The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-06-04 ResolutionItem Number: 5.d. � + wMO°• CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org June 4, 2019 1. Resolution to issue Cigarette Permit to Black & Gold LLC, dba Black & Gold Vapors, 440 Kirkwood Ave. ATTACHMENTS: Description Cigarette Resolution Prepared by: City Clerk's Office, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5043 Resolution Number: 19-139 Resolution to Issue Cigarette Permits Whereas, the following firms and persons have made an application and paid the taxes required by law for the sale of cigarettes, tobacco, nicotine and vapor products. Now, Therefore, be it Resolved by The City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, That: the applications be granted and the City Clerk is hereby directed to issue a permit to the following named persons and firms to sell cigarettes, tobacco, nicotine and vapor products: Black 6 Gold Vapors — 440 Kirkwood Ave. Passed and approved this 4th day of June 20 19 yor pproved by Attest- lie I City Clerk City Attorney's Office It was moved by Mims and seconded by Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: X X X X X X Nays: Cole noon Absent: Cole Mims X Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton 5.3 Item Number: 6.a. �, CITY OF IOWA CITY �'�COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 Resolution authorizing the procurement of three (3) snow plow trucks for Streets Operations. Prepared By: Dan Striegel, Equipment Superintendent Reviewed By: Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: $615,401.00; funds for this purchase are available in Equipment Replacement fund and Streets Repair Programs fund accounts Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: At the June 4, 2019 City Council meeting, consideration will be given to a resolution authorizing the purchase, for replacement and upgrade, of three (3) snow plow trucks for Streets Operations. Request for Bid #20-202 will be utilized for the procurement of the three cab and chassis trucks from Thompson Truck and Trailer in Cedar Rapids, IA totaling $234,510.00. Sourcewell cooperative contract #080818 -HPI will be utilized for the procurement of the three snow plow body packages from Henderson Products Inc. in Manchester, I A totaling $380,891.00. Total purchase price is $615,401.00. Funds are available in Fiscal Year 2020 budgets; the new trucks will not be delivered before January 2020. Background /Analysis: The Streets Division utilizes fourteen snow plow trucks for winter operations. These new trucks will be replacing three of the 2010 model year plow trucks currently in the fleet that have exceeded their life expectancy. The Streets Division budget includes $80,000 to upgrade two of the snow plow body packages to include Swaploader hook lift type bodies which will allow for quick equipment changes in all seasons and increased operational efficiency. This will also allow for future salt brine application for anti -icing purposes and will improve efficiency with the pothole repair program. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution 0 Prepared by: Dan Striegel, Equipment Superintendent, 1200 S. Riverside Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 356-5197 Resolution No. 19-140 Resolution authorizing the procurement of three (3) snow plow trucks for Streets Operations. Whereas, three (3) snow plow trucks are budgeted for replacement in Fiscal Year 2020; and Whereas, Request for Bid #20-202 will be utilized for the purchase of the three cab and chassis trucks totaling $234,510; and Whereas, Sourcewell cooperative contract # 080818 -HPI will be utilized for the purchase of the three snow plow body packages totaling $380,891.00; and Whereas, the total purchase price of the three complete snow plow trucks is $615,401.00; and Whereas, the amount exceeds the City Managers spending authority of $150,000, thus requiring City Council approval; and Whereas, funds for this purchase are available in account # 81710520 and # 22710332; and Whereas, approval of this procurement is in the public interest. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The proposed procurement as described above is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized to take the steps necessary to make the purchase. Passed and approved this 4th day of June 2019 M or Attest "" City Clerk It was moved by trims and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Approved by s -a T5--(5- City 5--(SCity Attorney's Office Cole Absent: the Resolution be X Cole X Mims X Salih X Taylor X Teague X Thomas X Throgmorton Item Number: 6.b. ®I CITY OF IOWA CITY u► �� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 Resolution authorizing the procurement of one (1) storage area network for ITS operations. Prepared By: Michael Harapat, ITS Coordinator Reviewed By: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Ashley Monroe, Assistance City Manager Fiscal Impact: $159,818.38 after contract discount; funds for this purchase are available in the ITS Equipment Replacement fund. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: At the June 4, 2019 City Council meeting, consideration will be given to a resolution authorizing the purchase of a Nimble Storage Area Network that will create addition required storage space, for replacement of a current storage area network that is no longer supported, upgrade in performance, and greater expansion options for the future growth. Two Nimble AF40s from OneNeck IT solutions in Cedar Rapids, IA. Minnesota WSCA-NASPO cooperative Contract # MNNVP-134 and the Participating Addendum for the State of Iowa, Participating State Contract 16054 will be utilized for this purchase. Background /Analysis: The ITS Division uses storage area networks for storage of all city business data. This new system will be adding additional storage capacity, provide more options for future growth, and replacing a system that is at the end of support life. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Prepared by: Michael Harapat, ITS Coordinator, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5422 Resolution No. 19-141 Resolution authorizing the procurement of one (1) storage area network for ITS operations. Whereas, one (1) storage area network is budgeted for in a Fiscal Year 2019 budget; and Whereas, Minnesota WSCA-NASPO cooperative Contract # MNNVP-134 and the Participating Addendum forthe State of Iowa, Participating State Contract 16054 will be utilized for the purchase of the storage area network; and Whereas, the total purchase price of the storage area network with contract discount is $159,818.38; and Whereas, the amount exceeds the City Manager's spending authority of $150,000, thus requiring City Council approval; and Whereas, funds for this purchase are available in account # 83310581; and Whereas, approval of this procurement is in the best interest of city operations. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The proposed procurement as described above is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized to take the steps necessary to make the purchase. Passed and approved this 4th day of .Tune , 2019 M or Attest: / City Clerk It was moved by Mims adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: X X X X X X Approved by- City Attorney's Office seconded by Cole the Resolution be Absent: Cole Mims X Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton 11 1 Item Number: 6.c. ®I CITY OF IOWA CITY u► �� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 Resolution Approving Fiscal Year 2019 Inter -fund Transfers. Prepared By: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Reviewed By: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager Fiscal Impact: Approved as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 budget. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: The Iowa Department of Management adopted new administrative rules regarding the handling of inter -fund transfers. All inter -fund transfers are now required to be adopted by resolution by the City Council. Background /Analysis: In April 2019, the Iowa Administrative Code incorporated new regulations surrounding the management of inter -fund transfers. In addition to being adopted as part of the budget, which is subject to a public hearing, inter -fund transfers are now required to be approved by the City Council by resolution. Each transfer must include the fund sending the transfer, the fund receiving the transfer, the amount of the transfer, and the reason for the transfer. These new rules took effect in May 2019. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Prepared by: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5053 Resolution No. 19-142 Resolution Approving Fiscal Year 2019 Inter -fund Transfers Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that the City of Iowa City, in Johnson County, Iowa, approves the following transfer of monies between funds in accordance with the Administrative Code of the State of Iowa. The City Finance Director is hereby authorized to initate and record the listed inter -fund transfers up to the amounts set out below. Transfer Out Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund Energy Eff. Loan Fund CDBG Fund HOME Fund Road Use Tax Fund Road Use Tax Fund Road Use Tax Fund Employee Benefits Fund Employee Benefits Fund Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing Parking Fund Parking Fund Parking Fund Transit Fund Wastewater Fund Wastewater Fund Capital Projects Fund Water Fund Water Fund Transferin Fund Emergency Reserve Facility Reserve Wastewater Fund Water Fund Refuse Collection Fund Storm Water Fund Capital Projects Fund Airport Fund CDBG Fund MPOJC Fund Affordable Housing Fund Library Replacement Reserve Debt Service Fund Transit Fund TIF Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Housing Authority Fund General Fund MPOJC Capital Projects Fund General Fund Road Use Tax Fund Debt Service Fund Capital Projects Fund General Fund Landfill Fund Parking Debt Reserve Capital Projects Fund Transit Replacement Reserve Wastewater Debt Reserve Capital Projects Fund Wastewater Fund Water Debt Reserve Capital Projects Fund Reserve Transfer Reserve Transfer Low Income Disc. Donations Low Income Disc. Donations Low Income Disc. Donations Low Income Disc. Donations CIP funding CIP funding Operating funding Operating funding Operating funding Equipment Reserve Aniston Village Loan Payment Transit Levy Transfer Hilton Garden Inn Rebate CIP funding CIP funding Operating funding Forestry cost share Cost share CIP funding Employee benefits Employee benefits Debt payments TIF pre -certification costs Loan Repayment Loan Repayment Lease payments CIP funding Reserve Transfer Debt payments CIP funding Loan Repayment Debt payments CIP funding 10,G 6 2,000.00 450,000.00 2,000,000.00 500.00 500.00 1,250.00 250.00 2,850,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 1,000,000.00 12,000.00 21,000.00 700,000.00 60,000.00 248,000.00 55,000.00 100,000.00 15,000.00 45,000.00 650,000.00 1,800, 000.00 90,000.00 1,900,000.00 100,000.00 1,100,000.00 45,000.00 30,000.00 75,000.00 3,300,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 1,500, 000.00 350,000.00 210,000.00 Resolution No. 19-142 Page 2 3,000,000.00 Landfill Fund Landfill Reserves Landfill Fund Capital Projects Fund Airport Fund Capital Projects Fund Storm Water Fund Capital Projects Fund Housing Authority Fund General Fund Central Services Fund Capital Projects Fund Closure/Replacement funding 600,000.00 CIP funding 3,000,000.00 CIP funding 25,000.00 CIP funding 175,000.00 PILOT/NDS Dir. cost share 10,000.00 CIP funding 25,000.00 Passed and approved this 4th day of June / 2019 G yor: Approved by Attest: City Jerk City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 19-142 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Cole the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Cole x Mims x Salih % Taylor % Teague % Thomas x Throgmorton Item Number: 7.c. +r p- W�rm�M CITY O� IOWA CITY www.icgov.org June 4, 2019 Resolution of intent to consider the vacation and proposed conveyance of approximately 4,482 square feet of public right-of-way north of Benton Street off of Orchard Court to M&W Properties and setting a public hearing thereon for June 18, 2019. /_1 i i_Ta. ►`I 114011 &1 Description Staff Report with Attachments Resolution Setting Public Hearing for Vacation and Conveyance STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: VAC 19-1 4,482 square foot City owned area north of 330, 226, 224, 650/652 Orchard Court GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Property Owner: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner Date: May 16, 2019 M&W Properties P.O. Box 687 Iowa City, IA 52244 319-430-5991 ryanwade1000@gmail.com Vacation of City owned property extending west from Orchard Court. To incorporate unused City owned area into M&W Properties proposed development to the south. The intended use of the newly vacated right-of-way is to provide future access the properties to the south. North of Benton St., off Orchard Ct. a AA Approximately 4,482 square feet. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Unused, City owned right-of-way fT E_ �h �F a _ * ■ f a AA Approximately 4,482 square feet. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Unused, City owned right-of-way Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Multi -Family Residential; (OPD -5) and (RFC -0) South: Single -Family Residential; (RS -8) East: Kum & Go; RFC -WR West: Single -Family Residential; (RS -8) File Date: March 1, 2019 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, M&W Properties, is applying for a vacation of a section of City right-of-way located west of Orchard Ct. and north of 330, 226, and 224 Orchard Court and 650/652 Orchard Court. The area requested for vacation is approximately 4,482 square feet. The applicant owns most of the abutting properties to the south of the right-of-way (except for a 40' stretch along the far southwest portion of the area). The right-of-way is requested to provide vehicular and emergency service access to a development of two separate multi- family buildings to the south. In 2018, the applicant completed construction of a similar multi -family building located across from the subject right-of-way intersection with Orchard Court. Figure 1.0 - ROW Vacation Exhibit VACATION EXHIBIT A PART OF S. RIVERSIDE COURT IOWA CITY, IOWA I L I I I - V Y9 UJ �,y�o4�Pslo,:: AREA BEING POINT OF BEGINNING VACATED 1 Li yL--- .4 - F 120 0 0 12 25.36' I y w r— -P� _ ANALYSIS: The following factors are to be considered in evaluating a vacation request: a) Impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation; b) Impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation; c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties; d) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs; e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property; f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation. Figure 2.0 - ROW Photo A Figure 3.0 - ROW Photo a) Impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation: The right-of-way as currently situated is not being used. Numerous trees and other vegetation have taken over the right-of-way area. Abutting properties are not using the right-of-way, as the actual area does not have street or alley infrastructure. The applicant does plan to use the acquired right-of-way to put in a private drive off Orchard Court for residential access and emergency response vehicle access to the two planned multi -family buildings proposed south of the right-of-way. The existing sidewalk along the west side of Orchard Court will continue across the planned driveway intersection with Orchard Court. There should be no effect on pedestrian circulation on Orchard Court. b) Impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation: The right-of-way as currently situated provides no emergency or utility service access. As mentioned above, the applicant is intending to use convert the right-of-way area into a driveway that will provide access to emergency and utility vehicles for the proposed development to the south of the right-of-way area. c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties: Staff is not aware of any adjacent private properties that are using the right-of-way as currently situated as a regular means of access to and from Orchard Court. As stated before, the right-of-way area is currently unnavigable, due to the presence of overgrown trees and vegetation. d) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs Staff is not currently aware of any desire from adjacent property owners to maintain the right-of-way to satisfy current or future access or circulation needs. City Public Works staff has not expressed any desire to build a roadway on the right-of-way area. e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property: Public Works has confirmed that one utility company does have fiber communication lines running beneath the right-of-way area. The applicant will need to discuss a relocation plan of these lines with the utility company before the right-of-way area is converted into a private driveway. If a relocation of this line is not possible, then the City can convey the right-of-way to the applicant, subject to a utility easement. There are no other easements or restrictions on the subject property. f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation: Staff has not found any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the required purchase agreement from the applicant for this right-of-way area. The City Council will need to approve the submitted purchase agreement offer. SUMMARY: The subject right-of-way is currently unimproved, and is not being used by any adjacent residents. The applicant intends to purchase this land from the City and convert the right- of-way area into a private driveway to provide daily and emergency service access to residents of two planned multi -family buildings. A rezoning for 1.748 acres of land located to the south of the right-of-way area is contingent upon City Council approval of this right- of-way vacation. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the proposed vacation will be reviewed by the City Council. The City Council will consider both the vacation and conveyance of this land. The applicant has made a purchase offer for the vacated right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of VAC19-1, a vacation of the right-of-way west of Orchard Ct. and north of 330, 226, 224, and 650/652 Orchard Ct. in Iowa City, IA. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Right -Of -Way Area Map Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services 7-�=m 70TY .rOF IOWA CITY t! z. IN + yt }Ar - Oki r - .tk -10 rite `Rp ,Y - r r A Uig i tl d n - cr, m 4 Wt AIL" D -To r J F�" An application submitted by M&W Properties ;Q for the vacation of 4,482 square feet of land '` BENT -ON -ST � +� d'41 that extends west of Orchard Court, south of 630 Orchard Court, and north of 650 Orchard Court. r 12 i w POINT OF BEGINNING VACATION EXHIBIT A PART OF S. RIVERSIDE COURT IOWA CITY, IOWA 01? OQy AREA BEING ��O VACATED ---N 0(1, a LINE ~� LENGTH r I, i CHORD BRG 01? OQy AREA BEING ��O VACATED ---N 0(1, LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE LINE DIRECTION LENGTH CURVE I, RADIUS CHORD BRG CHORD L1 S 87°26'06" E R O (D D 80.27' L2 S 68°57'45" E 78.89 L2 O 127.18' ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: 1O M & W PROPERTIES, LLC Q HOWARD M. FIELD L3 N 00°13'34" E 15.01' L4 N 87°26'06" W _ Ph.. 'ivlW �_ W.ia101 007 L5 N 03°07'21" E 10.00' All I 1 § tCl '-k,l�!mPr'Tdi.�+�'i'C o L. ! s LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE LINE DIRECTION LENGTH CURVE LENGTH RADIUS CHORD BRG CHORD L1 S 87°26'06" E 309.38' C1 80.27' 125.00' S 68°57'45" E 78.89 L2 N 87°26'06" W 127.18' ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: 1O M & W PROPERTIES, LLC Q HOWARD M. FIELD L3 N 00°13'34" E 15.01' L4 N 87°26'06" W 256.51' L5 N 03°07'21" E 10.00' EXHIBIT REQUESTED BY: M & W PROPERTIES, LLC. 916 MAIDEN LN IOWA CITY, IA 52240 0 30 60 120 SCALE IN FEET (D GEORGE W. SADEWASSER ® MO & JOE ENTERPRISES, LLC SEE SHEET 2 FOR DESCRIPTION ONLY THESE COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT SIGNED AND DATED IN CONTRASTING INK COLOR ARE TO BE CONSIDERED CERTIFIED OFFICIAL COPIES PER IOWA ADMINISTRATION CODE 193C-6.1(5) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LAND SURVEYING DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED AND THE RELATED SURVEY WORK WAS PERFORMED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT PERSONAL SUPERVISION AND THAT �\oNp L LAlvo I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF • THE STATE OF IOWA. ��•. ••• •'••�G SIGNATURE: LL JQ N P THO N NAME: JONATHON BAILEY o : E RILE i 1zs31 O DATE: - LICENSE NUMBER: E1- 12531 MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE IS: DECEMBER 31, 2020 •�' '• PAGES, SHEETS OR DIVISIONS COVERED BY THIS SEAL' .• SOW of 2, 2 of 2 SHIVEL�— a [:- VACATION EXHIBIT A PART OF RIVERSIDE COURT ARC H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I NEE RING IOWA CITY, IOWA DATE 1/3/19 SCALE AS SHOWN 2839 Northgate Drive I Iowa City, Iowa 52245 DRAWN Jss FIELD BOOK — 319.354.3040 1 www.shive-hattery.com APPROVED JSB REVISION Iowa I Illinois I Indiana Illinois Firm Number: 184-000214 - PROJECT NO. 117257-0 SHEET NO. 1 of 2 Prepared by: Ray Heitner- Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 Resolution No. 19-143 Resolution of intent to consider the vacation and proposed conveyance of approximately 4,482 square feet of right-of-way north of Benton Street off of Orchard Court to M&W Properties and setting a public hearing thereon for June 18, 2019. Whereas, M&W Properties has requested that the City vacate and convey to it an approximately 4,482 square feet portion of right-of-way located north of Benton Street off of Orchard Court; and Whereas, M&W Properties owns the surrounding land locally known as 330, 226, 224, and 650 Orchard Court, and intends to use the area for a private drive to service a redevelopment of the properties to the south; and Whereas, at its meeting on May 16, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the vacation; and Whereas, Staff recommends approval of the vacation and conveyance, subject to a utility easement, given that the right-of-way has not been improved for public use, though is currently used for utility purposes; and Whereas, in the event that Council approves the vacation, it is in the public interest to convey the vacated right-of-way by quit claim deed to M&W Properties for fair market value, subject to a utility easement, to allow the continued use of an existing utility in the area. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The City Council does hereby declare its intent to consider the vacation and conveyance of approximately 4,482 square feet of right-of-way to M&W Properties via quit claim deed for $14,925, subject to a utility easement. 2. A public hearing on said proposal should be and is hereby set for June 18, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in Emma J. Harvat Hall at City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk, and that the City Clerk be and is hereby directed to cause notice of said public hearing to be published as provided by law with the costs assessed to the applicant. Passed and approved this 4th day of D19. M YOR Approved by J ATTEST: f'S J� tPliis�Gye��/� t� CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 19-143 Page 2 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Cole Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Cole x Mims x Salih x Taylor % Teague % Thomas % Throgmorton the Item Number: 7.d. �, CITY OF IOWA CITY �'�COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 Resolution setting a public hearing on June 18, 2019 on project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Riverfront Crossings Park, Phase 4 Project, directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file for public inspection. Prepared By: Juli Seydell Johnson, Parks & Recreation Director Reviewed By: Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: The estimated cost of construction is $450,000 and will be funded with GO Bonds and Public Art I n -Lieu Fees provided by the developer of 707 S Dubuque Street Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: Park Commission reviewed project master plan and recommended approval on December 14, 2016 Attachments: Rendering Resolution Executive Summary: This agenda item begins the bidding process for the Riverfront Crossings Park Phase 4 Project which includes installing the Kenneth Snelson sculpture "Four Modular Piece". Associated site work, landscaping and lighting are also included. Background /Analysis: Riverfront Crossings Park is located at the site of the City's decommissioned North Wastewater Treatment Plant along the banks of the Iowa River. The site has been cleared of the wastewater treatment plant and three phases of the park development are nearly complete. Future phases will occur as budget and land acquisition allow. Phase 1 included wetland creation, streambank restoration, site grading, trail and parking lot construction. Phase 2 included a nature play area installation. Phase 3 included the installation of a combination restroom and park shelter building, electrical service, trail lighting and signage. This project, Phase 4, will include the relocation of the Kenneth Snelson sculpture "Four Modular Piece" from its current location at Terrill Mill Park to the center of the Circle Drive at Riverfront Crossings Park. Associated site work, landscaping and lighting are also included. Project Timeline for Phase 4: Set Public Hearing June 4, 2019 Approve Contract Documents June 18, 2019 Award Contract July 16, 2019 ATTACHMENTS: Description Rendering Resolution Option 1 TAPERED COLUMN ARTIST'S PLAZA Riverfront Crossings, Iowa City conFLOEnCE November 2018 Option 1 TAPERED COLUMN ARTIST'S PLAZA Riverfront Crossings, Iowa City > <1 it da 49, -4" I-"- e--%, 4 conFLOEnCE November 2018 # A r ',Art _ " s '"y'� ti mow►' � . � _ _ � 4- �y t y Ila 4� �, , i�.�rr , 4 �` Prepared by: Ben Clark, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240, (319) 356-5436 Resolution No. 19-144 Resolution setting a public hearing on June 18, 2019 on project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Riverfront Crossings Park, Phase 4 Project, directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file for public inspection. Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Riverfront Crossings Riverbank/Park Development account # R4185. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. A public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-mentioned project is to be held on the 18'" day of June 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the public hearing for the above-named project in a newspaper published at least once weekly and having a general circulation in the City, not less than four (4) nor more than twenty (20) days before said hearing. 3. A copy of the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-named project is hereby ordered placed on file by the City Engineer in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. Passed and approved this 4th day of June / 2019 yor Attest: It was adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: W FI Nays: Approved by City Attorney's Office 7 ;conded by the Resolution be Absent: Cole Mims x Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorlon Item Number: 7.e. �, CITY OF IOWA CITY �'�COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 Resolution setting a public hearing on June 18, 2019 on project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Rochester Avenue Sidewalk Infill Project, directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file for public inspection. Prepared By: Josh Slattery, Sr. Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: The estimated cost is $131,000 and will be funded with account#S3948 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Location Map Resolution Executive Summary: This agenda item begins the process to bid the Rochester Avenue Sidewalk Infill Project. Background /Analysis: The Rochester Avenue Sidewalk Infill Project involves the construction of 4 -foot wide sidewalk along the north side of Rochester Avenue between the water ground storage reservoir at 2410 Rochester Avenue and St. Thomas Court. The proposed sidewalk will connect to existing sidewalk at both ends. Regina High School is nearby and the City received a request from a resident who lives on St. Thomas Court for the sidewalk to be installed so that her kids could walk to school. Since there is currently not sidewalk along the north side of Rochester Avenue to the east of St. Thomas Court, residents need to cross Rochester Avenue to travel west on a sidewalk to Regina. The site distance at this location is very poor due to the curve in Rochester Avenue and makes it dangerous to cross the street. In addition, Rochester Avenue is an arterial street and has a 35 - mph speed limit at this location. The same situation would also apply to residents who live along Bluffwood Lane and Rochester Avenue adjacent to the project that would want to travel either east or west on a sidewalk. A neighborhood meeting was held on December 14, 2016 with four residents attending. All residents who attended were in favor of the proposed sidewalk. The City has acquired the temporary construction easements that were needed so that grading of the adjacent ground and reconstruction of the driveways can extend into the private property where necessary to ensure that the slopes are mowable and the slopes of the driveways are not steeper than the recommended design standards. The estimated construction cost is $131,000 and will be funded with General Obligation bond proceeds. Project Timeline: Set Public Hearing — June 4, 2019 Hold Public Hearing — June 18, 2019 Bid Letting — July 10, 2019 Award Date — July 16, 2019 Construction Start — August 2, 2019 ATTACHMENTS: Description Location Map Resolution 719 Prepared by. Josh Slattery, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240, (319)356-5149 Resolution No. 19-145 Resolution setting a public hearing on June 18, 2019 on project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Rochester Avenue Sidewalk Infill Project, directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file for public inspection. Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Rochester Avenue Sidewalk Infill Project account # S3948. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: A public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-mentioned project is to be held on the 18th day of June, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the public hearing for the above-named project in a newspaper published at least once weekly and having a general circulation in the City, not less than four (4) nor more than twenty (20) days before said hearing. 3. A copy of the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-named project is hereby ordered placed on file by the City Engineer in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. Passed and approved this 4th day of June 2019 / M or Approved by Attest' AA w'j,' ./Et SGL.. Ci Clerk City Attorney's Office It was moved by Mims and seconded by Cole the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Absent: x Cole X Mims X Salih X Taylor X Teague c Thomas x Throgmorton I T CITY OF IOWA CITY Mat ^� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 3, Resolution setting a public hearing on June 18, 2019 on project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Asphalt Resurfacing 2019 Project, directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file for public inspection. Late Handouts Distributed Prepared By: Jason Reichart - Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Jason Havel - City Engineer Ron Knoche - Public Works Director /p / Geoff Fruin - City Manager Fiscal Impact: The estimated cost for this project is $1,480,000 and w{IW?�nded with Pavement Rehabilitation Funds available in account #S3824 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: This is a recurring maintenance project that concentrates on asphalt resurfacing and other repairs of various streets throughout Iowa City. In addition to the resurfacing, this project includes storm intake repairs, repair of curb and gutter, as needed, and replacement of curb ramps to meet current ADA standards. This project also includes new pavement markings on Dodge Street to include a one-way to two-way conversion from Burlington Street to Bowery Street and a 4 -lane to 3 -lane conversion from Bowery Street to Kirkwood Avenue. The new pavement markings will include new bicycle facilities, as recommended by the Bicycle Master Plan. As part of the restriping to add bicycle facilities, parking will need to be removed from Dodge Street, between Burlington Street and Bowery Street, which will result in eliminating up to approximately 40 on -street parking spots. Background I Analysis: The Asphalt Resurfacing 2019 Project includes work at the following locations: Street Milling and 3 -inch Asphalt Overlay Clinton Street from Court Street to Benton Street Fairmeadows Boulevard from Hwy 6 to Hollywood Boulevard South Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to East 3rd Street Newton Road from Woolf Avenue to Hwy 6 Valley Avenue from Newton Road to Hwy 6 Lincoln Avenue from Newton Road to Hwy 6 / Dead end Park Road and Ferson Avenue intersection Equipment building parking lot Pavement Markings with New Bicycle Facilities Dodge Street buffered bike lane from Burlington Street to Bowery Street Dodge Street 4 -lane to 3 -lane conversion with bike lanes from Bowery Street to Kirkwood Avenue /l,l Prepared by: Jason Reichart, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240,(319)366-5416 Resolution No. 19-146 Resolution setting a public hearing on June 18, 2019 on project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Asphalt Resurfacing 2019 Project, directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file for public inspection. Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Annual Pavement Rehabilitation account #S3824. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: A public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-mentioned project is to be held on the 18`h day of June, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the public hearing for the above-named project in a newspaper published at least once weekly and having a general circulation in the City, not less than four (4) nor more than twenty (20) days before said hearing. 3. A copy of the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-named project is hereby ordered placed on file by the City Engineer in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. Passed and approved this 4th day of Tune / 2019 G, M or Ap roved by Attest: Ci Clerk City Attorney's Office It was moved by trims and seconded by Cole the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Absent: x Cole x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague X Thomas X Throgmorton Late Handouts Distributed Prepared by: Jason Reichert, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240, (319)356-5416 Resolution No. _ 3 Resolution setting a public hearing on June 18, 2019 &tp?oject manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Asphalt Resurfacing 2019 Project, directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file for public inspection. Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Annual Pavement Rehabilitation account #53824. Now, therefore, be'rt resolved by the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that! 1. A public hearingrLthe project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-mentioned p 'ept is to be held on the 18th day of June, 201at T,00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is/cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Count; , ereafter as posted by the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish noti ,of the public hearing for the above-named project in a newspaper published at leas nce weekly and having a general circulation in the City, not less than four (4) nor more than twenty (20) days before said hearing. 3. A copy of the project manual and estimate of c6rt fof the construction of the above-named project is hereby ordered placed on file by the Ci Engineer in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. Passed and approved this day of Mayor Attest: L City Clerk 2019 Attorney's Office It was moved by and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Absent: the Resolution be Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton Item Number: 10.b. +r p- W�rm�M CITY O� IOWA CITY www.icgov.org June 4, 2019 Resolution approving the preliminary and final plats of Capital Subdivision, Iowa City, Iowa. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report PZ Meeting Minutes Final plat Resolution To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: SUB19-2 Capital Subdivision GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact: Property Owner: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: 05/16/2019 Allen Development PO Box 3474 Iowa City, IA 52244 319-530-8238 Johnyapp.allenhomes@gmail.com Jesse Allen or John Yapp PO Box 3474 Iowa City, IA 52244 319-325-1228 Johnyapp.allenhomes@gmail.com Sladek Land #2 LLC 4670 Taft Ave SE Iowa City, IA 52240 319-330-3380 Jim.sladek@jcsfamilyfarms.com Approval of preliminary and final plat Creation of one commercial lot Northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road & Highway 1 3.20 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, CH -1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District Public Meeting Notification: File Date: K North: Interim Development -Research Park (ID - RP) and County Agricultural (A) South: Highway Commercial (CH -1) East: Interim Development -Research Park (ID - RP) West: Interim Development -Research Park (ID - RP) and Research Development Park (RDP) Office Research Development Centers N/A N/A Property owners located within 300' of the proposed preliminary plat received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting April 25, 2019 45 Day Limitation Period for Preliminary Plat: June 10, 2019 60 Day Limitation Period for Final Plat: June 24, 2019 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Allen Development, has requested a preliminary and final plat for 3.20 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. On March 12, 2019, the City Council adopted a Conditional Zoning Agreement to rezone the project area from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1). The Conditional Zoning agreement includes the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access road off of Highway 1. 2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat thereof that conforms to the zoning boundaries. 3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. 4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. 5. Any development of the subject property shall be done in accordance with a detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Forester to ensure the development aligns with the comprehensive plan's goal of preserving and enhancing the entranceways to the city. 3 ANALYSIS: Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Office Research Development Center. This area is located within the North Corridor Planning District; however, this district plan has not yet been developed. The background section of the Comprehensive Plan provides an overview of the area surrounding the subject property. The area is envisioned for office park uses based on its proximity to Interstate 80. Currently, the area is home to several of the City's major employers, including numerous medical and professional firms located in Northgate Corporate Park, as well as ACT and Pearsons, which are education -based research and service firms that employ thousands of people. The proposed commercial lot is consistent with this vision in that it would provide commercial support services close to major employers. Subdivision Design: The proposed one lot subdivision will have access off Moss Ridge Road. The preliminary plat shows that the existing entrance off Highway 1 will be removed, which is a condition of the rezoning. The preliminary plat shows a 10 -foot sidewalk along Highway 1, a condition of the rezoning, and a 5 -foot sidewalk along Moss Ridge Road. Another condition of the rezoning required a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. These pedestrian crossings and ramps are shown on the preliminary plat. The CH -1 zone does not have a minimum lot size requirement. The lot width meets the minimum requirement of 100 feet. Neighborhood Open Space: The City's neighborhood open space requirement applies to residential subdivisions, commercial subdivisions containing residential uses, and planned developments. The proposed zone district, CH -1, does not allow residential uses, therefore, the neighborhood open space requirement does not apply. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: According to FEMA data, this area is located in the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplain; however, in 2015 the property owner obtained permits from the City to fill in the site and raise it above the 500 -year floodplain. The preliminary plat identifies the 100 - year and 500 -year flood hazard lines according to FEMA. At the site plan review stage, the applicant will be required to submit a revised map showing the actual flood hazard lines and whether the existing elevation is above the 500 -year floodplain. If the existing elevation remains located in the floodplain, staff will require compliance with the City's floodplain management standards during the review of the site plan. In addition, the site is located near Rapid Creek and a floodway; however, the project site is located outside of the floodway. Public Utilities: Storm water management will need to be provided on-site. City staff will review storm water management plans at the site plan review phase. The site has access to an existing sanitary sewer line to the south. The preliminary plat shows the extension of an existing 12 -inch water main along the Highway 1 frontage. Infrastructure fees: The City requires developers to pay a $456.75 per acre fee for water service. The project site is not located in one of the City's sanitary sewer districts, and therefore, the City collects no sanitary sewer tap on fees. The developer will be responsible for costs associated with the storm water, water, and sanitary sewer improvements needed to serve the project site; however, the City has agreed to pay for the for the oversize cost if a 12 -inch water main is more than what is needed to service the subdivision. ri SUMMARY: Staff finds that the proposed 1 -lot commercial subdivision is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and subdivision regulations. NEXT STEPS: Pending recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a resolution for approval of the preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan will be forwarded onto the City Council for consideration. The applicant has also applied for a final plat. The City Council will review the final plat concurrently with the preliminary plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SUB19-2, an application submitted by Allen Development for a preliminary plat of the Capital Subdivision, 1 -lot, 3.20 -acre commercial subdivision located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 and Moss Ridge Road. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plan Associated with the Conditional Zoning Agreement 3. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan Approved by: I • Dance a itzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services IP An application submitted by Allen Development for preliminary and final plat approval for Capital Subdivision, a 3.20 acre, 1-10L SUDUIVISion 'I /V' -a located at the NW quadrant of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. CITY OF IOWA CITY MMM firlim 00 O WUkl 4F-4 t r �1' x��,�f,`� 4. STORMWATER' f DETENTION L &\75W97A-I0A73*gMd", 1121J _14229 Pld rl f / $TORMWATER r DETENTION a a 15 sa 49 ea GRAPIIIG SCALE IN PEEP m m CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PiAN14ERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA MY, IOWA 57240 (319) 351-8282 www.mnisconsultants.net Ohte I ROVbW 12-21-18 per dty oemmente 4dm ILLUSTRA T IVE CONCEPT PLAN HIGHWAY 1 AND MOSS RIDGE ROAD IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. °abo. 11-15-18 P",qwd by. Pbld B JDM. c4wm by, 5rab, JDM Ghwkod N, Swat No. 1 Pro�eck Nva IC 7596-102 or, CAPITAL SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, IOWA OWNER: SUBDIVIDER: SUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY: n SLADEK LAND #2, LLC f M 41 , C. JOSEPH HOLLAND iti v------------------ . 4670 TAFT AVENUE SE PO BOX 3474 123 N. LINN STREET SUITE 300 � 5 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-2820 � r a . Oip LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE PLAT/PLAN APPROVED by the City of Iowa City City Clerk Date: UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, MAY OR MAY NOT, INCLUDE SANITARY SEWER LINES, AND/OR STORM SEWER LINES, AND/OR WATER LINES : SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR DETAILS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PRELIMINARY PLAT AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2018120, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 62, AT PAGE 400, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, CONTAINING 3.20 ACRES, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN CAPITAL SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, IOWA PLAT PREPARED BY: OWNER: SUBDIVIDER: SUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. SLADEK LAND #2, LLC ALLEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC C. JOSEPH HOLLAND 1917 S. GILBERT STREET 4670 TAFT AVENUE SE PO BOX 3474 123 N. LINN STREET SUITE 300 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-2820 / 685_ID OO� 0 O �T / O �Iu 4�/ 00 - - FL / / / M). 05 25 50 LOT ONE �R1 i g4 i 139,465 SF 3.20 AC I li OOp`fiP� I I I I ,� GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 690, / / O , O 10' SIDEWALK L /O NOTE: ALL EASEMENTS ADJACENT TO STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE 15' UTILITY EASEMENTS, WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, & WATER MAIN EASEMENTS WHERE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EASEMENT WIDTH. ALL EASEMENTS SHALL BE MORE COMPLETELY LABELED AND DESCRIBED DURING COMPLETION OF THE FINAL PLAT. 'ITT, ��' p NPjl, / Q A=9'39'07" Z ` R=350.00' X36'43'20" L=58.96'(R)(M) R=384.00' T=29.55' — _L=246.11'(R)(M) T=127.45'N 8 CB= 7'02"W7 � / I I CB=N79'32'45"W —12 12* 2W- _ N 1O 1 2 X12 1 S82'05'35"W 3.22'(R)(M) Mass IR001F= IRDAID O 07(01ffs FAR00 C� 201301 2 IN AGGORDANGE WITH THE PLAT TIIEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT 60OK 57 AT PAGE O �r 386 OF THE RE( ORP6 Off �THE J 4 ) 687 / i N'Ltj)) 'elo z s o OBER / - XISTING FIRE / �O HYDRANT WITH 12" GATE VALVE STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES — — - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES CENTER LINES EXISTING CENTER LINES LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES - BENCHMARK (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS 22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER -EXIST- -PROP- - POWER POLE - POWER POLE W/DROP - POWER POLE W/TRANS - POWER POLE W/LIGHT - GUY POLE - LIGHT POLE OO - SANITARY MANHOLE 1,Y)" - FIRE HYDRANT O° g - WATER VALVE OO ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE i1w O - CURB INLET X X - FENCE LINE ( - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER (� - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER - EXISTING STORM SEWER :< - PROPOSED STORM SEWER W - WATER LINES E - ELECTRICAL LINES T - TELEPHONE LINES G - GAS LINES - - - - - - - - - - - CONTOUR LINES (1' INTERVAL) - PROPOSED GROUND - EXISTING TREE LINE 0 �EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. 3.20 ACRES CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision 04-22-19 PER CITY COMMENTS -KLE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN CAPITAL SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: DATE Designed by: Field Book No: RLA Drawn by: Scale: .InM 1 ".Fn' Checked by: RLA Sheet No: Project No: IOWA CITY 7596-102 of: 1 Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 2 of 14 1. Any new residential development in the subject area must satisfy the affordable housing requirements set forth in section 14-2G-8 of the City Code. 2. The developer shall dedicate 40' of right-of-way along the west side of the S. Gilbert St. frontage to the City. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment, recommending that an application submitted by S & G Materials to Johnson County for a conditional use permit to expand its hours of operation for the mining of sand and gravel materials at 4059 Izaak Walton Road SE be approved subject to the existing conditions with a note the Johnson County Board of Adjustment address concerns regarding amplified sound in the evenings. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. SUB19-2: Applicant: Allen Development Location: Northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 An application submitted by Allen Development for a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for the Capital Subdivision, a 1 -lot, 3.20 -acre commercial subdivision located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. Russett began the staff report with a map of the project site, as well as a zoning map of the area. Russett noted the area was rezoned earlier this year to Commercial Highway and there were five conditions associated with that rezoning: 1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access road off of Highway 1. 2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat thereof that conforms to the zoning boundaries. 3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. 4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. 5. Any development of the subject property shall be done in accordance with a detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Forester to ensure the development aligns Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 3 of 14 with the comprehensive plan's goal of preserving and enhancing the entranceways to the city. Russett showed the concept plan that was submitted with the rezoning and noted the area is designated as office, research development in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It was originally intended for office use but the rezoning went through because the area would provide commercial support to the area employment centers that are in the area. The preliminary plat shows the 10 -foot sidewalk along Highway 1 and a 5 -foot sidewalk along Moss Ridge Road with pedestrian ramps and crossings across Moss Ridge Road. The preliminary plat also shows the access from Highway 1 would be closed. Russett stated according to FEMA data, this area is located in the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplain; however, in 2015 the property owner obtained permits from the City to fill in the site and raise it above the 500 -year floodplain. The applicant has summited a map revision which has been reviewed by staff and forwarded on to FEMA so the floodplain maps will eventually be updated to show the current elevations. Regardless any project developed on this site will have to be compliant with the City's floodplain management ordinance if it is still in a floodplain. Russett stated the next steps the preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan along with the final plat will go to City Council and if then if the applicant and developer are ready to move forward with the site plan the stormwater management and floodplain management will be reviewed at that time. Staff recommends approval of SUB19-2, an application submitted by Allen Development for a preliminary plat of the Capital Subdivision, 1 -lot, 3.20 -acre commercial subdivision located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 and Moss Ridge Road. Hensch opened the public hearing. John Yapp (Allen Development) came forward to answer any questions the Commission might have. Hensch asked about the application for permits to raise the area above the 500 -year floodplain Yapp noted that was done by the previous property owner and the work has been completed. Yapp added there may still be an area in the floodplain but that will be where the stormwater management will be. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to recommend approval of SUB19-2, an application submitted by Allen Development for a preliminary plat of the Capital Subdivision, 1 -lot, 3.20 -acre commercial subdivision located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 and Moss Ridge Road. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CASE NO. REZ18-00019: Applicant: M&W Properties Location: Northwest corner of Benton Street and Orchard Street FOR COUNTY RECORDER'S USE LEGEND AND NOTES — CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND • — PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND (as noted) O — PROPERTY CORNERS SET (5/8" Iron Pin w/ yellow, plastic LS Cap embossed with MMS" ) — PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES — CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES RIGHT—OF—WAY LINES — CENTER LINES LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED ---------------------- EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED ----- ------ — PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES (R) — RECORDED DIMENSIONS MEASURED DIMENSIONS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS ALL PROPERTY CORNERS FOUND ARE 5\8" IRON FOUND 5\8" IRON PINS WITH YELLOW PLASTIC PIN W\ YELLOW PLASTIC LS CAP LS CAP #12531 UNLESS 13287 NOTED OTHERWISE Final Plat CAPITAL SUBDIVISION :TE IOWA CIN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA 0 10 25 50 75 100 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1"=100' LOCATION: LAND SURVEYOR: SUBDIVIDER: AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2018020 IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF JAMES E. LICHTY P.L.S MMS CONSULTANTS INC. ALLEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC PO BOX 3474 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF 1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 PROPRIETOR: SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 80 IOWA CITY, IOWA, 52240 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE PHONE: 319-351-8282 SLADEK LAND #2 LLC FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY: IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, 4670 TAFT AVENUE SE IOWA IOWA CITY, IOWA, 52240 C. JOSEPH HOLLAND 123 N. LINN STREET, SUITE 300 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245 DATE OF SURVEY: 11-12-2019 Notes on this plat are not intended to create any vested private interest in any stated use restriction or covenant or create any third party beneficiaries to any noted use restriction or covenant. FOUND 5\8'• IRON PIN W\ YELLOW PLASTIC CAP )SS2 / R 79, � 1 FPM\ W\YELLOW O s PLAS13287 LS CAP / V1 lt6 _ o<� N66��tR>lMl OUND PPIN LAS C YELLOW \S CPN�O 13287 �^ 'C�`„y' �C J �, i� �•'� ()- LOT ONE �/ �,�� P� �jn� o� oL� 1330AC 6 F Oo� .� K ly � OA 0=36'43'20" S Pl%�� / / oO R=384.00' �' Wti ��/41O� I L=246.11'(R)(M)� T=127.45' / C=241.92' CB=N79'32'45"W 15.0' UTILITY EASEMENT mass / S82 05'35"W n D� 3.22'(R)(M) W o�v / ��c ROAD ��,�� '2a8, / BOO 411 A /< AUPITOR'S PARCEL 2013012 �V / IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME57 PLAT CDER5 GF r Point of Beginning P� RECORDED IN PLAT 60GK 57 AT PAGE 386 GF ' THE RECORDS OF THE JaiNSON COUNTY N 'p RECORDER'S OFFICE. =ry ,40 — — — — — — / 892.20 88'38'18"W N88'38'18"E 432.58'(R)(M) — CENTER OF SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SECTION 36—T80N—R6W SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER / OF THE FIFTH P.M. OF SECTION 36—T80N—R6W OF THE FIFTH P.M. FOUND 1-1\2" GAS PIPE FOUND 5\8" REBAR W\ YELLOW PLASTIC LS CAP 12531 / BOOK 44 AT PAGE 110 BOOK 60 AT PAGE 27 DESCRIPTION - CAPITAL SUBDIVISION PLAT/PLAN APPROVED by the City of Iowa City City Clerk Date: UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, MAY OR MAY NOT, INCLUDE SANITARY SEWER LINES, AND/OR STORM SEWER LINES, AND/OR WATER LINES; SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR DETAILS. UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITIES REQUIR— ED BY THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES: MID—AMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY Date: CENTURYLINK Date: MEDIACOM Date: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2019, AT THE DIRECTION OF ALLEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC., A SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2018120 IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 62 AT PAGE 400 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 3.20 ACRES, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. \�\o\��`"„""'W/%LAND oll�i FOUND 5\8" IRON 'a I r 0 Lfl Q Z ;p.. PIN W\ YELLOW �—L Kgwz(ny �O OO mm°'OOc � ��o��v nDzD Z -n > z Wn =_WI,� Toy o LICHITY PLASTIC LS CAP I '" 13287 ' N r R)(M) > �� 1-3 L A=30'40'45" W�,, L356'02"W R=350.00' L=187.41'_ 0 + 9 m T=96,01' FOUND 5\8" IRON D O �=�0� Z z - C=185.18' PIN W\ YELLOW \ PLASTIC LS CAP CB-$5]'06'D6"W 13287 13287 �^ 'C�`„y' �C J �, i� �•'� ()- LOT ONE �/ �,�� P� �jn� o� oL� 1330AC 6 F Oo� .� K ly � OA 0=36'43'20" S Pl%�� / / oO R=384.00' �' Wti ��/41O� I L=246.11'(R)(M)� T=127.45' / C=241.92' CB=N79'32'45"W 15.0' UTILITY EASEMENT mass / S82 05'35"W n D� 3.22'(R)(M) W o�v / ��c ROAD ��,�� '2a8, / BOO 411 A /< AUPITOR'S PARCEL 2013012 �V / IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME57 PLAT CDER5 GF r Point of Beginning P� RECORDED IN PLAT 60GK 57 AT PAGE 386 GF ' THE RECORDS OF THE JaiNSON COUNTY N 'p RECORDER'S OFFICE. =ry ,40 — — — — — — / 892.20 88'38'18"W N88'38'18"E 432.58'(R)(M) — CENTER OF SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SECTION 36—T80N—R6W SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER / OF THE FIFTH P.M. OF SECTION 36—T80N—R6W OF THE FIFTH P.M. FOUND 1-1\2" GAS PIPE FOUND 5\8" REBAR W\ YELLOW PLASTIC LS CAP 12531 / BOOK 44 AT PAGE 110 BOOK 60 AT PAGE 27 DESCRIPTION - CAPITAL SUBDIVISION PLAT/PLAN APPROVED by the City of Iowa City City Clerk Date: UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, MAY OR MAY NOT, INCLUDE SANITARY SEWER LINES, AND/OR STORM SEWER LINES, AND/OR WATER LINES; SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR DETAILS. UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITIES REQUIR— ED BY THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES: MID—AMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY Date: CENTURYLINK Date: MEDIACOM Date: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2019, AT THE DIRECTION OF ALLEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC., A SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2018120 IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 62 AT PAGE 400 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 3.20 ACRES, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. \�\o\��`"„""'W/%LAND oll�i o 0 LF 'a I r 0 Lfl Q Z ;p.. JAMES E �—L Kgwz(ny �O OO mm°'OOc � ��o��v nDzD Z -n > z Wn =_WI,� Toy o LICHITY 13287 IOWA SEAL I hereby certify that this land surveying do ent was prepared and the related survey work was performed or under my direct personal supervision and that I arUL, censed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of th of 20— JAMES E. LICHTY P.L.S. ic. N .he I' ser e w aa�D a er 31, 20 —. n-0 0 co Ul rn N o 0 LF 'a I r 0 Lfl Q Z ;p.. 0 �—L Kgwz(ny �O OO mm°'OOc � ��o��v nDzD Z -n > z Wn =_WI,� Toy T D Z D r 0 c:, � n� mO d fl m Vii i1m0> N r > Z z>�m zn vm;M, MM 0D oO 0 + 9 m O D O �=�0� Z z - o W o,T N Z C m �m II N O vzmmz rm0 z m z M CDC:) C< G 0 D coo _nv W � � "0O� D m (J7 Co O covered by this seal: �o �X r - D M v z Cn D> (j) 0 70c D =i m z z r m -< z m cnc->Om m U) N Deferred to 6/18/19 10,16 Prepared by: Jade Pederson, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (SUB19-2) Resolution No. Resolution Approving the Preliminary and Final Plats of Capital Subdivision, Iowa City, Iowa. Whereas, the owner, Allen Development, L.L.C. filed with the City Clerk the preliminary and final plats of The Capital Subdivision, Iowa City, Iowa, Johnson County, Iowa; and Whereas, said subdivision is located on the following -described real estate in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, to wit: AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2018120 IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 62 AT PAGE 400 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. Whereas, the Neighborhood and Development Services Department and the Public Works Department examined the proposed preliminary and final plat, and recommended approval; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission examined the preliminary plat and, after due deliberation, recommended acceptance and approval of the plat; and Whereas, a dedication has been made to the public, and the subdivision has been made with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the owners; and Whereas, said final plat is found to conform with Chapter 354, Code of Iowa (2019) and all other state and local requirements. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The said preliminary and final plats located on the above-described real estate be and the same are hereby approved. 2. The City accepts the dedication of easements as provided by law. 3. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, are hereby authorized and directed, upon approval by the City Attorney, to execute all legal documents relating to said subdivision, and to certify a copy of this resolution, which shall be affixed to the final plat after passage and approval by law. The City Clerk shall record the legal documents and the plat at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa at the expense of the owner/subdivider. Resolution No. Page 2 Passed and approved this day of 20 M or Approved by City Clerk City Attomey's Office Shah I It was moved by adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: acditWWWSCa Ine F .M .M Final Fal - Ra ub..docd. and seconded by Nays: Absent: the Resolution be Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton Item Number: 12. �, CITY OF IOWA CITY �'�COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign an agreement with Field to Family for payment of up to $45,000 towards the development of a local food hub. Prepared By: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator Reviewed By: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: $45,000 available in 10610150-448010 account. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Agreement Executive Summary: The purpose of a food hub is to expand access to local food for more people in the community through the purchase, aggregation, storage, marketing and delivery of fresh, safe, wholesale local food. Local organization Field to Family works to create a more local, healthy and sustainable regional food system. Field to Family's mission to open a strong, community-based Eastern Iowa local food hub recently secured financial support from Johnson County. Providing further assistance for up -front operational hard costs will allow this region's local food system to grow. The agreement allows Field to Family to purchase a refrigeration truck, secure cold storage, and establish an online platform for the food hub's operation. The purchases are required to be complete by June 30, 2020 and regular reports will be shared with the City to show the food hub's progress and viability. Background /Analysis: City Sustainability staff worked with the Johnson County local foods coordinator to identify local agencies actively working towards Council's Strategic Plan objective to "grow the local foods economy". Staff contacted six agencies and asked them to write a letter of interest describing a project and the amount of funding required to implement the project. Two agencies did not respond, but of the four that did, the request from Field to Family was determined by Neighborhood and Development Services and City Manager's Office staff to have the most impact for Iowa City residents. The three agencies not selected were asked to apply for this year's Climate Action Grants because their ideas related well to at least one Climate Action and Adaptation Plan objective. Several submitted projects and were awarded funds by the grant evaluation committee. The Field to Family project shared the following vision for the project: "We envision a strong, community-based Eastern Iowa local food system with food hub infrastructure to support a thriving wholesale market for and from the region with quality, fairly priced and sustainably produced food goods." The general purpose of a food hub is to expand access to local food for more people in the community through the purchase, aggregation, storage, marketing and delivery of fresh, safe, wholesale local food. They do the legwork in securing food from local farmers, storing produce, meat, and other goods, and then arranging for the delivery of the local goods to area providers. Field to Family plans to launch the food hub at their current location on June 11, 2019. As the season progresses, more and more fresh food will be available and they will, with the City's support, secure the expanded cold storage onsite at their warehouse on 840 S. Capitol Street (shared with Table to Table). If necessary, they have also partnered with three other local food -based businesses to use alternative cold storage space as needed. The budget to incorporate a food hub into their current operations is approximately $165,000 with about half provided in grant funding for initial start up costs. The agreement with Field to Family will allow them to invoice the City for up to $45,000 for the purchase of a refrigeration truck ($20,000), securing cold storage ($14,000), and establishing an online platform for the food hub's operation ($11,000). The remaining funds ($34,000) in the account (10610150-448010) are available in FY2019 and FY2020 to pursue other local foods projects, such as renovation and repair of The Center's kitchen. /_1AIF_T44:l►yii:1z1&5 Description Resolution Agreement I Prepared by: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240, 319-356-5012 Resolution No. 19-147 Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign an agreement with Field to Family for payment of up to $45,000 towards the development of a local food hub. Whereas, the City Council's Strategic Plan calls for the promotion of a strong and resilient local economy through the effective marketing and growth of the local food economy, the City has identified the development of a regional local food hub as an opportunity to meet this goal; and Whereas, the purpose of a food hub is to expand access to local food for more people in the community through the purchase, aggregation, storage, marketing and delivery of fresh, safe, wholesale local food; and Whereas, City staff has selected Field to Family as the organization to implement and run an Eastern Iowa local food hub; and Whereas, the attached agreement will provide up to $45,000 to Field to Family's local food hub program, for the purchase of startup costs. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of The City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: The City Manager is authorized to sign all agreements to effectuate payment for local food hub startup costs in a form approved by the City Attorney. The City Manager is authorized to execute subsequent amendments to the agreement. Passed and approved this 4th day of June 2019. / ;z �,� M or Attest: City Clerk Approved �`Q� 5' 36 - Iq City Attorney's Office Resolution No. Page 2 19-147 It was moved by Thomas and seconded by 'Teague the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: x x x x x x ABSENT: x Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton Prepared by: Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 887-6161 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this 4th day of June , 2019, by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Johnson County Local Food Alliance, an Iowa non-profit corporation d/b/a Field to Family ("Recipient"). This Agreement shall be subject to the following terms and conditions, to -wit: SCOPE OF SERVICES During the term of this Agreement, Recipient agrees to use funding provided by the City hereunder for the creation of online infrastructure for the food hub within Field to Family's website ($11,000), purchase of a refrigerated vehicle and associated costs ($20,000) and cool storage ($14,000). II. FUNDING A. As its sole obligation under this Agreement, the City shall pay to Recipient the sum of $45,000 to assist Recipient in meeting its operating costs. B. The City shall transfer the funds to Recipient following invoice for reimbursement submitted to the City for a total of up to $45,000 contingent upon receipt of the applicable reporting requirement as identified in Part III. General Administration, paragraphs A and B. C. Program Element Date: 1 Execute Agreement June 5, 2019 2) Create online infrastructure for the food hub June 30, 2019 3) Purchase refrigerated vehicle August 30, 2019 4) Secure cool storage December 30, 2019 5) Submit mid -year communication to City January 31, 2020 6) Project completed/Submit Final Report June 30, 2020 7) All funds disbursed for this project June 30, 2020 III, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION A. Recipient will submit in January and June 2020, electronic communication to the City, describing activities of the organization, use of agreement funds, and a report including the following measures: 1) number of persons served (customers and their customers) 2) pounds of food distributed 3) number of local farmers selling to the organization 4) status of website operation B. On or before June 30, 2020, Recipient will provide to the City an annual accounting report describing, at a minimum, the uses of total funds received. Duly authorized representatives of the City shall at all reasonable times, have access to and the right to inspect, copy, audit, and examine all financial books, records, and other documents of Recipient, and to make site visits and survey participants in order to evaluate and monitor the Recipient's programs. C. The City's sole responsibility hereunder shall be to provide the funds to Recipient in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement, nor any act or omission of the Recipient or the City, shall be construed to create any special duty, relationship, third -party beneficiary, respondent superior, limited or general partnership, joint venture, or any association by reason of the Recipient's involvement with the City, nor shall the City have authority to direct the manner or means by which Recipient conducts activities. D. This contract may be terminated upon 7 days written notice by either party. Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all work and services performed up to the time of termination. IV. TERM This Agreement shall commence upon execution by the parties and shall terminate on June 30, 2020, except as provided herein. V. ASSIGNMENT This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without prior written agreement of the other party. VI. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION The Recipient shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Iowa City, its officers, employees and agents from all liability, loss, cost, damage and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs) arising out of or resulting from the Recipient's operations under this Agreement VII. CONDITIONAL STATUS The Sustainability Coordinator, with the approval of the City Manager, may place the Recipient on conditional status when one or more serious problems are identified that puts the Recipient's agreement with the City of Iowa City in jeopardy. Problems may be in service delivery, board activity, agency administration, fiscal management, cooperation with other agencies, or compliance with this agreement. Following the placement of the Recipient on conditional status, the Sustainability Coordinator will meet with the Recipient's director and board members to discuss the concerns/problems as identified by the Sustainability Coordinator. The Sustainability Coordinator will provide the Recipient with a written memo outlining the concerns/problems, specific corrective action steps, and time frames for completion. The Recipient will provide periodic reports and meet with the Sustainability Coordinator during this period to ensure that satisfactory progress is being made. If the Recipient is placed on conditional status, funding as provided in Paragraph II above, may be withheld by the City of Iowa City until the Recipient has completed or made sufficient progress on the action steps to correct the problems, as determined by the Sustainability Coordinator. If the Recipient fails to meet the requirements of this agreement and/or the action step memo within the appropriate time frame as specified, the Sustainability Coordinator may recommend to the City Manager that the Agreement be terminated. VII. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS A. The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts. To discharge or refuse to hire any individual because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. 2. To discriminate against any individual in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. B. It is understood and agreed that for the purpose of the work hereunder Recipient is not an employee of City but an independent contractor. C. The City agrees to tender the Recipient all payments in a timely manner, excepting, however, that failure of the Recipient to satisfactorily perform in accordance with this Agreement shall constitute grounds for the City to withhold payment. D. Upon signing this agreement, Recipient acknowledges that Section 362.5 of the Iowa Code prohibits a City officer or employee from having an interest in a contract with the City, and certifies that no employee or officer of the City, which includes members of the City Council and City boards and commissions, has an interest, either direct or indirect, in this agreement, that does not fall within the exceptions to said statutory provision enumerated in Section 362.5. It is further agreed that there are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Agreement, that it is the entire Agreement, and that no other monies or considerations have been solicited. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. Any legal proceeding instituted with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Johnson County, Iowa. The parties hereto hereby submit to personal jurisdiction therein and irrevocably waive any objection as to venue therein, including any argument that such proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum. City of Iowa City, Iowa: Ge ruin Date City Manager A ro d as to Form s-- 30 City Attorney's Office Date Community Based Food System A local food system is a collaborative network that integrates sustainable food production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste management in order to enhance the environmental, economic, and social health of a particular area. Healthier Diets. Mitigate Climate Change. Cleaner water, air quality. Biodiverse Soils. Safe working environments. Protect Animal Welfare. Conserve Natural Resources. Support Small Businesses. Reduce risk of foodborne illnesses. Farm Stands 2018 Update • June -October --39 Farm Stands, serving694 households, distributed 3,427 pounds of freshly harvested produce. • Since this program began, we have hosted a total of 69 Farm Stands in Johnson County. We provided samples of the followingfoods: Baba Ganoush, Broccoli, Bell Peppers, Cantaloupe, Collard Greens, Cucumbers, Cherry Tomatoes, Carrots, Gazpacho, Hakurei turnips, Braised lemon kale, Kohlrabi Mixed green salad, Napa Cabbage, Watermelon Fresh Produce Distributed: Acorn Squash, Apples, Beets (red and golden), Bell Peppers, Green, Red, Yellow, Broccoli, Butternut Squash, Cabbage, head, Napa & Caraflex, Cantaloupe, Carrots, Cherrytomatoes, Cilantro, Collard Greens, Cucumbers, Delicata Squash, Eggplant, Garlic, Greens, salad, mixed, Green Beans, Hakurei turnips, Kale,Kohlrabi, Leeks, Lettuce, heads, Okra, Onions, Paw Paws, Peppers, hot, Potatoes, Yukon and Red, Rosemary, Shallots, Shiitake Mushrooms, Spaghetti Squash, Strawberries, Sweet Potatoes, Tomatillos, Tomatoes, heirloom & Roma, Turnips, Watermelon r;�tenofam;ir. °re . e; reccerpneterofan;ty-o:n . i a..J �.. hat wawJee mgeina la rrerlr r earl. hernhv roe suriamaele lade rrzmm mi 9i 111- 116L ��., FAYm Si'ARc�s to IELDTo AM�ILY I )Dy v�rras Program frwFrenhry h-051ed proeuce, fa a Samples. rose prep 101, Xide gardening 8 eutriti- W— 0-1 dMMi— ALWAYS WASH FRESH Puma FEFORE PREPARING TO FAT .......°;...a ,. a o. - Ihanh you to Johnson Caunli Board aJ Suoervlsais. Grow: totnson Coun v eGomninmlrFoundationmlohnsonC:o nrvmrmeiiSwppon 2019 Plans Continue Farm Stands June - October 2019 • 2nd Tuesday: Ecumenical Towers, 4:30-5:30 • 2nd Wed.: Breckenridge Estates, 3:30-5:30 • 2nd Thursday: Forest View, 5:00-6:00 PM • 3rd Tuesday: Cole's Community, 3:30-5:30 • 3rd Wednesday: Parkview MHC, Oxford, 12:00-1:00 PM; Western Hills, CV, 2:30-3:30 • 3rd Thursday: Regency, 4:30-5:30 PM • 3rd Friday: Capitol House, 2:30-4:30 40% Donations from Grow: Johnson County 60% Purchases from local farmers Farm Stands ALWAYS WASH YOUR FRESH PRODUCE BEFORE PREPARING TO [AT .... . .. .... ............. . .... ................. . ..... .... Thank you to Johnson County Board of Supervisors, Grow: Johnson Certified Local Background • UI Tippie Marketing Studies Program Research • ICAD/ F21F Marketing Research • Certified Local Farms Defined as located within 50 miles of Johnson and Linn counties; Is a family farm-- one in which the owner/family holds the financial responsibility, takes the risks and provides the majority of the management decisions for the farm; and individual applying for membership is the farm owner or manager. Marketing Strategy • Boost promotion and magnify local -grown foods at grocery stores, restaurants and cafeterias throughout our foodshed • Increase amount of seasonally grown locally -grown foods on menus • Promote farmers and food grown and offered by local farmers '�FITIFj�.� Searchable Food and Farm Database .rte. a ittur R ...I FoodOur Farmers Pas-rces Contact Us Support us Local Foods • UI Capstone Project • Create searchable online database of local food and farmers • Improve current online methods to promote local food and farmers Sample Search 957a2109c.309 fir�doc:a food • Integrated into new site this spring • Require updated listings to fully realize new functionality Farm To School School Garden Workshop • Introduction to Farm to School & School Gardens, Molly Schintler, Field to Family • Next Generation Science Standards: Elizabeth Maas, Kirkwood Community College • School Garden Leaders Panelists: Jen Kardos, Backyard Abundance; Kaye Lind sIey, WiIIowwind; Cassie Panther, elementary education UNI; Joyce Miller, Garden Lead, Kirkwood Elementary • School Gardens Grow Equity Deja Knight, Master's Student, Universityof Iowa for Psychology& Ilsa DeWald, Local Foods Coordinator, Johnson County Farmer Fairs • 1,290 students from 4 elementary schools participated in our Farmer Fairs this school year! We brought the farm to 4 elementary schools this year; • The Farmer Fair is an "in -school field trip" that brings farmers and nutrition educators into schools to teach kids about food systems that are nourishing for people and the planet. Activities include: • Meet local farmers • Explore soil science and build a compost system • Taste locally -grown food • Learn the routes food travels to get to our plate • Planting in the garden • Participating farmers included: Susan Young, Lucky Star Farm • Shanti Sellz, Muddy Miss Farms • Paul Rasch, Wilson's Orchard • Bonnie Riggan, Calico Farm • TD Holub, Garden Oasis • Urban Greens Team • Carly and Bryant from Trowel & Error Farm • Emma Johnson, Buffalo Ridge Orchard • Carmen Black, Sundog Farm • Matt Kroul, Kroul Farms • Renee Harper, Salt Fork Farm • Dan & Debbie's Creamery Team • Ebert Honey • Alyssa Aronson, Crow's Creek Farm • Scott Koepke, Rodale's Farm at Indian Creek Nature Center • Jason Grimm, Grimm Family Farm • 2011: 1,392 • 2012:1,243 • 2013:9,436 • 2014:5,430 • 2015: 12,613 • 2016:13,081 • 2017:13,270 • 2018:22,098 TOTAL since Farm to School began: 78,563 pounds! IELO� R� •• • • Locally -grown wholesale, aggregation, distribution and marketing program in Johnson County. Am as , , , Food Hubs A food hub, as defined by the USDA, is "a centrally located facility with a business management structure facilitating the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing of locally/regionally produced food products." Source -identified local food Wholesale to Institution, Retail, Direct to Consumer, Food -box, Farm Incubator, Food Rescue EGGS r m GRAIN. :HOOLS & UNI ERSITIES 7,M )SPITALS iL M )MMUNITY GROUPS WRIES &SHELTERS ... ............................. .. .. s. •• Field to Family Food Hub • Collaborative effort • Nonprofit model • Recognizes need for & value of community education • Promotion of local foods & farmers • Supports a shared vision of a community food system that enhances our economic, environmental and community health Community Food System can foster positive changes, such as: - Mitigating and adapting to Climate Change - Supporting local economies and job creation - Stewardship of our natural resources - Creating vibrant urban and rural communities - Promoting healthier diets; - Reducing the risk of foodborne illness and other diseases; - Upholding workers' rights; - Supporting small businesses; - Conserving natural resources; - Improving air, water and soil quality; - Protecting animal welfare. Resources State & Federal Current Model • LFPP Funding thru the ICRC&D • Nonprofit Entity with a broader mission to increase • Iowa Food Hub Managers Working Group economic, environmental and community health • Iowa State Extension Local Foods Team: FFED • Partnerships with community organizations, for -profits, state and county agencies Johnson Count[ • Strives to pay farmers a fair price while covering expenses • Johnson County Board of Supervisors • Table to Table • ICAD • Food Policy Council • University of Iowa Future Funding Models • Research on funding models show public + private necessary for sustained operations • Community Support: County, City, Representatives • Regional Partnerships: CR + Quad -Cities • State Support • Incentive programs • Diversified funding: grants, sponsorships, sales + Community Partners - Johnson County Board of Supervisors City of Iowa City Food Hub Working Group Local producers Iowa City Area Development Group Table to Table - Iowa Food Hub Managers Working Group - Iowa City Community School District - Friends of Field to Family Food Value Chains and Food Hubs -Direct to Consumer: Farmers Market, CSA - Retail: Grocery Stores, Restaurants - Institutions: Schools PK -12, Hospitals, Retirement Communities, Colleges and Universities Focus on access to new markets. Soft Launch Fostering Partnerships. Providing Infrastructure. Improving Communications. 1 TABLE TAKE — ._ � TM,xwTM remw d � � r � Helping connect institutions and farmers by overcoming barriers: - Billing and invoicing A - Refrigerated fleet to maintain cold chain Invoice suemnea on 1 wi vsola Food safety, packaging and storage vroNn owmu Communication 018 �oscnP4on �+�5.6pem.+, wB�rAc1 Siren Po�Na lvalll 61y is,b .om Cost as vv s++an T-1 aav s.+oc TOA 593.59 Resource Planning in Iowa Providing Resources to Help our Buyers Plan Better U Predaer Name a &11�11autly 8Aa7U N25wer Pou�a 00 lbe - Seasonal Availability Chart 1101 . 106 22 Ib unccacti 1'0Cul- 121 Grtm Curly Kale 12 BM1 IroI - 146 1-1—s fChcm 1 10 Ib case - Price List & Packaging `" `0 lb<— Iro6.1n i.��,�ula�ad 10 mca..� Pmnnips 25 Ib 1.—.ipr 10 Ib - Weekly Order Cycle Crops procured through Field to Family from local farmers Available Available rdm Start Dau End Dae_ _o a a ,y C 6 Said 8121Y19 11n99 2 8111 Pepper 811119 1015119 3 brocoiltantri 711119 W199 alantro a Ci 711119 1012Ui4 5 Cucumben(Sllcer) 811x19 10f2a99 6 Kale 61M9 12990 7 Orionliked) 8113119 1111119 a Parsley 71V19 1112899 9 Sweet Potato W1119 1272599 10 Tomato ICxape) 87519 101/0119 11 Tomato lMina) wil 10110119 12 2ucchiri 81519 10110119 Leading "''IP to the Launch 1. Building space to meet sales goals 2. Maintaining excellence in Food Safety 3. Networking - collaborating and finding best practices 4. Building relationships! a. With Farmers , With Buyers, With Fellow Hub Managers b. With Purchasers a . " ' rli y H � y J' 4� 17 Intentional Growth Local experts joined our Strategic Planning Process Balancing long and short-term growth NELOTOFW IL - Decision making with clear eyes Guiding documents to facilitate transparency Food Hub Strategic Planning) Field to Family/ Table to Table off! February 24, 2019 from 1.4 PM and fairness ce Invitees: Michelle Kenyon, Giselle Bruskewitz, Jessica Burtt-Fogarty, Shanti Sellz, Wendy Zimmerman, Ofer Sinn, Ilse DeWald, Jesse Singerman - Intent to Purchase Agreement for Producers The goal of our strategic planning session(s) is to build consensus among key advisors as to the goals for the food hub and begin to C ,� build the plan for the next 5 years, walking away with clear direction for what is achievable for the food hub in 2019 and beyond. — Farmer Selection R u b r i c Field to Family's current Work Plan addresses leadership, f'mancial management and marketing in, the organiutian and includes f� specific goals for each program area. we will focus on updating Food Flub vision, mission, sales and infrastructure goals in this — Customer Rubric strategic planning session. - Pricing Philosophy Launching We are excited to announce! The first order cycle of the 61x��•UP - First price lists go out Monday, June 3 - First orders placed by Friday, June 7 - Deliveries to customers on Tuesday, June 11 FOau Our Community Food Hub We believe everyone deserve access to good food. We know our small-scale local farmers can meet the demand for fresh food our institutional leaders serve everyday. We are here to grow the market so local growers can continue to feed more members of our community. We. Grow. Local. e..AAw Thank you'.'.'. Item Number: 13. ®I CITY OF IOWA CITY u► �� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 Resolution adopting Iowa City's FY20 Annual Action Plan which is a sub -part of Iowa City's 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (City Steps). Prepared By: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner Reviewed By: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Tracy Hightshoe, Director of Neighborhood and Development Services Fiscal Impact: Federal HOME and CDBG entitlement funds, program income, and uncommitted or returned CDBG and HOME funds Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: Housing and Community Development Commission recommended on April 18, 2019 Attachments: HCDC 3-14-19 Minutes HCDC 4-18-19 Minutes Resolution & Appendix Executive Summary: The City receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To receive these funds, the City must submit an Annual Action Plan describing the projects and activities proposed for funding. A summary of the proposed projects and activities is enclosed for your reference. The complete draft Annual Action Plan is available at www.icgov.org/actionpIan. A public meeting and resolution considering approval of the FY20 Annual Action Plan, which formally allocates the City's CDBG and HOME funds, will be held at the City Council meeting on June 4, 2019. At their May 21 work session, City Council reviewed a staff memo dated May 9, 2019 regarding a review of the City's private housing investment programs. In this memo, staff recommended a change to the HOME set aside for owner -occupied housing rehabilitation to allow rental property owners of single family and duplex units to apply for rehabilitation funds in targeted neighborhoods as well. Staff recommends that the City Council incorporate this provision with the approval of the FY20 Annual Action Plan. Background /Analysis: The City estimates it will have nearly $1.5 million in CDBG and HOME funds available for eligible projects or entities that provide housing, jobs and/or services to low- and moderate -income residents. CDBG funding remained stable from last year, but the HOME program received a 17% cut. Last year's HOME entitlement amount was $580,222; this year it is $482,816. Applications for CDBG and HOME funds were received in mid-January. The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) held a question/answer session with applicants on February 21 and met on March 14 to formulate funding recommendations, minutes attached. Based on these recommendations, staff drafted an Annual Action Plan. HCDC reviewed the draft at their April 18 meeting, and recommended the plan subject to corrections which have been made. The revised draft plan was made available for public comment on May 3. Staff recommends approval of the FY20 Annual Action Plan with the provision as noted above that allows single family and duplex rental properties in targeted neighborhoods to apply for the HOME rehabilitation set-aside. At the time of this submittal, the City has received no comments. The Annual Action Plan is due to HUD by June 11, 2019. ATTACHMENTS: Description HCDC 3-14-19 minutes HCDC 4-18-19 minutes Resolution & Appendix MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2019 — 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202 FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Maria Padron and Paula Vaughan MEMBERS ABSENT: [vacant position], Mitch Brouse STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly OTHERS PRESENT: Ryan Holst, Elias Ortiz, Craig Moser, Jake Kundert, Shirley Tramble, Brenda Nogaj, Kari Wilken, Roger Lusala, Roger Goedken, Brianna Wills, Heath Brewer, Ashley Gillette, Anthony Smith, Sara Barron, Michi Lopez, Martha Norbeck RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 (Eastham and Fixmer-Oraiz recused) the Commission recommends to City Council the following allocation of FY20 Emerging Aid to Agencies funds: $9,000 to Grow Johnson County, $5,000 to the Center for Worker Justice, and $5,000 to Successful Living. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends to City Council the following allocation of FY20 CDBG/HOME funds: In the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by 20% or less, these amounts will be prorated accordingly, subject to federal caps/requirements and requested amounts; in the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by more than 20%, another funding round will begin. CDBG HOME Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program - Lot Acquisition/Rental Construction $176,000 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Lot Acquisition/Homebuyer Assistance $50,000 Successful Living - Rental Acquisition $164,000 The Housing Fellowship - Rental Rehabilitation $70,000 Successful Living - Rental Rehab $59,000 The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating $21,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Repair $90,000 Old Brick — ADA/Structural Fortification Improvements $10,000 In the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by 20% or less, these amounts will be prorated accordingly, subject to federal caps/requirements and requested amounts; in the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by more than 20%, another funding round will begin. Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 2 of 11 CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vaughan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2019 MINUTES: Eastham moved to approve the minutes of February 21, 2019 with corrections. Alter seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FY2020 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATIONS: Eastham excused himself from this agenda item as he is on the Board of one of the applicants. Fixmer- Oraiz also recused herself as she is employed by one of the applicants. Lehmann presented the Commission with a summary of the six applications and the requested funding amounts and discussed clarifications about the Forest View Mobile Home Park application. The applicant, Center for Worker Justice, is not able to be present at this evening's meeting but Lehmann can try to answer any questions regarding the application. Padron began by stating she recommended $9,500 for Unlimited Abilities and $9,500 for Grow Johnson County. Vaughan recommended $7,000 for Grow Johnson County. Harms recommended $5,000 for Grow Johnson County. McKinstry recommended $5,000 for Grow Johnson County and $5,000 for Successful Living and $9,000 for the mobile home park redevelopment. Alter recommended $3,800 to all the applicants except for Little Creations Academy. Padron noted the minimum allocation should be $5,000 so Alter reconfigured her allocations to $5,000 for Center for Worker Justice, $5,000 for Johnson Clean Energy and $5,000 for Successful Living. Lehmann added all recommendations into a spreadsheet and calculated the averages. McKinstry noted there is the most consensus for Grow Johnson County so that allocation should be at least the minimum of $5,000. Given the total amount of funds the Commission has to allocate to emerging agencies, they can only fund at most two other organizations. Padron noted the next two top vote getters were Successful Living and Center for Worker Justice (Forest View). If both those were awarded $5,000, the total allocated would be $15,000 which leaves $4,000. Padron asked why McKinstry and Alter wanted to fund the mobile home association. McKinstry noted that Forest View has a tremendous potential for affordable housing in the future. Lehmann clarified the request was not for people to attend the meetings but rather Center for Worker Justice costs which included helping the tenant association start by providing space for them to meet, occasional transportation, some translation for public meetings and childcare. The applicant stated that the most important of these functions is for meeting space rent so this association can meet. McKinstry noted this Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 3 of 11 is a true startup, it is an emerging organization. Vaughan said her concern was that the organization seemed temporary, project based, and not an emerging agency. Padron noted they are funding the Center for Worker Justice which is an agency, for their project of helping this neighborhood association. However the Center for Worker Justice has been around for more than two years and has received funding from the City so wouldn't they be excluded from this. Lehmann clarified the Center for Worker Justice has not received Aid to Agencies funds which makes them eligible for this funding. Alter supports this application because the Center for Worker Justice is lending aid to a group in community outreach and is helping a neighborhood association. Vaughan questioned the allocation to Successful Living which appeared to be an allocation to pay employees but that would not be an ongoing payment, it would only be for one year. Her concern is if they are having difficulty paying their employees then perhaps the model for their organization should be reviewed. Harms agreed and noted all the agencies are having difficulty with payments from Medicaid and not getting paid as much as they thought and this may start a trend of all agencies coming forward. The change in Medicaid payment was known to the agencies and some likely prepared for it better than others. Alter feels this application was a creative attempt at a solution to the problem at least for the year and was thinking of the people who are impacted by the care from Successful Living but acknowledges Harms' point that this is not a permanent solution. Padron noted these funds are for emerging agencies and Successful Living has been around for 20 years and some of the other applicants, like the energy project (Johnson Clean Energy), is very new and interesting. Vaughan noted she would like to see more details on what Johnson Clean Energy will be using the funding for and be able to target their ideas, they appear to have a lot of goals, which are all great, but it is a lot to accomplished and they need to be more focused. Padron suggested allocating $5,000 to Successful Living and $5,000 to Center for Worker Justice and the remaining $9,000 to Grow Johnson County. Grow Johnson County has never been funded before and is helping many people. Harms noted Grow Johnson County had come before the Commission before but set aside their funding request when hearing another agencies needs and acknowledging that agency needed the funding more. Harms moved to recommend to City Council the following allocation of FY20 Emerging Aid to Agencies funds: $9,000 to Grow Johnson County, $5,000 to the Center for Worker Justice, and $5,000 to Successful Living. Alter seconded the motion, a vote was taken and motion passed 5-0 (Eastham and Fixmer-Oraiz recused). RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FY2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) APPLICATIONS: Lehmann shared a handout with the Commission that had the CDBG/HOME allocations ordered by average score, projects with more than $50,000 should get first consideration and per the City's Consolidated Plan they can only fund two public facilities projects. Additionally, there are staff comments, one is Successful Living has unspent funds from the past fiscal year and if additional funds are allocated they may have difficulty meeting their commitment deadlines, therefore staff recommends not funding Successful Living until they spend down the current funding. Also for new organizations without a lot of history, staff recommends starting with small funding amounts as there may be concerns with compliance and the five year reversion of assets requirement. If a new organization does not last for five years, then the City has to pay back those funds to the federal government and if the organization doesn't own their facility they must be able to lease it for the five year compliance period. Lehmann said this may affect the applications from Little Creation Academy and Old Brick. City Staff will monitor all CDBG/HOME funded projects and work with agency staff to make sure they meet compliance. Eastham asked about the Successful Living application and how much were they allocated and have left unspent. Lehmann said they have approximately $30,000 from the FY18 rehab allocation unspent, for the FY19 acquisition they have spent around $60,000 and will spend approximately $75,000 shortly which Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 4 of 11 leaves approximately $60,000 in additional funds they have not spent. The rehab project is the one they have had more delays on, not as much with acquisition projects. Lehmann noted this is a concern staff wanted the Commission to be aware of as they award funds, the Commission can still allocate funds as they see best and staff will work with those agencies to make sure there are no issues moving forward. Eastham noted that the new Successful Living rehab project could get funded and move forward even though the current rehab project is having issues. Roger Goedken (Successful Living) stated with regards to the FY18 rehab project they anticipate the work being done in April, weather has been some of the hold-up. With the home acquisition funds they have purchased one home and have residents moving in, the other they just closed on and they anticipate to spend those remaining funds by the end of the fiscal year as they are actively looking at houses. He explained there were many issues with the rehab project including when federal agencies shut down, rental moratorium, and issues with finding contractors. He added that even when they have acquisition projects they sometimes have to do limited rehab to those houses to make them accessible for their clients. Lehmann stated there were also some delays with the FY18 acquisition but staff had amended the Annual Action Plan for it and it was completed a couple months back. Goedken said the current application is for a kitchen/bathroom remodel and new HVAC on a house they purchased a few years ago, they do have residents currently living there but the repairs are needed. Lehmann stated regarding the HUD guidance for the boiler issue for Little Creations Academy, HUD requested additional clarification and Lehmann supplied it but has yet to hear back. Vaughan began with the public facilities projects (CDBG) and noted they can fund no more than two projects. Lehmann noted they have $100,000 to allocate and also that CDBG funds can be used for housing projects but HOME funds cannot be used for public facility projects. Vaughan stated when looking at the commissioner's allocations it appears everyone was in favor of funding Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Repair and additionally the Old Brick — ADA/Structural Fortification Improvements. Alter proposed allocating $90,000 to DVIP and $10,000 for Old Brick. Eastham noted the DVIP application is strong in terms of the need to repair the shelter as well as the need to repair the parking lot however he feels financing the repair to the parking lot could be done in another way and the Commission's priority should be on the repairs to the shelter interior. He noted Council has the ability to provide additional funds to these organizations and the Council should pay for the parking lot repair. Alter agrees however noted that Council just funded a larger allocation in the Aid to Agencies based on Commission recommendation and may point to the fact the Commission indeed has funds to support this application in this case. McKinstry noted with the recent consolidation, DVIP now has to cover a larger geographic area and that is stretching their already dwindling funds. If they had the money to do these repairs, such as the parking lot, they would have done it — they do not have additional funding to support this repair. Padron agreed with McKinstry and noted that what Eastham stated about DVIP is how she feels about Old Brick, perhaps Old Brick could find funding elsewhere. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed with Alter and noted if we send any of these applications to Council they may not fund anything. She also agrees with Padron that Old Brick could have more avenues for funding. Harms feels the Commission should support Old Brick and noted it is always hard for the Commission because there are applications for historical preservation and others for necessary community services. For that reason she feels comfortable with the allocation of $90,000 to DVIP and $10,000 to Old Brick. Vaughan noted the Commission is to only review what is in the application before them, they are not here to make recommendations on how other agencies might run their business, they are to look at the applications and make recommendations based on the information in those applications. Eastham noted he is fine with the allocation of $90,000 to DVIP and $10,000 to Old Brick but will keep advocating for City Council to step up and help agencies, we should not solely rely on federal funding. Lehmann noted that Old Brick is also applying for local and state historic preservation grants as well. Vaughan next moved to housing applications, there are $540,000 in HOME funds to allocate. Looking at the Commission's individual allocations it appears if they went with the averages for application they Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 5 of 11 would be slightly under their allocated amount. Eastham noted he is uneasy allocating money to Habitat for new homes when there are other agencies such as Successful Living and MYEP who have clients living in homes in need of repair. Padron agrees. Lehmann noted The Housing Fellowship - Rental Rehabilitation would need to be allocated $70,000 based on the estimated funding required for CHDO reserve funds. Eastham stated Successful Living and MYEP had a clear plan and need for adding to their group homes, they both have waiting lists, both run stellar group home programming for the residents, the rehab amounts seemed reasonable. Eastham added he would be fine not allocating any CHDO operating funds to The Housing Fellowship, he feels that organization would be fine without those funds and would prefer giving MYEP and Successful Living amounts closer to what they applied for. Vaughan noted her concern with Successful Living having challenges meeting timeframes and payroll (since they requested paying employees from the emerging agencies grant). She is also concerned about the future of Medicaid funding from the State and feels more local aid will be needed for these agencies. McKinstry agrees with Eastham on the issue of need for affordable rental versus affordable ownership and noted he did not allocate as much to Habitat for Humanity because the money could help more individuals in rentals rather than ownership. He also values the need for affordable homeownership and it addresses historic imbalances and therefore would want to see some homeownership in the mix which should be supported by some public funds as well as private funds. Fixmer-Oraiz was swayed by the presentation Habitat gave at the last meeting and learned about the overall impact homeownership has on the community. She allocated the full amount but equally can see the need for assisted living as well and will support those as well. Alter noted that Habitat said they could purchase a lot and get started on a new home with a $50,000 allocation so that is what she feels they should be awarded. That will open up more monies for Successful Living or MYEP. She does strongly support funding Habitat for the reasons McKinstry noted. Eastham asked if there was any support from other commissioners to reduce The Housing Fund allocation and therefore not fund their CHDO operating request. He stated he has seen their budget and feels this amount requested is not a make or break amount in their overall budget. Those funds from the CHDO operating request could better be served in Successful Living and MYEP to expand the number of residents they could serve. Fixmer-Oraiz did not agree and felt CHDO operating funds should be funded. Padron agreed and also feels the Habitat allocation should be lowered to $50,000 and any additional funds be split amongst Successful Living and MYEP. The Commission discussed the reallocations and staff presented a new allocation table for the Commission to vote on. They also discussed what to do in the event the federal funding was different than what they based the allocations on. Lehmann said in the past, staff has prorated the allocations among the agencies unless it was more or less than a 20% difference. Eastham suggested no positive prorated amounts be added to The Housing Fellowship. Vaughan noted they could add if prorated up but to make sure the allocation is not more than the asking amount. McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council the following allocation of FY20 CDBG/HOME funds: CDBG HOME Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program - Lot Acquisition/Rental Construction $176,000 Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 6 of 11 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Lot Acquisition/Homebuyer Assistance $50,000 Successful Living - Rental Acquisition $164,000 The Housing Fellowship - Rental Rehabilitation $70,000 Successful Living - Rental Rehab $59,000 The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating $21,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Repair $90,000 Old Brick — ADA/Structural Fortification Improvements $10,000 In the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by 20% or less, these amounts will be prorated accordingly, subject to federal caps/requirements and requested amounts; in the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by more than 20%, another funding round will begin. Fixmer-Oraiz seconded. Passed 7-0 PRESENTATION ON FAIR HOUSING STUDY: Lehmann presented the Fair Housing Choice Study staff began working on some time ago, beginning with introduction, public input received and initial observations. Fair Housing Choice is the ability to choose housing free from unlawful discrimination, it applies to owners and renters, and to people providing other housing services as well such as financing. There are many protected classes based on Iowa City's Human Rights Ordinance including age, disability, color, class, race, nation of origin, creed or religion, sex, gender or identity or sex orientation, marital/familial status, presence or absence of dependents and most recently added public assistance as a source of income including Housing Choice Vouchers. The City strives to further fair housing in everything it does, it is a requirement of HUD funds but also applies to all the City's programs. This means the City tries to take meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice and ultimately to foster inclusive communities. Lehmann pointed out that fair housing is different than affordable housing although there is a lot of overlap because often affordability is a barrier to housing choice. However, fair housing is the idea that housing is available to all residents of the community whereas affordable housing is housing costs that match incomes. Often protected classes have lower incomes so providing affordable housing is important to fair housing but it is not sufficient to affirmatively further fair housing. The Fair Housing Choice study is being conducted by Neighborhood Services and the Office of Equity and Human Rights. It includes both qualitative (getting narrative) and quantitative (looking at data) components. In terms of public input so far (qualitative) City staff held a public meeting and six focus groups of different representative groups (a total of 83 attendees), and then also did a public survey for broader public perspectives, which got 234 responses. For the quantitative analysis they looked at private and public data, most of which is from the census. The goal is to complete the study in May 2019 so it is ready for review when the Consolidated Plan is updated. Staff will share a copy of the study draft with Commissioners in May. For the survey, 234 individuals responded, skewing towards higher incomes. The survey was made available online and hard copies were provided through the public library and social service agencies. They received good feedback in terms of getting representation of protected classes. 70% of respondents were females, 17% were nonwhite or Hispanic, 5% were foreign -born, 20% had a disability, 12% spoke another language, 12% had a Housing Choice Voucher. One big thing that stuck out were only 43% of respondents said they felt they understood their fair housing rights while 26% felt they experienced discrimination. Somewhat shocking but not surprising, was only 3% of those filed a complaint. Most stated they didn't know what good it would do (70% of respondents) while others were unfamiliar with Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 7 of 11 how to do it or afraid of retaliation. In terms of barriers cited, affordable housing was overwhelmingly cited as the primary barrier to fair housing choice, including all for types of households (large families, small families, persons with disabilities, etc.) and the most common source of discrimination people noted was having a Housing Choice Voucher. In terms of public policies that were identified as barriers none received a majority, but the top ones were City funding practices followed by zoning and housing codes. At focus groups and the public meeting, the comments mirrored many results from the survey. Iowa City was noted as an expensive housing market, and incomes don't necessary match the cost of the market and it is especially problematic where there is not a diversity of housing choices within a neighborhood (if it is all single family it can be challenging for different groups to find housing). This includes both City assisted housing and privately affordable housing because it is just not City assisted housing that is affordable. For the housing stock it was also mentioned that there are low quality rentals, especially near downtown, which can be problematic for persons who are in protected classes as well as accessibility challenges in older parts of the City with properties not built to visitability standards. There were several public policy challenges raised, development codes can increase costs and limit flexibility, especially where design review is involved. Policies need to better align with goals and funding that is allocated should match up with the goals the City has (it doesn't always). The City should also streamline processes wherever they can including rental permitting, and the City needs to make sure they enforce their rental housing standards so there is quality housing. Coordination was also cited as an issue, between the City and surrounding jurisdictions and also with other actors (tenants, builders, landlords, etc.) or educational institutions such as the school district and university. Overall education is generally needed for tenants and landlords to better understand what fair housing rights are, what the responsibilities of different parties are in the housing market and to better information people on neighborhoods (people can be informally or formally steered towards certain neighborhoods) and the survey corroborated that. In terms of data observations, Iowa City is a college town and has more young people, fewer families, and fewer children especially near downtown. Generally, near downtown there are fewer persons with disabilities because it is a younger population, it is more ethnically, racially and culturally diverse, a lot due to immigration into Iowa City especially from Asian populations, but also black/African American populations as well. There are some racial/ethnic concentrations across the City, specifically Black/ Hispanic groups south of Highway 6 and Asian groups concentrated on the west side. None of these concentrations meet the standard HUD for being a racially and ethnically concentrated area of poverty however. Those areas do tend to have lower incomes but the lowest income areas tend to be nearer to the university where students are. There are large limited English proficiency populations, especially Spanish (3100 speakers) and Mandarin (2400 speakers). Segregation by race or ethnicity is considered low in Iowa City based on the dissimilarity index standards, but it has been increasing over time. For the economy, it is focused around education and healthcare, there is a high proportion of low-income households due to student populations and that is increasing as well. Minority households tend to have lower incomes in Iowa City, primarily outside downtown, and LMI (low moderate income) areas are primarily to the south and west but there is a large LMI area downtown as well. The majority of housing in Iowa City is rental, concentrated in around downtown and near the university. Minority groups tend to have lower homeownership rates in Iowa City, which especially true for Black households and households of two or more races. There has been a large increase in multifamily building permits, peaking in 2016, much of it is downtown, and there are correspondingly higher vacancy rates with that. That being noted, rents have increased faster than incomes or housing values. Housing values have actually been closer to increases in income lately but rents increased more quickly. In terms of cost burden (which means they are paying more than 30% of their income on housing), 16% of homeowners and 64% of renters are cost burdened, a lot of whom are students based on non -familial status. Minority households tend to experience housing issues at higher rates including housing cost burden and other issues such as overcrowding and the quality of facilities. Lehmann noted there is limited data on fair housing because things don't get reported, but of the data they do have in Iowa City there tends to be around 10-12 fair housing complaints per year. Most of those are based on discrimination by race, disability or sex. 1/3 tend to be outside the City's jurisdiction so they Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 8 of 11 get referred to the correct jurisdiction, 1/3 get closure at the City or withdrawn due to resolution and the remaining 1/3 require further various levels of investigation. Data from the State or Federal level is even more limited, most is based on Johnson County. Progress since the last plan, there were five findings and while the City was making progress some of these findings have cropped up again. For example, racial ethnic concentrations is still there, outreach and education is still an issue and a huge need. Staff next looked at policies, public sector policies in addition to private sector policies and Lehmann discussed those and where staff found impediments. For City development codes there is no reasonable accommodation policy for persons with disabilities which is basically a streamlined approach for, say someone in a wheelchair to put a ramp outside their house in a historic district where there are many levels of complex policies to deal with. Staff is looking to adopt some sort of reasonable accommodation policy to ensure people can be housed in older parts of the City without running into bureaucratic barriers. Also staff is looking at generally increasing opportunities or choices for housing by allowing diverse housing throughout the City. That will focus on increasing density because single family can be affordable depending on construction but allowing more multifamily by right in residential areas would be good. They are also looking at bedroom caps in multifamily as that can restrict large families and student living. Finally looking at how permanent supportive housing is currently treated in the community because it is treated as separate use only allowable in specific zones (essentially the Cross Park Place project where it is long-term housing, more than a year lease). Housing Code has new requirements like rental permit cap, increased inspections, which may affect protected classes, these changes are relatively new as of 2018 so it is hard to know the impact or results but it will be tracked. Vaughan asked if those new requirements were federal requirements. Lehmann replied it was a State requirement change where a city could not distinguish between nonfamily and family households in the zoning code which was a way the City was trying to balance student housing downtown. When the State made that change the City reviewed the process and put a cap on areas near the university and also increased inspections for certain types of units. For affordable housing assistance, Lehmann stated the City put more local funding towards affordable housing initiatives but it doesn't have the same federal requirements, so staff has not been tracking protected characteristics for beneficiaries. As such, impacts are difficult to ascertain for all City assistance because more than half the units created aren't being tracked. With new funding comes new programs and lots of requirements and staff is making sure administrative rules are well coordinated. For site selection and neighborhood revitalization, Lehmann stated the Affordable Housing Location Model and rental permit cap interact in complex ways; both affect certain types of housing in certain areas at certain times. Staff is working to identify those affects for affordable housing and service providers, how they impact choices for protected classes and seeing if there are ways to streamline some of these programs as they come into play. Currently there are 1215 Housing Choice Vouchers, about 850 of which are in Iowa City. Within Iowa City, Housing Choice Vouchers are still relatively concentrated in certain neighborhoods, typically the more affordable neighborhoods thus the concentration. However based on the survey there is also some evidence landlords may still be discriminating against Housing Choice Voucher recipients. Therefore providing more information to Housing Choice Voucher recipients is needed, further alerting them of their rights and encouraging them to live in other areas of the City is something staff is recommending. Also The Housing Authority has a preference categories with families, persons with disabilities, and elderly with residency in Iowa City as the first group to receive vouchers. Staff recommends an equity analysis to make sure the policy is targeting the correct populations for service as based on the CITY STEPS Consolidated Plan. With regards to home lending, Lehmann noted the data showed Black and Hispanic households have elevated rates of denials, however a study that was conducted a year ago showed there are discrepancies in data entry and there are issues with a small sample size. Staff wants to follow up to make sure this is not discrimination and will continue to monitor. Additionally they recommend additional fair housing education for lenders and borrowers. Alter asked if the City has anyone that works with lenders and people who are applying to help them through the process. Lehmann stated the City does trainings for lenders but is unsure of how regularly it Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 9 of 11 is done. These trainings are also provided for the general public. Kubly added if a person is part of The Housing Choice Voucher program they are assigned a case worker to help them navigate the process. Eastham asked about impediments related to realtors. Lehmann said he had no data on it but based on the focus groups it doesn't seem to be much of an issue, it seems the larger issues for steering people to certain locations is word of mouth from others in the community. Eastham said he hears anecdotal statements about realtors engaging in steering certain people to certain locations of town. McKinstry noted when he has talked to realtors it appears everyone is super sensitive to steering and know it is illegal and unethical and are hypervigilant in not steering people to certain locations of town. He was startled to find there are four or five protected classes here in Iowa City more than in other areas of the State or Nation. He stated that two woman in Missouri, this year, were denied the opportunity to live in a retirement center because they were married to each other. Because of situations like that McKinstry is so glad Iowa City has these additional protected classes. Lehmann noted for the rental market there is a mismatch between the cost of rentals and incomes and staff recommends more rentals in high demand areas, especially downtown, and considering ways to reduce the cost of housing such as group living options. The also recommend more education on the protections for renters and keeping landlords apprised of the protected classes and education of best practices. Additionally staff needs to make sure all fair housing complaints are dealt with in a timely manner and resolved quickly. Since there is a lack of metrics for policy impacts staff will need to make sure they measure these fair housing impacts on protected classes. Lehmann noted staff does not do a lot of testing in Iowa City but it is one of the better ways identify discrimination or steering. Finally Lehmann talked about other observations worth noting. There are ethnical and racial concentrations so encouraging a range of housing throughout the City while continuing to invest in minority, LMI or protected class neighborhoods is important. Homeownership rates are lower for minority groups so it is important to encouraging homebuyer programs in targeted areas for protected classes. For elderly households and persons with disabilities, especially those with ambulatory issues who cannot walk around easily, there is a need to focus on areas of town with accessibility barriers to help ensure aging in place is possible. Student populations have the lowest incomes, so there is a need to ensure all, especially those who are LMI or in protected classes, can afford to live in the community. In terms of next steps, Lehmann stated staff is working on the internal review of the draft of the Fair Housing Study, hoping to get a draft to stakeholders in April and start to let the document be public for adoption process, there will be a public meeting with HCDC on May 16 and then go before Council either May 21 or June 4 and have the document adopted prior to June 30. Eastham stated he wanted to see the data behind this study for the HCDC review. Harms noted that when someone has an issue, time constraints for resolving the issue is enormous, especially for working individuals. Perhaps the City could increase hours of availability to help the public. Fixmer-Oraiz noted a recurring theme in the Study is a need for education and outreach and there definitely needs to be more for renters, landlords and potential homeowners. Eastham stated if the City is going to put resources toward this education and outreach it should be for consumers, realtors and banks already have some educational opportunities. Fixmer-Oraiz noted the university does a freshman intake and perhaps the City can provide education on fair housing. Lehmann noted the university does a "Renter 101" event and Iowa City provides information at that. Vaughan suggested something other than just a written brochure, it doesn't often speak to a lot of people, and is easily tossed. She noted it should be written to speak to all individuals, regardless of the level of education. Padron noted it is important to remember not every resident has a computer or internet and much of what comes from the City is via email or directs one to a website. Harms noted with the elderly or others they may not want to use a computer and the City needs to be cognizant of that. Lehmann noted they did hand out hard copies of the survey in the senior living areas, agencies and also at the library for those that did not want to use a computer. The surveys were provided in multiple languages. Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Vaughan asked if there was educational pieces created do they have to be done by staff or can volunteers assist. Lehmann said they would welcome volunteers and partners. McKinstry is happy to see the interest in collecting data on housing in the City. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the City could partner with the school district and send information home in back packs. Lehmann stated the school district has tightened up on allowing things to be handed out but improved coordination between the City and schools is needed. Any additional comments or questions can be directed to Lehmann. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Lehmann noted that Council has appointed Peter Nkumu to the Commission, he is the president of the Congolese Community of Iowa and will be a great addition to the Commission. Staff is interviewing consultants for the Consolidated Plan this month. Staff, Padron and the head of the Human Rights Commission had a brief discussion on the ways to revamp the Aid to Agencies process, conversations will continue in April. The next HCDC meeting will be April 18 where we will discuss projects not conforming to the unsuccessful delayed project policy which will include a report from The Arthur Street Healthy Living Center. They will also have HCDC monitoring reports and begin Aid to Agency visioning process and also a background information presentation on the Affordable Housing Model. Staff will present the Annual Action Plan and continue the Fair Housing Study review. Eastham noted he heard from an agency partner some agencies are having discussions with the City Manager on Aid to Agency funds and what those agencies feel the City should be funding. Lehmann said this will be part of the discussion at the next meeting. Lehmann stated Community Development Week is April 22-26, there will be some type of proclamation and Vaughan suggested doing some type of tour of projects that are complete, to see the impact. Lehmann noted there is a new tenant education program that the local Homeless Coordination Board is putting together, it is intended as a possible alternative to eviction for tenants. It will start April 9 in the Iowa City Public Library and be held every Tuesday through May 14 for a total of six modules. Fixmer-Oraiz had a question on monies from other sources and specifically The United Way who gives out all kinds of money to agencies. Lehmann noted the application process does go through The United Way along with Coralville, Johnson County and United Way. ADJOURNMENT: Fixmer-Oraiz moved to adjourn. Alter seconded. Passed 7-0 Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Terms Exp. 7/10 9/20 10/11 11/15 12/20 1/17 2/21 3/14 Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X Brouse, Mitch 6/30/21 X X X X X X X O/E Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 6/30/20 X O/E X X X O/E X X Harms, Christine 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X Lamkins, Bob 6/30/19 O/E O/E X O/E O/E McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X Padron, Maria 6/30/20 X X O/E O/E X X X X Vaughan, Paula 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2019 — 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202 FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mitch Brouse, Charlie Eastham, Christine Harms, Peter Nkumu, and Paula Vaughan MEMBERS ABSENT: Megan Alter, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, John McKinstry, Maria Padron STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly OTHERS PRESENT: Clare Ferris, Drew Bloom, Sara Barron, Martha Norbeck RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends to City Council approval of the FY20 Annual Action Plan as presented with the addition of the rents of newly created affordable housing units. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vaughan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 14 2019 MINUTES: Eastham moved to approve the minutes of March 14, 2019 with corrections. Harms seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Martha Norbeck (Johnson Clear Energy District) is part of the organizing group for Johnson Clean Energy District and wanted to share her observations about the Emerging Aid to Agencies process. Her understanding of the grant was it was intended for emerging agencies, with language specifying no funds in the past five years and being formed within two years. Specifically the language reads "This application is for emerging agencies, those that have not existed as a legal entity for at least two years or have not received Aid to Agency funds in the last five years." Norbeck was surprised when she looked at the submitted grants and the years other applicants were in business and the order they were listed in the packet were 6, 20, 1, 22, 20 and 1 years. And the three organizations that received funding were the ones that had operated for 20, 20 and 6 years. Norbeck acknowledged those agencies' presentations were polished and had excellent reference letters, they should be as they have been in operation for years and have a track record for success to stay in operation for 20 years. Norbeck acknowledged the Johnson Clean Energy Group may have been disorganized, they have a lot to learn as an organization and learned valuable lessons from the grant proposal process. She noted they do not feel shunned as the Johnson Clean Energy District, she understands they are just getting started, but rather it is challenging that the representation of the grant was for emerging agencies but the committee's actions supported agencies that had already been in existence and had a track record of success. That felt like a discontinuity and she wanted to communicate that she feels the language and parameters need to be more clearly outlined if the intent is truly to support agencies that are gaining a foothold. Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) wants to share two things with the Commission, the first is the Affordable Housing Coalition has sent a formal request to the City Manager Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 2 of 11 and cc: the Council and some staff asking for rental unit prices to be collected as rental permits are issued or renewed. It is surprising to a lot of people to learn they don't have very reliable data, or really any type of comprehensive data about city-wide rental prices which makes it difficult to track progress in creating and maintaining affordable rental units. Because the City is in the process of upgrading their rental permitting software right now, Barron feels now is the perfect time to include a field to collect information about what the landlord will charge for the units. Having that information can be used a number of ways, the Affordable Housing Coalition's intention is to use it in an aggregated way that will give them raw data that can be sorted to show what rental prices are throughout the community and how many units are actually available to the households that need more affordable rentals. The second item Barron wanted to share, because this Commission is concerned with affordable housing, Council is continuing to discuss the comprehensive rezoning of the North Dubuque Forest View project which includes the Forest View Mobile Home community and that redevelopment would include many permanent affordable homes for people who currently live at Forest View. There is a lot to consider about that rezoning but the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition is in favor of moving forward with the rezoning and hopes it goes through soon because at this point it is at a three year process and the residents of Forest View have worked hard with the developer to create a plan that will allow for a private developer to provide affordable housing. The fact that commercial and residential are mixed together is precisely one of the reasons it makes it possible for the developer to create the affordable housing option. Eastham stated an interest to put on an upcoming agenda the inclusion of rental amounts in the City's permitting process. Eastham also acknowledged the comments regarding the emerging agency funds, he did not participate in those discussions because of a conflict of interest but feels the Commission should look at that process more closely. DISCUSSION OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE `UNSUCCESSFUL OR DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY': Lehmann gave updates from reports received on unsuccessful and delayed projects. He noted the Commission can reclaim funds if they feel insufficient progress is being made. FY18 Little Creations Academy Daycare Rehab — Little Creations does not yet have a contract for the amended project scope, that is, the additional $36,141 which was added to their initial $73,000 budget. The reason is that there have been issues with the contractor that are being worked through. Little Creations is exploring the possibility of switching contractors for the remainder of the work, otherwise they are trying to finish out the work the contract they have, trying to get the access panel done, and will continue to work through the challenges. Lehmann noted the amendment was approved in January so they have only had the additional funding for about three months. FY19 Aid to Agencies: Domestic Violence Intervention Program — Lehmann received an email update on this project, noting that DVIP has not billed any funding so far. They are finishing up a CDBG reimbursement of $21,000 for expenses in January through March. They expect other reimbursement requests shortly. Due to the amount of federal funding they receive and how the State allocates, it is cleaner for DVIP to expend full amounts from local, state or federal for same activities, in this case shelter indirect activities. They do so to show all funds are required to perform the services and are used to complete the contract period and is one of the ways DVIP can clearly show federal funds are not supplanting state or local funds. Holding off on expending City funds is different this year to accommodate this, they have never been in a position of not expending half their funds from the City by a specific deadline in the contract period. DVIP added that one issue they face is the contractors fees include both state and federal funding but they don't know how that is divided up until a couple months into the contract, in addition based on the State's process, which differs year to year, DVIP doesn't always know if they are documenting expending federal or state funds first until a couple months into the contract as well. DVIP noted this is a fairly new process within the last three years so one of the ways they are hoping to resolve this issue moving forward is matching their fiscal year spending to the federal year. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 3 of 11 Eastham asked if these funds are Aid to Agency Funds. Lehmann confirmed it is Aid to Agency funds and stated typically Aid to Agency funds get billed quarterly but this year DVIP changed how they are billing. Eastham asked if the source of the funds were local funds. Lehmann said they are using their federal funds first, followed by state funds and then tap into the local funds, but if they don't spend it out by June 30 they will lose any unused funds from the City due to the federal public services cap for CDBG, which is not something they can roll over. Eastham notes he understands why federal funds cannot be carried over but questions why local funds cannot. Lehmann stated it is a decision by the City Finance Department, that they were awarded federal, not local funds. FY19 Arthur Street Healthy Life Center — Lehmann received an email right before this evening's meeting stating it appears the building will be sold to another buyer and Tess will withdraw her CDBG grant. Therefore that $51,000 will go back into the CDBG pot. Brouse asked if those funds would just be added to the next funding cycle. Lehmann confirmed that it could or also be tied into the Annual Action Plan. The order for uncommitted CDBG and HOME funds can be spent various ways by levels of consideration. (1) Existing projects that did not receive full funding can be considered. (2) Projects that had submitted projects that did not receive any CDBG or HOME funding will be considered. (3) New proposals in an extra funding round or (4) go back into a contingency fund to cover cost overruns. Eastham stated the Commission should follow the policy established and reallocate those unused funds. Lehmann said it can be discussed with the Annual Action Plan discussion later in the meeting. FY19 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County Siding Improvement — Lehmann reported they sent out bids in August and only received one bid significantly higher than budget, about 60% above estimated. A second batch of letters were sent out in January and NCJC received two bids, and fortunately the lower of the two bids was close to the target budget. In March they signed an agreement with the contractor and the project is slated to begin on Monday, April 15 and is expected to take two to three weeks to complete. Lehmann stated he has been to the project site and they are making progress. FY19 Prelude Transitional Housing Improvement — Ron Berg was not able to attend tonight's meeting but provided a written report. Prelude has selected RM Boggs as the vendor to install the new water heater, they will be meeting on Friday, April 19 to confirm wages requirements and make sure all the paperwork is in order before proceeding. RM Boggs indicated the timeline for the project is two weeks for the water heater to be delivered and will be able to install shortly after receiving. The project is within budget. BEGIN AID TO AGENCIES PROCESS MODIFICATIONS DISCUSSION: Lehmann stated he included a discussion guide in the packets of things the Commission has talked about regarding Aid to Agencies and reflective questions to start the discussion. Lehmann noted this discussion covers emerging and legacy Aid to Agencies processes. Vaughan followed the discussion guide beginning with what the Commission feels worked well and what needs to be improved. Eastham believes the Council's recognition of the Commission's recommendation and implementation worked well, he was quite pleased with the presentation. Lehmann has comments received from Fixmer-Oraiz, Alter and McKinstry. Fixmer-Oraiz noted overall it was good for the first time trying the Emerging Aid to Agencies and is open to hearing what others think can be done better. One thought she had was to make sure the Commission splits up the times when they are hearing from legacy versus emerging groups, but she liked the length of time the Commission had to review applications and ask questions. Fixmer-Oraiz suggested sending a survey out to agencies for their input on the process asking for their top concerns and aspects they wish the Commission to address. It would be good to know what organizations and staff thinks and make best practices from there. Alter stated she liked being able to talk with the agencies before filling out the scoring sheets, she is still not entirely sure how to handle priorities and scoring high, medium and low with numbers that can Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 4 of 11 range from 1 to 10, she would like to see the matrix be able to capture when the funding ask goes to salary. She finds that useful because of the section that discusses the impact on persons. There are agencies that impact a great number of persons but the funding request goes to deal with salary, the score on the matrix may be high but it is not reflecting the money impacting many. Alter would like to have an easy to find piece of info that reflects the percent of cost directed to salary. She also likes having information showing what the applicant has received from Aid to Agencies in years past. McKinstry hopes the process will remain dynamic as they try to make it responsive to emerging needs while trying to offer stability for established services based on official stated priorities somewhat quantified by a numerical scoring system yet interpreted through the experiences of people involved in the process. It is an orderly process yet filled with the drama of unmet human needs represented by underfunded nonprofits. McKinstry states he along with everyone on the Commission needs to find a way to put the overall Aid to Agency need total to be gathered early enough in the City budgeting process so that it doesn't quietly shrink as it had over the past few years. Eastham stated having the dialogue with agencies was very helpful to him and he has heard the agencies want to have that opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings or confusion with their applications. Eastham noted it is important to maintain the schedule that has been developed. Brouse agrees but admitted he was a little bit uncomfortable when the Commission was talking about allocations and some agencies were interjecting themselves into the conversation. While it is important to have the back and forth conversations, when it is time to discuss allocations it is a conversation just amongst the Commission. There needs to be a structure maintained of when open discussion time is and when is only Commission discussion time. Eastham commented on Alter's statement of the agencies using the funding for salaries, he is not in agreement with her and feels agencies have to pay salaries and he doesn't care what they use the monies for as long as it benefits the agency and they are accomplishing their missions. Brouse agrees and noted the nice thing about the Aid to Agency funds is there aren't strings attached and the funds can be used how the agency best sees fit. Some agencies have all their federal funds tied to direct services and these are the only funds available to pay salaries. Vaughan agreed the scoring sheet was challenging because there were a lot of yes/no and therefore all the ending numbers were very close and hard for her to distinguish the agencies and decide how the scoring would match the funding. Eastham noted a comment from agencies saying they found little correlation between scoring and funding amounts. That is a measurable thing. Lehmann said he did with Commission averages and it was roughly correlated. Lehmann said when the scores don't correlate is often with the $15,000 threshold and that can throw off the data. Lehmann noted he also heard feedback the Commission wants to spread the funding and agencies want them more targeted to priorities in City Steps. Additionally information was asked that was not part of the scoring criteria and also as heard earlier the emerging agency funds went to more established agencies despite the intent of the funds. Vaughan noted she is in agreement with the comments heard today regarding emerging agency funding and the wording on the application was confusing. It stated if one had ever received funding, not specifically Aid to Agency funding which is how it should have been worded. Brouse noted they do need to be clearer on what the intent for Aid to Agencies and Emerging Agencies, he feels emerging should be new agencies but the actual policies in place indicate it can be new agencies or just ones that haven't received this specific type of funding. He noted the Commission needs to decide what they are prioritizing and direct the funds towards that. Eastham noted the difficulty not including an agency that has been in existence for 30 years being eligible for emerging funds is it excludes and takes away possible funding source for agencies with history. He Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 5 of 11 feels it is fine to allow one year old organizations to go head to head with 30 year old organizations for this source of funds. Lehmann stated part of the rational for allowing established agencies who had not received Aid to Agencies funding to compete for the emerging funds was the legacy agencies are the agencies that provide core services in the community and have received funds for a long time, whereas there are some agencies that have been around for a long time but were never part of that initial core set of services. So competing this allowed them to join the core Aid to Agencies funding cycles. Brouse noted then perhaps is shouldn't be called emerging agencies then if it will include established organizations. Vaughan agreed and noted there was a subcommittee that established the emerging category so perhaps that subcommittee can now reconvene to review the process after the first year and discuss concerns and clarify intent. Lehmann asked if the Commission felt the intent of the emerging agency funds was met with regards to the agencies that ultimately received the funding. Vaughan felt so at the time, however after tonight's discussion she feels maybe it does need to be reviewed. She agrees the term emerging makes it sound like new agencies so the wording may need to be clearer. Harms noted that all the Commissioners went through each of these applications diligently and that is how the decision of funding was decided, it wasn't a quick decision without thought. Vaughan agreed and noted she is comfortable with the decisions made in this funding cycle it is just now perhaps a matter of clarifying the wording for the future. Lehmann asked if it is the intent of the Commission to continue to allocate 5% of the funding to emerging agencies. The Commission agreed, noting it is the only way for an agency to get into the legacy agency cycle. Lehmann said they could dissolve the emerging agency funding and legacy funding categories and then any agency could apply generally to Aid to Agency funds. Lehmann stated this conversation will continue at the next meeting as well for the Commissioner's that are not able to be present this evening. The subcommittee for this process was Padron and Fixmer-Oraiz who are both absent this evening. Eastham asked about the allocation of monies based on low priority or medium priorities. He feels that didn't seem to sit very well with some agencies. Lehmann noted that agency questions he received were more about misunderstanding how the priorities would be used and they may not have fought being a medium priority which had the highest funding ratio of applications to availability. There was only one low priority application. Eastham said feedback he heard was funding should target the highest need. Lehmann noted his interpretation of that is in City Steps there are particular priorities and the Commission voted in the past to try to target more monies towards those priorities but never that medium or low priorities should not be funded. Lehmann also noted again with the $15,000 threshold there wasn't a willingness to defund agencies that scored low, which scewed results. Eastham noted in future discussions that the Commission should ask agencies if they want the City to keep the levels of priorities. Vaughan noted that if they do not allocate funds for low, medium and high then those agencies that are low priority will never get funding. There are just not enough funds to go around. Brouse stated that the goal is to spread the funding, but that is just a target, if the projects aren't there then an agency should not receive funding just because they are the only low or medium application. Vaughan also said in the next round of funding it should be decided if the Commission is funding the project or the agency, there has been a back and forth on that and a decision needs to be made up front Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 6 of 11 so the applicants know when they are filling out the applications. Eastham noted in the scoring criteria they use budget and income target which have nothing to do with projects. Brouse feels it is better to base priority on the agency because all the scoring criteria is based on the agency not project. However it may not be all or none, some may be based on the project. Lehmann said the scoring criteria could be looked at, he used what was used previously for CDBG funds which needs a project but also looks at applicable agency criteria as well. Lehmann noted some feedback he received from the agencies were they didn't feel like there was predictability to the funding and if they knew the Commission was basing funding off one or the other they would write their applications to fit. Brouse noted that it can't just be about the data, there is a human aspect to these agencies and that is why discussions take place before funding is awarded. Vaughan agreed noting that everyone looks at the applications independently and then when they come together for discussion it is a more rounded view after hearing others input. Lehmann stated at the February 2019 Council work session Council asked staff to reach out to Legacy Agencies this summer to discuss Aid to Agencies budget levels. The City Manager's office will lead the effort and will discuss with Legacy Agencies. The City Manager's office will also review growth projections as they consider a proposed FY21 Aid to Agencies allocation. Neighborhood Services staff may attend meetings but will not lead them. This is the first year of the Legacy/Emerging process and HCDC will need to review how it went as there will be a FY21 funding cycle as an annual funding round rather than a two year cycle. HCDC will need to review the process and identify if any changes are necessary. Every two years additional emerging agencies will be able to apply for legacy funds and emerging agencies get funded annually, so it is possible that every two years 6-8 new emerging agencies can apply for legacy funds. This will have a significant impact on funding levels for agencies who have historically been funded and should be considered. It is not reasonable to assume the Aid to Agency budget will increase by $90,000 or $120,000 every two years so HCDC needs to review priorities and how to approach funding should additional agencies come on board. Lehmann noted the City's budget process begins in August. NDS staff will have duties above and beyond current workloads and staff must complete the fair housing study and the Consolidated Plan in the upcoming months, additional research and correspondence for items not required by Council will not be priority items for staff as the City Manager's office is taking the lead for this item (working on the Aid to Agency process), it will not be a priority item for NDS staff. Eastham asked if for Aid to Agency budgeting the Commission should get the City Manager to come to a meeting Lehmann said it is that they are taking the lead while NDS staff will be working on the Fair Housing Study and the Consolidated Plan and they will come back to HCDC. Kubly said the City Manager's office will be working with agencies and are recommending HCDC wait until the City proposes the budget and then if the Commission has recommendations at that point to bring them forward. Eastham stated it is a good idea for the City Manager to be talking with the agencies about what they believe a reasonable Aid to Agency budget amount should be. However, he would also like to hear from agency directors directly what they think an Aid to Agency budget should be. Then HCDC can recommend a reasonable amount to the City on what the budget should be for Aid to Agencies. Lehmann noted that may be difficult depending on what happens at the State level because they are currently discussing revisions to the budget process and how much revenue cities have. Eastham doesn't believe what the State does really affects what the City does with its monies because the taxable valuation which includes everything in the City has increased every year. So as long as the taxable valuation continues to go up Eastham will continue to argue for increased budget for Aid to Agencies. Vaughan asked if HCDC's role is to advocate to the City Manager for increasing funding. Eastham stated the Commission was appointed by the City Council, not the City Manager so they should talk to Council Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 7 of 11 and the budget setting process should include this Commission's recommendations on what the annual budget for Aid to Agencies should be. Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) spoke on behalf of their partner agencies that participate in all the various processes that come before the Commission for funding allocations, she noted the Commission gets to see very detailed applications for how the money will be used and that is done at the City Council's request on their behalf and then somehow that information has to be provided back to City Council on all the Commission has learned through the process because it seems clear that City Council is not getting all that detailed information. While she does not have a recommendation from the agencies on how exactly the budgeting process should go, she feels the Commission needs to remember not only are they charged with making the funding allocation but they are also learning all that information from the agencies on behalf of the Council and without that relaying that back, City Council doesn't have all the information about what the need is for the organizations. Lehmann noted that Council receives the minutes from the HCDC meetings, perhaps in the future the HCDC Chair could prepare a cover letter to Council with a summary. Vaughan said that might be good for situations where there is a need to call attention to something specific. Eastman noted that providing City funds to agencies doing social justice work is one of the key things this Commission is established to do and a vital function of this Commission is to inform Council why they are making the budget recommendations they are making. He would advocate for the Aid to Agencies funding process to not start out with a budget cap amount. Lehmann stated regarding overlapping funding HCDC has discussed on disclosing the various City funding going to each agency and he wants to invite the Human Rights Commission to the next meeting to discuss their processes as well. Eastham agreed it would be good to know if an agency is receiving funding from various City funds. Eastham asked what other Commissions the Council charged with providing funding. Lehmann stated Sustainability has funds to disburse, Historic Preservation may have funds, and Community Development. Brouse stated he would be interested in learning about the Human Rights Commission's processes. Lehmann is imagining having a liaison from each Commission that will go to the other Commission's meetings and bring back information. Lehmann asked if a member of the Commission wanted to reach out to the agency partners with a survey to ask about the process and ideas for improvement. Eastham is much more interested in hearing the feedback on budget amounts rather than process. Lehmann said that could be one survey. Eastham would rather have the agencies come to the May or June meeting and talk about the budget needs and process rather than do a survey. Vaughan is in favor of a survey or email asking for feedback rather than meeting. Brouse agreed. Lehmann noted that Fixmer-Oraiz volunteered to put together a survey. Eastham stated he would approach executive directors directly for in-person discussion. MONITORING REPORT: City of Iowa City — Kubly will review the City's CDBG/HOME projects. The City has $75,000 for the Neighborhood Improvement set-aside. The City typically works with Parks & Rec and Engineering to develop projects each year. Most recently they have are working in Villa and Highland Parks. They used funding for accessible trails, playground equipment, a permanent shelter, and drinking fountain. Kubly noted Parks is looking at paving trails at Wetherby and a project at Fair Meadows for next year. The next allocation is a $50,000 set-aside for economic development for low- and medium- income (LMI) business assistance, it is typically for job creation, retention, technical assistance for micro -enterprises (i.e. businesses with five or fewer employees, one or more of whom owns the business). They provided $25,000 to 4Cs to support the development of micro -enterprise daycare providers, a $10,000 no interest loan to a cell -phone repair business, and a $5,000 no interest loan to Iconic Salon located in the Sycamore area. Both loans are in repayment and the City still has funds available on a first-come first - serve basis if a business meets the criteria. She noted they are looking for opportunities to provide technical support for entrepreneurs looking to start a business and may partner with the UI as well as the Small Business Development Center for classes and once they have completed classes, they could get Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 8 of 11 funding. Lastly the City may do an event for home-based businesses this year. The next project was owner -occupied housing rehab, the City provides grants and loans for homeowners, and those who live in targeted LMI areas can get half the assistance as a grant. Mobile homes also get grants. The City received $90,000 from HOME and have three comprehensive rehab projects underway. From CDBG they get $235,000 and to date have six mobile home projects, one emergency, one exterior, seven in target areas and four projects that are in the hopper doing lead assessments and bid estimates. The City has a single application for all housing rehab programs so if someone applies and meets the HOME or CDBG criteria they will receive funding from that program. If their income is over 80% and under 110% AMI they can receive funds through the GRIP program which is local funds, a low-interest loan (the City receives $200,000 annually for that program). Lastly related to owner -occupied rehab is requiring energy audits for homeowners and have completed 10 audits so far this year. The last project is the South District Program, the City received $100,000 in HOME funds to rehab two duplexes, four total units, where the City will purchase properties, rehab them and then sell them to LMI homebuyers. The City selected properties and reached out to the landlords and followed up with the tenants to make sure they were not displacing any tenants but the tenants stated they were not interested in moving and not interested in homeownership so the City needs to look for other properties and perhaps expand the area (initially they just looked at Taylor and Davis Streets). One positive is the partnership with Habitat and Horizons for homeowner courses for anyone who is interested in homeownership. REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF FY20 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN — PLAN AVAILABLE ONLINE AT http://www.icgov.org/actionplan Lehmann noted a lot of the packet is information that is the same as last year but went over the highlights. One addition this year was as part of the Consolidated Plan where it goes goal by goal set in City Steps and the progress being made on each step they now report specifically on the progress of the goals. Of the eleven goals set four years ago, two are complete (increase the supply of affordable rentals and strengthening economic development). Five are on track to meet their goals and the remaining four are behind what would be expected at the point. However three are expected to be complete on time. Two probably won't meet the goals set, improving and maintaining public infrastructure facilities because the City decided to do fewer, bigger projects rather than more smaller projects as originally planned, a policy in line with City Steps which states they should focus funding in places to make a bigger difference. The other goal that will likely not be met is for fagade improvements, the City went away from fagade improvements and now it is being funded through local dollars and thus is not reflected in the CAPER. Lehmann noted another change that happened from the original version, the Departmental and Commission Guidance is something that was not initially added, and how those fit into the preparation of the Plan and for soliciting public input. Consultation is much the same as it was last year although Lehmann has participated more in the local homelessness coordinating board so homelessness initiatives are featured more prominently in the current Action Plan. Also in the Plan is the list of who participated in the creation of the Consolidated Plan. For the timeline, the Annual Action Plan is typically due 45 days prior to the end of the fiscal year which would be around April 15. This year the City did not get their federal funding allocation until April 12, so it due 60 days from that date, currently June 11. The Plan notes the Commission is reviewing it today, there is a 30 day public comment period that starts on May 3 and people can come comment on the Plan at the next HCDC meeting. Council will then consider the Plan following a public hearing on June 4. For federal allocations, the City became aware of them on April 17, so Appendix B shows updated allocations. For HOME and CDBG funds, CDBG funds went up by $500 from budgeted so essentially unchanged from last year, HOME funds were decreased by $97,000 when the City was expecting an 8% decrease and fortunately had appropriately budgeted for this fiscal year, so they actually had slightly more HOME funds than expected which is reflected in Appendix B. Lehmann also noted the funding amounts for prior year resources are slightly higher because they had more program income than expected. Total budget amounts for FY20 are $799,000 and $739,000 for CDBG and HOME respectively. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 9 of 11 Lehmann next moved to the goals, objectives, and project descriptions. Project descriptions are broken into categories. Public Service Activities are Aid to Agencies and were increased by $9,000 in CDBG funds from the budget. $8,000 went to Shelter House, $50,000 to DVIP and $55,000 to Neighborhood Centers. They focus CDBG funds to larger agencies because they can handle it. Public Facility Improvements include DVIP and Old Brick, initially the allocation for DVIP was $90,000 and $10,000 for Old Brick. Since funding amounts were within 10% of what was expected, staff prorated the amounts and reallocated to DVIP up to their ask of $120,000 and the rest went to Old Brick for a total of $36,000. The Neighborhood Improvement set-aside, which goes to Parks or Public Works, remained unchanged at $75,000; Comprehensive Rehab is another set-aside that remained stable at $235,000 for CDBG and $90,000 for HOME; the Other Housing Activities increased from $540,000 to $570,000 so the allocation was prorated with Mayor's Youth receiving $186,000 in HOME funds; Habitat receiving $53,000; Successful Living receiving $173,000 for acquisition and $62,000 for rehab; The Housing Fellowship receiving $74,000 for rental rehab and $22,000 for CHDO operating. Economic development set-aside remained at $50,000; CDBG and HOME administration went up to the cap per the Council set-aside which leaves $25,000 buffers each for HOME and CDBG in case issues arise, which excludes the additional $51,000 de -obligated for the Arthur Street Healthy Living Center. Lehmann next discussed geographic distribution, the City for federal purposes does not distinguish between target areas and city-wide, all programs are city-wide although the City uses target areas to allow some loans to be forgiven, for example on rehab. While the programs are city-wide staff tries to target specific areas by using the affordable housing location model to distribute affordable housing throughout the community. For affordable housing, the City will assist 28 households overall, 23 will be special needs households through Mayor's Youth and Successful Living. 14 units acquired, 8 units rehabbed and 6 new units constructed. For public housing it is similar to last year, homeless and special needs is also similar though a risk mitigation fund is something the local homeless board is exploring where they would provide an insurance pool for landlords if there was a homeless tenant and someone didn't want to rent to them because they were afraid they would destroy the unit, the City insure the landlord who could apply for funds to correct any issues. Some communities have such policies. The Affordable Housing Plan is also included which works to ensure there are affordable housing options and people are not in poverty just trying to pay for someplace to live. Lehmann noted the updated Plan is available for viewing on the City's website, it has all the appendices and updated action plans. Eastham asked if there was anywhere in the Plan stating the actual rental amounts for units and noted if anyone under an income level of $20,000 per year can afford the rental units the City says are affordable units. Therefore he would this Plan to include a report on rental prices for the parts of the report that refer to affordable rental housing. Additionally the table labeled "AP 20 Annual Goals and Objectives" in the goal outcome column it states there are a total of 11 rental units constructed but it doesn't say what the initial rent prices were. Lehmann noted the problem with rental prices is they change every year. Eastham said just to see the initial ones is fine. Lehmann will add that to the report. Eastham moved to recommend to City Council approval of the FY20 Annual Action Plan as presented with the addition of the rents of newly created affordable housing units. Brouse seconded. A vote was taken and it passed 5-0. 116110111*1Is] `►[6]2i:1410%]1fihfilUNIV911:0=13:7_Ad[e7► Lehmann said the community celebration is April 22-26, Council will make a proclamation set up, there will be a tour of CDBG/HOME projects Wednesday, April 24, and he encourages Vaughan as chair to write an editorial to the paper. The tour will be as follows: Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 10 of 11 5:30 P.M.: Tour of 80 Whitechapel/15 Colchester, Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program 5:50 P.M.: Tour of 2620 Muscatine Avenue, The Arc of Southeast Iowa 6:10 P.M.: Discussion at 1105 S. Gilbert Court, Domestic Violence Intervention Program. 6:30 P.M.: Tour of 820 Cross Park Avenue, Shelter House STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Next meeting is May 16. Will need to consider Commissioner's whose terms end June 30, there may be openings. Eastham stated there is a national firm that has been buying mobile home parks in this area, including the Sunrise Village Mobile Home Park in Iowa City. The firm's practice has been to increase lot rents in the range of 40% to 60%. Council members Cole and Salih are asking the Council to take some action and are requesting a work session to discuss adding mobile home parks to the affordable housing plans. They are also asking for the consideration of the City's acquisition of a mobile home park for the purposes of reselling to a nonprofit or possibility a resident led cooperative. Eastman feels HCDC might want to communicate to Council the support of this work session agenda item. The Commission agrees it is a conversation that needs to be had. ADJOURNMENT: Brouse moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and passed 5-0. Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Terms Exp. 7/10 9/20 10/11 11/15 12/20 1/17 2/21 3/14 4/18 Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X O/E Brouse, Mitch 6/30/21 X X X X X X X O/E X Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 6/30/20 X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E Harms, Christine 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X Lamkins, Bob 6/30/19 O/E O/E X O/E O/E McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X O/E Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X Padron, Maria 6/30/20 X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E Vaughan, Paula 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant Public Meeting Notice FY20 Annual Action Plan The City Council will hold a public meeting, accept comments, and consider approval of Iowa City s FY20 Annual Action Plan on June 4, 2019. The meeting will be held at Emma Harvat Hall, 410 East Washington Street at 7:00 p.m. The Annual Action Plans are a portion of Iowa City s Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS). The Annual Action Plan includes information on the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds for housing, jobs, and services for low -moderate income persons. The Annual Action Plan outlines proposed activities and their budgets for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2019. Copies are available from the Neighborhood and Development Services Department, 410 East Washington Street; the Iowa City Public Library, 123 S. Linn Street; or on Iowa City's web site (www.icgov.org/actionplan). Additional information is available by calling 319-356-5230. Comments may be submitted in writing to the Neighborhood and Development Services Department at the address above or by email to Kirk-Lehmann@iowa-city.org. If you require special accommodations or language translation please contact Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5230 or 356-5493 TTY at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. C:\Users\jvoparliUAppData\LoralWicrosoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\X0008UC5\Public Meeting Notice AAP.doc Public Comment Period ActionFY20 Annual I The City of Iowa City is soliciting public comments on the proposed Federal Fiscal Year 2019 (City FY20) Annual Action Plan. The Annual Action Plan is a portion of Iowa City's 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS). The Annual Action Plan will include information on the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds for housing, jobs and services for low - moderate income persons. The Annual Action Plan outlines proposed activities, project locations, budgets and the scope of activities being funded. Copies of the draft Annual Action Plan are available from Neighborhood Services, City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, 52240; Iowa City Public Library, 123 South Linn Street; and online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. Comments may be submitted in writing to the Neighborhood and Development Services Department at the address above or by email to Kirk-Lehmann@iowa- city.org. A 30 -day public comment period will begin with the publication of this notice and end on June 4, 2019. 13, Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 RESOLUTION NO. 19-148 Resolution adopting Iowa City's FY20 Annual Action Plan which is a sub -part of Iowa City's 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (City Steps) Whereas, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to prepare and submit the FY20 Annual Action Plan as part of the City's 2016- 2020 Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS) to plan the use of federal funds to assist lower income residents with housing, jobs, public facilities, and public services; and Whereas, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission has held a series of meetings regarding the use of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds for City of Iowa City FY20; and Whereas, the City has disseminated information, solicited public input, and held a public meeting on the FY20 Annual Action Plan; and Whereas, the FY20 Annual Action Plan contains the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds attached hereto as Appendix; and Whereas, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission had recommended approval of the attached Appendix except that the HOME funds were to be used for the rehabilitation of only owner occupied properties; and Whereas, the City Council amended the housing rehabilitation project to allow HOME funds to be used for the rehabilitation of single family and duplex rental properties in targeted neighborhoods in addition to owner -occupied rehabilitation activities; and Whereas, adoption of the FY20 Annual Action Plan will make Iowa City eligible for federal and state funds administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Whereas, the City Council finds that the public interest will be served by the adoption of the FY20 Annual Action Plan and submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The City of Iowa City FY20 Annual Action Plan as amended, containing the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds attached hereto as Appendix, is hereby approved and adopted. 2. The City Manager is hereby designated as the Chief Executive Officer and authorized to act on behalf of the City of Iowa City in connection with the FY20 Annual Action Plan. 3. The City Manager of Iowa City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the City of Iowa City FY20 Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is further authorized and directed to provide all the necessary Resolution No. 19-148 Page 2 certifications or documents required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, terminate, or amend CDBG and HOME Agreements executed in connection with the allocation of public funds with sub - recipients, Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), or other legal entities. Passed and approved this 4'h day of June, 2019. Attest: City Clerk / g�� Mayor =07111 �J City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 19-148 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Cole x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Throgmorton Cole the Appendix FY20 Economic Development Economic Development Set-aside $ 50,000 NA 2 Administration & Planning CDBG Administration $145,000 NA NA HOME Administration NA $ 54,000 NA Total $774,000 $714,000 4,121 Households / CDBG HOME Facilities Project Planned activities Award Award Assisted Shelter House - A2A $ 8,000 NA 700 Public Service Activities Domestic Violence Intervention Program - A2A $ 50,000 NA 600 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - A2A $ 55,000 NA 2,000 DVIP - Shelter Repair $120,000 NA 340 Public Facility Activities Old Brick - ADA Improvements $ 36,000 NA 130 Neighborhood and Neighborhood Improvements Set Aside $ 75,000 NA 300 Area Benefits Homeowner/Rental Comprehensive rehabilitation $ 235,000 $ 90,000 22 Housing Rehabilitation MYEP - Rental New Construction $ - $186,000 6 Habitat - Homebuyer Assistance $ - $ 53,000 2 Successful Living - Rental Acquisition $ - $173,000 12 Other Housing Activities Successful Living - Rental Rehabilitation $ - $ 62,000 5 THF - Rental Rehabilitation $ - $ 74,000 2 THF - CHDO Operating $ - $ 22,000 NA Economic Development Economic Development Set-aside $ 50,000 NA 2 Administration & Planning CDBG Administration $145,000 NA NA HOME Administration NA $ 54,000 NA Total $774,000 $714,000 4,121 Late Handouts Distributed Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)P5��0i RESOLUTION NO. (Date) Resolution\adopting Iowa City's FY20 Annual Action Plan which is a sub -part of\\lowa City's 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (City Steps) Whereas, the U.S. De artment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the City of Iowa City, Iowa, tc prep re and submit the FY20 Annual Action Plan as part of the ity's 2016- 2020 Consolidated Plan ( ITY STEPS) to plan the use of federal funds to ssist wer income residents with housing, job public facilities, and public services; and Whereas, the Iowa City Housin and Community Development Commissi as held a series of meetings regarding the use of fe raI Community Development Block G t (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Pro ram (HOME) funds for City of Iowa City FY20; and Whereas, the City has disseminated inf ation, solicited public inp/ljt, and held a public meeting on the FY20 Annual Action Plannd / Whereas, the FY20 Annual Action Plan contains the allocation Jif CDBG and HOME funds attached hereto as Appendix; and Whereas, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission had recommended approval of the attached Appendix except that the�HOME funds were to be used for the rehabilitation of only owner occupied properties; arid. Whereas, the City Council amended the housing habilitation project to allow HOME funds to be used for the rehabilitation of single family and duplex rental properties in targeted neighborhoods in addition to owner -occupied fehabilitation activities; and Whereas, adoption of the FY20 Annual /fiction Plan will make Iowa City eligible for federal and state funds administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and. Urban Development; and Whereas, the City Council finds that the public interest will be servetl�by the adoption of the FY20 Annual Action Plan and submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, ipwa, that: 1. The City of Iowa City FY20 Annual Action Plan as amended, contaiNiN the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds attached hereto as Appendix, is hereby approVqd and adopted. 2. The City Manager is hereby designated as the Chief Executive Officer and Aithorized to act on behalf of the City of Iowa City in connection with the FY20 Annual Action Plan. 3. The City Manager of Iowa City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the City of Iowa City FY20 Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is further authorized and directed to provide all the necessary certifications or documents required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 4. The City Planager is hereby authorized to execute, terminate, amend CDBG and HOME Agreements executed in connection with the allocation f publi funds with sub - recipients, Community Housing Development Organizations HDO , or other legal entities. Passed and approved this 411 day of June, 2019. Attest: City Clerk Mayor City Attorney's Office Appendix FY20 Public Facility Activities DVIP - Shelter ReDi>< $120,000 NA 340 Old Brick -ADA lr4T _ments $ 36,000 NA 130 Neighborhood and Neighborhood Improyement]-Set Aside $ 75,000 Persons / NA 300 Area Benefits Households / CDBG HOME Facilities Project Planned activities Award A ward Assisted Shelter House-A2A $ 8,000 NA 70C Public Service Activities Domestic Violenle�lntervention Program - A2A $ 50,000 NA 600 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - A2A $ Sr5,000 NA 2,000 Public Facility Activities DVIP - Shelter ReDi>< $120,000 NA 340 Old Brick -ADA lr4T _ments $ 36,000 NA 130 Neighborhood and Neighborhood Improyement]-Set Aside $ 75,000 NA 300 Area Benefits Homeowner/Rental Comprehensive rehabilitation $ 235,000 $ 90,000 22 Housing Rehabilitation MYEP - Rental New Construction $ - $186,000 6 Habitat - Homebuyer Assistance $ - $ 53,000 2 Successful Living - Rental Acquisition - $173,000 12 Other Housing Activities Successful Living - Rental Rehabilitation $ - $ 62,000 5 THF - Rental Rehabilitation $ - $ 74,000 2 THF - CHDO Operating $ - $ 22,000 NA Economic Development Economic Development Set-aside $ 50,000 NA 2 Administration & Planning CDBG Administration $145,000 NA NA HOME Administration NA $ 54,000 NA Total $774,000 $714,000 4,121 6. Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 RESOLUTION NO. Resolution adopting Iowa City's FY20 Annual Action Plan which is asut� part of Iowa City's 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (City Steps) 7 Whereas, the UNA, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD requires the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to)repare and submit the FY20 Annual Action Plan as art of the City's 2016- 2020 Consolidated n (CITY STEPS) to plan the use of federal fun to assist lower income residents with housing, 'obs, public facilities, and public services; a Whereas, the Iowa City Ho sing and Community Developmen ommission has held a series of meetings regarding the use federal Community Developm t Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds f City of Iowa City FY20; and Whereas, the City has disseminatbo information, meeting on the FY20 Annual Action Ian; and Whereas, the FY20 Annual Action Plan ontains attached hereto as Appendix; and Whereas, the Iowa City Housing and Comm ity that Appendix be approved; and Whereas, adoption of the FY20 Annual ction PI state funds administered by the U.S. D partmenl public input, and held a public allocation of CDBG and HOME funds Development Commission has recommended will make Iowa City eligible for federal and dousing and Urban Development; and Whereas, the City Council finds that a public interest Xill be served by the adoption of the FY20 Annual Action Plan and sub ssion to the U.S. De rtment of Housing and Urban Development. Now, Therefore, be it resolved the City Council of the City Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The City of Iowa City Y20 Annual Action Plan, containi the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds attach hereto as Appendix is hereby appro d and adopted. 2. The City Manager' hereby designated as the Chief Executive fficer and authorized to act on behalf of tf) City of Iowa City in connection with the FY2 nnual Action Plan. 3. The City Mana er of Iowa City is hereby authorized and directed to ubmit the City of Iowa City FY2P Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housiniq and Urban Developmen , and is further authorized and directed to provide all the ihacessary certificationd or documents required by the U.S. Department of Housing\ndUrbanDeveloprr)ent.4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, terminate, or amendd 1-104 Agreements executed in connection with the allocation of public sub - recipients, Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), al entities. Passed and approved this 41" day of June, 2019. Atte 1s Appendix FY20 Persons / / Households / CDBG HOME Facilities Project fanned activitks Award Award Assisted S Iter House - A2A $ 8,000 NA 700 Public Service Activities Do stic Violence Interve ion Program - A2A $ 50,000 NA 600 Neigh orhood Centers o ohnson County - A2A $ 55,000 NA 2,000 DVIP -elter Repair $120,000 NA 340 Public Facility Activities Old Brick DA Imp r vements $ 36,000 NA 130 Neighborhood and Neighborho I rovementsSet Aside $ 75,000 NA 300 Area Benefits Homeowner Housing Comprehens/e\tehabilitation $235,000 $ 90,000 22 Rehabilitation MYEP - Re tal New onstruction $ - $186,000 6 Habitat omebuyer ssistance $ - $ 53,000 2 Succe fuI Living - Ren I Acquisition $ - $173,000 12 Other Housing Activities Succ ssful Living - Renta ehabilitation $ - $ 62,000 5 TH - Rental Rehabilitation $ - $ 74,000 3 T F - CHDO Operating $ - $ 22,000 NA Economic Development conomic Development Set -a 'de $ 50,000 NA 2 Administration $145,000 NA NA Administration & PlanningCDBG HOME Administration NA $ 54,000 NA Total $774,000 $714,000 4,122 FY20 Annual Action Plan FY20 HUD Allocation: CDBG: $658,700 HOME: $4821#816 j r pig ' wW®m Mic CITY OF IOWA CITY FY20 Annual Action Plan $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 Historic CDBG/HOME Funding fi�>v�'�i�>vIc�i�>vyti�>vZ:�iE�Z�Z�yZiZ�Z�yZiZ�SyZiZ�YI�ZiZ�Ze�rZiI�i�►ZiI��'�►ZiI�Ic�►ZiI�fL►ZiI�Z:�►ZiI��yZiS[�yZiSfitrZiSfr�rZiS[e�rZiSC�ZiSN�rZiS[c�rZiS�LrZiSE:�►ZiS�yZiYZi; � CDBG � HOME Admin r ^�a �4 wp CITY OF IOWA CITY FY20 Annual Action Plan $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Inflation Adjusted Historic Funding 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Q6l9] ZeIME=IS101 IMNE==_r@RI i1 a r r IIIA A. ft CITY OF IOVVA CITY FY20 Annual Action Plan a r r IIIEpR all CITY OF IOVVA CITY Persons / Households f CDBG HOME Facilities Project. Planned activities Award Award Assisted Shelter House - A2A 8,000 NA 700 Public Service Activities Domestic Violence Intervention Program - A2A 50,000 NA 600 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - A2A 55,000 NA 2,000 DVIP - Shelter Repair 120,000 NA 340 Public Facility Activities Old Brick - ADA Improvements 06,000 NA 130 Neighborhood and Neighborhood Improvements Set Aside 75,000 NA 300 Area Benefits Homeowner Housing Comprehensive rehabilitation 235,000 $ 90,000 22 Rehabilitation MYEP - Rental New Construction $ - 186,000 6 Habitat - Homebuyer Assistance $ - $ 53,000 2 Successful Living - Rental Acquisition $ - $ 173,000 12 Other Housing Activities Successful Living- Rental Rehabilitation $ - $ 62,000 5 THF- Rental Rehabilitation $ - $ 74,000 2 THF - CH DO Operating $ - $ 22,000 NA Econornic Development Economic Development Set-aside $ 50,000 NA 2 CDBG Administration $ 145,000 NA NA Administration & Planning HOME Administration NA $ 54,000 NA Total $774,000 714,000 41121 a r r IIIEpR all CITY OF IOVVA CITY Item Number: 14. 'r AL CITY OF IOWA CITY =� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 Resolution allocating human services Emerging Aid to Agencies funding for the Fiscal Year 2020, July 1, 2019 — June 30, 2020. Prepared By: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner Reviewed By: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood & Development Services Director Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Fiscal Impact: $19,000 from the General Fund for FY20 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: Housing and Community Development Commission — Recommended March 14, 2019 Attachments: HCDC 3-14-19 Minutes Resolution & Exhibit A Executive Summary: The City annually budgets financial aid to human service agencies serving Iowa City residents. For FY20, the City set aside $19,000 for agencies that have not recently received these funds, called "Emerging" agencies. The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) made recommendations based on this budget amount. The attached resolution identifies the budget amounts recommended for each agency. Background /Analysis: The City Council directed HCDC to review and formulate a funding recommendation for the applications requesting Iowa City Emerging Aid to Agencies funds. At their March 14, 2019 meeting, HCDC developed a funding recommendation for consideration by City Council. The minutes are attached. Staff recommends the allocation of funds consistent with the HCDC recommendation, which is attached to the resolution as Exhibit A. City Council has the option of revising HCDC's recommendations. ATTACHMENTS: Description HCDC 3-14-19 minutes Resolution & Exhibit A MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2019 — 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202 FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Maria Padron and Paula Vaughan MEMBERS ABSENT: [vacant position], Mitch Brouse STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly OTHERS PRESENT: Ryan Holst, Elias Ortiz, Craig Moser, Jake Kundert, Shirley Tramble, Brenda Nogaj, Kari Wilken, Roger Lusala, Roger Goedken, Brianna Wills, Heath Brewer, Ashley Gillette, Anthony Smith, Sara Barron, Michi Lopez, Martha Norbeck RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 (Eastham and Fixmer-Oraiz recused) the Commission recommends to City Council the following allocation of FY20 Emerging Aid to Agencies funds: $9,000 to Grow Johnson County, $5,000 to the Center for Worker Justice, and $5,000 to Successful Living. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends to City Council the following allocation of FY20 CDBG/HOME funds: In the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by 20% or less, these amounts will be prorated accordingly, subject to federal caps/requirements and requested amounts; in the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by more than 20%, another funding round will begin. CDBG HOME Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program - Lot Acquisition/Rental Construction $176,000 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Lot Acquisition/Homebuyer Assistance $50,000 Successful Living - Rental Acquisition $164,000 The Housing Fellowship - Rental Rehabilitation $70,000 Successful Living - Rental Rehab $59,000 The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating $21,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Repair $90,000 Old Brick — ADA/Structural Fortification Improvements $10,000 In the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by 20% or less, these amounts will be prorated accordingly, subject to federal caps/requirements and requested amounts; in the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by more than 20%, another funding round will begin. Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 2 of 11 CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vaughan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2019 MINUTES: Eastham moved to approve the minutes of February 21, 2019 with corrections. Alter seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FY2020 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATIONS: Eastham excused himself from this agenda item as he is on the Board of one of the applicants. Fixmer- Oraiz also recused herself as she is employed by one of the applicants. Lehmann presented the Commission with a summary of the six applications and the requested funding amounts and discussed clarifications about the Forest View Mobile Home Park application. The applicant, Center for Worker Justice, is not able to be present at this evening's meeting but Lehmann can try to answer any questions regarding the application. Padron began by stating she recommended $9,500 for Unlimited Abilities and $9,500 for Grow Johnson County. Vaughan recommended $7,000 for Grow Johnson County. Harms recommended $5,000 for Grow Johnson County. McKinstry recommended $5,000 for Grow Johnson County and $5,000 for Successful Living and $9,000 for the mobile home park redevelopment. Alter recommended $3,800 to all the applicants except for Little Creations Academy. Padron noted the minimum allocation should be $5,000 so Alter reconfigured her allocations to $5,000 for Center for Worker Justice, $5,000 for Johnson Clean Energy and $5,000 for Successful Living. Lehmann added all recommendations into a spreadsheet and calculated the averages. McKinstry noted there is the most consensus for Grow Johnson County so that allocation should be at least the minimum of $5,000. Given the total amount of funds the Commission has to allocate to emerging agencies, they can only fund at most two other organizations. Padron noted the next two top vote getters were Successful Living and Center for Worker Justice (Forest View). If both those were awarded $5,000, the total allocated would be $15,000 which leaves $4,000. Padron asked why McKinstry and Alter wanted to fund the mobile home association. McKinstry noted that Forest View has a tremendous potential for affordable housing in the future. Lehmann clarified the request was not for people to attend the meetings but rather Center for Worker Justice costs which included helping the tenant association start by providing space for them to meet, occasional transportation, some translation for public meetings and childcare. The applicant stated that the most important of these functions is for meeting space rent so this association can meet. McKinstry noted this Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 3 of 11 is a true startup, it is an emerging organization. Vaughan said her concern was that the organization seemed temporary, project based, and not an emerging agency. Padron noted they are funding the Center for Worker Justice which is an agency, for their project of helping this neighborhood association. However the Center for Worker Justice has been around for more than two years and has received funding from the City so wouldn't they be excluded from this. Lehmann clarified the Center for Worker Justice has not received Aid to Agencies funds which makes them eligible for this funding. Alter supports this application because the Center for Worker Justice is lending aid to a group in community outreach and is helping a neighborhood association. Vaughan questioned the allocation to Successful Living which appeared to be an allocation to pay employees but that would not be an ongoing payment, it would only be for one year. Her concern is if they are having difficulty paying their employees then perhaps the model for their organization should be reviewed. Harms agreed and noted all the agencies are having difficulty with payments from Medicaid and not getting paid as much as they thought and this may start a trend of all agencies coming forward. The change in Medicaid payment was known to the agencies and some likely prepared for it better than others. Alter feels this application was a creative attempt at a solution to the problem at least for the year and was thinking of the people who are impacted by the care from Successful Living but acknowledges Harms' point that this is not a permanent solution. Padron noted these funds are for emerging agencies and Successful Living has been around for 20 years and some of the other applicants, like the energy project (Johnson Clean Energy), is very new and interesting. Vaughan noted she would like to see more details on what Johnson Clean Energy will be using the funding for and be able to target their ideas, they appear to have a lot of goals, which are all great, but it is a lot to accomplished and they need to be more focused. Padron suggested allocating $5,000 to Successful Living and $5,000 to Center for Worker Justice and the remaining $9,000 to Grow Johnson County. Grow Johnson County has never been funded before and is helping many people. Harms noted Grow Johnson County had come before the Commission before but set aside their funding request when hearing another agencies needs and acknowledging that agency needed the funding more. Harms moved to recommend to City Council the following allocation of FY20 Emerging Aid to Agencies funds: $9,000 to Grow Johnson County, $5,000 to the Center for Worker Justice, and $5,000 to Successful Living. Alter seconded the motion, a vote was taken and motion passed 5-0 (Eastham and Fixmer-Oraiz recused). RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FY2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) APPLICATIONS: Lehmann shared a handout with the Commission that had the CDBG/HOME allocations ordered by average score, projects with more than $50,000 should get first consideration and per the City's Consolidated Plan they can only fund two public facilities projects. Additionally, there are staff comments, one is Successful Living has unspent funds from the past fiscal year and if additional funds are allocated they may have difficulty meeting their commitment deadlines, therefore staff recommends not funding Successful Living until they spend down the current funding. Also for new organizations without a lot of history, staff recommends starting with small funding amounts as there may be concerns with compliance and the five year reversion of assets requirement. If a new organization does not last for five years, then the City has to pay back those funds to the federal government and if the organization doesn't own their facility they must be able to lease it for the five year compliance period. Lehmann said this may affect the applications from Little Creation Academy and Old Brick. City Staff will monitor all CDBG/HOME funded projects and work with agency staff to make sure they meet compliance. Eastham asked about the Successful Living application and how much were they allocated and have left unspent. Lehmann said they have approximately $30,000 from the FY18 rehab allocation unspent, for the FY19 acquisition they have spent around $60,000 and will spend approximately $75,000 shortly which Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 4 of 11 leaves approximately $60,000 in additional funds they have not spent. The rehab project is the one they have had more delays on, not as much with acquisition projects. Lehmann noted this is a concern staff wanted the Commission to be aware of as they award funds, the Commission can still allocate funds as they see best and staff will work with those agencies to make sure there are no issues moving forward. Eastham noted that the new Successful Living rehab project could get funded and move forward even though the current rehab project is having issues. Roger Goedken (Successful Living) stated with regards to the FY18 rehab project they anticipate the work being done in April, weather has been some of the hold-up. With the home acquisition funds they have purchased one home and have residents moving in, the other they just closed on and they anticipate to spend those remaining funds by the end of the fiscal year as they are actively looking at houses. He explained there were many issues with the rehab project including when federal agencies shut down, rental moratorium, and issues with finding contractors. He added that even when they have acquisition projects they sometimes have to do limited rehab to those houses to make them accessible for their clients. Lehmann stated there were also some delays with the FY18 acquisition but staff had amended the Annual Action Plan for it and it was completed a couple months back. Goedken said the current application is for a kitchen/bathroom remodel and new HVAC on a house they purchased a few years ago, they do have residents currently living there but the repairs are needed. Lehmann stated regarding the HUD guidance for the boiler issue for Little Creations Academy, HUD requested additional clarification and Lehmann supplied it but has yet to hear back. Vaughan began with the public facilities projects (CDBG) and noted they can fund no more than two projects. Lehmann noted they have $100,000 to allocate and also that CDBG funds can be used for housing projects but HOME funds cannot be used for public facility projects. Vaughan stated when looking at the commissioner's allocations it appears everyone was in favor of funding Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Repair and additionally the Old Brick — ADA/Structural Fortification Improvements. Alter proposed allocating $90,000 to DVIP and $10,000 for Old Brick. Eastham noted the DVIP application is strong in terms of the need to repair the shelter as well as the need to repair the parking lot however he feels financing the repair to the parking lot could be done in another way and the Commission's priority should be on the repairs to the shelter interior. He noted Council has the ability to provide additional funds to these organizations and the Council should pay for the parking lot repair. Alter agrees however noted that Council just funded a larger allocation in the Aid to Agencies based on Commission recommendation and may point to the fact the Commission indeed has funds to support this application in this case. McKinstry noted with the recent consolidation, DVIP now has to cover a larger geographic area and that is stretching their already dwindling funds. If they had the money to do these repairs, such as the parking lot, they would have done it — they do not have additional funding to support this repair. Padron agreed with McKinstry and noted that what Eastham stated about DVIP is how she feels about Old Brick, perhaps Old Brick could find funding elsewhere. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed with Alter and noted if we send any of these applications to Council they may not fund anything. She also agrees with Padron that Old Brick could have more avenues for funding. Harms feels the Commission should support Old Brick and noted it is always hard for the Commission because there are applications for historical preservation and others for necessary community services. For that reason she feels comfortable with the allocation of $90,000 to DVIP and $10,000 to Old Brick. Vaughan noted the Commission is to only review what is in the application before them, they are not here to make recommendations on how other agencies might run their business, they are to look at the applications and make recommendations based on the information in those applications. Eastham noted he is fine with the allocation of $90,000 to DVIP and $10,000 to Old Brick but will keep advocating for City Council to step up and help agencies, we should not solely rely on federal funding. Lehmann noted that Old Brick is also applying for local and state historic preservation grants as well. Vaughan next moved to housing applications, there are $540,000 in HOME funds to allocate. Looking at the Commission's individual allocations it appears if they went with the averages for application they Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 5 of 11 would be slightly under their allocated amount. Eastham noted he is uneasy allocating money to Habitat for new homes when there are other agencies such as Successful Living and MYEP who have clients living in homes in need of repair. Padron agrees. Lehmann noted The Housing Fellowship - Rental Rehabilitation would need to be allocated $70,000 based on the estimated funding required for CHDO reserve funds. Eastham stated Successful Living and MYEP had a clear plan and need for adding to their group homes, they both have waiting lists, both run stellar group home programming for the residents, the rehab amounts seemed reasonable. Eastham added he would be fine not allocating any CHDO operating funds to The Housing Fellowship, he feels that organization would be fine without those funds and would prefer giving MYEP and Successful Living amounts closer to what they applied for. Vaughan noted her concern with Successful Living having challenges meeting timeframes and payroll (since they requested paying employees from the emerging agencies grant). She is also concerned about the future of Medicaid funding from the State and feels more local aid will be needed for these agencies. McKinstry agrees with Eastham on the issue of need for affordable rental versus affordable ownership and noted he did not allocate as much to Habitat for Humanity because the money could help more individuals in rentals rather than ownership. He also values the need for affordable homeownership and it addresses historic imbalances and therefore would want to see some homeownership in the mix which should be supported by some public funds as well as private funds. Fixmer-Oraiz was swayed by the presentation Habitat gave at the last meeting and learned about the overall impact homeownership has on the community. She allocated the full amount but equally can see the need for assisted living as well and will support those as well. Alter noted that Habitat said they could purchase a lot and get started on a new home with a $50,000 allocation so that is what she feels they should be awarded. That will open up more monies for Successful Living or MYEP. She does strongly support funding Habitat for the reasons McKinstry noted. Eastham asked if there was any support from other commissioners to reduce The Housing Fund allocation and therefore not fund their CHDO operating request. He stated he has seen their budget and feels this amount requested is not a make or break amount in their overall budget. Those funds from the CHDO operating request could better be served in Successful Living and MYEP to expand the number of residents they could serve. Fixmer-Oraiz did not agree and felt CHDO operating funds should be funded. Padron agreed and also feels the Habitat allocation should be lowered to $50,000 and any additional funds be split amongst Successful Living and MYEP. The Commission discussed the reallocations and staff presented a new allocation table for the Commission to vote on. They also discussed what to do in the event the federal funding was different than what they based the allocations on. Lehmann said in the past, staff has prorated the allocations among the agencies unless it was more or less than a 20% difference. Eastham suggested no positive prorated amounts be added to The Housing Fellowship. Vaughan noted they could add if prorated up but to make sure the allocation is not more than the asking amount. McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council the following allocation of FY20 CDBG/HOME funds: CDBG HOME Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program - Lot Acquisition/Rental Construction $176,000 Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 6 of 11 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Lot Acquisition/Homebuyer Assistance $50,000 Successful Living - Rental Acquisition $164,000 The Housing Fellowship - Rental Rehabilitation $70,000 Successful Living - Rental Rehab $59,000 The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating $21,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Repair $90,000 Old Brick — ADA/Structural Fortification Improvements $10,000 In the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by 20% or less, these amounts will be prorated accordingly, subject to federal caps/requirements and requested amounts; in the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by more than 20%, another funding round will begin. Fixmer-Oraiz seconded. Passed 7-0 PRESENTATION ON FAIR HOUSING STUDY: Lehmann presented the Fair Housing Choice Study staff began working on some time ago, beginning with introduction, public input received and initial observations. Fair Housing Choice is the ability to choose housing free from unlawful discrimination, it applies to owners and renters, and to people providing other housing services as well such as financing. There are many protected classes based on Iowa City's Human Rights Ordinance including age, disability, color, class, race, nation of origin, creed or religion, sex, gender or identity or sex orientation, marital/familial status, presence or absence of dependents and most recently added public assistance as a source of income including Housing Choice Vouchers. The City strives to further fair housing in everything it does, it is a requirement of HUD funds but also applies to all the City's programs. This means the City tries to take meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice and ultimately to foster inclusive communities. Lehmann pointed out that fair housing is different than affordable housing although there is a lot of overlap because often affordability is a barrier to housing choice. However, fair housing is the idea that housing is available to all residents of the community whereas affordable housing is housing costs that match incomes. Often protected classes have lower incomes so providing affordable housing is important to fair housing but it is not sufficient to affirmatively further fair housing. The Fair Housing Choice study is being conducted by Neighborhood Services and the Office of Equity and Human Rights. It includes both qualitative (getting narrative) and quantitative (looking at data) components. In terms of public input so far (qualitative) City staff held a public meeting and six focus groups of different representative groups (a total of 83 attendees), and then also did a public survey for broader public perspectives, which got 234 responses. For the quantitative analysis they looked at private and public data, most of which is from the census. The goal is to complete the study in May 2019 so it is ready for review when the Consolidated Plan is updated. Staff will share a copy of the study draft with Commissioners in May. For the survey, 234 individuals responded, skewing towards higher incomes. The survey was made available online and hard copies were provided through the public library and social service agencies. They received good feedback in terms of getting representation of protected classes. 70% of respondents were females, 17% were nonwhite or Hispanic, 5% were foreign -born, 20% had a disability, 12% spoke another language, 12% had a Housing Choice Voucher. One big thing that stuck out were only 43% of respondents said they felt they understood their fair housing rights while 26% felt they experienced discrimination. Somewhat shocking but not surprising, was only 3% of those filed a complaint. Most stated they didn't know what good it would do (70% of respondents) while others were unfamiliar with Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 7 of 11 how to do it or afraid of retaliation. In terms of barriers cited, affordable housing was overwhelmingly cited as the primary barrier to fair housing choice, including all for types of households (large families, small families, persons with disabilities, etc.) and the most common source of discrimination people noted was having a Housing Choice Voucher. In terms of public policies that were identified as barriers none received a majority, but the top ones were City funding practices followed by zoning and housing codes. At focus groups and the public meeting, the comments mirrored many results from the survey. Iowa City was noted as an expensive housing market, and incomes don't necessary match the cost of the market and it is especially problematic where there is not a diversity of housing choices within a neighborhood (if it is all single family it can be challenging for different groups to find housing). This includes both City assisted housing and privately affordable housing because it is just not City assisted housing that is affordable. For the housing stock it was also mentioned that there are low quality rentals, especially near downtown, which can be problematic for persons who are in protected classes as well as accessibility challenges in older parts of the City with properties not built to visitability standards. There were several public policy challenges raised, development codes can increase costs and limit flexibility, especially where design review is involved. Policies need to better align with goals and funding that is allocated should match up with the goals the City has (it doesn't always). The City should also streamline processes wherever they can including rental permitting, and the City needs to make sure they enforce their rental housing standards so there is quality housing. Coordination was also cited as an issue, between the City and surrounding jurisdictions and also with other actors (tenants, builders, landlords, etc.) or educational institutions such as the school district and university. Overall education is generally needed for tenants and landlords to better understand what fair housing rights are, what the responsibilities of different parties are in the housing market and to better information people on neighborhoods (people can be informally or formally steered towards certain neighborhoods) and the survey corroborated that. In terms of data observations, Iowa City is a college town and has more young people, fewer families, and fewer children especially near downtown. Generally, near downtown there are fewer persons with disabilities because it is a younger population, it is more ethnically, racially and culturally diverse, a lot due to immigration into Iowa City especially from Asian populations, but also black/African American populations as well. There are some racial/ethnic concentrations across the City, specifically Black/ Hispanic groups south of Highway 6 and Asian groups concentrated on the west side. None of these concentrations meet the standard HUD for being a racially and ethnically concentrated area of poverty however. Those areas do tend to have lower incomes but the lowest income areas tend to be nearer to the university where students are. There are large limited English proficiency populations, especially Spanish (3100 speakers) and Mandarin (2400 speakers). Segregation by race or ethnicity is considered low in Iowa City based on the dissimilarity index standards, but it has been increasing over time. For the economy, it is focused around education and healthcare, there is a high proportion of low-income households due to student populations and that is increasing as well. Minority households tend to have lower incomes in Iowa City, primarily outside downtown, and LMI (low moderate income) areas are primarily to the south and west but there is a large LMI area downtown as well. The majority of housing in Iowa City is rental, concentrated in around downtown and near the university. Minority groups tend to have lower homeownership rates in Iowa City, which especially true for Black households and households of two or more races. There has been a large increase in multifamily building permits, peaking in 2016, much of it is downtown, and there are correspondingly higher vacancy rates with that. That being noted, rents have increased faster than incomes or housing values. Housing values have actually been closer to increases in income lately but rents increased more quickly. In terms of cost burden (which means they are paying more than 30% of their income on housing), 16% of homeowners and 64% of renters are cost burdened, a lot of whom are students based on non -familial status. Minority households tend to experience housing issues at higher rates including housing cost burden and other issues such as overcrowding and the quality of facilities. Lehmann noted there is limited data on fair housing because things don't get reported, but of the data they do have in Iowa City there tends to be around 10-12 fair housing complaints per year. Most of those are based on discrimination by race, disability or sex. 1/3 tend to be outside the City's jurisdiction so they Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 8 of 11 get referred to the correct jurisdiction, 1/3 get closure at the City or withdrawn due to resolution and the remaining 1/3 require further various levels of investigation. Data from the State or Federal level is even more limited, most is based on Johnson County. Progress since the last plan, there were five findings and while the City was making progress some of these findings have cropped up again. For example, racial ethnic concentrations is still there, outreach and education is still an issue and a huge need. Staff next looked at policies, public sector policies in addition to private sector policies and Lehmann discussed those and where staff found impediments. For City development codes there is no reasonable accommodation policy for persons with disabilities which is basically a streamlined approach for, say someone in a wheelchair to put a ramp outside their house in a historic district where there are many levels of complex policies to deal with. Staff is looking to adopt some sort of reasonable accommodation policy to ensure people can be housed in older parts of the City without running into bureaucratic barriers. Also staff is looking at generally increasing opportunities or choices for housing by allowing diverse housing throughout the City. That will focus on increasing density because single family can be affordable depending on construction but allowing more multifamily by right in residential areas would be good. They are also looking at bedroom caps in multifamily as that can restrict large families and student living. Finally looking at how permanent supportive housing is currently treated in the community because it is treated as separate use only allowable in specific zones (essentially the Cross Park Place project where it is long-term housing, more than a year lease). Housing Code has new requirements like rental permit cap, increased inspections, which may affect protected classes, these changes are relatively new as of 2018 so it is hard to know the impact or results but it will be tracked. Vaughan asked if those new requirements were federal requirements. Lehmann replied it was a State requirement change where a city could not distinguish between nonfamily and family households in the zoning code which was a way the City was trying to balance student housing downtown. When the State made that change the City reviewed the process and put a cap on areas near the university and also increased inspections for certain types of units. For affordable housing assistance, Lehmann stated the City put more local funding towards affordable housing initiatives but it doesn't have the same federal requirements, so staff has not been tracking protected characteristics for beneficiaries. As such, impacts are difficult to ascertain for all City assistance because more than half the units created aren't being tracked. With new funding comes new programs and lots of requirements and staff is making sure administrative rules are well coordinated. For site selection and neighborhood revitalization, Lehmann stated the Affordable Housing Location Model and rental permit cap interact in complex ways; both affect certain types of housing in certain areas at certain times. Staff is working to identify those affects for affordable housing and service providers, how they impact choices for protected classes and seeing if there are ways to streamline some of these programs as they come into play. Currently there are 1215 Housing Choice Vouchers, about 850 of which are in Iowa City. Within Iowa City, Housing Choice Vouchers are still relatively concentrated in certain neighborhoods, typically the more affordable neighborhoods thus the concentration. However based on the survey there is also some evidence landlords may still be discriminating against Housing Choice Voucher recipients. Therefore providing more information to Housing Choice Voucher recipients is needed, further alerting them of their rights and encouraging them to live in other areas of the City is something staff is recommending. Also The Housing Authority has a preference categories with families, persons with disabilities, and elderly with residency in Iowa City as the first group to receive vouchers. Staff recommends an equity analysis to make sure the policy is targeting the correct populations for service as based on the CITY STEPS Consolidated Plan. With regards to home lending, Lehmann noted the data showed Black and Hispanic households have elevated rates of denials, however a study that was conducted a year ago showed there are discrepancies in data entry and there are issues with a small sample size. Staff wants to follow up to make sure this is not discrimination and will continue to monitor. Additionally they recommend additional fair housing education for lenders and borrowers. Alter asked if the City has anyone that works with lenders and people who are applying to help them through the process. Lehmann stated the City does trainings for lenders but is unsure of how regularly it Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 9 of 11 is done. These trainings are also provided for the general public. Kubly added if a person is part of The Housing Choice Voucher program they are assigned a case worker to help them navigate the process. Eastham asked about impediments related to realtors. Lehmann said he had no data on it but based on the focus groups it doesn't seem to be much of an issue, it seems the larger issues for steering people to certain locations is word of mouth from others in the community. Eastham said he hears anecdotal statements about realtors engaging in steering certain people to certain locations of town. McKinstry noted when he has talked to realtors it appears everyone is super sensitive to steering and know it is illegal and unethical and are hypervigilant in not steering people to certain locations of town. He was startled to find there are four or five protected classes here in Iowa City more than in other areas of the State or Nation. He stated that two woman in Missouri, this year, were denied the opportunity to live in a retirement center because they were married to each other. Because of situations like that McKinstry is so glad Iowa City has these additional protected classes. Lehmann noted for the rental market there is a mismatch between the cost of rentals and incomes and staff recommends more rentals in high demand areas, especially downtown, and considering ways to reduce the cost of housing such as group living options. The also recommend more education on the protections for renters and keeping landlords apprised of the protected classes and education of best practices. Additionally staff needs to make sure all fair housing complaints are dealt with in a timely manner and resolved quickly. Since there is a lack of metrics for policy impacts staff will need to make sure they measure these fair housing impacts on protected classes. Lehmann noted staff does not do a lot of testing in Iowa City but it is one of the better ways identify discrimination or steering. Finally Lehmann talked about other observations worth noting. There are ethnical and racial concentrations so encouraging a range of housing throughout the City while continuing to invest in minority, LMI or protected class neighborhoods is important. Homeownership rates are lower for minority groups so it is important to encouraging homebuyer programs in targeted areas for protected classes. For elderly households and persons with disabilities, especially those with ambulatory issues who cannot walk around easily, there is a need to focus on areas of town with accessibility barriers to help ensure aging in place is possible. Student populations have the lowest incomes, so there is a need to ensure all, especially those who are LMI or in protected classes, can afford to live in the community. In terms of next steps, Lehmann stated staff is working on the internal review of the draft of the Fair Housing Study, hoping to get a draft to stakeholders in April and start to let the document be public for adoption process, there will be a public meeting with HCDC on May 16 and then go before Council either May 21 or June 4 and have the document adopted prior to June 30. Eastham stated he wanted to see the data behind this study for the HCDC review. Harms noted that when someone has an issue, time constraints for resolving the issue is enormous, especially for working individuals. Perhaps the City could increase hours of availability to help the public. Fixmer-Oraiz noted a recurring theme in the Study is a need for education and outreach and there definitely needs to be more for renters, landlords and potential homeowners. Eastham stated if the City is going to put resources toward this education and outreach it should be for consumers, realtors and banks already have some educational opportunities. Fixmer-Oraiz noted the university does a freshman intake and perhaps the City can provide education on fair housing. Lehmann noted the university does a "Renter 101" event and Iowa City provides information at that. Vaughan suggested something other than just a written brochure, it doesn't often speak to a lot of people, and is easily tossed. She noted it should be written to speak to all individuals, regardless of the level of education. Padron noted it is important to remember not every resident has a computer or internet and much of what comes from the City is via email or directs one to a website. Harms noted with the elderly or others they may not want to use a computer and the City needs to be cognizant of that. Lehmann noted they did hand out hard copies of the survey in the senior living areas, agencies and also at the library for those that did not want to use a computer. The surveys were provided in multiple languages. Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Vaughan asked if there was educational pieces created do they have to be done by staff or can volunteers assist. Lehmann said they would welcome volunteers and partners. McKinstry is happy to see the interest in collecting data on housing in the City. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the City could partner with the school district and send information home in back packs. Lehmann stated the school district has tightened up on allowing things to be handed out but improved coordination between the City and schools is needed. Any additional comments or questions can be directed to Lehmann. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Lehmann noted that Council has appointed Peter Nkumu to the Commission, he is the president of the Congolese Community of Iowa and will be a great addition to the Commission. Staff is interviewing consultants for the Consolidated Plan this month. Staff, Padron and the head of the Human Rights Commission had a brief discussion on the ways to revamp the Aid to Agencies process, conversations will continue in April. The next HCDC meeting will be April 18 where we will discuss projects not conforming to the unsuccessful delayed project policy which will include a report from The Arthur Street Healthy Living Center. They will also have HCDC monitoring reports and begin Aid to Agency visioning process and also a background information presentation on the Affordable Housing Model. Staff will present the Annual Action Plan and continue the Fair Housing Study review. Eastham noted he heard from an agency partner some agencies are having discussions with the City Manager on Aid to Agency funds and what those agencies feel the City should be funding. Lehmann said this will be part of the discussion at the next meeting. Lehmann stated Community Development Week is April 22-26, there will be some type of proclamation and Vaughan suggested doing some type of tour of projects that are complete, to see the impact. Lehmann noted there is a new tenant education program that the local Homeless Coordination Board is putting together, it is intended as a possible alternative to eviction for tenants. It will start April 9 in the Iowa City Public Library and be held every Tuesday through May 14 for a total of six modules. Fixmer-Oraiz had a question on monies from other sources and specifically The United Way who gives out all kinds of money to agencies. Lehmann noted the application process does go through The United Way along with Coralville, Johnson County and United Way. ADJOURNMENT: Fixmer-Oraiz moved to adjourn. Alter seconded. Passed 7-0 Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Terms Exp. 7/10 9/20 10/11 11/15 12/20 1/17 2/21 3/14 Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X Brouse, Mitch 6/30/21 X X X X X X X O/E Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 6/30/20 X O/E X X X O/E X X Harms, Christine 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X Lamkins, Bob 6/30/19 O/E O/E X O/E O/E McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X Padron, Maria 6/30/20 X X O/E O/E X X X X Vaughan, Paula 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 319.356.5230 RESOLUTION NO. 19-149 Consider a resolution allocating human services Emerging Aid to Agencies funding for the Fiscal Year 2020, July 1, 2019 — June 30, 2020. Whereas, the City of Iowa City budgeted $19,000 for aid to local human services agencies that have not recently received such funding from the City; and Whereas, the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) recommended allocations of Emerging Aid to Agencies funding for emerging human services agencies at its March 14, 2019 meeting; and Whereas, the amount of aid proposed to be allocated is budgeted in the FY20 Budget; and Now, Therefore, be it resolved the by City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The funding recommendations, Exhibit A, from the Housing and Community Development Commission are hereby adopted. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute agreements for Emerging Aid to Agencies with the organizations identified in Exhibit A. Passed and approved this 4th day of June / 201 . G Ma or Approved b J S-01 Attest: � T � 1 ity Clerk City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 19-149 Page 2 It was moved by Teague and seconded by Thomas the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: x x x x x x ABSENT: M Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton Exhibit A Housing and Community Development Commission Recommendation for Emerging Aid to Agencies Funds Agency FY20 Request HCDC Recommendation Center for Worker Justice: $15,000 $5,000 Forest View Mobile Home Park Redevelopment Grow Johnson County: $15,000 $9,000 2019 Production Johnson Clean Energy District: $12,000 $0 Start Up Little Creations Academy, Inc.: $6,970 $0 Smart Board Successful Living: $5,000 Additional Staffing Pay$15,000 Unlimited Abilities: $15,000 $0 Building Acquisition Sources: General Fund $19,000 FY20 Emerging Aid to Agencies Agency FY20 Request HCDC Recommendation Center for Worker Justice: $15,000 $5,000 Forest Vie Mobile Home Park Redevelopment Grow Johnson County: $15,000 $9,000 2019 Production Johnson Clean Energy District: $12,000 $0 Start Up Little Creations Academy, Inc.: $6,9�D $0 Smart Board Successful Living: $15,000 $5,000 Additional Staffing Pay Unlimited Abilities: $15,000 $0 BuildingAcquisition Sources: General Fund $19,000 Ir _M ' 1�" � ' lztl wW®M CITY OF IOWA CITY FY20 Legacy Aid to Agencies Exhibit A: FY20 Legacy Aid to Agencies Funding Recommendations IIAgency FY19 Allocation FY20 Request Allocation FY20 Main Priority 4 C's Community Coard. Child Care $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 High Child Care Services Arc of Southeast Iowa $0 $20,000 $20,000 Medium Disabilty Services Big Brothers/ Big Sisters $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 Medium Youth Services Crisis Center of Johnson County $40,000 $66,000 $66,000 High Food Banks Domestic Violence Intervention Program $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 High Domestic Violence Services Elder Services Inc. $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 Medium Senior Services Free Lunch Program $15,000 $16,000 $16,000 High Food Banks HACAP $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 High Childcare Services Housing Trust Fund of JC $24,000 $30,000 $30,000 High Affordable Housing Inside Out Rentry Communuty $15,000 $30,000 $30,000 High Homeless Services Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic $15,000 $17,500 $17,500 Medium Health Services Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $0 $25,000 $25,000 Low Homeownership Assistance Neighborhood Centers of JC $34,300 $55,000 $55,000 High Childcare Services Pathways Adult Day Health Center $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 Medium Senior/Disability Services Prelude Behavioral Services $16,000 $20,000 $20,000 Medium Substance Abuse Services Rape Victim Advocacy Program $20,000 $23,000 $23,000 High Mental Health Services Shelter House $50,000 $85,000 $85,000 High Homeless Services Table to Table $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 High Food Banks United Action for Youth $27,400 $33,000 1 $33,000 IMedium Youth Services Total Request: $391,700 $625,500 1 $625,500 j r pig ' wW®M Mic CITY OF IOWA CITY Item Number: 15. ®I CITY OF IOWA CITY u► �� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2019 Resolution allocating human services Legacy Aid to Agencies funding for the Fiscal Year 2020, July 1, 2019 — June 30, 2020. Prepared By: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner Reviewed By: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Tracy, Hightshoe, Director of Neighborhood and Development Services Fiscal Impact: $625,500 in FY20: consisting of funds from the General Fund ($483,800), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program ($113,000), and utility user fees ($28,700). Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: Housing and Community Development Commission recommended January 17, 2019 Attachments: HCDC 1-17-19 Minutes Joint 2-5-19 Minutes & Transcription Resolution & Exhibit A Executive Summary: The City annually budgets financial aid to human service agencies serving Iowa City residents. For FY20 the City budgeted $374,000 for this purpose, $355,000 of which was intended for "Legacy" agencies that had received Aid to Agencies funding within the past five years. The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) made recommendations for Legacy agencies exceeding this budget amount at their January 17, 2019 meeting. Council revised the budget to $625,500 for the upcoming year following a joint meeting with HCDC on February 5, 2019. The increase in funds was a one year commitment, and the City will conduct a new funding round next year. Meeting minutes from HCDC and the joint meeting, in addition to their recommendations, are attached. Background /Analysis: The City Council directed the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) to review and formulate a funding recommendation for the applications requesting Iowa City funds received under the United Way Joint Funding process. Similar to previous years, local human service agencies request funding for United Way, Johnson County and the Cities of Iowa City and Coralville on this one application. However, this was the first year where only "Legacy" agencies who had received Aid to Agencies funds in the past 5 years were able to apply through this process. The remainder of funds was allocated to "Emerging" agencies through a separate application. At their January 17, 2019 meeting, the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) developed a funding recommendation to send to Council for Legacy agencies which exceeded the budget provided. It included a request for a joint meeting to discuss their recommendation. HCDC and Council discussed the request at the February 5, 2019 work session. Council approved the proposed budget for a single year only rather than the two year funding cycle that was previously proposed. HCDC is currently reviewing the Aid to Agencies process and will conduct another funding round for FY21. City Council may approve or revise the attached recommendations. The minutes from both meetings are also attached. ATTACHMENTS: Description HCDC 1-17-19 minutes Joint 2-5-19 Minutes & Transcription Resolution & Exhibit A MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2019 — 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Mitch Brouse, Charlie Eastham, Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Maria Padron and Paula Vaughan MEMBERS ABSENT: Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly OTHERS PRESENT: Kristie Doser, Lauri Mitchell, Christi Regan, Ellen McCabe, Sara Barron, Barbara Vinograde, Susan Gray, Ron Berg, Brian Loring, Becci Reedus, Genevieve Anglin, Mark Sertterh, Jamie Kearney, Jenny Winegarden, Nicki Ross, Sara Barron RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends to City Council funding the full requested amount of Legacy Aid to Agencies applications as shown below for FY20 and FY21, and that Council invite HCDC to discuss this recommendation at their soonest available work session. Agency Request 4 Cs Community Coordinated Child Care $20,000 Arc of Southeast Iowa $20,000 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Johnson County $25,000 Crisis Center of Johnson County $66,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program $50,000 Elder Services Inc. $40,000 Free Lunch Program $16,000 HACAP $25,000 Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC) $30,000 Inside Out Reentry Community $30,000 Iowa City Free Medical Clinic/Dick Parrott Free Dental Clinic $17,500 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $25,000 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County $55,000 Pathways Adult Day Health Center/ Aging Services, Inc. $25,000 Prelude Behavioral Services $20,000 Rape Victim Advocacy Program $23,000 Shelter House $85,000 Table to Table $20,000 United Action for Youth $33,000 Total $625,500 Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 2 of 12 CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vaughan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 20. 2018 MINUTES: McKinstry noted that Eastham is active member of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition but not a member of the Board as listed on page 5. Vaughan however is on the Board of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition. Eastham moved to approve the minutes of December 20, 2018, with correction. McKinstry seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Becci Reedus (Crisis Center) appreciates the effort of the Commission as this is her 10th year of application cycles. In those 10 years the allocation from the Crisis Center has gone from $40,000 to $39,000 and hasn't seen any increases. In 2008, pre -flood numbers for food services at the Crisis Center was about 32,000 for the year and this year they will see about 54,000 to 55,000 and the $40,000 allocation is slipping in terms of its impact for the agency. Reedus noted that each agency could talk about how the impact and the dollars received is not growing and that is concerning. Reedus noted she sits on the steering committee for the Access Center and greatly supports it but is concerned by the number of dollars that is being considered for its support. For example, the City is proposing to raise the utility tax to support the Access Center but Reedus wonders why the City cannot raise the utility tax to support nonprofits in the community. She attended Council's budget work session and asked some councilors if they get requests for increased nonprofit funding and the answer was no. There was no information in the budget workshop information that indicated there was communication at all from this Commission to City Council to alert them nonprofits are falling behind. Reedus has seen the growth in the budget and city population, and is concerned that with that growth comes more problems, more people that need to be fed each year, and more people relying solely on the food bank for food. Other issues the City talked about were the closing of Proctor & Gamble which also concerns the Crisis Center. There is not a lot of corporate support in Iowa City, there are not a lot of big foundations to turn to, and nonprofits trying to increase their budgets are doing so using development staff who need to be paid well. Reedus feels this Commission could help nonprofits advocate to City Council for additional money each year. Council even talked about a local option sales tax which Reedus supports, but Council is not talking about any of that additional income going towards nonprofit funding. Nonprofits address needs that exist in the community, they do not create the need, and without addressing the need, problems will be even greater in this community. She thinks the Commission needs to address this with City Council. Vaughan thanked Reedus for her comments and asked Staff to put this item on next month's agenda. Sara Barron (The Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) will be resuming their community meetings on the fourth Friday of every month presenting housing topics of interest to people. The topic in January will be Habitat for Humanity sharing initiatives they are working on as well as talking about the new interfaith committee that they are developing. The meeting is at noon on Friday, January 25 at the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building. Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 3 of 12 MONITORING REPORTS: Kristie Doser reported on the Domestic Violence Intervention Program (FY19 Aid to Agencies). She noted CDBG and Aid to Agencies funding supports their shelter services, specifically staffing so they can have additional support for individuals staying in the shelter. She shared a couple of stats on shelter services for FY18, they housed 298 individuals and children in the shelter (pretty much a 50/50 split on adults and children), they are full 100% of the time and therefore also sheltered 72 adults and children in hotels for short periods until space opened in the shelter. Doser noted they had 170 families that contacted them that they were not able to house when needed and therefore had to negotiate with those families about their safety, and work on options with them on how to respond to their situation. Doser noted that about five years ago services for domestic violence and sexual violence in Iowa was restructured, which reduced domestic violence shelters from 26 to 8 in the entire state. Therefore, CDBG money is incredibly important and allows DVIP to do support services for victims such as support groups, counseling, and advocacy in court and help victims work with DHS and other systems within the community. Doser noted they are looking to expand nights of safety services, last year they served 13,030 nights (meaning for every person that stayed at the shelter, they calculated how many nights they stayed there), which is higher, meaning the average length of stay in shelter is growing, which relates to resources that are or aren't available. The average night length of stay has been as low as 21 nights per family to the current average of 26 nights. That means they lose resources in the community, or housing is difficult to find, so they stay in shelter longer and fewer people can get in. The 170 families not able to get in would have equated to 4,470 nights needed. Doser gave an example of how devastating domestic violence is and how much a dollar can leverage. When people think of domestic violence, the first question is "why did they stay". She says the question is what would it take for a person to remain safe from the one person that knows everything about them including their home (does the partner have access to it), the children, the car, money, the job, etc. For domestic violence, perpetrators have more leverage than most criminals, so the amount of impact they can have on a victim's life is tremendous. On average, perpetrators will stalk their partners for 21 months, that is almost two years of harassment that affect your job, children, school, etc. These services are immediate and urgent and that is why the funds are so important to DVIP. Eastham asked to see what a fully funded DVIP program would look like in the future. Doser said she would be happy to have that conversation. Eastham stated he has heard a major issue is placing people from DVIP into housing and wonders what types of available housing are needed. Doser noted their services are in no way comprehensive, they are crisis intervention solely and the care and healing they must give to the victims and how to support them moving forward. Mark Sertterh reported for Shelter House (FY17 Cross Park Place, FY19 A2A & Rental Acquisition). He began with the Cross Park Place project which funded land acquisition for the new facility at 820 Cross Park Place. It just held its open house and will have 24 units of permanent housing for the chronically homeless. The land was purchased in April 2016 and individuals should be able to move in at the end of this month. With FY19 Rental Acquisition funds, they are looking to purchase a fourth house for permanent housing but are still finding other funding streams to buy a home. If they cannot obtain the additional funding they will then go to a bank to see about a possible mortgage to proceed. Sertterh noted with the Aid to Agencies money is used for staff support at the emergency shelter, which provides for the immediate needs of people in housing crisis. They serve more people every year, last year they served over 900 people in shelter. Aid to Agencies provides staff support for people's needs and safety. He noted that DVIP and Shelter House have partnered in the past couple years for Rapid Rehousing dollars from HUD to help people who experiencing homelessness. It has been a win/win for both agencies. Eastham asked for clarification on how the Rapid Rehousing money from HUD is used. Sertterh said the money is for anyone who is literally homeless and on the streets or in shelter to be used for short-term rental assistance (up to one year). Vaughan expressed congratulations as she attended the open house for the new facility. Eastham made the same request to Shelter House he made for DVIP, if they could provide what a fully funded program would look like. Sertterh agreed it would be a great discussion to have. Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 4 of 12 Ron Berg from Prelude gave an update on their project (FY19 Rental Rehab). The CDBG funds are to replace a hot water heater at their 12 unit transitional housing complex. They expect to have the bid documents out for that project in the next couple of weeks. Susan Gray from 4Cs presented an update on their project (FY19 Daycare Technical Assistance). She noted all agencies do amazing work and it is hard to compete with domestic violence, free medical or free lunch programs and other first level of needs for families to survive, but if the community doesn't support childcare no one has an opportunity to break out of the cycle of poverty. They just received the CDBG funding in November but Johnson County Empowerment funding allowed them to fund their project before the CDBG funding. The 4 C's program works with childcare providers that serve at least 51 % of children on childcare assistance, that is, lower income and at -risk children. Currently, they actually serve 100% of children with childcare assistance which shows the lowest income providers (87.5% of the providers) participating in this program are at 0-30% income. Last year there were 17 on the program and they now have 21, 12 of which have their first language as something other than English and the other 9 are English speaking but serve minority children. 18 of the 21 have become registered with the Iowa Department of Human Services and 2 more are ready to submit. Gray noted last year they worked really closely with 5 providers to get them registered which was a lot of work. Another issue the providers work with is that everyone in the child's family needs a physical which requires to educating them on cultural differences that doctor visits are needed when healthy as well as when sick. The program helps childcare providers become more financially viable with their small business. Gray noted that childcare assistance is a huge problem in Johnson County due to childcare fees being so much higher and they struggle to find places for children. CDBG funding helps increase the opportunities for childcare and it is critical that young children receive good quality care and are well nurtured to have a better chance in school. 4C's motto is to support the providers until the work is done. A challenge of the past few months has been when providers must move from one apartment to another due to landlord issues and they can lose the DHS funding during the move time. 4C's held a meeting recently at the Neighborhood Centers with 100% of the providers and they are incredibly appreciative of the support and are excited to learn more. This meeting on business practices, keeping records up-to-date, and other business tips was well received. Alter asked how many children are in each of the 21 providers. Gray said the immigrant family childcare providers can have up to 6 children, but those in apartments will usually have 3 or 4. Other home facilities can have 12 children with 2 providers and 4 extra after school. Overall Gray feels around 200 children are impacted. Alter asked for an estimate in Johnson County for the number of children ages 0-5 who need childcare versus number of available slots. Gray does not have that statistic, but noted that Johnson County is not as bad as other areas in Iowa. She noted there is a difference in slots available in childcare centers versus homes, home childcare is now down to 10% which may be impacted by places such as North Liberty that have centers with 200-300 slots in one center. Lehmann noted these were CDBG Economic Development dollars and is technical business assistance for low income children providers. This comes from a different pot of funds than Aid to Agencies. UPDATE ON ARTHUR STREET HEALTHY LIFE CENTER PUBLIC FACILITY PROJECT: Lehmann noted the presenter had a conflict with students so she was not able to get away. She instead sent a brief written statement. The Arthur Street Healthy life Center is still working to engage stakeholders for the building purchase. The proforma for the clinic practice looks promising and potential partners looked at the building last week. She would like to be able to give another update at the next meeting. Eastham asked if there was a deadline they were working against for using the funds allocated. Lehmann said the deadline was originally June 30 but the fact that they haven't signed an agreement means another deadline in March will be initiated as half of their funds should be expended per HCDC policy. Lehmann said it is a local deadline based on fiscal years and can be flexible as long as other CDBG projects are expending funds. Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 5 of 12 DISCUSS FY2020-2021 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Lehmann asked if the Commission wanted to discuss the priorities first or go off the points allocated. The priorities come into play in the point totals and based on their allocation targets. Vaughan suggested starting with the priorities because that will determine the funding. Based on the initial allocations most Commissioners agreed with a few exceptions. For 4C's Harms had a different priority. Harms noted at the last meeting, HCDC decided to determine the priority based on the use for funding requested. She changed her priority to medium because it is employment training to certify caregivers and not as much childcare services. Padron asked if they are ranking based on the mission of the whole agency or just the project because the Commission needs to be consistent. Vaughan noted they clarified last time they would rank based on the project. Alter offered a counter perspective that there is such a need and it is difficult to get certified this type of training, so it creates better quality childcare and therefore should be a high priority. Padron agreed it should be a high priority as the training is necessary for quality childcare. Brouse stated the intent of the program is to create more caregivers through the training which will help people sustain a job and have a career. Harms agrees to the consensus of a high priority. Vaughan noted Arc of Southeast Iowa is next, which is evenly divided as a medium or high priority. Padron added her priority of medium. Brouse noted he originally had it as a medium but after HCDC's conversation last meeting, it seemed to him they intend to spend the money on a daycare program so he switched it to high. Padron noted it is not daycare of everyone but for special needs and that is why she ranked it medium for disability services. Harms admitted she was unsure but feels it could be a high priority because it is for childcare, and while it is not impacting many people it is so specialized and so needed because it is difficult to find this type of childcare. Vaughan agreed with Harms but agrees it could be high priority. It was decided to leave it as a Medium/High category. Vaughan moved on to Big Brothers Big Sisters, most Commissioners ranked it as medium but a couple said high. Harms ranked it as high because of the mental health services aspect of the children served, the kids come from homes with single parents, parents in jail, substance abuse, have many siblings and underlying mental health issues that are sometimes overlooked by parents and schools. A lot of these children can feel overlooked and no one takes the time to do anything about it. This organization can spot some of these issues and pair children with caregivers and bring stability into their lives. Vaughan and Padron both chose medium priority as it is a youth service, the majority agreed. Elder Services was majority of medium but Harms also gave that a high priority because it is Meals on Wheels and transportation which are both high priorities. Vaughan noted the majority of the Commission ranked it medium and with no further discussion it would remain listed as medium. Vaughan moved on to The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC), everyone else listed it as high priority, Vaughan ranked it low because it would be used for operations rather than direct services. McKinstry noted that with HTFJC many municipalities designate certain projects with their funding and therefore HTFJC is limited on how they cover operating expenses. Additionally HTFJC multiplies by many times the money that is given to them through other sources (federal funds, tax credits, etc.) and for that reason he feels it is a high priority. Vaughan concurred with the group and agreed it could be a high priority. Alter noted the impact HTFJC is huge. Next discussed was Inside Out Reentry. Vaughan also noted she was the only one that ranked it as low since it was to be used for services and administration but again consented to the majority of high priority. Vaughan moved along to Neighborhood Centers and noted she ranked it medium because it was listed as indirect costs but is okay with high priority if that is the rank of the group. McKinstry noted it will go directly to subsidized childcare and Vaughan agreed that was a high priority. Prelude was next, Harms feels they are addressing the homelessness and mental health, many of their clients have mental health issues that result in substance abuse which results in homelessness, a lot of Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 6 of 12 these clients have worn out their welcome with friends, family and because of their issues with mental health they turn to alcohol and drugs and are put out on the street. Alter agreed and would be willing to change her ranking to high. Padron understands that everything is high priority but they cannot rank everything high priority, Harms understands and notes everyone's heart says high but the reality is they cannot all be. Harms agreed and is fine with a medium priority ranking. Finally was United Action for Youth, Alter felt it was a high priority as it funded homelessness and mental health for the youth. Teenagers have a child, their parents kick them out, they have nowhere to go, and it is a big issue and needs to be addressed. Vaughan also rated it high because of the homelessness piece. Padron agreed it should be high. The consensus of the group was to change it to a high priority. Vaughan thought moving to allocations they would start with low priority allocations, as there is only one agency that scored as a low priority, the Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. Eastham noted 5% of the total allocation was targeted to low priority activities and there is a minimum of $15,000 for any agency. Eastham therefore he feels Habitat should be allocated $15,000. The rest of the Commission agreed. Next agencies with a medium priority ranking were discussed. Everyone assigned the Iowa City Free Medical Clinic $15,000. Vaughan suggested funding $15,000 to all medium priorities to see how funding played out. The Commission agreed. That left high priority agencies to discuss, the highest ranked was the Crisis Center followed by Shelter House. Vaughan noted some of the average allocations came in below the minimum of $15,000 so they either need to be raised to $15,000 or not given any funding. Padron said they should be moved to $15,000 because all the ones in the medium category below a $15,000 average were moved to $15,000. Brouse noted the Crisis Center ranked the highest and the average allocation was $33,500. Eastham supported the Crisis Center having a higher allocation because it emphasized shelter and food services. Brouse agreed and had a higher allocation as well. HCDC decided to round the average of the Commissioner's individual funding down to the nearest $1,000 and see what the tally looked like. That brought the total allocation to $368,000 which was $13,000 over the total funds to allocate. Discussion began on how to reallocate to stay within budget. Vaughan suggested taking $1,000 off of each of the high priority categories that are above the minimum which left HCDC $6,000 over budget. Eastham asked about Habitat and why they have not received funds the past few years. Lehmann noted they received CDBG/HOME funds for specific projects but not funding for operating funds since FY15. Eastham suggested allocating zero dollars to Habitat and redistribute that it to cover the overage and use the $9,000 to support other agencies. Vaughan noted no one in the low category would receive funding. Harms noted that the Commission agreed that whatever is allocated this year to an agency, the same amount is guaranteed next year, so agencies can have some consistency. That would mean if nothing was given to an agency this year, such as Habitat, then they would also not receive any funding next year. Lehmann said Habitat would no longer be eligible for legacy Aid to Agencies but could apply for emerging funds if that happened. Padron stated while it is a low priority on the list, it is still a high priority in the community as homeownership is important. McKinstry agreed that homeownership an important part of overall services in the City but understands it doesn't score as high on priorities, but the Commission also committed to fund lower priority agencies. Eastham feels Habitat will continue to function without funding and the $9,000 should be allocated to Shelter House which does provide homes to people who are in dire straits. Becci Reedus (Crisis Center) asked to have all the priorities read to the audience as well as the allocations from the previous year. Lehmann read through the spreadsheet which totaled up to $361,000, $6,000 over budget as follows: Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 7 of 12 Reedus questioned if the Crisis Center was the highest scorer in the highest category then why aren't they receiving a bigger allocation than others. She would like to have justification so she can relay that back to her board of directors. A member of the audience asked if there was less funding this year than allocated last year. Vaughan stated the allocation was $391,000 last year and $355,000 this year. Lehmann noted part of the change is splitting off money for emerging agencies. Eastham responded to Reedus' question on the Crisis Center allocation, he acknowledged it was a good point, the average ranking for the Crisis Center was 58 which was the highest ranking and is willing to revise the allocations to reflect the higher ranking. Vaughan noted since they are already over the budgeted allocation, they would need to figure out a way to allocate more to higher ranked agencies. The first discussion is whether to keep the allocation to the low priority, it was decided that the Commission would fund low priorities at an earlier meeting. Alter stated she was for funding it initially but after listening to the discussion about the long-term repercussions she would be okay with reallocating that $15,000 to other agencies. Vaughan asked for the consensus of the Commission to drop the low priority category and to allocate those funds elsewhere. Brouse would be in favor of taking the $9,000 from the allocation and giving $3,000 to Shelter House to get them to $50,000 and the other $6,000 to the Crisis Center. That would put Crisis Center at 59% of the funding they asked for and the Shelter House at 58% of the funding they asked for. Eastham supports that reallocation, but notes the ranking scores rest on several considerations not all of which strictly applicable to his thinking of the need for the specific kind of service the application is for and the need for that service and activity. He is inclined to support a higher dollar allocation to Shelter House Priority FY19 allocation Recommended FY20-21 allocation Iowa City Free Medical Clinic/Dick Parrott Free Dental Clinic Medium $15,000 $15,000 Prelude Behavioral Services Medium $16,000 $15,000 Elder Services Inc. Medium $20,000 $15,000 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Johnson County Medium $15,000 $15,000 Pathways Adult Day Health Center/ Aging Services, Inc. Medium $15,000 $15,000 Arc of Southeast Iowa Medium $0 $15,000 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity Low $0 $15,000 Crisis Center of Johnson County High $40,000 $33,000 Shelter House High $50,000 $47,000 HACAP High $15,000 $15,000 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County High $34,300 $25,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program High $40,000 $27,000 4 Cs Community Coordinated Child Care High $15,000 $15,000 Rape Victim Advocacy Program High $20,000 $15,000 Table to Table High $15,000 $15,000 Free Lunch Program High $15,000 $15,000 Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC) High $24,000 $15,000 United Action for Youth High $27,400 $19,000 Inside Out Reentry Community High $15,000 $15,000 Reedus questioned if the Crisis Center was the highest scorer in the highest category then why aren't they receiving a bigger allocation than others. She would like to have justification so she can relay that back to her board of directors. A member of the audience asked if there was less funding this year than allocated last year. Vaughan stated the allocation was $391,000 last year and $355,000 this year. Lehmann noted part of the change is splitting off money for emerging agencies. Eastham responded to Reedus' question on the Crisis Center allocation, he acknowledged it was a good point, the average ranking for the Crisis Center was 58 which was the highest ranking and is willing to revise the allocations to reflect the higher ranking. Vaughan noted since they are already over the budgeted allocation, they would need to figure out a way to allocate more to higher ranked agencies. The first discussion is whether to keep the allocation to the low priority, it was decided that the Commission would fund low priorities at an earlier meeting. Alter stated she was for funding it initially but after listening to the discussion about the long-term repercussions she would be okay with reallocating that $15,000 to other agencies. Vaughan asked for the consensus of the Commission to drop the low priority category and to allocate those funds elsewhere. Brouse would be in favor of taking the $9,000 from the allocation and giving $3,000 to Shelter House to get them to $50,000 and the other $6,000 to the Crisis Center. That would put Crisis Center at 59% of the funding they asked for and the Shelter House at 58% of the funding they asked for. Eastham supports that reallocation, but notes the ranking scores rest on several considerations not all of which strictly applicable to his thinking of the need for the specific kind of service the application is for and the need for that service and activity. He is inclined to support a higher dollar allocation to Shelter House Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 8 of 12 than Crisis Center at this point. It is his assessment that sheltering people is a bit of a greater need than food distribution, which is also a big need. Genevieve Anglin (United Action for Youth) noted that it is understood there are limited dollars but part of what was discussed was the need of nonprofits in the community to have reliable funding from year to year and while she doesn't want to take money away from Crisis Center or Shelter House but they are getting close to what they got last year whereas UAY is going down by $8,000 which is less than 1/3 of what they received this year. In the last five years their allocation has reduced more than 50%. Padron stated the Commission talked about giving new agencies money so it is hard to fulfill every need. Padron wanted to hear from the Shelter House as to why they asked for $35,000 more this year than last. Mark Sertterh (Shelter House) stated the amount of services they are providing is exponentially more with the new services and new project they have coming online with the Cross Park Place building and will be doing more services for the community. Becci Reedus (Crisis Center) asked if there was no chance for the Commission to go to Council and ask for more money to fund nonprofits. Lehmann stated the Commission could request additional funding from Council with their allocation recommendation. Eastham agreed the Commission should do so. Lehmann noted some preliminary allocations made here may change based on unknown federal CDBG allocations. Lehmann said they are using a conservative estimate at this time because last year's funding was so unusual. Eastham noted that the Johnson County Board of Supervisors is now awarding $1.5 million to basically this same group of service providers. Kristie Doser (Domestic Violence Intervention Program) shared that because they received reduced local and state funding over the past five years they are in jeopardy of losing federal funding which would be a loss of $200,000 to $400,000. She knows they are not the only program dealing with this issue. Eastham asked for the timeline for these recommendations. Lehmann said it is taken to Council in May when CDBG/HOME allocations are made. He added the next two Commission meetings will be used for question and answer for CDBG/HOME applications and for allocating CDBG/HOME funds. Vaughan noted that when the Commission makes a recommendation tonight they can also request more funding from Council. Lehmann agreed, noting the Commission makes recommendations while Council makes the final allocation decision. Eastham stated that if Council were to allocate an additional $270,000 to the Aid to Agency budget it would allow the full requests from all applicants. The full request total is $625,500, the current budget is $355,000 so an additional $270,500 would meet the requests. Padron agrees with Eastham to ask for the full amount. Alter added that Council is discussing the FY20 budget right now so it is urgent to ask for additional funding now rather than waiting. Eastham noted at the budget meeting last week the City Manager pointed out that Council had $2.5 million in funds from this current fiscal year that is available for a variety of purposes and the City Manager suggested four of five specific allocations for those funds. $1.5 million or so of those funds was for a reserve fund to build another repair/maintenance facility which the City needs, but that reserve funding can also come from bonding so he is suggesting to taking $270,500 from the reserve fund to cover the nonprofit allocations. Lehmann said the Commission could recommend what they want Council to consider in the motion, he suggests they make allocations based on the amount they have been given and suggest that additional funds be awarded to meet the agency requests. Lehmann said they did not need to specifically state where they want the funds to come from. Kubly agreed they didn't need to say where the money would come from. McKinstry suggested sending along a statement that says with the funds that have been allocated the allocations are as such, but with shrinking funds over the past several years and the needs are increasing, and additional funding should be considered because agencies need some relief. Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 9 of 12 Lehmann stated they could defer the recommendation. Eastham stated he thinks it should be on the agenda as soon as possible because it seems to take Council time to absorb recommendations from this Commission. Ellen McCabe (Housing Trust Fund Johnson County) mentioned that if the Commission were to submit the table showing full recommendations along with requested amounts perhaps a column should be added to show the net impact from current allocations. Vaughan agreed showing the Council all the information is important. Ron Berg (Prelude) noted if the trend continues as it is currently it won't be long before every agency is just getting $15,000. Eastham feels if a recommendation is made to Council for allocations that total $355,000 he would vote against that as he doesn't want Council to be able to start off their discussion that option. He wants them to have the $625,500 as the option to consider. He feels this needs to go before Council sooner rather than later and that membership from this Commission should be present at the meetings where these allocations are discussed as well as the agency representatives. Kubly noted that the Council agenda is already set for the next meeting, if a letter was to be drafted from HCDC it could go in next week's Council information packet. Eastman added Council will have to vote on the FY20 budget in March so he would want this on their agenda before the March budget vote. McKinstry asked if they were to send a letter to Council from this meeting that requests full funding for A2A, if Council comes back and states HCDC only has the $355,000 to spend will there be time for the Commission to make those allocations. Lehmann said they might have to add in a special meeting. Padron noted the Neighborhood Centers scored pretty high and the first three agencies are around 58% of ask and the Neighborhood Centers is less than 50%. Alter feels it is best to table the discussion on the allocations, send in the recommendation request for full funding and see what Council does. Barbara Vinograd (Iowa City Free Medical Clinic) acknowledged the Commission has an impossible task, but wanted to note that had she known there was a possibility of getting more than the $17,500 she would have asked for more, she made a small request knowing in the past how small the allocations had been. If the City really has money available many of the agencies would advocate for more. Eastham moved to recommend that City Council fund the full requested amount of Legacy Aid to Agencies applications as shown below for FY20 and FY21, and that Council invite HCDC to discuss this recommendation at their soonest available work session. Harms seconded the motion. Agency Request 4 Cs Community Coordinated Child Care $20,000 Arc of Southeast Iowa $20,000 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Johnson County $25,000 Crisis Center of Johnson County $66,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program $50,000 Elder Services Inc. $40,000 Free Lunch Program $16,000 HACAP $25,000 Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC) $30,000 Inside Out Reentry Community $30,000 Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 10 of 12 Iowa City Free Medical Clinic/Dick Parrott Free Dental Clinic $17,500 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $25,000 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County $55,000 Pathways Adult Day Health Center/ Aging Services, Inc. $25,000 Prelude Behavioral Services $20,000 Rape Victim Advocacy Program $23,000 Shelter House $85,000 Table to Table $20,000 United Action for Youth $33,000 Total $625,500 Eastham strongly suggested that Vaughan, as chair of HCDC, contact the Mayor and discuss the results of this meeting and let him know HCDC would like to come to the next available work session to discuss. Vaughan agreed to reach out. Kubly added that anyone can go to the Council meetings and talk during the "items not on the agenda" public comment portion of the meeting. Eastham stated he doesn't like that opportunity because he feels Vaughan needs to talk directly to the Mayor. Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) asked if the funding for Habitat for Humanity is included in recommendation to Council. Eastham agreed it would be included in the recommendation. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. OVERVIEW OF HOUSING PRO FORMA TEMPLATE: Lehmann gave an update on the Housing Pro Forma noting it only affects rental housing projects, though HCDC will have expected rents and sales prices for owner -occupied projects from the application. Lehmann explained various items on the Pro Forma. The Pro Forma spreadsheet has instructions which explains each line item and what they need. Generally when looking at rental projects, costs are anticipated to increase faster than rents, so the City assumes 2% rent and 3% expense increases. The Gross Amount of Income is revenue coming in from rents based on the HUD -allowable rent times by the number of units. There is a line for other income, but it is almost never used because it can be difficult to anticipate what that income might be, usually it's things like money -operated laundry machines, etc. Tenant Contribution is other payments like parking or storage space. Gross revenue is all those items added up. For vacancy loss, we generally assume 5% but it can be higher depending on demographics or clientele. Revenue minus vacancy creates the Effective Gross Income which is the amount of revenue expected in a given year. Expenses are pretty straightforward; insurance, maintenance and structural repairs (which is generally around 1 % of the price of the property), management fees (usually between 5% and 7% but some nonprofits don't charge management fees), miscellaneous expenses (accounting, legal, advertising, etc.). Lehmann noted the City bases their estimates on the Iowa Finance Authority. With regards to property taxes, a lot of nonprofits do not have to pay property taxes other than the first year which may result in a negative cash flow that year. The actual cash flow is revenue minus expenses. Operating reserves should be no less than $350 per unit, it is better to see more as IFA has higher reserve requirements than the City. Finally the debt coverage ratio is important, a 1:1 debt coverage ratio means the operating income exactly matches operating expenses. The City needs to see a minimum of 1.2:1 by year three to show enough cash flow to support the project in case something not anticipated occurs. Some affordable housing lenders use a debt coverage ratio of 1.15. Vaughan thanked Lehmann for the information as it is very helpful. Eastham feels the City should follow IFA levels, that their standards are currently different. Lehmann agreed and will double check that for the future to make sure the City is lined up with IFA for consistency. Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 11 of 12 STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Lehmann announced that Bob Lamkins has officially resigned from HCDC due to time constraints. The vacancy will be announced on January 22 and per bylaws, the preference is for someone who is receiving rental assistance or for someone with a financial background. Lehmann noted the next meeting is February 21. The agenda will include monitoring reports, CDBG/ HOME application question and answer session (applications are due January 18), the emerging funds applications and the fair housing study. Regarding emerging applications Lehmann wanted to know the Commission's preference on doing a question/answer period or just allocating amounts due to the small funding. The consensus of the Commission was to see how many applications and if there were more than 5 applications to do two sessions, but if under 5 then review at the next meeting with the CBDG/HOME applications. Brouse noted that if the deadline for applications has to be flexible so more agencies can get them submitted they should extend the deadline. Currently there is only one application Lehmann has talked to others so thinks there are a few more applications in process; he will extend the deadline if they don't receive at least 3 applications. Lehmann passed out to the Commission an Income by Age, Race, and Location table that the City put together after receiving questions, he thought the Commission might be interested in the data. The Request for Proposals is out for the Consolidated Plan so that review will begin shortly. The City is also reviewing affordable housing programs and staff will bring it to the Commission when it is complete. Eastham asked about the Housing Pro Forma template and if there would be a rental table included. Lehmann confirmed it is included in the application. Eastham noted the Council decided not to follow HCDC's recommendation to allocate an additional $200,000 to the NEX Project to further reduce rents. He stated the project will build 32 units termed "affordable" and they provided a rent table for each of those units. He examined the rent table from the perspective of a tenant making $18,000 annually, which is higher than the average income for the City's Section 8 program, and within the range of households with rent costs more than 50% of their income (called high cost burden households). When reviewing the proposed rents from that perspective, 27 of the 32 so-called affordable units would require more than 50% of the income of the tenants. He wanted HCDC to be aware that low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects are not automatically an avenue for low cost burden rental housing. In fact most LIHTC projects' proposed rents provide high cost burden housing. That is why he requested HCDC to ask Council for additional funds. The Council declined the request in part because they interpreted $200,000 resulting in only an increase of three units having very low rents over the one unit in the developer's original proposal. The reason Council thought $200,000 would not "buy" enough additional low rent units was because in the developer's scenario presented to Council, the $200,000 would reduce the commercial borrowing and the debt from the commercial borrowing by about $12,000 per year but the $200,000 would be paid back to the City at 1% over a 17 year period which would be additional debt service. Eastham feels Council did not get accurate and complete information on HCDC's wishes to understand how much that $200,000 would decrease rents over how many units. Looking at the letter the developer wrote to Council with their suggestion, they did not have all the information and didn't realize they didn't have to pay that $200,000 back and it would not increase their debt service. Eastham proposes that future LIHTC applicants be instructed better on measures to decrease their proposed rents down to a level that is actually affordable to low income households. He added that just using 40% or 60% of the AMI as a rent guide is not actually affordable as most rent prices are well above what can be afforded at the average medium income. It is important to look at what the rents are, not want the percent of AMI is and if the Commission is going to negotiate with Council we need to make sure Council understands clearly what is being negotiated. McKinstry acknowledged it was good Eastham brought this topic up and that the Commission made that recommendation because it is a process of education for Council, the Commission, and the applicants. ADJOURNMENT: Brouse moved to adjourn. Alter seconded. Passed 7-0 Housing and Community Development Commission January 17, 2019 Page 12 of 12 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Terms Exp. 7/10 9/20 10/11 11/15 12/20 1/17 --- = Vacant Alter, Megan 7/1/21 X X X X X X Brouse, Mitch 7/1/21 X X X X X X Eastham, Charlie 7/1/20 X X X X X X Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 7/1/20 X O/E X X X O/E Harms, Christine 7/1/19 X X X X X X Lamkins, Bob 7/1/19 O/E O/E X O/E O/E McKinstry, John 7/1/17 X X X X X X Padron, Maria 7/1/20 X X O/E O/E X X Vaughan, Paula 7/1/19 X X X X X X • Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant r f,:.-4 CITY OF IOWA CITY ", �� MEMORANDUM Date: February 13, 2019 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Re: Council Work Session, February 5, 2019, 5:35 PM in Emma J. Harvat Hall Council: Cole, Mims (absent), Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton UISG: Stewart, Wu Staff: Fruin, Monroe, Andrew, Dilkes, Fruehling, Hightshoe, Kubly, Lehman, Bockenstedt, Fleagle, Ford, Knoche, Havel, Nurnberg HCDC members present: Vaughan, Eastham, McKinstry, Fixmer-Oraiz, Harms, Padron, Alter (A transcription is available in the City Clerk's Office and the City website.) Joint Meeting with Housing & Community_ Development Commission (HCDC) Mayor Throgmorton thanked the Commission for their thorough job of reviewing the applications and asked the Commission Chair, Paula Vaughan, to explain how the Commission reviews the applications, what the recommendations were and why and why the Commission decided to recommend fully funding the requests. Vaughan along with other members of the Commission explained the process and the recommendation. City Manager Fruin provided additional information. Individual Council members expressed their views. Action: The Council directed staff to fully fund all Legacy applications in the Aid to Agencies process. Staff will adjust the budget and prepare the necessary formal Council approval documents for a future meeting. The exact budget increase will depend on the City's CDBG allocation. This is a one-year commitment and staff will have to coordinate another application round next year. Staff will also reach out to Legacy agencies this summer to have a discussion on the Aid to Agencies budget levels for FY2021. (Break to Formal meeting 6:44 pm) Clarification of Agenda Items • [19]... University of Iowa Labor Center Support... Mayor Throgmorton stated he reached out to President Harreld as a courtesy regarding the resolution on the agenda and forwarded a copy. Information Packet Discussion (January 24, January 311 January 24 1. (IP2, Email from Council member Thomas: Rental vacancy) Council member Thomas noted the article came from a resident and had previously been in the Corridor Business Journal. 2. (IP3, Email from City Manager with request from Council member Cole: 4 to 3 Lane Conversion) Council member Cole summarized an article in the Des Moines Register regarding the benefits of road diets. City Manager Fruin provided additional information. Individual Council members expressed their views. Page 1 Council Present: Cole, Salih, Teague, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton Council Absent: Mims Staff Present: Fruin, Monroe, Andrew, Dilkes, Fruehling, Lehmann, Kubly, Bockenstedt, Fleagle, Ford, Knoche, Havel, Hightshoe, Nurnberg Others Present: Stewart, Wu (UISG); Paula Vaughan, Charlie Eastham, John McKinstry, Vanessa Fixmer Oraiz, Megan Alter, Christine Harms, Maria Padron (HCDC) Joint Meeting with Housing & Community Development Commission (HCDC): Throgmorton/ I'd like to invite the Housing and Community Development Commissioners to come up. If the Chair could come up and sit next to me, cause Susan Mims will not be present for this meeting. (several talking in background) Yeah, okay so .... I'm gonna convene the work session of the Iowa City City Council for February the 5', 2019. And we're gonna start with a joint meeting with the Housing and Community Development Commission, in relationship to Aid to Agencies and the recommendation that came from the Commission. So, first I wanna thank the Commission first for doing such a thorough job of reviewing the applications and tryin' to come up with something that you thought would be completely appropriate. What I suggest we do, if the rest of the Council Members agree, is that first we engage in dialogue with the Commissioners and find out what they did, what they recommended, why they recommended it. And then engage in dialogue about that. At that point, I'll probably say, okay, we've engaged in the dialogue, now it's for us Council Members to decide how we want to respond. So that moment, I think it'd be best, for y'all to go back down in the audience and we'll just do our normal thing. Does that sound reasonable? Okay, so ... is that all right with Council Members? Okay (several responding) so, Paula, do you want to take the lead in terms of telling us what you did, what you recommended — in general. You don't have to go into all the detail. And then why you came up with recommending full aid or full....fully, uh, fully funding the requests that came from the various agencies. Vaughan/ Okay. Um, good evening. Um, I'm'Paula Vaughan, I'm the Chair of the Housing Community Development Commission. Um, we had a very lengthy process and a lot of discussion in our group, and I will say that all of the Commissioners, um, have taken this responsibility very seriously, um, and have put a lot of work into it. Uh, we did come up, at our last meeting, and we did end up recommending that full funding for the agencies, um, for a number of reasons, and I know that all of you got the packet and the memo from Mr. Fruin that explained how we had changed a few things. So, I won't go in to all of those. Urn .... part of our reasoning was that we just looked at the funding over the last, um, five to 10 years and realized that the agencies funding has been pretty flat, um, and in some cases has decreased, but the number of people that they serve has reaIly increased. Uh, the population growth in Iowa City has been about 11%, um, figures that I could find. The inflation rate's been about 14%. Uh, with .... so the, we have a greater This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 2 population. They have many more people that they're serving, many more requests and needs .... with that, um, since they serve more people, they also have increased staffing. They have increased need of supplies. Um.....they also, some of them expressed that they may be close to losing their federal match dollars, uh, because of the State and local funding going down, and that would be a huge blow to the city if those agencies were not able to operate. It would cost, uh, the City a lot economically, um, many jobs and just the human cost, if those people did not have the services. So when we looked at all that and we also heard from agencies at our meeting, and their situations, um, trying to make ends meet, trying to serve more people with less funding. So we thought it was important to bring attention, uh, to the Council and to talk about this, uh, because this is not going to get any easier going forward. Uh, these agencies, um, I .... I have, well ... no, I have a couple more. These agencies provide employment and training to over 500 members of the community. They also pay, um, living wage, salaries, benefits. They bring $36 million through grant money into our community. And ... they .... pay out about $23 million for salary and benefit. So they.....are a big part of our community. The total funding that they are asking for is really less than 2% of their combined revenue. So we are in favor of fully funding. I have a couple of examples, um, just to kind of illustrate .....uh, the numbers that I was talking about. So we took a couple of our larger agencies. One is the Shelter House, and they have had an increase over the last 10 years of an emergency shelter of almost 91%. The nights, night shelter that they have given people has increased about 143%. And the, their funding, uh, from FYI to 19 has been in the neighborhood of 45,000 to 50,000. So that has been very flat, even though they've had very large increases in numbers, and per capita what that has done for them is in fiscal year 09, uh, their pacap... per capita funding was $41.42, and in fiscal year 18 it dropped to 37.91. The other really large agency, um, is the Crisis Center, the Food Bank, and they have had over the last 10 years an increase of 57% in the number of food visits that they have from people. Um, and this translates into 39% increase in the pounds of food distributed. They have seen, uh, that people need more food because they are not getting as much, like in terms of SNAP money. That has declined. So people are getting more food, uh, than they did in the past, so it's not only a matter of numbers, but people needing more than they did before. And their funding, uh, for the last four years has been at 40,000 each year, even though they've had these increases of 57% and 39%. Um, and per capita, again, uh, fiscal year 12, their per capita was 1.06, and in 18 it's 77 -cents. So once again a big decline when you take the numbers into account. A couple of other, uh, agencies that I wanted to call your attention to, United Action Youth. They have had a 49% increase in education of clients and in their direct service. So 49% increase in each of those, and their funding has decreased by 45% in the last four fiscal years. Cole/ From the City? Vaughan/ Yes. Um, and I know, um, at our meeting, someone from DVIP spoke and said that they are very dangerously losing their matching funds. So these are some of the things that we heard from agencies. So our recommendation is to fully fund .... um, the, it's $625,500 to the agencies, but we would like to see them fully funded. Um, I know that it's a .... a delicate balance for you all, as it was for us. It's quite challenging. It's very difficult, um.....to come up with these recommendations and to back them, but our whole This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 3 council voted unanimously that these funds need to be, uh, they need to be increased, and not just this year, but looking forward. Um, I'm kind of more concerned really about the future and what is going to happen. Um, that this funding, um, is gonna....that the call for funding is going to be increased, uh, the number of people, um, needing service will be increased, and that we need to do something that will be sustainable, uh, for the future. Throgmorton/ Okay. Thank you, Paula. That's a very thorough overview. Uh, I don't know, would any other Commissioners like to elaborate, I mean it's very thorough overview but .... Charlie! Eastham/ I'd like to make two points. One, in listening to the, uh, representatives from agencies, who talked to the Commission at our last meeting, and asked for full funding, uh, I was very much taken by their, uh, professionalism, their capac ... their capability, and their experience in making their, uh.... uh, statements to us, that their agency's needing to increase, to have the Aid to Agency amount from the City increased, substantially. Um, L ...I, one thing I'm trying to learn as a Commission Member is that I need to defer a lot to the wisdom and the experience of people who are coming to us for, uh, financial support, and I (clears throat) I hope we will all do that. The second thing I'd wanna say is that, uh...uh (clears throat) I happen to look at the, uh, the uh.... uh, current FY20 proposed City budget and, uh, noticed that the, uh, there's a table, or a graph, that shows the change in taxable valuation, total taxable valuation, uh, that Iowa City has seen over the last, uh, 10 years or so, and just looking at the change in taxable valuation from FY15 to FY20, that eval ... that valuation increased about 25% over that five-year period of time, around 5% per year. (clears throat) To me the taxable val ... the total taxable valuation is the amount that the, uh, you have to, uh, to tap into, uh, for, uh.... obtaining property taxes to support vital community services, which I believe these folks have, uh, have demonstrated to us that their request is for vital services and are quite reasonable. Throgmorton/ Just to get something on the table from the Council point of view, no one doubts the importance of the 19 agencies involved here. They are very important to the City, so that's not a topic that's really at issue here, right? Okay, beyond that, uh, thanks, Charlie. Uh, do any Council Members have questions you want to ask of Commissioners? Thomas/ One (clears throat) one question I had was .... uh, with .... with these fund requests, are they tailored, uh, to Iowa City, meaning, um....I mean some of these agencies, even... are embedded in their names — Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Johnson County -- are serving the county as a whole. Uh, so is .... is, say their request proportional to what they feel their services are for the residents of Iowa City? Vaughan/ Yes. In the application, they detail out what they will do with the funds, in each ... like each location, um, and a lot of them get United Way funds. So they will detail out what they use those funds for, what they use the Iowa City funds for, and so part of the Commission, what the Commission does is make sure that, uh, those funds are for Iowa City, you know, and .... and they look appropriate. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 4 Teague/ This is a significant request. So I guess my question is, um, for the ones that were awarded, you know, they got the awards and then there's this .... lack of funding, how did, you know, the Commission come up to that decision of who (mumbled). If you can talk a little bit about that, um.... Vaughan/ Well it's kind of a grueling process (laughs) so we do have a, um, kind of a scoring sheet, um, that each of us does independently, and then we come together and they're all put on one sheet and we look at all of them, um, and .... and usually it's kind of interesting, um, because I think we all kind of agonize over it, but in the end we seem to agree pretty much. Um, so sometimes there are agencies that do not receive funding. Throgmorton/ If I could follow up on that, when I read the minutes of your meeting, I was tracking you all along, as you were very ...doin' a very thorough job of going through the agencies and tryin' to come up with what you thought that they ought to be allocated and so on, and suddenly — bam! Suddenly, about two-thirds of the way through there was this big leap from allocating the amount that we had .... um, assigned to the Commission for Aid to Agencies, to this full funding idea. So it wasn't immediately obvious to me how the Commission came to this unanimous judgment to fully fund the 19 agencies. John? McKinstry/ Jim, when I was, uh, appointed.... to the Commission a couple years ago, uh.... and, I knew that there was a lot of agony, which we share with you as Council Members, because you, in a larger way, have to do the same sort of thing. There's a lot of human need out there, and you have to decide with the limited funds, and .... and I thought whatever we were told was the amount we should stay within, that that was our mission. And it's been very painful to do that, especially with, uh, increasing human need and more agencies asking for assistance, and uh, their margins getting thinner and thinner, uh, with decreasing State and federal funding, and things Iike the Medicaid, uh, debacle recently, uh, that have put a lot of, uh, the agencies in a .... a really deep water in terms of their financing. Uh, and .... and so there was a point of recognition, just like you said. I think you're, uh, you're very perceptive. That's exactly what happened. That, uh.... uh, we were sharing with you this burden of trying to keep within a certain figure that was given to us and it came to the point where, uh... you know, we're proud of what this Council has done and what this City does. Uh, in terms of affordable housing and so many other things, we are leaders in the state and in the Midwest, in some of the things that we're doing, but ... there came a point when we had to say, you know, there's so much more need here and the....it's, the gap is getting larger instead of smaller and this is not a rebellion sayin', okay we're not gonna, you know, we're not gonna work with those figures you give us anymore! (laughs) We didn't come here with pitchforks (several talking and laughing) uh, we didn't come here with pitchforks, uh, in a rebellious way. We came here because we trust you, uh, we're proud of the things you're doin', and uh, we just thought that, uh, we needed to call this to your attention. Uh, we're responsible, trying to be responsible citizens and saying, you know, this gap is getting wider, so uh, we're sharin' the pain with you that we have been struggling with, uh, to share with the.... ...the agencies that have been asking for funding. Alter/ If I can piggyback on that. In the room (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 5 Throgmorton/ ...closer to that (both talking) Alter/ In the room when, urn ... we .... had done our rough sort and our rough allocation, we realized that....approximately half of the agencies were getting less than half of what they were asking for, and in no case was anyone asking for the moon. It really was like the penny just dropped and the room sort of collectively sunk. It ... which is sort of an emotional moment. It really was a moment of recognition, an epiphany of this .... is gut wrenching. There's so much need, and yet we're in one of the better -off counties, right, and so it's actually juxtaposing that understanding of a real commitment to helping human need in our county, and yet realizing .... the folks who were watching us go through this were no doubt saying, how are we going to make it through this year? How are we going to make it through the next year, and the next and the next, when the need just keeps getting bigger and bigger. And that was a moment that just kind of sucked the energy out of the room and then put it back into it, and we thought this is the right place for us to .... to move. So, just to give you sort of the emotional climate and how we came there. Cole/ And we've essentially, as the need has gone up, um, you'd given us a lot of credit and I wanna put us on the .... a stand here too and say, I think to criticize (mumbled) current Council even, we've stayed flat. So as the needs of populations have gone up, we've stayed flat. So in effect we have not even come close to coming up with the need, and it's my sense is that you look .... and another thing that strikes me with these agencies, these are professionally run, data -driven organizations. Um, we're also Iooking at a ways ... in other context to help some of the start-ups for non -profits, but they have their own organizational challenges, but we can have confidence that the dollars here, and I think you brought up a really good point, that not only will we spend those dollars, but they will multiply and radiate throughout the community. So in some respects it's not really an expense as much as an investment, is sort of what I see. Throgmorton/ So I wanna follow up .... with a question for Paula, to make sure I understood something I think you said. I think I heard you say that City funding constitutes 2% of the total funding for the 19 agencies. Vaughan/ Yes. Throgmorton/ 2%? Vaughan/ Yeah, a little less. Throgmorton/ So I'm just thinking mathematically here and there's a lot more involved here than just math .... uh, shrinking that amount a tiny bit, shrinking 2% a tiny bit doesn't sound like very much to me, out of the total. Right? So .... and then I .... I find myself wondering, and I'm gonna plead ignorance here, so for anybody who's from the agencies out here, I want y'all to understand I feel completely ignorant when I ask this question. Are the agencies seeking funding from private corporations, including major owners of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 6 apartment complexes and other businesses in the community, cause that's where the wealth is. And .... and I'm, so I'm just wondering if: ... if that kind of effort to get donations from those entities is taking place. If it's not, there is an opportunity. If it is, well okay, I'm ignorant and there we are. So .... I'm really wondering about that though. We've had...you know, the State has dramatically cut the amount of revenue coming to Iowa City, through.... what it's done with regard to property tax reform, havin' to do with multi -family, commercial, uh... um, properties. Uh, Geoff, where are ya? I can't see. Yeah, so maybe you or Kevin could tell us how much money has not come to us because of that. And because of the ... the Supreme Court's decision about ... uh, you know, whether these .... these apartment complexes are residential or commercial. Frain/ I think we're projecting about a $2 million loss this coming fiscal year. It was about 1.6 million last year and it'll continue to grow until 2024. Throgmorton/ Thank you. Cole/ I'm curious about this matching issue. It seems to me as a baseline, we should ensure that no agency, to the extent that we reasonably can, should lose matching funds, um, from the federal government and the State government. Did we come up with a number as to what the number would be to ensure that these organizations would not lose their matching funds, and two, of the organizations that had submitted, how many numerically were close to losing their matching funds as a result of the decrease in, um, City funding? So if you can answer that question. (mumbled) put you on the spot (several talking and laughing) It was a very compelling thing that you brought up with the matching. Vaughan/ Right, um, and...yes, got that from the audience, uh, the agencies who were represented and somebody, uh, volunteered that, and just made the comment, I'm sure we're not the only one, and I'm pretty sure that that's true, but I don't really have the figures. Throgmorton/ Okay, does anybody have any other questions for Commissioners? Thomas/ I guess (both talking) Throgmorton/ Or for staff, that's related to the conversation. Thomas/ So it, I mean it's very interesting to hear how that....that meeting you had unfolded and it was this kind of ah -ha moment. Um, was there any discussion of...any sort of, uh, you know... there's.... there's.....there was the money budgeted, there was the requests and what they added up to. Any discussion of, well, do we wanna consider something in between in any .... in any manner, in terms of, you know, what .... what to set the request at? You know it's .... it went from holding to the ... the budget that you had been given to basically just agreeing to the requests as submitted, correct? Was there any discussion of. ... is there....is there another alternative to this, is there some analysis that would bring the requests to a lower figure, in other words. Vaughan/ Well, I'm not sure I'm quite understanding, but when we.... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 7 Thomas/ As a negotiation. In a sense a negotiation that you're hearing, you know, these agencies ask for X. You .... we have Y. You know, how ...how do we negotiate the outcome of that, short of just saying, okay, we're gonna give you what you...what you asked for? Vaughan/ Yeah. And I guess I .... I would think we had already pretty well negotiated it, because, um, most of them did not get close to what they had asked for. The Iarger ones. We give, um, always the minimum that we give is 15,000. So that's part of...we don't, we don't give under 15,000. So that would be the minimum. Um, so those who asked for a great deal more got maybe half of what they had requested. We also I think had some discussion about dropping .... we have high, medium, and low priority, and this year we decided to sort of divide those monies because what's happened in the past is only the agencies that had high priority got any money. And so as an example, Habitat for Humanity is listed, um, theirs would be listed as low priority. So they have gotten no funding for the last five years, uh, because we just give the funds to the high priority. So one of our goals this year was to try to make sure that medium and low priority agencies also got something, at least some of them. Uh, so then we did talk about, well we'll just drop the low....and.....you know, and then give more to the higher priority. So we did do some talk about that. Does that answer your question? Thomas/ I think so, yeah. Fixmer-Oraiz/ If I ... Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz. I just wanted to make a couple points here. Um, so I actually missed that meeting because I had the stomach virus, um, but I .... this goes really kinda beyond one meeting. I ... I just wanted to point out that we...we go through just you all do, this.... annually, you know, going through t his process of, you know, how do we find the right metrics to, you know, justify the decisions that we make and make sure that, you know, everybody's getting funded or at least you're looking at .... you're not looking at apples and oranges, you know, so we can kind of make, you know, fully aware decisions and, um, kind of go through this agonizing (laughs) process as we've described, and I'm sure you're familiar with, uh, but one thing that I wanted to point out is that, you know, this funding source is, uh, largely unrestricted and I want to point that out because I think that it's incredibly important for organizations, um, that .... that this pot of money, um, to kind of answer your question as to like why, you know, is it ever going to be enough or you know.... are.... are we, we're dust maintaining this, but really it's ... it's ...it s, I guess, more dynamic than that. The source of funding itself, or the ability that you can, what you can do with this money is more dynamic than just, you know, just a pot of money I guess that oftentimes, uh, non -profits or state organizations, you have these restrictions and you can't use it for operations. You can only use it for certain things. So I think that's one nuance that I want to point out, and then another thing was just to kind of clarify this less than 2% of revenue figure. Um, that's a little bit more nuanced too because some organizations obviously are, you know, larger and that margin, that difference, is gonna be, you know, much more insignificant than ... a .... a, than another organization that maybe doesn't have like a million dollar, you know, revenue stream. Um, but the need is still there, right? So you may be asking $50,000 and we're only going to be giving you $15,000, but if you're a million dollar organization, that is, you know, pulling in these This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 8 private fundings or, you know, however you may be getting, uh, funds, that's gonna be a lot different than some of the other organizations that are literally two people, right? They are very professional, and they do what they do, by the skin of their teeth every year, um, but their margin is going to be much lower. Their revenue is going to be much lower. So I think that 2%, or less than 2%, is sort of ob... is, um, obscures the real issue, uh, I just kinda wanted to clarify that. I think it's important to know, but um, there is a nuance in there, so .... just wanted to clarify. Cole/ And just by unrestricted, you're saying the City funds are restricted as opposed to like if we had federal funds, lot of times those have the strings, so that's the advantage that we can bring, to give more flexibility to these organizations. (mumbled) Eastham/ (both talking) Salih/ Go ahead, Charlie! Eastham/ John, if you're inviting us to have a discussion with agencies about their funding that is somewhere between the proposed budgetary amount and the amount we're asking, I think we could do that. Throgmorton/ Well, that .... that's good, but we already have a recommendation along those lines from our City Manager. So to be clear about that, the City Manager ...what was it, 37, Geoff, is that the amount? City Manager's recommending that we increase the allocation to the Commission by $37,000, so that .... so that the agencies can be funded what they were funded last year. Is that .... am I stating that correctly, Geoff? Yeah, okay. So that's .... that part, to an extent, that part of it's already on the table, for us at least, in terms of the Council. (both talking) Salih/ (mumbled) forget what I was going to say (laughs) But .... yeah, I think I would like to ask the staff maybe, or the Commission, uh, because the HC, uh, CDC, uh, the fund for Agency to Agency, like every, uh, this has been budget like specific budget that the ... we budget for it or it was open? Or how, because it say sometime say 250 was for five year and after that four of the ... uh, four of the six years it was 376. If there is like some budget bein' allocated every year to this Agency to Agency, or it up to the Commission to evaluate and come up with what they wanna give out. Throgmorton/ I think Geoff can answer that. Fruin/ So there's three funding sources that come together, uh, for this pot of money. There's a federal funding source, which changes from year to year. That's your CDBG allocation, and we actually don't know what that CDBG allo...allocation is yet. We should know in the coming month or two. That's why you see some minor fluctuations from year to year. The two stable funding sources that have been flat would be the City's general fund, which is the 250, and then there's a small dollar amount that comes from our public utility funds. Uh, I don't have it in front of me, uh, 20....20 -some thousand that comes from that. But that is a line item budget in our Neighborhood and Development Services This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 9 department's, uh, budget. That is then presented to the Commission, um, as part of the, when they get the applications. There's.... there's the budget amount there. Salih/ And when you decide to give out, uh, extra money from the utility, how do you come up with this decision, because of the Commission come out and they think this money really have to be given to this, uh, you know, agency or .... I don't understand it. Frain/ How do we decide which agency gets which pot of money? Salih/ No, no, no! Like the extra money when the ... we have, you said we have from the (unable to understand) 250, right? Frain/ Correct, yes. Salih/ But sometimes the Commission will come with more money. Say hey 200, we don't ... we don't want, we want more than 250, which is you saying here is 376 was.... Frain/ In....in, at least my time here I do not recall the Commission coming forward and requesting more dollars. We've had agencies that have come forward, uh, after the allocation and .... and, uh, made their case to Council for additional funding. Uh, so some of you on the Council may remember Elder Services a few years ago, after their allocation was reduced, uh, came back and the City actually (both talking) allocation on kind of a case-by-case basis. Salih/ I see. Frain/ But I don't recall the Commission ever coming forward and .... and presenting the case (both talking) Correct. Salih/ Okay, and also since you are here, just to ... to qualify the question that the Mayor ask you earlier about the projection of the fund that we gonna lose. Do you really mean this is... will happen for sure or this is including the backfill that they might not give it to us? Frain/ I'm sorry, I'm not following that answer, or that question. Salih/ You said there is two million or something that projected, uh, to, we will, that City will lose, two million, something like that. Cole/ I think that was for the commercial property tax reduction. Frain/ That's the commercial, yes. There is no backfill for that amount. Salih/ That's only for (both talking) Frain/ ...the multi -residential, that two million. There's no backfill for the multi -residential. There is backfill for the commercial and that's an additional 1.6. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 10 Salih/ Okay. But the total is two million or three million? Yeah. Fruin/ Well if you combine ... you combine those two elements, it's about 3.6 million, and we'll get backfill for about 1.6 million. Salih/ Okay. Throgmorton/ At least we're still hoping we will. Fruin/ Yes! Throgmorton/ Right? Yeah. Okay, Bruce, do you have a question? Teague/ Well one last thing....so I know that John talked about, um, agencies ask for X, um, but we can only provide Y, and.... typically at these, um, I know it's very difficult when you're tryin' to allocate money, um, but I mean that's expected, that everybody probably won't come and get what they fully ask for. So I guess one of my questions is in the discussion at all, the real issue seems to be that the Aid to Agency funds have been static, and CDBJ... CDBG funds, as we know, has been goin' up and down. That's very, you know, known to everybody that applied for these funds. That's a gamble. For me I think the issue is, for the City to really consider what our portion is for the Aid to Agency, um, and look at that, you know, movin' forward. If we .... if we were to, you know, fund everyone .... (mumbled) I wanna make sure that I understand this correctly. So the money that the Coun.... that the Commission is requesting, will this fund everyone 100%? Vaughan/ Everyone that applied this time, yes. Teague/ Everyone that applied .... but if we fund what the—what the City has recommended, for 37,000, that will fund.... everyone, what they got last year. Vaughan/ Right, which means there were two.—two agencies that will get zero. Teague/ Because they didn't apply last year. Vaughan/ No, they applied, but they did not receive funding (both talking) Right. So .... yeah, so ARC and Habitat for Humanity, um, would not get any. Teague/ And if I'm understanding correctly, there could be a potential where they could reach out to Council and state, after the fact, would you all consider funding this. Am I understanding correctly? Throgmorton/ You probably could, but that is not an ideal circumstance for us. Teague/ Sure! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 11 Throgmorton/ Yeah. Teague/ Okay. Vaughan/ One thing I, um, would like you to keep in mind too going forward is that this year we dial try to, we ... we made up the emerging agencies to try to give new agencies a chance to get some funding. I realize that over time it sort of dilutes it, but how do we include them, you know, I think that's an important thought going forward, is how to include new agencies that come in and do very specific, uh, targeted work. Throgmorton/ Could I follow up on that, Paula? Do I understand correctly that the Commission has not yet recommended how to allocate the $19,000.... Vaughan/ That's correct. Throgmorton/ ...for emerging agencies? Yes, so that remains to be done, right? Vaughan/ Yeah, we have not looked at those apps yet. Throgmorton/ Okay. Um, do .... do you think, uh, as Commissioners there would be value in you as a commission recommending to us some subtle modifications to the process that currently is in place? I'm not talkin' about dollar allocations for this fiscal year, but I'm just talking about the process, in terms of legacy agencies, emerging agencies, uh, the emerging agencies, uh, becoming legacy agencies after two years or whatever, however that, uh, actually works. Do you think there would be value in you making recommendations to us about any subtle changes that should be made to that process? I don't know, you might think about that. I don't know if you're.... McKinstry/ My thinking is that, uh, it's the amount of money that we have to work with is the more difficult problem at the moment. We just recently, uh, worked over the process to make it, uh, fair, uh, more transparent, uh.... based on, um, more objective, uh, criteria. I .... I'd like to aim it ... (mumbled) aiming for a little higher figure, and we can't go all the way to the full, uh, asking, uh, amount from the agencies, I'd like to look, and I don't know what the figure is, but I'd like to look more like at something proportional to what an actual dollars and actual buying power we were doing a few years ago, and also look at that in terms of growth of the City budget and uh, growth of the, uh, taxable base and that sort of thing, look proportionally, uh, at what we're doing now, what the agencies are doing now and what the city, uh, the growth of the city and that sort of thing and try to get it back into proportion, rather than just going back to last year. I ... I'd think we'd wanna... it's like, uh, Mr. Cole said, uh, look at the .... if you look at the shrinking amount and the widening gap, I...I'd like to kinda go back and look at a longer span and say, let's get it back .... to a .... a better proportion than it has been (mumbled) proportions have been getting out of whack over the last few years. Fixmer-Oraiz/ I think we're always open to, you know, I was part of the process of revamping this, um, this process (laughs) and uh, you know, we really have looked at, you know, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 12 how do we create more transparency, give ourselves more time to consider, make sure that we are really talking with (both talking) Throgmorton/ Hard task. Fixmer-Oraiz/ Yeah, you know, so we ... we've .... I think we've really, you know, got a good working system. Everything is a draft I feel like in my life, but um, you know, we're always open to .... to modifying and changing. I think in this case, you know, oftentimes the case the process could be changed and it would alleviate some of those stressors, um, but I think in this case the .... the process has been changed, and we're still feeling as though it's .... it's the pot of money that we're working with is the issue, but I think we'd be open to, of course, looking at it and always being better, um.... Throgmorton/ Do other Council Members have any questions? Okay, I wanna ask one and then I guess we'll be done. Uh, my question goes to the idea, the concept of need, and I ... I think I know enough about social services to know that the need is hard to bound, because it's just .... its almost infinite. What is almost infinite mean? I don't know (laughs) 20% times infinity, you know! (laughs) (mumbled) Uh, but I'm reading a quote that comes from the minutes of the Commission's meeting, that one of the agency directors, I think, wanted to note that she had known ... if she had known, no ... she wanted to note that had she known there was a possibility of getting more than the 17,500, she would have asked for more. Okay, so .... that's what I mean about the need. I mean if people know that they can ask for more, well surely they're going to ask for more! And I ... I would, uh, and we can't, you know, just respond to that, I don't think. We have to put some kind of lid on it, and we have to do our best, collectively, to process the allocation in a way that's fair and just and all that kind of stuff. But the need is .... huge. That's why I mentioned what I did about large corporations, owners of major businesses, including apartment... apartment complexes and so on, to see what kind of donations are available from them. Does anybody else want to say anything else in the context of this dialogue? Cole/ Well I guess what would be your response then to Jim's question, that wasn't just a rhetorical question, that was a real one. Throgmortonl Yeah. Cole/ Um, how do you respond to those agencies then that if we increased the allocation, would you then go through the process again for purposes of determining how you would distribute the money? Or would you just fully fund in the amounts that were originally recommended? Isn't that what you're getting at, Jim? For instance, I think it was the Free Medical Clinic that had said, 'Well if I had known you guys were going to increase the amount that was awarded, I would have asked for more in the first instance.' So to that point, if we do increase the amount funded, how would you respond then to those other agencies? Would you reopen the process of soliciting so they could ask (both talking) Throgmortonl Yeah (both talking) I'm not expecting that that would be the case. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 13 Cole/ Okay. But that's part of the concern, is my understanding. Okay. Eastham/ Should just respond real quickly to the notion of, uh, unlimited need. I don't think agencies actually operate like that. I think the agencies.... all these agencies carefully assessed who they can serve, how much it takes to serve them, and they make budgeting decisions on that ... on that information. I don't .... I don't think any of these agencies are, uh, are ... have a notion that their .... their need from the City is a million dollars a year. Throgmorton/ Okay, anything else? Teague/ I have one last, uh, clarification question. I think I understood that two agencies weren't funded last year, that were on there this year. Now are there any agencies that are on this year that didn't get any funding? Well .... (several talking in background) Vaughan/ I guess it depends on what we have to work with. So .... yeah. Taylor/ I think what you're meaning is .... you had 19 on the list. Was that how many requests you got, 19? Vaughan/ Yes, that's the number of requests we had this year. Salih/ And you mention if we .... if we do not fully fund it, two of them could not get anything, right? Vaughan/ Yes ... that's possible. Taylor/ Because the last time there were only 15 who were funded. So those other four of the 19 either weren't on the list last year or didn't get funding last year. Vaughan/ Right. It goes to, uh, Mr. Fruin's point of recommending the 37,000, urn .... and then that would fully fund, but ... that's for agencies that received last year, and so there were two who did not receive last year. So it would ... then my assumption would be they would not receive this year either. If we're....if we're basing it on last year's. Throgmorton/ We can probe that with (several talking) Vaughan/ ...unless we divide it out and .... yeah. Throgmorton/ We can probe that. Council Members, we can probe that with Geoffwhen...when we reconvene as a decision-making body (laughs) Okay, anything else? Thanks so much for your very hard work, very thorough job. Thanks for doin' the best you can on this situation. Paula, great summary! Thank you! Vaughan/ Thank you very much. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 14 Throgmorton/ Okay, so we're now in our sort of discussion and decision mode as a council, right? So what's your preference, folks, and let's process this, not just leap to decisions, but make sure we feel like we're makin' a good decision. Taylor/ Can I....can I ask Geoff then, I'm ... I'm still a little confused what the difference would be, cause it's quite a jump from proposal number two with 37,000 to proposal number three, 251,000. But that proposal number two then doesn't include those four that would be left out. Do we have a monetary amount for those, that could be (several talking) Fruin/ The two applications that .... did not receive allocation last year would be the ARC of Southeast Iowa and Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. Um, they not only received no funding last year, they have not received any funding since fiscal year 15. So I ... I would say that those agencies aren't necessarily dependent on these funds, um, and even in fiscal year 15, the ARC received $5,000 and Habitat also received $5,000. So, um, yes, when I made the recommendation, my recommendation was that extra dollars to, uh, fully—will fully fund the, um, the 19 agen.... the ones that received funding last year at that same level, um, and then keep the 19,000 for the emerging, um, agencies discussion. So not tap into that, but come up with 37,000 in new funds to keep folks flat, and then we can have a discussion about, uh, how to increase that budget going forward. I think there's a shared interest and .... and recognition that we need to .... we need to grow that budget going forward. Um, my.....my primary concern is if you fully fund it and you jump up, you know, to the 625,500 level, that's.... that's not gonna be sustainable, if you want to fully fund all your other objectives that you have. Yes we can do it this year, with one- time funds, but .... again, we won't be able to continue to do that going forward, without sacrificing somewhere else in the ... in the operation, whether that's our department services that we offer, our affordable housing funds, all those things that ... that we do and that you guys have been pouring through over your budget, um, there's too many competing interests for all those things to be funded going forward. Salih/ And the 37,000 will come from which (mumbled) Fruin/ That ... so what I would do is we would take the 37,000 from our reserves and then I'm confident that we can roll at a minimum that $37,000 into the operations budget for next year. So that's why I felt comfortable ... we .... we can grow the budget by that amount and sustain it. One thing when ... we just need to do from an operational standpoint is we have to set the public hearing for our budget at our next meeting, so we need to lock down our .... our numbers. That's why it's ... it's easy for us just to use the reserves that are already there. Throgmorton/ So one possibility comes to my mind is .... to.....fund the agencies at what they were funded last year, which is what you're recommending, perhaps with, I don't know, 2% inflation, which'd be, I don't know, something like $7,200 or thereabouts, uh, in addition to the .... uh, the .... the total amount of funding, which is, was I don't know 350 or whatever last year? Fruin/ Sure, anything like that would be fine. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 15 Throgmorton/ So .... well, Maz, did .... did you want to say something? Salih/ Not about what you say. Throgmorton/ Well I think .... I was just, wanted to get the possibility out there that we could basically agree with Geoffs recommendation. It's just a possibility, agree with Geoffs recommendation, but perhaps but one-year inflation into it. Fruin/ Just keep in mind with the unknown on the CDBQ that ... that 2%, which .... which only amounts to $740 I think. That could be erased pretty quickly. Throgmorton/ Right. I understand. Cole/ So right now for FY20 we're at 250,000 for the general fund, correct? Fruin/ Correct. Cole/ And so under your proposal that would increase it to 287,000 from the general fund? Fruin/ Correct. Cole/ And so if we were, um .... going to fully increase the budget by 260, then we'd essentially be doubling the budget for FY20, is that correct? Fruin/ Uh, it's .... it's not, um.... Cole/ If it's 250 (mumbled) like 300 (both talking) so like 510. Salih/ I just wanna propose something else. Throgmorton/ Sure! Salih/ You know just by looking at the (unable to understand) organization, childcare, disability use, food, shelter, you know, homeless, and etc., I think those organizations really doing great job in the community, no doubt. And I always think about the money you are taking from us and giving it back to the community, which is just a circle, and this money actually is owned by the community in the first place. And that's why I think ... for this year, we can just fully fund them. Since, Geoff, you said we gonna propose 37,000, uh, which is ... make the....the amount that they should be fully funded, 223 more, uh, including of course the 37. I really propose that to give them one-time funding to fully fund all the organization and .... keep it in mind to do what the Mayor said from now and on, which is 2% inflation increase and with not the new amount cause this is a 223 would be only one time, then with old amount, which is 374, that will be like all of them from the general fund, the CDBG fund, and the utility fund (mumbled) total 374 and this is will add 2% for the inflation every year, and the Commission will know that we do this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 16 only one time, just because I'm worried about some organizations, they gonna lose their matching fund, so they can get more money from somewhere else, but since they will know from now and on, we are not going to have this every year. They will figure another source to try, you know, to have the matching money after what they get from us. I ... I really, that's' what I propose, because I, you know just talking about the Shelter House. I always, you know, there is a lot of need for there, and even though they doing great job, but they are not really covering all the needs. I been taking people to the Shelter House and we stay until 6:00 and they cannot find a place to stay, because they are full! So just ... you know, I think they doing great job and that's my proposal. Cole/ You know I was actually ready to come in here and make the unpopular choice and say, you know, that I would support not fully funding. Um, because it is easy to say yes to organizations that we all love, um, and we all admire, and we all are so grateful in our community, and it's incredibly difficult to say no to those organizations that do such wonderful, um work, as far as that goes. So certainly it's the easy thing, especially as stewards of taxpayers, to say yes, um, and it's very hard to say no, because it's a very unpopular, um, position, and it's never .... never easy to say no, and anyone who may decide that decision I certainly respect that position. But I am persuaded based upon the data, the clear numbers, it's an emotional topic. We all feel very strongly about this, but frankly, Chair, the way you came and presented the data and the numbers, I think, was very compelling, and I think what was most compelling was the numbers of people that we have, um, welcomed into this community, which .... which is a favorable trend. Um, Geoff, you had brought up in one of our, um, emails population trends. Um, we are one of the fastest growing cities in the state of Iowa. We also have one of the highest growing rates of, um, international residents coming throughout the world, so we do have the needs, and I think, Jim, you bring up a very sober point about the unlimited means, um, but I think to Charlie's point was I think very effective, wherever you are, Charlie, um, these are professional organizations. Um, sober organizations. Data -driven organizations, um, that do these five-year forecasts in terms of what the look is, and I think we can all assume that our demographic and our population trends are gonna ... are going to increase at that rate. So, and then finally related to the, um, State and federal government, there's no, um, doubt we're facing a headwind, um, from our legislature as well as from the federal government, but we can't control where they stand or where, um, the State stands, but we can control where we stand, and I think we need to make very clear on that. As to the 2%, I think that sounds reasonable, but what I propose is a conversation going forward is that over these next six months, I would of like to have seen this on the front end of the budget process, rather than at this process. I do not think this is an ideal time to do it, um, I would like to see our HCDC partners come up with a viable funding mechanism, cause I do think we have some flexibility in terms of how we fund some of our services, our core services. So I'm gonna make that, um, choice of the full at 260, with a discussion as to how we move forward in terms of additional funding streams moving forward. And I ... I concur with Mazahir (mumbled) definitely be one- time. We're not looking at this as an ongoing, uh, fund, because we do have these budget pressures because of State and federal policy, but that's where I am at this point. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 17 Salih/ Just before, you know, just I .... I wanna add just one thing, I'm sorry! You know, and the 260 or the 223, because you guys always (unable to understand) money will come from, and I know we don't want to rob the City Manager, you know, budget instead of saving like money, we can take that out from the surplus, which is from the facility reserve, and this is could be 223. I know 223 .... is for to reserve facility, but we can really invest, this is not a lot of money, if we take it from there. It not gonna make like really big different if we don't have this 200, that means we are not going to build the facility, just take that instead of build the facility right now and we can build communities and use that money to, for the community. Throgmorton/ What are we calling that fund, Geoff, contingency fund for the public transit facility? Is that the term you've been using? Fruin/ Um, well a facility reserve fund for municipal facilities. Throgmorton/ So that's what you're referring to, Maz, right? Take money out of this facility reserve fund (both talking) Salih/ Right, cause we would like one million something 600 or .... over there, we can pull only 200 because we still need more money for that facility, and this is only one-time, so we don't interrupt the City Manager budget that he already (both talking) Throgmorton/ I understand. So, Geoff, I .... I think I remember reading in your memo to us that ....we're actually making a two-year, it's a two-year cycle, so that the decision we make pertaining to the first year applies to the second year, looking ahead? Fruin/ Um, that .... that was the intent going into this. Um, again if you ... if you decide to fully fund, um, at the HCDC recommendation, I would suggest that you .... you not commit to two years and that you go through this application process and the allocation process again, unless you wanna, you know, if you wanna make this....your top budget priority goin' into next year, um, you know, we'll make every effort to fully fund it that second year but.... there's.....there's opportunity costs that come with that so.... Throgmorton/ Yeah, for .... Rockne, I ... I think given your recommendation about 260, and Maz, I think you clearly agree with this, um, I find it hard to imagine that we will incr...if we increase the ... the allocation by $260,000, this year, and then suggest next year that that 260,000 won't be there, I don't think that'd go over very well. I think that would be a problem for us. Cole/ Maybe. Cross that bridge when we get there, but I think ... we're not, I'm not committing to that, and so I think anyone that comes up that's watching on TV, that makes that claim, that's certainly not our intent at this point. Taylor/ I think on .... on that note, it is something that we really need to seriously take a look at and as Rockne'd mentioned, you know, looking at it a little ahead of the budget cycle than what we're doing now, uh, because it is a serious concern that, uh, it's, first of all it's a sad This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 18 statement that, uh, there is so much need out in the community, but I think Paula said something that .... that kind of touched me, uh, because I think .... you can't put a value on....on these things, these .... these human needs and these services that these agencies provide, uh, you just have to look beyond the cost of something, and she called it the human cost, and I ... I, you know, we really need to look at that and .... and what would be the consequences if. ... if we don't address these needs, uh, they're just (mumbled) members of our community and we need to help them out, and it should be a priority, it should be a budget priority, you know. That's my opinion. Throgmorton/ Yeah, so .... Eleanor, I spoke with Susan earlier today. She told me what she would do if she was here. Can I bring that up, just for information purposes? Yeah, uh, she ... she told me that, you know, she would support Geof's recommendation, just ... and that's the simplest way to put it. Teague/ I do think .... the conversation here today could've influenced her position, and so I'm not certain that it would be wise to share her .... her thoughts without havin' experienced this. (several talking) Salih/ Yeah, because maybe if she were here and she hear what the people say she would change her mind. And even if you wanna count that as a no vote for this, that's not ... that's not legal. She's not here. She's (both talking) Throgmorton/ It can't count as a no (both talking) Dilkes/ There's no voting going on (several talking) Salih/ If we like three of us, we don't have to vote, but if like four of us said yes, that's it! This will go. But like bringing somebody else idea, she's not here, she's not here! Taylor/ Well it's helpful to hear what her thoughts were, but I think I agree that, uh, having heard some of the things that the Commissioners said and the process that they went through, I think that's kind of, uh, changed my opinion on it. Throgmorton/ Well fair enough. Uh, my own view is that I support what Geoff recommended, with a modest increase associated basically with inflation, which is why I asked the question about 2%, and I...really want to know whether agencies have reached out to corporations and large, owners of large apartment complexes, to get donations from the people who have wealth, uh.... and, you know, and if we ... if we just increase the amount by a very large fraction, uh, there's no incentive to do that. So ... that's my view and I know others have different views. Thomas/ Well LA think one of the benefits of. ... of the presentation was, um, and what I learned tonight was we, I think finally after years of this kind of stagnating program, have a much clearer idea of what the need is. I think that's a useful starting point. Um, which I think will help moving, as we move forward. The public, the community, potential donors will also, I would hope, have a better understanding of what the—what the need is, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 19 and that we'll all respond, you know, as we see fit. You know I am persuaded after hearing, you know, the testimony from the Commission that, um, that was a pretty... pretty serious issue we're dealing with. This is a safety net, um, for people who are the most vulnerable in our community, I mean that's a pretty serious issue. Urn, I ... I would suggest perhaps that, um, you know, it seemed like the number was sort of, okay, we're just gonna....forward to Council the $625,000 figure, um, one .... one thought I would have on that is that, you know, the Commission meet again, uh, look at this budget, uh, you know there was some discussion that some of the agencies were saying look, if we had known that, you know, that ... there was the possibility of additional funding, we would have had a different request. Um, you know I would say, from my standpoint, if we .... if we found a number that was not .... not exceeding the 625, but there might be some adjustments within that figure in terms of those .... those agencies being able to have another opportunity to ... to weigh in on this, um, that might be useful. Um, but it....it does seem to me there's just been too .... too long a period of time where the... the funding's been flat and then as was noted, the needs have increased so dramatically, and then I ... I, moving forward, we're clearly going to need to look at this program. I mean it's .... um, and .... and how we as a community, with the City as a participant in that, move forward, and you know, carry what we feel we can carry forward, but um, for the time being I think this seems appropriate to .... to fully fund the requests. Throgmortonl Bruce, did you wanna say (both talking) Teague/ When is the... allocations for the funds by the Commission due? I have no idea. Fruin/ Looks like March 21St is our, uh, internal deadline, and that's driven by the, uh, HUD requirements for the report. So.... Teague/ While the Commission was up here, you know, I kinda heard a little bit of, um, you know, we .... we really do need to revamp the program, um, there's.... there's room to revamp how, you know, the process has been done in the past. Um, we are certainly, um, behind when it comes down to .... you know, not funding and increasin' the funding for, um, the Aid to Agency program for a long time. I .... I guess at this point we're just either gonna make a decision yes to move forward or, you know, do we go with, um, with what the Commission has recommended or do we go with what the City has recommended. Urn, my first initial request would be, Commission, can you all think about the discussion today and then come back. That would be my first request. I'm not even sure if that's possible. Throgmorton/ You mean with a different dollar figure to allocate. Teague/ Yes, I ... I mean, there.... there's huge valid points. I am all about public service, and the needs that are here. I mean every body up here has said it. Um, I also know that when people go to get CDBQ you know, get funding, um, it is well known that, you know, gettin' the, 100% of your asking amount is not typically what's going to happen. So I don't know if it is right to ask the Commission, or if it's even plausible, to ask the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 20 Commission to come back to us, or do we have to make a decision right now to give them direction? Cole/ (mumbled) budget deadline, isn't that the main issue, Geoff? Frain/ Well I think we could put a dollar amount on that and .... and (both talking) I just ... it's been a tough process. There's been a lot of meetings. I think it's been tough on the Commissioncrs. It's been tough on the agencies. I would... personally encourage you to try to make a decision, for the short-term. Teague/ Sure. Frain/ Whether it's fully funded or somewhere in between or mine, uh, make a decision for this allocation and then let's .... let's have some of those more long-term process -oriented discussions when the pressure's off a Iittle bit. Teague/ Very hard decision. Um .... I'm going to go with, you know, the fully funding, um, from the facility fands.... of course I would love to really have like this is our, you know, process to increase the Aid to Agency fund, but if we can't elaborate and have more discussion, um, I'm gonna say fully fimded, because .... I mean the need is there. I really wish that we had this back a couple of months ago and there could have been discussion on how to increase this amount, um, I am .... I have fear that come next year, uh, there... nobody's gonna want this fund to go down, and I think that's what, you know, that's the possibility, and what we see, you know, as the requests now, we're gonna get the same response next year that we have to have this money or our program won't be functional, um.....I'm gonna go with the fully funding, and I am also gonna request that the funds come from the facility funds. Cole/ My footnote is I would just leave it to Geoffs discretion. Throgmorton/ About where to pull the funds? (both talking) I would prefer to leave it to Geoffs discretion myself. All right, I think there's clear support, five people clearly, uh, want to fully fund the agencies. And .... so I think we need a follow up discussion, but that's I think clearly the (both talking) Fruin/ ...make sure the staff that works with the Commission doesn't have any answers before we adjourn here, but uh, from my understanding it'Il be fully funding, fully funded for this year. We'll .... we'll do another application process next year. You're not makin' a two- year commitment, is that correct? (several talking) We'll go through, and then we'll work through budget allocations headin' into fiscal year 2 Ps budget. Salih/ Still wanna add the 2% (several talking) No, no, I mean (both talking) Taylor/ The cost of living. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. Page 21 Salih/ For next year, so they will know we are not gonna do the fully funded, but we might increase it 2%. Throgmorton/ I think we should defer (both talking). Fruin/ I think what I'd like to do is .... is sit down and have some more discussions with the agencies, to Rockne's point, um, you know, I accept some responsibility for this because I think we could have engaged, uh, these Iast few years with some agencies on the front end of the budget, which we haven't done at a staff level, and .... and .... and maybe helped avoid where we're at, uh, so I'd like some more time to ... to vet that, um, and hopefully the recommendation that you see next January for us will ... may not be exactly what the agencies want, but at least will be informed by the ... the input that, uh, currently they only share through the application process through HCDC. Salih/ Sure. Throgmorton/ Okay! Good deal. While that's a lengthy discussion, but a valuable one. So (both talking) Fruin/ One last thing, Mayor, just cause I .... I wanna be sure (laughs) in case we get into this. Not knowing where the CDBG funding is, but knowing... guessing it's going to be around that 10 0, 000 level, we're going to fully fund if CDBG comes in a little higher than our... our general fund contribution may be a little lower. If CDBG comes in a little lower, we'll raise our general fund contribution up a little bit. Throgmorton/ Sounds reasonable to me! Fruin/ (several talking) ...fully fund directive. Throgmorton/ Okay. So, folks, it's 15 till. We should take a break, uh, so that means I think we're just gonna have to reconvene the work session after the formal meeting. (BREAK FOR FORMAL MEETING) (RECONVENE WORK SESSION) Clarification of Agenda Items: Throgmorton/ Okay, so our work session for .... February the 5a' is back in session. First item is clarification of agenda items and we just went through the agenda, so we don't really need to do much about this but I do want to mention one thing, havin' to do with Item 19, the resolution concerning the Labor Center. Uh, just want you to know that as a matter of courtesy, I reached out to President Harreld and informed him a few days ago that this topic, this resolution, would be on the formal meeting agenda, shared with him a copy of the resolution, so he wouldn't be caught by surprise, and he appreciated that I think. Uh, anybody else wanna bring up anything havin' to do with, uh, you know agenda items, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 5, 2019. 15. Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 319.356.5230 RESOLUTION NO. 19-150 Consider a resolution allocating human services Legacy Aid to Agencies funding for the Fiscal Year 2020, July 1, 2019 — June 30, 2020. Whereas, the City of Iowa City budgeted for aid to local human services agencies; and Whereas, the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) recommended allocations of Legacy Aid to Agencies funding amongst human services agencies at its January 17, 2019 meeting; and Whereas, the amount of aid proposed to be allocated, $625,500, is budgeted as Aid to Human Service Agencies in the FY20 Budget. Now, Therefore, be it resolved the by City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The funding recommendations, Exhibit A, from the Housing and Community Development Commission are hereby adopted. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute agreements for Legacy Aid to Agencies with the organizations identified in Exhibit A. Passed and approved this 4th —day of June , 2019. G . lvyyor Approved by Attest: tty Clerk City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 19-150 Page 2 It was moved by Teague and seconded by Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Throgmorton Cole the Exhibit A: FY20 Legacy Aid to Agencies Funding Recommendations Agency FY19 Allocation FY20 Request Allocation FY20 Main Priority 4 C's Community Coord. Child Care $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 High Child Care Services Arc of Southeast Iowa $0 $20,000 $20,000 Medium Disabilty Services Big Brothers / Big Sisters $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 Medium Youth Services Crisis Center of Johnson County $40,000 $66,000 $66,000 High Food Banks Domestic Violence Intervention Program $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 High Domestic Violence Services Elder Services Inc. $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 Medium Senior Services Free Lunch Program $15,000 $16,000 $16,000 High Food Banks HACAP $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 High Childcare Services Housing Trust Fund of JC $24,000 $30,000 $30,000 High Affordable Housing Inside Out Rentry Community $15,000 $30,000 $30,000 High Homeless Services Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic $15,000 $17,500 $17,500 Medium Health Services Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $0 $25,000 $25,000 Low Homeownership Assistance Neighborhood Centers of JC $34,300 $55,000 $55,000 High Childcare Services Pathways Adult Day Health Center $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 Medium Senior/Disability Services Prelude Behavioral Services $16,000 $20,000 $20,000 Medium Substance Abuse Services Rape Victim Advocacy Program $20,000 $23,000 $23,000 High Mental Health Services Shelter House $50,000 $85,000 $85,000 High Homeless Services Table to Table $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 High Food Banks United Action for Youth $27,400 $33,000 $33,000 Medium Youth Services Total Request: $391,700 $625,500 $625,500