people double-dipping. Hightshoe said the Federal funds come with the stipulation that they can not do duplication of benefits or the City will have to pay the money back, so they are especially cognizant of that and the two agencies the City is contracting with to administer these funds, Shelter House and Community Crisis Services, are both using coordinated entry which is a shared database other agencies can see and it will alert if another agency is helping that individual already. Additionally the funds will go directly to the landlord or utility provider and it will be checked first to make sure they have not already been paid and there is no duplication of benefits. Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2020 Page 4 of 10 Eastham noted it would be helpful to the community as a whole if after a month or so they hear some analysis of the program and if people are applying to multiple services. In the Center for Worker Justice’s case, they have an application for similar programs and they ask if people have applied for other sources and take them at their word, they are not part of that database. In the long-term it would be good to have an overall analysis of what people are doing. Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) noted they have had conversations with many of their partners that are providing rental and mortgage assistance about this issue, not just from the point of view of accidently duplicating resources, but more importantly how effectively and successfully are they providing support to families. Right now when she is telling people where they can go to get help with their rent or mortgage she is giving them a list of four or five places, which is not good in these times of crisis, who has time to contact four or five agencies to get assistance. They are hoping to quickly bring together an expansion of the coordinated entry process that would allow someone to go to any of the places that provide assistance, enter application in just once and all the agencies would be able to see it and help the person see what programs they are eligible for. This way the person would then get a response from the agency that could help them, rather than going to four or five agencies before getting a response. In the past Johnson County Social Services has been a bit of a lone wolf out there, not connected to the other agencies, but Barron said to be successful at this they will want to bring everyone into the shared coordinated entry. Also using this type of process will help with tracking and auditing of the funds as well as the impact of the funds to the community. DISCUSSION ON UTLITY BILLS: Alter explained her interest in getting this topic on the agenda predated all the BLM issues and urgency that has been brought to the City Council’s attention, however this topic brings to light inequities and who is suffering more through the pandemic and this has been brought up to Council through affordable housing as a recommendation to forgive City utilities for those affected. Alter thought it was important for the Commission to address this topic and make a recommendation to Council on the urgency of this matter. Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) stated that very shortly after the pandemic hit the Coalition identified an opportunity for cities to offer utility relief to residents who were impacted by COVID-19. The reason the Coalition targeted utility relief because water, sewer and refuse are utilities directly provided by cities, not just Iowa City, but also Coralville and North Liberty, and they recognized cities receive in revenues more than they have to spend for those utilities. Additionally it is very difficult to apply for multiple programs depending on different income qualifications or guidelines that leave some people out. Also because everyone use water, sewer and refuse it is a way to reach all the households that need assistance. Barron stated they also recognized the City of Iowa City will receive some CARES Act funding through CDBG because they are an Entitlement City, and the cities of Coralville and North Liberty will not have access to those same funds. Doing the utility forgiveness is an equitable way for all the municipalities to participate and offer relief to residents throughout Johnson County. Barron stated they partnered with the Center for Worker Justice and the Iowa City Federation of Labor in making the request, The University Student Government and Graduate Student Government also joined in calling for utility relief again recognizing it is the program that could reach the largest number of households. The City Council heard the request, they decided not to move forward with it at the time for a couple of reasons. One reason was because the City is offering a deferral of water payments and not doing water shutoffs nor assessing late fees for water bills; second was an extension of that idea, because it was very early on in the pandemic they weren’t certain what types of requests they would be getting for assistance and didn’t want to make a decision that took them too far down one path only to find out later there were other needs also to cover. Barron explained since they have received more data that reinforces the need for some type of direct assistance of relief to households. The reasons for that are: one, most of the programs they are seeing for households for relief are for households that are already behind in their rents and utilities. Barron noted that makes sense, it is very clear those households would have a very urgent need for support. However what they are seeing in the survey they are conducting right now with households about housing needs and national data is many people are struggling to stay current on their rent and utilities and are Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2020 Page 5 of 10 using things like the stimulus checks or unemployment checks that are going to expire. Also, the increase each month to the number of people who are charging to a credit card their housing costs is going up. The data also shows a significant portion of people are borrowing money from family or friends or doing payday loans and such to make ends meet. So even amongst households who are currently up to date they are really struggling to pay those bills and in many cases taking steps that are going to create further financial constraints and vulnerabilities for them down the road. Barron stated the question then is do they want the relief they offer to depend on people falling behind on their bills before they can access support and what are the consequences to families trying to keep up with the bills if they are not preventively working to lower the housing costs while they have less access to money, paychecks, etc. The second reason is they know that a number of households that have not paid their water bill has gone up immensely which data has shown the costs and what assistance would be needed to be helpful. In a typical month there would maybe be 100 households who were behind on their water bill, but now due to the pandemic, in June that number was closer to 900 households. Barron stated when they brought this to the City Manager’s attention, his concern was the amount it would cost to cover unpaid water bills, and she understand why they would not want to take a deep dive into the City’s FY20 and FY21 budgets but they show the City does have a pretty healthy position when it comes to the enterprise funds. All the money the City receives in revenue for utilities is money just used to sustain those utilities, it is separate from the City’s general operating funds. For example in FY20 the City transferred $4 million in reserve funds for water and there is a plan for FY21 to transfer $900,000 into the reserves. Barron acknowledged some of those reserves are needed for the City as a condition on some borrowing but is confident the City could find a way to free up some of those funds within the enterprise for water and sewer to pay for utility relief for households. Barron noted that in their recent housing survey it shows clearly the assistance with rental and mortgage assistance is a wide-ranging problem and there are limited resources. So if the City is going to commit a large amount of money to something is it better to offer temporary rental assistance, is it better to help people already behind in their bills to get caught up, is it better to put more money towards urgent needs in a crisis and take money away from longer term strategies that promote affordable housing, those are all decisions that need to be made in a informed way. She added it is very clear they are just at the precipice of a long-lasting crisis, on top of the crisis that already existed for housing, and they will have to be bold and look at all the resources and come up with a plan, it is not just up to the City to come up with long-term solutions. Barron commended the City for being conservative with it’s spending over the years and to create reserves but added if there was ever a time to dip into reserves, this is it. Barron stated if the Commission is interested in supporting utility relief for households impacted by COVID, they would appreciate the support. McKinstry thanked Barron for her presentation and acknowledged that Simon Andrew also pointed out earlier in his presentation the number of people in arrears with The Housing Fellowship rents and he also stated that these folks have either exhausted or are about to exhaust their options for assistance (friends, family, stimulus, credit cards, etc.) so the City needs to be prepared for a long-term assistance plan as it will take a while to climb out of this hole. McKinstry thought Council was pretty clear about trying to keep people in their homes as a top priority which is because it is incredibly costly to get people back into their homes so spending the money to keep them in the homes is a better use of funds. He also noted the City also agreed to help families with utilities and that is important because water is a fundamental need. He thinks that utility assistance should continue to happen alongside assistance for rental and mortgage assistance. The key is to find a way to help people before they are so far in debt it compromises their financial future. Nkumu noted it sounds like the City has enough money in the reserves so he is wondering why there is a question of helping people with utilities and such. It doesn’t make sense to him that the City would give people money just to have that money be turned around and repaid to the City in water bills. It would be better to have an option to forgive a couple months of billing. Barron added that for the $50,000 the City made available for emergency needs through Shelter House, that money came out of the Affordable Housing Fund, and will be paid toward the enterprise fund for water utilities, so it is the City kind of paying itself. It is also important to add it is not good to raid the money that has been set aside for affordable housing priorities for utility relief. This is why it is so important to look at the reserves and the utility enterprises as they are self-sustaining funds. She Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2020 Page 6 of 10 reiterated having the reserves is important but noted this crisis is hopefully a once in a generation crisis and that is what these funds should be used for. Padron asked if everyone who is behind on their bills would receive assistance or would they have to show joblessness or some other criteria. Barron said there are lots of ways to do this, they are advocating for a very low barrier for access to the assistance, people who have lost wages due to COVID could provide they have applied for unemployment or show the lost income, but the key is to not make it too cumbersome so there is not a deterrent for access. Padron asked for clarification on how what the utility payments are used for by the City and if they were to take some of the funds from that enterprise would it affect other things such as Shelter House. Barron replied that the funds collected by utility payments are used to pay for the enterprise only, the City staff, the maintenance, the costs associated with providing those services to residents, it is a self-sustaining enterprise and does not affect other entities such as affordable housing initiatives. Pardon questioned if it is possible to just wait for the City to receive the CDBG CARES Act funds, and also what those funds are earmarked for when the City gets them. Hightshoe stated the City is to receive $410,000 from the CARES Act they just don’t know when that money will be transferred to the City from HUD (early July, late July). Staff presented a plan to Council on how to spend those funds of 60% to direct aid to households (rent, utility assistance) and then 40% reserved for nonprofit agencies to help with homeless services and childcare who have been affected by COVID. Eastham pointed out that the Federal funds (as this $410,000 would be) are generally not available to undocumented residents. Hightshoe confirmed that but said there is a provision in HUD funds that state if they work through a nonprofit the nonprofit does not have a legal responsibility to ensure the people receiving the assistance are legal residents, so by contracting with Community Crisis Systems or Shelter House the City can serve undocumented residents. Pardon noted it has been shown that getting behind on utilities is the first step to homelessness. Fixmer- Oraiz agreed and asked if there is an understanding of the 900 residents currently behind on utilities, what the average amount in arrears is, so what is the cost right now of forgiving those accounts. Barron noted that if there were 1000 households that wanted to use this program each month it could be about $100,000 per month. Fixmer-Oraiz added they would need to know how long this assistance would need to be projected out as well, but even if $100,000 for 6 months was needed ($600,000) that still has to be less than the cost to rehouse people at that magnitude. So the cost of forgiving the utility bills feels like nothing compared to what the costs to the City and citizens could be. Fixmer-Oraiz strongly supports the City forgiving these utility bills and is for a recommendation to Council. Pardon also added that by helping the citizens with the utility bills, it will indirectly help the nonprofits in town, which is the mission of the Commission, because it would then be less citizens that are relying on those nonprofits and their scarce resources. Alter noted in the May 19 Council meeting minutes the City Manger did frame this to show all the different aspects they have to consider with assistance due to this pandemic and to ensure they are using the best ways to prioritize. Nevertheless, it also seems like he was advocating for business as usual but this is not usual times, this is not normal, and this is also extending though the current crisis and sense of urgency of racial equities. Right now there are a lot of high level discussions so if this Commission can go to Council with a concrete actionable item they can act upon and make an immediate impact. Alter is supportive of providing utility assistance or forgiveness. Eastham agreed and stated he is very much in favor of doing this, Iowa City’s water and sewer department is financially a very strong department and it will continue so. The pandemic crisis will probably not go on for more than a couple of years, so it would not be a long-standing change to the water and sewer revenue to the City. Drabek is also supportive but raised the questions how the recommendation might be worded to maximize the effectiveness. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed but noted there is a coalition of organizations putting Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2020 Page 7 of 10 the data together on this so it would be best to see how the Commission can amplified those voices and make the recommendation as actionable as possible. Kealey stated she is also fully supportive and it would be best to include parameters in the recommendation, say for 6 months and then reassess. Barron stated their initial appeal to Council was not effective so they would need to add in more data and perspective that they have now to show the need. They did offer some fairly straight-forward parameters in their recommendation of showing someone has lost income due to COVID and if they were behind on their water bill. Since that recommendation Barron noted her thinking has changed a bit, she now believes of the data now showing the amount of people trying to stay on top of their bills but in financially unstable ways (credit cards, payday loans). She feels the recommendation now should include the hard data and projections of what this might look like over the next six months or so and she will add that to the proposal. Fixmer-Oraiz noted one recommendation is the framework of the burden of service to the City when someone is homeless and emphasizing the catastrophe it would be if hundreds of people became homeless. Having a compelling narrative is important. Additionally this is a urgent issue that will only be increasing every month so can it be acted upon quickly. Barron noted they have the data ready and they have conducted a housing needs assessment survey to show the need. The results were alarming, the dire tone from families in crisis was overwhelming and the questions of where to go for help. Barron restated the request they previously made to Council. They are asking the City of Iowa City to forgive water, sewer, refuse bills for households where one or more adults are unemployed. They recommend the forgiveness period start immediately and include any outstanding balances. This relief should be offered to any household that pays its utility bill directly to the City. Barron said they also did empathize the equity impact in their documentation. Their justification was that a utility relief program provides direct aid to households and the greatest economic need in that they can reduce housing costs through this action, utility relief can be equably offered to every eligible household and providing utility relief will reduce stress on households and provide a clear directive for City staff. Pardon said they should add this relief will also impact the nonprofits the City supports. Hightshoe stated they might want to reword the part about one or more household adults are unemployed because that doesn’t necessarily mean the need is there. If a household has one partner making $500,000 per year and the other partner is laid off, they reasonably should still be able to pay their bills. One would assume they would not apply for assistance, however under these terms they could. She recommends stating support for households at 80% or less of the median income. Barron noted they did consider that but decided to air on the side of making it more accessible to people without the barriers of having to produce proof of income documentation. They also assumed those that did not need the assistance would not apply for it, hoping that wasn’t naive. Padron moved to recommend Council support local efforts to provide utility assistance for households in need. Alter seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0 (Ag uilar not present for the vote). DISCUSSION ON RACIAL JUSTICE: Fixmer-Oraiz stated back on June 6 with the activity of the Iowa Freedom Riders and some of the protests going on around town, V, Padron and Eastham provided a statement to City Council. It was not provided by HCDC because there had not been a meeting, but now want to put it on the agenda and discuss with the entire Commission. The statement asked Council to de-militarize the police and their use of force and recognizing this relates to the work they do here on the Commission when looking at vulnerable populations and access to housing which is why the first two bullet points in the letter were to reduce the police department budget by 15% and reinvest those funds into the community. Fixmer-Oraiz added there is a real misunderstanding of the term “defund the police”, it really should be named “invest Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2020 Page 8 of 10 community” as it loses some of the nuance to state it that way because it doesn’t show the services such as mental health calls, etc. that police have been asked to do and those services can be provided elsewhere and not from the police. The letter also goes into other points about law enforcement, termination of police officers with a history of racist actions, identifying those accountable for throwing tear gas, and other points in the document to say in the face of all that is going on the City needs anti-racist policies recognizing this goes back hundreds of years so it will take everything they have to dismantle those errors. As a Commission they have access to the City in ways other citizens do not. Fixmer-Oraiz noted at the last Council meeting they did come out with a 15-point agenda on how to handle the racial inequity in the City and V believes this Commission could really pay a role in that. Eastham first wanted to commend Fixmer-Oraiz and Padron in drafting this memo to Council and noted how most of what was said in the memo was incorporated in the Council’s 15-point agenda from the last meeting. He is in support of the Commission going ahead with supporting the memo sent to Council and hopes the Commission moving forward keeps supporting such changes against racial inequities and the policing in the City. Drabek stated he really likes this document as it puts some concrete proposals into what the Council adopted with is essentially a framework. This letter gives a specific budget target for police reduction and he believes that is very much what the Council needs to hear right now, he might even argue for more, up to a 25% budget reduction. McKinstry feels they can add some concreteness to it as Crissy Canganeli from Shelter House had a recent report on how much money was saved from emergency room visits and jailing because of the implementation of the Cross Park Place Housing First program. That illustrates with hard figures that supporting people with housing and community programs it saves actual dollars in policing. It is not a matter of wanting to hurt the police department but rather shifting resources to where they are more effective. He does support the letter. Alter suggested resending the letter signed by the entire Commission showing support. Hightshoe said that can be done, they could send a note to Council stating the whole HCDC supports the letter. Padron noted in their letter they asked for the de-militarizing the police however in the Council 15-point statement they just talk about getting rid of military equipment but that’s not really what the point was. The letter sent was to address more of what happens every day and using weapons like tear gas. Kealey wanted to add a bullet a point to add when calls come into the 911 Emergency Communication Center to have more social workers triaging those calls and helping to deescalate those calls before emergency services such as police are dispatched. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed that would be a good addition to a motion. Kealey moved to send letter written by Fixmer-Oraiz, Padron, and Eastham, regarding systemic racism and police militarization, on behalf of HCDC with the addition that when crisis calls come into Johnson County Emergency Communication Center, that there be social service professionals to triage calls. Drabek seconded the motion, a vote was taken and it passed 8-0 (Aguilar not present for the vote). HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: Fixmer-Oraiz noted there are outgoing commissioners, and this is their last meeting. Eastham, McKinstry and Fixmer-Oraiz are all thanked for their services. Fixmer-Oraiz noted it has been a honor and privilege to serve on this Commission and looks forward to seeing the work continued. Fixmer-Oraiz stated they have just accepted a position on the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition and therefore can continue to be a part of the conversation and pushing for radical change. McKinstry echoed Fixmer-Oraiz’s words and stated he was very grateful to serve on this Commission. Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2020 Page 9 of 10 Eastham noted his appreciation to Fixmer-Oraiz and Pardon for their leadership over the time he was on the Commission and stated they have made the Commission effective and he hopes that continues. Eastham will look for ways as a member of the School Board to work with the Commission in providing equitable and fair education for all. Hightshoe also wanted to thank Fixmer-Oraiz, McKinstry and Eastham and acknowledged how much of a commitment they have put into the Commission and how much hard work it is. The City of Iowa City will present each of them with a certificate of appreciation. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Alter seconded the motion and a vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2020 Page 10 of 10 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 4/16 6/18 Aguilar, Peggy 6/30/22  X X O/E X X O/E X Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X X O/E X X X X X X Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 O/E X X X O/E X X X X Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X Fixmer-Oraiz, V 6/30/20 X X X X X O/E X X X Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook 6/30/22 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X O/E X X X X X X X Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X Padron, Maria 6/30/20 X X X X O/E X O/E O/E X From:V Fixmer-Oraiz To:Council Cc:Maria Padron Personal; Charlie Eastham; Erika Kubly; Brianna Gabel Subject:Letter to Iowa City Council members in response to police actions on protestors Date:Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:27:20 AM Dear Councilmembers, We are contacting you regarding the police response to peaceful protestors in Iowa City this past week. The Iowa City Police Department threw flashbangs and tear gas at peacefully assembled community members who had their hands up and were chanting “hands up, don’t shoot.” They also pepper sprayed a peaceful protestor who was trying to assist others who had fallen as a result of unnecessary police force. Our community is not exempt from the events unfolding in recent weeks across the country. The militarization of our police department and its use of force against those peacefully exercising their constitutional right of assembly is a serious threat to our democracy. The Iowa City Police Department’s actions are both unconstitutional and unconscionable; we cannot allow it to continue. The Iowa City Police Department must be held accountable for its actions. It is time to stop over-investing in law enforcement and start re-investing in our communities. As commissioners of the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission, we know that research demonstrates that providing access to affordable housing, education, recreation, and art programs enhances safety and promotes wellness for all who live and work in our community. We demand immediate action to start addressing systemic racism and police militarization in Iowa City, including: A reduction of the Iowa City Police Department budget by 15%. Redirecting those funds to communities of color and vulnerable populations (e.g. to improve neighborhoods, create and improve parks and community centers, affordable housing programs, youth and elderly recreation programming, and public transportation affecting those neighborhoods). Prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing a range of non-violent offenses, including issuing fines, and making arrests for non-dangerous behaviors, eliminating many of the unnecessary interactions between the police and community members that have led to so much violence Termination of employment for police officers with a history of racist actions Identification and accountability for those responsible for throwing tear gas on June 3rd Required sensitivity training and de-escalation training for all local law enforcement Sending a letter from Iowa City Council to the Johnson County Sheriff Department and demandi action on these same issues. Full accountability and disciplinary action every time there is a proven complaint filed by a community member. All of you are aware of the tensions between Iowa City police policies and the impacts they have on our communities of color, and some of you have campaigned on this issue to be elected. This is your opportunity to take action. Sincerely, V Fixmer-Oraiz, Maria Padron, Charlie Eastham Commissioners, Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission ***Test - FY21 Joint Funding ApplicationCommunity Impact Funding FY21 - Joint Application Application Status: In Progress ***Test FY21 Joint Funding Application General Information Agency Name ***Test Executive Director Name Big Outcomes Board President Requestor Phone (319) 338-7823 Email info@unitedwayjc.org Address 1150 5th Street, Suite 290, Coralville, IA, 52241, U.S.A. Website Agency Mission Statement To spread joy and goodwill. Number of Years in Operation 100 Year Org Established   United Way Request for Funding If you are requesting funding from United Way, you are REQUIRED to include a total budget amount. United Way: Request for Funding FY21 Total Budget United Way: % of Total Budget 0.00 6/26/2020 9:40 AM CST © 2020 e-CImpact page 1 of 9 2020 Vision Goals for the Common Good Please indicate the Goal(s) that your agency services support: Income Education Health Johnson County Request for Funding If you are requesting funding from Johnson County, you are REQUIRED to include a total budget amount. Johnson County: Request for Funding for FY21 Total Budget Johnson County: % of Total Budget 0.00 Johnson County: Request for Funding for FY22 For Funding From Johnson County, please indicate category(s) that best describe your service areas: Services that enhance family and child well being  Services that provide for basic human needs such as  food, shelter, safety, crisis intervention Health Services Iowa City Request for Funding 6/26/2020 9:40 AM CST © 2020 e-CImpact page 2 of 9 If you are requesting funding from Iowa City, you are REQUIRED to include a total budget amount. To apply for Iowa City funding, Agency must have received FY20 Legacy Aid to Agency funding. Iowa City: Request for Funding FY21 Total Budget Iowa City: % of Total Budget 0.00 Agency Information Please complete the Salaries & Benefits chart for entire Agency (Form A), in addition to the questions below. 1. What specific need in the community is Agency addressing? (Describe the extent of the need--including current local data with source information and the major factors in the community contributing to the need.) 2. Provide a description of services that will be provided with the United Way funding requested. Specific information is required, not a general agency description. 3. Provide a description of services that will be provided with the Johnson County funding requested. Specific information is required, not a general agency description. 4. Provide a description of services that will be provided with the Iowa City funding requested. Specific information is required, not a general agency description. 5. Please describe how Agency is collaborating with other service providers in the community to reduce costs, increase efficiency and improve services for consumers. Client Information Please complete Client Demographic (Form B) in addition to the question below. 6. Provide a succinct, specific description of your primary target populations(s). Describe clients as a group in terms of their primary needs and strengths. What barriers to success do they face? If Agency serves a regional area, please provide % of overall clients that are Johnson County residents. 6/26/2020 9:40 AM CST © 2020 e-CImpact page 3 of 9 7. Please explain how Agency promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations (including LGBTQ, immigrants/refugees, individuals disabilities) for your clients. Client Information: Area Median Income 8. Organization serves clients who are at (Check all that apply): <30% AMI <50% AMI <80% AMI >80% AMI Please explain : Financial Management 9. Do you have a fee structure for services? If yes, please explain and describe services available for those without ability to pay. 10. Describe how local funding received by your organization helped leverage other revenue in the last fiscal year. Identify and include specific grant/funding sources and amounts that were awarded by using local funding as match. Include the specific local funds used as match (United Way, Johnson County, and/or Iowa City). Agency Accomplishments The United Way and Local Governments work toward making our community a better place to live. Through the 2020 Vision Goals for the Common Good, we will measure our progress towards improving community conditions. Please complete the Performance Measurement Form (Form D) in addition to the question below.  On Form D, please select from the indicators list, the Performance Measurements that will be used by the Agency to measure results of services. YOUR APPLICATION WILL NOT BE COMPLETE OR ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW WITHOUT FORM D. 11. Please provide a specific outcomes/performance measure your organization achieved in FY19. How are people/conditions better because of the services you provided? 6/26/2020 9:40 AM CST © 2020 e-CImpact page 4 of 9 6/26/2020 9:40 AM CST © 2020 e-CImpact page 5 of 9 -- FY21 Form A: Agency Salaries & Benefits***Test FY21 Form A: Agency Salaries & Benefits Please provide the information for employees and volunteers in your agency. If you do not find the position on the list, please add the position in the "other" section. You will need to individually add positions in "other" category. Please indicate if the position has paid leave, Health Insurance or Retirement by playing a "1" in the box if the position receives that benefit. Employees Position Paid Leave Health Ins Retireme nt Plan  Average Salary FTE (Last Year)  FTE (This Year)  FTE (Next Year)  Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volunteers Please indicate the number of volunteers active with your Agency. Last Year This Year 6/26/2020 9:40 AM CST © 2020 e-CImpact page 6 of 9 -- FY21 Form B: Agency Demographic***Test FY21 Form B: Agency Demographic Provide the Agency summary of clients served during last two years and one projected year. If your Agency does not have a client count for any of the categories, please enter "0" in that box. DO NOT LEAVE ANY BLANK. (unduplicated client count) Gender FY18 FY19 FY20 Male Female Non-binary Race/Ethnicity FY18 FY19 FY20 Asian African American Hispanic Native American Multi-Racial Caucasian Other Age FY18 FY19 FY20 0-5 6-17 18-29 30-61 62-75 75+ Years Area Median Income FY18 FY19 FY20 <30% AMI 6/26/2020 9:40 AM CST © 2020 e-CImpact page 7 of 9 FY18 FY19 FY20 <50% AMI <80% AMI >80% AMI Geographic Location FY18 FY19 FY20 Johnson County (Combined, unduplicated) Iowa City Coralville North Liberty 6/26/2020 9:40 AM CST © 2020 e-CImpact page 8 of 9 -- FY21 Form C: Agency Budget***Test FY21 Form C: Agency Budget Please complete ALL information. If there is an item that does not apply to your budget or the value is zero, you MUST enter a "0" in that box. DO NOT LEAVE AN ITEM BLANK. The columns have auto-calculation, but it does not auto-calculate until the information is saved. Please save information often to activate the calculated fields. For the items that require itemization, click the link to enter specific information in the itemization form. Budget Type Please enter in a corresponding number to indicate your Budget type: 1 = Agency Level 2 = Program Specific 3 = County Specific Agency Revenues FY18 FY19 FY20 Expenses FY18 FY19 FY20 Fund Balance FY18 FY19 FY20 Bd/Donor/Funder Restricted Funds FY18 FY19 FY20 In-Kind Support FY18 FY19 FY20 Reserve Funds FY17 FY18 FY19 6/26/2020 9:40 AM CST © 2020 e-CImpact page 9 of 9 FY21 Aid to Agencies Scoring Criteria Agency: Amount Requested: Note: A high score on the rating sheet is not a guarantee of funding. City staff and the Housing and Community Development Commission considers the rating sheet one of many tools to help make funding recommendations to the City Council. The City will use other information and sources including but not limited to: needs identified through City planning processes, prior year reports, consistency with goals and priorities in the Consolidated Plan (City Steps), public input, working knowledge of the organization, and availability of funds, to assist in funding recommendations. Need and Priority Community Need (Q1) 15 Services Provided (Q4) 10 Impact and Delivery Benefit to Low Income Persons (Q6) 15 Racial Equity and Inclusivity for Marginalized Populations (Q6, Q7, FB) 5 Outcome Measures(Q10) 10 Persons to Benefit (FB, FC; alternatively, Q9 & Q10) 5 Evidence of Financial Capacity Collaboration/Operations Plan (Q5, Q6, FC) 5 Agency Budget (Q8, FC) 5 Leveraging Funds (Q9) 10 Evidence of Administrative Capacity Quality of Application (Overall App) 5 Experience and Success (Past Performance, FA; alternatively, Overall App) 15 Total 100 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. Allocation 4 C's Community Coord. Child Care $24,923 Arc of Southeast Iowa $19,938 Big Brothers / Big Sisters $24,923 Crisis Center of Johnson County $69,086 Domestic Violence Intervention Program $49,846 Free Lunch Program $17,944 HACAP $24,923 Horizons, A Family Service Alliance $43,863 Inside Out Rentry Community $39,877 Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic $24,923 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $24,923 Neighborhood Centers of JC $54,830 Pathways Adult Day Health Center $24,923 Prelude Behavioral Services $39,877 Rape Victim Advocacy Program $24,923 Shelter House $84,738 Table to Table $30,904 United Action for Youth $32,898 Total Funding:$658,262 FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies Funding Awards Agency