Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet 08-20-20HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) August 20, 2020 Electronic Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM Zoom Meeting Platform AGENDA: 1.Call to Order 2.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 16, 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.Housekeeping Items Chair Padron and Vice Chair Drabek will explain roll call voting procedure, suggestions for participation, and provide an opportunity for questions to staff about HCDC Bylaws, FY21 calendar, or tentative monitoring schedule. The commission will also discuss how to best monitor Iowa City Council activity, and how to coordinate with other Iowa City commissions, boards, and committees. 5.Annual Review of Fair Housing Study Recommendations Staff will provide an overview of Fair Housing Study Recommendations and changes to requirements based on new HUD guidance. 6.Small Business Assistance Program Overview (CDBG Funds) 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/webinar/register/WN_vlNywpxMT8CafMGG6XMyXA 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 959 7039 2389 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. Staff will provide an overview of Iowa City’s Small Business Assistance Program. 7.Aid to Agency Visit Reports Staff have assigned each agency a liaison from HCDC, as requested at the July meeting. This item provides an opportunity for HCDC to establish a timeline for visits, as well as a method for commissioners to report on completed visits. 8. COVID-19 Assistance Program Letter to City Council At the July 16, 2020 meeting, HCDC recommended Chairperson Padron and Vice- Chairperson Drabek draft a letter to City Council on behalf of HCDC regarding the use of local funds for rent and utility assistance for Iowa City residents, and the removal of barriers to access the assistance. Letter was included as a late handout for the July 21, 2020 Work Session. This item provides an opportunity for Chairperson Padron and Vice-Chairperson Drabek to provide any updates. 9. Legacy Aid to Agencies Application Process At the July 16, 2020 meeting, HCDC suspended the application process for Legacy Aid to Agencies funding, and accepted recommendation from the Agency Impact Coalition to renew funding with the understanding that allocations may be prorated based on the City’s budget. HCDC wishes to continue Aid to Agencies discussion in order to prepare for resumption of regular application process for FY24 funding. This item is an opportunity to discuss Legacy Aid to Agencies application and scoring process. 10.Housing & Community Development Information 11.Adjournment Housing and Community Development Commission August 20, 2020 Meeting Packet Contents Agenda Item #2 •July 16, 2020 HCDC Draft Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #4 •Anti-Oppressive Facilitation – Making Meetings Awesome for Everyone •Tentative FY21 HCDC Calendar •Tentative HCDC Project Monitoring Schedule for FY21 Memo Agenda Item #5 •Chapter 5 of the 2019 Fair Housing Study o Full study available at https://www.icgov.org/actionplan •Secretary Carson Terminates 2015 AFFH Rule – July 23 HUD Memo Agenda Item #6 •CDBG for Economic Development Memo •Draft CDBG Economic Development Flyer •Applicant Guide – Economic Development CDBG Funds Agenda Item #7 •Aid to Agency Visit Assignments Agenda Item #8 •COVID-19 Assistance Program Letter to City Council Agenda Item #9 •Legacy Aid to Agencies Scoring Criteria •Legacy Aid to Agencies Application MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JULY 16, 2020 – 6:30 PM ELECTRONIC MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Lyn Dee Hook Kealey, Theresa Lewis, Nasr Mohammed, Maria Padron, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Aguilar, Peter Nkumu STAFF PRESENT: Brianna Gabel, Erika Kubly OTHERS PRESENT: Sara Barron, Heath Brewer, Kristie Doser, Missie Forbes, Cady Gerlach, Lindsay Glynn, Roger Goedken, Ally Hanten, Michelle Heinz, Sofia Mehaffey, Adam Robinson, Barbara Vinograde RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0, HCDC recommends that Padron and Drabek draft a letter to Council that recommends the creation of a local emergency fund with low entrance barriers for Iowa City residents to receive rental and utility assistance. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Padron called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 18, 2020: Alter moved to approve the minutes of June 18, 2020. Drabek seconded and a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. 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. Agenda Item: 2 Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 2 of 14 2 WELCOME NEW MEMBERS: Padron welcomed the new members, Theresa Lewis, Nasr Mohammed, and Kyle Vogel. Lewis stated she has lived in Iowa City since 2006 and is the region president at Four Oaks. She oversees all the programs and services in Linn and Johnson County and that includes the Affordable Housing Network. Mohammed stated he has Iowa City since 2013 and is originally from Sudan. He immigrated to United States in 2011. His family is three kids and a lovely wife and works in Cedar Rapids at a small firm called Syncback where they do software development for live TV. Vogel came to Iowa City in 2000 and lived here for eight years, he moved back down to southwest Missouri and came back five years ago. He’s been with Keystone Property Management for 20 years and bought the company about four and a half years ago. He also sits on The Greater Iowa City Apartment Association Board. OFFICER NOMINATIONS Kubly briefly talked about the responsibilities of the Chair and Vice Chair are for the Commission. The Chair runs the meeting and if the Chair is absent the Vice Chair would do that. The Chair would also be responsible if the Commission wanted a representative from the group to go to Council or write something for Council. Kealey nominated Padron for chair. Lewis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and approved 7-0. Padron nominated Drabek for vice chair, Alter seconded the motion and a vote was taken and approved 7-0. UPDATE ON COVID-19 FUNDING AVAILABILITY: Kubly give an update on the City’s CDBG COVID-19 funding. Earlier this month they received approval of the Action Plan Amendment for these funds from HUD and so now they do have their funds locally. As a reminder, the City received $410,422 to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus pandemic. The City has allocated $246,000 of that (60%) to Community Crisis Services and Food Bank to administer a Housing Assistance Program. Kubly noted per CDBG guidelines they can provide up to three months of assistance for rent or mortgage and utility costs, and the maximum amount per household is $3,200 for those three months. Applicants must be ineligible for the State's eviction and foreclosure prevention programs. So everyone's first needs to see if they're eligible for the State's program and then if not, they can apply locally for the CDBG money. Iowa City residents are eligible only and must be under 80% of the area median income, that's a CDBG regulation. Applicants must also be able to document a loss of income due to COVID-19. The timeline right now is they’re working with Community Crisis Services to finalize the agreement and application process and thinks that next week the program should go live. Kubly stated the rest of the funds, which is about $164,000 will be administered through an application process where agencies who are impacted by COVID-19, and who serve low income households, can apply to the City for those funds. She is just about finished with those program guidelines and working on getting the application set up online and should be available next week as well. Agencies will have about two weeks to submit their application and then staff will review those the following week and hoping that it will be pretty quick to get the funds out into the community. In the meantime, Shelter House did receive local general funds to do a housing assistance program and that is ongoing right now. Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 3 of 14 3 Alter asked with the application for agencies, which agencies are eligible and who do they serve. Kubly replied it is for agencies who are serving low income residents, similar to the public services application process, and Aid to Agencies. Similar to what is typical with CDBG funds, they can only use 15% for public services, but there's a waiver on that with this funding and agencies could apply for operational expenses where they normally couldn't apply for a competitive round for that kind of funding. Vogel asked if the 60% is going to be direct aid for households and who will be administrating that. Kubly said those funds are going to be administered through Community Crisis Services. She reiterated people should still apply to the to the Iowa Finance Authority’s funding first because they have to be ineligible for that to qualify for local funds. FY22 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATION PROCESS: Kubly stated it is time to start preparing for the FY22 Legacy Aid to Agencies process, this would be funding for agencies starting in July 2021. She began by going through recent changes to the process and where they're at right now. The agencies identified as Legacy Agencies in City Steps 2025 are eligible to apply. The applications go through the United Way joint funding process in coordination with Johnson County, Coralville and United Way. Typically, the applications are available in August and they're due mid-September. Ahead of this application process HCDC reviews and approves the application and scoring criteria that they'll use for the City's funding allocation which takes place throughout winter and into the spring. Kubly noted the Commission's packet the application and the scoring criteria were included. Kubly noted last year staff made some changes to the scoring criteria in an attempt to be more objective. They also scored the application using HCDC’s approved scoring criteria and made funding recommendations based on those scores. However, last year, the Commission didn't use the scoring for the FY21 funds, and this was in part due to the budget being near to fully funding all the agencies. However, there was some frustration from agencies and staff about the amount of time that was spent on the applications and scoring for it to be dismissed in the end. Therefore, as they were planning for this meeting, she and Gabel reached out to the Agency Impact Coalition for input on this year's application process and scoring criteria. They had a good discussion with Crissy Canganeli from Shelter House and the outcome of that was a recommendation to suspend the FY22 application process and maintain the FY21 funding levels for another year for these agencies. Kubly sent a late handout to HCDC which was that letter from the Agency Impact Coalition. Kubly stated staff supports this recommendation as it makes a lot of sense to provide some relief of the administrative burden and time commitment of this application process, especially as agencies are attempting to navigate the pandemic. Kubly did acknowledge a couple things that re noteworthy. One is that they don't know the City budget for FY22. They’ll probably have a good idea in January, but the budget doesn't get approved till March, so they won't have that amount for several months. The Coalition acknowledges that they understand that the allocation may go up or down a percentage based on the City's budget. The other thing Kubly wanted to mention is that FY22 is the first year where they plan to do a two-year allocation for agencies so essentially this allocation is going to carry on for two years unless they change that process, which, at this point, she wouldn't see a reason to, but they could always review next year. Kubly noted many of the legacy agencies are present at tonight’s meeting and are able to participate in this discussion. Vogel asked if the agencies, when they apply for this legacy aid, are they required to show where the money is being spent at the time of application. Kubly replied yes. Vogel asked how do they know where that money is going to be spent for the next two years. Kubly stated this funding is meant to be for operational expenses which is flexible funding and they don't specifically track how they use the money, but they do track who they're serving and they're required to report metrics on the services that they provide such as how many are low income, the demographics, number of people, and things like that. Vogel asked if they require a minimum per household served or a minimum amount of funds per individual served. He is just cautious to allocate the same amount of money at any group, no matter how Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 4 of 14 4 much good they're doing the community, without knowing exactly what they are using the funds for. He would want to make sure the monies are being used in the most efficient way possible. Padron noted that last year when they came up to the amount that they allocated they did research on the last 10 years of how the agencies have been spending the money and how many people they were serving and what were the needs of the community. It was noted the need keeps going up, they are not going to need less money in the future because if they follow the trend it's going up. Lewis stated she would be supportive of providing them the same amount of money just like businesses, nonprofits are being hit really hard with COVID and any relief the y can give from them to know that they have some reliable income coming in to cover the costs, either in lost revenue or additional cost to deal with COVID she would be supportive of that. Drabek noted also to provide perhaps a small bit of historical context, one of the ways that they’ve thought about these agencies and frame them in the past is that basically they provide a lot of social services that the City itself either does not or cannot provide. So during this current period, he assumes that the spirit of the request here is that the need for these services is going to go up and the amount of money in fact is not so not having to do the application would be the City sending a message of while they cannot give more money, perhaps there's some other form of relief they might be able to give. Padron agreed and stated these agencies are struggling to pay salaries and to keep their staff and right now if the City asks them for an application that is so many pages, they will have to pull a full time staff member, or the only half time staff member that they have and dedicate that person to write the application, write a grant proposal and that's a lot of work. Vogel asked if it possible for the new members to get a copy of the report on how these monies were spent and the cost involved. Kubly will share the report that they provided to Council. Kubly also explained for the new members that the very definition of a legacy agency is that they have to show accountability, success towards their target goals, and the Commission will check in with them during each year that they've provided monies to see what their operation is like and they only get to become a legacy agency after they have been able to show sustainability with the funding and responsible use of the funding over a period of time. The other type of funding is for emerging agencies which are newer agencies and the pool of money is smaller but it allows people to try and get up onto their feet, as opposed to agencies that have been more established. Adam Robinson (executive director at the Rape Victim Advocacy Program or RVAP) and his pronouns are he, him and his and tonight he is here representing the Agency Impact Coalition. He acknowledged Vogel’s question as a really important one, and certainly one that they take with great sincerity and are blessed about many things being here in Iowa City. One of them is that they've got a great many social service agencies that have been around for decades, RVAP has been around for 47 years and many others are longer than that, some not quite but anyone that's part of this Coalition has demonstrated over many years the ability to sustain services and the necessary services to keep the community, especially those most vulnerable and most at risk, with helping hands around them. He and some of the other folks from the Coalition that are here in attendance as well would be happy to certainly answer any specific questions. They understand the request is a unique one and they also understand that in this time facing a global pandemic they’ve seen firsthand in their organizations for the last several months that those that are already the most vulnerable, needing help with food insecurity and housing insecurity, experiencing sexual assault, domestic violence, human trafficking, need for medical assistance, etc. are, and they’re already in need of those services and being in the global pandemic with services being restricted, people are losing positions and jobs and finances are being stretched all the way around and the need for the services are increased. Robinson says this not just as the RVAP representative, but on behalf of everybody in the Coalition. He acknowledges this would be certainly an act of faith, but they think, a justified one. Vogel had a question on the $658,262 to Legacy for Agencies and what is that as a percentage of the total funds. In talking about emerging agencies they have seen in the last year agencies that have had to Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 5 of 14 5 come to City Council in the middle of the year to try to get funds and they weren't in that application process, there are constantly new agencies and new groups coming forward trying to do good in the community. W hat is the percentage of funds that go to legacy and emerging agencies and if there are others maybe not currently on the list of emerging agencies, but would want to come forward to the City and ask for funds Kubly noted it's 5% of the total budget that could be allocated to emerging agencies, and the rest would be legacy. She stated some of the other funding requests that have come to Council or to the City, were funded outside of Aid to Agencies with other funding pools. This is just one grant process that they're working on, they also have social justice and racial equity grants, climate action grants, and the affordable housing fund. This is just one pool of funding. Drabek asked if all of the agencies were to fill out all of the application material this year, would they expect to see largely similar information to past years or do the y expect to see a lot of changes to the information since the last time it was filled it out. Robinson acknowledged that was a good question. Anecdotally, he would expect it to be similar to last year but he could go down a rabbit hole about all of the nuances that the pandemic is creating and for folks who are experiencing violence in the home, they're not reaching out directly, because it's not safe for them to do that. Therefore some of those metrics would be decreased, not to say that the violence isn't happening, it's just that they might not find out about it and have reportable metrics like in the past, so there's nuances like that. He would invite others from the Coalition that may have other thoughts to add to that too. Vogel is curious with schools not happening, should they expect a greater need from some other programs during this period of time (such as free lunch programs) that they may not see on an ongoing basis when they are in a non-plague normalcy type state. His only other question is if they set funds at this set amount for the next two years what the City’s flexibility in addressing increase needs where they are seeing an increase in demand. He stated they are seeing an increased need for free lunch, they're going to see that, especially if they have to include the free breakfast program not being able to be administered as usual during the upcoming school year. Alter stated that in the past two years they’ve gone to City Council as a Commission to say that the funding needs to be greater than what was allotted so that’s one instance of flexibility. Council has other pools of money and that's one way in which the Commission has tried to be flexible and address the needs of the agencies that go through the process. Padron stated they do have a list of priorities that are set by the City so when they allocate the money, and when they rate the agencies, they follow those priorities. Housing, and food services are always on the top as well as child childcare. Kubly added they follow a five-year plan, but they also do a review of City Steps annually so if there were changing priorities in the community, they could address that during the that review with a substantial amendment to the Plan. She said they did do an amendment to get the CDBG COVID-19 funds added as a priority which was to respond to the pandemic and agencies that fit into that category should apply for the COVID CDBG dollars in the upcoming funding round. Heath Brewer (Iowa Valley Habitat) prefaced his comments noting that Iowa Valley Habitat is a part of the Agency Impact Coalition, but he is not an official representative as he responds to Commissioner Vogel's concerns about immediate needs as organizations in town. They’ve doing this for several months now and they're all aware of where they're at and what they require. The Agency Impact Coalition is all in support of one another and they support this decision to spread these funds as they would have in in the previous two years, or at least last year. They understand what their needs are, and they understand that they might be greater in certain areas immediately. Then in the long run, there might be some needs that need addressed in different ways. But he thinks what speaks strongly is that they all came together and they all support this idea that this is the best way to move forward as agencies representing the community. He just wanted to make that clear that this is a strong message for the community and for all the nonprofit's that are represented in the Agency Impact Coalition that have been doing it for so many Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 6 of 14 6 years. It came with little to no contention to support this decision and to support this memo that they sent out to the HCDC. He just wanted to make it very clear that it speaks very, very strongly about their group in the community and the group of nonprofits have been working together doing this work for the last several decades. Padron acknowldeged the main point is all the agencies were able to organize this coalition and they came together to this agreement and they were able to show how much money they need. Sofia Mehaffey (Meals on Wheels) wanted to echo Brewer’s comment and she doesn’t speak for the entire Coalition, but she did want to mention they have seen increased need. Certainly there are agencies like, Domestic Violence Service Programs that may be seeing lower call-ins right now but it's also important to bear in mind that at this point in time, they're facing a scenario in which they're not able to hold fundraisers, they're not able to do the things that they typically do in order to maintain sustainable programs and they're not entirely sure how soon anyone is going to feel okay coming together in a big group of people to raise money again. They are all looking at new ways, innovative ways, of holding fundraisers, so that they can continue raising money for their programs but these new virtual fundraisers are not likely to raise the same amount of money that they typically would raise in a normal year in addition to the fact that a lot of people have lost their jobs and no longer have the ability to give in the same way. So requesting an equal amount will really help them to at least be able to plan on one source of income for the next couple of years. Kealey thanked Robinson, Brewer and Mehaffey for coming forward and to all of the agencies that came together and wrote this letter. She appreciates their creativity in bringing this to the Commission and she supports doing this. Ally Hanten (United Action for Youth) is currently serving as Acting Director and thinks one way to look at this is it's a pretty common practice in the grant world for a renewal and so what this is just a renewal and what a renewal often indicates is that services will remain at the level that they were written in in their original application unless otherwise indicated. So instead of a one-year grant, they're asking for a two to three year right of renewal opportunity and it's a super common practice in the grant world. Vogel asked if there were other legacy agencies that the City has supported in the past couple years that didn't apply for FY21 that may be expected to apply this year because there are some organizations that only apply every couple years but they're still part of that legacy. Does the agencies in the Coalition represent all the agencies. Kubly stated the group that became legacy agencies were ones in recent years that had applied. Staff probably looked through the past 15 years and most of them had applied throughout that timeframe. There's one legacy agency that hasn't applied but they get their operational funding through the Affordable Housing funds in an effort to give more agency funds for the rest of the group. She noted it didn’t appear Ellen McCabe from the Housing Trust Fund was on here at the meeting tonight but she doesn’t anticipate they were going to apply this year because they will still get that Affordable Housing funding. Kubly noted if another agency wanted to become a legacy, they'd have to go through a substantial amendment process with the Consolidated Plan. Parron reiterated to understand correctly if the Commission votes to approve the no application process, the agencies won't have to submit an application this year, which would have been the deadline in September. Nor will they have to submit another application next year. Kubly confirmed. Vogel stated then the agencies would be locked in for FY22 and FY23, and what the recommendation made is the 95% that currently goes to legacy aid will be prorated by percentage of what they're currently getting as a percentage of that pot. Kubly confirmed that was correct. Vogel moved to accept recommendation to suspend the Legacy Aid to Agencies application process for FY22 and renew funding with the understanding that allocations may be prorated based on the City’s FY22 budget allocation. Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 7 of 14 7 Alter seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Alter also discussed working towards transparency and clarity on both the Commissioners part and for the agencies, she is hoping this is something to put on a future agenda item as now that they actually have some time, and don't have to worry about ranking the applications. She really like to revisit this because there are some things they can continue to do and to have continued conversations with Agency Impact Coalition and the legacy agencies about how to maintain the structure of the application because she think the bones are there but there are some things that they can do to help make it more transparent and actually provide a little bit more consistency. So she is asking to put this on as an agenda item at a future date and work through some of the points of the application so that there can be a sense of clarity and consistency about ways that they might be able to use this in a more fair and clear way. Padron agrees and noted they have to review applications because some of the agencies do not have a way to provide demographics for their clients and therefore get a lower ranking because they are have no information. Kealey would like to have an agenda item and have the agencies come forward and for the Commission to review how they assess that but also what can what can they do as a Commission over the next couple of years. Kubly will find time through the winter or later this fall to add this topic to an agenda. DISCUSSION ON AID TO AGENCY VISITS: Padron stated the next topic is for the HCDC to discuss how to proceed with agency visits in consideration of the COVID-19. Lewis asked for a little bit of background about what those visits have been in the past what they've included, or how often they occur. Padron noted this was the first time that they were going to do it, what they had done was assign about three agencies per Commissioner and they were going to start doing visits. Drabek recalled John McKinstry may have been the only person who did a visit this year and of course he's no longer on the Commission. Kubly noted they kind of got it all started and then they got into the thick of the allocation process and the Commissioners felt uncomfortable doing the visits at the same time as the allocations were being discussed, and COVID hit. So that's why they wanted to add this to the agenda tonight to see if there's a good way to revisit this in a socially distant way right now and to reassign the new Commission members with agencies of the previous Commission members. Padron stated she doesn’t have a problem visiting the agencies but doesn’t know if they are open and receiving people. Drabek stated he doesn’t know exactly how they want to do it, but it might be a matter of taking whoever they're assigned and contacting them individually because it may vary quite a bit by both Commission member and by agency in terms of what sort of visit makes sense. Some may be done with a social distance visit and others maybe a virtual visit. Padron noted the point of these visits were since the applications cannot always capture all the information that the agency is trying to communicate, the idea was through visiting them, they will be able to show us more and try to explain more of the work that they were doing. So then those Commissioners Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 8 of 14 8 that are visiting those agencies and come back to the whole Commission and communicate what they had seen. Drabek stated also McKinstry on his visit wrote a brief report and they could always forward that report along to newer commission members as well. Kubly will send the list again showing who's responsible for each agency, and then the Commissioners can contact those agencies and set up a plan to visit them either virtually or in person. The Commission agreed. FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION ON JUNE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Padron noted 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. Kubly stated it was her understanding was that this was requested at the last meeting and the Commissioners wanted to have a follow up discussion. Fixmer-Oraiz was leading the charge on that and Eastham onto Council and that was done. Alter stated they also wanted to provide a recommendation that Council accept the Affordable Housing Coalition's request for forgiveness of utility bills and she did not know what happened with that. Padron said the recommendation was sent to the Council but doesn’t know if Council approved that. Kubly stated she didn’t believe it was approved by Council. Vogel noted there was also a discussion in the minutes from Barron about more direct relief for utility and rent and that kind of stuff outside of the federal government and state government funds that have more extensive requirements. He asked was there more discussion with using any of the emergency housing funds from the budget to set up an actual Iowa City based program for Iowa City based residents who are in need paying utilities, whether it is $100 to pay a MidAmerican bill or another utility bill since this seems like an emergent situation. Kubly stated the City did provide funds to Shelter House to administer emergency housing assistance as a bridge to the timing where they had to wait to get the federal funds. So people right now can go apply to Shelter House and they can receive local funds for that purpose. Vogel asked if that information went out in the utility bills or in what way did that information go out to residents. Kubly was not sure knows the City did press releases. She added the Community Crisis Services does utility assistance regularly so people can still go to the regular sources to get assistance. Vogel noted however that assistance is just water sewer, stormwater, trash, it's not gas or electric and there is especially an need for electric assistance during the summer when electric bills are sky high from AC. He asked if the funds the City gave Shelter House to handle include utility bill assistance or is it just rent assistance. Cady Gerlach (Shelter House) stated of the $50,000 they have available for the utility, rent and mortgage assistance a lot of it's been spent directly to MidAmerican and to landlords and the outreach they did to get that information out to people was through social media. They also alerted all the school resources, school and family advocate officials, they sent out a letter through the Chamber's newsletter, and the Project Better Together notifying people about assistance. Now their case managers have spent about 35 hours total at the Center for W orker Justice as well doing direct outreach with their help and translation to make sure that they're getting the resources to people that need them. Gerlach noted this $50,000 was available for people that might not meet the requirements of CDBG or other federal funds and so by going directly to different sites, they've been able to really help people access those funds. The biggest challenge they've had is actually getting people that they've been able to help apply for those Iowa Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 9 of 14 9 Finance Authority (IFA) funds as they’re actually trying to utilize the State funds first and get people through those systems for rent and mortgage assistance first. That has created a bit of a log jam on some of those, but people have been getting their rent paid by IFA, so they've been able to save quite a bit of the City money that way. Alter noted one of the things that Sara Barron commented on at the last meeting was the balancing act of where to take money from and with the fact that they have a million dollars set up for affordable housing is, on the one hand, a layaway for an emergency, but additionally that the reserves that the City water pool has could actually sustain and absorb the need as a fairly new revenue stream for making affordable housing in a more permanent way, while still recognizing if not now when. Vogel noted since Gerlach was mentioning the fact that that the $50,000 is almost gone, and they're absolutely talking about residents who are going to continue to need this assistance for the next 30, 60, or 90 days, is this a recommendation that the Commission would like to make to Council to make additional funds for the Shelter House to continue the program. If they are in agreement to re-fund that $50,000 with an additional $50,000 for the next 30 or 60 day period, how would they go about that, or how would the City go about replenishing those funds and where would they take those budgetary amounts from to continue that assistance program moving forward. Kubly noted currently the plan is to continue that program with the CDBG money that will be administered through Community Crisis Services and that will start next week. So they do have a plan in place for the next step and as Gerlach mentioned they’re still recommending people go to the State and see if they qualify first before they use local funds. As far as recommendations to Council, the Commission can certainly make recommendations about using some local dollars to continue a program, budget decisions are made by Council and not by this Commission so the Commission wouldn't have to decide where the money comes from, but could make a recommendation for a specific purpose. Vogel understands that but his question is what would be the process of the Commission making that recommendation or would that recommendation need to come from staff or would that recommendation need to come from a finance committee. He just knows the adopted budget for FY21 included 5% will be reserved for emergency situations and if they don't use that money, that money just rolls over into the Opportunity Fund, and no longer stays in affordable housing. If there are funds that they should be using for this kind of emergent situation and emergent need for citizens to stay in their housing he feels like now would be the time for that recommendation to be made to City Council, but if as Kubly mentioned and Council already has a plan to continue the program that may not be necessary. Padron agreed and honestly thinks this will not just be an issue for 90 days more but probably more likely a year or two more. Therefore they will probably have to make a recommendation of using those funds at some point. Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) stated she is waiting for final approval from the Board but they have finished their housing needs and solutions report about COVID-19 housing and the recommendations that they’re going to offer are based on feedback that they got from residents and from nonprofits about the needs that they have right now and what needs they're foreseeing in the future. The gist of the data that they collected shows that there are some people who are already behind in their rent who are struggling but both people who are currently up to date on their housing and people who are already behind a vast majority of them used the one time stimulus money to pay their housing costs. In other words, they relied on a very one time or short-term intervention in order to stay afloat. Now as they are seeing those interventions fall by the wayside one by one and the moratorium on evictions and foreclosures has ended and they’re about to have the last round of paychecks coming through for unemployment that had the $600 stimulus amount so they already have a lot of households behind and of the households who have been making it through on those one time or short term payments, those are no longer available. Barron noted currently the City of Iowa City program requires that someone be in arrears and be behind on their rent or mortgage in order to be eligible for the assistance and certainly that is one way to Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 10 of 14 10 demonstrate need, but on the other hand, it also puts people in this kind of continuous cycle of falling behind, scraping to get caught up, and then falling behind again, and what most of the National Housing organizations recommend, and what their report recommends, is that they look for some more medium term rental assistance program that would be similar to a section VIII voucher. So for a period of time, could be three months, four months, six months, a household pays what they can afford based on their income and the subsidy pays the rest of their rent. The reasons for doing that are numerous but the biggest one is that it gives people a little bit longer runway to get back on their feet and helps them plan their monthly finances better and it helps them meet their basic needs without falling into crisis month after month. Right now, they understand that there are good reasons why the City programs aren't set up for that but if they're looking at extending additional funding, they strongly recommend looking at something that's a little more medium term that gives people the opportunity to stabilize. Another finding from their survey is that a lot of people are going into debt, they're borrowing money from family and friends, they're charging their rent to their credit cards and obviously those are also short term fixes that are going to cause ballooning problems down the road. Barron believes that report will be out on Monday, just barely in time for the Council meeting on Tuesday, but she is really hoping that elected officials and other policy makers and people who make funding decisions will really strongly consider the feedback that they got from residents and nonprofits because as Padron said this isn't a problem that's likely to go away sometime soon. Barron also added, to be honest Johnson County is behind as other municipalities all across the country have already figured this out. They started in April, putting these programs in place, funding them with reserve funding, fee in lieu dollars, emergency funds, all different kinds of sources to keep people stability housed and the most successful programs are those that are offering this more medium term rental assistance. Drabek noted going back to the letter from Fixmer-Oraiz and Eastham it also addressed the list of demands from the Iowa Freedom Riders. He wanted to check in and see if anything major had changed and if they needed to take any major new steps. He doesn’t know of any obvious change in situation that would really demand that they do anything in particular other than if they wanted to just address the demands of the letter that have not been met. Padron noted Council did have a few meetings about this topic but her main concern was, to be honest, the use of chemical weapons against the protesters, because it was like a peaceful protest and there was no need to throw tear gas. Kubly noted the City does have a dedicated webpage related to the demands and the resolution that Council passed and there's a status update which is updated regularly. Padron noted they can check that and talk again in the next meeting, and see if they see that the Council has made any progress or not and if they feel like they haven't done much progress, they can send another letter. Kealy asked if Barron could address what she said at the last meeting about the water utilities, HCDC was trying to paraphrase what she said and then it sounds like the Council voted that down the recommendation on tapping into some of the water utilities monies. Padron stated after the last HCDC meeting they sent a recommendation to Council that they subsidize the utility bills. Barron is not certain that Council has seen that recommendation yet. She does know that the City is ready to act on providing relief and they're looking for ways to do that. They've had a couple of requests for COVID related relief, one is from the Center for W orker Justice asking for some money for their From My Home to Yours program. The other is from Project Better Together asking for support of their gift card program. They really haven't considered any other more sweeping proposals except for the utility conversation which they have very early on in the crisis and at that point they didn't feel prepared to choose a direction because they weren't sure what other requests they would receive. So if HCDC has a Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 11 of 14 11 recommendation about what they would like to see the City invest in, housing or any other type of COVID relief, she thinks they're prepared to consider options. Barron added one more thing talking about Iowa Freedom Riders, the Coalition is having a meeting with Iowa Freedom Riders and representatives from Black Voices Project tomorrow to talk about housing and racial justice and specifically address the demand related to affordable housing. It’s not really a public meeting but if someone from HCDC wanted to sit in on that meeting she can share the link with them. Alter was planning on attending that meeting. Barron doesn’t know what the content of that meeting will be exactly other than to just really zero in on the racial justice pieces of housing, which is also interconnected. It will be an initial discussion to talk about what it looks like to realize that demand in policy and funding ways. Kubly noted they can have up to four HCDC members without it being an open meeting. Padron said last month they moved to recommend City Council support local efforts to provide utility assistance for households in need. Perhaps now they need to send a more specific recommendation. Kubly and Gabel noted they had not seen on any of the Council discussions, work sessions or meetings, an agenda item to discuss that motion. Vogel noted part of the goal of this Commission is to make recommendations to Council about what Housing and Community Development should do in Iowa City and that the City should take steps to put into place a program that will relieve utility bills for homeowners, tenants, and residents of Iowa City in need who have been affected by COVID. Whether that be job loss or having to stay at home or just taking less hours to be with kids at home, whatever that reasons are and that should be the recommendation. He noted as Barron said the City of Dubuque has had a city run rental assistant utility Assistance Program for two months. Our Council has said time and time again that they want to be on the front end of positive change for the citizens of Iowa City and part of that is making sure that the people that are already behind and are already at risk and are just putting themselves at more risk. The City should do whatever it takes and use the pools of money they have. The City may use $150,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund to buy an old house and renovate it and sell it to a family at a loss. With that same $150,000 right now can be a really positive impact for 200 -300 families in this town. He feels like if there's funds available within the City to use the HCDC recommendation should be for the City to take a serious look at those funds and determine how they can be used now to assist residents. Alter agreed and stated she was mulling through all this and thinks it would be better to send up another recommendation before next meeting and it will show they feel there is a really a sense of urgency on this. Padron recalled it was mentioned last time that the City was receiving funds and those funds were already going to go to a system assistance for utility bills. Kubly acknowledged they were talking about the CDBG funds that would go to the programs that Community Crisis Services and the Shelter House offers and starting next week a person can apply for a utility bill relief through that. Gerlach noted as an agency they see this increased need and they are finding these requests for utility and rental assistance many of them are not even necessarily COVID related, what they’re seeing is just actually an amplification of the need that already existed. It has been really difficult even for people to necessarily prove the loss of income due to COVID-19 because a lot of them were in these positions before COVID started and so having those requirements are also a challenge. She added they are seeing nationally and they're receiving federal funds through the emergency solutions grant, and the CDBG funds that Community will have, the key that they're seeing is that these funds should be for rental assistance in particular, but potentially utility as well and to run it through coordinated entry would be so important to make sure that they're not piecemealing the approach to rental and utility assistance, and that it's being prioritized by need and that that people are being connected with supportive services on the side as well, that will help kind of move beyond the next stage. Gerlach reiterated this isn't one of these Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 12 of 14 12 piecemeal approaches to maybe a short stimulus. It's actually a longer relationship that can be built with these agencies and coordinated entry is open to so many nonprofits in town and they're based on regions within the bounds of State and continuum of care. For example, their coordinated entry region includes HACAP, DVIP, Shelter House, Community Crisis, Inside Out Reentry and many other nonprofits participating. So everyone brings their clients to the table and then you piecemeal there at the table and make sure that everybody's getting the assistance they need rather than kind of someone going around to town and not knowing which door to knock on, it's just one door. Kealey asked if people have a to prove that there's a COVID related issue for them to get some of the funding. Gerlach answered that many of the Cares Act dollars that have come through they have to prove it is a COVID-19 related loss of income, and it's a challenge for people to prove but they'll take somebody writing on a piece of paper or if they're paid under the table, they'll make a call, they're not requiring paystubs necessarily. It's just many people were struggling before COVID-19 and now they’re seeing even more amplification of that need. She stated there are the people that needed assistance already, plus an increased need from maybe different AMI levels that wouldn't necessarily need the assistance to begin with. Kealey stated it sounds like the Cares Act must tie in with the COVID but is there a possibility where they don't have to prove it is COVID related., is there some way the City could offer some assistance or recommendation on that. Gerlach agreed they could talk about that with future programming and like Barron had said it could be a kind of voucher type program. They wouldn't necessarily object to seeing the COVID taken off as a requirement, especially with the City program, that can be a little bit more flexible. She doesn’t know if the CDBG COVID funds require the need is COVID related. Gerlach said they have been trying to get those answers from HUD and it's been a challenge. Vogel would recommend to City Council to not just count on these outside grants and outside funds to make this assistance possible, but to use the funds the City has locally to address a quick emergent need and if they can make it a two or three month period program at a local level and if that's working through coordinated effort or working through Shelter House that's great. Vogel also noted he is a big fan of having that single location. He stated currently when a tenant comes to him the current answer right now is to hand them that big spreadsheet from the Johnson County Social Services, it's like three pages and there's seven organizations that help with rent assistance and nine organizations that help with deposits so to have some kind of coordinated thing where they're just going to one person or one organization, whether it's internal City, or whether it's a program in place with Shelter House it would be great. It would also be good to not have to do seven hours of background checks when obviously a person's walking in with a bank account at zero and a $200 MidAmerican bill. They don’t need four months of paycheck stubs to realize they have zero dollars in their account and their power is getting turned off the next day. Barron put in the zoom chat that one of their recommendations is increased capacity and access to coordinated entry and that would be amazing to have that sort of funding to be able to help the agencies that participate and help the people that need the services. Kealey is looking forward to seeing Barron’s report and thinks that to streamline anything that they can will help these people with the application for their funding. Get the funding to the people that they can and if there are other programs that are not getting HUD funding she would like to help those groups. Kubly noted there is the question of who is going administer these funds and lists, when one talks about TBRA and Housing Choice Voucher programs those are extremely complex and very heavy on the administrative requirements. They only have 10 or 12 staff in Housing Authority to the administer those programs, and it's really challenging. It's not just something they can allocate money to, they need to allocate money and allocate staff, it’s not an easy thing to do. She is not sure where the recommendation is headed, but if they’re specifically requesting a locally funded emergency fund for rental assistance and utility assistance with low barriers there are questions. Kealey n oted they certainly want to be mindful of that but with the recommendation they don't have a suggestion of how this is administered, but certainly they would hope that this is to be streamlined on the Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 13 of 14 13 back end as well, so that this isn't something that becomes a thing where everyone's time is stretched and taxed in this crisis. Vogel moved to request Padron and Drabek draft a letter to Council that recommends the creation of a local emergency fund with low entrance barriers for Iowa City residents to receive rental and utility assistance. Lewis seconded the motion and a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: Kubly noted the next meeting will be on August 20. The agenda will be reviewing the Fair Housing Study that was approved last year and reviewing where they're at with the recommendations. Additionally, the Commission will look at the small business assistance program and how it can be a CDBG program. They're trying to figure out how they can better meet needs of the community through that program and outreach. She will bring the current program to the Commission for review and then possibly more discussions with the Agency Impact Coalition. Gabel states the only other thing she would add is that she is working on a tentative monitoring schedule so they know when to invite which groups to report on projects. Schedule will be ready to review at August meeting. Padron wanted to mention is that she used to have lunch with Fixmer-Oraiz every month and then they used to have lunch with Kirk Lehmann and as the three of them every two or three months to talk about the Commission and she has been sending some emails out because she would love to meet either for coffee or do a coffee over zoom individually just to talk about what would you like the Commission to work on this year and what are your interests and now that there are so many new members she would like to talk with each one of to see what work that they want to do in the next few years or in this year. ADJOURNMENT: Vogel moved to adjourn. Lewis seconded the motion and a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Housing and Community Development Commission July 16, 2020 Page 14 of 14 14 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2020-2021 •Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant Name Terms Exp. 7/16 Aguilar, Peggy 6/30/22 O/E Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook 6/30/22 X Lewis, Thersea 6/30/23 X Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 O/E Padron, Maria 6/30/21 X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X ANTI-OPPRESSIVE FACILITATION MAKING MEETINGS AWESOME FOR EVERYONE Inefficient and ineffective meetings can leave people feeling drained, exhausted or discouraged, rather than inspired and energized. Good meetings help build strong, effective organizations and successful projects. Even organizations with great meeting process inadvertently perpetuate barriers to full member participation and access to democratic process. This happens through group dynamics of power, privilege and oppression that often marginalize women, people of color, queer, trans and gender non-conforming folks, people with disabilities and those with limited access to the cultural cues and financial resources that come with class privilege. Whether or not you tend to act as facilitator at meetings you attend, building your facilitation skills will help you make your meetings better, more inclusive, and more fully democratic! Here are some foundational tips and suggestions that can have big impacts on your meetings! WHAT IS FACILITATION, ANYWAY? Facilitation ensures that the group is empowered as a whole. •Be sure that everyone gets to participate and share ideas in a meeting, not just those who feel most comfortable speaking up and making cases for their ideas or proposals. •Work to prevent or interrupt any (conscious or unconscious) attempts by individuals or groups to overpower the group as a whole. •Keep an eye out for social power dynamics and work to interrupt these. Point out an address discrepancies in who is talking, whose voices are being heard. •Help the group come to the decisions that are best for the organization/whole group. Help people keep an eye on what’s best for the group, rather than their personal preference. •Ensure the group follows its own agreed upon process and meeting agreements. Facilitation keeps an eye on time, and juggles it with the (ever present) need for more time. •Offer periodic time check-ins. •Help keep the group conversation on topic and relevant. Prevent ramblings and tangents. •Make process suggestions to help the group along. •Summarize discussion and note key areas of agreement, to help move the group forward. CONTAINERS FOR YOUR MEETINGS Things like community agreements, an agenda, an available chart of your group’s decision making process, a place to store important topics for future conversations, next steps, etc are important foundations for a meeting-- we call them “containers.” They act as visual tools that participants and facilitators can come back to throughout the meeting to help keep the group focused, on track, on the same page. They also offer direction for moments when things get sticky or tense. Community Agreements Community agreements help define your role as facilitator and clarify the group’s expectations of you. One of your big responsibilities to the group is to make sure these agreements are upheld. This isn’t about creating rules-- it’s about creating and clarifying agreements and expectations that allow everyone in the group to participate. In order for these to be meaningful, they need to come from the group itself. Once a group creates its ANTI-OPPRESSION RESOURCE AND TRAINING ALLIANCE www.aortacollective.org Agenda Item: 4 agreements, they can be used over and over. As a facilitator, you get to contribute to this list, too. Here’s some community agreements that can be helpful in meetings, to get you thinking: ONE DIVA, ONE MIC Please, one person speak at a time. (It can also be useful to ask people to leave space in between speakers, for those who need more time to process words, or are less comfortable fighting for airtime in a conversation.) NO ONE KNOWS EVERYTHING; TOGETHER WE KNOW A LOT This means we all get to practice being humble, because we have something to learn from everyone in the room. It also means we all have a responsibility to share what we know, as well as our question, so that others may learn from us. MOVE UP, MOVE UP If you’re someone who tends to not speak a lot, please move up into a role of speaking more. If you tend to speak a lot, please move up into a role of listening more. This is a twist on the on the more commonly heard “step up, step back.” The “up/up” confirms that in both experiences, growth is happening. (You don’t go “back” by learning to be a better listener.) Saying “move” instead of “step” recognizes that not everyone can step. WE CAN’T BE ARTICULATE ALL THE TIME As much as we’d like, we just can’t. Often people feel hesitant to participate in a workshop or meeting for fear of “messing up” or stumbling over their words. We want everyone to feel comfortable participating, even if you can’t be as articulate as you’d like. BE AWARE OF TIME This is helpful for your facilitator, and helps to respect everyone’s time and commitment. Please come back on time from breaks, and refrain from speaking in long monologues... BE CURIOUS We make better decisions when we approach our problems and challenges with questions (“What if we…?”) and curiosity. Allow space for play, curiosity, and creative thinking. NOTE: There’s a few community agreements that participants often bring up that we don’t tend to use or bring with us. Two of the most common ones are “assume best intentions” and “default to trust.” The reason we don’t use these is because when someone is unable to do this (say they’re feeling untrusting of someone, or unsafe), having a community agreement telling to do so isn’t going to change anything. Put short, these agreements aren’t always possible, especially when we take into consideration that when people have been harmed by sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, they/we build up necessary tools to take care of and protect themselves/ourselves. Agreements we offer instead that capture the spirit of these are “we can’t be articulate all the time,” “be generous with each other,” or “this is a space for learning.” The Magic of an Agenda There are many different ways to build an agenda to match the style, culture, and needs of each group or meeting. However you do it, a clear and well-constructed agenda that all participants can agree to, is a crucial step for an efficient, inclusive, and awesome meeting. The facilitator’s job (generally) is to both keep the participants on track to both following the agenda as well as to pay attention to when the agenda isn’t working ANTI-OPPRESSION RESOURCE AND TRAINING ALLIANCE www.aortacollective.org and changes need to happen. Here are some best practices regarding agendas: •Set the agenda before the meeting starts. Building it over email, through a list that is kept in an office, or at the end of the previous meeting. This helps everyone come well researched and mentally and emotionally prepared. •Some groups like a more emergent and organic style for building an agenda. If this is your group, participants can spend the beginning of a meeting writing each agenda item they’d like to discuss on an index card, and then the group can use different visual tools to select the card(s) people are most moved to talk about. The down side: you don’t know what you’re talking about in advance, so can’t prepare, or share your thoughts in advance, if you’re not able to attend. •Review the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Share your reasoning before asking for amendments or changes. It is important that the whole group. •Announcements and report back at beginning can save a lot of time. •Give it variety: mix up the length and type of agenda items. •Put agenda items that will be east successes early in the meeting. This sets a positive tone and builds momentum! •Follow with the “big stuff.” •Break after big discussions. •Schedule breaks for any meeting more than 90 minutes. After this length of time, groups fall into the trap of “decision fatigue,” making big decisions rashly or getting stuck talking in circles on smaller decisions. •Finish on something short and easy-- end with a good tone. •Have the agenda on paper, so that all can see it (either on flipchart, blackboard, printed out). •Label items with their expected actions: decision, discussion, play, evaluate, brainstorm, review, update, silence, feedback, appreciations and concerns. Garden/ Bike Rack/ Topics for Future Meetings Whatever your group chooses to call it, have a sheet or on-going list to write down ideas, questions, and topics for future meetings that come up. Often in the course of talking about one topic, really important things surface that need to be addressed, but are not on the current meeting’s agenda. Unless they are urgent/time sensitive, it can really help keep the group on topic to have a space to note them so that they can be incorporated into future meetings (and not forgotten about!). Next Steps/ Who, What, When, Priority It can be very helpful to keep a sheet where you’re taking running notes on any next steps or tasks that are coming out of the meeting. We sometimes do this in three (or four) columns: one for who is doing the next step or task (this could be an individual or a group), what it is they’re going to do, by when they will have done it, and what priority level the task is (1-3, 1-5). You can end the meeting by reviewing this sheet and filling in missing details. You can also start your meetings by checking in with the sheet from the previous meeting. TIPS, TOOLS, TECHNIQUES ANTI-OPPRESSION RESOURCE AND TRAINING ALLIANCE www.aortacollective.org Tools You Can Use Some simple tools that can drastically shift the energy of a meeting, might help you hear new voices, and invite the perspectives of quiet, introverted, or more silenced participants: •Start the meeting off with quick check-ins (even something as simple as “three adjectives to describe how you’re feeling,” or “one thing that went well and one challenge from the week”) on how folks are doing, so you know where folks are at when they walk in the room. •Build in a couple minutes for quiet journaling/thinking before launching into group discussion. •Start an item off with conversations in pairs or small groups before coming back to the whole group. Often you’ll get deeper this want and end up with better, more creative ideas. •Do a round robin/go-around to hear from everyone. (People can always pass if they’d like). •Hosting part of a meeting with everyone standing in a circle (if they’re able) can help wake people up, decrease tensions, and support more concise statements. •Asking participants to switch seats after a break or agenda item also helps to energize and mix things up. This can be really helpful when they group is feeling stuck. •Taking a straw poll can help you get a quick read of how close the group is to a decision, whether or not there is unity, and which topics are key to focus discussion on. You can check in with folks whose opinions diverge most from the majority to see what’s going on for them. Straw polls can look a lot of ways: ◦Vote yes/no/maybe ◦Vote for your one favorite of multiple options ◦Vote for all the options you support (more than one is ok) ◦Rate how you feel about the proposal/idea on a “fist of five,” one finger meaning “I really do not support this,” five fingers meaning “I love this.” •Incorporate ways of gauging people’s opinions that involve their bodies, such as asking folks to walk to one side of the room if they are for the proposal, the other side if they’re against it, and to stand in the middle if they’re unsure. Then, hear from a few people from each position. Let folks move as their opinions change. Common Mistakes (will happen. Keep an eye out!) •Not having a co-facilitator when you need one. •Rushing the group. (Sometimes going slower takes less time in the long run). •Not setting clear boundaries for yourself in your role as facilitator, getting pushed around by the group. •Not taking a break when YOU need one. (When the facilitator needs a break, it’s to everyone’s advantage to have a break!) •Spiraling down into group process about group process. (You know, when you spend 10 minutes deciding as a group by consensus whether you want to allot 10 more minutes of discussion to an item). •Not leaving time and space for people’s feelings. •Becoming inflexible or unwilling to adapt the agenda/plan to meet the group’s evolving needs. •Forgetting to get additional support-- a notetaker, logistics coordinator, someone to set up the meeting space, etc. •Meeting for too long a time period without food, water, and/or breaks. Red Flags and Dynamics to Watch Out For •Unhealthy, unchallenged, or unnamed power dynamics. ANTI-OPPRESSION RESOURCE AND TRAINING ALLIANCE www.aortacollective.org •People interrupting each other or the facilitator. •People repeating or re-stating what others have said. •Tone and body language: Do people look upset? Checked out? Bored? Angry? If you see this, check in with the group as a whole, or quietly with individuals. •Individuals monopolizing conversation. •Individuals or small groups bringing a fully-formed idea to the meeting, without any group conversation, brainstorming, or feedback, and wanting it passed that very day. •Back-and-forths between individuals. What to Do When You Get Stuck •Use the agenda and expected actions. Have you switched into “decide” mode when the desired action was “feedback?” •Take a break: Have small groups work out a proposal based on what they've heard about the needs of the group. (What's needed for a decision?) •Ask questions to initiate discussion, as opposed to jumping directly into concerns. Questions assume the proposal writer(s) thought about the concern, and allow them to respond with their reasoning. •When people are voicing concerns, ask them what can be done to meet their concern. •Do people need a refresher of the decision making process your group uses? •Listen for agreement and note it, no matter how small. This both builds moral and helps clarify where the group is at. •Reflect back what you're hearing. Practice synthesizing and summarizing. •Break big decisions into smaller pieces. •Don't allow back and forths between two participants to dominate a discussion or agenda item: ask for input from others. RESOURCES •Collective Visioning by Linda Stout •Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision Making by Sam Kaner •Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers by Dave Gray •Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities by Adam Kahane and Peter M. Senge •Visual Meetings: How Graphics, Sticky Notes & Idea Mapping Can Transform Group Productivity by David Sibbet ANTI-OPPRESSION RESOURCE AND TRAINING ALLIANCE www.aortacollective.org Updated: 08/06/20 Tentative FY21 HCDC Calendar Meetings typically held on the 3rd Thursday of each month Meeting Date Agenda Items July 16, 2020 •Officer nomination •Welcome new members •Discuss Aid to Agency visits August 20, 2020 •Annual review of Fair Housing Study recommendations •Small Business Assistance Program Overview September 17, 2020 •Educational opportunity - Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County Overview Presented by Ellen McCabe, Executive Director •Public meeting and approval of FY20 CAPER •Timeline review of City Steps 2025 October 15, 2020 •Educational Opportunity - TBD •Discuss CDBG projects without agreement November 19, 2020 •Update on projects that have not entered into a formal agreement •Annual project monitoring presentations •Approve 2021 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Agency application forms December 17, 2020 Meeting cancelled – Winter break January 21, 2021 •Educational Opportunity - TBD •Annual project monitoring presentations •Staff Aid to Agencies funding recommendation •Aid to Agencies funding recommendations to City Council February 18, 2021 •Q & A discussion with CDBG/HOME applicants March 11, 2021 (rescheduled due to Spring Break) •CDBG/HOME funding recommendations to City Council •Emerging Aid to Agency funding recommendations to City Council •Discuss Community Development Week Activities (April) April 15, 2021 •Annual project monitoring presentations •Review FY22 Annual Action Plan and recommendation to City Council •Discuss projects not conforming to the Unsuccessful/Delayed projects policy May 20, 2021 •Annual project monitoring presentations •2021 Annual Action Plan (updates with funding) •Discuss summer schedule June 17, 2021 TBD – Summer Break? Agenda Item: 4 Date: August 6, 2020 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Brianna Gabel, Community Development Planner Re: Tentative HCDC Project Monitoring Schedule for FY21 CDBG/HOME-funded entities provide HCDC a project update at least once annually for every year their project continues. Below is the tentative HCDC project monitoring schedule for FY21: November 19 •Domestic Violence Intervention Program o FY21Aid to Agencies o FY20 Public Facilities Rehab •Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County, FY21 Aid to Agencies •Shelter House o FY21 Aid to Agencies January 21 •4Cs Community Coordinated Child Care, FY19 Daycare Technical Assistance •Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity o FY20 Down Payment Assistance o FY21 Down Payment Assistance •Mayor’s Youth Empowerment Program, FY20 Rental New Construction April 15 •Old Brick, FY20 Public Facilities Kitchen Rehab •Little Creations Academy, FY21 Public Facilities Kitchen Rehab •Successful Living o FY20 Rental Rehab o FY21 Rental Acquisition May 20 •The Housing Fellowship o FY19, FY20, and FY21 Rental Rehab o FY21 CHDO Operating •City of Iowa City o FY18 Villa Park Improvements o FY20 Wetherby Trails Improvements o FY19, FY20, and FY21 Homeowner/Rental Rehab o FY19 South District Investment Partnership Subrecipients may also be asked to return to speak before HCDC if triggered by the conditions laid out in the City’s Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy. Agenda Item: 4 171 171 Chapter 5: Impediments & Recommendations This Chapter analyzes factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, and increase the severity of fair housing issues. Identifying contributing factors is important in assessing why members of protected classes may experience restricted housing choice due to various reasons including, but not limited to, segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, or other issues. Some contributing factors are outside of the ability of the City to control or influence; however, such factors should still be identified and recognized. After discussing and identifying barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City, it is important to lay out strategies to overcome those barriers. These strategies can then be prioritized and incorporated into subsequent planning processes such as the Consolidated Plan. Ultimately, the City is responsible for taking meaningful actions to move towards completing the strategies identified. Meaningful actions are designed and can be reasonably expected to achieve a material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by, for example, increasing fair housing choice or decreasing disparities in access to opportunity. The City of Iowa City is committed to providing fair housing choices for all its residents. The City Code has a broad definition of discriminatory behavior, an inclusive definition of protected classes, and is clear in its lack of tolerance for discriminatory behavior in the housing market. The City’s Comprehensive Plan envisions a city with a variety of housing options for the city’s diverse population. The City’s Zoning Ordinance allows for construction of a variety of housing types at difference price points. And the City’s Building Code does not impose conditions that could restrict fair housing choice for protected classes. However, policies and practices can be improved upon and the City can take additional steps to assure that all protected classes have fair access to housing in Iowa City. These identified impediments to fair housing choice and some strategies to address them comprise the rest of this Chapter. Agenda Item: 5 172 DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1: Improving Housing Choice One of the primary barriers identified is the lack of adequate housing choices throughout neighborhoods in Iowa City for residents with protected characteristics, who tend to have disproportionately lower incomes. This includes a lack of availability in addition to diversity in price points, housing types, and locations that would facilitate equal access to housing across the City. While many low-income households in Iowa City are nonfamily student renters, 21% are small families (including single parents) and 15% are elderly. 31% of low-income households have a member with a disability. Many are people of color. Large families face additional challenges in finding appropriate units with the proper price points. Coupled with the City’s expensive housing, this has negatively impacted fair housing choice within Iowa City. Ensuring a diversity of affordable housing is available in a range of locations and types to promote fair housing choice, especially in areas that promote access to opportunity. This means encouraging the provision of affordable housing for households of all types in Iowa City, including larger units for families with children, smaller accessible units with supportive services for the elderly and persons with disabilities, and adequate ho using for students. When considering housing choice, transportation, supportive services, school quality, and other important factors must also be considered. The City should continue to support and encourage a diversity of housing types in areas of opportunity. The following strategies assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice: Strategy 1: Facilitate a Range of Housing Types One strategy to overcome this barrier is to allow a wider variety of development types in areas throughout the community. Since most areas are zoned for low density, single family homes, this will require exploring ways to increase the density and the types of housing allowable in order to further fair housing goals. This strategy includes promotion of more types of housing in more varied locations, which also facilitates the creation of housing units at different price points within neighborhoods. Many non-single family residential developments require rezonings to increase density. The City can proactively increase the amount of land available for development by-right for higher densities, as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan along major arterials, intersections, and commercial centers. This may be especially helpful where undeveloped land is zoned for single family and would allow a variety of housing types as the land is developed. Staff could proactively look for areas intended for higher densities and initiate a rezoning with the City as the applicant. Eliminating the distinction between single family and multi-family residential zoning districts would have a similar effect, thereby regulating by density rather than type of housing. Similarly, the City could make flexible zoning arrangements, such as OPD overlays, provisional rather than negotiated. This would encourage its use while simultaneously promoting a range of housing. Another way to increase housing variety is to remove restrictions on housing sizes for units that are not detached single family units (i.e. attached single family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings). Specifically, the code places a bedroom cap on these types of units, which may negatively affect the ability of certain protected classes to find appropriate units, such as large families. The City should explore expanding the number of bedrooms from three to four in multi-family units and consider when this would be allowed to better accommodate larger families throughout the City. While this does not necessarily change the type of housing, it does allow a greater diversity of units within a specific type of housing. 173 173 Strategy 2: Lower the Cost of Housing In addition to facilitating a wider range of housing types throughout Iowa City, reducing the cost of housing can also help ensure more varied price points, especially in the more affordable rental and owner markets. The City is already in the process of working with the Home Builders Association to explore ways of reducing costs through modifications to the zoning and development codes. One way to lower the cost of housing is to evaluate building and housing permit fees and their effects on housing costs. Given that these fees have a higher relative impact on lower cost units, it is recommended that the City explore reducing or waiving fees for properties which are operated for affordable housing by non-profit housing organizations to offset negative disproportionate impacts. This could be used for properties in the private market receiving City assistance for a period of time for affordable housing as well. It may also be possible to use property tax policies to lower the cost of housing. While there are already several such programs for the most vulnerable populations, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and affordable rental housing providers, broadening property tax relief could further help preserve lower-income homeownership opportunities for the more than 4,000 low income homeowners in the City. For example, tax exemption policies could be used to increase the affordability of housing. The ongoing viability of the existing housing stock becomes increasingly important as the cost of new housing continues to rise. Continued improvement and maintenance of the current stock is vital. Efforts towards energy conservation can also reduce heating and cooling costs when rehabilitating older homes. All these factors can help lower the cost of housing. Due to the number of student households in the community, the City should explore ways to increase affordability and housing choice for this demographic. Incentives for housing programs should remain available for students from low income families and students who are financially independent. Strategy 3: Continue investment in affordable housing There is a growing gap in the number of affordable homes for those with lower incomes. Continuing affordable housing activities is crucial to creating a variety of housing types and price points within the community. This can include new construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of rental and owner properties. These provide a valuable opportunity to improve housing choice for members of the protected classes who are often low- and moderate-income households. This also includes leveraging City funds to obtain additional affordable housing investment in the community through LIHTC or other programs that assist with the construction of affordable housing opportunities. Assisting renters’ transition to homeownership, in certain cases, may also help stabilize housing payments through fixed rate mortgages in a market experiencing increasing rental rates. Strategy 4: Retrofit Housing for Equal Access In some cases, appropriate units are not be available, especially for those with disabilities. In such cases, it becomes important to allow owners and renters to make housing units accessible so that they have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Access may include physical access for individuals with different types of disabilities. For example, installing ramps and other accessibility features for individuals with mobility impairments, visual alarms and signals for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, and audio signals, accessible signage, and other accessibility features for individuals who are blind or have low vision. To facilitate this need, the City should adopt a Reasonable Accommodation or Modification procedure to their zoning ordinances and other policies. This would allow persons with disabilities to request a reasonable accommodation/modification to 174 DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice regulatory provisions, including land use and zoning requirements to facilitate the retrofitting of existing housing. In addition, because many low-income households are elderly and/or disabled, continuing to provide assistance to allow those households to age in place is also important, as is continuing to invest in their housing to ensure it remains safe, decent and affordable. 175 175 2: Facilitating Access to Opportunity Housing that affords access to opportunities, such as high-performing schools, public transportation, employment centers, low poverty, and environmentally healthy neighborhoods may be cost prohibitive or non-existent for persons in certain protected classes, especially for those with lower incomes. High costs can have a greater effect on families with children who need multiple bedrooms and individuals with disabilities who need accessible housing or housing located close to accessible transportation. Currently, Iowa City appears to have some disparate access to opportunity, especially when it comes to access to jobs and other quality of life factors such as affordable childcare. The geographic relationship of employment centers, housing, and schools, and the transportation linkages between them, are important components of fair housing choice. The quality of schools and economic opportunities are often major factors in deciding where to live. Job and school quality are also key components of economic mobility. Ensuring affordable units are available in a range of sizes, locations, and types is essential to providing equal access to opportunities by meeting the needs of individuals with protected characteristics. In Iowa City, ensuring the availability and accessibility of a variety of jobs and training opportunities, is also vital. In addition, affordable childcare should be available and close to a range of housing opportunities, and facilities should be fully accessible to individuals with different types of disabilities to avoid further barriers. As such, siting as it relates to the placement of new housing developments, especially those that are affordable, becomes crucial. This includes new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation of previously unsubsidized housing. Local policies and decisions significantly affect the location of new housing. In addition, the availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation including buses and paratransit for persons with disabilities also affect which households are connected to community assets and economic opportunities. As such, it is important to connect individuals to places they need to go such as jobs, schools, retail establishments, and healthcare. This study proposes a balanced approach to address disparities in access to provide for both strategic investment in areas that lack key opportunity indicators, while opening housing opportunities in areas with existing opportunity through effective mobility options and the preservation and development of a variety of housing in high opportunity areas. Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice: Strategy 1: Emphasize Variety in Housing in Areas of Opportunity Areas of opportunity are places where jobs are relatively plentiful and access to education, healthcare, and other amenities is close at hand. Iowa City generally ranks highly when it comes to quality of life. However, some areas of town have less access to opportunity as identified within this Study, especially as it relates to affordable childcare and job access. Analysis suggests there are some discrepancies in services and access to opportunity by race, income, and area. To some extent, this is likely due to clustering of racial and ethnic groups. All protected classes should have an equal opportunity to live throughout Iowa City. Increasing housing variety for a range of household types and price points, in areas with affordable childcare and near job centers is one way to achieve fair housing choice while improving access to opportunities. This strategy complements those related to increasing the variety of available types and prices of housing. The placement of the City’s subsidized housing is governed by the Affordable Housing Location Model (AHLM). The model serves to not place additional subsidized housing in areas that already have a concentration of City-assisted housing and lower incomes as determined by elementary school catchment areas. The model does not apply to housing for persons with disabilities, seniors, the rehabilitation of existing rental housing or for homeownership. The AHLM does not necessarily promote greater variety of price points in areas of opportunity. As such, the City could explore ways to use the 176 DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice model or another policy to promote city-assisted housing in low poverty neighborhoods or neighborhoods that provide good access to opportunity. The goal of fair housing choice is to provide sufficient, comparable opportunities for housing for all types of households in a variety of income ranges. Comparable units should have the same household (elderly, disabled, family, large family) and tenure (owner/renter) type; have similar rents/prices; serve the same income group; in the same housing market; and in standard condition. The goal is not to necessarily have an equal number of assisted units within each neighborhood, but rather that a reasonable distribution of assisted units should be produced each year to approach an appropriate balance of housing choices within and outside neighborhoods over several years. An appropriate balance should be based on local conditions affecting the range of housing choices available for different types of households as they relate to the mix of the City’s population. Strategy 2: Community Investment It is recommended that the City pursue additional investment in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of low income families, especially those with concentrations of persons with protected characteristics, to improve the quality of life for existing residents. This may include a range of activities such as improving housing, attracting private investment, creating jobs, expanding educational opportunities, and providing links to other community assets. The quality and maintenance of housing is especially important to community investment as survey respondents rank it as one of the factors that varies most widely between areas of the City. As a result, the City should continue targeted investment in infrastructure, amenities, community facilities, and public services serving lower income households and in low income areas. Amenities such as recreational facilities, grocery stores, pharmacies, and banks are especially important in maintaining a higher quality of life. Housing rehabilitation is also important in maintaining the housing stock and appearance, while new construction in areas that have not received as much recent investment can also be beneficial. Special attention should be given to investments that increase access to housing or that lower housing costs generally, such as energy efficiency improvements. Economic development support near low-income neighborhoods also can create jobs, increase wages, and increase access to amenities. This strategy in conjunction with providing a diversity of housing types in all new neighborhoods creates opportunities of access throughout the City. Preserving the City’s existing affordable housing is also important as part of a balanced approach to affirmatively further fair housing. This can include funding and indirect subsidies for rehabilitation to maintain physical structures, refinancing, affordable use agreements, and incentives for owners to maintain affordability. Similarly, efforts to repair and maintain the infrastructure of existing affordable housing should be part of concerted housing preservation and community investment effort. The City should continue encouraging private investment to advance fair housing from homeowners, developers, and other nonprofit or business initiatives. Securing financial resources (public, for-profit, and nonprofit) from sources inside and outside the City to fund housing improvements, community facilities and services, and business opportunities in neighborhoods will help ensure access to opportunities for all residents. Strategy 3: Enhance Mobility Linkages Throughout the Community Non-automotive transportation is an important part of ensuring equal access from housing to jobs and other amenities in Iowa City. Transportation improvements could significantly improve access to opportunity for employment and other services and amenities for those who rely on public or active transportation. This complements policies to increase the range of housing opportunities near opportunity and employment areas which can reduce spending on transportation-related expenses. 177 177 Strategies to enhance both active and public transportation linkages may include improved coordination with service providers, expansion of active and public transportation to provide access to jobs through improved infrastructure, providing late night/ weekend service, or ensuring adequate coverage to assist with access to opportunities. Investment across the City can also include improved transit facilities and equipment, including bus shelters, and expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Prioritizing ADA access is especially important to further fair housing purposes. 178 DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 3: Increasing Education and Outreach Based on public input, many residents of Iowa City lack awareness about rights under fair housing and civil rights laws, which can lead to under-reporting of discrimination, failure to take advantage of remedies under the law, and the continuation of discriminatory practices. Even those who do know their rights do not always act on them due to feeling it would not be productive or fear of reprisal. This suggests a lack of knowledge and awareness regarding fair housing rights is a major barrier to fair housing choice. Ensuring access to information about housing programs and neighborhoods can also facilitate fair housing goals. This is because individuals and families attempting to move to a neighborhood of their choice, especially areas of opportunity, may not be aware of potential assistance or support. In those cases, having quality information related to housing and affordability, available services, and organizations that serve potential tenants, can help those moves be successful. Other relevant info may include listings of affordable housing opportunities or local landlords; mobility counseling programs; and community outreach to potential beneficiaries. Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice. Strategy 1: Improve Demand-Side Awareness The demand-side of the housing market includes tenants, homeowners, borrowers, mobile home park residents, and other who need and/or use housing. Generally, these groups do not have any formal training or education regarding their fair housing rights, nor are they formally organized in most cases. This makes it important to raise awareness through advocacy campaigns, education and outreach activities geared toward the general public, and fair housing informational materials for both homebuyers and tenants. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders should especially be informed of their rights, including the right to be free from discrimination based on source of income. In addition to fair housing rights, this should include how to report violations of those rights. It is recommended that the City explore the development of new outreach, education, or informational programs and activities to promote housing opportunities for segments of the community such as persons of color, those not as fluent in English, and for the elderly and persons with disabilities. This should be done in cooperation with other organizations working on furthering fair housing. Ideally, this will increase knowledge of the laws, reduce discriminatory behavior, achieve a better understanding, and reduce negative attitudes concerning people who are racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse or who are disabled. A comprehensive program would help ensure that there is broad knowledge of legal protections for all residents. Beyond fair housing information, providing more generalized information about housing can be beneficial. For example, information for tenants about leasing can improve rental outcomes and homebuyer education can help those less familiar with homeownership, such as long-term renters, overcome challenges as first time homebuyer. Those new to the HCV program can also benefit from additional information about facilities and services available in each neighborhood to assist them with their housing search. This may encourage voucher holders to look for housing in neighborhoods with more access to opportunity. This information can also assist residents moving from high-poverty to low- poverty neighborhoods that have greater access to opportunity assets appropriate for their family. It is important that information is comprehensive (e.g. that the information provided includes a variety of neighborhoods, including those with access to opportunity indicators) and up-to-date (e.g. that the information is actively being maintained, updated and improved). The information should also alleviate fears of retaliation and should showcase the process and concrete outcomes to address those who “didn’t know what good it would do” to report discrimination. 179 179 Strategy 2: Increase Supply-Side Awareness The supply-side of housing includes lenders, appraisers, mortgage insurers, realtors, landlords, and management companies. Unlike the demand-side, these groups are often provided formal training regarding fair housing rights through industry groups or employee training. As such, they require less guidance than the demand-side of housing. However, it is still important that they understand fair housing rights and responsibilities as well, especially small landlords or others who may be less formally integrated within the industry. As such, technical training for housing industry representatives remains an important component of the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing in the community. In addition to general fair housing rights, those on the supply-side of housing should also be made aware of best practices and efforts to affirmatively further fair housing through equity, inclusion, fairness, and justice. This could involve providing education regarding marketing in targeted neighborhoods or for protected classes and encouraging advocacy groups to share opportunities for their products and services. Similarly, additional technical training regarding civil rights may include fair housing issues such as the appropriate application of arrest and criminal conviction records, credit policies, prior evictions, leasing and lease termination decision making; and fair housing issues affecting LGBTQ individuals. Pro-active outreach can widen the pool of participating rental housing providers, including both owners of individual residences and larger rental management companies. Meanwhile, the City should encourage these groups to regularly examine and update their policies, procedures, and practices to avoid differential treatment of residents and applicants based on protected characteristics. Similarly, supply-side providers should also be encouraged to examine their clientele profiles to determine whether there are neighborhoods or groups that are underrepresented or unrepresented. Doing so will help supply-side providers to go beyond just understanding fair housing issues towards meaningfully furthering fair housing. Strategy 3: Increase Regulator Awareness The City must ensure those who make decisions regarding public policies and regulations, including public officials, Commission and Board members, and staff, have adequate fair housing training. While this will further fair housing, it may also help inspire confidence in the City’s processes. In addition to general training, one potential method of educating decision-makers would be to train them as fair housing ambassadors who can then help spread the word about fair housing to both demand- and supply-side groups. Strategy 4: Provide meaningful language access Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) includes anyone who does not speak English as their primary language and who has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. Often, this is tied to foreign-born populations who may not understand English. Increasing meaningful language access regarding fair housing information and housing programs would facilitate housing choice for LEP individuals seeking housing. It is important that housing providers and policy makers ensure that all individuals have access to information regarding fair and affordable housing, regardless of language. In Iowa City, this is particularly salient due to the higher prevalence of foreign-born populations. Relevant City departments maintain Limited English Proficiency (LEP) plans to ensure equal access to knowledge of fair housing and housing assistance. However, the LEP plan likely needs to be updated, especially as the number of foreign-born residents has rapidly grown in recent years. In addition, the City should explore what housing documents are most important to translate to achieve a better understanding of fair housing choice by LEP speakers and to improve communication through language access. 180 DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 4: Operational Improvements Several other barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City included smaller operational and planning changes that could help affirmatively further fair housing. These include impediments such as administrative processes and regulations which can slow down and/or stop projects that would benefit protected classes, a need for increased regional cooperation for issues that affect housing, a lack of information that could help identify or address other barriers, and a need to improve the transparency of fair housing enforcement. Most of these barriers can be addressed through operational improvements at the City level, though accomplishing in cooperation with others may improve their effectiveness. Strategy 1: Improve Fair Housing Enforcement and Transparency In addition to ensuring awareness of fair housing rights and process, the City needs to improve enforcement and increase transparency in the process, so the public can be aware that complainants obtain relief in a timely and effective manner. Doing so would fight feelings of helplessness and provide certainty to complainants that filing a report helps combat fair housing violations. This may include actively monitoring the outcomes of complaints, in addition to making fair housing complaint information more easily visible to the public. Fair housing testing may also assist with transparency and fair housing enforcement. Doing so allows the City to identify whether landlords or realtors, and others involved in the housing market are abiding by fair housing laws. In addition, these tests help the City to better identify and target fair housing outreach. Strategy 2: Review implementing procedures and regulations The City has several new programs, administered by various staff and departments, with various rules that can be confusing to understand, implement and enforce. This problem is exacerbated when the program is combined with federal programs that have rigid, complex rules. This creates a challenging regulatory environment, especially for affordable housing and public service programs. As such, there are opportunities to harmonize, coordinate, streamline, and define administration and planning. Possibilities include centralizing processes for affordable housing and ensuring they are online; reducing uncertainty for service providers in allocating funds; and harmonizing rules between programs. Similarly, the zoning ordinance has been updated in fragmented ways since its initial adoption. While it generally accommodates the City’s fair housing goals, codes frequently updated can indicate a need for a comprehensive reevaluation. This is a long-term effort. In the meantime, incremental improvements can make the code easier to follow yet still comprehensive and flexible. One simple change is to reclassify community service – long term shelter as a multi-family/mixed use, since it is a long-term residence rather than a public service shelter use. Another similar change is to clarify the definition of nonfamily households; the current City definition is a holdover from before the State modified law to prohibit regulating use based on familial characteristics. In addition, administrative procedures may better promote fair housing choice as compared to some decision-making processes. Updating administrative policies and practices may help support Council objectives in ways that produce more impartial, predictable outcomes. The City should promote funds to organizations committed to affordable housing and who have the capacity to administer long term housing projects. Agencies receiving funds should have the capacity to administer the project for the entire compliance period while enhancing fair housing. By doing so, the City increases the likelihood of maintaining the units as affordable housing after City and federal restrictions are released. 181 181 Regardless, all changes to administrative, zoning, or other public policies and practices should be preemptively evaluated through the lens of fair housing. This is also true as new policy continues to develop, including potential changes to the housing and zoning following the State’s disallowing the use of a rental permit cap. Strategy 3: Improve regional cooperation Regional cooperation includes networks or coalitions of organizations, people, and entities working together to plan for regional development. Cooperation in regional planning can help coordinate responses to identified fair housing issues that cross multiple sectors—including housing, education, transportation, and commercial and economic development—and multiple political and geographic boundaries. As such, encouraging regional cooperation can further fair housing not only for Iowa City, but the entire region. This was also mentioned as a need in many stakeholder meetings. While the City and surrounding jurisdictions cooperate through regional transportation planning and through the Fringe Area Agreement, there are still additional opportunities to better coordinate housing and fair housing planning on a regional level. Projecting development and demand for different types of housing and price points is one way to approach the issue. Doing so can start a discussion about how to facilitate housing choice in each of the communities. Communication between staff can also facilitate coordination between jurisdictions. Strategy 4: Improved Data Collection Another impediment is the need for increased data, analysis and reporting. While improving data collection and analysis does not directly overcome a barrier to fair housing choice, it will help identify potential barriers in the future. All of these can also be paired with equity mapping to identify areas of opportunity using factors relevant to fair housing choice. Currently, many of the City’s local housing programs do not require the same level of tracking and reporting regarding protected characteristics of beneficiaries as federal programs. As part of its annual monitoring of these projects, the City should begin tracking and reporting the race, ethnicity, and other protected characteristics of beneficiaries to allow finer levels of analysis and reporting regarding fair housing choice. This will also allow better measurement regarding the extent to which policy and practice changes are impacting outcomes and reducing disparities. In addition, the City should regularly monitor HMDA reports of financial institutions and obtain information on the location of properties that are the subject of loan applications. HMDA data can be used to develop policies to act upon this information such as incentivizing banks with good performance records by only depositing public funds in banks that meet threshold scores. Similarly, location information can help the City guide lender education activities to promote fair housing. Finally, ICHA should regularly analyze its beneficiary and waitlist data to ensure its preferences do not have a disparate impact on those in protected classes and that it is serving the people most in need as determined by the City’s Consolidated Plan. As part of this, ICHA should periodically update an equity analysis to identify if any disparate impacts are identified. HUD.GOV Tweet Home / Press Room / Press Releases / HUD No. 20-109 Share 2.8K Share HUD No. 20-109 HUD Public Aairs (202)708-0685 FOR RELEASE Thursday July 23, 2020 SECRETARY CARSON TERMINATES 2015 AFFH RULERemoval of rule returns power to localities in eort to advance fair housing nationwide WASHINGTON - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson today announced the Department will ultimately terminate the Obama Administration’s Armatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation issued in 2015, which proved to be complicated, costly, and ineective— so much so that Secretary Carson essentially removed its burden on communities by suspending the regulation’s 92 question grading tool in January 2018. “After reviewing thousands of comments on the proposed changes to the Armatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation, we found it to be unworkable and ultimately a waste of time for localities to comply with, too often resulting in funds being steered away from communities that need them most,” said Secretary Carson. “Instead, the Trump Administration has established programs like Opportunity Zones that are driving billions of dollars of capital into underserved communities where aordable housing exists, but opportunity does not. Programs like this shift the burden away from communities so they are not forced to comply with complicated regulations that require hundreds of pages of reporting and instead allow communities to focus more of their time working with Opportunity Zone partners to revitalize their communities so upward mobility, improved housing, and home ownership is within reach for more people. Washington has no business dictating what is best to meet your local community’s unique needs.” This brand-new rule, called Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice, denes fair housing broadly to mean housing that, among other attributes, is aordable, safe, decent, free of unlawful discrimination, and accessible under civil rights laws. It then denes “armatively furthering fair housing” to mean any action rationally related to promoting any of the above attributes of fair housing. Now, a grantee’s certication that it has armatively furthered fair housing would be deemed sucient if it proposes to take any action above what is required by statute related to promoting any of the attributes of fair housing. HUD remains able to terminate funding if it discovers, after investigation made pursuant to complaint or by its own volition, that a jurisdiction has not adhered to its commitment to AFFH. Persons who believe they have experienced housing discrimination may le a complaint of discrimination by contacting HUD's Oce of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 or visiting How to File a Complaint on HUD’s website. Materials and assistance are available for persons with limited English prociency. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the Department using the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. ### Agenda Item: 5 Date: August 13, 2020 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Re: CDBG for Economic Development City of Iowa City Small Business Assistance: The City of Iowa City sets aside $50,000 of CDBG dollars annually for economic development activities. These funds can be used to provide loans, grants and technical assistance to business development projects that benefit low- and moderate-income persons through the creation and retention of jobs. Funds are typically used for small business loans to microenterprise businesses. A microenterprise is defined as a business that has five or fewer employees, one or more of whom owns the business. The owner’s household must be at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) to qualify for a CDBG loan, and the business must be located within the municipal boundaries of Iowa City. Eligible applicants can receive a zero-interest loan up to $25,000 to start or expand their business. This program can also fund technical assistance for entrepreneurs. We currently fund 4Cs Community Coordinated Child Care which serves microenterprises and people interested in developing a microenterprise, specifically, in-home daycares serving low-income residents that are operated by low-income residents. The City also offers a MicroLoan program for small businesses in partnership with MidWestOne Bank. Similar to the CDBG business loan, applicants must be at or below 80% AMI. Loans are available up to $10,000 at a 5% fixed interest rate. The loans are serviced by MidWestOne and the City guarantees the loan. Program Challenges/Opportunities: Over the past few years, we have not been able to fully expend our CDBG economic development set-aside. If these funds are not spent within two years, they get returned and repurposed as regular CDBG dollars. Some of the program challenges staff has identified include the following: 1.We are not receiving applications on a regular basis. Interested parties may not be aware of the funding opportunity. 2. Applicants need additional guidance to start/run a business. Applicants often have not fully vetted their business ideas and their financial projections are unrealistic. Ongoing technical assistance is necessary. 3.Funding microenterprises is inherently risky. Businesses assisted in the recent past have closed during the repayment period or various reasons. Applicants are often not in a strong position financially to take on substantial debt. 4.Staff capacity is limited. Higher priority projects have taken precedence over continual development of this program. Staff also does not have extensive experience in business development. 5.The pandemic has created additional uncertainty for businesses. Agenda Item: 6 August 13, 2020 Page 2 Ongoing Efforts: •All applicants are required to meet with the Small Business Development Center for free technical assistance. •Staff has relationships with local commercial lenders which allows us to promote our funding opportunities as well as hear from them what needs they see in the community. •In the past, the City of Iowa City has hosted a series of free workshops for anyone interested with presentations from successful local entrepreneurs and information on legal issues, taxes, licenses, permits, and financial statements. Videos of the most recent workshops are available online for viewing. •Staff is considering revising the CDBG loan program to offer a loan in combination with a grant for technical assistance with website development, payrolls services, or accounting/tax services (See draft program flyer). HCDC Input Requested: The purpose of this memo is to inform the Commission of our economic development program opportunities. Staff is also interested in feedback from the Commission. •What small business needs to you see in the community? •What are some opportunities for outreach? •How can the program be improved? Iowa City CDBG Economic Development Fund Small business assistance for income eligible businesses with five or fewer owners and employees Small business assistance provided •The City CDBG funds will provide loans up to $10,000 with 0% interest. The City loan must be at least equally matched with a commercial loan. For example, if approved for a $9,000 CDBG loan, the applicant must also obtain a commercial loan for at least $9,000. •Minimum City CDBG loan amount is $5,000. •With loan approval, applicants will be awarded up to $5,000 in reimbursable grant funds for tech- nical assistance with website development, payroll services and/or accounting and tax services. For more information, email neighborhoods@iowa-city.org or call 319.356.5230. How to qualify •Business must be located in Iowa City. If a home based business, the home must be located in Iowa City. •51% of the owners and employees must be income eligible. Income is based on income from all adult members of the household. Household Size Effective 6/28/2019 Income Limit 1 $52,850 2 $60,400 3 $67,950 4 $75,500 Apply online Interested businesses may apply at icgov.org/financialassisance. City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Agenda Item: 6 1 APPLICANT GUIDE Economic Development CDBG Funds (Loans up to $25,000 at 0% interest) Purpose ......................................................................................................... 2 Referral Sources ............................................................................................ 2 Process ......................................................................................................... 2 Review Criteria .............................................................................................. 3 Special Considerations .................................................................................... 3 Open Records Policy – Economic Development Projects ................................... 4 Job Creation Requirements ............................................................................. 7 Income Guidelines and Definitions .................................................................. 9 Employee Income Report ............................................................................. 10 Annual Employee Performance Report ........................................................... 11 Note: Please be aware that the funds available are federal funds; as such various federal requirements may apply. Each applicant is encouraged to speak with Neighborhood Services staff about the requirements that will apply to your specific business prior to submitting an application. Please contact City of Iowa City Neighborhood Services with any questions. City of Iowa City, Neighborhood Services 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 319.356.5230 or neighborhoods@iowa-city.org Applications available online at www.icgov.org/financialassistance Agenda Item: 6 2 Iowa City CDBG Economic Development Fund Purpose: Stimulate private sector investment in Iowa City that results in the creation and/or retention of permanent, private sector jobs for low-to-moderate income persons. Referral Sources: Referrals accepted by private financial institutions, the Small Business Development Center, and the public. If the applicant is referred by a financial institution or the Small Business Development Center, Neighborhood Services staff will work with the private lender or technical assistance provider to review the application, the underwriting analysis for the project, and work with the private lender on a financial package that makes the project viable. All applicants are encouraged, however not required, to apply to a financial institution for financing. If applicant does not apply for funding through a financial institution, the applicant must explain why. Process: 1)Referral received from a financial institution, SBDC, or directly from the business. 2)Applicant meets with staff. Staff completes a preliminary review. If referred by a private lender, staff contacts the lender to review the project. 3)Staff makes a recommendation for approval/denial of application. 4)If approved, notify City Council Economic Development Committee. 5)Execute CDBG agreement. 6)Recipients must receive pre- and post-award technical and management assistance from local non-profit providers such as the Small Business Development Center and/or from participating lenders. If necessary, assistance may be paid through loan proceeds. For applicants not working through a private lender, the process begins with the identification of a qualified technical assistance (T/A) provider approved by the City. The applicant and T/A provider or participating lender will complete an assessment of the applicant’s management and business operations strengths and weaknesses. If weaknesses are identified as a result of that assessment, the participating lender and/or City shall document the T/A provider’s recommendation and verify the applicant receives the technical assistance identified as a condition of the award. 7)City monitoring and compliance. At least one on-site monitoring visit will be scheduled during the compliance period. 3 Review Criteria: Applications will be evaluated based on the City of Iowa City Financial Assistance Guidelines established on 9/24/1996, amended 2001, as applicable. 1)Meets all CDBG requirements and creates/retains employment opportunities for low-to-moderate income persons 2)Applicant’s financial contribution to the project 3)Quality of jobs created 4)Economic Impact – potential for future growth 5)Consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan 6)Environmental Impact Business Plan (start-up businesses): •Plan must demonstrate the feasibility of the business venture •Creditworthiness of the business/applicant •Reliability of the job creation and financial estimates •All private financing options considered •Business plan MUST be readable (font 11 or larger) The City may verify the following (to verify some of these items, the City may be required to ask the applicant’s birth date and/or social security number): •Credit history – Applicant Credit Score •Past employment •Current references •Financial institution – verify if assistance approved or denied. If denied, primary reasons the institution denied the request. If approved, review private lender’s underwriting analysis. •Any other information as supplied by the applicant on the application and business plan to assist in evaluating the proposal Special considerations: •The City will not shop banks. •The City will encourage applicants to seek private financing, but will not recommend institutions. •Job creation/retention by low-to-moderate income persons is a federal requirement for CDBG assistance. The City will take all enforcement measures for repayment if a business fails to create or retain the jobs required by the Agreement the applicant enters with the City. •The CDBG Economic Development fund is not meant to compete with private lenders but to provide incentives that lower private sector risk and leverage private sector dollars in order to expand the amount of capital available to small businesses. 4 Open Records Policy - Economic Development Projects: Most documents in the possession of the City are "open records" and available to the public for examination and review. The City may treat a record as a confidential record and withhold it from examination only to the extent that the City is authorized by Iowa Code section 22.7, another applicable provision of law, or a court order. Any person who would be aggrieved or adversely affected by disclosure of a record and who asserts that Iowa Code section 22.7, another applicable provision of law, or a court order authorizes the City to treat the record as a confidential record may request the City to treat that record as a confidential record and to withhold it from public inspection. A request that a record be treated as a confidential record and be withheld from public inspection shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Neighborhood Services Department. If the original record is being submitted to the City by the person requesting such confidential treatment at the time the request is filed, the person shall indicate conspicuously on the original record that all or portions of it are confidential. The request for confidentiality must set forth the legal and factual basis justifying such confidential record treatment for that record, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person authorized to respond to any inquiry or action of the custodian concerning the request. A person requesting treatment of a record as a confidential record may also be required to sign a certified statement or affidavit enumerating the specific reasons justifying the treatment of that record as a confidential record and to provide any proof necessary to establish relevant facts. Requests for treatment of a record as such a confidential record for a limited time period shall also specify the precise period of time for which that treatment is requested. If the request is denied, the City shall notify the requestor of the determination and the reasons therefore. On application by the requestor, the City may engage in a good faith, reasonable delay in allowing examination of the record so that the requestor may seek injunctive relief under Iowa Code section 22.8, or other applicable law. The City shall notify requestor in writing of the time period allowed to seek injunctive relief. Failure of a person to request confidential record treatment for a record does not preclude the City from treating it as a confidential record. However, if a person who has submitted business information to the City does not request that it be withheld from public inspection under Iowa Code section 22.7, the City may proceed as if that person has no objection to its disclosure to members of the public. 5 Non-Iowa Economic Development Authority Projects (Includes Community Development Block Grant Applicants) The following records are considered confidential and will be withheld from public inspection: 1.Consumer credit reports (15 U.S.C. 1681b) 2.Income tax returns, employer's contribution and payroll report, and other "return information" (Iowa Code sections 422.20 and 422.72; 26 U.S.C. 6103(b); and 26 CFR 31.3406(f)-1(a)) The following records may be considered confidential and withheld from public inspection: 1. Trade secrets (Iowa Code section 22.7(3)) 2.Reports which, if released, would given advantage to competitors and serve no public purpose (Iowa Code section 22.7(6)) •Applications competing with other applications under a City- imposed deadline will be kept confidential until the deadline passes. Unless confidential, in whole or part, pursuant to above, the following are not considered confidential and will be available to the public: 1.Business plan; 2.Profit/Loss Statement; 3.Balance Sheets; 4.Application for City Economic Development Funds Although the document may be a public record, specific information in the document, if confidential, will be redacted, such as a social security number or a tax payer identification number. 6 Summary: Public Disclosure of CDBG Economic Development Applications & Required Documents per the Iowa Open Records Law Item: Online- Downloadable Economic Dev. Committee & Staff By Public Request Considered Proprietary (not available to the public)* Agenda Item X X X Application (w/o attachments) X X X Business Plan X X Balance Sheet X X Profit and Loss Statements X X Fringe Benefit Description X X Management’s Background X X Social Security Number or Tax Payer Identification Number X Consumer Credit Score X Employer’s Contribution & Payroll Report X Construction Cost Estimate X X * The following records may also be considered confidential and withheld from public inspection: 3.Trade secrets (Iowa Code section 22.7(3)) 4.Reports which, if released, would given advantage to competitors and serve no public purpose (Iowa Code section 22.7(6)) (Applications competing with other applications under a City-imposed deadline will be kept confidential until the deadline passes.) The applicant may request that a record be treated as a confidential record and be withheld from public inspection. Please see the Open Records policy to review when and how to request confidential treatment of a particular document or a portion of a required document. 7 Job Creation Requirements: Job Activity The use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for an economic development loan requires that the activity funded is designed to create or retain permanent jobs where at least 51 percent of the jobs, computed on a full time equivalent basis, involve the employment of low-and moderate income persons. To qualify, the Company must document that at least 51 percent of the jobs will be held by low and moderate income persons. Low to moderate income means a household annual income that does not exceed 80% of the area median income as defined by HUD (see page 9). Documentation Agreement A written agreement is required with the Company in which that Company agrees to keep or create a specific number of jobs, identifies each such job by type and whether the job will be full or part time. The agreement must also specify the actions the Company and City will take to ensure that at least 51% of the jobs created will benefit low/moderate persons. Records To document that jobs will be held by low/moderate income persons, the records must show: A listing by job title of the specific jobs to be created A listing by job title of the jobs filled The name and income status of the person who filled each position, and The full-time equivalency status of the jobs Document Income Status Documentation is required that a particular applicant/employee has a household income which meets the low/moderate income guidelines shall include any one of the following: Written certification signed and dated by the employee/applicant indicating his/her family size and total income as necessary to determine whether the person is a member of a low/moderate income family at the time the certification is made. The form must include a statement that the person making the certification is aware that the information being provided is subject to verification by the local or Federal government. Evidence that the person is homeless 8 Evidence that the employee/applicant was a referral from a state, county, or local employment agency or other entity that has agreed to refer individuals whom they have determined to be low/moderate income based on HUD's criteria. Evidence that the employee/applicant has qualified for assistance under another program with income qualification criteria at least as restrictive as those used by this program Job Calculation In counting the jobs to be used in the calculation for determining the percentage that benefit low/moderate income persons, the following policies apply; Part time jobs must be converted to full time equivalents (FTE) Only permanent jobs count; temporary jobs may not be included Seasonal jobs are considered to be permanent for this purpose only if the season is long enough for the job to be considered as the employee's principal occupation All permanent jobs created must be counted even if the activity has multiple sources of funds Jobs indirectly created by an assisted activity ("spin off" jobs) or jobs located outside the City of Iowa City may not be counted Reporting An Annual Employment Performance Report will need to be submitted for each year ending June 30th (July 1 to June 30) to the City of Iowa City, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240. Reports are due by July 16 for the previous fiscal year (July 1 to June 30). Page 9 TABLE OF INCOME GUIDELINES Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Effective July 1, 2020 Household Size 80% Median Income (Considered Low- Mod. Income) 1 $54,950 2 $62,800 3 $70,650 4 $78,500 5 $84,800 6 $91,100 7 $97,350 8 $103,650 Page 10 EMPLOYEE INCOME REPORT Community Development Block Grant Program Low to Moderate Income Requirements The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has asked that the following information be collected from those individuals employed and/or interviewed by ___________________________________________________ to verify that the company is achieving the goals of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Loan Program. The information is confidential and will be used solely by HUD for the purposes of monitoring. If you have any questions regarding this form, please contact the Iowa City Neighborhood Services at (319) 356-5230. INCOME VERIFICATION 1.Position interviewed or hired for: _____________________________________________________ 2.Please CIRCLE, under Family Size on the chart below, the total number of related people living in your household, including yourself. 3.Look at the income ranges on the line for the Family Size you circled. CIRCLE the income range that includes your gross family income. If your gross family income is greater than the amounts listed, check here. (Income Limits Effective 7/1/2020) Family Size 0-30% Median Income 31-50% Median Income 51-80% Median Income 1 $0 - $21,250 $21,251 - $35,450 $35,451 - $54,950 2 $0 - $24,300 $24,301 - $40,500 $40,501 - $62,800 3 $0 - $27,350 $27,351 - $45,550 $45,551 - $70,650 4 $0 - $30,350 $30,351 - $50,600 $50,601 - $78,500 5 $0 - $32,800 $32,801 - $54,650 $54,651 - $84,800 6 $0 - $35,250 $35,251 - $58,700 $58,701 - $91,100 7 $0 - $37,650 $37,651 - $62,750 $62,751 - $97,350 8 or more $0 - $40,100 $40,101 - $66,800 $66,801 - $103,650 4.Hispanic? Yes  No 5.What is your ethnic origin? (Please check only one)  White  Black/African American  Asian  American Indian/Alaskan native  Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander  American Indian/Alaskan Native & White  Asian & White  Black/African American & White  American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American  Other 6.At the time of application, were you unemployed? Yes  No I certify that the information above is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct and complete as of the date of application. I am aware that the information being provided is subject to verification by the local or Federal government. __________________________________ ________________________________________ __________________ Name (print) Signature Date __________________________________________________ Address (street, city, state, zip) Warning: Whoever knowingly and willingly makes or uses a document or writing containing any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry may be subject to federal prosecution. Page 11 Annual Employee Performance Report Submit to: CITY OF IOWA CITY For the Year Beginning July 1, 20___ and Ending June 30, 20___ Neighborhood Services 410 E. Washington Street NAME OF COMPANY: ___________________________ SUBMITTAL DATE: __________________ Iowa City, IA 52240 BASE EMPLOYMENT: _________ NEW PERMANENT JOBS GOAL (FTE's): ______________ LOW/MOD JOB GOAL1 (FTE's): _________ JOB INFORMATION JOB INFORMATION ON HIRES IN NEW POSITIONS Number of New Jobs Hires Meeting Low/Mod Income Status Job Classification (Please list each separate position) Total Number Employed Low/Mod Income Persons Interviewed -Not Hired Number of New Jobs2 Created Wage Rate Range Average Hours Per Week Moderate Income (51-80%) Low Income (31-50%) Very Low Income (0-30%) Employer Sponsored Health Care Benefits? Unemployed at Time of Application? Race of New Hires Hispanic Ethnicity Total Total White, not Hispanic Black or African American Asian American Indian or Alaska Native Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native and White Asian White Black or African American and White Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African Amer. Other Multi-Racial 1 Low/Mod benefit is met when an employee is hired who has a household income of 80% or less of area median income at the time of application. To include individuals in this column, the Employee Report must be completed by each new employee and be retained in your files to verify income. 2 New jobs are newly created positions that increase the total employment to meet the new permanent jobs goal. This does not include new hires for existing positions. I certify that these numbers are true and accurate: Signature: ___________________________________ For City Use Only: Date Received: ________ Received by: ___ Name (Typed): ________________________________ Title: _________________________ Date: Compliance: ____Goal Met: Yes No Aid to Agencies Assignments Housing and Community Development Commission HCDC Liaison Agency Contact Person Email Aguilar Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity Heath Brewer heath@iowavalleyhabitat.org Table to Table Nicki Ross mail@table2table.org Alter HACAP Jane Drapeaux jdrapeaux@hacap.org Rape Victim Advocacy Program Adam Robinson adam-robinson@uiowa.edu Drabek CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank Becci Reedus becci.reedus@builtbycommunity.org Inside Out Reentry Community Michelle Heinz insideoutreentry@gmail.com Kealey Iowa City Free Medical Clinic/Dick Parrott Free Dental Clinic Barbara Vinograde bvinograde@freemedicalclinic.org United Action for Youth Ally Hanten ally.hanten@unitedactionforyouth.or g Lewis 4 Cs Community Coordinated Child Care Missie Forbes Missie@iowa4cs.com Domestic Violence Intervention Program Kristie Doser Kristie@dvipiowa.org Mohammed Prelude Behavioral Services Ron Berg rberg@preludeiowa.org Shelter House Crissy Canganelli crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org Nkumu Arc of Southeast Iowa Chelsey Markle chelseymarkle@arcsei.org Pathways Adult Day Health Center/Aging Services, Inc. Lindsay Glynn lglynn@abbehealth.org Padron Free Lunch Program Ronda Lipsius icfreelunch@gmail.com Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County Brian Loring brian-loring@ncjc.org Vogel Big Brothers Big Sisters of Johnson County Daleta Thurness daletac@iastate.edu Horizons, A Family Service Alliance Sofia Mehaffey smehaffey@horizonsfamily.org Agenda Item: 7 Maria Padron Iowa City, IA 52240 City Council Iowa City, IA 52240 July 20th, 2020 RE: COVID-19 Assistance Program Honorable Members of the City Council, On behalf of the Housing and Community Development Commission, we would like to recommend the following: 1.Extend and expand the COVID-19 Assistance Program to help residents with both rent and utilities. Extension and expansion are necessary to match the scope of the present crisis and its ongoing nature. 2.Continue using local funds in this program. Local funds are needed to help residents who are not eligible to receive State or Federal assistance. 3.Make the program accessible to undocumented residents by removing unnecessary restrictions and requirements. Many undocumented residents do not have a way to prove loss of income due to COVID-19 since they are not paid legally. The best way to make the program accessible is to stop asking residents for proof of COVID-19 impact in order to receive assistance. This is a health, human, economic, and social crisis that is affecting all of us. Thank you for your consideration, Maria Padron Chair Housing and Community Development Commission Matt Drabek Vice Chair Housing and Community Development Commission CC: Peggy Aguilar Megan Alter Lyn Dee Hook Kealey Theresa Lewis Nasr Mohammed Peter Nkumu Kyle Vogel Agenda Item: 8 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 Agenda Item: 9 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. ***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 Agenda Item: 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