Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 2024 HCDC PacketIf you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at bthul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) May 16, 2024 Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM Iowa City Senior Center Assembly Room 28 S Linn Street AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 18, 2024 3. Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda Commentators shall address the commission for no more than five minutes. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items. 4. Consider a Recommendation to Amend the HCDC By-laws The commission will discuss and consider a recommendation to Council to amend the by- laws. The amendment includes reducing the size of the commission from nine to seven members and would also change the number of members required to form a quorum from five to four. If approved, the amendment will be reviewed by the City Council Rules Committee. 5. Consider Changing the Regular Meeting Date and Location of the Housing and Community Development Commission The commission will discuss and consider changing the date and location of HCDC meetings which does not require an amendment to the by-laws. Based on commission feedback, staff propose shifting the regular meetings of the commission to Emma Harvat Hall (located within City Hall) on the fourth Wednesday of each month at 6:30pm. If approved, the next regular meeting of the commission would be July 24 th, 2024. 6. Discuss Process for FY25 Annual Action Plan The commission typically reviews the Annual Action Plan for the upcoming fiscal year each April. Due to delays in the federal budgeting process, grant allocations were not announced until May 7th, 2024 and the deadline to submit the plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has been extended. Staff are requesting that the commission hold a special meeting in June to review the plan. If for some reason the commission is unable to meet in June, commissioners may still submit comments on the draft document to staff during the public comment period. 7. Staff & Commission Updates This item includes an opportunity for brief updates from staff and commissioners. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion on updates. 8. Adjournment Housing and Community Development Commission Meeting Packet Contents May 16, 2024 Agenda Item #2 April 18, 2024 Draft HCDC Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #4 May 9, 2024 Memo – Staggering Terms if HCDC is Decreased from 9 to 7 Members Draft Amendment to HCDC By-laws Agenda Item #6 May 9, 2024 Memo – Process for FY25 Annual Action Plan MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2024 – 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, James Pierce, Becci Reedus, Denise Szecsei, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Horacio Borgen, Karol Krotz, Kiran Patel STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul, Sam Turnbull OTHERS PRESENT: Genevieve Anglin (UAY), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House), Emily Meister (United Way), Nicki Ross (Table to Table), Thuy Nguyen (KW Legacy Group) CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Beining called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 21, 2024: Dennis moved to approve the minutes of March 21, 2024. Vogel seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the minutes were approved 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. FINAL PRESENTATION FROM AID TO AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE: Reedus stated this is a crucial step in ensuring that they continue to support the community effectively. She started out by introducing Nicki Ross, from Table to Table, who was one of the committee members and Genevieve Anglin, from UAY, is here also. Jenny Schmidt, from the Free Medical Clinic, was really active on the subcommittee but was not able to be here, Fred Newell, from Dream City, was at some meetings and they also had participation from United Way. Moving on to the presentation Ross began with an overview of what the process looked like and who was involved in that process. They had five committee members, the committee included commissioners and agency representatives, Iowa City staff and United Way leadership attended most meetings. She stated that probably the most impactful development of the process was that United Way is fully on board with updating the application and are embarking on their own process to identify needs of their applications and move to a two-year cycle. They held nine formal subcommittee meetings, 12 outside work sessions, had a nonprofit focus group and did a detailed review of the application and the associated rubric. They intended for this to be an iterative process and if approved they can test these changes in the next application but would expect they might need to come back and make additional adjustments based on feedback. AGENDA ITEM #2 Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 2 of 12 2 Reedus stated the established goals that they had were to provide clarity in the eligibility and application process, establish basic funding qualifications and requirements, create an application process which collects all the information that can be scored equitably, create a plan to educate the Commission and community on the needs, services and impact, engage the Commission in communicating collective impact and determine whether the Commission at HCDC continues to be the right venue for application review and funds allocation. Again, goal number one was the eligibility, naming, and funding clarification. It was just seen last month how there was some confusion over how agencies might be qualified so it's important to get that clarification of financial documentation and the funding levels. There is a proposal to rename the two groups of funding with the Legacy Aid to Agencies fund becoming Core City Steps Services Funding and the Emerging Agency funds would become the Iowa City Auxiliary Human Services funding. The committee thinks it is important to take away the Emerging name. The Legacy title may be more work for the Commission down the road, and they may decide that's a next step to talk about with eligibility and the process of how other organizations can apply but that's more of Commission recommendation. Next, they discussed aligning the funding guidance with a rubric score and will show the changes they're recommending. Again, it came up during last month's meeting, a score needs to mean something. If someone gets a high score what does that mean in terms of funding? The Committee took last year's Legacy Agency scores and looked at it. The agencies that scored in the area of 91 to 100 would get a larger increase. That could be something that the committee could determine. Reedus noted that the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) may be the best way to describe it similar to each year when City Council increases the funding, they do it around 3% which is basically a COLA increase. If they are able to work out a larger increase, they might be able to afford a 5% increase for agencies that score in that 91 to 100 range. Those that score in the second range would get that standard COLA increase, the third level 71 to 80 would mean that they wouldn't get any increase but they wouldn't be subject to a decrease because of their score either. The fourth range 61 to 70 would mean a decrease for their organization and the fifth range would be that they would receive base minimum funding of $15,000 and anything below that scoring level means that they would receive nothing. Vogel asked how they see a situation where somebody's already at base funding. If they fall in that low score range again, would they put them at no funding? If they're already at a base funding, would they go down into that next level where they just don't get any funding at all, or would they stay at the base? Reedus replied that she thinks that's a question for the Commission to answer when they talk about whether or not they want to change that base funding. The proposal to tie the scoring to the funding is not a recommendation to be put in place right now - she is just recommending that they take a look at how they're going to apply the scoring. Reedus noted that's not unusual in government granting systems or in a competitive grant process that if they’ve got one grantor and there's three applicants, it's usually the highest scorer that is going to be awarded the contract. For those who were here last month when the Commission grappled with some of the funding recommendations for Emerging funds and even the CDBG funds, one of the concerns she had was that they need to be consistent. They can't award a higher percentage of funding awards to a lower scoring applicant because otherwise why even score the applications? The scoring should provide some guidance in terms of the funding. Vogel noted that if they have multiple organizations that fall in the higher range, they can’t increase everybody. A 3% increase looks very different for a large organization compared to a small one. He stated if they happen to have an extra $10,000, that may not make any difference for a large agency but it could make a huge difference for someone else. He concerned about getting locked into what is being proposed. Reedus commented that document that they provided is a first iteration recommendation to be tested. It’s not final and the Commission's next step is to reevaluate. Vogel is concerned about them putting the Commission in a position where they create any kind of rule. Guidance is one thing, rules are another and he just wanted to confirm that this is more of a guidance. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 3 of 12 3 Reedus shared a slide showing how this proposal would have affected the last round of Legacy Agency funding. It shows the five agencies that fell into the top and the recommended funding increase. Also, depending on the amount of money that they have and the number of agencies at the top, it could be a 5% increase or it may be just a 1% increase. It would have to coincide with the City annual increase. But if the City gave 3% more funding for the total Aid to Agencies pot, then they would give the high scoring agencies 3% increases. Regarding those that fell into the zero-increase range, Reedus stated everyone else would get primarily the same allocation that they got the year before. There was nobody that fell into the decrease range or had that low of a score. Anglin stated another scenario that comes from the committee was to emphasize the importance of the flexible nature of the funding and how important general operating funds are for nonprofits. Writer and nonprofit advocate Vu Le, writes a nonprofit blog called Nonprofit AF and he talks a lot about multiyear general operating dollars and how important they are to nonprofits. In the current way that many of these questions are written they, whether explicitly or inadvertently, restrict funding even if the intent is flexible operational funding. Anglin stated as the committee went through the rubric, they noticed several instances of subtle wording changes and questions that help provide less restrictive guidelines for grantees. So instead of saying, for example, “tell us what you are going to use these funds for” the question would be something more like “tell us about what you do and how these funds are important to that”. It sounds like a subtle difference but when they’re talking to an auditor, that's an enormous difference. Instead of being restricted, it becomes unrestricted dollars. There's also a tendency among funders, not here necessarily, but in the wide world, to give preference to programmatic funds over general operation funds and one of the further goals of these recommendations is education for Commission members on issues like the importance of these funds. Anglin noted the fourth goal, which became the first thing that they looked at because they actually have to answer it before they can answer anything else, was that the most efficient way to continue this application process. The grantees like having one place to go, it’s very helpful. It was determined that it would be best if they could just get everybody aligned on times and dates and things. The next goal was related to who scores the applications – one idea was to have a smaller group of HCDC score instead of the whole commission. However, when Reedus brought this to the Commission, the feedback was that the Commission would prefer a similar process to what is happening now with the whole Commission reviewing applications rather than relying on a few members of HCDC. The question then became how they can make this process easier and more efficient, not only for grantees, but for Commissioners and City staff. Ross stated goal two is to create an application process which collects information that can be scored equitably. The committee undertook a detailed review of all the application questions, the forms, the associated rubric and scoring guidelines, and it quickly became clear that making changes would be complicated. Many of the challenges they identified were symptoms of what they call “frankensteining” the application. Because it's for joint funders and to cover all the funders needs, there's many changes that have been made over the years that have affected how the rubric is applied. It also forces the City to align their goals with the existing question content. Defining a process to even make these recommendations was challenging and an “aha moment.” It gave them a new appreciation for what the staff does during each cycle and why some Commissioners may have been challenged to review and score the applications. Ross reviewed some of the challenges that they identified. First, multi-question rubric scoring. The current rubric requires reviewers to reference multiple questions to do their assessment. For example, there might be a section where they had to read information from form B, form C, and see question 11 and question 12 for all applicants. There are 20 some applicants - that is just a lot and is a problem. The next thing was rubric alignment with the actual content. Some items on the rubric referred to information not even included in the application, which was requiring reviewers to have an understanding Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 4 of 12 4 of past funding and performance history that may not be accessible. Some application questions don't align with what's being scored or require too much subjectivity in the scoring assignment. In some cases, none of the questions allowed the applicant to speak to the conditions being scored. Dennis asked since this is a joint application, the United Way application, how is the committee going to convince the United Way to have an application that fits what they want? Ross acknowledged that is a very pertinent question because one of the barriers in the past has been that it was difficult to make changes or to get buy-in from other funders. Ross stated she is happy to say that this committee has accomplished that after years and the new team at United Way is being super open to this idea and understanding what needs to happen. Reedus acknowledged there may be some differences on everybody's applications, Iowa City, Coralville, Johnson County, but the City staff have the ability when they pull information to only pull Iowa City specific information. The Commission won't be reading a question that was meant for United Way or another municipality. Ross next wanted to share a high-level summary of the application and scoring recommendations. The rubric scoring now references fewer questions and forms for each category, making it easier for applicants to provide clear and applicable content, and it’s easier for reviewers to score content provided in fewer places. Six of the ten scoring sections now use calculations. These are things that the staff often are doing already, but now the only thing the staff has to do is summarize. Finally, the committee is recommending some scoring adjustments on content. If they reduce the narrative content to four questions, they have recommendations around scoring. If there's a question that references how the projects or organizations meet City Steps guidelines for Iowa City, that should be scored pretty highly as it's the primary focus of the funding. Szecsei noted they mentioned fewer narrative questions and asked about an invitation for storytelling. She liked the idea of actually connecting with the goals of the projects and seeing who's affected in more of a storytelling and compelling way. Ross replied she feels they will find that in the outcomes and measurement changes. Reedus next discussed the community needs and services. One thing they talked about a lot is the United Way System, which has a profile page for each organization and that profile page can be utilized for things that don't change much or things that change on an annual basis that can be done outside of the application process. Some histories and description of services can be updated by agencies on an annual basis, but not at time of the application. Reedus noted these applications are a beast to write and takes multiple days and some are spending weeks on it. Next, they removed the community need question from the scoring, the needs are already established by the City Steps so they recommended changing the services question to tell how their services to Iowa City are City Steps priorities and are represented in their operation. If the agency serves a regional area, then they are asked what percent of the overall clients are Iowa City residents. That is important because there are agencies that provide services to not just Iowa City specific or not even just Johnson County so the Commission needs to know how to allocate funds that will benefit Iowa City residents. Agencies will need to look at the City Steps document and describe how the priorities of City Steps, whether it's housing or food related, are represented in their operation and programs. Dennis asked if an applicant provides a percentage of clientele in Iowa City, will they get that percentage of their total operating budget as funding? Reedus stated whether it is based on their total operating budget or is program specific, this Commission wants to make sure that the Iowa City funding reaches Iowa City residents. She acknowledged that's not always black and white but hopefully staff can help with some of that through service statistics and what kind of residents or services they're funding that are Iowa City related. Reedus noted the whole point of the process is for agencies to get clear guidance from this Commission and City Council. This subcommittee has made some recommendations, staff can take the recommendations as guidance but then be able to give a scoring recommendation to a specific component of the application. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 5 of 12 5 Ross stated next in the demographics section, one of the major barriers that they found in feedback from partners in filling this out is there isn't an opportunity for organizations to provide “not provided by participant”, which means that there's a number there, but they didn't identify themselves in the ways that the demographic form does. That would also enable everyone to see a better picture because if they have to put a number in here, and half of them are unidentified, it looks like a smaller number of services. Therefore, the committee’s recommendation is that each section will allow for that and then that would put enough information on the demographics form to score the two questions, the racial equity question and the performance measures question. Ross reiterated they reduced narrative content because they feel like a calculation gives an answer to some of those other questions. She shared an example from the form providing information to score benefits to low-income persons, how many are in each area of AMI. Also to score racial equity inclusivity in terms of service numbers and persons to benefit, how many people do you they service and what are the costs of their services? Then it is all right there in calculations, and they don't need to do that separately. Ross stated regarding Szecsei’s question about more storytelling and hearing more from the partner or organizations about the work that they're doing and what impact it has, the former question really just made it difficult to fully get at that so the committee is recommending to allow for agency lead outcomes and indicator identification. Right now it's a picklist, which had some flexibility to talk about what it could be, but it was set by United Way. So if part of the process is for the agency to say how they measure the services they're providing, what they expect the outcome to be, what percentage of that outcome number will be Iowa City residents, Johnson County or Coralville - it makes it a lot cleaner to just see that and then gives them an opportunity to explain their rationale for their chosen metrics. Ross stated the next area is performance measurement with outcomes and indicators they are identifying this year, but then also tell about what they did last year. That's always been a part of the application and it always asked for a score on their previous performance, but that information was not in the application, so this is an opportunity for the applicant to summarize their previous outcomes and give some specific details. The committee members didn’t want to take out the narrative, the applicants like to add extra things as the numbers don't tell the whole story. This gives the organization the opportunity to get to really know them and are better poised to tell what their impact is. Reedus noted with the Free Medical Clinic, one of the things that Jenny Schmidt talked about is it's not the number of people that they serve, it might be the number of services given to an individual, maintenance health services on a monthly basis. So the organizations can choose themselves what they want to measure. Reedus stated when they went through the old applications, there were a number of organizations that didn't fit into any kind of demographics so there were no numbers given and then the Commission couldn't look at an organization and see if it was doing better from one year to the next. Also in some past instances, organizations were rated low because they couldn't show any numbers because they didn't have a demographic to put with that number and so they would get a zero on that score and it would pull their score down and subsequently they get less funding. She thinks this will even that playing field a little bit as one of the things they tried to do here and in some other parts of the application. Szecsei stated there is the risk in allowing the applicant to choose a metric that might not be as appropriate and meaningful and that is why there should be an emphasis on the explanation of why this metric matters. Reedus noted if an agency submitted something that's maybe not in City Steps staff could contact them, or that the agency could contact staff prior to the application asking for feedback. That interactive process is invaluable information for agencies in writing the application. Szecsei stated additionally there's also an opportunity, once the Commission reads the drafts or the initial submissions, to be able to follow up with additional questions. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 6 of 12 6 Ross noted United Way hosts a training every year for applicants but that has been more technical assistance and the committee talked about United Way’s willingness and eagerness to make that more than just technical assistance and to talk about the different questions, again encourage applicants to contact City staff with questions. Anglin next discussed the topic of leveraging funding. Currently the question reads “describe the local funding received by your organization to help leverage other revenue in the past fiscal year, identify and include specific grant/funding sources and amounts that were awarded using local funding as a match and include the specific local funds used as match”. It’s a good question except it's one of those questions that the wording of it restricts funds so they changed the wording of that question to open up those funds to less restriction. There is still a leveraging question in the application, but it is no longer scored. It's important information and an important question and people wanted to know this information but the inclusion of it in the scoring criteria meant that smaller and newer organizations were automatically at a disadvantage as they haven't had a long time to build those funds or to get a federal grant, etc. Szecsei asked then what is the goal of the question. Anglin used UAY as an example. They received federal funds for their homeless youth services and are required to have about a $30,000 match on a $250,000 grant from the federal government. That $30,000 is leveraging the $250,000. Dennis asked if the City uses any CDBG money for this pot of funds used for leveraging. Kubly replied they use CDBG to assist two or three agencies a year. Dennis noted that the applicant would have to know that the percentage of the money that they're receiving through this process is either from general funds from the City or CDBG to say what can be used as a match. Thul explained that the City isn’t necessarily requiring a match for public services projects for CDBG, but the HOME program does have a match requirement that's usually 25%. Ross next wanted to give a quick overview of the scoring changes recommendation all together, because they've just talked about it in questions. At the beginning, they talked about removing that community need as a scored question, and changing the services provided around City Steps. Then benefit to low- income persons is the same, racial equity and inclusivity is the same, outcome measurement identification is having agencies submit their past performance so the Commission will have new and better information. Persons to benefit is the same, collaboration same, agency financials and leveraging funds, the changes are in the leveraging question and putting more weight on the financials. She stated the guidance around the rubric for that is a lot clearer based on what information they actually have. For example, one of the things the Commission was asked to score on the financials was “does it seem like a reasonable use of funds and how are they paying for supplies, etc.” and that's not even available in the budget so the Commission was being asked to score something that wasn't even on the application. So all that has been cleaned up. Then in the experience and success section, it’s about historical compliance, competencies to do the work, service delivery in the past. That was one the committee wanted to recommend letting staff make their recommendation to the Commission on, again staff will have a lot of the history and understanding about what the relationship with the organization is throughout the year and such. Szecsei stated it would benefit the agencies to talk about that information as part of their story, rather than just relying on staff. She would like to hear it from the submission itself. Ross would expect to see that in the services question to allow them to say what's changed and the condition. Things like they are seeing a 63% increase in visits to food pantries, or that the Free Medical Clinic is not seeing as many one-time visitors but more chronic folks with chronic illness, etc. She is unsure how they would provide this specific information without being able to tell their story. Ross noted they went back and forth, because one of the things staff has available to them is the reports and the Commission reads a lot of stuff already. Staff was firm in advocating for the Commission not having to do all that on top of what they already have to do. However, if the Commission is interested it could be made available to them. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 7 of 12 7 Reedus feels that would take some of the subjectivity out which is the difficult part of scoring. When they don't have clear guidelines, they are putting subjectivity and some guesswork into it and that's not fair to anybody. She thinks overall what this does is it makes the work easier, not necessarily reducing the work, but it might reduce some time on it. It still will never be an easy task to score and to recommend funds, but the committee’s recommendations will provide the Commission with some better guidelines and more concrete guidelines in scoring. Reedus noted they’ve had some difficulties in the past with commissioners, like in the last funding round for Legacy Agencies, getting everybody to get their scores in on time or even scoring at all. That led to the question in the very beginning of creating a smaller group of HCDC to commit to doing the work, perhaps having a couple from the Commission, along with City staff and maybe one or two representatives from City Council. They were thinking that if they had a smaller group, they could get those scores in on time. However, the Commission didn’t like the idea when it was proposed so that's what led the committee down the path that they went with this whole thing. However, getting the scores in on time gives adequate feedback at the moment that the agency needs it. They need to what their score is and it’s important to educate applicants and make sure that they know that they can get the feedback on how they were scored, and maybe having the opportunity to question somebody about that. Ross stated one of the last recommendations to address they consider to be an ongoing project between agencies and the Commission. They understand the Commission clearly supports the work they’re doing for residents and the effort to meet the City Steps goals, so the agencies are looking for the Commission to consider the work together in meeting those goals as a partnership, and that some of these changes to the application better reflect that they are working together to do that. They did prioritize the application recommendations, because that timeline was critical, but they do feel an important part of the Commission's work is engaging and understanding everything that's happening with these services and helping them communicate those needs and what agencies are doing to address them to the community. The agencies would love to continue to work with the Commission on that piece. Finally, Ross addressed the timeline. The joint funders will convene for a discussion and alignment on some of these recommendations, depending on what the Commission thinks, and at the end of May final recommendations about is what is needed will go to United Way from all funders by August 1 in order to implement it for the September 1 application. Vogel asked about the recommendation to rename the Emerging funds to Auxiliary - are they also making a recommendation to change the purpose? The purpose is defined as operational funding intended to help new nonprofit organizations develop. By changing to Auxiliary, does that imply that they're no longer going to be putting the focus on Emerging organizations? He thought the reason that Emerging label was put on there was for people to understand that it is for new nonprofit organization development. Reedus thinks that may have been some of the thought originally, but she couldn't find anything in the rules that said an agency couldn't apply for it after two years or three years and there's no definition of what “new” is. Vogel stated that's what it actually says in the purpose. Reedus agreed but noted when they looked at the last rounds of applicants, Visiting Nurses was an Emerging applicant. Vogel asked is there going to be a recommendation as part of this, if they're changing the name, to either define what new name means or to change that wording in the purpose to help nonprofit organizations develop versus new? Reedus stated that should be discussed by HCDC at some point. They should discuss it all, the Legacy Agencies, the City Steps, naming the agencies, the whole process of how to get in that Legacy club and how agencies exit the club. Vogel’s question was because they were changing the name - was the implication that they're changing this name to get away from the idea that they were going to be focusing on new agencies only, and it sounds like that's another discussion to have. If the first step is to change the name that's fine, but the work is not done, the Commission has to answer more questions. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 8 of 12 8 Vogel stated they also mentioned switching from quarterly reports to semiannual, right now quarterly reports are only for the Legacy Agencies so are they talking about making them do the semiannual reports the same as Emerging Agencies? Because then it doesn't cover the payments. In addition to quarterly reports, they get the money in quarterly payments. Is the recommendation to also change that? Kubly stated staff looks at the reports before the subsequent payment and they could distribute the grants in two payments instead of four. Vogel stated he has come into this process never writing a grant and never having to request money. He came in fully from the side of just trying to figure out who deserves it and thinks all of this seems to make sense for the agency side to simplify that process. In addition, anything that makes it easier for staff and for the Commission to be able to sit down and make those decisions all makes sense. Dennis noted over the years, people have always been trying so hard to make this process more objective and more fair because there's never enough money and it is a lot of work to make it more objective so she applauds that. She added there's always going to be a little bit of subjectivity. Szecsei stated if they’re not scoring the experience and success, they would be getting a number from staff, which is fine, along with the justification of any differential differences between applicants. Reedus stated it is good to have staff provide guidance on how the agencies are doing. Kubly noted they’ve been participating in the meetings and from their perspective, they are concerned about the timing of everything and if they can take this and start implementing in time for the application. If they are shooting for August for the application to come out, staff need to be getting ready for that funding cycle. Staff is also going through the consolidated planning process, and that will come to the Commission probably this summer sometime. That may be an opportunity to answer some of those other questions that haven't been resolved at this point as the City enters into the next five year plan. Kubly asked about input from the rest of the Agency Impact Coalition and if other agencies that are part of the Legacy group have provided input on the recommendations. Ross replied yes and no. The committee did offer that check-in with AIC where they took input. She also sent the report out to everyone but only got a couple of emails back from folks with some grammar stuff to fix or just like “looks good”. She was a little alarmed that nobody answered with specific notes so she would just touch base with folks verbally and ask for their feedback. Kubly commented that another thing is the education piece that keeps coming up. That is a really important part of the Commission and for the agencies. If the Agency Impact Coalition has recommendations on how they implement that it would be great, because that's really difficult for staff to represent all of the agencies and educate the Commission. Pierce stated as a relatively new commissioner who went through the scoring process the first time in the last couple months, he likes a lot of the recommended changes because he was one of the people who initially voiced the hesitation of taking the scoring away from the whole Commission. He likes having something that is manageable and that would get them the information they need. It also needs to be something that somebody who just got appointed to the Commission can still digest and handle. Beining thanked the subcommittee for their work and the presentation. UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED PROJECTS UPDATES: Beining stated the City's policy requires careful management of the Community Development Block Grant funds and today they'll discuss the status of three projects, the FY22 Shelter House HVAC Improvements, the FY24 Shelter House Safety Improvements, as well as the FY23 DVIP Shelter Construction. Vogel stated he saw both the reports in the packet and asked is there any reason to be concerned that these aren't going to happen as presented, does staff have any concern? Thul explained that when Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 9 of 12 9 projects are behind schedule staff review the circumstances and consider making a recommendation to recapture the funding if necessary. Staff are not recommending recapture for the projects noted. Beining noted that both organizations seem to be doing everything in their power to spend the money that they've been awarded so is not concerned. DISCUSS RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE HCDC BY-LAWS AND CHANGE REGULAR MEETING TIME AND LOCATION: Beining stated this discussion is on reducing the Commission from nine to seven members which would subsequently adjust the quorum requirement from five to four. No vote will be taken until the next meeting. They'll also explore changing the time as well as location of the HCDC meeting. Vogel doesn’t think it's a bad idea, there always seems like two seats that seem impossible to keep filled. Thul stated technically they do have nine people appointed right now. Reedus pointed out that when Kubly was answering question about staff concerns regarding the subcommittee work and upcoming Joint Application - it's April now and by September the applications are released. The subcommittee was supposed to present to HCDC in January but could not because there wasn't a quorum so the meeting was canceled. If they could do anything to be able to meet, she is fine with dropping it down to seven. It’s nice to get a whole commission but in the three years she’s been here they’ve, only had that once or twice. Vogel stated they absolutely have had numerous meetings where they've had trouble getting enough people here. Dennis asked if this change has to go through Council. Reedus replied it will and they may reject it. Vogel asked if they can nine members but change the quorum requirements. He stated it doesn’t have to be a majority, a quorum can be any number, he has boards and associations where a quorum is 66% of the members and others where a quorum is 25% and then they just have to have a majority of the quorum present for something to pass but a quorum can be any number. Kubly doesn’t believe they can do that. Beining asked where the proposed new location would be. Kubly stated they would really like to get to the Council chambers, Emma Havat Hall at City Hall, it’s set up for meetings like this and they’d have screens so it won't be difficult to see the one screen. But the issue is a scheduling thing because there's another commission that meets the third Thursday of the month. Szecsei likes the number of nine, it gives more community input which is important, but she doesn’t mind the date and the time and the location change. Thul stated staff also would like nine people, but been pretty tough to get people to come to meetings. As we said earlier, staff know that we are asking a lot of commissioners and we are looking at ways to make it easier. Reedus asked if the commission has lost more people this month. Thul responded that there was one person recently appointed that has not attended a meeting yet. Thul continued that nine people are currently appointed, but the average meeting attendance is about six people which is what we have tonight as well. Szecsei asked how many people are on the waiting list. Vogel responded that there isn’t one. Thul added that City Council has deferred appointments in the past to allow for more applicants. Szecsei asked if someone participate via zoom would that count as present to have a quorum. Thul replied they have to have a quorum in person. People care participate via zoom but they don’t count towards the quorum. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 10 of 12 10 Dennis encouraged commissioners to talk to people they know and encourage them to apply. Pierce noted they had a similar issue when serving on the Telecommunications Commission for the City. That group was only five and they had trouble reaching three of five to have a quorum. Thul agreed and commented that she does not feel it is a problem unique to HCDC. Szecsei asked if it was any better during COVID. Thul confirmed it was. On Zoom in 2021 was one of the last times they had all nine people attend a meeting. Commissioners appeared receptive to the idea of reducing the Commission from nine seats to seven and noted a quorum of four would be helpful given past challenges. The Commission will vote on a recommendation to amend the bylaws at the May 16th meeting. Next, discussing moving the date and time of the meeting. Tentative plans are to shift to the fourth Wednesday of the month at 6:30pm. The Commission will decide officially at the May meeting. STAFF & COMMISSION UPDATES: Thul stated the next meeting will be May 16, 2024. Turnbull introduced herself as a new member of City staff. Beining stated he had the privilege to join the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition bus tour and they were able to see a vast array of successful projects ranging all the way from Housing Fellowship Sabin Townhomes, which provides a 20-year affordability period, all the way to Inside Out Reentry home, which provides a 15-year affordability period. A couple of key takeaways he learned is the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County alone has served 1143 households since 2004 and about 540 of those have been since 2019. A statewide statistic is there are 27% of Iowa renters who are considered extremely low income of whom would benefit from the continued pursuit of affordable housing supply. He was also pleasantly surprised to see many members of the community from vast backgrounds on the bus tour. There were members from organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Housing Trust Fund, a really vast array of people. Mayor Bruce Teague was there and Beining was greatly impressed with the extensiveness of the commitment of Mayor Teague’s interest to the pursuit of affordable housing, not only in the short term development, acquisition, and support, but he seemed to have an immense care for the longevity of the affordable housing and the impact that they'll have on the community for years to come, particularly with those affordability periods. They received boatloads of information, but it was a heartwarming experience to see the level of support and to be reassured that they're not standing alone in the pursuit to increase the affordable housing accessibility as well as supply. Dennis stated she was privileged to attend the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County 50 Year Gala last Friday and just by reading these applications that they receive, it doesn't really scratch the surface of what these nonprofits are doing in this community because it was an amazing event and she learned a lot even though it seems like she’s been around for a long time. Szecsei asked if there is a resource or website where say landlords or homeowners, property owners, can go to find incentives for offering affordable housing to residents. Kubly replied, yes, the City has affordable housing pages on the website. She doesn’t know if it's necessarily for landlords but they have one for developers and implemented one for seekers of housing. Szecsei noted as a property owner, she’d be interested because there are not a lot of incentives available to private landlords. Vogel noted one thing that's become available recently is the risk mitigation fund, which does allow private landlords to accept someone who is at risk for not being able to be approved somewhere. It is administered through Shelter House and they have to be denied by three different property managers, or three different landlords to enroll in the program. Shelter House can use that as an incentive to get a landlord to go ahead and approve them and if within the first year they move out, or get kicked out for failure to pay or whatever. The cost involved in that move out is more than their deposit so the risk mitigation fund will cover those additional amounts up to $3,000. Vogel noted it’s been in effect Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 11 of 12 11 and he’s only had one person they've been able to help because the problem is a lot of times the ones that they're seeing that do get denied, are getting denied for things that are beyond the risk that he can take even with risk mitigation - like the risk isn't whether they're going to be able to pay, the risk is they've got three or four evictions in the last year and he can't convince his clients that under any circumstance that's a risk he should take on their behalf. Szecsei noted it seems like supply and demand. If there's that much demand, then they should be coming up with some incentives to get landlords or property owners to increase the supply. Vogel stated that the most recent Cook Appraisal study is coming out and for the first time in history there is a 27% vacancy rate. Landlords have units available. If the City could give money to private landlords the way 501(c)3’s get money, they can absolutely find houses and places for these people. Szecsei noted it's very hard for private landlords so that's why having those incentives to offset something to make it affordable for property owners is necessary. Vogel acknowledged there was absolutely a time 10-15 years ago where it was an issue of there were not units and the vacancy rate was less than 1% not many years ago. Many new beds have gone up in Iowa City and Coralville in the last seven years, all aimed at students at a time when the University of Iowa enrollment has gone down. So what's happened is the students are picking these new places and leaving a lot of older properties that were built between 1975 and 1981 empty. Szecsei would like to see more discussion on landlord incentives. Thul stated they can add that to a future meeting agenda. ADJOURNMENT: Vogel moved to adjourn, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 12 of 12 12 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2023-2024 Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant Name Terms Exp. 1/19 2/16 3/30 4/20 5/18 7/20 9/21 10/19 11/16 3/21 4/18 Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X Haylett, Jennifer 6/30/25 X X O/E X O/E O/E      Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 X O/E X X X X X X X O/E O/E Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X X X O/E O/E       Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X X X X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/26 O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X X X Eckhardt, Michael 6/30/25 X X X X O/E O/E      Patel, Kiran 6/30/26 -- O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E O/E Pierce, James 6/30/26 -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X Szecsei, Denise 6/30/25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X Borgen, Horacio 6/30/25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E O/E AGENDA ITEM #4 Agenda Item #4 Date: May 9, 2024 To: Housing & Community Development Commission From: Brianna Thul, Senior Community Development Planner Re: Process for FY25 Annual Action Plan Background: Each year, Iowa City receives federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In order to receive these funds, the city must submit an Annual Action Plan to HUD which contains projects planned for the upcoming fiscal year and budget information. The following is an example of the typical process: The commission votes on budget recommendations to City Council in March. Staff draft the Annual Action Plan with final grant allocation numbers announced by HUD and submit to HCDC for review during the 30-day public comment period. HCDC considers a recommendation to Council to approve the plan in April. City Council approves the plan in May. Staff submit to HUD following approval by the May 15th deadline. Due to delays in the federal budgeting process, grant allocations were not announced by HUD until May 7, 2024 and the deadline to submit the FY25 Annual Action Plan has been extended. FY25 Annual Action Plan A public comment period for the FY25 Annual Action Plan draft is planned for May 17th, 2024 to June 18th, 2024. As you know, the commission does not typically meet in June and a summer break was programmed in the calendar. Staff are requesting a special meeting to review and consider a recommendation to approve the plan on one of the dates below to ensure the plan can be reviewed prior to the conclusion of the comment period: June 6th, 2024 June 13th, 2024 If for some reason the commission is unable to meet in June, commissioners may still submit comments on the draft document to staff during the public comment period. Agenda Item #6