HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-07 Bd Comm minutes4a 1
MINUTES APPROVED
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2010 - 6:30 PM
EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Andy Douglas, Scott Dragoo, Charlie Drum,
Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca
McMurray, Rachel Zimmermann Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Linda Severson
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Michael McKay at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 16. 2010 MEETING MINUTES:
Chappell motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Drum seconded.
The motion carried 8-0 (McMurray absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Hightshoe updated the Commission on a Community Development application that had been
approved by City Council. The business, The Paper Nest, is a book binding and custom-design
printing operation planning to open up in the back of Beadology sometime in November.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2010
PAGE 2 of 7
Hightshoe said another application had also been approved but that it is on hold pending private
financing of a portion of the start-up costs. That business is intended to be a dog
training/kennel operation. (McMurray arrives)
ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE 2001-2015 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (a.k.a. CITY STEPS):
An annual meeting seeking public input is required as a part of this process. This year's
meeting was held at the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County. Hightshoe summarized and
categorized the comments received. Hightshoe said that most of the comments received
concerned transportation and housing. Hightshoe said that transportation is currently listed as a
medium priority in the plan because the amount of funding available for public services is not
sufficient to alter bus routes or make major changes to the local transportations system. All
other comments received concerned items that were already listed as high priorities in the CITY
STEPS plan. Hightshoe said that all of the comments were shared with the department heads,
the interim and incoming City Managers, and the school district.
McKay said that there had been an extended discussion about the need for increased computer
literacy. He noted that a computer literacy program is actually being offered by the local library
at this time. Hightshoe said that it is surprising how many adults do not have basic computer
skills, which can be a serious barrier to employment. She noted that many businesses have
online application processes. Hightshoe said that it is sometimes the case that applications will
be denied because an applicant took too long and the computer timed out. She also noted that
a number of households do not have Internet access, and that the local school district uses the
Power School Internet system as its primary means of communication. Hightshoe said that
AmeriCorp volunteers had discussed the difficulty of securing computer lab facilities at night in
order to teach computer literacy classes, and Hightshoe said the City would be working with
them on that issue.
Douglas said he realized that HCDC did not do much on the transportation side of things but
asked if Hightshoe had been in communication with the Transit Department as these types of
comments were heard every year. Hightshoe said that for Transit to run an additional route they
need a certain number of riders committed to that route as it is a very expensive proposition.
Hightshoe said she thought a pilot program involving vouchers fQr cab rides had been discussed
but she was not sure if that came about or was successful. Hightshoe said Transit does receive
the comments each time, but that she believes they are limited in what they can do to address
the issues due to funding. There were comments at the meeting that transit to the downtown
area is excellent; it is when transfers and north-south travel come into play that things get
difficult. McKay said that time of day is also an issue as people with second shift jobs might be
able to get to work but have no way of getting home. No amendments were proposed at this
time to CITY STEPS.
DISCUSSION OF THE CDBG SPECIAL ALLOCATION REVIEW AND TIMELINE:
McKay said that he and Hightshoe had met the previous week to try to determine a sensible
structure for this process. Fie said that they had come up with a plan for the Commission to
consider. McKay said that a great number of applicants are expected so there is a great deal of
sorting to do; he said more than $15 million in applications are expected for $2.9 million in
funding. McKay said he and Hightshoe had created a chart for rankings with a limited number
of criteria for assessment. He said they would like input from the Commission on the criteria
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2010
PAGE 3 of 7
and language. Hightshoe said that as a Commission they need to first decide if they want to
use any kind of evaluation criteria, and if so, then decide what criteria that would be. Hightshoe
said there would be a broad range of projects applying: housing, economic development, public
infrastructure, public facilities, etc. A consensus of the Commission indicated that they wished
to use evaluation criteria.
Hightshoe explained that the current sample has a total of 35 possible points for each
application, with staff answering the first two questions. The rating scale gives five as the most
positive rating and one as the most negative. Hightshoe said that she and Steve Long had
been fielding a high volume of questions regarding the available funding and the application
process.
Hightshoe said that the applications are due October 29th and that she and Long will create a
table categorizing projects as they come in. She said that this table and the applications will be
distributed to Commission members right away. Hightshoe asked if the Commission wanted to
have more than one meeting in November to work on this allocation. Zimmermann Smith said
that it made sense to see what came in and to determine based on that how many meetings
were necessary. Hightshoe said that after applications were submitted staff would arrange
meeting dates based on Commissioner availability.
Drum asked if the applications had already been designed and distributed, and Hightshoe said
they had. Drum said he thought it would be helpful to get applicants' opinions on the design
format and content of the application. Zimmermann Smith said that she would like to know a
brief history of funding allocations for applicants, since often times the same groups and
organizations return for funding each year. Hightshoe said she could print off the approved
funding allocations for the last five years..
McKay asked if it made sense to pencil in a few possible dates for second meetings in the
month of November while Commission members were present. Zimmermann Smith asked if it
had to be on a Thursday. Meetings were tentatively set for the 16th and 18th of November.
Chappell asked if it would be possible to start the meetings a little earlier than 6:30 if there was
a feeling that they would be lasting a little longer than usual. Douglas said he had a
commitment on Tuesdays, so he would be late regardless. Hightshoe said that it was hoped
that the City Council would have a recommendation on these applications for their December
16th meeting; she said that would leave time for a meeting the first week of December if
necessary.
Hightshoe asked if the Commission thought it would like to meet with the applicants, or if they
thought they may want to do question and answer sessions with just a few of them. McMurray
said she thought it depended on the applications received. She said that a number of
applicants will have applied numerous times in the past and have had to state their cases each
time. Dragoo said that for him it depended on how many projects staff felt they could handle; he
said that he would not necessarily need to meet with ten applicants, but might want to meet
them if there were only five. Zimmermann Smith said that it would not really be fair to meet with
only a few of the applicants; even if Commissioners had heard from some applicants in the past,
they should be afforded the same opportunities to make their cases as new applicants. Drum
said that his opinion is that it should be like the normal allocation process, in which applicants
make themselves available for questions, but that presentations should not be the focus.
Chappell said that he did not want to encourage an on-going dialogue; rather there should be a
Q&A session; the applicant would be welcome to listen to discussions after that was concluded
but would not be allowed to give further input. Drum said that in the regular allocation session
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2010
PAGE 4 of 7
the applicant really cannot speak unless spoken to, which is helpful in keeping things moving
along. He said that it was during discussions that questions actually come up, so it is helpful to
allow applicants to answer as needed during that time. McKay said that what he liked about
Chappell's suggestion was that it required Commissioners to have done their homework and
have their questions ready for the applicants.
Hightshoe recommended that applicants not be allowed to submit materials after the application
date. She said the idea of the application process is for applicants to make their arguments in
the application and supporting documentation. McKay asked who would be in favor of
Chappell's suggestion of having a question and answer session and then moving on.
Zimmermann Smith said she could agree with that idea but suggested that applicants remain
available for any questions that come up. Drum said that McKay's point about Commissioner
prepared-Hess is one that is well-taken. Chappell said that his thought was that the first hour of
the meeting would be devoted to any questions Commissioners had for any of the applications
and after that applicants could stay or go. Chappell said that any questions came up after that
time could be communicated through staff who would forward the answers to the Commission.
A general consensus was reached for that format.
Hightshoe asked if anyone had any suggestions for the evaluation criteria. Chappell said his
preference would be to see #6 slightly reworded to allow for a more innovative definition of
"innovative." He said that a lot of these projects are going to get all of the 35 points or none of
the 35 points. Chappell asked if the five point spread was large enough to differentiate between
projects, and suggested that ten might make that easier. McKay said that with this many
applications it is possible to have 15 or more applications with 35 points. He said that at some
point it will come down to judgment. McKay suggested sticking with the five point spread, with
Commissioners keeping in mind that the rankings are just a tool to guide decisions. Hightshoe
said that she might put a disclaimer out to applicants explaining that ranking points are not the
sole factor considered by the Commission.
Drum asked if there was a limit to how many projects could be funded. Hightshoe said she
would speak with Long about it very soon. McKay noted that he would hate to exclude small
agencies based solely on a pre-set number that had been established regarding how many
projects would be funded. He said that he hoped the Commission would allow itself a little
flexibility in that area. Zimmermann Smith asked how much staff time was involved in
administering a given project. Hightshoe said that acquisitions required little staff oversight; all
other types of projects required approximately the same amount of time regardless of the
funding amount because of the federal regulations involved. Zimmermann Smith noted that
there will be a diversity of project-types so setting a number in advance may not be necessary.
Hightshoe encouraged members to use the opportunity to fund some innovative projects that
the Commission might not have been able to fund in the regular allocation process. Hightshoe
noted that there would be approximately $150,000 in Aid to Agencies funding for next year and
the current minimum allocation is $2,500 (these funds can also be used for any CDBG eligible
project). Drum said that being able to give significantly more aid to local agencies could make a
big difference to those organizations.
DISCUSSION OF THE FY12 AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING REQUESTS:
REVIEW PROCESS:
Linda Severson led discussions on this topic. Severson shared a spreadsheet of recent Aid to
Agencies allocations and FY12 funding requests.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2010
PAGE 5 of 7
Severson said that the City of Iowa City has supported human services through Aid to Agencies
funding for years, though it is typical that the funding mandate is actually that of the County.
Severson explained that the agencies complete one form under the Joint Funding process to
apply for funding from the City of Iowa City, the City of Coralville, United Way and the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors. Severson explained that the way that allocations are spent has
been left rather flexible, which is something that agencies appreciate as often times their
funding is tied to a specific use. Severson said that Aid to Agencies does, however, ask what
the money will be used for and has found that agencies need it for a wide variety of uses. She
said that United Action for Youth often uses it as matching funds for grants, while the Free
Medical Clinic often uses it for utility bills. Severson said that allocations range from about
$5,000 to $60,000 and funds about 19 agencies. Severson explained that CDBG projects tend
to be of the one-time "brick and mortar" variety, whereas Aid to Agencies tends to fund the
same sort of needs for the same sort of agencies each year. Severson said that the City
Council had previously had two Council members review applications and make determinations;
however, this year they are experimenting with allocating through HCDC, as it was seen as a
logical extension of what HCDC already does.
Severson explained that she does quarterly reports for each allocation and submits them to City
Council and will do so for HCDC as well. Severson said that this year's exact allocation amount
has not been determined, but said that approximately $425,000 was allocated in FY11 and
expects the number to be the same this year. She said that City Council has recently begun
setting aside $10,000 as a contingency fund for agencies that have small, unexpected
expenses. She cited Shelter House and the bed bug infestation they are experiencing as one
possible example of how such a contingency fund might be applied.
McKay asked if it was the case that these agencies were of the mindset that the same level of
funding will available to them each year and create their budgets accordingly. Severson said
that was the case. She said that initial approval does not necessarily mean that year-to-year
funding is a given; however, there is a certain expectation attached to it. Chappell asked if the
agencies were discomfited by the fact that there is now a completely different process and body
reviewing these applications. Severson said that she is not sure that all of the agencies are
actually aware that there has been a change in the process, as the process is somewhat
removed from them. She said that questions & other communications between the Commission
and the applicant would typically go through staff. Chappell noted that there are significant
drops in funding for some agencies from FY10 to FY11, and asked if there was anything the
Commission should be aware of in regard to those, given the stated expectation of continued
funding. Severson said that the allocating Council members .had reduced MECCA's award
based on the fact that the City allocation was 1 % of their total budget, and a decrease for them
might not be as devastating as it would be for a smaller agency.
Hightshoe asked if it was the case that Severson wanted HCDC to formulate allocation
recommendations at the November meeting. Severson said that it could be flexible because the
City Council starts reviewing budgets in January. At that time, a total number will be approved
and the Commission will figure out how to break that amount down. Severson said she could
see if the recommendation could be pushed back as far as January. She said that after the
process is over they can discuss as a group if this is something HCDC can take on on an
ongoing basis, or if the process needs to return to the purview of the City Council. Severson
said she was trying to be respectful of what Commission members had originally signed on for
in the face of a particularly busy allocation year.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2010
PAGE 6 of 7
Severson said she would get back to the Commission on specific timeframes for the allocation
discussions.
MONITORING REPORTS:
• Mayor's Youth Empowerment Proaram -Facility Rehab. & Operations (McMurray)
McMurray said that approximately $80,000 of the $90,000 allocated to MYEP for facility
rehabilitation has been spent. The hope is that the project will be completed by the end of
November. Hightshoe noted that MYEP was actually able to complete more on their exterior
than they had originally though as they were able to secure donated labor for the roof work and
hired their own student/clients for debris removal. She said there were hoops that had to be
jumped through to clear the volunteer contractors and labor, but that it had been worked out
satisfactorily.
MYEP has spent $940 of the $2,625 allocated for operations. The money was spent on funnel
cake making equipment; the other equipment should be purchased by the end of October.
• ISIS Investments LLC -Rental Housina (McMurray):
McMurray spoke with Salome Raheim of ISIS Investments and was told that they had spent
$107,750 of the $208,000 they were allocated. They have purchased, rehabilitated, and leased
two of their homes to Spanish-speaking families that are working closely with aSpanish-
speaking caseworker. The timeline for the other two homes is to have them purchased,
rehabilitated and leased by December 15t and June 30tH
ADJOURNMENT:
Zimmermann Smith motioned to adjourn.
Drum seconded.
The motion carried 9-0.
The meeting was adjourned.
Z
O
V
H
Z
W
a
O
W
W
O
~_
Z
U
0
Z
Q
_Z
N
OTC
O
U
W
W O
U `'
Z °
Q N
0
Z
W
H
Q
o X X X X X X X ~ X X
~-
x o x x x x x x x
r'
~ x x x w
O x x u,
O w
O w
O ,
'
~"~
c X X ~ X X X X X ~
o
x x o x x o x x o ;
N x x x x x x x x x
M
X X X X X X 0 X X
M
X X X X X X X X X
N
N X X X X X X X X X
r
N ~ M N M •- ~ O N M
~a
~(
W o
N
~
`-
O
~
OO o
N
~
a--
O
~
O
~
O
~
O
N
.
N
~
H W ~
O O
O O
O ~
O ~
O O
O O
O O
O ~
O ~
O
Q
'
D
W
Z
Q
J U
V
W
m
Z
=
F-
-
Q Q ~ ~ ~' _ ~ ~ V
w
N Q
= Q
-~ J
O V
~ ~
~ m
z Z
Q
~ J ~
O
w
a
>
>
H z
~
~ a
_ ~
~v
Q
Z
~
D
= Y
~
~ V
~ ~
N~
D
V C7
L
~ ~
w a~
~~
C
~ ~
Q Z
w~
~ ~
O i
O
c
c ~
N~
a`z°
11 II
YI X z