The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-16-2021 Housing and Community Development CommissionHOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) September 16, 2021 Regular Meeting — 6:30 PM Environmental Education Center 2401 Scott Boulevard SE AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 19, 2021 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. Question and Answer Session for Applications: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs Applications can be viewed online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting, HCDC will host a question and answer session with applicants. Applicants are strongly encouraged to send a representative to answer any questions. Scoring criteria located in the Applicant Guide will focus questions. 5. Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Commissioners will hear a progress report from Little Creations Academy, as requested at the August HCDC meeting, in addition to a report from Successful Living. The Commission may recommend the recapture and re -use of funds. 6. Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER) The CAPER is a required document that is submitted to HUD within 90 days of the fiscal year end which concludes June 30. The CAPER draft is online at www.icgov.org/actionplan for review and comment. At this meeting, HCDC will consider approving the document for submission to HUD. 7. Overview of Scoring Criteria This item provides an opportunity for an overview of the scoring criteria that will be used to evaluate application submissions. 8. Iowa City Council Meeting Updates Two commissioners are assigned each month to monitor Council meetings. This agenda item provides an opportunity to review assignment schedule and for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to HCDC business. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items. 9. Housing & Community Development Information Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items. 10. Adjournment If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at brianna- thul(a iowa-citv.om or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings Regular: October 21 / November 18 r � bt CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Housing and Community Development Commission September 16, 2021 Meeting Packet Contents Agenda Item #2 • August 19, 2021 HCDC Draft Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #4 Applications can be viewed online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. Agenda Item #5 • September 10, 2021 Memo Regarding Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects • August 20, 2021 Letter to Little Creations Academy • August 12, 2021 Staff Memo Regarding Little Creations Academy Kitchen Remodel • March 11, 2021 HCDC Meeting Minutes Excerpt • March 5, 2021 Staff Memo Regarding Little Creations Academy Kitchen Remodel • October 25, 2020 HCDC Meeting Minutes Excerpt • September 9, 2021 Letter to HCDC from Successful Living Agenda Item #6 • The CAPER draft can be viewed online at www.icgov.org/actionplan • Staff memo regarding FY21 CAPER Agenda Item #7 • FY22 Score Sheet Template • City Steps 2025 Priority Needs Summary - full City Steps 2025 plan is available online at www.icqov.org/actionplan • HCDC Rankings and CDBG/HOME Allocations: FY18-FY22 Agenda Item #9 • Tentative FY22 HCDC Calendars Agenda Item #2 MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2021 — 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Kaleb Beining, Matt Drabek, Nasr Mohammed, Peter Nkumu, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Theresa Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Rackis, Brianna Thul OTHERS PRESENT: Caitlin McGowan (Successful Living), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 17, 2021: Nkumu moved to approve the minutes of June 17, 2021. Beining seconded and a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Alter not present for vote). PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. WELCOME NEW MEMBERS: Beining noted he joined this Commission because he has a strong interest in affordable housing. Reedus stated she is retired from nonprofit work for 45 years and noted there may be concerns that she may have a conflict of interest, but she has spoken to the acting city attorney and she does not have a conflict of interest. Over the past couple of years she has been active in forming a coalition to make all nonprofits and planning services to individuals stronger in Iowa City advocating for increased funding for nonprofits. Again, she stated while she loved working at Community she loves all the other nonprofits and won't be swayed because of her past allegiance to Community. OFFICER NOMINATIONS: Item was deferred to later in the meeting when more members might be present. UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY: Item was deferred to later in the meeting in hopes that one of the agency partners would arrive. Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 2 of 13 DISCUSS LOCALLY FUNDED VOUCHER PROGRAM Drabek noted in June they had a discussion with Steve Rackis from the City Housing Authority over a report and one of the items in that report was a list of numbers around Housing Choice vouchers and public housing. It was noted there's a large backlog in that program and HCDC had a discussion around how to best clear that backlog. The idea of a local equivalent or local version of the Federal Housing Choice Voucher Program that will be funded and controlled locally came up and this was requested to be put on the agenda for the next meeting for discussion. So tonight's meeting is for the discussion, this Commission can take no action, could write a letter to Council advocating for such a program or they also could form a subcommittee to study the issue. Vogel stated the Iowa City Housing Authority gives out every amount of money they get, however there is still a backlog of hundreds of families who are on the voucher waiting list, who may never see a Housing Choice Voucher because more federal funds aren't coming in. The reason Vogel brought it up is because the City is creating a fund from fees -in -lieu from developers and there's a lot of developers doing that because of the 30% AMI requirements they are never going to be able to profit or effectively afford building projects at 30% AMI. The project NEXT had to pay $200,000 fee -in -lieu money to pay off two of their units at 30% in order to bring it up to 60. The City has been collecting these funds and Vogel asked in a previous meeting if they as HCDC are going to be part of the discussion factor of what those funds were going to be used for and he was told that as of right now HCDC would likely not be involved. However, Vogel feels like it is their responsibility under the bylaws, and the reason they were created, to give the City direction on where they think available funds for affordable housing come from and where they go. Vogel feels part of the discussion should be that there is this crazy amount of families who need HCV vouchers and are never going to get off that waitlist, or if they do it may be two or three or four years down the road. The funds from the fee -in -lieu money that's getting put together or taking money from the Housing Task Force budget, which is similar to CDBG, could be used for a local voucher program. The current single source providers are doing a great job of getting other local funds to tenants right now, with Iowa Finance Authority, and it will help get into the hands of families who are on those waiting lists, and get them into affordable housing that does exist in in the City right now. Vogel stated there are two - bedroom units and one -bedroom units, and a handful of larger properties in a town that used to never see vacancy rates and now the vacancy rates up to double digits. Currently there are places available to rent at 60% AMI or even 80% AMI but there just are not people with vouchers that are available to move into and rent those housing units that are affordable. He would love to hear what the City thinks, especially Steve Rackis from the City Housing Authority, the Commission is not a policymaker but maybe can be policy motivators. Reedus asked about the fee -in -lieu money that is being collected and asked if it's not being used right now. Hightshoe replied that the Riverfront Crossings District people can buy out of the affordable housing requirement. They have about $700,000 to $800,000 in the fund right now. There was a project for potentially seeing about the partnership with the County but nothing's been done yet. The funds that are raised in the Riverfront Crossings District can only been used for the Riverfront Crossings District; the City can't use those funds outside the district. The funds that they've generated from the Tailwinds project, the fee -in -lieu from a TIF project, they paid the City $1.8 million and the City used those funds to buy 16 duplexes on the South District for the District Affordable Homes Program that cost about $1.52 million. With fee -in -lieu funds, the City is not always going to have them, it is project based and once they have that project, if they partner with the County, they're going to use all their funds at that point and then it has to start over. What Hightshoe is explaining is the City can't rely on those funds, they don't know how many funds each year they may get because it's based on Riverfront Crossings Development and at some point there won't be as much development and they won't have that fee. Also for the most part developers are choosing to do onsite affordable housing, this money is only received if they choose a fee -in -lieu. If they choose the fee -in -lieu that's $112,000 per unit approximately that would be paid into the fund. Rackis also wanted to make another clarification, the issue with the waiting list is not the money, it's the number of vouchers, they have a budget authority that they cannot exceed, and they also have a unit - based authority that they cannot exceed. So they converted 24 of our 1215 vouchers to Cross Park Place Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 3 of 13 for persons that are chronically homeless with a disabling condition. That left the regular Housing Choice Voucher Program with 1191 vouchers. It doesn't matter that they have close to $9 million to spend this year, they can't exceed that 1191 and the HUD VASH vouchers are part of that unit count, which is another 95. Again, the issue is not the money, the issue is they can't over lease for 12 months. They also have preference categories on the waiting list, there are people in Cedar Rapids unless they move down here and get a job down here are never going to come to the top of the waiting list. Same thing with the remainder of Iowa and basically the remainder of the country because Iowa City has a residency preference. Within that residency preference, they have about 1400-1500 applicants and they turn over about 130 vouchers a year. So Rackis explained that's the real reason that the waiting list is grown, it's just the length of stay over the last few years has increased. Typically, they would have 66% of the program stay five years or less and now that's number has shrunk a bit. The other issue they have is all the HUD regulations and how they have to treat people on the waiting list. Hightshoe would recommend if it's something this Commission wants to look into that maybe a committee be formed. She again reiterated this is not something that's one and done, they are going to have to operate this program in perpetuity, they can't have somebody get assistance for a year and then kick them out the next year, that creates an issue in itself. The Commission needs to explore that in order to run this program for 50 people or 100 individuals, they're going to need what amount of money per year, and then give that to staff to figure out is that something Council wants to find and prioritize every year. Also there may be extra staffing to fund, if it's a Section IIV program, it's very highly complex to administer. If the program is just to give someone $300 a month to take off rent, that's a much different program than adjusting it for everybody's changes in income throughout the year for everyone. Rackis agrees that is a good point, it's equity versus equality. They can take every family, whether they're the family of 10 or a family of one, and just give them $300 a month. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is set up more for equity, in that it is taking into consideration the household composition and the household income. So maybe there are two families with four people in each, but they all qualify for different rents and units depending on how much income is in that household. They are set up that everybody is under the same guidelines and getting an equitable subsidy based on their income and family size. However, the easiest thing to do would be just give every qualified person $200 or $500 or whatever. Also if the Housing Authority is going to administer this new program there is a cost. Thul gathered data that through the first round with Community there were 89 households and 64 households with Shelter House, there is no total yet for the second round with Shelter House so he took the 153 and based upon per unit costs, through July, the per unit cost per voucher is $533.46. So that 153 families would be $82,000 a month and $979,000, close to a million dollars, per year needed for those 153 families. And then housing programs assistant, salary and benefits in the first year, is like $78,000 and then right now on the pay plan it's going to top out at $94,000 so they roughly need about $2 million a year to serve 153 families at that per unit cost. Rackis acknowledged that can be sobering because where's that revenue going to come in from every year. Even if they fund it out of the ARP funds, sure the City got $80 million, but how long does that last and what do you do if you if you serve a family for five years and then the money's gone. Hightshoe also noted they only have four years to spend the ARP funds. Drabek noted there are a couple of aspects here. One is if the action were to write some sort of letter to Council or to do some sort of advocacy to Council, there's the question of how specific they would want to be. There's a very broad general way that that would elicit really no opposition at all, which they would write a letter or advocate for spending some amount of American Rescue Funds on affordable housing of some kind. That's the broadest most general thing that they could do and if they did that he suspects that'd be received fairly well. Secondly, they can zoom in very narrowly where they advocate for a local Housing Choice Voucher Program and set exactly how it is going to be funded from now until the end of time. That process would require a pretty deep research project. The question is can they do something in between. Drabek would like to ask Rackis while he is here what might be the good and bad ideas. The City administers what is fundamentally a two part program as the Housing Choice Voucher is part of the public housing part and Drabek personally is more interested in public housing part. Drabek noted he thinks that there are legal limits to exactly how large a city's public housing program can be. Rackis confirmed that is true and the City is 13 vouchers away from that limit so a program that expanded public Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 4 of 13 housing from 80 units to 8000 just wouldn't be legal. The Iowa City Housing Authority cannot exceed 99 public housing units, that's federal law. They've got the 1191 Housing Choice vouchers, then they have 95 HUD VASH vouchers, which are for homeless veterans and 78 mainstream vouchers, which are for chronically homeless with a disabling condition. They have 69 vouchers for emergency housing vouchers, which is chronically homeless or about to become homeless and then they had 24 that they converted to Cross Park Place, so that 1191 will get reduced because they've committed 36 of those for Cross Park Place (501 is the new name). So, they've added basically close to 160 vouchers in the last year, since March 2020, so in terms of the Housing Authority taking on any other program right now, they're at capacity. They have five housing program assistants, each one of them has a caseload of 300, so they're not really in a position to run a new program unless they hired another staff person. Rackis also stated he is not sure how tell them their job is going to be four years and the family getting the voucher, it's only for four years. Those are the things to take into consideration so it probably best to work as a committee with City staff to come up with potential options. Vogel noted from his standpoint, he was thinking what if they could help 30 or more families directly, what can they do within the confines of the funds that they can use. He also noted the funds themselves have not been the most visibly reported out, there seems to be a constant question from every source he talks to in the City as to exactly how much they have and where it can be spent and on what. In the end, the question comes down to what they have and how can they use it for some kind of direct voucher system. Even if it only helps 10 families, if they only have $50,000, they can help 10 families for two years. That's still cheaper than going out and buying 10 units, or 10 houses, to put people in. Vogel acknowledged there are landlords, private landlords, or property managers in this town, that do work with the Housing Choice Voucher and are happy to get $300 towards rent if that means that they can get a place rented to a family who can't quite afford $800. Maybe this is a question for the Housing Steering Committee, which is in the affordable housing distribution model, in addition to that risk mitigation fund. Maybe these funds need to be part of that discussion as well, which is, what monies are going to be available when they start releasing from these long-term projects. The fact of the matter is, people are still going to be developing the City, and they are still going to see 10 more years of developers coming in and as long as they keep it at that 30% AMI model, they are going to have people do the fee -in -lieu because it's not affordable for them. It is expensive the cost of materials now, it's almost impossible to do 30% AMI units and still make a profit on the project. Hightshoe noted it's 60% for the Riverfront Crossings and TIF, the 30% is for LIHTC projects. Vogel stated even at 60% it's hard for new construction to make those costs. So Vogel sees continual funds coming into the City but the City hasn't come to the Commission and asked for guidance. He feels it is the job of this Commission as a public volunteer citizen committee is to help direct City staff and City administration as to where those monies should go. Rackis also acknowledged the AMI because that's another that's another decision point. Right now the Housing Choice Voucher Program is basically 50% or below, public housings is 80% or below, HOME funds are 60% or below. Should they target more people at 30% or target more people at 50%. Where is the need. A few years ago, they discussed adding as another preference category persons 55 and older, but really couldn't come up with any data to support that was a need. Reedus asked if the Affordable Housing Steering Committees was different than the Affordable Housing Coalition. Drabek confirmed those are different things and later in the agenda Nkumu is going to talk about the steering committee. Reedus stated when the nonprofit agencies were developing the Agency Impact Coalition and advocating for more funds, one of the things that they talked about a lot was bringing nonprofit sector together, into the City processes to start getting their expertise. She likes the idea of getting some sort of committee together to study this more to figure out what kind of information they have, what they need to get where they need to get, but she also wants to hear from the nonprofits, because there's a lot of expertise in the community and that may be a valuable resource and valuable partner into this. 4 Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 5 of 13 Vogel asked if they were to create a subcommittee would that be open to invite members of the public and others or would it have to be made just from members of the Commission. Drabek noted he hasn't ever heard of this Commission ever creating a subcommittee. Thul agreed and is also wondering the relationship between this and the Affordable Housing Steering Committee with two things going parallel. Reedus asked who is on the Affordable Housing Committee and who oversees it. Drabek stated Nkumu is the Commission representative. Hightshoe stated the Affordable Housing Steering Committee started with Council wanting to update the Affordable Housing Action Plan and wanted a group of cross -sectional folks knowledgeable about housing. There's 12 committee members, they meet once a month and have been meeting since February. Peter Nkumu is on that committee, as is Crissy Canganelli, Sara Barron, Ryan Wade, Mark Signs, Heath Brewer, Simon Andrew, Jessica Andino, Melissa Southwick, and others, it is a cross section of different folks and they meet once a month and are looking at recommendations for housing for people at zero to 30%, 31 % to 60% and a 60% to 100%. Hightshoe also noted she has staffed HCDC over the years and there has been times that the Commission has had a working group put together, it just has to be a small enough group to not have a quorum (so less than five). The working group can seek input from other folks, either formally or informally, and then come together and flesh out an idea and put it on the agenda. Drabek noted there's another forum where there's been discussion of the City purchasing, typically in the context of manufactured home parks, but it could be done in principle anywhere and turning it over to say a resident Co-op or something like that. Rackis stated he thinks the Affordable Housing Coalition had a committee that explored that very thing. He remembers Mulcahy talking about creating a task force when that trailer park in North Liberty was sold for like $12 million, but one of the things Mulcahy said was for the City of North liberty to put the infrastructure in probably would have cost them like another $24 million to get that up to city code. Hightshoe stated if the question is - can the City buy housing but not put in more public housing and the answer is yes, they can do that. They do also have a UniverCity program that will raise those public housing, the City buys those, renovates them and sells them. Same with South District Program, they're buying, renovating and selling to income eligible households. Also by the City allocating funds to any affordable housing provider that's a nonprofit that's more permanent, affordable housing because they have a mission of affordable housing. Drabek stated his sense is if they wanted to do something on the broader end, and just advocate money for affordable housing, even with a bit narrower focus than that, affordable housing in a particular direction, they seem to be well positioned to do that, they could write a letter on that this week or next week. He doesn't feel they are ready to zoom in on a specific program. That would take more work and have some people get together to study local Housing Choice vouchers versus some other idea. Hightshoe noted there sems to be different groups all pursuing kind of the same things right now. The Affordable Housing Steering Committee hopes to have their recommendations to Council this fall. Those types of recommendations like housing recommendations for zero to 30%, 31 % to 60%, etc., it would be nice if that Affordable Housing Steering Committee had some of the HCDC recommendations for when they're making those recommendations to Council. Vogel feels HCDC's role in this as somewhat of a slap to face, and that this Affordable Housing Steering Committee was put together and even on their list of the items is oversight on HCDC and they're basically doing the role for which HCDC was created as a Commission in the first place. It seems weird that it's an end -around this group of people who have volunteered their time and accepted to sit on this Commission, that the Affordable Housing Task Force's seemingly taking much more roles away and doing an end - around from this Commission to the City. Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 6 of 13 Mohammed asked about this proposed program and are how many people will they help. Rackis noted it was too early to say, he looked at Community and Shelter House and the number of people served and that is all part of the discussion, how much money is available, for how many years, for how many families and if another nonprofit is going to run the program for the City and what's the admin costs. He thinks the number of people served is going to be dependent upon how much money can actually be brought to bear and what other recommendations are there for various groups like up to 100%. So at the upper end there might be some homeownership recommendations where at the lower end it's some kind of rental assistance or utility assistance or something that is helping that family with their bottom line. Mohammed also asked who's going on this program. Hightshoe stated they don't know if Council wants to fund something, or if HCDC makes a recommendation for something, that will have to be determined. Drabek thinks that's one of the questions they have to decide, how they want to advocate, that's one of the issues they still need to work out. That would be one reason to put together a workgroup subcommittee. Hightshoe noted it's just the recommendation that this Committee recommends, if they want to have some type of ongoing rental subsidy program, you'd say what the intent was, and then it would be up to Council and administration to figure out how that can best work. Is it the City hiring staff? Is it the City procuring a nonprofit to do it? The HCDC recommendation would just be what they would like to see and then staff and Council figure out the details. Rackis added another thing to consider is how are they going to reach out for applicants, who's the target audience, how are they going to bring them in and let them know this program is available. It's not necessarily people coming off the Voucher waiting list, because there's some HUD regulations and people have applied to the waiting list to get a voucher off of that waiting list and doesn't think they can take people off that waiting list if there's not a guarantee that at some point they have the capacity to convert them to a regular voucher. He did want to add they are working on leasing up their emergency vouchers, and for the mainstream ones, they've leased 48 of the 78 and that's a very difficult population, the chronically homeless with a disabling condition. The HUD-VASH numbers are somewhat down a little bit because the VA has capacity to make referrals. He just wanted them to know the City has some emerging opportunities with Shelter House and the VA that they've not completely 100% tapped into. Vogel stated he is okay with not making a recommendation and truly doesn't think they're in a position to know exactly what is more important, he was hoping to just get a conversation going. He would happily sit down with a couple members several times over the next couple of months to share ideas and create some thoughts. As a Commission, all they can do is whisper in the ear of the City Council and ask them to take a look at this, that's what they're doing with their recommendations. If they can get two or three things, like a regular report from the City as to what kind of funds they see coming available from these other sources they've not had in the past and here are the three banks that we feel that those funds would be most efficiently used for that would be the goal. Drabek agreed that seems like a good idea and asked Vogel to put a couple of people together to talk about it and work it out a little bit and decide where to go next. They could always circulate a letter or if they think it's something that would benefit from the official HCDC endorsement, they could go that route. Drabek noted Alter had joined the meeting so they could loop back to deferred items. This Commission has a chair and vice chair but currently have neither of those things right now. One of their tasks here is to elect the Chair and Vice Chair. Drabek is the outgoing vice chair. They began with nominations for the Vice Chair. The Vice Chair facilitates meetings only with the Chair is absent. Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 7 of 13 Megan Alter was nominated to be Vice Chair. She accepted the nomination. A vote was taken and unanimously voted in favor. Matt Drabek was nominated to be Chair. He accepted the nomination. A vote was taken and unanimously voted in favor. UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY: Thul noted Pastor Smith has not attended today's meeting, she can follow up either with a written update or they can postpone. Hightshoe noted if they were to recapture funding right now, nothing will happen, however, when they get the August 30 applications, that's when they need to make a decision. That's when they decide if it's not going to proceed, and there are now other applications that could be funded, they could recapture the funds and reallocate them. There is also a second opportunity in December with the regular CDBG round. Hightshoe noted staffs concern is just timeliness, if a public facility project has sat there for a year and not finished the work, that causes a lot of red flags and perhaps they need to fund a project for someone who can spend the money now and proceed. Vogel stated for the record, in case Pastor Smith listens to this or gets a note, Vogel was one of the commissioners who pushed for that extension of time to be entertained as Pastor Smith was to meet with staff and learn how to get online but now they are at the point where it's been three months, four months, whatever, it's been too long and no more work has been completed. Vogel is of the opinion that if that doesn't happen by August 30, he will be in support of using those funds for a new applicant who is willing to use those funds. Reedus asked if Little Creations provided an update, was there anything since what was supplied in the agenda packet of information. Thul replied no, when she talked to him most recently he was working on bidding out the project. There were some concerns of increased construction costs, but there is no construction contract to date and no funds have been drawn. This project was FY21 so it's a year past when this would have been underway. Reedus asked if the project needed multiple bids, Thul replied yes he has to follow Federal Procurement standards. Reedus read though that he already had a contract. Thul stated he had bid out twice already, he bid once with the incorrect wage information in the packet so it had to be bid again and Thul has not seen the bid tabulation. Pastor Smith had called and asked about potentially rebidding or changing the scope of work because of increased construction costs but there has not been a third bid or construction contract. Drabek asked if they need to take immediate action on this. Hightshoe replied no, staff will come to HCDC in September with the applications for the mid -year funding round and at that point, after they have seen all the other applications, if the Commission wants to recapture those funds and reallocate them they can make that decision. Alter asked if a notification will go to Pastor Smith notifying him that his timeline is shrinking fast. Thul stated that is up to the Commission but just given the short window to the next meeting, perhaps having clear expectation on what is expected would be good to communicate with him. Alter agrees it would be good to communicate to him, let him know and be transparent. Reedus asked if there was a contract noting a specific timeline because if not and they pull the funds back that seems unfair. Vogel stated that is why he was invited to the meeting tonight, to update the Commission on the project. Hightshoe said staff will send him a letter and give him clear directions that he has a month to get these things secure. If it's not done within a month, then the Commission may reallocate the funds. Reedus would like to have it decided by the time the agenda packet goes out, she does not want to come to a meeting without everyone knowing what will happen with those funds, it would not be fair to Pastor Smith as well. Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 8 of 13 Thul asked what the Commission is looking for specifically by the next meeting - is it for a construction contract to be in place or funds to be drawn, looking for a realistic timeline. Reedus noted that she read everything pretty carefully a number of times and based on what she read, he did have a contract so she'd like to see at least construction started by a certain time. Vogel noted it's been five months since the DUNDS number was the issue on the table and Pastor Smith just couldn't get logged in and staff were able to help him. Drabek noted from this discussion is appears the Commission supports sending a strongly worded letter as it seems like there would be a fair bit of support for pulling funds back. Staff will send a letter. Mohammed asked if the Commission were to pull the funds back would Little Creations have an opportunity to apply again. Hightshoe confirmed he could, the next funding round comes up in December with applications due in January. Mohammed noted if they need more time to project together that might be an option. Reedus moves staff sends a letter to Little Creations Academy stating they must have work on the kitchen rehab project underway by September 9, 2021, or funds will be recaptured at the September 16, 2021 HCDC meeting. Staff will include a memo in the September packet documenting progress. Little Creations Academy is invited to provide an update at the September 16, 2021, HCDC meeting. Vogel seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Nkumu is on the Affordable Housing Steering Committee and was to give an update last meeting but there were some technical difficulties. There is a statement in the agenda packet as well. Nkumu stated these are recommendations this Committee will be making, and he will be able to take discussions from HCDC to the Committee Meetings. Hightshoe stated the steering committee looked at all affordable housing policies and funds that the City had, and there is a subcommittee from that group that chose to look at the policies more in depth after staff went through each one. This committee looked at certain things and they commented on the affordable housing location model, on the way recommendations for housing were made, and the distribution model. Those are the three things out of all the different affordable housing programs and policies that the City had that they wanted to make recommendation on. That will go back to the larger committee will look at it before they make any type of recommendation to Council but when they saw that some of the recommendations are related to the Housing and Community Development Commission, they wanted input about their comments so that they can take that back to the larger group. Drabek noted this Commission then needs to give some form of feedback as some of these recommendations will go to City Council Vogel stated with the first one, he has no problem at all, he doesn't think the current affordable housing location model works. He doesn't like the way it is currently trying to redirect to that new southside development, it doesn't work with code base zoning. He has brought up some issues in the past with the fact that they do affordable housing everywhere else except these areas. Either affordable housing is important for everybody everywhere in the City, or someone at the City level is getting to pick and choose where affordable housing happens. Vogel is fine with the first recommendation and feels there's got to be a better way. The HCDC thing really rubbed him wrong, first off the process of trying to prioritize staff recommendations and the Commission's review and ranking should be based on objective established criteria, priorities, and data and staff scores should be included. He doesn't have a problem staffs scores being included, he also feels that they already use very well established criteria, priorities and data in the Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 9 of 13 scoring system but there is absolutely no way to make them completely objective, there is always going to be subjective opinions on what a score is based upon variables for projects that are drastically different from each other. Drabek stated to that point, there is a way to do it, they would have to have a rubric that they follow mindlessly. The problem is if they come up with a way to make it completely objective, where there's simply no question, they would produce worse decisions then have been made in the past. They have always had a rubric since he has been on the Commission, they have seen staff scores at times and those have been very valuable. But then sometimes additional information has come up or additional priorities that would modify the scores here and there. As a result, the Commission has made better decisions than just from a straight rubric. Vogel also questions the whole prioritizing staff recommendations, what is the purpose of having a community driven committee like this if staff recommendations are always going to be the weighted scale. He acknowledged not just this committee, but communities across the board, generally direct towards what staff recommends, because they are the professionals that put the data together. But it is during the discussions as a community that helps the Commission understand needs and allows this group of members of the community to help make a difference. If they are to just prioritize staff scores then they don't need a Commission. He has a real problem with the wording, and that this housing task force feels somehow the Commission is not doing a good job. He doesn't even really understand where this recommendation came from. Alter agrees and is curious about where these impressions came from, because with these being open meetings and recorded a lot of very authentic discussion, including some doubts and wonder, including information about the rubric and about how they're applying it has all been public. That's important for transparency. This is a difficult process, and it appears at times messy, and she wonders if in fact some of the register from the steering committee was based on like actually hearing, or seeing notes, because they do have notes verbatim as opposed to just a summary. Alter wonders if that transcription has colored some of the impressions so that it appears that they're more wishy washy and don't know what they're doing then if they just showed scores. This Commission has robust conversations and uses the rubric, and the priorities, and get input from staff about the potential stability of the ask, in terms of some of the more complex grants and they have to balance all of that. But she is wondering if sometimes that discussion might have actually indicated confusion, rather than the messiness of the process. She wholeheartedly agrees that they take a lot of direction from the work that the professionals do, and they also have a rubric to follow but it is not a checklist and that's why they have the opportunity to be able to talk about applications. Nkumu stated that people in on the Committee are like members on this Commission and may not always have the same experience so bring different perspectives and different experiences. Again these are just recommendations and they are asking for HCDC input so they need to look at the conditions and see what they can improve and what doesn't need improvement. Reedus commented that she has a unique perspective as she has been on the other side of the table. She feels it important to recognize the Commissioners change and over the years it's changed a lot. The turnover for this group is pretty high so on the issue of staff recommendation, it is good to know what staff is recommending, they may disagree with the staff recommendation however should appreciate getting the input and expertise. Reedus did note however that one of the toughest things is being consistent with this group, a lot of people have been on this Commission that are making decisions about funding and it's not been consistent. The agencies face new challenges each year and there were always surprises coming forward the agencies had to meet, whether they were a high priority agency, where they were ranked, etc. Just the example of priority ranking on the scoring, every agency has a rank in terms of priority service, and this Commission decided to start from the bottom and that was a total shock and a surprise to the agencies. There has to be some consistency, it is not okay for the agencies or the groups that are applying for the money to be totally surprised by a decision that's made by this group, especially at the time that the Commission is scoring applications, because they have no time to react to that. Reedus is hoping to bring her experiences to this Commission to make things a bit better and to be a Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 10 of 13 voice for anybody who's applying for funding to make sure that we're not changing the rules for them at the last hour. Drabek agreed with what Reedus just said, in particular, he acknowledged there were a couple of years where they had to make on the fly decisions as to whether they were going to prorate extra funds or sort of top off some of the top scores or go bottom up. He feels the second bullet under number two on the recommendations is a good recommendation because they have had make decisions on the fly before. He remembers his first year on the Commission and how he didn't really have a strong basis for how to make decisions. This change could help eliminate one particular source of surprise and consistency. Vogel asked if the Commission's scoring matrices/rubrics are included with the application. Thul confirmed it is in the applicant guide. Drabek remarked the other point about the staff scores is he finds staff scores a very valuable source of information. However, he does very strongly believe they should send one score to Council and he doesn't think staff scores should go to the Council. It's an important source for the discussion and helps the Commission make a decision but ultimately it is HCDC's role to make these funding recommendations so having a separate score there doesn't really make sense and changes the purpose of the Commission. Vogel stated in regard to the third bullet point, recommendation, the affordable housing distribution model he would love to see what they've been talking about with the security deposit assistance and risk mitigation funding from the City be part of that discussion. He remembers even back to 2002 sitting with the City Housing Inspector at the time and the City Manager at the time how it would be nice to have something like this for risk mitigation for landlords to get deposits and stuff but it just never has developed. Vogel stated it is important because it can push those landlords who are on the fence for doing affordable housing to know that if there are problems at the back end of a residency or tenancy, the City is there to back them up to make sure they can keep providing affordable housing. Vogel agreed it is an important discussion to have, the entire distribution model as a whole and getting into that 0-30%, 30%-60% AMI stuff and whether the City should still continue. Sometimes it seems like they use fair market rent as the guideline for something, then sometimes they use the AMI guideline for other things, it would be nice to see a unified structure for all decisions made. Vogel stated he supports recommendation one and three wholeheartedly. I can support suggestion two but as others have stated there's just a point where if they just want support from staff and not ask for community involvement that is not acceptable. Alter noted she definitely thinks that looking at some of the potential suggestions of how decision making gets done are things they should discuss and make some decisions on. Do they allocate money to top rated applications, or prorated partial funding to applicants based on scores, it is fair for the agencies to have an expectation of how that's going to work. Consistently has been a constant struggle and she has heard from agencies it depends on the dynamic or who's on the Commission at that time as to where the discussion goes. So instead of just fully funding from the top applications, they may have wanted to fund more agencies and spread the allocations thinner. Which either can be fine, but overall this is a Commission for people and it needs to be fair for the applicants and clear. Alter acknowledged it can feel like the agencies are being blindsided in the moment during these discussions so that is something that would be helpful for them to iron out so that they do have that transparency. Perhaps they can come to consensus or conjunction in conversation with agencies about what would be most helpful. Obviously, every agency wants to have their full funding but based on the budget that's not necessarily going to be possible. So if they come to an agreement or a consensus, at least within this Commission, that seems fair and appropriate that agencies can rely on that would be good. Drabek noted with regards to the expertise point, he also want to encourage every member of the Commission to reach out and chat with him on funding round questions and if there is anything he might be able to help with along the way. 10 Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 11 of 13 Drabek asked if the Commission needs to give a formal statement or are they just to give informal advice to Nkumu to take back to the steering committee. Hightshoe replied the steering committee wanted some type of input from the group here. Thul can share the minutes as a summary. Drabek noted a quick summary for the minutes as far as these three recommendations go, he heard no opposition or no consternation with the recommendation one and three, whereas the second one, there was quite a bit of openness to taking a look and considering staff scores as a part of the Commission decision process and also quite a bit of openness to some of these considerations about full funding versus prorated applications. There was however less support for the idea that staff scores would be completely centered and the Commission would just vote them up or down. Hightshoe asked if the Commission would like for staff to provide a funding recommendation for the upcoming funding round in September. The consensus was the Commission would like staff to provide scores and funding recommendations. IyP*AJdUximr-AZA11LIIIJII H 161IPI� Thul stated in the packet there's a calendar noting upcoming funding rounds. Applications have opened up for the mid -year funding round, and they available until the 31st. A press release went out and Thul also emailed them out to subrecipients that they've worked with in the past. At the next Commission meeting they will bring applicants in and do a question and answer session. Thul will try to get the application packets and the summary of each application out to the Commission as soon as she can before that meeting, she will also put the scoring criteria in the packet, but it's also available online. Thul also did want to offer an onboarding session with new commissioners and if anyone has questions, or wants to meet one on one and ask questions privately, she is more than happy to set up time to sit down and look at things. Hightshoe added that when they are in an open funding round don't talk directly to the applicants, the conversation should remain within this Commission. Outside of funding round they can talk to whoever but try to keep those conversations at a minimum and if there are those conversations, to disclose that to the group. Also a reminder that as a Commission they can't accept more than $2.99 from anybody per Iowa law. Reedus asked about the review process. Thul explained people apply online, and staff will get the PDFs and send it to the Commissioners with any attachments that they have. There will be a one -page cover sheet that summarizes any major staff comments and then an Excel sheet or a Word document for scoring. Then at the meeting, after the question and answer, they will look at scores and have group discussion and see how things average out. IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES Two Commissioners are assigned each month to monitor Council meetings and this agenda item provides an opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to the HCDC business. Commissioners will not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items. Alter has attended the last two meetings and as far as affordable housing issues there wasn't anything particularly relevant. Drabek asked if anyone wanted to review the Council meeting in early September and report back at the next meeting. There's no obligation to attend in person they can either watch the meeting or check through the notes for relevant issues. Vogel will take the September meeting. 11 Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 12 of 13 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: Thul noted the September 16 meeting is a public meeting and approval for the CAPER. The CAPER is the report that summarizes everything the City did in the last year. The public comment period for that will start September 1 and then gets submitted to HUD at the end of the month. Also, at the September 16 meeting they will do the question and answer with CDBG and HOME applicants. Thul noted that Lyn Dee Hook Kealey resigned her seat, but they just heard yesterday that Maryann Dennis was appointed. Dennis formerly worked with the Housing Fellowship and has a ton of housing experience. Finally, there's an eviction prevention help desk available the Johnson County Courthouse Monday afternoons from 12:30 to 3:00. Hightshoe noted the City did allocate $41,000 to Iowa Legal Aid and Shelter House, Shelter House will be administering it, the funds are to try to entice somebody who is getting evicted by giving them one month's rent if they take the time to apply for the State assistance to keep people housed and not evicted. The City sent the information to landlords and property managers. ADJOURNMENT: Alter moved to adjourn. Vogel seconded the motion and a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. 12 Housing and Community Development Commission August 19, 2021 Page 13 of 13 Housing and Community Name Terms Exp. 8/19 Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 Lewis, Theresa 6/30/23 O/E Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X Development Commission Attendance Record 2021-2022 Resigned from Commission Key., X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant 13 1 Wws� CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 10, 2021 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner Re: Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects FY21 Little Creations Academy — Public Facilities (CDBG) Agenda Item #5 At the August 19, 2021 meeting, following a discussion of the delayed FY21 Little Creations Academy (LCA) kitchen rehab project, the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) requested that staff send LCA a letter detailing required items with a submission deadline of September 9, 2021. Staff sent the attached letter to LCA August 20, 2021. A project update from LCA as well as supplemental information are attached for reference. A timeline of activity following the meeting is outlined below: August 26, 2021 • Staff received the single bid received for the kitchen rehab project. The bid was about $36,000 over the agreed upon project budget. August 27, 2021 • Staff notified LCA that they would need funding secured to undertake the entire hopes of receiving a lower bid. to either demonstrate that they have adequate project at the bid price, or rebid the project in August 30, 2021 • Staff were notified that the project was rebid. The bid packet for the rebidding process was not approved by staff prior. September 1, 2021 • Staff notified LCA of the issues with the rebidding process. Procurement policies are designed to assure that all purchases are handled fairly and in a manner that encourages full and open competition. Based on the documentation provided by LCA on August 30, 2021, the original bid request appears to have been sent out after 5pm August 25 with a due date of September 1, leaving only four business days for contractors to bid. Only one bid was received during this process from the same contractor who previously bid the project. Another contractor noted that there was not enough time to bid the project. • Achieving the requirements listed in the August 20, 2021 letter did not appear feasible at this stage and staff notified LCA that there would be a staff recommendation to HCDC to recapture the funds. September 7, 2021 • LCA submitted bid packet to the City. Unclear if this was the packet used to rebid the project as the date on the coversheet says September 7, 2021. September 8, 2021 0 Three quarterly reports submitted with a written project update from LCA. September 10, 2021 Page 2 The status of the requested items is available below: Item Status Submit a copy of bid documents. Documents must be Bid documents received after project was rebid approved by the City. Submit a copy of bids received. Complete Participate in a preconstruction conference with Incomplete selected contractor and City staff to discuss federal requirements such as Davis Bacon. Submit a draft of the construction contract for staff to Incomplete review. Submit photos of the space before work is underway. Incomplete Submit quarterly CDBG reports to City staff as Partially complete — three quarters of reports requested. Little Creations Academy has not submitted submitted any quarterlyreports for this project to date Staff recommendation: Based on project status to date and federal timeliness requirements, staff recommend that HCDC recapture funds for reallocation in the next funding round. Staff recommend allowing LCA to reapply for funds in the future. FY21 Successful Living — Rental Acquisition (HOME) Staff would like to request direction from HCDC on a second set of projects. Successful Living was awarded FY21 HOME funds totaling $144,000 to acquire three homes to be rented to people with disabilities as Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units. $44,990 has been spent to date for the acquisition of one home. Several issues were detected as a result of project based monitoring and annual rental housing monitoring including: The first home purchased with FY21 HOME funds on Hollywood Boulevard did not meet the six-month lease up deadline and does not have a rental permit to date. Per HOME rules, HOME units must be occupied by income -eligible tenants within six months of the date of project completion. If a unit is not leased up, subrecipients must submit marketing information to the City to demonstrate what steps will be taken to lease the units as soon as possible. • During annual monitoring of federally funded rental housing, staff observed very high vacancy rates. The rental housing reports submitted for 2020 documented 21 vacant units out of 41 for a nearly 50% vacancy rate. • The FY20 Hickory acquisition project is at risk of repaying federal funds invested in the property if not fully occupied by December. $44,900 in HOME was invested in this project. Per HOME rules, HOME funds invested in any unoccupied HOME units must be repaid if the unit is not yet rented to an income -eligible tenant within 18 months of the date of project completion. • A FY19 HOME funded project on Friendship has been vacant for over a year of the federally required affordability period. The affordability period began in 2019 and runs through 2024. This project has been vacant from May 2020 to date. $44,750 in HOME was invested in this project. • Other items noted included issues with lease terms and completion and accuracy of annual rental housing reports. September 10, 2021 Page 3 To assess risk and agency capacity, staff inquire about agency turnover during monitoring. In the last year, Successful Living had turnover in two key staff positions - the Director of Grants and Development and the Housing Director. As a result of these issues, City staff continue to work with the agency through more frequent reporting, meetings, training opportunities, and monitoring. A written report from the agency is attached for reference. A summary of vacancy through the last few months is available below: Month I Percentage of Units Vacant May 32% June 34% Jul 29% August 29% Staff have required that a reasonable vacancy rate (typically around 5%) should be achieved before releasing any additional FY21 funds. The City's Unsuccessful and Delays Projects Policy notes that if a subrecipient fails to show adequate progress towards meeting the schedule as identified in its application or the statutory requirements of the HOME program, the project will be reviewed by HCDC. After several months of high vacancy, staff request a recommendation from HCDC to determine if the pending FY21 HOME funds totaling $99,010 should remain with Successful Living, or be recaptured and reallocated in an upcoming funding round. Staff recommendation: Due to the number of risk factors observed, staff recommend recapturing the remaining HOME funds totaling $99,010. Staff recommend allowing Successful Living to reapply for funds in the future when the agency can demonstrate long term compliance with ongoing federally funded projects. Agenda Item #5 �r August 20, 2021 ` ®i 7 Anthony Smith CITY OF IOWA CITY Little Creations Academy 410 East Washington Street 2929 E Court Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org RE: FY21 CDBG Public Facilities Kitchen Rehab Project Pastor Smith, I am contacting you regarding the Little Creations Academy kitchen rehab project that was awarded FY21 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. As you know, the City's Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy requires that all FY21 CDBG projects enter an agreement by September 30, 2020 and that a minimum of 50% of the assistance provided be expended by March 15, 2021. The kitchen rehab project is significantly behind schedule, which creates concerns for the City. Federal regulations at 24 CFR 570.902 require the City to expend CDBG funds in a timely manner. If timeliness requirements are not met, HUD can impose restrictions on City funds. Little Creation Academy attended the October 2020 and March 2021 HCDC meetings where progress reports were provided. At the March meeting, HCDC agreed to allow the project to continue with the stipulation that progress be reported back to the Commission on the SAM registration in April, and that Little Creations Academy return to HCDC in May for an additional progress report. Little Creations Academy completed the SAM registration process March 26, 2021. Due to changes in the summer HCDC schedule, the next progress report was postponed to the August meeting. Little Creations Academy was invited to attend the August HCDC or provide a written update to HCDC. Although Little Creations Academy did not attend the meeting or provide a written update, the Commission discussed the project status and came to the following conclusions: HCDC supports the project, but timeliness is a concern. Little Creations Academy must have work on the kitchen rehab project underway by September 9, 2021, or funds will be recaptured at the September 16, 2021 HCDC meeting. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. The Commission invites you to provide an update at the September 16, 2021 HCDC meeting. City board and commission meetings are now recorded and available online. The full meeting recording from August 19 will be available within a few days of the meeting at youtube.com/user/citychannel4/videos. In order to proceed with the project, staff need the following: • Submit a copy of bid documents. Documents must be approved by the City. 0 Submit a copy of bids received. August 20, 2021 Page 2 • Participate in a preconstruction conference with selected contractor and City staff to discuss federal requirements such as Davis Bacon. • Submit a draft of the construction contract for staff to review. • Submit photos of the space before work is underway. • Submit quarterly CDBG reports to City staff as requested. Little Creations Academy has not submitted any quarterly reports for this project to date. A staff memo documenting current project progress will be prepared for HCDC and included in the packet about a week before the September 16, 2021 HCDC meeting. Should funds be recaptured, Little Creations Academy may reapply for FY23 funds when the application window opens in December. If you have any questions or need technical assistance, please feel free to contact me by phone at 319-356-5240 or e-mail at brianna-thul(a)iowa-city.org. Sincerely, �C3 Brianna Thul Community Development Planner City of Iowa City cc: Housing and Community Development Commission t f I Agenda Item #5 W71W ,CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: August 12, 2021 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner Re: FY21 Little Creations Academy Kitchen Remodel (CDBG Public Facilities) located at 2929 E Court Street, Iowa City, Iowa Little Creations Academy was awarded FY21 CDBG funds in the amount of $78,000 to remodel the kitchen in the daycare facility, and the project is a year behind schedule. The City's Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy requires that all CDBG projects enter an agreement by September 30, and that a minimum of 50% of the assistance provided be expended by March 15. Pastor Anthony Smith of Little Creation Academy attended the October 2020 and March 2021 HCDC meetings where progress reports were provided. The relevant excerpts of the meeting minutes, the previous staff memo, and the Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy are attached for reference. At the March meeting, HCDC agreed to allow the project to continue with the stipulation that progress be reported back to the Commission on the SAM registration in April, and that Little Creations Academy return to HCDC in May for an additional progress report. Little Creations Academy completed the SAM registration process March 26, 2021. Due to changes in the summer HCDC schedule, the next progress report was postponed to the August meeting. Following the SAM registration, staff encountered issues obtaining a security instrument (such as a lien or mortgage), which is required for public facilities projects. A letter was sent to Little Creations Academy on May 18, 2021 stating that a security instrument is required for public facility projects to ensure continued services to low to moderate income people through the compliance period of the activity. The City has previously invested $109,000 in CDBG funds at this property with a compliance period through June 30, 2027. The FY21 project award of $78,000 requires seven years of compliance. If, for any reason, Little Creations Academy were to cease operations within the compliance period of both projects, a total of $187,000 would need to be repaid to HUD and would no longer benefit the community. Based on this information, three options were proposed to Little Creations Academy: 1. Secure a lien, mortgage, or comparable security instrument by June 4, 2021 and proceed with the project in its current form. 2. 2. Submit a revised project budget to the City that reduces the amount of CDBG funding to less than $25,000 by June 4, 2021 to proceed with the project without a security instrument. 3. Fund the project privately and provide written notice to the City that Little Creations Academy longer plans to utilize FY21 CDBG funds by June 4, 2021. Following the letter, a mortgage was secured June 2, 2021, and an agreement was entered June 8, 2021. To date, no CDBG funds have been expended on this project. Federal regulations at 24 CFR 570.902 require the City to expend CDBG funds in a timely manner. If timeliness requirements are not met, HUD can reduce the annual grant allocation to the City. HCDC will hear a progress report from Little Creations Academy as requested. Following the progress report, staff request a recommendation from HCDC on how to proceed with the project. HCDC may recommend the recapture and re -use of funds, and any recaptured funds may be added to the upcoming mid -year funding round for affordable housing activities. Agenda Item #5 March 11, 2021 HCDC Meeting Excerpt Pages 2-4 of Minutes !] 016111gN4:9111 W_111Ioil r]=[A_\1:l 211 Padron explained the City's Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy requires that all CDBG projects expend a minimum of 50% of the assistance provided by the proposed project by March 15 of each year. HCDC will hear from the Little Creations Academy and determine whether extenuating circumstances exist and if so, whether the project is anticipated to proceed. HCDC may recommend the recapture and reuse of funds to City Council. Anthony Smith (Little Creations Academy) gave an update on his project and said he is having a hard time getting his DUNS application finished, he has tried several times ever since the month of August. He does have his contractors in place but they can't do anything until he gets that application done. He had just tried it again today to submit it and they cancelled my account, and then they had to resubmit it again, but every time they resubmit it at least 10 days are needed for it to go through. He has been trying August and is so frustrated and doesn't know what to do. Padron asked for clarification of if he is submitting the application and then are they rejecting the application. Smith replied he first submitted the application in August and thought it was done but he got a call from the City and was told they couldn't access it. So he went back and redid and it got rejected because there wasn't a comma between Little Creations and Inc. He resubmitted it again and there was a spelling error so it got kicked back again. He finally got on the telephone and asked them to walk him through the process and it got rejected again because some information didn't show up. He talked with DUNS people and they said he had to wait 10 days. He is just so frustrated. Padron asked how much of the of the funds had been already spent and how much do they have left to spend. Smith replied he couldn't spend any of the funds because he couldn't do the report. The City can't release the funds until they have access to the DUNS. Kubly confirmed by March 15 they should have spent 50% of the funding but they've spent nothing so far because they re not under agreement with this project yet because they can't enter into the agreement until the application gets processed. She noted it does take a little time to set up and get the DUNS number, they have to go to sam.gov and register and it's kind of a tricky process as Pastor Smith has mentioned. Padron asked if HCDC recaptures these funds and the City uses them for another project or to fund another agency can in the meantime Pastor Smith finish processing that application and everything and then reapply for more funding later this year when he's ready with that application and everything else. Thul confirmed that could be an option but since they have more funding than applications right now, the funding is not going to go to another project until they do another funding round. Kealey asked if there is any resource that can help Pastor Smith get through this piece, is there someone in the community that can help out. Thul said she has a video she can send and can also connect him with another sub recipient that went through the same process. Smith said he looked at all the videos and he did everything he was supposed to do, it has to be a system thing, not a procedural thing, because the very people that do this are the ones that handheld him through the application. Vogel asked about the timeline, if in 10 days Pastor Smith is successful and gets his Sam's number, or code, what would be the timeline for him to spend 50% of the funds. Smith said the contractor already set up. Vogel said then if they give him 45 days to come back and show that they've done the work, got the code, got the contractor is that enough, or does he need 60 days or 90 days. Vogel is not comfortable giving him a six-month extension in addition to the almost 300 days he's already had, Vogel is okay with another 90. Smith said he is not prepared to answer that question because he was having so many problems getting the approval he hasn't talked to the contractor since the end of July. He has already done the bidding process and has a contractor lined up. Padron stated right now they need to focus on the application being approved so can they revisit this at the next meeting in April to see if they got their application approved by April. Padron asked if they recapture the funds when would those funds go to another project. Thul said they would do a mid -year funding round in the fall and any unallocated funds will be available during that funding round. Alter noted when Pastor Smith came before them a couple of months ago to talk on progress at that time he unfortunately had COVID and also there were some family issues. In this time of pandemic, it has been a difficult period of time and that may explain why there is a longer lag right now. Smith admitted he has been a rough time, he wasn't going to bring it up because he was trying to keep this professional but his family has had their share of instances, his brother had COVID and died, his mother had COVID and two weeks ago his dad died. Nkumu stated obviously it's no fault of Pastor Smith that the process is not working, it sounds like he's doing everything he can to submit the application but that is a technical issue that he has no control over. If the City were to recapture funds could Little Creations continue to try to get the DUNS process completed. Thul confirmed they could, and in the future she is hoping to have organizations start the DUNS process earlier to avoid such issues. Vogel noted since they don't have anybody that's in serious needs of these funds right now, it seems like there is no need to recoup these funds. He like to make a motion that they extend Little Creation Academy's timeline to provide the 50% and proof of project viability to the May meeting which would give them enough time to get the DUNS application, get the funds release, get the contractor started, get two or three weeks' worth of work in and potentially be able to come back and show movement on this. Lewis asked if it's not completed by May then would that recommendation be to reallocate the funds. Vogel said that would be a decision made at the May meeting. Kealey said it would be nice for Pastor Smith to come back in a month and give them an update on where he is and they could go from there hoping that he will have the Sam's stuff taken care of. However she is okay with what Vogel has proposed, to wait until May to see if there is progress and agreed there has been extenuating circumstances. Padron wanted to make an amendment to the motion and have HCDC receive an email or some kind of notification from Pastor Smith at the April meeting, just stating where he's at. Vogel second that friendly amendment. Vogel motioned to allow the FY21 Little Creations Academy public facilities project to move forward with the understanding that the subrecipient will be required to report to the Commission again on May 20, 2021 with documented progress, and that the subrecipient will provide a written update on the SAM registration status to the Commission at the April 15, 2021 meeting. The motion was seconded by Lewis, a vote was taken and it passed 9-0. i r Agenda Item #5 �'°czs�►�� CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OFFIOWA �CITY MEMORANDUM OWA UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: March 5, 2021 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner Re: FY21 Little Creations Academy Kitchen Remodel (CDBG Public Facilities) located at 2929 E Court Street, Iowa City, Iowa Little Creations Academy was awarded FY21 CDBG funds in the amount of $78,000 to remodel the kitchen in the daycare facility. The project is behind schedule due to outstanding monitoring requests that must be completed prior to entering an agreement with the City. Little Creation Academy attended the October 2020 Housing and Community Development Commission meeting where a progress report was provided by Pastor Anthony Smith. An excerpt from the minutes of this meeting is attached. Staff made the initial monitoring request on July 21, 2020 and has made regular attempts since then. Little Creations provided the requested documentation on February 2, 2021 following an email reminder from staff. A majority of the monitoring items have now been submitted. The final item that must be completed before entering into an agreement for the project is registration in the federal System for Awards Management (SAM) database. This process has been initiated by Little Creations, but is incomplete at this time. Registration in the SAM database is required for all direct federal funding subrecipients. The City's Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy requires that all CDBG projects expend a minimum of 50% of the assistance provided for the proposed project by March 15 each year. HCDC will hear a progress report from Little Creations Academy. Following the progress report, staff request a recommendation from HCDC on how to proceed with the project. HCDC may recommend the recapture and re -use of funds, or permit the project to move forward should extenuating circumstances exist. If funds are recaptured, staff would likely use the funds in another competitive funding round in the future. March 5, 2021 Page 2 Agenda Item #5 October 25, 2020 HCDC Meeting Excerpt (Pages 2-3 of Minutes) DISCUSS CDBG PROJECTS WITHOUT AGREEMENTS: Gabel explained that the Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy on page 26 of the packet is related to timeliness requirements from HUD. The City can only have 1.5 times the grant amount in the line of credit to be considered timely. Expending CDBG dollars quickly is important to avoid HUD recapturing any funds. Kubly confirmed. Gabel stated that only one FY21 CDBG project does not have an agreement at this point and that is the Little Creations Academy kitchen rehab project. Gabel noted that Pastor Anthony Smith is on the call to provide a project update. Smith stated that he accepts responsibility for the project being behind and that he still needs to finish paperwork for the City before they can enter an agreement. Smith shared that this year has had many COVID-19 and family issues, and that he plans to have the paperwork completed by the end of the month and the project started in November. Padron asked staff what HCDC needs to decide about the project and where the project can go from here. Kubly stated HCDC will make a recommendation to allow the project to proceed or take action if they don't feel the project can successfully proceed with the delay. Padron stated she would like to have Commissioners weigh in with their thoughts. Nkumu asked if this is the first time this project has been behind because he remembers previous issues with Little Creations Academy. Kubly stated that the FY18 project for Little Creations Academy also came to HCDC to request additional funds, but that it was a separate project. Smith stated that the FY18 project being behind was not his fault as he could not find a contractor to complete the work. If it had not been for the city he would not have been able to find a contractor. Lewis asked how HCDC will review progress in the future. Kubly responded that the next checkpoint for the project will be in March and that 50% of funds should be expended at that point. Alter asked if Smith thinks he can meet the next project checkpoint in March and have 50% of the funds expended. Smith confirmed that he can. Mohammed stated that he understood that this year has had additional challenges and that he is comfortable proceeding with the project. Padron noted that she works with contractors in her job and that they are experiencing shortages of construction materials currently, and suggested considering that with respect to the timeline for the project. Alter motioned to recommend continuation of the Little Creations Academy kitchen rehab project with the understanding that 50% of the funds should be expended by the second checkpoint in March. Lewis seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Agenda Item #5 Successful Living Letter to HCDC To: HCDC Members From: Roger Goedken, Executive Director, Successful Living Date: 9/8/2021 Good day, I first would like to sincerely thank the HCDC members and the City of Iowa City for the years of support for our housing program. This has made a significant difference for our community in providing housing and for Successful Living in supporting this endeavor. We strive to help some of the most disabled and poverty-stricken individuals in the Iowa City area into our residential setting where we provide them housing. We also work to rehabilitate the chronically mentally ill individuals who join our programming to be more integrated into their community and become more productive members of society, reducing legal, jail, substance use and other co -related issues that very often come attached. As I have an unfortunate conflict for the 9/16/2021 meeting for which I apologize, in lieu of myself two representatives of Successful Living will be in attendance for the September HCDC meeting who are prepared to respond to questions. I intend to attend future meetings as requested and to facilitate communication outside of this. In short, though we have faced quite a few challenges over the past year and a half, I expect to see continued improvements in the upcoming months with our housing program which are detailed further below. Causes of rental issues Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Successful Living had a waitlist topping 50+ for our housing program. By May 2020, our waitlist had evaporated to near zero. We do know there are individuals that need our housing however there have been significant barriers to connecting them to us. Below are some of the known causes and barriers we have experienced, with the pandemic adding unique and unprecedented issues to overcome: ➢ Ongoing rental moratorium. ➢ Staffing issues at referring agencies and resources. ➢ Staffing issues at all agencies that support our referrals and with contractors who couldn't keep staffed and on schedule. Support services and programming have been affected resulting in a near total freeze of referrals and applicants for 12+ months. During this time some residents left our housing which often was very challenging and slow to replace during the pandemic. ➢ East Central Region (ECR) — 7/2020 changed and significantly tightened its qualifying rental assistance requirements resulting in almost no viable assistance from this resource. Previously, ECR facilitated rental assistance much more robustly. ➢ Rental assistance - time to attain approval has increased significantly. Successful Living ➢ Although we did not furlough a single staff person or close any programming, except that ordered by our Governor, like many Successful Living also experienced significant hiring difficulties and a protracted lack of movement in this area. ➢ Successful Living maintained safety protocols to protect residents, clients and staff from COVID-19 exposure which impacted movement and normal functioning. ➢ General delays and added costs due to COVID-19, particularly with contracted work. ➢ Housing market became incredibly competitive —we feel fortunate to have closed on at least one house during this time. ➢ Derecho caused both direct and ancillary delays. Positives Though it has been a uniquely challenging year, positive changes are beginning to develop. o Some of the aforementioned issues have or are beginning to resolve. o Referrals are increasing. o Financially, Successful Living has seen its best two months ever this July and August, which this trend is expected to continue. o Residency in Successful Living housing has improved since May 2021. o Budding partnerships with UIHC and GuideLink should help referrals and mutually achieve goals. o Demand for housing appears to be increasing, particularly for those in poverty and also those needing mental health supports. Preferences and Plan Successful Living would like to revisit with the HCDC in December with a status update and respond to any questions or concerns at that time. There have been many factors inhibiting our ability to fill, and keep filled, our rooms, much outside of our control. We've seen improvements over the past few months and are driven to continue this progress. ➢ Maintain monthly vacancy updates with Brianna Thu[ at the City of Iowa City. ➢ Attain a rental permit for 1340 Hollywood Blvd. ➢ Attain the period of affordability at 2272 Hickory Ct. ➢ Seek housing in December 2021 if occupancy/vacancy has improved. Responses to Brianna Thul's Questions It has been determined that if Successful Living wishes to keep the remainder of the FY21 funds for the last two houses, you will need to attend HCDC and report on the situation. Part of HCDC's role is deciding if projects should continue or if the funds should be recaptured based on the City's Unsuccessful or Delayed Project Policy. The next HCDC meeting is 5:30 on September 16 at the Environmental Education Center. Please plan to attend this meeting. If for some reason you do not wish to pursue the remaining funds, please let us know as soon as possible. At this time Successful Living would like to continue to make use of the down payment funds awarded by the HCDC. Given that these funds have until June 30, 2022, to utilize we feel there is SLICCCSS U� Living time to make use of these funds. The intention and plan is to continue to improve the occupancy of current units and pursue additional housing closer to December 2021. Successful Living has previously purchased houses in the winter months, including our most recent house at 1340 Hollywood. Regular communication with the City of Iowa City and HCDC will be ongoing in order to keep all apprised and to address any changes and progress. • Please provide on update on the FY21 Hollywood Boulevard property. In preparing for the CAPER, it was brought to our attention that this property still does not have a rental permit and the closing was more than 6 months ago in February of 2021. With the 1340 Hollywood property, Successful Living experienced contractor delays and issues of follow-through, along with unreported water issues costing $13k and months to mitigate. A contractor also did not follow through on a bid for cement work extending the permit inspection readiness date. Earlier at our request, Stan Laverman made a pre -rental inspection at this property on 4/23/2021, believing we were closer to a formal inspection readiness at that time. The aforementioned issues resulted in unforeseen and unfortunate delays. We have made a request 9/7/2021 to pursue a rental permit inspection at the 1340 Hollywood house. • Based on the reports from May to July, it looks like the vacancy rate increased from about 25% to 34%. Can you provide an update on the increasing vacancy rate? A change in the format of the report caused an inaccuracy of the reporting. Occupancy has improved since May 2021 from a vacancy of 13 (May) to 12 (August). It is worth noting that our housing has not been static, as has been during most of the pandemic, and has seen an increase in movement both into and out of our units, though with an overall improvement in the vacancy rate. This trend is expected to continue. • I'd like to tentatively schedule on site monitoring for October, assuming the pandemic situation does not worsen. Would October 12 at 2pm work for you? We will plan to meet October 12, 2021, 2pm for the onsite monitoring visit. Successful Living intends to be communicative and responsive and to fulfill our agreements with the funds granted to us, please always feel open to reach out with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Roger Goedken, Executive Director, Successful Living rgoedken@icsuccess.org t f , Agenda Item #6 "c,►�� CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: September 10, 2021 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner Re: FY21 (Federal Fiscal Year 2020) Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) CAPER Context and Structure Iowa City is an entitlement community that receives federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds. The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) annually assesses the progress made towards achieving goals outlined in both the annual action plans, and the consolidated plan, City Steps 2025. The CAPER is submitted to HUD through the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS), therefore, many of the tables included in the document are system generated and cannot be edited to be more reader -friendly. As an alternative, the City creates additional tables to help supplement the data and present information in a more readable format. IDIS generated tables in the FY21 CAPER are labeled with numbers (e.g. Table 1) and City created tables are labeled with letters (e.g. Table A). An example of why this is important can be viewed in Table 2. The IDIS generated table includes only five categories for reporting beneficiaries by race, but the categories do not include all beneficiaries. Table F is provided as a supplement with additional categories to show the true demographic scope of beneficiaries. It is also relevant to note that FY21 was the first year of the City's consolidated plan, City Steps 2025. As activities are completed, accomplishments are counted towards the goals in the associated consolidated plan. Due to their origin year, many projects completed in FY21 are associated with the prior consolidated plan goals listed in City Step 2016-2020, nearly all of which were already completed by the end of FY20. Accomplishments for activities associated with City Steps 2025 are reflected in Table 1 and Table A. Accomplishments for all activities completed in FY21 are available in Table C (non-CDBG-CV) and Table E (CDBG-CV). For more information on the previous consolidated plan and associated CAPERs, visit icgov.org/actionplan. CDBG/HOME Highlights • Although HOME spending decreased to about $317,786 in FY21 from pandemic related complications, HOME projects completed provided an additional 27 units of affordable rental housing. • The City's HOME funded South District Homeownership Program also received an Innovation Award from Iowa Finance Authority in FY21. The award recognizes, "outstanding programs, projects, and professionals for leadership, and innovation in advancing housing opportunities for Iowans." The City has sold three units in the program to date with a fourth to be sold in FY22. Two additional units are under renovation. September 10, 2021 Page 2 • The City and its subrecipients worked quickly to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic through a variety of activities including emergency housing assistance, small business assistance, and other public services to support LMI residents such as child care. Across federal, state, and local funds, the City has made over $1 million dollars available for housing assistance since the beginning of the pandemic. • The City expended about $828,350 in CDBG on pandemic related activities that served over 12,000 people, not including state or other local funds. • An additional $642,644 in regular CDBG was expended to benefit over 3,000 people. Beneficiaries by income category are available in Table G. Due to the fact that activities are reported in the year they are completed, many other activities are underway and on track for completion in FY22. Activities in progress are listed in Table D and Table E. Minority Business Enterprises and Women Business Enterprises During the review process of the FY20 CAPER, HCDC requested additional context for Tables 8 and 9, which cover minority business enterprises (MBE) and women business enterprises (WBE) for HOME projects. The City reports data on contracts related to federally funded projects to HUD semiannually. Reports include information on race, ethnicity, type of trade (construction, professional services, rehabilitation, etc.), and women owned businesses. Taking affirmative steps to assure small, minority, women owned firms are used when possible is a part of the City's Procurement Policy. A database of such businesses is available online and it is provided to CDBG and HOME subrecipients to facilitate bid solicitation. Activities pertaining to rehabilitation and construction activities faced a number of challenges in FY21 such as increased material costs, material shortages, and safety concerns with entering private homes for rehab work from the COVID-19 virus. Despite the challenges, the total dollar value of MBE/WBE contracts for HOME projects increased by $4,958 from the previous fiscal year. The purpose of Table 9 is to indicate the number of HOME assisted rental property owners and the total amount of HOME funds invested in the rental properties assisted. This table is blank because the City typically funds projects undertaken by subrecipient nonprofit organizations vs. individual rental property owners. This is quite common due to the level of regulations and compliance required to undertake federally funded projects. Affordable Housing Funds Commissioners have expressed interest in local affordable housing funds. A detailed description of funds distributed in FY21 is available on page 40. Additionally, a description of fee in lieu, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), and River Front Crossing funds are discussed on pages 38-39. Public Participation Public comment for the CAPER began September 1, 2021 following a public notice in the Press - Citizen. Recommendation Staff request approval of the CAPER in order to submit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by the deadline of September 30, 2021. El - � � 5 c c 0=- =rca rLL ¢ rc `o 0 2 O O O=- z � yRU L N C R U y a c o m n n O O O Z U p T �0¢ U C C m f`S O �w.r 41 O O N _OC 'CO iCO c C C CO COCL 'O j \ a.a M O a. a. d , N 0 0 10 10 10 10 ] N 10 y'O C 0 0 N �Nm n rn O 0 M'40`O' d o v m d d d O (aN O O O t N h r N E o v n `o 0 "o 24 w o W L0 0 w m E O « w 0 • � V ¢ U � N ¢` m p O. � '^ C y 8 C O C O W y w O O V m n O N O o nLo c m n m �' E d X m c Eye Ec my E� cvc �oD E L a� FL om QED w my o m = E t° -w `� W w m 9 c m O m m m m O w U `1 ZI '> X O O'... L O N V m >> > > y N m =� m E m u w o E u m `0 a`i oL_m m EE wLm N« n Dy5 'a�a m Eyc yu u 16 u L 00 oU "«ecwm -mu w OOO w w m V L O W, ¢ Ow¢ OccNc�i' ,L0.- ,a IL w A m 'a 6m «Nn0—'` mm « w m «mcwOm pN; aw Nd'um` &ony�oo$o m >—oto¢o wm cc a 2= m 00 ❑ IL > 0 O U❑ 0 2 N N 0 O N [� c Agenda Item #7 HCDC RANKINGS AND CDBG/HOME ALLOCATIONS: FY18-FY21 Prniect Name FY22 (Max_ 1001 Renuested Allocated Allocation Unlimited Abilities Acquisition 61 $ 125,000 1 $ 125,000 1 100% NCJC Public Facilities 72 $ 37,242 1 $ 37,242 1 100% Shelter House Public Facilities 80 $ 225,000 1 $ 225,000 1 100% Proiect Name =MJ FY21 Ave. Score Percent (Max. 1001 Reauested Allocated Allocation Little Creations Academy Kitchen Rehab 62 $ 78,160 $ 78,000 100% City South District #1 73 $ 50,000 $ 47,000 94% City South District #2 74 $ 50,000 $ 47,000 94% Habitat Down a ment Assistance #1 82 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 100% Habitat Down a ment Assistance #2 81 $ 30,000 $ 27,000 90% Habitat Down a ment Assistance #3 82 $ 30,000 $ - 0% Successful Living Acquisition #1 90 $ 48,000 $ 48,000 100% Successful Living Acquisition #2 90 $ 48,000 $ 48,000 1 100% Successful Livin Ac uisition #3 90 $ 48,000 $ 48,000 100% S tems Unlimited New Construction 81 $ 100,000 $ 100:050 100% Unlimited Abilities Acquisition 66 $ 121,607 1 $ 60,000 49% The Housing Fellowship CHID Operations 84 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 100% FY20 Ave. Score Percent Proiect Name (Max. 100) Reauested Allocated Allocation DVIP - Shelter Repair 72 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 100% Little Creations Academy - Renovation Phase 3 53 $ 51,968 $ - 0% Old Brick - ADA Improvements 59 $ 40,553 $ 36,000 89% Old Brick - Structural FortificationNVater Mitigation 58 $ 67,670 $ - 0% Habitat - Lot Acquisition 69 $ 120,000 $ 53,000 44% MYEP - Lot Acquisition 79 $ 200,000 $ 186,000 93% Successful Living - Rental Acquisition 78 $ 240,000 $ 173,000 72% Successful Livin - Rental Rehabilitation 63 $ 75,000 $ 62,000 83% THE-CHDOO eratin 66 1 $ 26,500 $ 22,000 83% THE - Rental Rehabilitation 1 64 1 $ 69,108 1 $ 74,000 107% FY19 Average Score (Max. Percent Proiect Name 1001 Reauested Allocated Allocation Arthur Street Healthy Life Center 80 $ 100,000 $ 51,000 51% NCJC Siding Improvement 68 $ 51,467 $ 41,000 80% THE-CHDOOperating 88 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 100% THE - Rental Acquisition 76 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 100% Habitat for Humanity - Ownership 83 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 100% MYEP - Rental Acquisition 81 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 100% Successful Living - Rental Acquisition 80 $ 310,000 $ 194,000 63% City of Iowa City - South Dist. Part. 59 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 100% Prelude -Transitional Housing Im r. 62 $ 82,010 $ 34,000 41% Unlimited Abilities 21 $ 200,000 $ - 0% Habitat - Lot Acquisition 1 NA $ 40,000 $ - 0% Habitat - Lot Acquisition 2 NA $ 40,000 $ - 0% MYEP - Lot Acquisition NA $ 80,000 $ - 0% THE - Rental Rehabilitation Round 2 NA $ 91,362 $ 87,034 95% Shelter Housing - Rental Ac uisition (Round 2) NA $ 185,000 $ 93,966 51 % Project Name rria Average Score (Max. Percent 100) Requested Allocated Allocation 'Not allocated by Council HCDC RANKINGS AND CDBG/HOME ALLOCATIONS: FY18-FY21 Crisis Center Food Pant 83 $ 100,000 $ 85,000 85% Successful Living 81 $ 72,000 $ 72,000 100% CHDO operations - Housing Fellowship 75 $ 25,000 $ 18,000 72% Habitat for Humanity 74 $ 90,000 $ 50,000 56% The Housing Fellowship Rehab 67 $ 100,000 $ 86,000 86% Housing Authority Rent Assistance 62 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 100% Little Creations Academy Daycare 54 $ 107,934 $ 73,000 68% MYEP Facility 52 $ 60,000 $ 31,000 52% Mid -Year Habitat for Humanity N/A $ 70,000 $ 35,000 50% Mid-YearTHF Rental Construction N/A $245,000 $100,000 41% Mid -Year MYEP Rental Acquisition N/A $ 75,000 $ 50,000 67 0 Mid -Year Successful Living Rental Rehab I N/A $ 74,895 $ 50,000 67% Mid -Year Successful Living Rental Ac usition I N/A $ 100,000 1 $ - 0% o$ ,C v ,FO wm n E EO 2102 9 Q mc° dm LL w a aW$m$n oa oU-s5�.ss..m �° .F nE sogacE m o a c E J rc 3.'9 3"- L y 3 m;- m$ '" E» w" m m w> m° E o c a m c'- rnE 8 a a H a y c o a E c m m m E T c- c_ m= d o - c c E E m b a E m h c E y p w a a E >$ m e. w, @ m z m c m m 3 E E o$ 5 5 44 0 o m a M m n5 nmOn'2WJSLLULLxWn�n❑3p 3¢2LLLL=n55JU S LLga 2 a mm L we N ? E'2 m p amm m we 'V ° •: " o mha- `md 9 m` U Lofo - E m m0tiL p E waq?m.-o`mV 0 oWpga. 0E o$m=aE of �m c ." m�i 3.pw-3andwUc"33j3o E m$ ca rn."m m, m " w.`� $ c0 0 `°d=`�aE� ci-c�0" E o s a EE vE d e°+ E C y m L o EE C Lo' m a m $'3 'o z,'E o ai0 ¢n 3 m "o�m=moa mm m._.-_�._ omm m._o i wJ_LL ULL x wa mm,OHO a¢xLLa=_a»0i3 wE a�9aE w mmmm i„a�SE ma LL'mo m3m$nm y a m a oo_m_ ua $O of ` $E;Jm$ E my Eaa mEoL2L2co'm "LoaO2 L._v `0��L.- m TE9wa"wGM-3: V -tUam, E LLtWd n dEE m E yj mlEi 0B 0npn¢T=0E EN q'5 ocom° wEpc` J;W5Jo@ 2_c'^ �EmEi.ImmEi Nwa r'i M>o wa$ ` cc m m E rn'm w o V $ - m o _y E o ao fw o�Q'm n.NwEn m10 n cm aNmY ESE 0. a E >.E LL 9 a d LL; w' d m E d E a E E` °m$ EsE'�U °iNc `oaa"n `oDa @@ d cE rn >E3 aom>p mzp 3�3$E E aL'N:yCcy 0 o M. m'o_ m m-._ w o o � E ._c> @�a cm'ni E= m E `m E E R o m J� LL y LL x w a 3 m 3 p 5 L' _'c w` m m 6 a m T C d T 9_ a s a s -u P'Em 9W£L5d5E ma m E °m T E LL w a LL; m 3 e 3 E. n m Eck ?'o 0 E c d _ w> Q E_tim@mNTc-c 0@ n= E�w•`•'n QE a n s m 3 8 E a E 9 m E2 y C i m m a :: c c N- nE iwJ_LLULLxwa�aOLL00 �$ _ a aT Em atyE�-ca9Eh>� > EEf n `o JE mE 9cvw -ca Ea 6V �tqt ca °' s E;` �._.q3 ti�m- a'm¢m.. o..m.. d.•-o dd 'n Emo °p'n o`$-o° �� °E c a$ TE�LLwa'0:LL 3'^3Vm m L my3;a3 ... .. ' w o w: >' co m w> d o E $ $._ a a U w '% `°_ 2 .._E m u d dad v = m - _ d E T m3EEa `d Oita EE �ayEd� "- o8 m.y m`-0 j� m 'm^ c 3 m E "Si Ew `�o'��--.Mo. am io E'o .�°N >cam inmt ¢m @t a`�n iw�$iiUdx°wa�d'o la=m d L 5 E m on m -g E�.0 `m ya; >`mdc $mQ m 1° rn'm' �° md5 ism Ede wE m .._ �0. m'E `may_.15 Low m m m �N9a o m a m mwc E ELL=my-o�Tm e'mE �L nmvrn o d n '> m d'q ." o ." �wicm E wm�cocEoN 0 C m .xmm y m n LL w a' x m y w tii E J. K LL Em$ -.-.- o U 5 m m- m-mcp i;ao m: ._ v m m w m m 3 m-"¢ U B E wa MOM m m m m w a `u m'c a w 'n m m m °SmE m m Q y c E_ _ ._ A N E p a c L2.a>-Lc `m�Em�' of-E"im dw _ Z.c w x a a' c m- m y,a'_ >Sm>m > 0 ° 0 x $5x LN 'm ? o o$ m L m 'o a a d v m `m MOO § >2pDurSw_wuLLmwwmao3 oa5¢U 2 .s mm o mcE E t `� n o N o w d a am .=acmc n.=_ nom m m m m o ; NS.mm mm ma`rm9 - O 0 0 O m d > > d 'oa-c= `oEc m c o C uu a 3 E m E a N w f a - E v s a 9 d m m m V d `v N `m $.n 9 '" E `m mom o m owmaii d m wa'd'A�a $ao aoa�`m '> a 01¢E30 0 Zc°Ey _oa m;v m c TEJ."."."o:LL 3y $d y om¢."m ti m m m �'i:c = t= 'm _ u o> y q ._ ¢ w 9 a$ oa _ a n m u n m u y m y -mo`a '^m m a 'm `m a'M a e a E` E_ '- o n 0" H p 'n a m x= m s 3$ E 9 E w m@ d c m N 'a E E y d J >S. t> r s> m m na o E m a¢ 3 m m c w m s �'Rmo n wmx 5 5 S o mcm'oa m!_^= m° iwJSLLULLxw m p 3033o'3¢3LL p x-o'E0: ¢Uxti ¢ E$ E$ coc LO.0 amm rmom'm E'mOOEE a m m ° 6 L w $` n d $' € a q $m 3 �c'3c w9 w5�an$ S$ mtwwa °fin a m E-9 a e_. 3.m $ c c co' EY,-o `orcm a`iE L'`w @O m=v ¢` cmc da>m$ m0 6 3=a�°$� o2mEmaow�a-a Em td4�ao mP'macy=5." ."o."°Nm c .3 g a n m` m $c�mc $' SnE 3c mEm 3 -mmsm E $c ` p a t T E LL w a m LL a a m m u ? `.° o �' Fi y m c c `o v H n �.a o$ t h n A ai L d d g p d o m s E m E m c is o a a n O a a o 2 m 9 d m m o 9 '��j S o o y@ o E d w no°'L E9'E aE'd5 m5 m5a5EE $Wwom'2TEm 2m ni muiao o°�n'3. W o xWJ_LL ULL 2 W np ;p 303a¢3ii❑ ¢U OLS$t�0 d-0.WAH CaRmgdN AO w mD amp USp E m _ 9 L C O p 6 tE� H S N d O . a n w 9 O 3 n CCmav'i5 "cc 'E 0 u o y y D m 0 O c w m m d O 9 D w a d `o s C C E w m C 'w o a'c E C E E T m do dDc m�U2am¢2m c.2=EmE CD` wmm£D°mEmnnm u g+ o 1p `m 3i'wc m BELL n m° o Cioa3 '>8a a oaT'm2P Tit u E Twwoac E8'c� m rnW`ga ocm E2 0 odm..-000ycow g9 t d= o m d m Em dm��ma"$ `a `o cam D '� E w 5 c m c d c'�E'o m omEE°c �mj 1°gmdEm U.9 cQ =cD .15 a Aim - o L w m m ° oD- " as c'o5 w�`dx m m 'o E E ByEo� o 0 E"�J '° a m C d�wL Lme>g qcy E E 'o o Q E d wr m m y$« E = E n d ° d ° - mn G �L N m Aa U a t 9 E co 'a H 126 2 p C_ E 9 n'v3mm m.�SE� N�2 nmdn T m n y D W c as o m °vwaw d yu „a ° n' od S� n c tcO a`Cm3 w mS aDE 68mm m m$ g a m m U n E`E y�mi3oEavm'm-cE`m y m y v m D a m d c E y W o u m `m ac53Ea o N.L. D N c ~ W m O C m 0 c Y @ c w W S L D q d w L m w5 m m w 0m� Nc_ m $'t.m.ir d D w -d m m m`qcCaca >.E'n EmV T`m yd m`w `�+. S c '� mm�a mL�c wm>°yt v� wmmE-T=—ma TycmC w �ro'"�rndc'"ma c '" 0 N Y 0 c W N m c d d m=nt_cmoot�n d L O C O `O10 d w N d NDn :: 9 wm `m �mnmv dTE.w -m U d 5 O C ° N ym�wmE mSy m m wc`m_�'c�"- wmaoE`,z, Em;a� ug'E$&mmv'o n>`m LyDncnmcmE:a'"RgQPEomut S mo'imv E'o me n5 m.. nm7°-aw �y:m:c pN `wdm omco cmD m Ec wL `o d o o ` T m m g d C O c �D d O 9 o m - D Yom o 2 m c q= a d > E d o t m °nm D D _ m d c O O O L C L m �, c o a F 0 U N m m 3 m o, y u u o n a @ m - d `m N ° i p L N - m S D d N �.� c S E L m 'o i9 N O 3 C O C m `m 'E0 d= °' o N C @ d N 3` 0_ o° o E r o at '" E' E `w `m o'c y o o a° E` m T 5 E C U O S W> L U? m c n a 0 y N d w N O 9 0 a aCi n d N = D jp :ryry. T� V N Tt N 7 D R G w .c a E 3 O „ M " Ol - L C o o N D C N 2 E 0 C u O C E O L N O L C- N U D)? > O O C` L- d m C d n C d C. .- ldd) d 5 E p m` y E'E $c m c c Q'9- Yi _T x m m'a t S w d c w_ Q m m? am E m v 5 m n nM E m 'e m o 5 rn m m n5 `o E g a d d m L m o d m- m L o D y d m° N° S° m E w E E° m m .90 m a and m H m inS EwEttEm.`wp�rndvS '8 pint m._ 30 3m �p 6 w °>3cd ESdrniO qdod 0'oDmm o oa yoN ' wm zwo mmEw NE wC oa aE��cw C m�' q.`9L m o 'O mLOw 0. D Y�0v� Vdw w Omom ro0 CGEOO7w 0 >aD ry O EUNt O i) to Z 0 C N O 0 c .N C Ca U C Mn O (1) ov EU CL ac i E� o E= O) EO d O "O y 7 tm N C 0 p C C— U '0 � C N a 0' N = UwUu5 3 0 C N O 0 c0 .N C Ca U C N Ca a) o•o EU am E� o f U y O N p .O N m N 7 CD N p C p C C— U Q. O w C N O N E 0 M= l6 � _ in o0cn•3 0) — c 'V N N to O C U C _0 C)C U O .0.. cn O 0 U 0) CLC a 0 a T C m E 0 V T p U U 7 00 E V OU T O m N U L) C d a) O N O Q 00 'l0 w U C O C V C •O N a) N c (0 U _ N p N C N Wx a? E a) ¢ 0 W a m E E rn -o c @Ua: w p c 0 a) ¢ E N (am) U o E 2 N N pE� C N d N m rU m y aci c E E o c0 O=•— o c�0 ov r c 0 CV 04 N OI C ¢ W m M O O N W O Cc LL i LL Ca A � j 7 (a "O C C N C m c C E .O. C C "' C C N h m Ca u) E to a E ma�0i wr w y w �� EcCL �cE �n ` > > vi' o 0 0 3 O O 04 $ a) rno � me = .O .O ¢ 7 a U V N O L O) C O 0 O d w N p y C O m i m 'C C 3-5 W� •C 7 0 C C Y 0- m c p- U U E E C 7¢ 7 E C N 0.2 E U m U W O) O N O >� Ca M O y .� y0 E w ¢ .L) U ¢ l0 C_ C N r N o m _ V N U >_ N T_ N 'C a) N U E O m M N '� O` a) C6 'Q 'a -O E O 0 U .••. a) U d : LL O E O U N O¢ O) U }N} ii d C m N C E N N N N L m a) "O = C N O. N n C Y Q U a7 V .O 7 N a) U O N j > E Y N j¢ O 7 m a j a) 7 V j C) N a7 N 7 '•>--• US y O •O �•- >. C L c a)=aocd C c aCj y OE._ C> N cm._oc� C m ` C)0(L0 aoa IxU¢ wo <IX 8. ¢LL � E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E r N O r r r r N N N N r N O r O� NCN O aD CO NN Np r r N CCINN C,` - r r O �N r N O N O O N N L a) a N N N C L y E L a) E EL N (� r N r 7 a O > U c a ` c T c N a) > N V C Co d N L a) N O ._ 7 a U E C O O U N m N C "O N c a) a) m n U O Mn -O F a) N C U m � �O m m O C 7 N w wo o = n E m U ❑ U c n o T aNi (a N n Co M y C N f04 L O N a� `O U c m a� > `U 3 CD m > ❑ 'rn U o � -O Co a) E C O) o m L a) Q U > c U a) Q iD m ❑ rnU c m w 0 3 O � U � O C 7 U E O C U m N N C C O E a) a O 2 CL E E O -o N N = O a) a; a; U t N m V) c LL ca a } LL L N U U N Q O -0 U I c a a o Eo E N N O- W L T L 0,5 C O 0. LL LL t C o n (n N a) a) c 3 aa)) (D a) 0) M ❑ C C C E L O U o N a) a) a) = m a) Q l Q } QQQ L O„_, CM V �p LL 000 0 N w m(D c v v p c c 3 E LL 0atr o m QQQ o c a) o m n U N N cl U E N Q N N N❑ N Q) -� ♦L } LL } LL m } LL m } U- } U-10 } O N > a) 0-0 U U_ U_ O O a a N U) U U N N O O a a` E a) d -0 T In m w m a) T - a) 3 U ❑ C ❑ O E- `o E `oLL Y c O > J > = a) m w cm CU m w N p O = N C w m 3 E N a) w N 7 0 C U aNiCL U 2 0 m m �cmmt>UcLw 4D(n 2 F (A❑Z7F U F N O N N N N N O Na_O O NN ry0 0 CD N N N N � E E O) +' « m o m m � N — 2() 0Z�Q