Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRevised February 2022 HCDC PacketREVISED If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at brianna- thul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meeting Regular: March 24, 2022 / April 21, 2022 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) February 17, 2022 Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM The Center Assembly Room 28 S Linn Street AGENDA: 1.Call to Order 2.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 20, 2022 3. Public Comment of Items not on the AgendaCommentators shall address the Commission for no more than 5 minutes. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items. 4.Discuss Request for Amendment to the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) Administrative Plan and Consider Recommendation to Council The City received a request from Center for Worker Justice to amend Section 2.3(H) of the ICHA Administrative Plan. Currently, the Administrative Plan allows for absence from the unit for up to 30 days. The household must request permission from ICHA for absences exceeding 30 days and an authorized absence may not exceed 180 days. This item will include a staff presentation. HCDC will discuss the request submitted by Center for Worker Justice and consider a recommendation to Council on the issue. 5.Question and Answer Session for FY23 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Applicants Submissions can be found online at icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting, HCDC will host a question and answer session with FY23 CDBG/HOME applicants. Applicants are encouraged to send a representative to answer any questions. The scoring criteria found in the Applicant Guide will focus questions. No action will be taken this meeting. HCDC will make funding recommendations to Council at the regular March 24, 2022 meeting. 6.(DEFERRED) Question and Answer Session for FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies (EA2A) Applicants This item has been deferred and will not be discussed at the February 17, 2022 HCDC meeting. 7.Iowa City Council Meeting Updates Commissioners volunteer each month to monitor Council meetings. This agenda item provides an opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to HCDC business. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items. 8.Staff Updates 9. Adjournment REVISED Housing and Community Development Commission February 17, 2022 Meeting Packet Contents Agenda Item #2 •January 20, 2022 HCDC Draft Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #4 •February 16, 2022 Staff Memo – HCV Absence from Unit Policy •Correspondence from Center for Worker Justice •Excerpts from HUD Applicable Regulations and ICHA Administrative Plan Agenda Item #5 •Submissions are available for review at icgov.org/actionplan •FY23 CDBG/HOME Application Summary •FY23 CDBG/HOME Application Summaries (x4) •FY23 Scoring Criteria •Free Medical Clinic CDBG Answers and Comments •Free Medical Clinic Phase 1 Pricing Agenda Item #6 (DEFERRED) •Submissions are available for review at icgov.org/actionplan •FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies Application Summary Agenda Item #8 •February 14, 2022 Staff Memo – Subrecipient Noncompliance MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2022 – 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Nasr Mohammed, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Nkumu ST AFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Barker (Houses into Homes), Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes), Hailey Behmer (Unlimited Abilities), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House), Charlie Eastham (Center for Worker Justice), Simon Fall (Unlimited Abilities), Karen Fox (Center for Worker Justice), Roger Goedken (Successful Living), Caitlin McGowan (Successful Living), Mazahir Salih (Center for Worker Justice), Joan Vandenburg (Houses into Homes) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-1 (Vogel dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of inclusion of Center for Worker Justice, Dream City, and Houses into Homes as Legacy Agencies in the consolidated plan, City Steps 2025, through the substantial amendment process. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 18, 2021: Vogel moved to approve the minutes of November 18, 2021, Dennis seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the minutes were approved 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. OFFICER NOMINATIONS: Drabek noted the Commission has a vacancy in the role of Vice Chair with Megan Alter being elected to City Council. Vogel nominated Beining to be Vice Chair, Dennis seconded the motion and he was elected to the role of vice chair and will serve through June 30, 2022. DISCUSS LEGACY STATUS APPLICATIONS - AID TO AGENCIES: Drabek noted the Commission has received number of applications for Legacy Agency status and the process is a new thing and the Commission has not had a process to add Legacy Agency and therefore had a discussion at the last meeting as to what the process might look like. Drabek noted the Commission has received five applications from agencies to be added to the Legacy Agency status and Agenda Item #2 Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 2 of 11 2 he suggest they should discuss the applications one at a time and use the criteria discussed at the last meeting for decisions. Vogel noted he was reading the five-year plan City Steps 2025 and, in that plan, it does very specifically say on page 150 that no new applicants would be considered until the next five year plan. It states that agencies that are going to apply for legacy status to be included on the next Legacy Agencies list would not be done until the next comprehensive plan. Vogel agrees it is important for them to have a process for applications, but also after reading that it specifically states a new agency would not be included or considered until the next comprehensive plan. Dennis stated that's why it would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan to add in any new Legacy Agencies at this point. Reedus asks if it specifies whether they allow them have legacy status but not receive funding or is that just for funding. It just said no new agency. Vogel replied it specifically says that the consideration of being a Legacy Agency and applications would not be considered until the next comprehensive plan, which would be in 2025. He thought that it was more fluid or more vague when they talked about it at the November meeting and there was a concept that anybody could apply at any time but this clarifies they can apply anytime but the Commission can't consider actually adding them until the five-year comprehensive plan is done again, unless like Dennis noted that they do an amendment. Dennis stated they already knew that they were going to have to make a significant change and go to Council for an amendment. Drabek agreed, they’d have to change the plan since the agencies are listed there. Vogel felt it was important to mention this because they need to consider those agencies that were listed as Legacy Agencies in the comprehensive plan likely thought they would have five years of being able to set their budgets and if the Commission now adds Legacy Agencies that is going to change that. Drabek noted this is a list of the agencies who would be the only ones that would be allowed to apply for Legacy Agency funding, which is two-year cycles of stable funding. He noted the last sentence on page 150 states the priorities and agencies allowed to apply will be reevaluated with each new Consolidated Plan to address changing priorities or gaps of service as identified in the plan Vogel notes the application will be for a two-year cycle and funding rounds but then it says the priorities and agencies allowed to apply will be reevaluated with each new consolidated plan to address changing priorities or gaps of service. So, to him the agency's allowed to apply will be reevaluated with each new consolidated plan in place, meaning allowing agencies to apply can only be done every five years. If the Commission wants make that change, he is fine but they talked a lot about fairness to existing Legacy Agencies last time and he thought it was important for them to keep that in their minds. Reedus agrees there's a lot of discussion that they have to have because looking at the hypothetical scenario for Legacy Agency funding and for adding new agencies, if they even add one tonight, it's going to decrease funding to the existing agencies. There are also some proposed changes she wants to look at so she is hoping that they can dig into this whole process and establish a process because at the last meeting they were talking about how do they add existing agencies, they have to establish a process and one where she’d like to see them funding agencies that solve certain kinds of problems in the community, not necessarily just the same agencies year after year after year. She feels there are some huge problems in the community which is where they should be directing the funding. Drabek stated for the most part they did lay out a pretty good process at the last meeting and he wanted to summarize that to start and see if there's anything anyone wanted to add to that. From the notes from the previous meeting, one of the things they wanted to see was a pipeline for agency funding, an agency starts with Emerging funds at least once and then becomes a Legacy Agency later. Another is they discussed that an agency should exist for some number of years before getting to legacy status, there Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 3 of 11 3 was a bit of disagreement or different ideas on how many years that would be, a few people said something in the four- or five-year range, other people had more like seven-to-10-year range in mind. The third one is the Commission would ask for a number of financial documents and other disclosure statements to review, and the fourth one would be fit with the Legacy Agency program, meaning fit with the City's public service priorities and having something novel their agency is doing something that has not been done or being duplicated by other services. Drabek noted they have a variety of other funding sources that they look at with this Commission so one question is, is Legacy Agency status the best way to compensate or can they apply for other types of funds. He did acknowledge when they have a larger landscape of Legacy Agencies, how does it impact the other ones. Reedus noted one of the issues Dennis raised last time was what does an agency need to be effective and Reedus would rather look at certain kinds of issues that need funding for the City to solve some problems with housing or food insecurity, or providing health or medical services, or providing services for youth. Once those priorities get set it is easier for them to take a look at the agencies and how their programs fit. She would like to get to a process where they're moving towards funding fitting with the issues that they want to really tackle with the agency legacy money. Drabek suggested they dig into the applications one by one. Reedus asked if they would be allowed to ask the agency's questions. Drabek said they invited agency representatives here, but did not invite anyone to give a presentation, but if there are some sort of pressing questions and it would be highly relevant to anyone's vote, he wouldn't object to asking the representatives. Drabek noted the Center for Worker Justice is the first application. Mohammed asked if the Commission has any grading system to these applications. Drabek replied not at this time as it’s the first time they've done this sort of valuation. Reedus did raise the point that they may want to sketch something out in the future in more detail. Mohammed also wanted to know how many applications would they review every cycle. Today they have five applications but they don’t know the impact of adding new agencies to the list. Drabek noted that in terms of the potential impact based on the number of agencies added, there are scenarios sketched out by staff included in the packet. Reedus noted her hope is that if they decide to accept two or three of these agencies as Legacy Agencies, they will go to City Council and request a bigger pot of money. Drabek agreed that's an option that they discussed and it seems to be good idea. Dennis noted that they would have to recommend that they don’t want any of the current agencies to have funding cut, but it’s really up to the Council. Drabek noted as far as the Center for Worker Justice application is concerned, he sketched out a few things that he took from the last meeting notes as criteria when he was looking at these applications and he couldn’t find any criteria where this application was not on top of. Reedus had a few notes, first she feels this is a unique agency providing a unique service, however, one of the things she does know is that in the past couple years the Center for Worker Justice has had some financial difficulties and is wondering if the organization has a strategic plan, and are operating from a strategic plan, to help them. She doesn’t know why those financial difficulties have happened, perhaps they’re taking on too much, so it would be helpful to her to have some idea of how those financial difficulties have occurred in the organization and what they’re doing to make an impact so that the financial health of the organization was a little bit more stable. Mazahir Salih (Center for Worker Justice) stated she doesn’t think they’ve had financial difficulty; they did lose one of their significant funders, which is the CCHD (Catholic Campaign for Human Development) and they had been funding them from day one but were only planning funding for six years and then they have to wait two years before getting funding again. The CCHD give the Center funding for seven years instead of six years but now they have to wait until next year to get more funding from them. During this Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 4 of 11 4 time, they start looking for another funder to fund their work, but they are not in a struggle, they did also lose some dollars due to COVID-19 and stared doing something outside of their mission due to the crisis of COVID-19. Reedus agreed that was an excellent response because she does think loss of funding can precipitate a crisis and the reason she was asking is if the Commission wants to make sure that they're investing the City's money wisely, any agency funded through this process, does not have situations that create a crisis or possible closure. So, in terms of services, if they were approved as a Legacy Agency, how would they classify their services under City Steps. Salih replied they are really doing community building not provided by other organizations in the area. Their main mission, though since 2020, as was a lot of agencies, was providing financial aid and assistance, but that is not their mission. Their mission is for low wage workers to organize in the community and really solve those problems and raise wages. They were creating a community in the County for everyone who lives here to have support so they are not scared to go and report on crime and this is helping improve the safety in the community, and also helping people recover lost wages, as of today, they have recovered over $180,000 for the people that otherwise would be lost. This improves the economy. These are services no other organizations are doing. The State of Iowa has only one person to do this type of work for all 99 counties, and when she asks clients how they heard about the Center, they reply they went to the Department of Labor and they told them to go to the Center for Worker Justice. Other unique services they provide are they speak and translate in many languages, and low- income people come to them referred by different organization like the Shelter House to translate the applications. Many people look at the Center as a safe place so they come to them for help on projects that nobody else can solve, they help with immigration, they created a program during 2020 to help people apply for IFA financing, they have over 500 people these days in housing and paying their rent and nobody else is doing the service that they do. They are helping people with schooling, they do safety training for meat-packing workers, help translate in many different languages French, Arabic, English and no other organization does that. Salih does not believe they are duplicating services. Dennis asked if the Center has a strategic plan that the board has approved. Salih replied yes they do and they review it every year set their priorities for each year. This year they have housing as a very like high priority, especially for Forest View, and also do five workshops for meat- packing workers for safety. They also have computer classes and English classes for women, and continue tutoring for immigrants, most are done via zoom due to the pandemic. Charlie Eastham (Center for Worker Justice) also noted they review the strategic plan each year and look to the members to let them know what the priorities each year might need to be. Salih reiterated they are a member-based organization and members may come up with that unique issue that the Center then has to come in and see if they have the capacity for it, but at the same time if it is urgent they go for it otherwise they discuss it at the upcoming review. Drabek noted when he was looking through these applications, he had few things he was looking for. Clearly the pipeline is in place, the Center for Worker Justice had Emerging agency funding last year, he added it was clearly the best application that they saw last year. The Center for Worker Justice has been around about 10 years so it is established. He personally had no issues with the disclosure documents but was glad Reedus was able to have her questions answered. Drabek feels the fit for City priority funding is fantastic, things like the wage set campaign are clearly new and adds something to the Legacy Agency list. Additionally, there's a lot of evidence they're working with other groups. Drabek also noted the Center for Worker Justice is also not really appropriate for other money areas in a lot of cases so this would be the way the City could fund the Center for Worker Justice; they wouldn't typically qualify for CDBG or HOME funds. So that was his approach on the review and feels the Center for Worker Justice did all those things extremely well so it was an obvious yes for him. Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 5 of 11 5 Reedus stated she is also an yes, but did also have questions. She thinks it's a unique organization. She spent a lot of time going through all the applications, and the last applications that Legacy Agencies put forth, and she classified the organizations according to the services they provide. The Center for Worker Justice is a unique service that almost reminds her of in the 60s and 70s where the minority communities had community enablers, which really worked on working with the needs of that minority community, whether it was police brutality, or food insecurity. The Center for Worker Justice in some ways has that element of it, there's a fluidity about it, that probably has to remain in order to meet the needs of its members. She also acknowledged the Center for Worker Justice has a lot of individuals who are residents of the various segments of the community that are members on their boards and so that's why maybe it might be a little bit more fluid and interesting organization that a long-range strategic plan might be something that they can get to but maybe not right now. It is a yes for her and she thought it was real positive application. Vogel agreed noting it was one of the two applications that he also felt qualified under what he had in mind as a Legacy Agency, it has been in place for 10 years and they fill the gaps that they generally can't fund with CDBG and HOME. For him it still comes back to is it right to approve them now or is it right to approve on that five-year plan. But to just look at this from the point of is this an Emerging agency that deserves to make that step up, the answer is yes. Mohammed stated one thing he noticed on the application the Center for Worker Justice was doing too much and taking on too much. Salih replied, to be honest it is a lot of work for two full time staff, but they are in the process of hiring one more staff and have applied for funding. They also have a helpful intern from the University of Iowa. Every year they have at least three interns from the University of Iowa. They also have some high schoolers that volunteer so they can get volunteer time. They were one of the only organizations that remain open during 2020, they did not close any single day because they know that immigrants need their services. The Commission discussed voting on the applications tonight but the votes depend on upon whether or not the amendment to the plan is approved, the applicants can't automatically be given Legacy Agency status without a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan. Thul confirmed that if HCDC approves agencies tonight for legacy status staff would start the amendment process, probably the spring. The amendment would have a 30-day public comment period, then it gets approved by HCDC, and then it goes to Council for approval. Vogel moved to include the Center for Worker Justice as a Legacy Agency. Drabek noted it does not need to be a formal vote at this time, but an informal vote would be good. The Commission voted and it was unanimously agreed to recommend including the Center for Worker Justice as a Legacy Agency Drabek moved on to the Dream City application. Dennis thinks it's a unique program. Reedus agrees and didn't really have any questions, just a comment that over years they spent enough profits. She appreciated getting to know the services of all the Legacy Agencies better through this process and was surprised to see there’s not really these kinds of services elsewhere, the closest they have is Big Brothers Big Sisters, so she really supports Dream City as becoming a Legacy Agency. Drabek agreed and noted it was very similar to the last application, Dream City has been around nine or 10 years, Legacy Agency status is the best way to fund this organization, he doesn’t think they'll be using other HCDC funds. Vogel noted for him there's got to be a point for where a legacy is a legacy after at least a decade of showing continued feasibility. He will not be a yes on this one only because in his mind they have not met Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 6 of 11 6 that minimum requirement. Drabek noted they were created in 2012, so Vogel said they could come back next year when they hit that 10-year mark. Dennis stated that one of the big yeses for her on Dream City is it really helps add a program that serves a large number of minorities and that's important. And like Reedus noted the only other agency providing similar services is Big Brothers Big Sisters, so Dennis strongly supports adding Dream City as a Legacy Agency. An informal vote of adding Dream City to the Legacy Agency group was taken and the vote was 5-1 (Vogel dissenting). Drabek stated the third application is from Houses into Homes. Reedus had a question for staff of are the are there other dollars within the City this organization could apply for because they do reduce waste and that reduce costs. Thul noted there's the sustainability funds but those are usually in high demand. Kubly agreed, the City has climate action funds and Houses into Homes may have taken advantage of that grant in the past but it's hard for staff to speak on other funding pools that they don't administer. Reedus was just looking for funds perhaps that they could add to their allocation, some comes from the aid agencies pot and some comes from sustainability or some other fund. She notes they do save the City a lot of money by reducing waste, which is really important, in addition to doing the services they do. Reedus noted this was another unique services but one of the questions that she had was if Houses to Homes track unmet need and also if there was a certain reason such as lack of volunteers, lack of resources or something like that. Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes) stated she was not aware of any time they weren't able to meet the need or couldn't reach somebody. Jason Barker (Houses into Homes) added they had a lot this year with dealing with COVID and the end of the eviction mortarium, so they really had to adapt quickly to what to do when they have a steady flow and school coming back and had to come up with a process to do that. They were able to really mold resources and figured out ways to do it. Lucy Barker added it's a timing issue, getting people interested and sometimes having to wait more than the deadline of within two weeks, making them offers. She noted there are agencies who've asked to become referral agencies that they haven't been able to accommodate yet. So the need out there but they may not have received all the referrals to meet the need. Reedus asked why the reason is they haven't been able to meet the needs of the agencies who have asked. Barker replied it is because of the amount of staff they have and the amount of time and then the process they want to go through with agencies to make sure they understand the process. Dennis asked if they have a stockpiled of furniture now. Barker replied they have a 10,000 square foot warehouse but it is not always full, things are moved in and out quickly, donations come in and they furnish homes so it's not really a stockpile, it's a supply. Reedus asked how they prioritize the families and what constitutes a family. Barker replied they actually serve households so there are quite a few individuals or single people. They used to have more of a priority, their priority is always getting beds to people, but that changed a little bit since they were able to hire staff and an increase in volunteers and now are able to do between six and 12 deliveries in one day therefore cycling through the list. Drabek noted when he was looking through the application there were two possible like reservations he had, one was around possible funding sources and whether there would be an alternative funding source for the agency, but after the discussion he does see the case for legacy status. The other reservation was Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 7 of 11 7 the organization was founded in 2018 so it doesn’t meet the 10-year requirement he was putting on the applications. Reedus stated the concerns she had about prioritizing households and wanting to make sure that a one- person household was served because she thinks that's important. She noted this is a high priority in the community and this is the type of organization that is needed. Therefore, she is fine supporting this application. Barker noted the City supported the old Furniture Project with $28,000 for a number of years so there is some precedent in service that the City has supported in the past, and it was a huge gap when the Furniture Project fell apart. Reedus stated she is just not as concerned about this being a newer agency, yes often with new agencies the failure rate is higher but this one has proven to be successful. As far as City priorities, they are a housing adjacent agency, a housing related type of service. Dennis asked how many paid staff Housing to Homes has. Barker replied they have the equivalent of three full time, one full time and then five part time that hours add up to two fulltime people. Joan Vandenburg (Houses into Homes) added that they were not aware 10 years was the mark that was the cut off for a Legacy Agency, that would have been good to know and something that should have been laid out. Drabek replied there's no hard marker in terms of years, there was a discussion at the last meeting where they were setting criteria and some people expressed four or five years and some people express seven to 10 years, but there's no hard rule. Vandenburg stated they do have a plan and do have a cash reserve so if they do lose a grant or lose a funding source they have back up and some stability. Vogel noted from a personal standpoint this is the one organization that he has put the most of his own personal money into as he absolutely supports 100% the work they do. That being said he still thinks there's got to be a point where the Commission has to consider what a Legacy Agency is and who's putting the time. Mohammed stated even though this agency has only existed since 2018 they are doing an incredible job, there is a uniqueness of the job and a good volume. He did ask if they accept applications directly or just from referrals from other agencies. Barker replied it is through a referral agency, if someone calls them directly, they refer them to someone who can help them. Typically, Johnson County Social Services is the referring agency and they have widened their eligibility over the last year and anybody who's called them has been able to go to them. They use the referral so that somebody who's working directly with a person can assess the need. An informal vote of adding Houses into Homes to the Legacy Agency group was taken and the vote was 5-1 (Vogel dissenting). Drabek stated the next application is Successful Living. They definitely meet the founding requirements as they were founded in 1998. Dennis noted Successful Living has gotten HOME funds in the past and asked if they incorporate a developer fee into that, because that's really the administrative fee. Roger Goedken (Successful Living) replied they can keep it in their budgets they just chose not to. Dennis noted that would be another way to get money rather than from this pot of money but from the Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 8 of 11 8 HOME funds. Goedken noted the developer fee is a pretty small amount comparatively, generally speaking. They did get $5000 from the Emerging agency funds. Drabek does have any reservations with when the organization was founded, the mission is great, it meets the City priorities, if he had a reservation it would be if this is the appropriate discipline, as the Legacy Agency says specifically, as opposed to other sources of funding. Reedus stated she has no doubt that there's always a need for funds. She believes that PCR should be supporting some of these services, housing for chronic mental illness and therefore doesn’t think that this is the type of service that they want to add to agency legacy status. She would encourage them to allow for their administrative fees to be included in other application processes. Dennis agrees and does not believe that this is the type of service that should become a Legacy Agency, she also thinks the funding should be coming from a PCR. The City has a number of agencies that provide this type of service and she just doesn’t think that's what the legacy money should be used for. Dennis wanted it noted that it’s not that they do not support what Successful Living does, it’s just that there are other pots of money they can apply for. Drabek generally agrees and would say the Legacy Agency status is probably not the best. An informal vote of adding Successful Living to the Legacy Agency group was taken and the vote was 1-5 (Beining, Dennis, Drabek, Mohammed and Reedus dissenting). The final application is for Unlimited Abilities. Dennis noted she feels the same way about this agency as she did about Successful Living. Reedus agrees and has the same feelings, it's a similar organization serving much the same type of population of folks, although it's newer than Successful Living who has much longer history in the City, but again the money for operation costs if needed should be coming from the region. Drabek noted broadly speaking he had reservations regarding source of funds, he had reservations about legacy status for an agency that's five years old although was able to be talked out of that for one application, he noted he would not be a no for an organization solely on the criterion of being founded five years ago, but this with anything else caused him reservation. An informal vote of adding Unlimited Abilities to the Legacy Agency group was taken and the vote was 0- 6. Drabek believes what they need now a motion so that a number of these applications can be sent to the next stages and amend the Consolidated Plan. Vogel asked for clarification of is this recommendation going to be approved immediately with a change to the Consolidated Plan for these agencies to be getting those legacy funds in the next cycle of 2024. Drabek confirmed these were applications for the change of status starting with the 2024. Drabek motioned to recommend inclusion of Center for Worker Justice, Dream City, and Houses into Homes as Legacy Agencies in the consolidated plan, City Steps 2025, through the substantial amendment process. Seconded by Reedus. Passed 5-1 (Vogel dissenting). Drabek stated he would encourage the next commission to look at this again in a year or two to consider writing up something more detailed for the process. Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 9 of 11 9 Vogel questioned the recommendations they just approved and asked if they also need to vote on a recommendation to Council to raise the funding for 2024 to offset the estimated 4% decrease that's going to happen to all the existing agencies. Drabek believes the result of that discussion was that they already did encourage the Commission to make that recommendation when the time is right. There's no consideration of funding for that year anytime soon, they're still working on the FY23 budget. Kubly confirmed the FY23 budget will be approved probably in March and next year would be the 2024 budget. Drabek noted then the Commission should make their recommendation in about a year. Vogel noted however the scenario does exist where the Council takes the recommendation to approve these three new Legacy Agencies, but does not approve an increase in funding, which will result in an estimated 4% decrease in funds to all the existing Legacy Agencies. Drabek stated that is with the assumption that the same number of agencies applied for funding again at the same level. Reedus asked for time at a future meeting to talk about the levels of funding because she does not agree with the minimum of $15,000, she thinks there should be some instances where it should be lower. With some of the smaller legacy organizations, because of that $15,000 base limit, they're getting 20% to 23% of their full budget funding and larger organizations are getting a percentage or two. Reedus believes the Commission should really evaluate that. It is her memory that this happened following the State during that big tax change where the rollback City budget was strained, with staffing and all sorts of things and having a minimum amount of funding going to each agency meant that there weren't 50 agencies or even 20 agencies getting $2,000 each, but rather five agencies getting $15,000. But now, since the Legacy Agencies are the only ones eligible for this funding the number of agencies applying is not expanding nor is the number of agencies that the City has to monitor. One of the major concerns with the City was how much monitoring the staff had to do for these grants. Reedus believes the Commission needs to look at agency’s fund balances, some agencies don't have any, some don't have enough, some do have a strong fund balance, and then some have an excess fund balance. They should look at that because she doesn’t think City funds from Aid to Agencies should be going to an agency that doesn't necessarily need it. The dollars should be put to work in the community, and the kinds of issues that they should be addressing are housing, food, and some of the newer service areas like youth services and things like that. Reedus would like to have the discussion of minimum funding levels on a future agenda. REVIEW TIMELING FOR FY23 CDBG/HOME AND EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING: Thul noted the press release went out for the FY23 funds, the window for the applications will close the 25th and then staff will send the applications out to the Commission for review. Staff will do cover sheets again to give a summary of each submission and then the February meeting will be a Q&A session with the applicants. Thul also noted they pushed the March meeting back to the fourth Thursday of the month, March 24, to not collide with spring break and she’ll send a reminder out closer to the time. 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. Drabek noted that there were no major updates relevant to HCDC business other than Megan Alter being sworn in as Mayor Pro Tem. Drabek also noted there was not a new Commissioner appointed at that meeting so they still have two vacancies, applications are due February 8. Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 10 of 11 10 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: Reedus asked if the bylaws are reviewed on a regular basis. Thul noted they have reviewed them several times but does not believe it’s done on a regular basis or made changes. Drabek remembered they did review the bylaws last year because there was the discussion on whether they might be obligated to use Robert's Rules, but nothing was changed in the bylaws. Reedus noted there's been a lot of discussion at the City about virtual accessibility to meetings and has it been determined if that’s transferable to Commissions also or is it okay to not allow public comments on the virtual level. There may be some technological issues. Thul commented on the technological issues and is going investigate moving locations for that reason but is not sure about the virtual side of things. Reedus stated that at some point she would like to discuss the bylaws as she has one recommendation. Reedus would also like to talk about a community needs assessment and would like to put it on the next agenda to discuss, they could possibly have the Agency Impact Council make a presentation or at least have somebody here to answer some questions. She thinks they need a community needs assessment to help identify service areas and really put money in the kinds of services where there is need. ADJOURNMENT: Dennis moved to adjourn, Drabek seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Housing and Community Development Commission January 20, 2022 Page 11 of 11 11 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2021-2022 •Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18 1/20 Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X X Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X X X O/E X Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X O/E Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X X Vacancy Vacancy Date: February 16, 2022 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood & Development Services Director Re: HCV – Absence from Unit Policy Recently, the Center for Worker Justice submitted a letter to City Council requesting that the City Council amend the ICHA Administrative Plan for Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) to allow households to be absent from their unit for over 30 days. The HCV program pays all or a portion of a tenant’s rent based on their household income. It is the current policy of the Housing Authority (HA) to allow a family to be absent from their unit for up to 30 days. Absence means that no member of the household is residing in the unit. The household must request permission from the HA for absences exceeding 30 days. Absences are approved for items beyond the tenant’s control such as prolonged hospitalization, death in the household or a household member illness. CWJ makes the argument that for some families, especially for immigrants who must travel overseas to see their families, that they must make a choice between retaining their housing or visiting their families. The letter states that many immigrant families go years at a time without seeing their families so when they are able to travel to see their parents, siblings, etc. limiting the visit to 30 days is not feasible and serves as a barrier to family/cultural/community cohesion. Visiting family for over 30 days currently does not meet the Absence from Unit Policy within the ICHA Administrative Plan as it is not due to an unforeseen incident or beyond the tenant’s control. CWJ suggests the policy be modified to extend the current policy from 30 days to 60 days without authorization or that visiting family outside the United States, once a year, be an allowed reason for travel over 30 days. The primary role of the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) is to provide decent, safe, and affordable housing by using federal tax dollars to provide rental assistance to very low-income and extremely low-income families. Our clientele is disabled and/or elderly households, chronically homeless individuals/households with or without a disabling condition and working families. The ICHA sets policy and procedures to maximize the resources provided through taxpayer dollars to assist those in need. The number of vouchers the ICHA has available for disabled and/or elderly households and working families is 1,191. We currently have 27,716 applications on the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list and 1,301 of the 27,716 live or work in our jurisdiction. The current wait for assistance for the 1,301 applicants is well over three years. The federal regulation states the family may be absent from the unit for brief periods; but that in no circumstance may the absence be longer than 180 days and that a Public Housing Authority (PHA) may allow absence for a lesser period in accordance with PHA policy. The request by CWJ is within the federal program requirements; however, there are tradeoffs with granting longer absences. In calendar year 2021, 98 households requested leave for more than 30 days for overseas travel. The average monthly assistance paid by the HA for a household is $556 Based on 98 Agenda Item #4 February 16, 2022 Page 2 households, the HA paid approximately $54,488 for each month where the unit was not occupied by any member of the household. The HA believes the current policy to be fair to all program participants and waiting list applicants as exceptions are granted that are beyond a tenant’s control. If the HA is to amend the policy, staff does not want to have to make value judgements regarding how long is acceptable to visit family based on various situations. Staff would recommend, if a revision is supported, that the policy is amended to allow up to 60 consecutive days of leave within a 12-month period without authorization. The approval process for leave beyond 60 days would be the same as the existing policy; the extended absence must be due to reasons beyond the tenant’s control. HA would request the tenant to report their travel plans 30 days prior to any extended travel to allow the Housing Authority to review the request and properly document the file and inform the tenant about any applicable requirements. The City Council discussed the CWJ letter at their 2/15/2022 work session. They requested HCDC make a recommendation at your Thursday night meeting and forward to City Council before their March 1 Council meeting. Staff will be present at the HCDC meeting on Thursday night for any questions. Enc. 2/9/22 Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa letter to City Council Absence from Unit Policy, ICHA Administrative Plan Agenda Item #4 Excerpt from applicable HUD Regulations 24 CFR 982.312 - Absence from unit a)The family may be absent from the unit for brief periods. For longer absences, the PHA administrative plan establishes the PHA* policy on how long the family may be absent from the assisted unit. However, the family may not be absent from the unit for a period of more than 180 consecutive calendar days in any circumstance, or for any reason. At its discretion, the PHA may allow absence for a lesser period in accordance with PHA policy. b)Housing assistance payments terminate if the family is absent for longer than the maximum period permitted. The term of the HAP contract and assisted lease also terminate. (The owner must reimburse the PHA for any housing assistance payment for the period after the termination. c)Absence means that no member of the family is residing in the unit. d) (1)The family must supply any information or certification requested by the PHA to verify that the family is residing in the unit, or relating to family absence from the unit. The family must cooperate with the PHA for this purpose. The family must promptly notify the PHA of absence from the unit, including any information requested on the purposes of family absences. (2)The PHA may adopt appropriate techniques to verify family occupancy or absence, including letters to the family at the unit, phone calls, visits or questions to the landlord or neighbors. e)The PHA administrative plan must state the PHA policies on family absence from the dwelling unit. The PHA absence policy includes: (1)How the PHA determines whether or when the family may be absent, and for how long. For example, the PHA may establish policies on absences because of vacation, hospitalization or imprisonment; and (2)Any provision for resumption of assistance after an absence, including readmission or resumption of assistance to the family. *PHA = Public Housing Authority. Iowa City Housing Authority is the PHA for our jurisdiction. Excerpt from ICHA Administrative Plan regarding absence from unit: Section 2.3 Obligations of the Participant H. Absence from the Unit The household must supply any information or certification requested by the Iowa City Housing Authority to verify that the household is living in the unit, or relating to household absence from the unit, including ICHA requested information or certification on the purposes of household absences. The household must cooperate with the ICHA for this purpose. The household must promptly notify the Iowa City Housing Authority of any absence from the unit. Agenda Item #4 Absence means that no member of the household is residing in the unit. The household may be absent from the unit for up to 30 days. The household must request permission from the Iowa City Housing Authority for absences exceeding 30 days. An authorized absence may not exceed 180 days. Any household absent for more than 30 days without authorization may be terminated from the program. Authorized absences may include, but are not limited to: 1.Prolonged hospitalization 2.Absences beyond the control of the household (e.g., death in the household, other household member illness) 3.Other absences that are deemed necessary by the Iowa City Housing Authority Organization Type of Project Brief Description of Project Anticipated Beneficiaries by Income Requested Amount Eligibility Iowa City Free Medical Clinic Public Facilities - Improvements Project includes increased access to lower level of FMC to facilitate provision of services on two levels instead of one. Proposal includes installation of doors and overhang, lighting, security camera installation, and increased parking area. 0-30% - 900 31-50% - 250 51-60% - 50 $75,000.00 CDBG Only Domestic Violence Intervention Program Public Facilities - New Construction Project includes construction of a new shelter that will serve victims/survivors of domestic violence. 0-30% - 350 31-50% - 325 51-60% - 20 61-80% - 5 $750,000.00 CDBG Only The Housing Fellowship Rental Acquisition Acquisition of two 3-5 bedroom single family homes. 51-60% AMI - 12 (2 rental units)$320,000.00 HOME & CDBG Inside Out Reentry Community Rental Acquisition Acquisition of a 4-6 bedroom home for individuals leaving incarceration. 0-30% - 4 (4 rental units)$100,000.00 HOME & CDBG $1,245,000 Estimated CDBG Available $500,000.00 Estimated HOME Available $450,000.00 Estimated Total Available $950,000.00 Total Requested FY23 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Agenda Item #5 FY23 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Applicant Agency Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) Eligible Activity Public Facilities – New Construction I. General Info and Project Need City Steps Goal and Priority Serve people experiencing homelessness/reduce homelessness. Staff Concerns Project timelines as it related to CDBG timeliness; Large scale project will have requirements including Davis Bacon and Section 3. II. Budget and Resources Total Estimated Project Cost $6,000,000 Funds Requested $750,000 Funds Leveraged $5,250,000 III. Feasibility and Community Impact Primary Target 50% of estimated beneficiaries below 30% AMI with 96% of total estimated beneficiaries below 50% AMI. Equity Applicant notes serving victims of intimate partner violence, stalking, and human trafficking and does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, race, color, age religion, political beliefs, disability, economic standing, or other beliefs and affiliations. Timeline Project breaks ground in September of 2022 with the new building scheduled for completion in September of 2023. This extends beyond the City fiscal year. Affordability Varies based on CDBG funds awarded. Example: $750,000 = 75- year compliance period. $500,000 = 50-year compliance period. IV. Capacity/History Past Projects Applicant has completed numerous public services activities with CDBG funds. Most recently the applicant also completed a public facilities rehab project in FY20 with $120,000 in CDBG funds. Capacity Applicant has a 10-person board and receives a single audit (no findings noted). Scale of project is larger than prior CDBG project. Questions and Considerations •Applicant has experience successfully undertaking other CDBG projects, however, the scale and scope of this proposal is larger than previous projects. •Timeline does extend beyond the fiscal year which may create timeliness concerns. How will funding expenditures be prioritized? When does the applicant anticipate full expenditure of CDBG funds? •What percentage of those served are Iowa City residents? •Applicant has experienced Davis Bacon requirements before, but new Section 3 rules will likely apply to this project. •Activity is not an eligible use of HOME funds, but would be eligible for HOME-ARP should they wish to apply. Attachment Summary W-9 Form X Evidence of Fiscal Capacity X SAM.gov Registration X Evidence of Organizational Capacity X DUNS or UEI Documentation X Scope of Work (if activity includes construction or rehab work) X Agenda Item #5 Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Other Pro forma (if the project includes rental acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing) NA Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. (II.5) 87.5% - 20 points Primary percentage of median income persons targeted. (III.8) Majority under 30% - 20 points Experience with applicable federal requirements. (IV.14) Yes, adequate experience demonstrated – 20 points CHDO in good standing. (V.21) No, 0 points Staff Risk Assessment Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to recapture of funds in the last five years? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Does the applicant have more than one other federally funded projects currently underway? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant triggered the City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy in the last five years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? ☐Yes (2 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. late reports, incomplete reports, or failing to submit required reports)? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant experienced turnover in key staff in the last 12 months? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Does the applicant have a lack of experience undertaking projects of similar size and scale successfully? ☒Yes (3 pts.) ☐No (0 pts.)3 Applicant has successfully taken other federally funded projects, but the size of this project is substantially larger. Are factors present that indicate a concern for financial capacity such as audit findings? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance for projects during the period of affordability or compliance period in the last five years? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Are other factors present that indicate risk? Is yes, explain. ☐Yes (1-3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Total Points 3 Points – Low Risk Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High FY23 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Applicant Agency Free Medical Clinic Eligible Activity Public Facilities – Improvements I. General Info and Project Need City Steps Goal and Priority Provide public services; Improve public facilities. Staff Concerns Federal procurement – see “Questions and Considerations” section. II. Budget and Resources Total Estimated Project Cost $340,000 total for all phases; $75,000 for phase two. Funds Requested $75,000 Funds Leveraged $265,000 III. Feasibility and Community Impact Primary Target 75% of estimated beneficiaries below 30% AMI with 96% of total estimated beneficiaries below 50% AMI. Equity Applicant serves uninsured individuals who are unable to access healthcare. Applicant provides demographics of those served such as 55% of patients identifying as Hispanic or Latinx. Bilingual staff and translation services are utilized by FMC to allow for better communication. Timeline Project to be completed within the fiscal year. Affordability Varies based on CDBG funds awarded. Example: $75,000 = 7-year compliance period. IV. Capacity/History Past Projects Applicant has completed federal activities in the past. Applicant notes the most recent CDBG project was completed in 2012. Capacity Governed by a board of directors, information provided on key staff. Applicant has successfully undertaken previous CDBG projects. Questions and Considerations •Applicant has experience successfully undertaking other CDBG projects, however the last project was around 2012. •Can the applicant confirm the total budget for all three project phases? “Sources” in the budget reflects total project, while “Uses” indicates phase two only. •The applicant mentions Hodge Construction – has the contractor already been procured? Federal procurement rules apply. •Davis Bacon will apply to this project. •What percentage of clients served are Iowa City residents? •Can the applicant provide documentation of private funds available for the project? Attachment Summary W-9 Form X Evidence of Fiscal Capacity X SAM.gov Registration X Evidence of Organizational Capacity X DUNS or UEI Documentation X Scope of Work (if activity includes construction or rehab work) X Other (letter of support & news article) X Pro forma (if the project includes rental acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing) NA Agenda Item #5 Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. (II.5) 77% - 20 points Primary percentage of median income persons targeted. (III.8) Majority under 30% - 20 points Experience with applicable federal requirements. (IV.14) Yes, adequate experience demonstrated – 20 points CHDO in good standing. (V.21) No, 0 points Staff Risk Assessment Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to recapture of funds in the last five years? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Does the applicant have more than one other federally funded projects currently underway? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant triggered the City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy in the last five years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? ☐Yes (2 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. late reports, incomplete reports, or failing to submit required reports)? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant experienced turnover in key staff in the last 12 months? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Does the applicant have a lack of experience undertaking projects of similar size and scale successfully? ☒Yes (3 pts.) ☐No (0 pts.)3 Applicant has successfully undertaken other federally funded projects, but the size of this project is larger than previous project. Are factors present that indicate a concern for financial capacity such as audit findings? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance for projects during the period of affordability or compliance period in the last five years? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Are other factors present that indicate risk? Is yes, explain. ☐Yes (1-3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Total Points 3 Points – Low Risk FY23 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Applicant Agency Inside Out Reentry Eligible Activity Rental Acquisition I. General Info and Project Need City Steps Goal and Priority Increase affordable rental housing units. Staff Concerns Applicant would be a first time subrecipient – fully funded project would require 10 years of compliance. II. Budget and Resources Total Estimated Project Cost $360,000 Funds Requested $100,000 Funds Leveraged $165,971.51 (applicant notes this will vary based on purchase price –may require an additional mortgage from a lender which is estimated on pro forma at $750 a month) III. Feasibility and Community Impact Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries below 30% AMI. Equity Target population includes adults returning to Johnson County after incarceration and prospective residents may include people experiencing homelessness and/or people with disabilities. Applicant notes that the criminal justice system disproportionately incarcerates African Americans. Timeline Project to be completed within the fiscal year. Affordability Varies based on amount and source of funds awarded. Example: $100,000 HOME for 4 units = $25,000 per unit assistance with an affordability period of 10 years. IV. Capacity/History Past Projects Applicant has not completed other federally funded projects through the City in the past. Capacity Governed by a board, information provided on key staff and those on the housing committee. Questions and Considerations •Applicant mentions hiring an additional staff person as a housing case manager. Does the applicant have funds in place for this position? Fully funded project would require 10 years of reporting and compliance with federal regulations. •Budget mentions rehabilitation work – if rehab is a part of the activity then additional regulations such as procurement will apply. •Units must be leased within six months of acquisition – if rehab is a factor, will the applicant be able to meet this deadline given current construction challenges such as supply chain issues? •Rent is anticipated to be $500 a month which is below the current SRO limit of $551. Does the applicant plan to charge tenants for utilities? •Does the applicant have a location or region of the City in mind for acquisition? Attachment Summary W-9 Form X Evidence of Fiscal Capacity X SAM.gov Registration X Evidence of Organizational Capacity X DUNS or UEI Documentation X Scope of Work (if activity includes construction or rehab work) Agenda Item #5 Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Other (letter of support) X Pro forma (if the project includes rental acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing) X Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. (II.5) 46% - 10 points Primary percentage of median income persons targeted. (III.8) Majority under 30% - 20 points Experience with applicable federal requirements. (IV.14) First CDBG/HOME project – 0 points CHDO in good standing. (V.21) NA, 0 points Staff Risk Assessment Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to recapture of funds in the last five years? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Does the applicant have more than one other federally funded projects currently underway? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant triggered the City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy in the last five years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? ☐Yes (2 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. late reports, incomplete reports, or failing to submit required reports)? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant experienced turnover in key staff in the last 12 months? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Does the applicant have a lack of experience undertaking projects of similar size and scale successfully? ☒Yes (3 pts.) ☐No (0 pts.)3 Applicant has not undertaken a project of similar size and scale successfully. Are factors present that indicate a concern for financial capacity such as audit findings? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance for projects during the period of affordability or compliance period in the last five years? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Are other factors present that indicate risk? Is yes, explain. ☒Yes (1-3 pts.) ☐No (0 pts.)2 If funded, project would be the first CDBG/HOME activity for the applicant. Total Points 5 Points – Moderate Risk Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High FY23 CDBG/HOME Application Summary Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Applicant Agency The Housing Fellowship Eligible Activity Rental Acquisition I. General Info and Project Need City Steps Goal and Priority Increase affordable rental housing units. Staff Concerns Applicant has several projects currently underway. II. Budget and Resources Total Estimated Project Cost $440,000 Funds Requested $320,000 Funds Leveraged $120,000 III. Feasibility and Community Impact Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries between 51-60% AMI. Equity Target population for units includes larger families. Applicant notes that 65% of tenants served identify as persons of color. Timeline Project to be completed within the fiscal year. Affordability Varies based on amount and source of funds awarded. Example: $320,000 HOME for 2 units = $160,000 per unit assistance with an affordability period of 15 years. IV. Capacity/History Past Projects Applicant has completed numerous federally funded projects. Capacity Overseen by a 12-member board, information provided on key staff, and agency is a certified CHDO. Questions and Considerations •Applicant has experience successfully undertaking other CDBG projects, however, applicant has several other projects currently underway. •HOME purchase price limits apply – currently $247,000 for each unit. •$950 per unit is well below the current rent limits for 3-5 bedroom homes. Attachment Summary W-9 Form X Evidence of Fiscal Capacity X SAM.gov Registration X Evidence of Organizational Capacity X DUNS or UEI Documentation X Scope of Work (if activity includes construction or rehab work) NA Other (CHDO Certification) X Pro forma (if the project includes rental acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing) X Staff Calculations Percentage of funds leveraged. (II.5) 27% - 10 points Primary percentage of median income persons targeted. (III.8) Between 51-60% - 10 points Experience with applicable federal requirements. (IV.14) Yes, 20 points CHDO in good standing. (V.21) Yes, 5 points Agenda Item #5 Application summaries are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission. Staff Risk Assessment Key Points Risk Level 0-3 Low 4-10 Moderate >10 High Staff Risk Assessment Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments Has the applicant been subject to recapture of funds in the last five years? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Does the applicant have more than one other federally funded projects currently underway? ☒Yes (1 pts.) ☐No (0 pts.)1 Has the applicant triggered the City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy in the last five years (for reasons beyond factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic)? ☐Yes (2 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 In the last five years, had the applicant demonstrated reporting issues for other City projects (e.g. late reports, incomplete reports, or failing to submit required reports)? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant experienced turnover in key staff in the last 12 months? ☐Yes (1 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Does the applicant have a lack of experience undertaking projects of similar size and scale successfully? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Are factors present that indicate a concern for financial capacity such as audit findings? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Has the applicant demonstrated issues with long term compliance for projects during the period of affordability or compliance period in the last five years? ☐Yes (3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Are other factors present that indicate risk? Is yes, explain. ☐Yes (1-3 pts.) ☒No (0 pts.)0 Total Points 1 Point – Low Risk FY23 CDBG/HOME Scoring Criteria I.General Information and Project Need Points Score Reference 1 Project description is clear and explains how the project will address a specific goal from City Steps 2025 Goal: Y/N Q2; Q3 2 Are there staff concerns that affect the agency's ability to successfully undertake the proposed project? Comment: Y/N Submission; Staff Experience II.Budget and Resources Points Score Application Reference 3 Has the applicant provided an itemized project budget detailed enough to determine that the proposed expenditures have been researched, documented and are deemed reasonable? a. Based on Sources and Uses of Funds, budget appears accurate, comprehensive, and detailed. Costs are clearly documented and appear reasonable and justified. 20 b. Based on Sources and Uses of Funds, budget appears reasonable, but not clear, comprehensive, or detailed. The budget is substantively mathematically correct (i.e. minor errors noted), and/or does not appear complete. 10 c. Based on Sources and Uses of Funds, budget appears questionable and/or unreasonable. The budget is substantively mathematically incorrect. 0 4 Did the agency submit letters or other evidence of financial commitment for sources listed in the project budget? a. Letters or other evidence of financial commitment provided for all applicable sources listed in the project budget. 20 b. Letters or other evidence of financial commitment provided for some of the sources listed in the project budget. 10 c. Other sources of financing not committed or no documentation submitted.0 5 What percentage of funds has the agency leveraged for the project? Leverage is determined by total request for City CDBG/HOME funds divided by total project cost. a. 76-99 percent 20 b. 51-75 percent 15 c. 26-50 percent 10 d. 25 percent or less 5 6 Does the project leverage community partnerships and/or volunteer resources? a. The project proposal demonstrates numerous community partnerships and/or volunteer resources.20 b. The project proposal demonstrates some community partnerships and/or volunteer resources. 10 c. Proposal does not demonstrate community partnerships and/or volunteer resources.0 7 Has the agency demonstrated that they have the resources and fiscal capacity to successfully complete the proposed project? a. The agency has clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and fiscal capacity to successfully complete the proposed project. 20 b. The agency has somewhat demonstrated that they have the resources and fiscal capacity to successfully complete the proposed project. 10 c. The agency does not have the resources or fiscal capacity to complete the proposed project or it is unclear based on the proposal. 0 0 Q5; Q6 Q5; application attachments Q5 Q5 Q5; Q6; Application Attachments Total Section II Points Agenda Item #5 III.Feasibility and Community Impact Points Score Application Reference 8 What primary percent of median income persons are targeted? a. 0-30 percent 20 b. 31-50 percent 15 c. 51-60 percent 10 d. 61-80%5 9 Will the project assist any special populations (Example: people experiencing homelessness or people with disabilities)? a. The proposal clearly demonstrates that the project assists one or more special populations.20 b. The proposal somewhat demonstrates that the project assists one or more special populations. 10 c. The project does not assist a special population or it is unclear if a special population is assisted. 0 10 Does the project meet community demand for housing type? a. Yes the project meets the current community demand for housing type.20 b. The project does not meet current demand for housing type.0 c. Not applicable, proposal does not include a housing activity (Example: public facility improvements). 20 11 Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be completed within the required time period? CDBG projects must be completed within the City fiscal year which runs from July to June. a. The project timeline is realistic and the project will proceed when grant funds are available.20 b. The project timeline is somewhat realistic and will proceed within a reasonable time period.10 c. The project timeline is unclear or the project is not ready to proceed.0 12 Will the project promote long-term, efficient use of funding (covering the compliance period at a minimum)? a. The proposal clearly demonstrates the long-term, efficient use of funding which meets or exceeds the required compliance period. 20 b. The proposal somewhat demonstrates long-term, efficient use of funding that covers the required compliance period. 10 c. The proposal does not demonstrate long-term, efficient use of funding and/or does not cover the required compliance period. 0 0 IV Capacity and Applicant History Points Score Application Reference 13 Has the agency successfully completed federally funded projects through the City of Iowa City of equal or larger scale in the last five years without compliance issues?Points a. Yes, the agency has completed federally funded projects through the City of equal or larger scale in the last five years without compliance issues.20 b. The agency has completed federally funded projects through the City of a smaller scale in the last five years without compliance issues.5 c. The agency has completed federally funded projects through the City of equal or larger scale resulting in compliance issues in the last 5 years.0 d. The agency has not completed a federally funded project through the City of any scale.0 14 Has the agency demonstrated experience with relevant project specific federal requirements that may apply to the proposed project such as TBRA, Davis Bacon or Section 3? a. Yes, adequate experience demonstrated.20 b. Not applicable, project is not anticipated to have project specific federal rules such as Davis Bacon or Section 3 apply. 10 c. No experience or inadequate demonstration of experience with specific federal requirements that may apply to the project. 0 15 Has the agency adequately described their business/operations plan approach and explained the relevant factors to help verify demand for the proposed project? a. Yes, the agency has clearly described their business/operations plan approach and explained the relevant factors to help verify demand for the proposed project. 20 b. The agency has somewhat described their business/operations plan approach and explained the relevant factors to help verify demand for the proposed project. 10 c. The agency has not described their business/operations plan approach and/or explained the relevant factors to help verify demand for the proposed project or it is unclear based on the proposal. 0 16 Does the agency have sufficient staff resources, technical expertise, and experience to carry out the project based on the information provided? Score between 0 to 20 with 20 being the highest level of sufficiency, expertise, and experience. 0-20 Q7 Q7; Q21 Q8; Q9; Q12 Q10 Q11; Pro Forma (if applicable) Total Section III Points Q14; Q18 Q14; Q16; Q18 Q17 Q15; Q16; Application Attachments 17 Does the project promote racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations? a. The proposal clearly documents that the project will promote racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. 20 b. The project somewhat promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations.10 c. The project does not promote racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations or it is unclear based on the proposal. 0 18 Does the project incorporate sustainability initiatives (Example: Energy Star appliances or solar)? a. The project proposal strongly incorporates sustainability initiatives where possible that support the City's climate related goals and actions outlined in the Climate Action Plan. 20 b. The project proposal somewhat incorporates sustainability initiatives that support the City's climate related goals and actions outlined in the Climate Action Plan. 10 c. The project proposal does not include sustainability initiatives or it is unclear based on the proposal. 0 0 V Bonus Points Points Score Reference 19 Letter/s of support for the project submitted from community organizations. 5 Application Attachments 20 Is the public facilities project documented in City Steps 2025?5 City Steps 2025 21 Is the agency a certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) in good standing?5 Q3; Staff Information 0 Summary 0 0.00%Percentage of Maximum Score (320 Possible Points) Project Total Score Q21 Q20 Total Section IV Points Total Bonus Points 1.Yes, the Free Clinic’s last CDBG project was in 2012. While this is a three phased larger project, to take place over the next several years, we will be working with a contractor and I am confident that it can be completed successfully. In addition, one of the Clinic’s Board members is the former Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and brings valued experience and expertise to this project. 2.I have attached a copy of the estimated budgeted costs for Phase One; most of the labor and supplies are being donated. I do not have a written estimate for Phase Three at this time. 3.I believe that I misunderstood the Federal Procurement rule. I applied for this phase as a project on its own (please see below “additional comments”); because the request was for $75,000, I did not think I needed more than one bid. I contacted Hodge Construction, as the Clinic has successfully worked with them in the past. I have not signed a contract with Hodge Construction, and I can and will ask for at least two additional bids as required. I now understand that the project falls under small purchase procedures. 4.We will comply with Davis Bacon rules. 5.Consistently, between 55 and 60% of Clinic patients are Iowa City residents (e.g., in FY21, 703 of 1,222 patient were IC residents) 6.Last year, we did a fundraiser to kick-off our lower-level project. We set a goal of $50,000 in honor or our 50th year of operation. We met this goal, thanks to contributions from 112 donors. These funds will be utilized specifically for the lower-level project. We will be applying for ARPA funding for the third phase, from both the City of Iowa City and Johnson County. Additional Comments: We are looking at this as a three phased project which will take over three years. Each phase is independent of the other; at the same time, each phase will build on the previous one and will progressively increase accessible space for patient care on the lower level. I requested funding consideration of $75,000 for this specific project (phase two) – which on its own will increase patient access to care – rather than considering it as a required piece of a $340,000 project. However, I did not consistently make this clear in the application, for which I apologize. •Phase one will provide the means for us to have all our supplies in one area; currently, clinic supplies are stored in four rooms on the lower level. Completion of this phase will immediately open up more space for services (patient consultations, patient education, physical therapy) – for patients who are able to use the stairs. •Phase two will provide patient parking and a wide, safe new entryway on the east side of the lower level; this will provide the means for patients who cannot use the stairs to receive patient services. •Phase three will allow staff and volunteers to provide more services, as sinks, lighting and doors will be installed, and improvements will be made in air circulation and to the bathroom. Agenda Item #5 711 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Div. Code Scope Contractor Budget 06 0000 Woods, Plastics, & Composites 06 062000 Finish Carpentry Heartland 220$ 08 0000 Openings 08 081000 Doors & Frames Advanced 419$ 09 0000 Finishes 09 099100 Painting Reed -$ 23 0000 HVAC 23 230000 HVAC Kelly 100$ 26 0000 Electrical 26 265113 Interior Lighting Price 825$ 1,564$ Notes Hodge will donate our portion of the work for Phase 1 of the project. Reed Painting is donating their portion of the work for Phase 1 of the project. FMC to remove all boxes and other items stored in the garage before the work starts. Door material and carpentry labor is a rough estimate. Costs for this could come in higher or lower. FMC to pay subcontractors directly, in lieu of payment going through Hodge. Final cleaning will be "team effort" mentality between Hodge & FMC. Shelving is not included in this proposal. Current concrete floor has spawling which will remain and just be painted over. FMC - Phase 1 Pricing - 11.24.21 Construction Subtotal: Agenda Item #5 Organization Brief Description of Project Requested Amount Houses into Homes*Support for part time staff to organize pick-up of furniture donations. $8,625.00 National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Johnson County Outreach to Latinx and African American communities in Iowa City. $10,000.00 Healthy Kids School-Based Health Clinics Free medical services to children without access to affordable health case (no insurance, ineligible for insurance, or underinsured). $15,000.00 $33,625 $30,000 FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies Application Summary Total Requested Note Estimated Available 1)*HCDC recommended inclusion of Houses into Homes as a Legacy Agency in the consolidated plan, City Steps 2025, through the substantial amendment process. Passed 5-1. 2)Any unallocated EA2A funds will go back into the pot of funds available for distribution to Legacy Agencies. Agenda Item #6 (DEFERRED) Date: February 14, 2022 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Re: Subrecipient Noncompliance Introduction: Neighborhood Services staff routinely completes project monitoring with CDBG and HOME subrecipients. The purpose of monitoring is to determine if the subrecipient has implemented and administered the federally funded activities according to the applicable requirements. Monitoring may occur while the project is underway, at project close-out, and/or annually thereafter for housing units that are within their affordability period. Monitoring for housing activities includes a review of tenant income verifications and rents, as well as agency financial management and internal controls in accordance with CDBG and HOME requirements. This memo is to inform commissioners of ongoing subrecipient compliance issues that staff is currently working through. Ongoing Compliance Issues: Next Level Real Estate (formerly ISIS Investments): In 2009, the City granted ISIS Investments, LLC a HOME loan of $150,000 to purchase three single-family homes for affordable housing. ISIS Investments was a for-profit corporation owned by a University of Iowa professor who desired to expand affordable housing opportunities in the community. A few years after the homes were purchased, the owner relocated out of state and eventually decided to sell the properties. This is allowed within the HOME compliance period with City approval provided that the new owner takes over compliance of the units for the remainder of the affordability period. In 2019, ISIS Investments found a buyer for the properties - Next Level Real Estate, a local real estate development company. The City agreed to the sale and the rights and obligations in the HOME Agreement were legally assigned from ISIS Investments to Next Level Real Estate. Unfortunately, Next Level has failed to comply with HOME grant requirements. In particular, they have not been able to document tenant income eligibility. City staff has been working with the subrecipient since January 2020 to bring the units into compliance. Income verifications were delegated to a property management company (Nest Property Management) which has not been able to retain staff for longer than a few months at a time. New staff are not receiving proper training through the company which has resulted in countless City staff hours spent providing training and technical assistance to various employees assigned to complying with the HOME requirements. The owners of Next Level, who are ultimately responsible for HOME compliance, have not been responsive and did not show up to meetings scheduled to discuss our concerns. In 2021, the City Attorney’s Office sent a letter to Next Level outlining what needed to be done in order to comply with the HOME agreement, noting that failure to bring the project into compliance would result in the City terminating the agreement. Next Level did not comply, which means that the HOME Agreement will be terminated, and the $150,000 loan is due and payable. Repaid funds for project noncompliance go directly to HUD and cannot be repurposed for another project in Iowa City. If funds are not collected from the subrecipient, the City must repay using non-federal funds. Agenda Item #8 February 14, 2022 Page 2 Unlimited Abilities: In FY21 Unlimited Abilities was awarded $60,000 in HOME funds for acquisition of a single-family home with five bedrooms for affordable rental housing for persons with disabilities. A home at 2710 Wayne Avenue was purchased in March of 2021. During project close-out monitoring, two findings (i.e. program elements that do not comply with a federal statute or regulation) were identified regarding financial management and internal controls. 1.The subrecipient has not provided sufficient evidence of a financial management system that meets the federal requirements under 2 CFR 200.302.(b)(1)-(7). Journal entries submitted do not accurately reflect information from the closing of the HOME funded property. Staff has reached out to the agency’s accountant with no response. It was further noted in the Legacy Agency application that income statements and balance sheets were unavailable due to being “off balance” by a local accounting firm. 2. The subrecipient has not been able to provide evidence of effective internal controls and separation of duties. Based on what has been provided and communicated to staff, there are inconsistencies between the submitted policies and apparent practices. It is unclear who is responsible for the daily financial management duties and whether a separation of duties exists. The most recently submitted list of Board members shows that there is a four-person Board of Directors, with one of the members also being a paid staff member at Unlimited Abilities. Staff has made multiple attempts to obtain the requested information and clarifications. A letter was mailed to Unlimited Abilities to state they have not corrected the findings and the City will proceed with the default unless they work with the City to discuss possible solutions which may include hiring an outside, licensed accountant to correct the deficiencies and set up an acceptable accounting system. If we are unable to find an acceptable solution, the City will terminate the agreement and require full repayment of the HOME funds invested in the project. As with Next Level Real Estate, these funds are returned to HUD and cannot be repurposed for another project in Iowa City. If funds are not collected from the subrecipient, the City must repay using non-federal funds. Conclusion The purpose of this memo is to provide an update on subrecipient noncompliance, but it also underscores the importance of your careful consideration as a member of HCDC during the upcoming process for FY23 CDBG and HOME funds. As previously stated, funds repaid for noncompliance go directly to HUD, which is a loss for the Iowa City community. If funds are not recovered from the subrecipient for repayment, project noncompliance also affects the City budget as funds must be repaid to HUD regardless. Staff will continue to present concerns and recommendations to help HCDC make informed decisions.