Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2024 Housing & Community Development CommissionHOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) April 18, 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: March 21, 2023 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. Final Presentation from Aid to Agencies Subcommittee HCDC formed a subcommittee on January 19, 2023 to review the Aid to Agencies process. The subcommittee has completed their work and provided a final report. The subcommittee will present their report to HCDC and staff for feedback. Information from the subcommittee and HCDC will be considered by staff to determine next steps. 5. Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Updates The City's Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy requires CDBG recipients to expend a minimum of 50% of the funds awarded by March 15th during the fiscal year they are funded. Commissioners will review and discuss the updates submitted for three projects that are behind schedule:1) FY22 Shelter House HVAC Improvements ($225,000), 2) FY24 Shelter House Safety Improvements, and 3) FY23 DVIP Shelter Construction ($545,000). 6. Discuss Recommendation to Amend the HCDC By-laws and Change Regular Meeting Time and Location The commission will discuss a potential amendment that includes reducing the size of the commission from nine to seven members. The adjustment would also change the number of members required to form a quorum from five to four. The commission may not vote on the matter until the following regular meeting. The meeting will also include a discussion on changing the time and location of HCDC meetings which does not require an amendment to the by-laws. 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 If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at bthulCcDiowa-city.ora 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: May 16, 2024 � r CITY OF IOwA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Housing and Community Development Commission Meeting Packet Contents April 18, 2024 Agenda Item #2 • March 21, 2023 Draft HCDC Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #4 • Aid to Agencies Subcommittee Final Report Agenda Items #5 • Shelter House Project Status Update • DVIP Project Status Update Agenda Item #6 • April 15, 2024 Staff Memo — Staff Recommendations for the Housing and Community Development Commission AGENDA ITEM #2 MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2024 — 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Becci Reedus, Denise Szecsei, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Horacio Borgen, Karol Krotz, Kiran Patel, James Pierce STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul, Rachel Carter OTHERS PRESENT: Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House), Will Kapp (Immigrant Welcome Network of Johnson County), Emily Sinnwell (Escucha Mi Voz), Ninosko Campos (Escucha Mi Voz), Jane Noble Davis (Catholic Worker House), Bob Untiedt (TRAIL), Jim Kringlen (Iowa Legal Aid), Sara Krieger (VNA/lowa City Hospice), Merrilee Ramsey (Iowa City Sober Living), Genevieve Anglin (UAY), Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship), Kristie Doser (DVIP), Marguerite Oetting (Healthy Kids School Based Clinics), Jessica Andino (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 4-1 (Reedus dissenting) the Commission recommends the following recommendations for Emerging Aid to Agencies: FY25 Staff HCDC Average March EA2A Group Agency/Project Request Recommendations Recommendations Funding Recommendations Iowa City $15,000 $7,500 $6,583 $6,000 Compassion TRAIL $12,000 $6,000 $5,500 $5,500 Escucha Mi Voz $15,000 $7,500 $5,167 $8,000 Iowa City Sober $10,000 $5,000 $4,583 $7,500 Living Visiting Nurses $15,000 $5,500 $4,167 $0 Association Iowa City $15,000 $5,500 $3,750 $5,000 Hospice Immigrant $15,000 $0 $2,500 $0 Welcome Network of Johnson County Healthy Kids $15,000 $0 $2,167 $5,000 School Based Clinics Iowa Legal Aid $12,500 $0 $1,500 $0 Housing and Community Development Commission March 21, 2024 Page 2 of 8 By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends the following recommendations for CBDG/HOME funds: HCDC Request Staff Recommendations Individual March HCDC Meeting Score Recommendations Summary Staff Staff HCDC HCDC HCDC Agency/Project FY25 Staff CDBG HOME Average CDBG HOME Request Score Funding Funding Score Funding Funding Rec. Rec. Rec. Rec. Iowa City Housing Authority - $300,000 320 NA- $300,000 295 NA $300,000 Tenant Based 94% ineligible ineligible Rental Assistance Shelter House - $93,523 270 $0 $0 272* $0 $85,327 Rental Rehab 79% The Housing Fellowship - $420,000 287 $190,000 $230,000 267 $190,000 $144,673 Rental 84% Acquisition Neighborhood Centers of 257 NA - Johnson County $65,000 76% $34,000 ineligible 261 $34,000 $0 - Public Facility Improvements DVIP - Rental NA - New $304,250 $0 252 $0 $0 Construction 76% ineligible United Action for Youth - $200,000 211 $0 $0 236 $0 $0 Rental 62% Acquisition CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Beining called the meeting to order at 6:39 PM. WELCOME NEW MEMBER: Deferred — new member was not in attendance. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 16, 2023: Vogel moved to approve the minutes of November 16, 2023. Dennis seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the minutes were approved 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Ninosko Campos and Emily Sinnwell introduced the recent health equity report focused on immigrant and refugee worker health in Johnson County. Copies of the report Salud, Techo, Y Trabajo: A Health Equity Housing and Community Development Commission March 21, 2024 Page 3 of 8 Report or Policymakers, Community Organizations, Workers and Everyday People was provided to the commission. Ninosko Campos stated she was from Honduras and is an asylum seeker and a member of a Escucha Mi Voz. This month, they're going to be sharing a report that they did for City Council and the Johnson County Supervisors about public health where they surveyed 481 immigrant workers in Johnson County. Ninosko shared a copy of the report with the Commission and offered to come to a future meeting to present on the report. DISCUSS FY25 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Reedus noted there was comment in the staff recommendations regarding an agency shouldn't receive funds more than two years, but she could not find any documentation that was a rule so if it wasn't a written/published rule she doesn't think it should be something they adhere to. Kubly replied she it isn't a formal rule rather it is something they use to determine their recommendation. Reedus stated that if they are going to use that type of thing, it should be a published rule as it helps keep things transparent and helps in making decisions. She doesn't want agencies applying for money and spending all that time doing applications if they're not eligible. Kubly noted in the application there is the language that states the funding is not intended to be an ongoing source of funding. Thul stated that the memo includes staff recommendations — the issue is not that they are ineligible. If the Commission wants to recommend funding they certainly could. Dennis asked if agencies not funded could then apply for Legacy funding. Reedus replied no and stated then that's the problem. There's a funding cliff. If they get funds for Emerging Agencies for two years, they die on the cliff unless they're accepted to be a Legacy Agency. She noted they have three organizations offering services to immigrants, non -documented folks, which is becoming quite an issue. If they were to receive funds for two years, what happens in another two years and they have no place else to go? They don't have the ability to get Emerging Agency funds and the Legacy group is a closed group. Vogel stated on the other side, he likes it as a guideline and they have to put a limit on what an Emerging Agency needs to be and at what point are they no longer Emerging. He noted in Iowa City there are hundreds of organizations and agencies that exist and could obviously use some assistance and there's absolutely a finite amount of funds, both in Legacy and Emerging. Yes there is a cliff, but the cliff is supposed to be, here's the City helping organizations get started. Then they have a couple years of being able to hire the people and get to the next point where they need to do fundraising and find private donors or other grant opportunities. The City is helping organizations get started but there isn't just an ongoing source of funds. Reedus stated it takes a whole lot more than two years to develop the resources to be able to raise money in a nonprofit organization, to have one development director for an organization is going to be upwards of $50,000 plus benefits. Additionally, the resources and raising money in Iowa City and Johnson County is not easy. Reedus stated she will not pull back her recommendation for Healthy Kids School -based Clinics because she thinks it's a needed organization. Next month they will have a report from the subcommittee that's been working on Aid to Agencies funding and they need to take a look at the cliff and need to work further and decide if they're going to keep the closed group of Legacy Agencies or if they're going to change the whole thing. Cutting an organization off after two years with no other resources is going to be problematic. These organizations are asking for money for issues that aren't going to go away in the community, and they aren't likely to be able to develop the resources to raise the money that they're going to need. Dennis noted staff shared the rankings of who got the highest rankings and HCDC has to provide a recommendation based on the information they have. She noted if the minimum allocation is $5,000 then they could just allocate $5,000 to the top seven or so. Housing and Community Development Commission March 21, 2024 Page 4 of 8 Szecsei asked if there are updates to see where agencies are that did receive funding for two years and then were cut off - do they actually find funding elsewhere to stay alive? Kubly stated they do collect semiannual reports from these agencies funded. Staff could do a better job providing those to the Commission. Szecsei stated she like to see a report two years after they receive funding to see if they actually do succeed or fall off the cliff. Vogel stated the $5,000 minimum needs to change, if they give the top seven $5,000 then that leaves $2,000 for someone else and that's below the minimum. Dennis noted the number one ranking was Iowa City Compassion so they could give them $6,000, and the next highest (TRAIL) $5,500, and Escucha Mi Voz and Sober Living $5,000 each. Reedus asked about the Visiting Nurses Association, when the Commission was discussing Legacy Agencies it was stated they didn't want to get into third party revenue organizations. She stated Visiting Nurses Association is not one of those organizations, they get a lot of revenue and feels HCDC allocations can't make a dent into making up for lost funds for the Visiting Nurses Association because they're not getting reimbursed enough. They're a pretty large organization and she thinks they need to put more money into programs that are helping the immigrant population. Reedus also thinks Healthy Kids should receive $5,000. Vogel noted additionally with Iowa Legal Aid, they get quite a bit of other assistance through the City and most of their assistance is from State funding. They do great work but they're not really an Emerging Agency - they're a well -established agency. Dennis stated the National Visiting Nurses Association has also been around for about a hundred years. Reedus noted in the staff recommendation there was a comment about the Immigrant Welcome Network of Johnson County being too new and asked when they incorporated. Kubly replied she is not sure, but it was sometime last summer. Reedus asked same with Iowa City Sober Living, when did they incorporate. Again, Kubly is not sure, but they did apply for Emerging Agency funds last year.. The Commission continued to discuss the organizations and possible allocations. Vogel asked if the $5,000 minimum was a decision made by HCDC or if it was a statutory thing. Kubly replied that it is in the rules that have been adopted by Council but did come from a recommendation from HCDC. Beining would like to see more funds going to immigrant organizations as that is so needed in the community. Additionally, he supports Sober Living and the health benefits they support, it's a newer organization and just starting. Vogel moved to recommend the following recommendations for Emerging Aid to Agencies: FY25 Staff HCDC Average March EA2A Group Agency/Project Request Recommendations Recommendations Funding Recommendations Iowa City $15,000 $7,500 $6,583 $6,000 Compassion TRAIL $12,000 $6,000 $5,500 $5,500 Escucha Mi Voz $15,000 $7,500 $5,167 $8,000 Iowa City Sober $10,000 $5,000 $4,583 $7,500 Living in Housing and Community Development Commission March 21, 2024 Page 5 of 8 Visiting Nurses $15,000 $5,500 $4,167 $0 Association Iowa City $15,000 $5,500 $3,750 $5,000 Hospice Immigrant $15,000 $0 $2,500 $0 Welcome Network of Johnson Count Healthy Kids $15,000 $0 $2,167 $5,000 School Based Clinics Iowa Legal Aid $12,500 $0 $1,500 $0 Dennis seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1 (Reedus dissenting). DISCUSS FY25 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Reedus noted the staff report with the risk factors being reported was really good, however, it didn't have a place in the scoring so she would recommend that it go into scoring. She stated if there's no risk, an organization should gain points, but if they do have risk factors that the City has identified, there should be a negative impact to the score. That would make the risk factor scoring meaningful. Vogel acknowledged this year seemed easier than previous years as far as the scoring, likely due to some of the change implemented that came from discussions with the subcommittee and making those sections clearer on age groups and percentages. Dennis noted it's really interesting that a lot of the scores were very similar from staff and from the Commissioners who scored. Reedus does think that the final scores should mean something in terms of the funds awarded and stated Iowa City Housing Authority has the highest score, then Shelter House for Commissioners and staff scored the Housing Fellowship higher than Shelter House. The Commissioners discussed the distribution of the HOME funds first awarding Iowa City Housing Authority — Tenant Based Rental Assistance the full request of $300,000. For Shelter House commissioners asked what portion of the project is not eligible for HOME funds. Thul responded and the commission settled on an award of $85,327 leaving $144,673 for The Housing Fellowship. Although United Action for Youth was eligible for HOME funds, they scored the lowest, across the board, so the commission did not give them funding. Moving on to CDBG funding, Vogel noted the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County is asking for $65,000 but staff only recommended $34,000. Thul explained there was a portion of the project that would be ineligible for CDBG. The Commission again discussed United Action for Youth and were generally in agreement to not fund them this round. Housing and Community Development Commission March 21, 2024 Page 6 of 8 The Commission agreed to fund Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County the $34,000. That left $190,000 to allocate and it was decided to allocate it to The Housing Fellowship. Beining noted it's increasing the actual base of affordable housing. Reedus agreed and stated the community has a need for housing for larger families, that's been identified for a couple of years. The Commission also decided not to fund DVIP as they are in the middle of a big project and it's going to be tough for DVIP to get all that done. Vogel moved to recommend to Council the following recommendations for CDBG/HOME funds: HCDC Request Staff Recommendations Individual March HCDC Meeting Score Recommendations Summary Staff Staff HCDC HCDC HCDC Agency/Project FY25 Staff CDBG HOME Average CDBG HOME Request Score Funding Funding Score Funding Funding Rec. Rec. Rec. Rec. Iowa City Housing Authority - $300,000 320 NA- $300,000 295 NA $300,000 Tenant Based 94% ineligible ineligible Rental Assistance Shelter House - $93,523 270 $0 $0 272* $0 $85,327 Rental Rehab 79% The Housing Fellowship - $420,000 287 $190,000 $230,000 267 $190,000 $144,673 Rental 84% Acquisition Neighborhood Centers of 257 NA - Johnson County $65,000 76% $34,000 ineligible 261 $34,000 $0 - Public Facility Improvements DVIP - Rental NA - New $304,250 76% ineligible $0 252 $0 $0 Construction United Action for Youth - $200,000 211 $0 $0 236 $0 $0 Rental 62% Ac uisition Reedus seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. STAFF & COMMISSION UPDATES: Thul stated next month's meeting will be April 18 and will include a presentation from the Aid to Agency subcommittee which will be the final report. Also, every March there is a spending deadline for projects that were funded with CDBG so if there are projects that are behind schedule, staff will bring those updates to the Commission for review. Housing and Community Development Commission March 21, 2024 Page 7 of 8 Thul stated there are three people on the Commission that have terms ending in June: Reedus, Beining and Krotz. If they want to reapply for the Commission they can do so online. Kubly stated they found out this week that the HOME -ARP allocation plan was finally approved after several amendments, HUD approved it on Monday so they are excited to start those projects with Legal Aid, DVIP and Shelter House. Kubly noted that Thul just received a promotion that was approved by Council this week as a Senior Planner. Kubly also wanted to share they have a couple of vacant positions in their division, there is a vacancy for the housing rehab specialist who administers CDBG and HOME funds for owner occupied rehab, as well as a housing inspector or rental inspector position will be posted soon. Beining plans to attend the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition affordable housing project bus tour and can give an update in April. ADJOURNMENT: Reedus moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Housing and Community Development Commission March 21, 2024 Page 8 of 8 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2023-2024 Name Terms Exp. 1119 2116 3130 4120 5118 7120 9121 10119 11116 3121 Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X O/E X X O/E X X X X X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 X X X O/E X X O/E 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 Mohammed, Nsar 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 Vogel, Kyle 6/30/26 O/E X X O/E X X X O/E 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 Pierce, James 6/30/26 -- -- __ __ __ X X X X O/E Szecsei, Denise 6/30/25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X Borgen, Horacio 6/30/25 -- -- -- -- -- -- Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant E3 AGENDA ITEM #4 Goal 1: Provide clarity in eligibility and application process and establish basic funding qualification and requirements Application deadline rules Recommendation: Staff standardize, document and publish application submittal and deadline rules and that commission and city council are aware of those parameters. Rationale: Ensure the rules are clear and transparent for all involved parties. Aid to Agency organization eligibility requirements: Recommendation: Further define legal standing and governance eligibility with specific evidence to demonstrate eligibility requirements have been met. Specific recommendations include: • Applicant must be a 501(c) 3 organization that is in good standing and complies with all regulations and laws of the state and federal governments required of nonprofit organizations. Such as: o Current filings of Form 990 a Current Biennial Report with State of Iowa • Maintains a Board of Directors with a minimum membership of five individuals consisting primarily of independent persons who are not employees of the organizations. The Board meets a minimum of four times a year to oversee and manage the goals and objectives of the organization. • Operates with financial practices of which the Board of Directors provides oversight and uses generally accepted accounting principles_ • Funding recipients must submit a copy of their most recent tax forms (990) and year-end financial report approved by the recipient's Board of Directors by the end of the second quarter of the following fiscal year. If the agency receives a full audit, staff may ask to review the most recent audit. • Funding must be used to serve Iowa City residents. Rationale: Sets clear expectations and demonstrates organizations good legal standing with independent governing oversight and has a history of providing services to Iowa City residents. Aid to Agency Funding Labels Recommendation: Rename Emerging Fund to Iowa City Auxiliary Human Service Funding Rationale: Better describes the additional help or support meant for agencies not receiving annual funding from the core services funding program. Recommendation: Rename Legacy Agency Funding to Core City Steps Services Funding Rationale: This better defines the purpose of the funding as defined and tied to City Steps goals. Funding Guidance As it Relates to Rubric Scoring Recommendation: Adopt a funding allocation process based on total score so that funding amount decisions are equitable, defensible, and can be clearly explained in the recommendation to the city council. Rationale: By adopting a funding allocation based on score, the outcome of scoring will be more transparent for agencies and will help guide commissioners in funding allocation, one of the most difficult parts of the process. Rating Group Funding Allocation Recommendation Score Range 1 Larger increase (a merit increase when funding allows) 91-100 2 Standard increase (COLA for example when funding allows) 81-90 3 No increase 71-80 4 Decrease funding 61-70 5 Base funding ($15,000) 51-69 6 No core service funding 50 and below Next St - As an initial test of the following recommendation, the committee chair will apply the scoring recommendation to previous applications to assess the outcome. The committee recommends further discussion of obstacles to adopting the recommendation. In order for this to be equitable long term, the commission may need to assess current funding amounts to ensure every organization is starting at the right funding level for their services. The committee envisions that once the application and scoring has been trialed and shown to be improved, the commission will be able to establish goals for a percent of funding for applicants. Intention and Role of this Funding to Nonprofits The approved definition of funding purpose is: "Aid to Agencies(A2A) provides nonprofit public service agencies with flexible operation funding to help them serve low-income Iowa City residents based on priorities set in the City's Consolidated Plan." This committee affirms the intent of this funding and has centered it in our evaluation and recommendations for application content. Recommendation: The Committee asks that commissioners are clearly educated on this principle prior to reviewing applications, Rationale: Commissioner questions and assessments are more likely to align with the funding intent, allowing agencies to request funding type that works best for their services. For example: commissioners would not weigh program specific applications more favorably than general operating requests. The committee also supports the funding agencies endeavor to align funding cycles with one another to reduce burden on funders and applicants. Funding Priorities Recommendation: For now, the committee recommends that one of the highest score value application questions will require reviewers to assess service consistency with City Steps goals. E Ahead of each funding cycle, the commission will host an education session for commissioners on city steps priorities. Rationale: This equips reviewers with the understanding necessary to determine whether applicant services described will address the problem/ need, will help satisfy an unmet strategic goal and will generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps. Next Steps: We envision a future funding process that defines in the City Steps the major needs to be addressed and allocates funding according to the priority of that need. This would allow for funding allocations to align with the most urgent and growing needs of the community and continue consistent funding for ongoing baseline needs. Performance Assessment Recommendation: We recommend reducing reporting requirements to twice yearly instead of quarterly. In addition, current performance indicators are not relevant to all funders. We recommend allowing agencies to tell us how they will measure success. Details of this recommendation can be found in the application/rubric recommendations below. Rationale: These combined changes will reduce the workload for all parties, and the assessment metrics should be more clear to reviewers and more flexible for funded agencies.: Goal 2: Create an application process which collects information that can be scored equitably. Continued Joint Funding Process Recommendation: Agencies prefer to continue a joint funding process as long as workload of the application process can be reduced and clarified. Rationale: Much of the application content remains the same across funders and agencies agree it is still beneficial to do them together. New Funding Platform Recommendation: There is a preference for continuing use of the current platform after confirming with United Way that the software can accommodate necessary changes. Rationale: The current platform is familiar, contains easy access to historical documents, and recommended changes do not appear to conflict with using existing platforms. Next Steps: Continue to work with United Way on platform/application revisions. United Way is committed to updating forms and questions in collaboration with all funders. Application & Rubric: Our goal is to improve ease of review and clarity of application content for Iowa City Aid to Agencies funding. The Committee identified a number of challenges with the current application and rubric that affected reviewers, applicants and staff. These are some of the challenges we identified and that guided our recommendations overall. Challenges for Reviewers: Current rubric requires reviewers to reference multiple questions to do their assessment, which is overly complicated. 3 • Some items refer to information not included in the application requiring reviewers to have an understanding of past funding and performance history that may not be accessible to them. • Some application questions do not align with what is being scored or require too much subjectivity in scaring assignment. Challenges for Applicants: • It is challenging for applicants to check their application content against the rubric since rubric items reference the content of multiple questions. • In some cases none of the questions allow the applicant to speak to some rubric items. Challenges for Staff: • Staff had to create more summary information because of misaligned application questions and rubric items. Summary of Recommendations & Rationale **See attached for specific application question and rubric revisions • Rubric scoring now references fewer questions/forms for each scoring category, making it easier for applicants to provide clear and applicable content and easier for reviewers to score content provided in fewer places. • Reviewers now read narrative content for only four questions totalling 12,000 characters, significantly reducing the burden of reviewing 20+ 10-page applications. During our review process, we also discovered that staff can pull only the application content relevant to the Iowa City application, which will further reduce the amount of content to wade through_ • Six of the ten scoring sections now use calculations content provided in staff summary or utilize forms content with specific rubric guidance. ■ Committee is making recommendations that better align scoring guidance with the question content • Committee is recommending some scoring adjustments to better reflect content priority and scoring weight Next Step: One of the challenges remaining for City staff input is to ensure rubric scoring guidance includes levels that can be easily measurable and differentiated from one another. 4 Summary of Overall Rubric Scoring Recommendations: Our goal is to make a recommendation for how the scores are applied to funding decision making. Need and Priority Community Need Unscored, prequalified by staff Services Provided (Services to Iowa City) 20 Impact and Delivery Benefit to Low Income Persons (Form B Demographics) 15 Racial Equity and Inclusivity for Marginalized Populations Racial Equity Question and Form B Demographics) 5 Proposed Outcome Measures (Form B Demographics) 10 Completed Outcome Measures (Performance during last grant cycle) 10 Persons to Benefit (Calculation from Form B Demographics and Form C Financials 5 Evidence of Financial Capacity Collaboration (Collaborations that enhance service delivery) 5 Agency Financials (Form C Financials) 15 Leveraging Funds unscored Evidence of Administrative Capacity Quality of Application (Overall App) 5 Experience and Success (historical compliance, competencies, and service delivery - staff knowledge) 10 Total 100 Goal 3: Educate the commission and community on needs, services, and nonprofit impact. Engage the commission in communicating collective impact. Committee prioritized application recommendations that were timeline critical. We intend to continue working on recommendations for this goal with the subcommittee and Agency Impact Coalition. 5 Goals 4: Determine whether HCDC continues to be the right venue for application review and funds allocation. The committee recommended a different review venue and participation. The HCDC requested that funding decisions remain with the commission. The committee asks commissioners to commit to the evaluation, scoring and feedback process as fully as possible to ensure that allocations are made with transparency and as equitably as possible. The committee has spent time addressing challenges that commissioners may face in reviewing applications to make this commitment more achievable. R AZA Application {question and Rubric Revisions Current & Proposed Application Ouestion Rubric Area and Scoring Guidance Changes Rationale PROPOSED; Move this question to Community Need Scoring Recommendation; City Current scoring guidance is to identify agency profile for staff reference - Staff would identify which city steps apply to applicants whether the need is one listed in City unscored, and provide this to reviewers in their summary+. This will Steps, but also to substantiate the also shorten the application and make it easier on need, The City Steps process has CURRENT. What specific need in the reviewers. already done that. Moving this community is Agency addressing? question to a profile allows the (Describe the extent of the Score Value. Remove scoring on this question agency to update with any new need --including current local data with altogether and apply a portion of this score value to the information, but the recommendation source information and the major factors Iowa City specific services question. is to rely on city staff to pre -qualify the in the community contributing to the application by identifying the need_) applicable City Step goal, PROPOSED; Tell us about your services Services Provided Scoring Recommendation: This question will score two areas of to Iowa City and how the City Steps Reconsider scoring criteria to inolude not just meeting priority for Aid to Agencies. Does the Priorities are represented in your priorities but the scope of services (number and service proposed meet City Steps operation. If the agency serves a percent of services to Iowa City specifically), and goals and are these services regional area, please provide % of whether it successfully addresses the problem outlined provided to Iowa City residents overall clients that are Iowa City in City Steps, Increase character count to 4,000 proportional to the funding request. residents, if your request is program specific, please provide % of Iowa City Score Value: Recommendation to increase score Reviewers need more explicit clients for that program_ (list of city steps value/weight since the need question was removed_ connection between services priorities for reference) provided by the agency and City 0 pts Services are consistent with City Steps 0_ Steps goals_ Scoring will apply to the CURRENT: Provide a description of They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ proportion of services to Iowa City services that will be provided with the need. and are identified activities. Information provided residents. [Funding Entity: United Way, Johnson in the application is comprehensive and provides County, Iowa City, Coralville] funding reasonable and clear indication that funding will help Changing the language of this requested. Specific information is satisfy an unmet strategic goal and activity and will question also enables agencies to required, not a general agency generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City apply for flexible operational funding description Steps 202_ Services identified reach Iowa City when appropriate for their agency by residents proportionate to the funding request. removing question language that specifically assigns funding to a (City staff to recommend intermediate rubric scoring) program_ Current & Proposed Application Question Rubric Area and Scoring Guidance Changes Rationale Lowest Score - Application is inconsistent with City Steps 2025 (does not address a strategic goal, problem/ need or activity identified in City Steps 2025). Current scoring guidance is that services are consistent with City Steps 2025. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need, and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is comprehensive and provides reasonable and clear indication that funding will help satisfy an unmet strategic goal and activity and will fully generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps 2025. The agency does not clearly address how the described service would address the City steps goal and/or the agency would be ineffective in resolving the described need or the achievements are unrealistic or unreasonable. Services identified don't reach Iowa City residents proportionate to the funding request. PROPOSED: Benefit to Low Income Persons Recommendation: New format uses results oriented A narrative question is not needed for Utilize Form ❑ to quantify reach to low income scoring rather than extracting this rubric item. We recommend using residents. information from a narrative question the demographic form to assign rubric in addition to demographic numbers. values. 15 ttss Direct benefit will primarily serve extremely CURRENT: Provide a succinct, specific low-income persons (<30% AMI) or those at a similar description of your primary target standard income level (such as the poverty line). populations(s). Describe clients as a (use intermediate rubric scoring already identified in group in terms of their primary needs scoring criteria) and strengths. What barriers to success do they face? If Agency serves a 0 is Direct benefit will not primarilyserve low-income regional area, please provide % of persons or those at a similar standard income level Overall clients that are Johnson County residents. ALSO: AMI Question: Organization serves clients who are at (Check all that apply): Please explain A2A Application Question and Rubric Revisions Current & Proposed Application Rubric Area and Scoring Guidance Changes Rationale Question PROPOSED: No changes Racial Equity & Inclusivity Recommendation: Recommend changing the scoring areas to only racial equity narrative CURRENT: Please explain how Agency Reviewers will use narrative to score inclusivity questions and demographics to ease promotes racial equity and inclusivity for activities and will use demographic form for results reviewers' scoring. historically oppressed and marginalized oriented scoring of actual service participants. populations (including BIPOC, LGBTQ, immigrants/refugees, individuals with 5-plaApplicant documents that it actively and robustly disabilities) through your services, for promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized your clients and for staff. populations. 90-100% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. (use intermediate rubric scoring already identified in scoring criteria) (City staff to recommend intermediate rubric scoring) Q pts Applicant documents that it does not promote racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. c30% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. PROPOSED: Describe how the Agency Collaboration Recommendation: This question does not address the is currently collaborating with other 5 pts Application shows strong evidence of operation plan as indicated in the services providers. How do these collaborating with other service providers to enhance original scoring guidance. We collaborations enhance services services and utilize community partnership to further recommend removing that portion of provided? goals. Applieation f4y aigel theFeHghly identifies the the scoring to better reflect the content of the question. We also CURRENT: Please describe how the alleetaves eveF the laigg teFm. The epplieelneig recommend scoring collaboration Agency is collaborating with other as""" ` ems fassAr' will he Fass";PM `" "" `" based On enhanced services instead service providers in the community to of solely on reducing costs/increasing reduce costs, increase efficiency and efficiency. If doing so also helps improve services for community enhance services, then applicants members. haw they Will be F0561yed. should describe how. (City staff to recommend intermediate rubric scoring) Q pts Application shows no evidence of collaborating with other service providers to reduce costs and of utilizing community partnership to further goals. A2A Application Question and Rubric Revisions Current & Proposed Application Question Rubric Area and Scoring Guidance Changes Rationale PROPOSED: A narrative question is not Persons to Benefit Recommendation: The fee structure question doesn't needed for this rubric item. We recommend using the demographic form to assign provide the content being scored in rubric values. This could be another calculation this section. The scored content is: provided by staff in their summaries to commissioners. what is the cost of services relative to CURRENT: Do you have a fee structure the number of services provided? for services? If yes, please explain and 5 pts Cost of $1-$19.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Does city staff need the fee structure describe services available for those Iowa City resident OR provides strong evidence that information for reporting purposes? without ability to pay. the cost for the number served are highly cost effective for the extent of services. (use intermediate rubric scoring already identified in scoring criteria) 1 pt Cost of greater than $150.00 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides minimal evidence that the cost for the number served are somewhat cost effective for the extent of services. PROPOSED: ❑escribe how local Leveraging Funds Recommendation: Current rubric scoring does not score funding received by your organization remove scoring this question. Information from the actual answer to this question. helped leverage other agencies who utilize local funds to leverage state and revenue in the last fiscal year. Identify federal funds is useful for leadership and therefore the and include specific grant/funding question should be informational only. Staff should note sources and amounts that were awarded in their summaries when leveraged funding may be at that require a match. risk for an applicant. CURRENT. ❑escribe how local funding received by your organization helped Score Value: Unscored, additional information for leverage other revenue in the last fiscal consideration when determining funding amounts. year. Identify and include specific grant/funding sources and amounts that were awarded by using local funding as match. Include the specific local funds used as match (United Way, Iowa City and/or Coralville). A2A Application Question and Rubric Revisions Current & Proposed Application Question Rubric Area and Scoring Guidance Changes Rationale PROPOSED: Agency Financial & Other Funding Sources Scoring should reflect information On the financials form, we propose Recommendation: available on the financial form which including more specific guidance on Change FY21, FY23, FY24 labels to includes funding sources, funding what budget type to provide. If an (FY23) - previous year actuals, (FY24) - current year ratio of Iowa City funding to other agency is only asking for a single budget, (FY25) - next year projected budget sources, and completeness/accuracy program for Johnson county residents of financial form. the financials should reflect only that. We are asking staff to include the ratio of funds in their summary for ease of scoring. Remove "costs are clearly CURRENT: documented" since the financials FY25 Form C: Agency Budget 15 ttss Based on agency revenues and expenses, don't reflect that and it's not Budget Type financials appear accurate, comprehensive and something we propose asking for due Please enter a corresponding number to detailed. GaM5 aFe eleaFly doedm9emted ai9d appear to potentially restricting flexible indicate your Budget typeFees8i9a6le and eady operational use of funding. 1 = Agency Level 2 = Program Specific needs.Fundpfopesed Other sources of funds have been Remove "Funding needs clearly 3 =County Specific secured and maximized. There are $5 (or more) of identified..." because use of funds is other sources of funds for every $1 requested in the identified and scored in the Services Agency Budget Rubric Item application. (> 5:1 ratio) narrative question. Budget Form C (City staff to recommend intermediate rubric scoring) Q pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, the financials appear questionable and/or unreasonable. The financials are substantively mathematically incorrect. Other sources of funding appear to be minimal and the agency relies primarily on A2A funding to sustain programming. Multiple Questions/Forms Experience and Success Recommendation: This question requires complicated Current scoring guidance: scoring procedures and relies on 15 t�s Applicant clearly shows evidence of the information not readily available in necessary competencies, skill set, management the application process or requires a capacity, professional experience and qualifications to historical knowledge not all successfully manage and implement the activities commissioners would have. If scoring listed. Applicant has extensive experience with Grant on this experience and success is Funds and/or other City funding programs. The important to the city, perhaps city staff A2A Application Question and Rubric Revisions Current & Proposed Application Rubric Area and Scoring Guidance Changes Rationale Question applicant has been directly involved in 5 or more City should undertake recommending a funded projects within the past 5 years, 4 of which have score on this item for all applicants. been favorably completed. This applicant has had no problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past projects. This applicant has been timely, complete and accurate with reporting requirements. References entirety of the application Quality of Application Recommendations: Scoring Recommendations made throughout for this section should reflect the original quality and the application will make expectations completeness of the application. and requirements more clear for applicants and easier to score for LULL Application is logical, clear, well written, accurate commissioners. Overall application and attentive to detail, but also concise with appropriate quality should therefore be easier to statistical information and supporting documentation to score. thoroughly support any conclusions provided. (City staff to recommend intermediate rubric scoring) 0 pts Application is poorly written, statistics, observations and conclusions are not documented, and apparent and substantive internal inconsistencies and material errors were noted. Most of the application instructions were not followed. The credibility of Information and statistics provided is questionable. PROPOSED: Please provide a specific Completed Outcome Measurements This new recommendation ties outcome/performance measure your Recommendations: Include past performance agency identified outcomes to past organization achieved in the last grant measurement in the narrative section of the application. performance. Note: If proposed cycle. How are people/conditions better In future applications, this section would provide outcomes score poorly, then there because of the services you provided? narrative explanation of past performance based on may be a subsequent low score in Were there any unanticipated outcomes outcomes defined in form 6 during the application completed measures. you'd like to share? process. CURRENT. Please provide a specific outcome/performance measure your 10 pts Applicant met or exceeded the outcome organization achieved in FY23. How are objectives identified. Measures showed maximum peoplelconditions better because of the impact and benefit for those served. services you provided? (City staff to recommend intermediate rubric scoring) 0 pts Applicant met none of the outcome objectives identified or had no impact on those served. A2A Application Question and Rubric Revisions Current & Proposed Application Question Rubric Area and Scoring Guidance Changes Rationale PROPOSED: Form B Agency Proposed Outcome Measurements In addition to using Form B to score Demographics and Outcomes Recommendations: persons to benefit and equity and 10 pts Applicant identified outcomes/metrics that will be inclusivity. The committee (See below for specific restructure of this strong indicators of service success. Outcomes are recommends reconstructing form.) measurable and able to demonstrate maximum impact demographics to meet the outcomes and benefit for those served. and demographics needs of all funding entities. Specifically, HCDC (City staff to recommend intermediate rubric scoring) needs to see outcomes that are applicable to City funding_ Current 0 pts Applicant met few or none of the outcome outcomes and indicators section may objectives in recent years or had no impact on those be irrelevant to Aid to Agencies served. funding. Form B Change Recommendations: Reconstruct demographics to be more inclusive of information collected by agencies and include agency identified metrics. Remove required entry on Form B fields but indicate the importance of providing information that they have in the past. Specific Form Changes: Add an unknown row to the end of every demographic section with a narrative option for explanation of those unknown demographics. For example: FY21 FY22 FY23 Male Female Non -binary Unknown For numbers entered into unknown category please explain: ■ Include a section to select funding priorities for each entity being asked for funding. For Iowa City, it would look like this: ❑ Expansion or Preservation of Existing Affordable Rental and Owner Housing Options A2A Application Question and Rubric Revisions 7 ❑ Housing and Services to the Homeless and those at Risk of Homelessness ❑ Provision of Public Services: ❑ childcare ❑ transportation ❑ health/mental health services ❑ youth activities and programming ❑ elderly activities and programming ❑ assistance for persons with disabilities ❑ food pantries ❑ services for victims of domestic violence ❑ services for immigrants and refugees ❑ utility assistance ❑ financial literacy and credit repair programs ❑ other: please describe below • Add a projected outcomes section to this form for agency identified metrics and outcomes. Aorflicant should ensure there is at least one metric meets the coals of each funder (proiected metric] Agency Identified Metric Goal # of people/services Iowa City Residents % Johnson County Residents % Coralville Residents % Please explain agency chosen metrics. Describe what is being measured and how each metric is an indicator of the expected outcome. A2A Application Question and Rubric Revisions 8 AGENDA ITEM #5 . . -1• --- • --r-.. To: The Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission From: The Domestic Violence Intervention Program 4/11 /24 DVIP FY24 Shelter Construction So much has happened with our new shelter construction project since we reported last year at this time. Construction began in mid -July 2023. It was defined as a one-year construction project and we are currently slated to be completed on schedule, June 27, 2024. We are also doing very well with our capital campaign. We had expected the project to come in at $6,000,000, but as has been common for most projects during and since the pandemic, inflation and escalated costs of construction supplies meant our project would come in at $7,067,798.00. The following chart demonstrates our success to date: FINDING SAFETY, BUILDING HOPE CAMPAIGN BUDGET updated 4/2/24 Funding Source Amount Amount Committed To Be Committed Municipal- Iowa City CDBG $545,000.00 $545,000.00 Municipal - Iowa City HOME -ARP $650,000.00 $650,000.00 Municipal - Johnson Co ARPA $615,000.00 $615,000.00 Municipal- North Liberty $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Municipal - Coralville $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Federal VOCA Health Grant $300,000.00 $300,000.00 Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County $750,000.00 $750,000.00 Foundations & Grants $2,412,191.00 $2,127,817.00 $284,374.00 Private Donations $1,407,463.00 $1,123,089.00 $284,374.00 Income -US Cellular Tower $338,144.00 $338,144.00 Total $7,067,798.00 $6,499,050.00 $568,748.00 the first major snow storm in January, with the following items complete in the first six months: • Retaining Wall • Groundwork, including: Building Pad, Tree Removal, Sanitary Sewer, Domestic Water Service and Under Slab Rough Ins (plumbing, electrical) • Foundation, including: Footings, Foundation • Elevator Shaft Install • Elevation Drainage • Prepped Subbase, rebar and wire mesh • Poured Slabs • Indoor/Garage Drainage • Water Main • Structural Steel • 15T and 2nd Floor Framing • Floor and Roof Systems • Duct Chase and Kitchen Wall Framing • Membrane Roof • Trees and Brush removed for ADA path • Parapet Sheathing • Window Installation In the past quarter, significant progress has been made on the interior including: • all interior walls, • Electrical, plumbing and sprinkler • HVAC • ADA Ramp • Foodservice prep • Building wrap and exterior insulation • Siding installation is almost complete • Interior foam insulation • Elevator installation is in progress • Door Frames • Bathroom Showers • Level 2 duct work complete and insulated Soffit Framing Some interior views: Note: we've tried to keep the photos neutral with regards to demonstrating the location of the build. The photos are safe to share as appropriate for reporting. Please contact me if you have questions. We're excited to be working with United Way Day of Caring and University of Iowa Athletics on April 21". The Iowa Women's Basketball Team will be working with two national organizations (Greater Good Charities and ReclRover) to create an outdoor run area for pets that are staying with their families at our shelter through our Cooper's House Program. The pet play yard will have river rock for ground cover, and that's what we will be moving on United Way Day of Caring! This photo is an example that is very similar to our kennel spaces for cats and dogs. They are spaces families can enjoy with their pet. 1 Oog Retreats V�-, Par#itipn the bUildlr�g #o tr2a7w(crullidat treat rooms' The pets can IIve as #hme and have access to their own pet relief area thmtigh a lacking dog door. AGENDA ITEM #5 CDBG Project Status Update FY24 CDBG Shelter Improvements: Shelter House is leveraging three grant sources to complete this renovation project (CDBG, CDBG-CV, and HTFJC). The City has been contracted by the Iowa Economic Development Authority to administer the CDBG-CV award and received grant approval from them on 1/1/2024 and an environmental review release on 31112024. Shelter House received the draft contracts for CDBG and CDBG-CV awards from the City on 4/08/2024. Shelter House has contracted Neumann Monson for architectural and design services. The project plans are in the final design review phase. Due to the funding sources, the project will be publicly bid and Davis Bacon rates will apply. The bid documents are being finalized and are to be reviewed by City staff with the intention to put the project out for bid by the last week of April 2024. Shelter House intends to award the construction project by June 2024 with construction to begin by the first week of July 2024. This project is estimated to take a total of 7.5 months with a projected completion date of mid -January 2025. The first project priority will be to enclose the currently open stairwell and renovate the single adult dormitory bathrooms (projected to take 4 months). While the building will overall remain in operation throughout the duration of the project, the dormitories will be off-line during the bathroom renovation phase. Shelter House will continue to provide shelter services for families on the west side of the second floor without interruption. We are currently seeking permission from Johnson County to access the Winter Shelter facility to provide shelter for single adults for the duration of the renovation of the single adult dormitory bathrooms. The intention is to complete this phase of the project by the end of October and to bring the single adult dormitories back on-line at that time. Therein ensuring access to the Winter Shelter facility in ample time to prepare for the 2024-2025 winter season. FY22 CDBG Shelter Improvements (HVAC: The City has completed the mechanical and electrical inspections. There have been a couple of critical component failures. All failed equipment is to be replaced under warranty. Shelter House has been told this will be completed the week of 4/15/2024. Shelter House is waiting on the Owner Training, O & M manuals, and Certificate of Significant Completion. Once these are complete and the system components replaced, Shelter House will submit the closeout grant request and report. AGENDA ITEM #6 CITY OF I O WA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 15, 2024 To: Housing & Community Development Commission From: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Brianna Thul, Senior Community Development Planner Re: Staff Recommendations for HCDC Overview: The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) is a critical piece of the city's public input process for affordable housing and community development activities. Commissioners reflect the community and bring experience, knowledge, and ideas that better our processes and help our funding reach the programs and populations that need it most. In addition, federal funding often requires a level of resident participation that HCDC fulfills for grant requirements. In the past few years, the commission's attendance and participation levels have waned to the point where it is not sustainable to continue as a commission of nine members. Staff recommend amending the size of the commission to help ensure ongoing active participation and the ability to review city affordable housing and community development activities in a timely manner, put resources to work in our community as soon as possible, and to meet federal grant deadlines. Additionally, staff recommend shifting the location of HCDC meetings to Emma Harvat Hall a more convenient and accessible for commissioners and attendees. Role of HCDC: The Housing and Community Development Commission was established by City Council in 1995 (Resolution # 95-199) to "assess Iowa City's community development needs for housing, jobs, and services for low- and moderate -income residents, and to promote public and private efforts to meet such needs". Per the By-laws, duties of the commission include the following: 1. Assess and review policies and planning documents related to the provision of housing, jobs, and services, for low- and moderate -income residents of Iowa City; 2. Review policies and programs of the Public Housing Authority and Community Development Division and make recommendations regarding the same to the City Council; 3. Review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the use of public funds to meet the needs of low and moderate income residents; 4. Actively publicize community development and housing policies and programs, and seek public participation in assessing needs and identifying strategies to meet these needs; 5. Recommend to the City Council from time -to -time amendments, supplements, changes, and modifications to the Iowa City Housing Code. In practice, HCDC's key role is to review grant applications and annual reports to HUD in accordance with the City's Citizen Participation Plan. Occasionally the commission is asked to provide input on policy changes for programs administered through the Neighborhood Services division. The following table outlines current duties required of HCDC in a given timeframe: April 15, 2024 Page 2 Timeframe Current HCDC Duties Annual Review CDBG/HOME applications for affordable housing, public facilities, and other activities and allocate—$800,000 in funds. • Recommend allocation of—$35,000 in local Emerging Aid to Agencies funds. • Review and recommend the City's Annual Action Plan, CAPER, and any substantial amendments to these documents. • Monitoring of projects that are underway. • Make recommendations to continue/terminate unsuccessful and delayed CDBG and HOME projects. • Promote Community Development Week. Every 2 Years 0 Review Legacy Aid to Agencies applications and recommend allocations to over $700,000 to 20 nonprofit agencies. Every 5 Years 0 Review and recommend the City's 5-Year Consolidated Plan (City Steps) and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (Fair Housing Study). • Participate in public input for both planning processes. Occasionally/ 0 Consider policy changes for programs administered by Neighborhood As Needed Services including Community Development, the Iowa City Housing Authority, and Housing Inspection Services as requested by staff or City Council. • Participate in city initiatives such as the Affordable Housing Action Plan process. • Review of new federal grant programs such as HOME -ARP. Membership, Attendance, and Participation: HCDC currently consists of nine members appointed by City Council who serve three-year terms. The by-laws state that, when possible, membership shall include at least one person with expertise in construction, finance, nonprofit management experience, and property management, and at least one person who receives rental assistance. Meetings are held on the third Thursday of each month at 6:30pm in the Senior Center. In the last few years membership and attendance have been a challenge for the commission. While HCDC has nine members, meetings have had an average of six commissioners in attendance since June 2020. The last meeting held with a full commission was March 2021. Meetings require five members to reach quorum and three meetings have been cancelled as a result of low attendance. The scope of this issue was apparent at the March 21, 2024 meeting. The March meeting agenda included the funding allocation recommendations for CDBG, HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies. This is the most important meeting of the year for HCDC and all applicants are invited to attend to hear the discussion. The March meeting started about 10 minutes late as only four commissioners were present at the scheduled start time of 6:30pm and five are needed to form a quorum. During that period there was uncertain whether the meeting would need to be canceled at the last minute after 20+ agency representatives had already arrived with the expectation of hearing funding recommendations from the commission. Part of the low attendance stems from commissioner turnover. Seven commissioners have resigned early (before the end of their term) since September 2021. Council appointments to fill commission vacancies have been deferred three times due to lack of applicants. Additionally, not all commissioners participate in the scoring and recommendation process during funding rounds, which is a key part of HCDC's role. During the FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies round, only five commissioners submitted their scores on time for review by the full commission. In the recent FY25 funding allocation, only six commissioners submitted their scores for April 15, 2024 Page 3 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies. Staff are aware that the volume of material assigned to HCDC to review for regularly occurring grant cycles and other routine tasks is substantial. Staff Efforts with HCDC Staff continue to search for ways to improve attendance and create a better experience for commissioners. Actions taken in recent years are outlined below. However, staff time is limited and any additional time spent on commission efforts takes away from administering housing and community development projects that benefit the community. • Membership and Onboarding o Increased outreach to promote vacancies on the commission. o Regular updates to the HCDC member handbook and training materials. o One-on-one commissioner onboarding. o Detailed grant cycle calendars outlining roles and responsibilities. Scheduling o Annual meeting calendar establishing meeting dates in advance. o Scheduled commission breaks where possible in the annual calendar. o Send out a survey each month to anticipate attendance levels and avoid last minute cancelations. o Reach out to commissioners individually to gauge attendance. Application and Plan Reviews o Provided staff analysis and funding recommendations for each funding cycle. o Revised scoring rubric to tie each scoring criteria to a question in the application. o Created a detailed one -page summary of CDBG/HOME and Legacy A2A submissions with key scoring information that is color coded to the score sheet. o Developed handouts and guides summarizing complex topics, such as federal requirements. o Moved applicant Q&A sessions from in -person to in -writing to reduce the length of meetings. o Held office hours for commissioners to go through application questions individually and ensure they understand the process. Other o Established regular check -ins with the chair and vice chair outside of monthly meetings to discuss commission business and direction. o Provided notes and guidance to the chair each meeting. Proposed Changes In consideration of city needs and promoting the best use of commissioners' time, staff recommends revising the size of the HCDC and meeting location as follows: 1. Reduce HCDC membership from nine to seven. HCDC has operated with an average of six members in attendance since June 2020, in part due to vacancies occurring outside of regular appointment terms. This has resulted in difficulty reaching quorum each month with fewer members available to meet. Staff have expanded efforts to promote vacancies within the community and applicant pools are often limited and/or do not fit the areas of expertise outlined in the by-laws. A smaller commission is recommended based on the inability to maintain a nine -member commission over multiple years. The proposed adjustment could be achieved by not filling the next seats that become vacant so that no one would lose their position on the commission. Those with terms ending would be encouraged to reapply for HCDC if they are interested in serving a second term. 2. Change the time and location of meetings to allow the commission to use Emma Harvat Hall. April 15, 2024 Page 4 HCDC is one of the few commissions led by departments located at City Hall that does not meet at City Hall. Meetings have shifted from the Senior Center to the Environmental Education Center, back to the Senior Center in recent years. Staff have received comments from commissioners about sound levels, ability to see the projection screen, sitting with their backs to the audience, and availability of parking and transit at each venue. Emma Harvat Hall is the ideal location for this commission due to the room arrangement, AV access, individual screens, room for public participants, and proximity to parking/transit. Currently, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission meets on the third Thursday of the month in Emma Harvat Hall. Staff propose shifting the date and time of the meetings to the 2na Tuesday of the month at 5:30pm or another available time so that Emma Harvat Hall can be utilized regularly. The revised date and time would be contingent on commissioner availability. Future Considerations Staff recommend the above changes to improve the commission's ability to complete the necessary work of HCDC in a timely manner and meet more effectively. However, these changes do not address concerns about the increased workload and expectations of the commissioners over time. Staff anticipate that additional recommendations will be brought forward after hearing the Aid to Agency subcommittee recommendations and working through the Consolidated Planning process. Staff will continue working on identifying ways to reduce the strain on commissioners and improve the volunteer experience. Commissioners are encouraged to contact staff with suggestions. Next Steps A change in the size of the commission would require an amendment to HCDC's by-laws. The April 18, 2024 meeting agenda will include an item for discussion of the proposed changes and the following meeting, anticipated for May 16, 2024, will include a vote on this proposal. If approved by a majority of the commission (at least five members), the amendment would then be reviewed by the City Council Rules Committee before being considered by the City Council as a whole. Potential changes to the meeting time and location will follow the same schedule but do not require an amendment to the commission by-laws or City Council approval. Staff propose that any changes would be implemented beginning July 1, 2024, which is when new commissioners are typically appointed.