HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-12-14 ResolutionItem Number: 4.b.
D ecember 14, 2021
1. R es olution to is s ue C igarette P ermit to Malka 13, Inc ., dba Evergreen S moke S hop, 1661 S . F irs t Ave.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Cigarette Resolution
1 ,b
Prepared by: City Clerk's Office,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5043
Resolution Number: 21-298
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:
Evergreen Smoke Shop — 1661 S. First Ave.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 20 21 •
J pproved by
Attest: ' C ' 101 1_
City Clerk City Attorney's Office
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 5.a.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion Exten d ing the Timeframe for the Ad Hoc Truth & Recon ciliation
Commission to Complete its Ch arge.
Prepared B y:Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator
Reviewed By:Eric Goers, City Attorney
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:No I mpact
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: To extend the timeline for the A d Hoc Truth & Reconciliation
Commission to complete its mission through J une 2023. Motion passed 8-0.
Attachments:Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T his Resolution extends the timeframe of the A d Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission to
complete its charges and other work f rom J une 2022 to J une 2023. The extension was discussed
and recommended by the Commission. T he City Council directed staf f to prepare the extension
at its November 30, 2021 work session.
Background / Analysis:
Resolution 20-228, provided f or the A d Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission to serve from the
date of appointment of all members to J une 30, 2022. T he Commission was created in
September 2020 to bear witness to the truth of racial injustice in I owa C ity and to carry out
restorative justice, through collection of testimony and public hearings.
Due to unanticipated delays and in recognition of the signif icant remaining scope of work to be
completed, it is recommended that an extension be provided to extend the work of the
Commission through J une of 2023.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
Correspondence to Council
5, CV
Prepared by: Stefanie Bowers, Equity Director, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240, (319)356-5022
Resolution No. 21-299
Resolution Extending the Timeframe for the Ad Hoc Truth and
Reconciliation Commission to Complete its Charge
Whereas, the City Council passed Resolution 20-228 at its September 16, 2020 meeting to
establish theAd Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and
Whereas, Resolution 20-228 established the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation
Commission to bear witness to the truth of racial injustice in Iowa City and to carry out
restorative justice, through the collection of testimony and public hearings, with such
work to include a recommendation to the Council of a plan for dedicating and/or
renaming public spaces and/ or rights of way in honor of the Black Lives Matter
movement; and
Whereas, the City Council committed to allocate City funds of$1,000,000 during the
present Fiscal Year to support Resolution 20-159 (the resolution of initial City Council
commitments addressing the Black Lives Matter movement and systemic racism),
which includes a variety of initiatives, among them the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission; and
Whereas, the Resolution 20-228 stated the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation
Commission members shall serve from the date of appointment of all members to
June 30, 2022; and
Whereas, the charge of the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to bear
witness to the truth of racial injustice in Iowa City and to carry out restorative justice,
through collection of testimony and public hearings; and
Whereas, in order to provide the best possible foundation for moving forward on a
future based on equity, the original end date is impractical; and
Whereas, at its November 18, 2021 meeting by a majority, the Ad Hoc Truth and
Reconciliation Commission vote recommended an extension through June 2023 to
the City Council.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
that;
1. The timeframe for the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission to complete
its charges and other work be extended through June 2023.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021.
l
Ma
Approved by
Attest: ' CCIP " TP f. . '
City Clerk City Attor y's Office— 12/08/2021
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
x Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 5.b.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion Amen d ing the Iowa City Hou sing Auth ority Housin g Choice
Vou ch er Prog ram (H C VP) Admin istrative Plan .
Prepared B y:Steven J . Rackis, Housing Administrator
Reviewed By:Tracy Hightshoe, Director of Neighborhood and Development Services
Erika Kubly, Neighborhood S ervices Coordinator
F iscal I mpact:No impact.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Chart of current policy and proposed amendments
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he purpose of the HC V Administrative Plan is to govern administration of the HC V and Family
Self-S ufficiency programs administered by the I owa City Housing Authority, including those
policies not covered under F ederal regulations. The Housing Authority proposes the attached
amendments to the Assignment of Bedroom S izes.
Background / Analysis:
T he intent of HUD requirements is that the smallest appropriate bedroom size be assigned to
participant families without overcrowding. T he proposed amendments to Section 6.0: Assignment of
Bedroom Sizes (Subsidy Standards) are the result of the Housing Authority’s analysis of requests for
higher subsidy standards.
While this proposed amendment will increase the amount of Housing Assistance Payments (H AP) paid
to a landlord on behalf of the family, the ability of eligible families to more quickly find and lease-up
suitable units will also increase. Quicker lease-up rates benefit both the family and the Housing
Authority.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Chart of current policy and proposed amendments
resolution
Chart of Current Policy and Proposed Amendments to the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
Administrative Plan
Section 6.0: Assignment of Bedroom Sizes (Subsidy Standards) 24 CFR 982.402
The intent of HUD requirements is that the smallest appropriate bedroom size be assigned to
participant families without overcrowding. Subsidy assignments will allow at least one bedroom
for each two persons.
Subsidy will be determined using the following guidelines:
Current Policy Proposed
1. A zero (0) bedroom will be assigned to any
family consisting of a single person
(excluding elderly and disabled).
2. An unborn child will not be counted in
determining subsidy standards when the
family size is greater than one (1).
3. A family that consists of a pregnant woman
only, and (no other persons), will be treated
as a two-person family.
4. One-bedroom will be assigned to a single
adult with a child under the age of one (1)
(Removed).
5. One-bedroom will be assigned for two
children of the same sex regardless of age.
6. One-bedroom will be assigned for children
of the opposite sex who are both under the
age of six (6).
7. One-bedroom will be assigned for every two
adults regardless of relationship, unless 18
or older and a High School student.
8. One-bedroom will be added for a live-in
aide.
9. In the case of shared custody of a child
(children), the child (children) must be in the
household no less than 51% of the time to
be considered when determining subsidy.
Pending custody issues will be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis considering the
reasonable likelihood of success. The
1. A one (1) bedroom will be assigned to
any family consisting of a single person
(Amendment).
2. An unborn child will not be counted in
determining subsidy standards when
the family size is greater than one (1).
3. A family that consists of a pregnant
woman only will be treated as a two-
person family.
4. One-bedroom will be assigned for two
children of the same sex regardless of
age.
5. One-bedroom will be assigned for
children of the opposite sex who are
both under the age of six (6).
6. One-bedroom will be assigned for every
two adults regardless of relationship,
unless younger than 23 or a disabled
adult (Amendment).
7. One-bedroom will be added for a live-in
aide.
8. In the case of shared custody of a child
(children), the child (children) must be in
the household no less than 50% of the
time to be considered when determining
subsidy. Pending custody issues will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis
considering the reasonable likelihood of
December 8, 2021
Page 2
household may be required to provide
written verification that a child resides with
the family such as a court order, school
registration documents, etc. At the sole
discretion of the Housing Authority,
additional subsidy may be granted for 50/50
shared custody. Only one (1) household will
be granted the dependent deduction.
10. In determining subsidy, the Iowa City
Housing Authority will include children who
are temporarily away from home because of
placement in foster care. Temporary is
defined as less than one year.
11. Subsidy allowances will be adjusted
accordingly for foster parents who have not
had a foster child in placement for one year.
12. The Iowa City Housing Authority may grant
exceptions to its established subsidy
standards if the ICHA determines the age,
sex, handicap, or relationship of family
members or other personal circumstance
justifies the exception. The ICHA will review
documents from DHS, physicians, or other
similar sources to make this determination.
success. The household may be
required to provide written verification
that a child resides with the family such
as a court order, school registration
documents, etc. At the sole discretion of
the Housing Authority, additional
subsidy may be granted for 50/50
shared custody. Only one (1) household
will be granted the dependent deduction
(Amendment).
9. In determining subsidy, the Iowa City
Housing Authority will include children
who are temporarily away from home
because of placement in foster
care. Temporary is defined as less than
one year.
10. Subsidy allowances will be adjusted
accordingly for foster parents who have
not had a foster child in placement for
one year.
11. The Iowa City Housing Authority may
grant exceptions to its established
subsidy standards if the ICHA
determines the age, sex, handicap, or
relationship of family members or other
personal circumstance justifies the
exception. The ICHA will review
documents from DHS, physicians, or
other similar sources to make this
determination.
,b
Prepared by Steven J. Rackis, ICHA Administrator 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240;
319-887-6065
Resolution No. 21-300
Resolution amending the Iowa City Housing Authority Housing
Choice Voucher program (HCVP) Administrative Plan.
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Iowa City functions as the Iowa City Housing
Authority and the Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the adoption of
a Housing Choice Voucher(HCVP) Administrative Plan; and
Whereas, the proposed changes to the assignment of bedroom sizes (Subsidy Standards)
constitutes a significant amendment to the HCVP Administrative Plan; and
Whereas, the proposed changes will increase the subsidy paid to the landlord and will
increase eligible families' ability to more quickly find and lease-up suitable units; and
Whereas, quicker lease-up rates benefit both families and the Housing Authority; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the public interest will be served by the approval of the
amendment to the HCVP Administrative 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 HCVP Administrative Plan, as amended, is approved as the policy of the Iowa
City Housing Authority.
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify appropriate copies of this
resolution together with any necessary certifications as may be required by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021 =
Il.r
J n �• Approved by
ATTEST: Y ' ' ) Tri
City lerk City Attorneyiffr:e
(Sue Dulek— 12/08/2021)
Resolution No. 21-300
Page 2
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 5.c.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion approvin g , auth orizing and d irectin g th e Mayor to execute and the
City Clerk to attest an Agreemen t b y an d between th e City of Iowa City and
Stearn s, Conrad , and Schmid t Consulting Engin eers, Inc. dba S C S
Engin eering, In c. to provid e engin eering consultant services for th e Iowa City
Landfill Cell F Y23 Constru ction Proj ect.
Prepared B y:J oe Welter, S r. Civil E ngineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$346,300 available in the Future L andfill Cell Project, Account #L 3338
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Agreement
Executive S ummary:
T his agenda item approves the consultant agreement for the preliminary design, final design,
preparation of a project manual for bidding, permitting, bidding assistance, and construction
services for the construction of the next landfill cell, C ell F iscal Year 23 (F Y23), for the I owa City
L andfill and Recycling Center (L andfill).
Background / Analysis:
T he current landfill cell, Cell F Y18, is projected to have two to three years remaining for solid
waste disposal. To continue solid waste disposal services at the L andfill, the City must construct a
new landf ill cell, Cell F Y23, in accordance with State and F ederal R egulations. I t takes about
three years to complete the process of designing, permitting, constructing, and completing the
initial four feet of fill.
Design and initial permitting of the next cell is planned for 2022. Construction and initial fill are
planned f or 2023. T his should allow transition of the solid waste disposal in the new cell roughly in
the same time frame as completion of filling in the current cell.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
Agreement
5. �
Prepared by:Joe Welter, Public Works,410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240;(319)356-5144
Resolution No. 21-301
Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to
execute and the City Clerk to attest an Agreement by and between
the City of Iowa City and Stearns, Conrad, and Schmidt
Consulting Engineers, Inc. dba SCS Engineering, Inc. to provide
engineering consultant services for the Iowa City Landfill Cell
FY23 Construction Project.
Whereas, the City desires to continue utilizing the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center(Landfill)
for solid waste disposal services, and;
Whereas, to continue solid waste disposal services at the Landfill, the City desires to construct a
new landfill cell in Fiscal Year(FY) 2023 in accordance with State and Federal Regulations, and;
Whereas, the next planned cell is to be located immediately north of the current cell, Cell FY18,
and;
Whereas, the City desires to obtain the services of a qualified consulting firm to provide preliminary
design, final design, preparation of a project manual for bidding, permitting, bidding assistance, and
constructions services for the Iowa City Landfill Cell FY23 Construction Project, and;
Whereas, the City issued a Request for Qualifications, On-Call Professional Design, Engineering,
and Planning Services for the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center (2021 - 2022), March 17,
2021, to private consulting firms interested in providing design and engineering services related to
public improvement projects in the City of Iowa City, and;
Whereas, submittals were received from consulting firms and evaluated by a selection committee,
and;
Whereas, Consultant was selected based on qualifications, key personnel, project approach, and
fees and rates, and;
Whereas, the City has negotiated a Consultant Agreement for said consulting services with
Consultant to provide said services; and
Whereas, it is in the public interest to enter into said Consultant Agreement with Consultant; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Future Landfill Cell Project, Account #L3338,
and;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The Consultant Agreement attached hereto is in the public interest, and is approved as to
form and content.
2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached
Consultant Agreement.
Resolution No. 21-301
Page 2
3. The City Manager is authorized to execute amendments to the Consultant Agreement as
they may become necessary.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021
MI . sr:
Approved by
•
Attest: �� Y •
� cA1
City Clerk City Attorney's ce
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen— 12/08/2021)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
x Weiner
Consultant Agreement
This Agreement, made and entered into this 14th day of December , 2021 , by
and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City, and
Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. dba SCS Engineers, a Virginia
corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant.
Whereas, the City desires to continue utilizing the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center
(Landfill)for solid waste disposal services, and;
Whereas, to continue solid waste disposal services at the Landfill, the City desires to construct a
new landfill cell in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 in accordance with State and Federal Regulations, and;
Whereas, the next planned cell is to be located immediately north of the current cell, Cell FY18,
and;
Whereas, the City desires to obtain the services of a qualified consulting firm to provide preliminary
design, final design, preparation of a project manual for bidding, permitting, bidding assistance, and
constructions services for the Iowa City Landfill Cell FY23 Construction Project, and;
Whereas, the City issued a Request for Qualifications, On-Call Professional Design, Engineering,
and Planning Services for the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center (2021 — 2022), March 17,
2021, to private consulting firms interested in providing design and engineering services related to
public improvement projects in the City of Iowa City, and;
Whereas, submittals were received from consulting firms and evaluated by a selection committee,
and;
Whereas, Consultant was selected based on qualifications, key personnel, project approach, and
fees and rates, and;
Whereas, the City has negotiated a Consultant Agreement for said consulting services with
Consultant to provide said services, and;
Whereas, it is in the public interest to enter into said Consultant Agreement with Consultant; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Future Landfill Cell Project, Account Number
L3338, and;
Now Therefore, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the City does now contract with
the Consultant to provide services as set forth herein.
I. Scope of Services
Consultant agrees to perform the following services for the City, and to do so in a timely and
satisfactory manner.
Task 1: FY23 Cell Conceptual Design
The Consultant will establish the major project objectives, the conceptual details in pre-design
planning, collect needed design information including borrow soil testing, prepare a preliminary
project construction cost estimate, and prepare and submit the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Request for Construction. The following activities will be completed as part of
this task:
- 2 -
1. Develop concepts for:
a. Northern extent of FY23 Cell (includes establishing base map for project).
b. Location of roadway into FY23 Cell.
c. Storm water management in FY23 Cell.
d. Volume of fluff material required to fill basal footprint of FY23 Cell.
e. Anticipated lifespan of FY23 Cell.
f. Tie-in to future northwest (NW) expansion cell.
g. Gas Collection System Expansion (horizontal pipes and vertical wells in Cells
FY09 and FY18)
2. Develop cost estimate for construction of conceptual FY23 Cell.
3. Develop an overall project schedule to allow construction of FY23 Cell to be completed
and available for waste disposal by summer 2023.
4. Meet with the City to discuss the developed concepts, cost estimate, project schedule,
and requirements for construction.
5. Survey to obtain/confirm data needed for design.
6. Complete borrow soil testing to identify soil availability and characteristics for the cell liner
construction.
7. Prepare DNR Request for Construction to include:
a. Groundwater Underdrain System Design
b. Head Over Liner and Leachate Recirculation
c. Pipe Capacity
d. Pipe Strength
e. Interim Storm Water Management
f. Airspace Volume
g. Puncture Protection
h. Quality Control & Assurance Plan (QCA Plan) for New Cell Construction
Settlement Analysis
j. Slope Stability Analysis
k. Plan Sheets (30% Design Set)
The settlement analysis and slope stability analysis detailed in Items 7(i) and 7(j) above will
include the work detailed below:
• Consultant will analyze the interim and closure phase, global, static and seismic stability
and laminar static and seismic stability for the post closure cover liner, using Geo Slope's
Geostudio SlopeW (v 2021), which is a two dimensional (2D) general limit equilibrium
(GLE) numeric model. Consultant will begin by analyzing the critical interim (working
phase) and post closure profiles for static loading conditions and then will evaluate the
seismic stability for horizontal seismic loads ranging from 0 to 1.Og which will provide the
critical potential slip surface yield acceleration (Ay). Consultant will compare the Ay with
the most recent (2014) United States Geological Survey (USGS) reported maximum
acceleration (Amax), to determine the potential for permanent deformation of the primary
and final cover liner sequences during post closure the site's post closure seismic event
having a probability of exceedance of 10% over a period of 250 years per United States
(US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
• Consultant will also use available geotechnical site data, to be provided by the City (as
available), including, geotechnical tests, soil borings, and Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) models, to compute the total post closure settlement of the primary
liner along the alignment of the leachate collection system to evaluate the efficacy of the
liner system and the capacity of the leachate laterals and main to carry the anticipated
maximum leachate flow. If the City is unable to provide sufficient geotechnical site data
for Consultant to perform the settlement analysis and slope stability analysis, Consultant
shall identify to the City any additional testing, sampling, borings, and other geotechnical
data necessary to perform such analyses, and City will either provide such items to
- 3 -
Consultant at City's expense, or Consultant's scope of services and compensation shall
be adjusted to account for the extra costs and scope. •
• Consultant will further develop design information on the primary liner anchor trench to
provide for Flexible Membrane Liner (FML) anchor trench pull out to prevent side slope
FML rupture during construction and following waste and final cover placement, and
Consultant will check the maximum allowable vertical deflection (Factor of Safety— FOS)
of the leachate lateral and main design given the anticipated permitted maximum height
of overlying post closure waste and cover liner placement.
8. Respond to DNR questions and public notice follow up, if required.
Once information has been provided and decisions made related to the list in Item 1 above, the
Consultant will prepare an updated project schedule at this point with the intent to plan for the
FY23 Cell to be constructed in sufficient time to allow for transition from the FY18 Cell into the
FY23 Cell (estimated summer 2023). An in-person meeting will be held with the City and
Consultant project team to review progress to date and decisions made.
Task 2: Design and Construction Document Preparation
Consultant will prepare a set of construction plans for the FY23 Cell. The documents developed
will be used to obtain contractor bids and guide the construction process. The construction plans
will include the following sheets:
• Cover/title sheet;
• Base map for landfill showing existing landfill conditions prior to construction, based on
information, data, and maps to be provided by the City in AutoCAD format, including,
without limitation, contours, stormwater ponds, buildings, roadways, drainage channels,
groundwater wells, and landfill gas wells;
• Groundwater underdrain system;
• FY23 Cell liner grading plan with staking grid;
• Horizontal landfill gas (LFG) collection system expansion in FY18 Cell;
• Details including liner cross section, liner tie-in, leachate collection pipes, and other
pertinent details for the installation of the low permeability soil, geosynthetic liner and
leachate collection system in addition to providing storm water controls; and
• A detailed fill sequencing plan will be developed and provided to the City with the final
design.
In general, this task assumes that the 30% design drawings approved by the DNR will be
increased in detail to accommodate existing landfill conditions and provide sufficient horizontal
and vertical control points for construction.
Consultant will prepare technical specifications to further describe material and construction
requirements. A complete project manual will be provided to the City as well as original copies of
all signature and certification pages. The City will arrange the distribution of bidding documents.
Extra project manuals will be obtained by the awarded contractor.
The cost estimate for construction of conceptual FY23 Cell prepared in Task 1 will be updated
prior to putting the project out for bid.
Task 3: Bidding Assistance
After the construction plans and specifications have been finalized, Consultant will assist the City
with soliciting bids for the project. Consultant anticipates the following tasks will be required to
solicit bids:
-4 -
1. Coordinate and conduct a pre-bid meeting with potential contractors to answer questions
regarding the project.
2. Correspond and answer contractors' questions throughout the bid period regarding the
technical aspects of the project. Legal contracting questions will be referred to the City's
attorney for resolution.
3. Prepare required addenda to the bid package, if necessary.
4. Review the bids received for responsiveness and qualifications.
5. Provide a recommendation to the City for contractor selection based on the responsiveness
of the bids, contractor qualifications, and contract price.
Consultant assumes that the City will coordinate and conduct the public bid opening and
Consultant's attendance will not be required.
Task 4: Quality Control & Assurance Services for Construction
Consultant will provide quality control and assurance (QCA) services for the cell construction in
accordance with the approved permit documents (i.e., DNR Request for Construction and QCA
Plan) for the site and Iowa Administrative Code (IAC) Section 567-113.7(6). Consultant will have
a technician onsite during construction activities when the contractor is onsite unless it is mutually
determined by City Staff and Consultant that onsite representation is not required (contractor
equipment mobilization and demobilization, for example).
Expected tasks to be performed during QCA in accordance with the QCA Plan and IAC 567-
113.7(6) include the following:
• Groundwater Underdrain Oversight and Testing
o Construction oversight
o Soil/sand sample collection
• Compacted Soil Liner Oversight and Testing
o Construction oversight
o Soil sample collection
o Nuclear moisture/density gauge testing
• Geomembrane Installation Oversight and Testing
o Construction oversight
• Geosynthetic documentation, testing, and sample collection including the following:
o Material inventory
o Panel placement
o Trial welds
o Seam logs
o Non-destructive testing
o Field destructive testing
o Laboratory destructive sample collection/shipping
o Repair log
• Leachate Collection System Oversight and Testing
o Construction oversight
o Drainage layer sample collection
Surveying
Soil and drainage layer thickness measurements are required as part of IAC 567-113.7(6).
Consultant will subcontract with Shive Hattery to perform the required surveying. Consultant
assumes that the surveying will be completed in no more than six trips to the site. Two trips each
for subgrade, compacted soil liner and drainage layer thickness verification. Construction staking
and other construction surveying services are not included in this scope of services as they are
anticipated to be provided by the contractor.
- 5 -
Construction Contract Administration Assistance
Consultant will assist the City with construction contract administration including reviewing
contractor material submittals, reviewing contractor pay applications, and providing weekly project
updates for the City. This task also includes a professional engineer registered in Iowa attending
the pre-construction meeting and two other one-day meetings during the project. These meetings
are anticipated to occur at the end of the compacted soil liner construction / beginning of
geosynthetics installation and near the end of the project for close out.
QCA Report Preparation
A professional engineer, registered in Iowa, will prepare a final report for submittal to the DNR in
accordance with IAC 567-113.7(6). A draft report will be submitted to the City for review prior to
submittal to the DNR.
Task 5: Project Management
In order to effectively communicate and share information throughout the cell design, bid, and
construction process, Consultant is proposing the following project management tasks:
• Project Kick-Off Meeting (#1): Purpose of this meeting is to meet onsite and confirm the
teams' understanding of the starting point for design and construction criteria.
• Project Meeting #2: Purpose of this meeting is to discuss the preliminary results of the cell
design concepts being evaluated under Task 1.
• Project Meeting #3: Purpose of this meeting is to review the 30% design drawings and
draft DNR Request for Construction.
• Project Meeting #4: Purpose of this meeting is to review the 60% design drawings.
• Project Meeting #5: Purpose of this meeting is to review the detailed plans and technical
specifications being prepared for bid documents and construction. This will occur at 90%
of design completion.
• Internal Bi-Weekly to Monthly Check-Ins: These meetings will be 15 minute meetings to
occur internally to address:
- Current status
— High-level questions
— Upcoming deliverables/schedule
— Challenges
• External Bi-Weekly to Monthly Check-Ins: These meetings will be 15 minute meetings to
occur with Staff to address:
- Current status
- High-level questions
- Upcoming deliverables/schedule
- Challenges
• Project Administration: This includes miscellaneous tasks associated with project
administration to observe whether the project appears to be on schedule and budget:
- Overall coordination
- Resource management
- Updates of overall project schedule
- Project deliverable management
- Telephone calls
- Project status reports
- 6 -
Document/Files to be provided by Iowa City
In order for Consultant to complete its scope of services, the City shall provide the following
historical documents and information:
• FY18 TDA alternatives analysis memo
• Pipe survey data for tie in to FY18 (Underdrain, leachate, FML, etc.)
• Design Capacity Report (-2018)
• Base liner grades —XML format, for previous cells and proposed future grades
• Top of Waste Grades (interim for FY18 and Final)
• Drone surveys from FY18 Construction
o FML and Final
• JB Holland Surveys
o Layer Thicknesses Spreadsheet
• Survey Needs
o Last Airspace —July 2021
• Request for Approval to Construct FY18 including Quality Control and Assurance Program
for New Cell Construction (word document)
II. Time of Completion
The Consultant shall complete the following phases of the Project in accordance with the following
schedule:
Task Estimated Start Date Estimated End Date
1 FY23 Cell Conceptual December 15, 2021 March 31, 2022
2 Design and Construction April 1, 2022 September 30, 2022
Document Preparation
3 Bidding Assistance October 1, 2022 February 28, 2023
4 Construction Quality Assurance March 1, 2023 July 31, 2023
Services
5 Project Management December 1, 2021 July 31, 2023
III. Compensation for Services
Consultant will perform its scope of services on a time and materials basis, in accordance with
the rates set forth in the following Fee Schedule. The total cost of services shall not exceed
$346,300. The current estimate for such services is summarized in the table below:
Task Estimated Cost
1 FY23 Cell Conceptual $79,400
2 Design and Construction Document Preparation $28,000
3 Bidding Assistance $13,100
4 Quality Control & Assurance Services $188,100
5 Project Management $37,700
Total $346,300
- 7 -
FEE SCHEDULE
Labor Category Rate
Senior Project Advisor $247
Senior Project Director $221
Project Director $205
Project Advisor $189
Senior Project Manager $173
Project Manager $158
Senior Project Professional $142
Project Professional $126
Staff Professional $116
Designer/Graphics $110
Associate Professional $100
Senior Technician $84
Technician $74
Project Administrator $89
Administrative Assistant $68
Note: Increase hourly rate by 1.5 for Saturday, Sunday, and holiday work or off-shift work when
required by client.
1. Schedule labor rates include overhead and profit on labor. Costs for sub-consultants,
subcontractors, job-related employee travel and subsistence, equipment, supplies, and
other direct costs are billed at cost plus a 15 percent administration fee.
2. A communication fee of 1 percent of project labor will be charged for telephone, copying,
postage, IT, and similar project production costs.
3. Invoices will be prepared monthly or more frequently for work in progress unless
otherwise agreed.
Printing Services
24-inch by 36-inch plots $25.00 each
36-inch by 48-inch plots $25.00 each
Additional Report Copies (varies depending on report) $25.00 - $50.00 per report
Support Vehicles
Support Vehicle $0.70 per mile
SCS Support Truck $40.00 per day plus $0.70 per mile
SCS Support Truck with Trailer $60.00 per day plus $0.85 per mile
SCS Utility Truck $60.00 per day plus $0.70 per mile
Rental Vehicle Cost plus 15%
Per Diem and Travel
Hotel, Airfare Cost plus 15%
Full-Day Meal Allowance $46.00 per day
Half-Day Meal Allowance $23.00 per day
Field Equipment and Supplies
Track-mounted Geoprobe® $750.00 per day
All Terrain Vehicle (ATV/UTV) $75.00 per day
Field Sampling Trailer $350.00 per day
GPS Surveying System $225.00 per day
Total Station Survey Equipment $120.00 per day
Misc. Survey Tools/Equipment $10.00 per day
Nuclear Density Gauge $100.00 per day
Photoionization Detector (PID) $100.00 per day
Water Level Indicator (<300 foot) $30.00 per day
- $ -
Oil/Water Interface Probe $60.00 per day
pH/Temperature/Conductivity Meter (for water) $20.00 per day
Peristaltic Pump $40.00 per day
Hand Augers (10-foot) $15.00 per day
Measuring Tape/Wheel $5.00 per day
Hand-held GPS Unit $25.00 per day
Generator $75.00 per day
Air Compressor(5 gallon) $25.00 per day
Electro fusion Machine $120.00 per day
Flow-Thru Multi-Parameter Meter $150.00 per day
Turbidimeter $35 per day
Composite Sampler $75 per day
QED Pump Controller $100 per day
GEM 2000 $150 per day
Flow Probe (15-foot) $15 per day
Digital Camera $10 per day
Expendable Equipment, Supplies & Rentals Cost+ 15%
- 9 -
IV. General Terms
A. The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and
agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts.
1. 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. Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all work
and services performed up to the time of termination. However, such sums shall not
be greater than the "not-to-exceed" amount listed in Section III. The City may
terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to the
Consultant.
C. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties
hereto, provided that no assignment shall be without the written consent of all Parties
to said Agreement.
D. It is understood and agreed that the retention of the Consultant by the City for the
purpose of the Project shall be as an independent contractor and shall be exclusive,
but the Consultant shall have the right to employ such assistance as may be required
for the performance of the Project.
E. It is agreed by the City that all records and files pertaining to information needed by
the Consultant for the project shall be available by said City upon reasonable request
to the Consultant. The City agrees to furnish all reasonable assistance in the use of
these records and files.
F. It is further agreed that no Party to this Agreement shall perform contrary to any
state, federal, or local law or any of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
G. At the request of the City, the Consultant shall attend meetings of the City Council
relative to the work set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by the City shall
be given with reasonable notice to the Consultant to assure attendance.
H. The Consultant agrees to furnish, upon termination of this Agreement and upon
demand by the City, copies of all basic notes and sketches, charts, computations,
and any other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant pursuant to this
Agreement without cost, and without restrictions or limitation as to the use relative
to specific projects covered under this Agreement. In such event, the Consultant
shall not be liable for the City's use of such documents on other projects.
The Consultant agrees to furnish all reports, specifications, and drawings with the
seal of a licensed professional as required by Iowa law.
The City agrees to tender the Consultant all fees in a timely manner, excepting,
however, that failure of the Consultant to satisfactorily perform in accordance with
this Agreement shall constitute grounds for the City to withhold payment of the
- 10 -
amount sufficient to properly complete the Project in accordance with this
Agreement.
K. Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the remaining
portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and continue in full force
and effect.
L. Original contract drawings shall become the property of the City. The Consultant
shall be allowed to keep reproducible copies for the Consultant's own filing use.
M. Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project will
be paid by the City.
N. Upon signing this Agreement, Consultant 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.
O. Indemnification
1. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless the City against any and all claims, demands, suits, loss,
expenses, including attorney's fees, and for any damages which may be
asserted, claimed or recovered against or from the City by reason of
personal injury, including bodily injury or death, and property damages,
including loss of use thereof, caused by Consultant's negligent acts, errors
or omissions in performing the work and/or services provided by Consultant
to the City pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. Consultant assumes full responsibility for any and all damage or injuries
which may result to any person or property by reason of Consultant's
negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the work and/or
services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement, and
agrees to pay the City for all damages caused to the City's premises resulting
from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant.
3. The Consultant's obligation to indemnify the City shall not include the
obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City against lability,
claims, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, to the extent
caused by or resulting from the negligent act, error, or omission of the City.
4. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "Consultant" means and includes
the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, sub-consultants, and others
for whom Consultant is legally liable, and the term "City" means and includes
the City of Iowa City, Iowa its Mayor, City Council members, employees, and
volunteers.
P. Insurance
1. The Consultant agrees at all times material to this Agreement to have and
maintain professional liability insurance covering the Consultant's liability for
the Consultant's negligent acts, errors and omissions in the sum of
- 11 -
$1,000,000 Per Claim, $1,000,000 Annual Aggregate, or a $1,000,000
Combined Single Limit. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable state
law, a Waiver of Subrogation Clause (endorsement) shall be added.
2. Consultant agrees to provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing
that all coverages, limits and endorsements required herein are maintained
and in full force and effect, and certificates of Insurance shall provide a
minimum thirty (30) day endeavor to notify, when available by Consultant's
insurer. If the Consultant receives a non-renewal or cancellation notice from
an insurance carrier affording coverage required herein, or receives notice
that coverage no longer complies with the insurance requirements herein,
Consultant agrees to notify the City within five (5) business days with a copy
of the non-renewal or cancellation notice.
Q. Standard of Care
1. The Consultant shall perform services for, and furnish deliverables to, the
City pertaining to the Project as set forth in this Agreement. The Consultant
shall possess a degree of learning, care and skill ordinarily possessed by
reputable professionals, practicing in this area under similar circumstances.
The Consultant shall use reasonable diligence and professional judgment in
the exercise of skill and application of learning.
2. Consultant represents that the Services and all its components shall be free
of defects caused by negligence; shall be performed in a manner consistent
with the standard of care of other professional service providers in a similar
Industry and application; shall conform to the requirements of this
Agreement; and shall be sufficient and suitable for the purposes expressed
in this Agreement.
3. All provisions of this Agreement shall be reconciled in accordance with the
generally accepted standards of the Engineering Profession.
4. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall exist without regard to, and
shall not be construed to be waived by, the availability or unavailability of any
insurance, either of City or Consultant.
R. There are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from the
execution of this Agreement, it is the entire Agreement, and no other monies or
considerations have been solicited.
S. 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.
- 12 -
For the City For the Consultant
By: By: 171-4
Print N me: Bruce Teague Print Name: Michael J. Miller
Title: Mayor Title: Vice President
Date: December 14, 2021 Date: December 8, 2021
Attest: ,i 1 G &Lim
Approved by/:
City Attor ey's Office — 4-ekrfa e
i f s
Date
Item Number: 5.d.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion approvin g , auth orizing and d irectin g th e Mayor to execute and the
City Clerk to attest an Agreemen t b y an d between th e City of Iowa City and
Strand Associates, Inc. to p rovide en g ineerin g con su l tan t services for the
Water Treatment Pl ant Chlorine F eeder System Upgrad e Proj ect.
Prepared B y:Scott Sovers, Asst. City E ngineer
Reviewed By:J on Durst, Water S uperintendent
J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$67,900, available in the Chlorine Feeder S ystem Upgrade account #W 3316
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Agreement
Executive S ummary:
T his agreement authorizes S trand A ssociates, I nc. to provide consultant services including design
development, preparation of construction documents, bid phase services and limited construction
administration and inspection services for the C hlorine Feeder S ystem Upgrade P roject. The
project generally includes the study of the existing conditions, presentation of design alternatives,
design options for the replacement or repair of chlorine feeder and scrubber systems, the removal
of ammonia feeder systems, and coordination of construction work not to impede water plant
production.
Background / Analysis:
Chlorine disinfection is critical to the proper treatment of I owa C ity’s drinking water. T he existing
gaseous chlorine feeder system is beyond its design life. T he automatic f eeders no longer
function in automatic mode and have been operated manually for the past year. T he feeder
equipment no longer has readily available replacement parts, the chlorine scrubber system is
situated in the elements and the control panel has deteriorated beyond repair. I n addition, the
ammonia feeder system is beyond repair and has not been used recently.
T hese systems need repair, replacement, or removal. T he intent of this project is to replace the
gaseous chlorine feeder equipment in-kind, repair and replace the necessary components of the
chlorine scrubber system and remove the nonoperational ammonia feeder system components.
F ocus for replacement and repair efforts will be on systems using standard parts and parts able to
withstand the elements to maximize design life and reliability.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
Agreement
Prepared by:Scott Savers,Asst.City Engineer,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240,(3191356-5142
Resolution No. 21-302
Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to
execute and the City Clerk to attest an Agreement by and
between the City of Iowa City and Strand Associates, Inc. to
provide engineering consultant services for the Water Treatment
Plant Chlorine Feeder System Upgrade Project
Whereas, the City of Iowa City desires to improve operation of the chlorination system through
replacement of existing chlorine feeders and replacement of pumps, control panel, and
accessories on the chlorine scrubber; and
Whereas, the City would like to remove obsolete ammonia feeder and scrubber equipment; and
Whereas, the City of Iowa City desires the services of a consulting firm to prepare preliminary and
final design for construction of the Water Treatment Plant Chlorine Feeder System Upgrade
Project; and
Whereas; the City has issued a Request for Proposals for consultant services for the Water
Treatment Plant Chlorine Feeder System Upgrade Project; and
Whereas, the City of Iowa City has negotiated an Agreement for said consulting services with
Strand Associates, Inc., to provide said services; and
Whereas, it is in the public interest to enter into said Consultant Agreement with Strand
Associates, Inc.; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Chlorine Feeder System Upgrade account #
W3316.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The Consultant Agreement attached hereto is in the public interest, and is approved as to
form and content.
2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached
Consultant Agreement.
3. The City Manager is authorized to execute amendments to the Consultant Agreement as
they may become necessary.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021
or r-
Resolution No. 21-302
Page 2
Approved by
r
Attest ' # as ft
ity lerk City Attor %"ic
(Sara Gre-nwood Hektoen - 12/06/2021)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
X Mims
x Salih
x Taylor
x Teague
x Thomas
x Weiner
Consultant Agreement
This Agreement, made and entered into this 14th day of December , 2021 by
and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City
and Strand Associates, Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant.
Whereas, the City would like to improve operation of the chlorination system through
replacement of existing chlorine feeders and replacement of pumps, control panel, and
accessories on the chlorine scrubber, and;
Whereas, the City would like to remove obsolete ammonia feeder and scrubber equipment, and;
Whereas, Consultant will provide design, bidding-related, and construction-related services for
the Chlorine Feeder System Upgrade project; and
Whereas, the City issued a Request for Qualifications, On-Call Professional Design and
Engineering Services (2020-2022), May 1, 2020, to private consulting firms interested in
providing design and engineering services related to public improvement projects in the City of
Iowa City, and;
Whereas, submittals were received from consulting firms and evaluated by a selection
committee, and;
Whereas, Consultant was selected based on qualifications, key personnel, project approach,
and fees and rates, and;
Whereas, funds are available in the Chlorine Feeder System Upgrade Project, Account
No. W3316.
Now Therefore, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the City does now contract
with the Consultant to provide services as set forth herein.
Scope of Services
Consultant agrees to perform the following services for the City, and to do so in a timely and
satisfactory manner.
Design Services
1. Attend kickoff meeting with City to discuss project criteria, schedule, and details to
include in the project.
2. Review existing information and documentation provided by City.
3. Evaluate up to two manufacturers for in-kind replacement of chlorine feeder equipment
based on existing equipment maximum feed rates, company longevity, equipment
performance, ease of maintenance, availability of parts, use of standard parts, and ability
to use existing tubing and piping. Prepare a listing of components that may be replaced
by City staff per manufacturer recommendations.
4. Evaluate the chlorine scrubber for potential repair or replacement of the scrubber control
panel and scrubber pump motors.
5. Evaluate the two existing emergency eyewash and shower stations and review potential
modifications. Modifications may include City performing the work.
-2-
6. Prepare 50 percent complete technical specifications, drawings, and opinion of probable
construction cost (OPCC) for the following:
a. In-kind replacement of the gaseous chlorine feed equipment including one-ton
gaseous chlorine cylinder regulators, atmospheric chlorine concentration
monitors, feeder panels, educators, and rotometers.
b. Chlorine scrubber scope with the replacement of the outdoor mounted chlorine
scrubber control panel and chlorine scrubber pump motors.
c. Integration of the new equipment and panels into the supervisory control and
data acquisition (SCADA) system.
d. Removal of the obsolete and degraded ammonia feed and scrubber systems
including removal of ammonia storage tank, water softener, ammonia scrubber,
duct work, plugging of duct through-wall penetrations, and removal and capping
of plant service water piping.
e. Removal of SCADA system ammonia programmable logic controller terminations
and program logic.
f. Modification of the emergency eye wash and shower system.
7. Provide 50 percent complete documents to City for review. Participate in one
teleconference meeting to discuss City comments. Site plan and floor plan drawings will
be prepared using City-provided drawings.
8. Prepare 90 percent complete Bidding Documents of the chlorine feeder system
upgrades using City-provided front end documents and submit to City for review.
Participate in one teleconference meeting with City to review comments and incorporate
agreed-upon changes to the draft Bidding Documents, as appropriate.
9. Prepare an OPCC for the project and submit to City at 50 and 90 percent complete
design milestones.
10. Prepare Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) permit application forms and
submit construction permitting forms and copies of the project design documents to the
IDNR for review and approval. City shall pay review fees.
11. Prepare final Bidding Documents using City-provided front end documents, the State of
Iowa's Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) supplemental
specifications, and technical specifications and drawings not covered under the SUDAS
specifications. Provide City with up to three hard copies and one electronic copy of the
final stamped drawings and specifications for its use.
Bidding-Related Services
1. Attend and lead one virtual prebid meeting.
2. Prepare addenda to the Bidding Documents, as appropriate, and answer questions
during bidding.
3. Assist City in the award of the Construction Contract by reviewing the bids and providing
a bid evaluation letter.
-3-
Construction-Related Services
1. Provide contract administration services including attendance at an on-site preconstruction
conference, review of contractor's shop drawings submittals, review of contractor's
periodic pay requests, and responding to questions from contractor and City. Consultant's
review of Payment Requests from contractor(s) will not impose responsibility to determine
that title to any of the work has passed to City free and clear of any liens, claims, or other
encumbrances. Any such service by Consultant will be provided through an amendment to
this Agreement.
2. Review requests for information from contractor and respond as appropriate. Prepare
change orders as needed.
3. Assist City with part-time observation of construction. Three site visits are included and
will be scheduled with City. In furnishing observation services, Consultant's efforts will be
directed toward determining for City that the completed project will, in general, conform
to the Contract Documents; but Consultant will not supervise, direct, or have control over
the contractor's work and will not be responsible for the contractor's construction means,
methods, techniques, sequences, procedures, or health and safety precautions or
programs, or for the contractor's failure to perform the construction work in accordance
with the Contract Documents. Consultant will endeavor to notify City and contractor of
failure to perform work in accordance with the Contract Documents when present at the
site.
II. Time of Completion
The Consultant shall complete the following phases of the Project in accordance with the
schedule shown.
Project Schedule
Task Completion
Kickoff Meeting Week of January 3, 2022
Equipment Evaluation February 25, 2022
50 Percent Complete Design Documents to March 18, 2022
City
50 Percent Complete Design Review Meeting March 31, 2022
90 Percent Complete Design Documents to May 27, 2022
City
90 Percent Complete Design Review Meeting June 9, 2022
IDNR Submittal June 24, 2022
Final Design Documents to City June 30, 2022
Set Public Hearing July 12, 2022
Public Hearing to Approve Bidding Documents July 26, 2022
Advertise Week of August 1, 2022
Bid Opening Week of August 15, 2022
Award Week of August 22, 2022
Contract Execution Complete Week of September 19, 2022
Preconstruction Meeting Week of September 26, 2022
Construction Complete and Closeout Week of April 24, 2023
-4-
Ill. Compensation for Services
Compensation shall be based on the rates and fees shown below. The total cost of services
shall not exceed $67,900.
The estimated fee for the Services is based on wage scale/hourly billing rates that anticipates
the Services will be completed as indicated.
Hourly Billing Rates"
Principal Engineer $284 to $365
Senior Project Manager $196 to $292
Project Managers $109 to $217
Project Engineers and Scientists $ 90 to $138
Engineering Technicians and Draftspersons $ 48 to $157
Administrative $ 99 Average
IV. General Terms
A. The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and
agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts.
1. 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. Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all
services performed up to the time of termination. However, such sums shall not be
greater than the "not-to-exceed" amount listed in Section III. The City may terminate
this Agreement upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to Consultant.
C. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties
hereto, provided that no assignment shall be without the written consent of all
Parties to said Agreement.
D. It is understood and agreed that the retention of the Consultant by the City for the
purpose of the Project shall be as an independent contractor and shall be
exclusive, but the Consultant shall have the right to employ such assistance as
may be required for the performance of the Project.
E. It is agreed by the City that all records and files pertaining to information needed
by the Consultant for the project shall be available by said City upon reasonable
request to the Consultant. The City agrees to furnish all reasonable assistance in
the use of these records and files.
F. It is further agreed that no Party to this Agreement shall perform contrary to any
state, federal, or local law or any of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
G. At the request of the City, the Consultant shall attend meetings of the City Council
relative to the services set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by the City
shall be given with reasonable notice to the Consultant to assure attendance.
-5-
H. Meetings in addition to those provided in Section I, Scope of Services, shall be
considered additional services. The Consultant agrees to furnish, upon
termination of this Agreement and upon demand by the City, copies of all basic
notes and sketches, charts, computations, and any other data prepared or
obtained by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement without cost, and without
restrictions or limitation as to the use relative to specific projects covered under
this Agreement. In such event, the Consultant shall not be liable for the City's use
of such documents on other projects.
The Consultant agrees to furnish all reports, specifications, and drawings with the
seal of a licensed professional as required by Iowa law.
J. The City agrees to tender the Consultant all fees in a timely manner, excepting,
however, that failure of the Consultant to satisfactorily perform in accordance
with this Agreement shall constitute grounds for the City, upon notification to
Consultant, to withhold payment of the amount sufficient to properly complete the
Project in accordance with this Agreement.
K. Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the
remaining portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and
continue in full force and effect.
L. Original contract drawings shall become the property of the City. The Consultant
shall be allowed to keep reproducible copies for the Consultant's own filing use.
M. Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project
will be paid by the City.
N. Upon signing this Agreement, Consultant 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.
O. Indemnification
1. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City against any and all claims,
demands, suits, loss, expenses, including attorney's fees, and for any
damages which may be asserted, claimed or recovered against or from
the City by reason of personal injury, including bodily injury or death, and
property damages, including loss of use thereof, caused by Consultant's
negligent acts, errors or omissions in performing the work and/or services
provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement.
2. Consultant assumes full responsibility for any and all damage or injuries
which may result to any person or property by reason of Consultant's
negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the work and/or
services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement,
and agrees to pay the City for all damages caused to the City's premises
resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant.
-6-
3. Consultant's obligation to indemnify the City shall not include the
obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City against lability,
claims, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, to the
extent caused by or resulting from the negligent act, error, or omission of
the City.
4. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "Consultant" means and
includes the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, sub-consultants,
and others for whom Consultant is legally liable, and the term "City"
means and includes the City of Iowa City, Iowa its Mayor, City Council
members, employees, and volunteers.
P. Insurance
1. Consultant agrees at all times material to this Agreement to have and
maintain professional liability insurance covering the Consultant's liability
for the Consultant's negligent acts, errors and omissions in the sum of
$1,000,000 Per Claim, $1,000,000 Annual Aggregate, or a $1,000,000
Combined Single Limit. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable state
law, a Waiver of Subrogation Clause (endorsement) shall be added.
2. Consultant agrees to provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing
that all coverages, limits and endorsements required herein are maintained
and in full force and effect, and certificates of Insurance shall provide a
minimum thirty (30) day endeavor to notify, when available by Consultant's
insurer. If the Consultant receives a non-renewal or cancellation notice
from an insurance carrier affording coverage required herein, or receives
notice that coverage no longer complies with the insurance requirements
herein, Consultant agrees to notify the City within five (5) business days
with a copy of the non-renewal or cancellation notice.
Q. Standard of Care
1. Consultant shall perform services for, and furnish deliverables to, the City
pertaining to the Project as set forth in this Agreement. The Consultant
shall possess a degree of learning, care and skill ordinarily possessed by
reputable professionals, practicing in this area under similar
circumstances. The Consultant shall use reasonable diligence and
professional judgment in the exercise of skill and application of learning.
2. Consultant represents that the Services and all its components shall be
free of defects caused by negligence; shall be performed in a manner
consistent with the standard of care of other professional service
providers in a similar Industry and application; shall conform to the
requirements of this Agreement; and shall be sufficient and suitable for
the purposes expressed in this Agreement.
3. All provisions of this Agreement shall be reconciled in accordance with
the generally accepted standards of the Engineering Profession.
4. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall exist without regard to,
and shall not be construed to be waived by, the availability or
unavailability of any insurance, either of City or Consultant.
-7-
R. There are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from
the execution of this Agreement, it is the entire Agreement, and no other monies
or considerations have been solicited.
S. 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.
FOR THE CITY FOR THE CONSULTANT
CITY OF IOWA CITY STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC.°
By: 1.-4-41t/‘-9—
Teague Joseph M. Bunker
Title: Mayor Title: Corporate Secretary
Date: December 14 2021 Date: IZ./'/Zoll
•
ATTEST: ATTEST: ( —J . 9-er
Approved by:
City Attorney', Offipe
/. Q .�-1
Item Number: 5.e.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion accep tin g th e work for the 2021 City of Iowa City Parking
G arag es Main ten ance an d Rep air Project.
Prepared B y:J oe Welter, S r. Civil E ngineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:None
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
Construction of the 2021 C ity of I owa C ity Parking G arages Maintenance and R epair P roject has
been completed by Western S pecialty C ontractors of West Des Moines, I owa, in substantial
accordance with the P roject Manual developed by S hive-Hattery, I nc. of I owa City, I owa. The
Engineer’s R eport and P erformance, Payment, and Maintenance B onds are on f ile with the City
Clerk.
Project Estimated Cost: $108,000.00
Project Bid Received: $129,064.00
Project A ctual Cost: $135,873.00
Background / Analysis:
T his project included annual maintenance and repairs at the Capitol S treet and D ubuque S treet
Ramps. Maintenance and repair activities included: concrete demolition; epoxy filler with
membrane; expansion joint nosing repairs; horizontal, overhead, stem, and vertical spall repairs;
joint sealant with membrane; loose concrete removal; new membrane; and weld tie repairs.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
5, ed
Prepared by: Joe Welter,Engineering Division, Public Works,410 East Washington Street, Iowa City,Iowa 52240(319)356-5144
Resolution No. 21-303
Resolution accepting the work for the 2021 City of Iowa City
Parking Garages Maintenance and Repair Project
Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the 2021
City of Iowa City Parking Garages Maintenance and Repair Project, as included in a contract
between the City of Iowa City and Western Waterproofing Co., Inc. dba Western Specialty
Contractors, dated July 21, 2021, be accepted; and
Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance, payment and maintenance bond have been
filed in the City Engineer's office; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Parking Facility Restoration Repair, Account
Number T3004; and
Whereas, the final contract price is $135,873.00.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021
SefrA .
M
Approved by
Attest: cLe CA,
City lerk City Attome ' Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen— 12/06/2021)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
X Mims
x Salih
X Taylor
x Teague
x Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 5.f.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion accep tin g th e work for the Beer Creek Storm Sewer Rep air
Proj ect.
Prepared B y:Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:None
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he B eer Creek S torm Sewer Repair P roject has been completed by All A merican Concrete,
I nc., of West L iberty, I owa, in substantial accordance with the plans and specif ications prepared
by the City of I owa C ity. T he Engineer’s Report and P erf ormance and P ayment bonds are on file
with the City Engineer.
Project Estimated Cost: $ 44,000.00
Project Bid Received: $ 68,203.00
Project A ctual Cost: $ 102,932.00
T here were four (4) change orders on this project, which included replacing 36” reinforced
concrete pipe with a cast-in-place box culvert, separating and connecting unforeseen sanitary
sewer services to the sanitary collection system, and installing additional adjustment rings and
seals on an existing sanitary sewer manhole
Background / Analysis:
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
5.�
Prepared by:Ben Clark,Engineering Division,Public Works,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5436
Resolution No. 21-304
Resolution accepting the work for the Beer Creek Storm Sewer
Repair Project.
Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the Beer
Creek Storm Sewer Repair Project, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and All
American Concrete, Inc., of West Liberty, Iowa, dated June 16th, 2021, be accepted; and
Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance, payment and maintenance bond have
been filed in the City Engineer's office; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Annual Storm Sewer Improvements account#
M3631; and
Whereas, the final contract price is $102,932.00.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021
EtA,A.A____
Approved by
n
•
Attest: \ ( l PL(f u / L .'
City Clerk City Attome ' Office
CCU (Sara Greenwood Hektoen— 12/08/2021)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
x Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 5.g.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion accep tin g th e work for the Lower Muscatin e Area Storm Sewer
Improvements Project.
Prepared B y:Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
F iscal I mpact:None
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he L ower Muscatine A rea Storm Sewer I mprovements Project was completed by Metro Pavers,
I nc. of I owa C ity, I owa in substantial accordance with the plans and specif ications prepared by
Bolton & Menk, I nc. of C edar R apids, I owa. T he E ngineer ’s R eport and Perf ormance and
Payment bonds are on file with the City Clerk.
Project Estimated Cost: $1,210,000.00
Project Bid Received: $763,197.95
Project A ctual Cost: $850,781.47
T here were thirteen (13) change orders on this project, which included work related to additional
street pavement, storm sewer revisions, water main relocations, sanitary sewer manhole
replacements, additional driveway pavement, curb ramp revisions and other associated work.
Background / Analysis:
Most streets in the neighborhood around L ower Muscatine Road have minimal storm
sewer/intakes. D uring heavier rain events, storm water running down side streets can create
flooding issues on L ower Muscatine R oad and Sycamore S treet. T his project aims to improve
drainage by collecting and conveying storm water from the side streets prior to it collecting on
L ower Muscatine Road and S ycamore S treet.
Specifically, this project will install storm sewer on Def orest and Ginter Avenues. Deforest
Avenue f rom S ycamore to F ranklin S treets will be reconstructed in accordance with the
recommendations of the City’s Pavement Management Plan.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
S.q
Prepared by: Ben Clark, Engineering Division,Public Works,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5436
Resolution No. 21-305
Resolution accepting the work for the Lower Muscatine Area
Storm Sewer Improvements Project.
Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the Lower
Muscatine Area Storm Sewer Improvements Project, as included in a contract between the City of
Iowa City and Metro Pavers, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa, dated May 21, 2020, be accepted; and
Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance, payment and maintenance bond have
been filed in the City Clerk's office; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Lower Muscatine Area Storm Sewer
Improvements account#M3632 and the Annual Pavement Rehabilitation account#S3824; and
Whereas, the final contract price is $850,781.47.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021
� C
Maya
I)
Approved by
Attest: !) r Y . I _ _ _
City lerk City Attorn y's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen— 12/08/2021)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
x Teague
X Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 5.h.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion accep tin g th e work for the Sl u d g e Storag e Tank Mason ry Rep air
Proj ect.
Prepared B y:Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:None
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he S ludge Storage Tank Masonry R epair Project has been completed by T nT Tuckpointing &
Building R estoration, L L C, of S tockton, I owa, in substantial accordance with the plans and
specifications prepared by Stanley Consultants, I nc. of Muscatine, I owa. The E ngineer ’s Report
and Performance and Payment bonds are on file with the City Clerk.
Project Estimated Cost: $165,000.00
Project Bid Received: $159,800.00
Project A ctual Cost: $171,585.00
T here were four (4) change orders on this project, which included rotating the tank lid to allow
easier and safer access for staff, additional tuckpointing on the sludge processing building,
replacing the skylight on the tank lid and an additional mobilization charge to allow for additional
maintenance performed by staff while the tank lid was removed.
Background / Analysis:
T he sludge storage tank is a reinforced concrete tank with a masonry f acing and aluminum dome
cover that was built during the original south plant construction in 1989. A section of the masonry
facing recently f ailed with a section of the bricks falling to the ground. T he masonry f acing has
suffered from moisture issues, possibly due to the way the original dome cover and flashing
system was installed. T he project involved masonry repairs and dome cover sealing and flashing
systems.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
Prepared by:Ben Clark,Engineering Division,Public Works,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5436
Resolution No. 21-306
Resolution accepting the work for the Sludge Storage Tank
Masonry Repair Project.
Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the Sludge
Storage Tank Masonry Repair Project, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and
TnT Tuckpointing & Building Restoration, LLC, of Stockton, Iowa, dated December 21, 2020, be
accepted; and
Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance, payment and maintenance bond have
been filed in the City Clerk's office; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in Wastewater account#72720122; and
Whereas, the final contract price is $171,585.00.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021
1n,
Approved
by
Attest: f Lip , I A C 1!1\
City Clerk City Attorn s Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen— 12/08/2021)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
X Mims
x Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
x Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 5.i.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion awardin g con tract and auth orizing the Mayor to sig n an d th e City
Cl erk to attest a con tract for con struction of the In fluen t Rake an d Screen
Replacemen t Proj ect.
Prepared B y:Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$1,633,000 available in the I nfluent Rake and S creen Replacement account #
V3153
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T his agenda item awards the construction contract for the I nf luent Rake and S creen Replacement
Project. Four (4) bids were submitted prior to the December 7, 2021 deadline:
Bidder Name City B id Amount
Woodruff Construction, L L C Tiffin, I owa $1,633,000
Tricon General Construction, I nc. Cedar Rapids, I owa $1,688,000
W R H, I nc. A mana, I owa $1,736,800
Portzen Construction, I nc. Dubuque, I owa $2,266,625
Engineers Estimate $1,800,000
Staff recommends awarding the contract to Woodruff Construction, L L C, of Tiffin, I owa.
Background / Analysis:
T he inf luent pump station at the wastewater treatment f acility has two rake and screen assemblies
that catch large debris at the head of the treatment process. They have been in continual
operation since being installed in the late 1990’s and are nearing the end of their useful life. T his
equipment prevents blockages and excessive wear on downstream pumps and grinders, and is
critical for the operation of the treatment facility.
One of the assemblies failed catastrophically in the fall of 2017 and again in 2018. Although it was
repaired to be operational, staf f is not confident in how long the repairs will last given the age of
the equipment. Maintenance on both assemblies has been increased with the anticipation that
either could fail again. F uture repair costs are unknown but expected to be greater than previous
repairs
T his project will replace both existing rake and screen assemblies, which are necessary to
maintain the viability of the screening function and decrease annual maintenance costs.
Operational ef f iciency improvements include adding washing presses and a conveyance system
to a new screenings storage building addition; replacing influent channel slide plates with slide
gates; and adding a new dewatering station and associated pavement f or septic haulers that
transport high grit (car wash) loads.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
5 '
, I
Prepared by:Ben Clark,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5436
Resolution No. 21-307
Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the Mayor to sign
and the City Clerk to attest a contract for construction of the
Influent Rake and Screen Replacement Project
Whereas, Woodruff Construction, LLC of Tiffin, Iowa, has submitted the lowest responsible bid of
$1,633,000 for construction of the above-named project; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Influent Rake and Screen Replacement
account#V3153; and
Whereas, the City Engineer and City Manager are authorized to execute change orders according
to the City's Purchasing Policy as they may become necessary in the construction of the above-
named project.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The contract for the construction of the above-named project is hereby awarded to
Woodruff Construction, LLC, subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate
performance and payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance program
statements.
2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the contract for
construction of the above-named project, subject to the condition that awardee secure
adequate performance and payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance
program statements.
Passed and approved this 14th day of lerember ,, 2021
M
ApproHer.
cm
Attest : t P I ` l P ,t_kjok
City Clerk r City Attor ey's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen— 12/08/2021)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Berg us
x Mims
X Salih
x Taylor
x Teague
X Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 5.j.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion auth orizing the Mayor to sig n an d th e City Clerk to attest a
release of l ien reg ardin g a mortgag e for th e p roperty l ocated at 60 Amb er
Lane.
Prepared B y:Susan Dulek, A ss't. City A ttorney
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Tracy Hightshoe, Director ND S
F iscal I mpact:none
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: None.
Attachments:resolution
release of lien
Executive S ummary:
As part of the City's rehab loan program, the City granted the owner 2 loans. B ecause the
property is in a targeted neighborhood, one loan is forgiven by 20% each year. T he owner has a
purchase agreement to sell the property and is requesting the City f orgive the remaining balance
of $5,509.60 on the forgivable loan. The other loan will be repaid in full.
Background / Analysis:
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
resolution
release of lien
-S•J
Prepared by: Susan Dulek,Ass't. City Attorney,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240-319-356-5030
Resolution No. 21-308
Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to
attest a release of lien regarding a mortgage for the property
located at 60 Amber Lane.
Whereas, the City granted two loans to the owner of 60 Amber Lane, Iowa City, Iowa as part of
the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program; and
Whereas, because the property is in a targeted neighborhood, the owner qualified to have one
loan forgiven by twenty percent (20%) each year; and
Whereas, there is a balance of$5,509.60 remaining on the $13,782 forgivable loan; and
Whereas, the owner has entered into a purchase agreement to sell the property; and
Whereas, staff recommends that the remaining balance be forgiven and the mortgage released;
and
Whereas, the other loan will be repaid in full.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of the Iowa City, Iowa:
The Mayor is authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the attached Release of
Lien and the remaining balance on the forgivable loan is forgiven.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December r , 2021.
Ma4Ts l
Approved by.�
Attest ' - •
Ci Clerk City Atto ey's Office
(Sue Dulek- 12/09/2021)
Resolution No. 21-308
Page 2
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
x Thomas
X Weiner
Prepared by and return to:Liz Osborne,Housing Rehab Division,410 E.Washington St,Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5246
Legal Description of Property:see below
Mortgagor(s):Richard F.Mitvalsky,as conservator for Karran D.Weathersby
Mortgagee:City of Iowa City
RELEASE OF LIEN
The City of Iowa City does hereby release the property at 60 Amber Lane, Iowa City, Iowa, and
legally described as follows:
Lot 54 Lakeside Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, according to the recorded plat thereof.
from an obligation, Richard F. Mitvalsky, as conservator for Karran D. Weathersby, to the City of
Iowa City represented by a Mortgage, recorded April 10, 2018, Book 5772, Page 907 through
Page 912 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office.
The property is hereby released from any liens or clouds upon title to the above property by
reason of said prior recorded document.
I
M
ATTEST: 1 _ - cla .2_1
CITY LERK
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSONCOUNTY
`
On this I q k h day of 14X3 r , 2021, before me, a Notary Public in and for the
State of Iowa, personally appeared Bruce Teague and Kellie K. Fruehling, to me personally known, and,
who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to this instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the
instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its city council, and that
Bruce Teague and Kellie K. Fruehling acknowledged execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act
and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed.
tiv9•1 ,, CHRISTINE OLNEY Notary Public in and for the te.of Iowa
i 17? Commission Number 806232 My commission expires: 9 5/3 S
xi My Commission Expires
Item Number: 5.k.
D ecember 14, 2021
R es olution autho rizing the C ity Manager to o p t the C ity of Io wa C ity into the National O pioids
S ettlements .
Prepared B y:Eric R. Goers, City A ttorney
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:No impact.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
I owa State MO U
Participation Agreement J anssen
Participation Agreement Distributors
Executive S ummary:
T his resolution of f ers authority to the C ity Manager to opt the City in to two national class action
settlement agreements related to the opioid crisis. Quite recently the State of I owa, a participant
in the settlements, completed negotiations with the counties and cities regarding the allocation of
settlement f unds. T hat agreement is contained in a Memorandum of Understanding. T he funds
are to be paid out over the course of nine years (the manufacturer) and eighteen years (the
distributors), totaling $26 billion. $22.7 billion of those funds are for participating states and
subdivisions. I n order to take part and receive any portion of these f unds, the C ity must opt in to
the class and settlement agreements. The deadline for doing so is J anuary 2, 2022.
Background / Analysis:
Delegating authority to the City Manager to negotiate sub-allocation with J ohnson C ounty, and to
manage the expenditure of S ettlement F unds on the approved remediation uses, will maintain
needed flexibility in the expenditure of funds that will be received over the course of 18 years.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
Participation Agreement J anssen
Participation Agreement Distributors
I owa State MO U
5, K
Prepared by: Eric R. Goers, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240,(319)356-5030
Resolution No. 21-309
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to opt the City of Iowa City into
the National Opioids Settlements.
Whereas, after years of negotiations, two proposed nationwide settlement agreements
have been reached that would resolve all opioid litigation brought by states and local
political subdivisions against three distributors, one manufacturer, and the manufacturer's
parent company; and
Whereas, the settlement requires the defendants to pay up to $26 billion over the
course of 18 years to remediate and abate the impacts of the opioid crisis; and
Whereas, the agreements require each state to decide whether it wishes to participate
in the settlement; Iowa decided to do so; and
Whereas, the more political subdivisions that participate in the settlements, the
greater the amount of funds that flow to that state and the participating subdivisions;
and
Whereas, any subdivision that does not participate in the settlements will not have
share in the settlement funds; and
Whereas, the State of Iowa just released a Memorandum of Understanding
articulating the terms of division of settlement funds between the State and the local
subdivisions, as well as approved opioid remediation uses; and
Whereas, the settlement agreements appear to distribute the settlement funds
directly to participating counties, with the possibility of sub-allocation from the
counties to participating cities; and
Whereas, because of the late-breaking Memorandum of Understanding, the
possible need to negotiate allocations with Johnson County, and because of the
need to maintain flexibility in managing the expenditure of settlement funds on
approved remediation uses, delegation of authority to the City Manager, with the
advice and consent of the City Attorney, is warranted; and
Whereas, pursuing separate litigation by the City against the opioid defendants
would be expensive, time-consuming, and risky; and
Whereas, the deadline for opting into the settlement agreements is January 2, 2022;
and
Whereas, it is thus in the best interests of the City to accept the class action
settlement agreements releasing the City's claims, and to delegate authority for the
execution and management of said agreements to the City Manager.
Resolution No. 21-309
Page 2
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
that;
1. The City Manager, with the advice and consent of the City Attorney, is hereby
authorized to execute the attached Settlement Agreements and State
Memorandum of Understanding.
2. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement for the
sub-allocation of settlement funds from Johnson County to the City of Iowa City,
and to manage the expenditure of settlement funds on approved opioid
remediation uses.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021.
ctg\A
Approved
Attest: A k,._P 1 ) LLLej--e-
City lerk City Attomey' Office
(Jennifer Schwickerath— 12/09/2021)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
x Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
x Thomas
X Weiner
Subdivision Janssen Settlement Participation Form
Governmental Entity:City of Iowa City State: Iowa
Authorized Official: Geoff Frain, City Manager
Address 1: 410 E. Washington Street
Address 2:
City, State,Zip:Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 319-356-5013
Email: geoff-fruin(cr�,iowa-city.org
The governmental entity identified above("Governmental Entity"), in order to obtain and in
consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement dated July 21,2021 ("Janssen Settlement"), and acting through the undersigned
authorized official,hereby elects to participate in the Janssen Settlement,release all Released
Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Janssen Settlement,
understands that all terms in this Election and Release have the meanings defined therein,
and agrees that by this Election,the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the
Janssen Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein.
2. The Governmental Entity's election to participate is specifically conditioned on the Iowa
Opioid Allocation Memorandum of Understanding("MOU")becoming effective by that
MOU being executed both by the State, Litigating Local Governments comprising 95%of
the total Litigating Local Government population and Local Governments comprising 80%
of the total population of eligible Primary Subdivisions as defined and described in in the
Settlement Agreements with a population over 30,000. Should the Iowa Allocation
Memorandum of Understanding fail to become effective,this Election and Release shall
be deemed void and no claims shall be released.
3. The Governmental Entity shall, within 14 days of the Reference Date and prior to the
filing of the Consent Judgment,dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has
filed.
4. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Janssen Settlement pertaining to
Subdivisions as defined therein.
5. By agreeing to the terms of the Janssen Settlement and becoming a Releasor,the
Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein,including, if applicable,
monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
6. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Janssen
Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
7. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental
Entity's state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court's role
as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in,the Janssen
Settlement.
8. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Janssen Settlement as provided
therein.
9 The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision,hereby becomes a Releasor for
all purposes in the Janssen Settlement, including but not limited to all provisions of
Section IV(Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions,boards,
commissions,districts,instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in
their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency,
person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity
identified in the definition of Releasor,provides for a release to the fullest extent of its
authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely,unconditionally,
and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be
brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released
Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for
in the Janssen Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted
so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating
in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the
Governmental Entity to release claims.The Janssen Settlement shall be a complete bar to
any Released Claim.
10. In connection with the releases provided for in the Janssen Settlement, each
Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all
provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the
United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar,
comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code,which reads:
General Release; extent.A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or
her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her,
would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or
released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it
knows,believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims,but each
Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles,
releases and discharges,upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may
exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether
through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and
which,if known,would materially affect the Governmental Entities' decision to
participate in the Janssen Settlement.
11. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Janssen Settlement,to
which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Election and Release is
interpreted differently from the Janssen Settlement in any respect, the Janssen Settlement
controls.
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Election and Release on behalf of
the Governmental Entity. a..#94----
Name:
//G5 � _ .
Signature: //�-,�//l//�'l4/`
Name: n6to-P-0 ricin
Title: 017 i lun^ice'
Date: I Z /f /toz r
Subdivision Distributor Settlement Participation Form
Governmental Entity: City of Iowa City State: Iowa
Authorized Official: Geoff Fruin,City Manager
Address 1: 410 E.Washington Street
Address 2:
City, State,Zip: Iowa City,IA 52240
Phone: 319-356-5013
Email: geoff-fruin@iowa-city.org
The governmental entity identified above("Governmental Entity"), in order to obtain and
in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement dated July 21,2021 ("Distributor Settlement"), and acting through the undersigned
authorized official,hereby elects to participate in the Distributor Settlement,release all Released
Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Distributor Settlement,
understands that all terms in this Participation Form have the meanings defined therein,
and agrees that by signing this Participation Form,the Governmental Entity elects to
participate in the Distributor Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as
provided therein.
2. The Governmental Entity's election to participate is specifically conditioned on the Iowa
Opioid Allocation Memorandum of Understanding("MOU")becoming effective by that
MOU being executed both by the State, Litigating Local Governments comprising 95%
of the total Litigating Local Government population and Local Governments comprising
80% of the total population of eligible Primary Subdivisions as defined and described in
in the Settlement Agreements with a population over 30,000. Should the Iowa Allocation
Memorandum of Understanding fail to become effective,this Election and Release shall
be deemed void and no claims shall be released
3. The Governmental Entity shall,within 14 days of the Reference Date and prior to the
filing of the Consent Judgment, secure the dismissal with prejudice of any Released
Claims that is has filed.
4. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Distributor Settlement pertaining to
Subdivisions as defined therein.
5. By agreeing to the terms of the Distributor Settlement and becoming a Releasor,the
Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein,including,if applicable,
monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
6. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Distributor
Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
7. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental
Entity's state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to the court's role
as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in,the Distributor
Settlement. The Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National
Arbitration Panel as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise
provided in,the Distributor Settlement.
8. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Distributor Settlement as provided
therein.
9. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for
all purposes in the Distributor Settlement, including,but not limited to, all provisions of
Part XI, and along with all departments, agencies, divisions,boards, commissions,
districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official
capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency,person, or
other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in
the definition of Releasor,provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a
Releasor,the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely,unconditionally, and irrevocably
covenants not to bring,file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or
claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any
Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Distributor
Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give
the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to
Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to
release claims. The Distributor Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released
Claim.
10. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating
Subdivision as set forth in the Distributor Settlement.
11. In connection with the releases provided for in the Distributor Settlement, each
Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all
provisions,rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the
United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law,which is similar,
comparable,or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code,which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or
her favor at the time of executing the release, and that if known by him or
her would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or
released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it
knows,believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims,but each
Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles,
releases and discharges,upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may
exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether
through ignorance, oversight,error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and
which, if known,would materially affect the Governmental Entities' decision to
participate in the Distributor Settlement.
12. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Distributor Settlement,
to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Participation Form is
interpreted differently from the Distributor Settlement in any respect,the Distributor
Settlement controls.
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation Form on behalf of the
Governmental Entity.
Signature: At,
Name: �7Gie. 'Y�tr7
Title: 24 "A 0-
Date: itilS/ZoTt
Date:
Henry County
Printed:
Date:
Howard County
Printed:
Date:
Humboldt County
Printed:
Date:
Ida County
Printed:
Date:
Indianola City
Printed:
Date: /Z//5 not
Iowa City"/7 pp� , t�
Printed: Oj 4 !'ran , n_i ycr
Date:
Iowa County
Printed:
Date:
Jackson County
Printed:
Date:
Jasper County
Printed:
Page 114
Exhibit 1
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-1
EXHIBIT E
List of Opioid Remediation Uses
Schedule A
Core Strategies
States and Qualifying Block Grantees shall choose from among the abatement strategies listed in
Schedule B. However, priority shall be given to the following core abatement strategies (“Core
Strategies”).14
A. NALOXONE OR OTHER FDA-APPROVED DRUG TO
REVERSE OPIOID OVERDOSES
1. Expand training for first responders, schools, community
support groups and families; and
2. Increase distribution to individuals who are uninsured or
whose insurance does not cover the needed service.
B. MEDICATION-ASSISTED TREATMENT (“MAT”)
DISTRIBUTION AND OTHER OPIOID-RELATED
TREATMENT
1. Increase distribution of MAT to individuals who are
uninsured or whose insurance does not cover the needed
service;
2. Provide education to school-based and youth-focused
programs that discourage or prevent misuse;
3. Provide MAT education and awareness training to
healthcare providers, EMTs, law enforcement, and other
first responders; and
4. Provide treatment and recovery support services such as
residential and inpatient treatment, intensive outpatient
treatment, outpatient therapy or counseling, and recovery
housing that allow or integrate medication and with other
support services.
14 As used in this Schedule A, words like “expand,” “fund,” “provide” or the like shall not indicate a preference for
new or existing programs.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-2
C. PREGNANT & POSTPARTUM WOMEN
1. Expand Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to
Treatment (“SBIRT”) services to non-Medicaid eligible or
uninsured pregnant women;
2. Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and
recovery services, including MAT, for women with co-
occurring Opioid Use Disorder (“OUD”) and other
Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”)/Mental Health disorders
for uninsured individuals for up to 12 months postpartum;
and
3. Provide comprehensive wrap-around services to individuals
with OUD, including housing, transportation, job
placement/training, and childcare.
D. EXPANDING TREATMENT FOR NEONATAL
ABSTINENCE SYNDROME (“NAS”)
1. Expand comprehensive evidence-based and recovery
support for NAS babies;
2. Expand services for better continuum of care with infant-
need dyad; and
3. Expand long-term treatment and services for medical
monitoring of NAS babies and their families.
E. EXPANSION OF WARM HAND-OFF PROGRAMS AND
RECOVERY SERVICES
1. Expand services such as navigators and on-call teams to
begin MAT in hospital emergency departments;
2. Expand warm hand-off services to transition to recovery
services;
3. Broaden scope of recovery services to include co-occurring
SUD or mental health conditions;
4. Provide comprehensive wrap-around services to individuals
in recovery, including housing, transportation, job
placement/training, and childcare; and
5. Hire additional social workers or other behavioral health
workers to facilitate expansions above.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-3
F. TREATMENT FOR INCARCERATED POPULATION
1. Provide evidence-based treatment and recovery support,
including MAT for persons with OUD and co-occurring
SUD/MH disorders within and transitioning out of the
criminal justice system; and
2. Increase funding for jails to provide treatment to inmates
with OUD.
G. PREVENTION PROGRAMS
1. Funding for media campaigns to prevent opioid use (similar
to the FDA’s “Real Cost” campaign to prevent youth from
misusing tobacco);
2. Funding for evidence-based prevention programs in
schools;
3. Funding for medical provider education and outreach
regarding best prescribing practices for opioids consistent
with the 2016 CDC guidelines, including providers at
hospitals (academic detailing);
4. Funding for community drug disposal programs; and
5. Funding and training for first responders to participate in
pre-arrest diversion programs, post-overdose response
teams, or similar strategies that connect at-risk individuals
to behavioral health services and supports.
H. EXPANDING SYRINGE SERVICE PROGRAMS
1. Provide comprehensive syringe services programs with
more wrap-around services, including linkage to OUD
treatment, access to sterile syringes and linkage to care and
treatment of infectious diseases.
I. EVIDENCE-BASED DATA COLLECTION AND
RESEARCH ANALYZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
ABATEMENT STRATEGIES WITHIN THE STATE
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-4
Schedule B
Approved Uses
Support treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and any co-occurring Substance Use Disorder
or Mental Health (SUD/MH) conditions through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs
or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
PART ONE: TREATMENT
A. TREAT OPIOID USE DISORDER (OUD)
Support treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (“OUD”) and any co-occurring Substance Use
Disorder or Mental Health (“SUD/MH”) conditions through evidence-based or evidence-
informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:15
1. Expand availability of treatment for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, including all forms of Medication-Assisted Treatment (“MAT”)
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
2. Support and reimburse evidence-based services that adhere to the American
Society of Addiction Medicine (“ASAM”) continuum of care for OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
3. Expand telehealth to increase access to treatment for OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, including MAT, as well as counseling, psychiatric support,
and other treatment and recovery support services.
4. Improve oversight of Opioid Treatment Programs (“OTPs”) to assure evidence-
based or evidence-informed practices such as adequate methadone dosing and low
threshold approaches to treatment.
5. Support mobile intervention, treatment, and recovery services, offered by
qualified professionals and service providers, such as peer recovery coaches, for
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions and for persons
who have experienced an opioid overdose.
6. Provide treatment of trauma for individuals with OUD (e.g., violence, sexual
assault, human trafficking, or adverse childhood experiences) and family
members (e.g., surviving family members after an overdose or overdose fatality),
and training of health care personnel to identify and address such trauma.
7. Support evidence-based withdrawal management services for people with OUD
and any co-occurring mental health conditions.
15 As used in this Schedule B, words like “expand,” “fund,” “provide” or the like shall not indicate a preference for
new or existing programs.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-5
8. Provide training on MAT for health care providers, first responders, students, or
other supporting professionals, such as peer recovery coaches or recovery
outreach specialists, including telementoring to assist community-based providers
in rural or underserved areas.
9. Support workforce development for addiction professionals who work with
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
10. Offer fellowships for addiction medicine specialists for direct patient care,
instructors, and clinical research for treatments.
11. Offer scholarships and supports for behavioral health practitioners or workers
involved in addressing OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH or mental health
conditions, including, but not limited to, training, scholarships, fellowships, loan
repayment programs, or other incentives for providers to work in rural or
underserved areas.
12. Provide funding and training for clinicians to obtain a waiver under the federal
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (“DATA 2000”) to prescribe MAT for
OUD, and provide technical assistance and professional support to clinicians who
have obtained a DATA 2000 waiver.
13. Disseminate of web-based training curricula, such as the American Academy of
Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service–Opioids web-based
training curriculum and motivational interviewing.
14. Develop and disseminate new curricula, such as the American Academy of
Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service for Medication–
Assisted Treatment.
B. SUPPORT PEOPLE IN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
Support people in recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions
through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the programs or strategies that:
1. Provide comprehensive wrap-around services to individuals with OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including housing, transportation, education,
job placement, job training, or childcare.
2. Provide the full continuum of care of treatment and recovery services for OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including supportive housing, peer
support services and counseling, community navigators, case management, and
connections to community-based services.
3. Provide counseling, peer-support, recovery case management and residential
treatment with access to medications for those who need it to persons with OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-6
4. Provide access to housing for people with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, including supportive housing, recovery housing, housing assistance
programs, training for housing providers, or recovery housing programs that allow
or integrate FDA-approved mediation with other support services.
5. Provide community support services, including social and legal services, to assist
in deinstitutionalizing persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions.
6. Support or expand peer-recovery centers, which may include support groups,
social events, computer access, or other services for persons with OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
7. Provide or support transportation to treatment or recovery programs or services
for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
8. Provide employment training or educational services for persons in treatment for
or recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
9. Identify successful recovery programs such as physician, pilot, and college
recovery programs, and provide support and technical assistance to increase the
number and capacity of high-quality programs to help those in recovery.
10. Engage non-profits, faith-based communities, and community coalitions to
support people in treatment and recovery and to support family members in their
efforts to support the person with OUD in the family.
11. Provide training and development of procedures for government staff to
appropriately interact and provide social and other services to individuals with or
in recovery from OUD, including reducing stigma.
12. Support stigma reduction efforts regarding treatment and support for persons with
OUD, including reducing the stigma on effective treatment.
13. Create or support culturally appropriate services and programs for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including new Americans.
14. Create and/or support recovery high schools.
15. Hire or train behavioral health workers to provide or expand any of the services or
supports listed above.
C. CONNECT PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO THE HELP THEY NEED
(CONNECTIONS TO CARE)
Provide connections to care for people who have—or are at risk of developing—OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions through evidence-based or evidence-informed
programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-7
1. Ensure that health care providers are screening for OUD and other risk factors and
know how to appropriately counsel and treat (or refer if necessary) a patient for
OUD treatment.
2. Fund SBIRT programs to reduce the transition from use to disorders, including
SBIRT services to pregnant women who are uninsured or not eligible for
Medicaid.
3. Provide training and long-term implementation of SBIRT in key systems (health,
schools, colleges, criminal justice, and probation), with a focus on youth and
young adults when transition from misuse to opioid disorder is common.
4. Purchase automated versions of SBIRT and support ongoing costs of the
technology.
5. Expand services such as navigators and on-call teams to begin MAT in hospital
emergency departments.
6. Provide training for emergency room personnel treating opioid overdose patients
on post-discharge planning, including community referrals for MAT, recovery
case management or support services.
7. Support hospital programs that transition persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, or persons who have experienced an opioid overdose, into
clinically appropriate follow-up care through a bridge clinic or similar approach.
8. Support crisis stabilization centers that serve as an alternative to hospital
emergency departments for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions or persons that have experienced an opioid overdose.
9. Support the work of Emergency Medical Systems, including peer support
specialists, to connect individuals to treatment or other appropriate services
following an opioid overdose or other opioid-related adverse event.
10. Provide funding for peer support specialists or recovery coaches in emergency
departments, detox facilities, recovery centers, recovery housing, or similar
settings; offer services, supports, or connections to care to persons with OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions or to persons who have experienced an
opioid overdose.
11. Expand warm hand-off services to transition to recovery services.
12. Create or support school-based contacts that parents can engage with to seek
immediate treatment services for their child; and support prevention, intervention,
treatment, and recovery programs focused on young people.
13. Develop and support best practices on addressing OUD in the workplace.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-8
14. Support assistance programs for health care providers with OUD.
15. Engage non-profits and the faith community as a system to support outreach for
treatment.
16. Support centralized call centers that provide information and connections to
appropriate services and supports for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions.
D. ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INVOLVED PERSONS
Address the needs of persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions who
are involved in, are at risk of becoming involved in, or are transitioning out of the
criminal justice system through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:
1. Support pre-arrest or pre-arraignment diversion and deflection strategies for
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including
established strategies such as:
1. Self-referral strategies such as the Angel Programs or the Police Assisted
Addiction Recovery Initiative (“PAARI”);
2. Active outreach strategies such as the Drug Abuse Response Team
(“DART”) model;
3. “Naloxone Plus” strategies, which work to ensure that individuals who
have received naloxone to reverse the effects of an overdose are then
linked to treatment programs or other appropriate services;
4. Officer prevention strategies, such as the Law Enforcement Assisted
Diversion (“LEAD”) model;
5. Officer intervention strategies such as the Leon County, Florida Adult
Civil Citation Network or the Chicago Westside Narcotics Diversion to
Treatment Initiative; or
6. Co-responder and/or alternative responder models to address OUD-related
911 calls with greater SUD expertise.
2. Support pre-trial services that connect individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions to evidence-informed treatment, including MAT,
and related services.
3. Support treatment and recovery courts that provide evidence-based options for
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-9
4. Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, harm
reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions who are incarcerated in jail or prison.
5. Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, harm
reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions who are leaving jail or prison or have recently left
jail or prison, are on probation or parole, are under community corrections
supervision, or are in re-entry programs or facilities.
6. Support critical time interventions (“CTI”), particularly for individuals living with
dual-diagnosis OUD/serious mental illness, and services for individuals who face
immediate risks and service needs and risks upon release from correctional
settings.
7. Provide training on best practices for addressing the needs of criminal justice-
involved persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions to law
enforcement, correctional, or judicial personnel or to providers of treatment,
recovery, harm reduction, case management, or other services offered in
connection with any of the strategies described in this section.
E. ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF PREGNANT OR PARENTING WOMEN AND
THEIR FAMILIES, INCLUDING BABIES WITH NEONATAL ABSTINENCE
SYNDROME
Address the needs of pregnant or parenting women with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, and the needs of their families, including babies with neonatal
abstinence syndrome (“NAS”), through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs
or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:
1. Support evidence-based or evidence-informed treatment, including MAT,
recovery services and supports, and prevention services for pregnant women—or
women who could become pregnant—who have OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, and other measures to educate and provide support to
families affected by Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.
2. Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and recovery services, including
MAT, for uninsured women with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions for up to 12 months postpartum.
3. Provide training for obstetricians or other healthcare personnel who work with
pregnant women and their families regarding treatment of OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
4. Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and recovery support for NAS
babies; expand services for better continuum of care with infant-need dyad; and
expand long-term treatment and services for medical monitoring of NAS babies
and their families.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-10
5. Provide training to health care providers who work with pregnant or parenting
women on best practices for compliance with federal requirements that children
born with NAS get referred to appropriate services and receive a plan of safe care.
6. Provide child and family supports for parenting women with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
7. Provide enhanced family support and child care services for parents with OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
8. Provide enhanced support for children and family members suffering trauma as a
result of addiction in the family; and offer trauma-informed behavioral health
treatment for adverse childhood events.
9. Offer home-based wrap-around services to persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, including, but not limited to, parent skills
training.
10. Provide support for Children’s Services—Fund additional positions and services,
including supportive housing and other residential services, relating to children
being removed from the home and/or placed in foster care due to custodial opioid
use.
PART TWO: PREVENTION
F. PREVENT OVER-PRESCRIBING AND ENSURE APPROPRIATE
PRESCRIBING AND DISPENSING OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to prevent over-prescribing and ensure appropriate prescribing and
dispensing of opioids through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Funding medical provider education and outreach regarding best prescribing
practices for opioids consistent with the Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for
Chronic Pain from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including
providers at hospitals (academic detailing).
2. Training for health care providers regarding safe and responsible opioid
prescribing, dosing, and tapering patients off opioids.
3. Continuing Medical Education (CME) on appropriate prescribing of opioids.
4. Providing Support for non-opioid pain treatment alternatives, including training
providers to offer or refer to multi-modal, evidence-informed treatment of pain.
5. Supporting enhancements or improvements to Prescription Drug Monitoring
Programs (“PDMPs”), including, but not limited to, improvements that:
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-11
1. Increase the number of prescribers using PDMPs;
2. Improve point-of-care decision-making by increasing the quantity, quality,
or format of data available to prescribers using PDMPs, by improving the
interface that prescribers use to access PDMP data, or both; or
3. Enable states to use PDMP data in support of surveillance or intervention
strategies, including MAT referrals and follow-up for individuals
identified within PDMP data as likely to experience OUD in a manner that
complies with all relevant privacy and security laws and rules.
6. Ensuring PDMPs incorporate available overdose/naloxone deployment data,
including the United States Department of Transportation’s Emergency Medical
Technician overdose database in a manner that complies with all relevant privacy
and security laws and rules.
7. Increasing electronic prescribing to prevent diversion or forgery.
8. Educating dispensers on appropriate opioid dispensing.
G. PREVENT MISUSE OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to discourage or prevent misuse of opioids through evidence-based or
evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. Funding media campaigns to prevent opioid misuse.
2. Corrective advertising or affirmative public education campaigns based on
evidence.
3. Public education relating to drug disposal.
4. Drug take-back disposal or destruction programs.
5. Funding community anti-drug coalitions that engage in drug prevention efforts.
6. Supporting community coalitions in implementing evidence-informed prevention,
such as reduced social access and physical access, stigma reduction—including
staffing, educational campaigns, support for people in treatment or recovery, or
training of coalitions in evidence-informed implementation, including the
Strategic Prevention Framework developed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (“SAMHSA”).
7. Engaging non-profits and faith-based communities as systems to support
prevention.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-12
8. Funding evidence-based prevention programs in schools or evidence-informed
school and community education programs and campaigns for students, families,
school employees, school athletic programs, parent-teacher and student
associations, and others.
9. School-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have demonstrated
effectiveness in preventing drug misuse and seem likely to be effective in
preventing the uptake and use of opioids.
10. Create or support community-based education or intervention services for
families, youth, and adolescents at risk for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions.
11. Support evidence-informed programs or curricula to address mental health needs
of young people who may be at risk of misusing opioids or other drugs, including
emotional modulation and resilience skills.
12. Support greater access to mental health services and supports for young people,
including services and supports provided by school nurses, behavioral health
workers or other school staff, to address mental health needs in young people that
(when not properly addressed) increase the risk of opioid or another drug misuse.
H. PREVENT OVERDOSE DEATHS AND OTHER HARMS (HARM REDUCTION)
Support efforts to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms
through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1. Increased availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat
overdoses for first responders, overdose patients, individuals with OUD and their
friends and family members, schools, community navigators and outreach
workers, persons being released from jail or prison, or other members of the
general public.
2. Public health entities providing free naloxone to anyone in the community.
3. Training and education regarding naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses
for first responders, overdose patients, patients taking opioids, families, schools,
community support groups, and other members of the general public.
4. Enabling school nurses and other school staff to respond to opioid overdoses, and
provide them with naloxone, training, and support.
5. Expanding, improving, or developing data tracking software and applications for
overdoses/naloxone revivals.
6. Public education relating to emergency responses to overdoses.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-13
7. Public education relating to immunity and Good Samaritan laws.
8. Educating first responders regarding the existence and operation of immunity and
Good Samaritan laws.
9. Syringe service programs and other evidence-informed programs to reduce harms
associated with intravenous drug use, including supplies, staffing, space, peer
support services, referrals to treatment, fentanyl checking, connections to care,
and the full range of harm reduction and treatment services provided by these
programs.
10. Expanding access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases such as HIV and
Hepatitis C resulting from intravenous opioid use.
11. Supporting mobile units that offer or provide referrals to harm reduction services,
treatment, recovery supports, health care, or other appropriate services to persons
that use opioids or persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
12. Providing training in harm reduction strategies to health care providers, students,
peer recovery coaches, recovery outreach specialists, or other professionals that
provide care to persons who use opioids or persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
13. Supporting screening for fentanyl in routine clinical toxicology testing.
PART THREE: OTHER STRATEGIES
I. FIRST RESPONDERS
In addition to items in section C, D and H relating to first responders, support the
following:
1. Education of law enforcement or other first responders regarding appropriate
practices and precautions when dealing with fentanyl or other drugs.
2. Provision of wellness and support services for first responders and others who
experience secondary trauma associated with opioid-related emergency events.
J. LEADERSHIP, PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Support efforts to provide leadership, planning, coordination, facilitations, training and
technical assistance to abate the opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Statewide, regional, local or community regional planning to identify root causes
of addiction and overdose, goals for reducing harms related to the opioid
epidemic, and areas and populations with the greatest needs for treatment
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-14
intervention services, and to support training and technical assistance and other
strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy
list.
2. A dashboard to (a) share reports, recommendations, or plans to spend opioid
settlement funds; (b) to show how opioid settlement funds have been spent; (c) to
report program or strategy outcomes; or (d) to track, share or visualize key opioid-
or health-related indicators and supports as identified through collaborative
statewide, regional, local or community processes.
3. Invest in infrastructure or staffing at government or not-for-profit agencies to
support collaborative, cross-system coordination with the purpose of preventing
overprescribing, opioid misuse, or opioid overdoses, treating those with OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, supporting them in treatment or recovery,
connecting them to care, or implementing other strategies to abate the opioid
epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
4. Provide resources to staff government oversight and management of opioid
abatement programs.
K. TRAINING
In addition to the training referred to throughout this document, support training to abate
the opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or strategies that may include, but are
not limited to, those that:
1. Provide funding for staff training or networking programs and services to improve
the capability of government, community, and not-for-profit entities to abate the
opioid crisis.
2. Support infrastructure and staffing for collaborative cross-system coordination to
prevent opioid misuse, prevent overdoses, and treat those with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, or implement other strategies to abate the opioid
epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list (e.g., health care,
primary care, pharmacies, PDMPs, etc.).
L. RESEARCH
Support opioid abatement research that may include, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Monitoring, surveillance, data collection and evaluation of programs and
strategies described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
2. Research non-opioid treatment of chronic pain.
3. Research on improved service delivery for modalities such as SBIRT that
demonstrate promising but mixed results in populations vulnerable to
opioid use disorders.
DISTRIBUTORS’ 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
E-15
4. Research on novel harm reduction and prevention efforts such as the
provision of fentanyl test strips.
5. Research on innovative supply-side enforcement efforts such as improved
detection of mail-based delivery of synthetic opioids.
6. Expanded research on swift/certain/fair models to reduce and deter opioid
misuse within criminal justice populations that build upon promising
approaches used to address other substances (e.g., Hawaii HOPE and
Dakota 24/7).
7. Epidemiological surveillance of OUD-related behaviors in critical
populations, including individuals entering the criminal justice system,
including, but not limited to approaches modeled on the Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring (“ADAM”) system.
8. Qualitative and quantitative research regarding public health risks and
harm reduction opportunities within illicit drug markets, including surveys
of market participants who sell or distribute illicit opioids.
9. Geospatial analysis of access barriers to MAT and their association with
treatment engagement and treatment outcomes.
Exhibit 2 - Direct Distribution Percentages
99 66 100%
Local Government
County
Litigating
Entity
% of LG
bucket
Adair County Adair Yes 0.256%
Adams County Adams Yes 0.112%
Allamakee County Allamakee Yes 0.446%
Appanoose County Appanoose Yes 0.532%
Audubon County Audubon Yes 0.121%
Benton County Benton Yes 0.519%
Black Hawk County Black Hawk Yes 3.342%
Boone County Boone 0.823%
Bremer County Bremer Yes 0.731%
Buchanan County Buchanan Yes 0.377%
Buena Vista County Buena Vista Yes 0.327%
Butler County Butler 0.271%
Calhoun County Calhoun Yes 0.189%
Carroll County Carroll Yes 0.603%
Cass County Cass 0.336%
Cedar County Cedar Yes 0.366%
Cerro Gordo County Cerro Gordo Yes 1.630%
Cherokee County Cherokee Yes 0.238%
Chickasaw County Chickasaw Yes 0.243%
Clarke County Clarke 0.305%
Clay County Clay Yes 0.296%
Clayton County Clayton Yes 0.457%
Clinton County Clinton Yes 1.459%
Crawford County Crawford 0.331%
Dallas County Dallas Yes 1.478%
Davis County Davis 0.154%
Decatur County Decatur 0.253%
Delaware County Delaware Yes 0.302%
Des Moines County Des Moines Yes 1.568%
Dickinson County Dickinson 0.332%
Dubuque County Dubuque 2.745%
Emmet County Emmet Yes 0.175%
Fayette County Fayette Yes 0.528%
Floyd County Floyd 0.329%
Franklin County Franklin 0.211%
Fremont County Fremont Yes 0.205%
Greene County Greene 0.358%
Grundy County Grundy 0.323%
Guthrie County Guthrie 0.231%
Hamilton County Hamilton Yes 0.350%
Hancock County Hancock Yes 0.190%
Hardin County Hardin Yes 0.449%
Harrison County Harrison Yes 0.618%
Henry County Henry Yes 0.445%
Howard County Howard Yes 0.171%
Humboldt County Humboldt Yes 0.193%
Ida County Ida Yes 0.168%
Iowa County Iowa 0.266%
Jackson County Jackson 0.549%
Jasper County Jasper Yes 1.678%
Jefferson County Jefferson 0.573%
Johnson County Johnson Yes 3.822%
Jones County Jones Yes 0.388%
Keokuk County Keokuk Yes 0.198%
Kossuth County Kossuth 0.348%
Lee County Lee Yes 1.459%
Linn County Linn 7.329%
Louisa County Louisa 0.336%
Lucas County Lucas 0.330%
Lyon County Lyon Yes 0.162%
Madison County Madison Yes 0.403%
Mahaska County Mahaska Yes 0.716%
Marion County Marion Yes 1.179%
Marshall County Marshall 1.036%
Mills County Mills Yes 0.495%
Mitchell County Mitchell Yes 0.190%
Monona County Monona 0.446%
Monroe County Monroe Yes 0.216%
Montgomery County Montgomery Yes 0.531%
Muscatine County Muscatine Yes 1.061%
O Brien County O Brien Yes 0.235%
Osceola County Osceola Yes 0.145%
Page County Page 0.582%
Palo Alto County Palo Alto 0.167%
Plymouth County Plymouth Yes 0.445%
Pocahontas County Pocahontas Yes 0.117%
Polk County Polk Yes 22.811%
Pottawattamie County Pottawattamie Yes 3.615%
Poweshiek County Poweshiek Yes 0.475%
Ringgold County Ringgold 0.120%
Sac County Sac Yes 0.220%
Scott County Scott Yes 8.861%
Shelby County Shelby Yes 0.286%
Sioux County Sioux Yes 0.410%
Story County Story 2.166%
Tama County Tama Yes 0.345%
Taylor County Taylor Yes 0.178%
Union County Union Yes 0.463%
Van Buren County Van Buren 0.153%
Wapello County Wapello 1.003%
Warren County Warren 1.332%
Washington County Washington 0.554%
Wayne County Wayne 0.244%
Webster County Webster Yes 1.596%
Winnebago County Winnebago Yes 0.234%
Winneshiek County Winneshiek Yes 0.367%
Woodbury County Woodbury 2.566%
Worth County Worth Yes 0.235%
Wright County Wright Yes 0.281%
Exhibit 3
SubdivisionꢀPopulationꢀ
PercentageꢀofꢀLitigatingꢀSubdivisionꢀ
Populationꢀ
Adair 7,152ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.329%
Adamsꢀ3,602ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.166%
Allamakee 13,687ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.630%
Appanoose 12,426ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.572%
Audubonꢀ5,496ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.253%
Benton 25,645ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.181%
BlackꢀHawk 131,228ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ6.041%
Bremer 25,062ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.154%
Buchanan 21,175ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.975%
BuenaꢀVista 19,620ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.903%
Calhoun 9,668ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.445%
Carroll 20,165ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.928%
Cedar 18,627ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.857%
CerroꢀGordo 42,450ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.954%
Cherokee 11,235ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.517%
Chickasaw 11,933ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.549%
Clay 16,016ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.737%
Clayton 17,549ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.808%
Clinton 46,429ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.137%
Dallas 93,453ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ4.302%
Delaware 17,011ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.783%
DesꢀMoines 38,967ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.794%
Emmett 9,208ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.424%
Fayette 19,650ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.905%
Fremont 6,960ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.320%
Hamilton 14,773ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.680%
Hancock 10,630ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.489%
Hardin 16,846ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.775%
Harrison 14,049ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.647%
Henry 19,954ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.919%
Howard 9,158ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.422%
Humboldt 9,558ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.440%
Ida 6,860ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.316%
Jasper 37,185ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.712%
Johnson 151,140ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ6.957%
Jones 20,681ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.952%
Keokuk 10,246ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.472%
Lee 33,657ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.549%
Lyon 11,755ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.541%
Madison 16,338ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.752%
Mahaska 22,095ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.017%
Marion 33,253ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.531%
LitigatingꢀSubdivisionsꢀ
Mills 15,109ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.696%
Mitchell 10,586ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.487%
Monroe 7,707ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.355%
Montgomery 9,917ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.457%
Muscatine 42,664ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.964%
O'Brien 13,753ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.633%
Osceola 5,958ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.274%
Plymouth 25,177ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.159%
Pocahontas 6,619ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.305%
Polk 490,161ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ22.564%
Pottawattamie 93,206ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ4.291%
Powesheik 18,504ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.852%
Sac 9,721ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.447%
Scott 172,943ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ7.961%
Shelby 11,454ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.527%
Sioux 34,855ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.604%
Tama 16,854ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.776%
Taylor 6,121ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.282%
Union 12,241ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.563%
Webster 35,904ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.653%
Winnebago 10,354ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.477%
Winneshiek 19,991ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.920%
Worth 7,381ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.340%
Wright 12,562ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ0.578%
TOTAL 2,172,334ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ100%
95%ꢀofꢀTotal 2,063,717.30ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ95%
SubdivisionꢀPopulationꢀ
PercentageꢀofꢀPrimaryꢀSubdivisionꢀ
Overꢀ30,000ꢀPopulationꢀ
AmesꢀCity 66,258ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.02%
AnkenyꢀCity 67,355ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.05%
BettendorfꢀCity 36,543ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.11%
BlackꢀHawk 131,228ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ3.99%
CedarꢀFallsꢀCity 40,536ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.23%
CedarꢀRapidsꢀCity 133,562ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ4.07%
CerroꢀGordo 42,450ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.29%
Clinton 46,429ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.41%
CouncilꢀBluffsꢀCity 62,166ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.89%
Dallas 93,453ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.84%
DavenportꢀCity 101,590ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ3.09%
DesꢀMoines 214,237ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ6.52%
DesꢀMoinesꢀCity 38,967ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.19%
DubuqueꢀCity 57,882ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.76%
DubuqueꢀCounty 97,311ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.96%
IowaꢀCity 75,130ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.29%
PrimaryꢀSubdivisionsꢀOverꢀ30,000ꢀPopulation
Jasper 37,185ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.13%
Johnson 151,140ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ4.60%
Lee 33,657ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.02%
LinnꢀCounty 226,706ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ6.90%
Marion 40,359ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.23%
MarionꢀCity 33,253ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.01%
MarshallꢀCounty 39,369ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.20%
Muscatine 42,664ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.30%
Polk 490,161ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ14.92%
Pottawattamie 93,206ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.84%
Scott 172,943ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ5.26%
Sioux 82,651ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.52%
SiouxꢀCity 34,855ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.06%
StoryꢀCounty 97,117ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.96%
UrbandaleꢀCity 44,379ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.35%
WapelloꢀCounty 34,969ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.06%
WarrenꢀCounty 51,466ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.57%
WaterlooꢀCity 67,328ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.05%
Webster 35,904ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ1.09%
WestꢀDesꢀMoinesꢀCity 67,899ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ2.07%
WoodburyꢀCounty 103,107ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ3.14%
TOTAL 3,285,415ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ100%
80%ꢀofꢀTotalꢀ2,628,332ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀ80%
Item Number: 6.a.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion settin g a public hearin g on January 4, 2022 on th e p roject
manual an d estimate of cost for th e constru ction of th e Landfill G as
Collection System Exp ansion Proj ect, d irectin g City Cl erk to publish notice of
said hearin g , and d irectin g th e City En g ineer to place said proj ect man u al on
fil e for public in sp ection .
Prepared B y:J oe Welter, S r. Civil E ngineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$648,000 available in the L andfill Gas I nfrastructure E xpansion, A ccount
#3343
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T his agenda item sets the public hearing, which begins the bidding process, for the L andfill Gas
Collection System E xpansion P roject. T his project will increase the reliability of the gas collection
system for the L andfill by installing additional gas collection system piping around the south and
west portions of the site.
Background / Analysis:
T his project includes installation of additional landf ill gas collection system piping around the south
and west portions of the L andfill. A pproximately 5,000 linear f eet of ten to twelve inch high density
polyethylene (HD P E) pipe is estimated for this expansion. T he proposed system will
accommodate leachate and condensate removal as well as access to cleanouts. This system
expansion will increase the reliability of the gas collection system f or L andf ill, which will allow for
improved compliance with the L andfill’s environmental regulatory requirements. This expansion will
enable more landfill gas collection from the L andf ill’s newest cells, C ells F Y09 and F Y18. F uture
horizontal collection lines and vertical gas extraction wells will tie into this expansion.
HD R E ngineering, I nc. of Omaha, Nebraska designed the project and is assisting the City staff
during bidding, letting, and construction. The estimated cost of construction is $648,000.
Project T imeline:
Set P ublic Hearing – December 14, 2021
Hold P ublic Hearing / A pprove P roject Manual – J anuary 4, 2022
Bid L etting – J anuary 25, 2022
Award Date – F ebruary 1, 2022
Construction Start – March 1, 2022
F inal Completion – J une 30, 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE: DEC 2021 SHEET:
SCALE: 1"=1000'
FILE #:
DESIGN: JBW
DRAWN: JBW
IOWA CITY LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CENTER
LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM
EXPANSION - SITE MAP
0 1000'
IWV ROAD
HEBL AVENUE SWPROJECT
LOCATION
LANDFILL
SCALE HOUSE
Prepared by:Joe Welter, Public Works,410 East Washington Street,Iowa City,Iowa 52240,(319)356-5144
,. fLe
Resolution No. 21-310
Resolution setting a public hearing on January 4, 2022 on the
project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the
Landfill Gas Collection System Expansion 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 Landfill Gas Infrastructure Expansion, Account
Number L3343.
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 4th day of January, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly
Room at The Center, 28 S Linn 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.
2. If City Council does not meet in person due to the health and safety concerns from COVID-
19, the council meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings. For
information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see www,icgov.org/councildocs
or telephone the City Clerk at(319) 356-5043.
3. 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.
4. 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 14th day of December 2021
Ma
Approved by
0. 4,k
Attest: ( („ v ) L-G_ �.0 City erk City Attorne ' Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen— 12/08/2021)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
X Mims
x Salih
x Taylor
X Teague
x Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 7.a.
D ecember 14, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Competitive Quotation Memo
Item Number: 12.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion approvin g proj ect man u al and estimate of cost for the
constru ction of th e Ben ton Street Reh abil itation Project [S TP-U-3715(669)—
70-52], estab l ishin g amount of b id security to accompan y each b id, directing
City Clerk to p ost notice to bid d ers, an d fixing time and p l ace for receipt of
b ids.
Prepared B y:Melissa Clow,S pecial Projects A dministrator
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$3,200,000 available in the B enton S treet Rehabilitation P roject account
#S 3947
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he B enton S treet Rehabilitation P roject includes a crack-and-seat of the existing pavement with a
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA ) overlay, painting of on-street bike lanes, A D A sidewalk improvements, and
traffic and pedestrian signal improvements at the Benton and Sunset intersection.
Background / Analysis:
T he project corridor extends approximately 6,550 f eet along Benton Street, from Mormon Trek
Boulevard to 150 feet east of B enton Drive. T he existing pavement is a 33-foot wide Portland
Cement Concrete (P C C) roadway with approximately two 13-f oot wide travel lanes (one in each
direction) and 3-foot painted shoulders. W ith the crack-and-seat and overlay project, the existing
curb lines will remain and the overall width of the street will stay the same. However, the roadway
will be restriped to include two 11-foot travel lanes (one in each direction) and 5-foot on-street bike
lanes.
T he C ity has completed a diamond grinding project within this section of B enton S treet to try and
address rideability issues. However, the existing pavement is in poor condition, with joint
deterioration becoming an increasing issue f or much of the corridor. Sidewalk facilities exist along
both sides of B enton S treet, including curb ramps at most intersections. However, many of the
curb ramps do not meet current A D A requirements.
T he MP O J C programmed $1,316,000.00 in S T B G f unding f or the B enton Street Rehabilitation
Project in the F Y2021-2024 Transportation I mprovement Program (T I P). Council accepted this
funding in F ebruary 2021.
Project T imeline:
Hold P ublic Hearing / A pprove P roject Manual – December 14, 2021
I owa D O T Bid L etting – J anuary 19, 2022
Award Date – F ebruary 1, 2022
Construction Start – S pring 2022
F inal Completion – Fall 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
Exhibit A
Prepared by:Melissa Clow,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240,(319)356-5413
Resolution No. 21-311
Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the
construction of the Benton Street Rehabilitation Project [STP-U-
3715(669)--70-52], establishing amount of bid security to
accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to
bidders, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids.
Whereas, notice of public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the above-
named project was published as required by law, and the hearing thereon held; and
Whereas, this project will be bid by the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT); and
Whereas, bids will be accepted on January 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. by the DOT, Office of
Contracts in Ames, Iowa; and
Whereas, the City Engineer or designee intends to post notice of the project on the website
owned and maintained by the City of Iowa City; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Benton Street Rehabilitation Project account
#33947
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
1. The project manual and estimate of cost for the above-named project are hereby
approved.
2. The amount of bid security to accompany each bid for the construction of the above-
named project shall be in the form and amount prescribed in the bidding proposal.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post notice as required in Section 26.3,
not less than 13 days and not more than 45 days before the date of the bid letting, which
may be satisfied by timely posting notice on the Construction Update Network, operated
by the Master Builder of Iowa, and the Iowa League of Cities website.
4. Bids for the above-named project are to be received by the DOT, Office of Contracts, 800
Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa, before 10:00 a.m. on the 19th day of January, 2022.
Thereafter, the bids will be opened and announced by the DOT, and thereupon referred to
the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa for action upon said bids at its next regular
meeting, to be held at the Assembly Room at The Center, 28 S Linn Street, Iowa City,
Iowa, at 6:00 p.m. on the 1st day of February, 2022, or at a special meeting called for that
purpose.
5. If City Council does not meet in person due to the health and safety concerns from
COVID-19, the council meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings.
For information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see
www.icgov.org/councildocs or telephone the City Clerk at (319) 356-5043.
Resolution No. 21-311
Page 2
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021.
Ma;'.
Approved
IP
Attest: Y ' (-Le i -i
City Clerk City Attorney' Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen- 12/06/2021)
It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Mims the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
x Mims
x Salih
X Taylor
Teague
x Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 13.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion approvin g proj ect man u al and estimate of cost for the
constru ction of th e W illow Creek Streamban k Stab ilization Imp rovemen ts
Proj ect, establish ing amou n t of bid secu rity to accomp any each bid , d irectin g
City Clerk to p ost notice to bid d ers, an d fixing time and p l ace for receipt of
b ids.
Prepared B y:Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$170,000 available in the B enton S treet Rehabilitation P roject account
#S 3947
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T his project includes stabilization work along W illow C reek in W illow Creek P ark to address
erosion issues and potential safety hazards. Construction also includes rock riffle grade control
and rip-rap streambank armoring.
Background / Analysis:
Recent storm events have accelerated streambank erosion along a portion of W illow Creek
flowing through W illow Creek Park near Keswick Drive. I f left unchecked, this erosion will
undermine the sidewalk on the south side of B enton S treet, creating a public safety hazard and an
increased risk of damage to public infrastructure.
Project T imeline:
Hold P ublic Hearing / A pprove P roject Manual – December 14, 2021
Bid L etting – J anuary 11, 2022
Award Date – J anuary 18, 2022
Construction Start – S pring 2022
F inal Completion – Fall 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
10+0010+5011+00
11+50
12+00 12+5013+00WESTGATE CIRCLE
LEONARD CIRCLE
BENTON STREET
BENTON STREETKESWICK DRIVETEG DRIVESPENCER DRIVEWESTGATE STREETKATHLIN DRIVE
WILLOW CREEK PARK
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
B.O.P.
STA: 10+43.98
E.O.P.
STA: 12+79.61
R:\191037-000\06-Drawings\06 - Plans\Channel Re-Alignment\A.02.dwg 5/5/2021 2:00 PM
making lives better.
CHECKED BY
ENGINEER SHEET NO.
FIELD BOOK NO.
DRAWN BY REVISIONS NOTICE:
McClure Engineering Company waives any and all responsibility and liability for problems which arise from failure to follow these Plans,
Specifications, and the engineering intent they convey, or for problems which arise from failure to obtain and/or follow the engineers
guidance with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, ambiguities, or conflicts which are alleged.
COPYRIGHT:
Copyright and property rights in these documents are expressly reserved by McClure Engineering Company. No reproductions, changes,
or copies in any manner shall be made without obtaining prior written consent from McClure Engineering Company.
1740 Lininger Lane
North Liberty, Iowa 52317
319-626-9090
fax 319-626-9095-JSS
BAVBRB
.
.
.
.
MAY 2021
MEC JOB #191037
IOWA CITY, IOWA
IMPROVEMENTS - 2021
STREAMBANK STABILIZATION
WILLOW CREEK PARK
OVERALL PROJECT LAYOUT A.02
20 400
GRAPHIC SCALE
80
NORTH
j3 .
Prepared by:Ben Clark,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240,(319)356-5436
Resolution No. 21-312
Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the
construction of the Willow Creek Streambank Stabilization
Improvements Project, establishing amount of bid security to
accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to
bidders, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids.
Whereas, notice of public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the above-
named project was published as required by law, and the hearing thereon held; and
Whereas, the City Engineer or designee intends to post notice of the project on the website
owned and maintained by the City of Iowa City; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Benton Street Rehabilitation Account#53947.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
1. The project manual and estimate of cost for the above-named project are hereby
approved.
2. The amount of bid security to accompany each bid for the construction of the above-
named project shall be in the amount of 10% (ten percent) of bid payable to Treasurer,
City of Iowa City, Iowa.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post notice as required in Section 26.3,
not less than 13 days and not more than 45 days before the date of the bid letting, which
may be satisfied by timely posting notice on the Construction Update Network, operated
by the Master Builder of Iowa, and the Iowa League of Cities website.
4. Sealed bids for the above-named project are to be received by the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
at the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall, before 3:00 p.m. on the 11'h day of January,
2022. At that time, the bids will be opened by the City Engineer or his designee, and
thereupon referred to the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, for action upon said
bids at its next regular meeting, to be held at the Assembly Room at The Center, 28 S Linn
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at 6:00 p.m. on the 18th day of January, 2022, or at a special
meeting called for that purpose. If City Hall is closed to the public due to the health and
safety concerns from COVID-19, sealed bids may still be delivered in person on Mondays
through Fridays 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The person delivering the sealed bid may come to
the front lobby of City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa, and upon arrival
telephone the City Clerk at 319/356-5043.
5. If City Council does not meet in person due to the health and safety concerns from
COVID-19, the council meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings.
For information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see
www.icgov.org/councildocs or telephone the City Clerk at (319) 356-5043.
Resolution No. 21-312
Page 2
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021.
l
M ��
Approve.
Attest: . '. Y I. ._
City Clerk City Attorne s Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen— 12/07/2021)
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Taylor the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
x Mims
x Salih
x Taylor
x Teague
x Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 14.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion approvin g proj ect man u al and estimate of cost for the
constru ction of th e F irst Avenue an d Scott Bou l evard Intersection
Improvements Project, estab l ishin g amount of b id security to accompan y
each bid , d irectin g City Cl erk to post n otice to b idders, and fixin g time an d
p l ace for receipt of b ids.
Prepared B y:J ustin Harland, Civil E ngineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$1,700,000 available in the First Ave/S cott B lvd I ntersection I mprovements
account # S 3944
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T his project includes reconstruction of the F irst Avenue and S cott Boulevard intersection and
converting the existing four way stop into a single lane roundabout. C onstruction will also include
new storm sewer and water main, A D A sidewalk improvements, street lighting, and restoration.
Background / Analysis:
T he First Avenue and S cott B oulevard intersection currently includes four-way stop control that
experiences significant queuing during peak hours resulting in increased travel times, delays, and
emissions. I n 2015, the C ity utilized a consultant to investigate the f easibility of constructing a
roundabout at this intersection. T his consultant determined a standard modern roundabout would
handle projected traffic demands, improve vehicle saf ety, reduce emissions and provide better
speed control.
As part of the design process, an I ntersection Control E valuation (I C E ) was completed in 2019 to
analyze and compare the potential perf ormance and benefits of a 4-way stop controlled
intersection, traffic signal-controlled intersection, and a roundabout. The project team also met with
A C T representatives to discuss the results of the I C E . Ultimately, a roundabout was selected as
the preferred alternative.
Project T imeline:
Hold P ublic Hearing / A pprove P roject Manual – December 14, 2021
Bid L etting – J anuary 11, 2022
Award Date – J anuary 18, 2022
Construction Start – S pring 2022
F inal Completion – Fall 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
Exhibit A
14
Prepared by:Justin Harland,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240,(319)356-5154
Resolution No. 21-313
Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the
construction of the First Avenue and Scott Boulevard
Intersection Improvements Project, establishing amount of bid
security to accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post
notice to bidders, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids.
Whereas, notice of public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the above-
named project was published as required by law, and the hearing thereon held; and
Whereas, the City Engineer or designee intends to post notice of the project on the website
owned and maintained by the City of Iowa City; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the First Ave/Scott Blvd Intersection Improvements
Account#S3944.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
1. The project manual and estimate of cost for the above-named project are hereby
approved.
2. The amount of bid security to accompany each bid for the construction of the above-
named project shall be in the amount of 10% (ten percent) of bid payable to Treasurer,
City of Iowa City, Iowa.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post notice as required in Section 26.3,
not less than 13 days and not more than 45 days before the date of the bid letting, which
may be satisfied by timely posting notice on the Construction Update Network, operated
by the Master Builder of Iowa, and the Iowa League of Cities website.
4. Sealed bids for the above-named project are to be received by the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
at the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall, before 3:00 p.m. on the 11'h day of January
2022. At that time, the bids will be opened by the City Engineer or his designee, and
thereupon referred to the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, for action upon said
bids at its next regular meeting, to be held at the Assembly Room at The Center, 28 S Linn
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at 6:00 p.m. on the 18° day of January 2022, or at a special
meeting called for that purpose. If City Hall is closed to the public due to the health and
safety concerns from COVID-19, sealed bids may still be delivered in person on Mondays
through Fridays 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The person delivering the sealed bid may come to
the front lobby of City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa, and upon arrival
telephone the City Clerk at 319/356-5043.
5. If City Council does not meet in person due to the health and safety concerns from
COVID-19, the council meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings.
For information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see
www.icgov.org/councildocs or telephone the City Clerk at(319) 356-5043.
Resolution No. 21-313
Page 2
Passed and approved this 14th day of December , 2021.
MJ'L'�'
Approvee •yy
Attest: " `i^_^L412(a,
City Clerk City Attorn- 's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen - 12/06/2021)
It was moved by Bergus and seconded by Salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
x Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
x Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 15.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion approvin g th e Statu s of F u n d ed Activities (S O FA) for C D B G -C V
funds received b y th e Iowa Economic Develop ment Au thority.
Prepared B y:Erika Kubly, Neighborhood S ervices Coordinator
Reviewed By:Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development S ervices Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:I owa City received $686,610 in C D B G-C V funds through the I owa E conomic
Development Authority in December 2020.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
IEDA CDB G-CV Summary of Drawn Funds
Executive S ummary:
I owa City received $686,610 in C D B G -C V f unds through the I owa Economic Development
Authority to prevent, prepare for and respond to the C O V I D -19 pandemic. F unds have been
allocated to nine projects including emergency housing assistance payments and public service
activities. I n accordance with the state's Citizen Participation Plan, the City must hold a public
meeting to discuss the S tatus of F unded Activities (S O FA ) once 50% of funds are expended.
Background / Analysis:
T he City of Iowa City received a total of $1,521,160 in CDBG-CV funds to prevent, prepare for and
respond to the CO VID-19 pandemic. Funds were received in three phases and were allocated to
homeless prevention and services, child care services, mental health services, food assistance, eviction
prevention, and business assistance activities.
In the first phase of funding Iowa City received $410,422 from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (H U D). A total of $246,000 was allocated for emergency housing assistance payments
and has been fully expended. T he remaining balance of $164,422 plus $75,500 in regular C D BG
entitlement funds were allocated to nine public service projects and 87% of funds have been expended.
T he second phase of funding totaled $424,128 and was allocated for business assistance in
partnership with ECICOG. Twenty-seven businesses received grant assistance and 97% of funding
has been expended in this phase.
T he third phase of funding was allocated to the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IE D A) from
HUD and then distributed to Iowa entitlement communities based on population. Iowa City received
$686,610 in CDB G-CV funds from IE D A in December 2020. A total of $370,000 was allocated for a
second phase of emergency housing payments administered by Shelter House. T his activity began
once the funds for the first phase of C D BG-C V emergency housing payments were depleted and funds
are currently 54% drawn with a balance of $169,858. A total of $292,401 was allocated to eight public
service projects and is currently 57% expended with a balance of $126,633.
As a recipient of state administered funds the City must comply with the state's Citizen Participation
Plan which requires a public meeting on the Status of Funded Activities (S OFA) once 50% of funds
have been drawn. T he purpose of the S OFA is to describe accomplishments, expenditures, remaining
work, and any changes to the original scope of work.
Details on state CDBG-CV allocations funds and most recently collected beneficiary data are shown in
the attached State C D BG-C V Summary spreadsheet. A total of $24,209 is currently unallocated. T he
City initially proposed $20,000 for administrative costs and one project returned $4,209 in unused
funds. T hese funds are expected to be reallocated to current projects as needed for any cost
overages.
Iowa City must expend 80% of the IEDA CDB G-CV allocation by July 20, 2023 and 100% by July 20,
2025. It is anticipated that all funds will be expended well before these deadlines.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
resolution
Summary of F unds Drawn
Prepared by: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5230
RESOLUTION NO. 21-314
Resolution approving the Status of Funded Activities (SOFA) for CDBG-CV
funds received by the Iowa Economic Development Authority
Whereas, City Council approved an application and submission to the Iowa Economic
Development Authority (IEDA) for State of Iowa CDBG-CV funds on September 15, 2020 by
Resolution #20-229; and
Whereas, the City of Iowa City received an allocation of$686,610 in state CDBG-CV funds to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
Whereas, the City has allocated state CDBG-CV funds to nine projects serving low-to
moderate-income individuals and households impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic; and
Whereas, the City has drawn more than 50% of the CDBG-CV allocation from IEDA; and
Whereas, the City of Iowa City has held a public meeting to discuss the Status of Funded
Activities (SOFA) for state CDBG-CV funds in accordance with the State of Iowa's Citizen
Participation Plan.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa approves the
attached Status of Funded Activities for CDBG-CV funds from the Iowa Economic Development
Authority.
Passed and approved this 14'h day of December 2021.
iftee
ayor
Attest: _ -� I _ / „ .
City Clerk City Attorney's Office
(Sue Dulek— 12/08/2021)
Resolution No. 21-314
Page 2
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Gni the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
g Bergus
x Mims
g Salih
x Taylor
x Teague
x Thomas
x Weiner
State CDBG-CV Summary of Drawn Funds 12/7/2021
City of Iowa City
Most Recent
Funding Funds Remaining %of Funds Beneficiary Data
Agency Project Type Activity Status Source Allocated Spent Available Drawn (#served)
Shelter-House Emergency Housing Payments Underway IEDA $370,000 $200,142 $169,858 54% 120
4Cs Child Care Services Underway IEDA $35,000. $3,257 $31,743 9% 31
DVIP Homeless Prevention/Services Underway IEDA $50,000 $15,746 $34,254 31% 44
Dream City Child Care Services Complete IEDA $40,791 $40,791 $0 100% 48
UAY Mental Health Services Underway IEDA $32,675 $23,842 $8,833 73% 47
Shelter House Homeless Prevention/Services, Mental Complete IEDA $56,044 $56,044 $0 100% - 201
Health.Services
CommUnity Food Assistance Complete IEDA $32,195 $32,195 $0 100% 2,628
Table to Table Food Assistance Underway IEDA $10,000 '.$0 - $10,000 0% 0
Iowa Legal Aid Eviction Prevention Pending IEDA $35,696 $0 $35,696 0% 0
Total $662,401 $372,018 $290,384 3,119
Total Grant: $686,610
Amount Allocated: $662,401
Amount Expended: $372,018
Percent Expended: 54%
Unallocated Funds: $24,209
Item Number: 16.
D ecember 14, 2021
Resol u tion Approvin g Su b stan tial Amen d ment #1 to Iowa City's F Y22 Annual
Action Plan .
Prepared B y:Erika Kubly, Neighborhood S ervices Coordinator
Reviewed By:Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development S ervices Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:I owa City received $721,974 in C D B G and $494,351 in HO ME funds for
F Y22 which is used in conjunction with program income and uncommitted or
returned funds.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: The Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended approval by a vote of 6-0 at their November 18, 2021 meeting.
Attachments:F Y22 Annual Action P lan A mendment #1
HCDC Minutes - September 16, 2021
HC D C Minutes - October 21, 2021
HC D C Minutes - November 18, 2021
Resolution
Appendix B - C D B G and HO ME A llocation
Executive S ummary:
T he C ity proposes a substantial amendment to the F Y22 Annual A ction P lan to distribute
unallocated C D B G and HO ME funding to four af f ordable housing projects. Due to a low number
of applications received during the initial F Y22 f unding round, the City held a mid-year funding
round which made $656,000 in federal funds available for qualif ying projects. The F Y22 A nnual
Action Plan and proposed substantial amendment #1 are available at www.icgov.org/action plan
and a summary of the funded activities is attached to the resolution as Appendix B.
A public meeting and resolution considering approval of substantial amendment #1 to the F Y22
Annual A ction Plan, which f ormally allocates additional C D B G and HO ME f unding to four projects,
will be held at the City Council meeting on December 14, 2021.
Background / Analysis:
On May 4, 2021, C ity C ouncil approved the F Y22 A nnual A ction Plan which describes projects
and activities proposed f or funding in the F Y22 fiscal year. D ue to a low number of applications
received during the C D B G and HO ME funding allocation, a mid-year funding round was held to
allocate remaining f unds. A total of six applications were received, with one project determined
ineligible for the available f unding. T he remaining f ive projects were reviewed by staff and the
Housing and C ommunity D evelopment Commission (HC D C). A t their October 21, 2021 meeting,
HC D C allocated a total of $656,000 in C D B G and HO ME funds to the following four affordable
housing projects:
1. $300,000 in HO ME funds to S helter House for rental construction of the 501 P roject which
will provide permanent supportive housing for 36 individuals who are chronically homeless
with a disabling condition.
2. $128,000 in HO ME f unds to the Housing Fellowship f or rental acquisition to serve a large
family (estimated 6-person household).
3. $128,000 in C D B G and HO ME funds to the C ity of I owa City and GreenS tate Credit Union
for down payment assistance in HUD-certified low- to moderate-income census tracts for
home buyers that have experienced difficulty obtaining a standard 30-year mortgage.
4. $100,000 in HO ME f unds to the City of I owa City's S outh D istrict P rogram which will
provide down payment assistance for four households.
Substantial amendment #1 to the FY22 Annual Action Plan was made available for public comment
beginning November 12, 2021. HCDC approved the draft at their November 18, 2021 meeting. At the
time of this submittal the City has not received any public comments. Next steps will be to submit the
amendment to HUD for review and approval.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
F Y22 A A P A mendment #1
HC D C 9-16-21 F inal Minutes
HC D C 10-21-21 Final Minutes
HC D C 11-18-21 Preliminary Minutes
resolution
Appendix B
EXHIBIT A
FY22 Annual Action Plan
Substantial Amendment #1
November 12, 2021
Due to a low number of applications received during the regular FY22 funding round, the City of
Iowa City held a mid-year funding round for affordable housing projects which made $656,000 in
federal funds available. Over $1 million dollars in requests for funds were received and
considered by the Housing and Community Development Commission.
The proposed FY22 Annual Action Plan amendment includes the incorporation of funding
recommendations, goals, beneficiaries, and other related adjustments. Funds awarded include
$500,000 in regular HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds and $78,000 in
recaptured Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from FY21. Additionally,
$78,000 in CHDO reserve funds, initially allocated for rental rehabilitation, are recommended for
redistribution to a rental acquisition project.
The City Council will consider this recommendation on December 14, 2021 following a 30-day
public comment period and an amendment will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) subject to City Council approval.
Jurisdiction: City of Iowa City, Iowa Contact Person
Jurisdiction Web Address:
http://www.icgov.org/actionplan
Erika Kubly
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319.356.5121
Erika-Kubly@Iowa-City.org
Proposed Amendment
Table 6
FY22 Anticipated Resources
Program Source
of Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 2 Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder of
ConPlan
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocatio
n:
Progra
m
Income:
Prior Year
Resources
:
Total:
CDBG Federal Acquisition,
Admin and
Planning,
Economic
Development,
Housing, Public
Improvements,
Public Services
$731,974 $73,817 $88,451
$166,451
$894,242
$972,242
$1,928,000 The expected amount in the
remainder of the Consolidated Plan is
four times the average annual
amount from the past five years,
rounded to the nearest $1,000.
HOME Federal Acquisition,
homebuyer
assistance,
rehab,
construction,
rehab, TBRA
$494,351 $76,558 $103,091
$177,091
$674,000
$748,000
$1,497,000 The expected amount in the
remainder of the Consolidated Plan is
four times the average annual
allocation from the past five years,
rounded to the nearest $1,000. This
does not reflect new funds
anticipated from the American
Rescue Plan Act.
Table 7
Annual Goals and Objectives
Sort Order Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
1
Increase the
number of
affordable
rental housing
units including
through new
construction
and acquisition
2022 2023 Affordable
Housing
AHLM
Eligible Areas
Citywide
Affordable rental
and owner
housing
$0 CDBG
$326,000
$428,000
HOME
11 Other
2 (Rental Units)
2
Support
homebuyer
activities such as
down payment
and/or closing
cost assistance
2022 2023 Affordable
Housing
AHLM
Eligible Areas
Citywide
Affordable rental
and owner
housing
$0 $78,000
CDBG
$100,000
$150,000
HOME
4
12 Households
Assisted
3
Rehabilitate and
improve owner-
occupied
housing units
2022 2023 Affordable
Housing
Citywide
Housing
Rehab
Targeted
Areas
Preservation of
existing
affordable rental
and owner
housing
$235,000
CDBG
$40,010
$40,000
HOME
20 Owner Units
Rehabbed
4
Rehabilitate and
improve renter-
occupied
housing units
2022 2023 Affordable
Housing
Citywide
Housing
Rehab
Targeted
Areas
Preservation of
existing
affordable rental
and owner
housing
$0 CDBG
$151,990
$74,000
HOME
4
2 Rental Units
Rehabilitated
1 Other (CHDO
Operations)
5 Provide public
services 2022 2023
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Public Services
$124,000
CDBG
$0 HOME
2,900 People
Assisted
6 Improve public
facilities 2022 2023
Non-Housing
Community
Development
LMI Areas
Citywide
Public facility
Improvements
$262,242
CDBG
$0 HOME
2,862 People
Assisted
(3 Public Facilities)
7
Improve public
infrastructure &
address climate
action needs
2021 2025
Non-Housing
Community
Development
LMI Areas
Citywide
Public
Infrastructure
improvements
$75,000 CDBG
$0 HOME
300 People Assisted
(1 Public
Facility/Infrastructure)
8
Support
economic and
workforce
development
2021 2025
Non-Housing
Community
Development
LMI Areas
Citywide
Economic
Development
$50,000 CDBG
$0 HOME 2 Businesses Assisted
9
Effectively
administer and
plan for the
CDBG, HOME,
and related
programs
2021 2025 Other Citywide Administration
and Planning
$148,000
CDBG
$56,000
HOME
Other
Table 10.5
FY22 Competitive Housing Project Summary
5 Project Name Other Housing Activities
Target Area Affordable Housing Location Model Eligible Areas, Citywide
Goals Supported Increase the number of affordable rental housing units through new
construction and acquisition; Support homebuyer activities such as
down payment and/or closing cost assistance; Rehabilitate and
improve renter-occupied housing units
Needs Addressed Expansion of affordable rental & owner housing options; Preservation
of existing affordable rental/owner housing
Funding $0 $78,000, CDBG $451,000 $450,000 HOME
Description In accordance with CDBG and HOME rules and regulations, assistance
will be used by the City and provided directly to homeowners,
nonprofits, and for-profits to acquire and/or rehabilitate properties,
correct substandard conditions, make general repairs, improve energy
efficiency, reduce lead paint hazards, and make emergency or
accessibility improvements. May include: acquisition/rehab/resale,
refinance/rehab, demolition/site preparation, new construction, down
payment/closing cost assistance and housing counseling. Housing units
assisted will be single or multi-unit affordable housing to be sold,
rented, or lease/purchased, as allowed by CDBG and HOME
regulations. Beneficiaries of housing activities will be low- and
moderate-income households. Other funding available includes
program income generated by the repayment of loan funds. Funding
will also be utilized for project delivery costs and administration of
housing programs, as allowed by CDBG and HOME regulations.
Target Date 6/30/2022
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The following are expected to benefit from the proposed activities:
• Financial assistance for homeowner activities to 4 12 low
income households
• Rental acquisition or construction of 11 2 units to benefit 11 2
low income renter households
• Those receiving services from The Housing Fellowship (1 other)
Location Description Funding is available citywide. Addresses of activities are unknown.
Planned Activities The following activities are proposed: financial assistance to four 12 low
income homebuyers to facilitate affordable homeownership
opportunities, acquisition or construction activities to create 11 2 rental
units for low income households, operating assistance to The Housing
Fellowship, a local CHDO.
Table 10.6
CHDO Activities Project Summary
6 Project Name CHDO Reserve Activities
Target Area Affordable Housing Location Model Eligible Areas
Goals Supported Rehabilitate and improve renter-occupied housing units
Needs Addressed Preservation of existing affordable rental and owner housing
Funding $78,000 $128,000 HOME
Description In accordance with CDBG and HOME rules and regulations, assistance
will be used by the City and provided directly to CHDOs to acquire
and/or rehabilitate properties, correct substandard conditions, make
general repairs, improve energy efficiency, reduce lead paint hazards,
and make emergency or accessibility improvements. May include:
acquisition/rehab/resale, refinance/rehab, demolition/site preparation,
new construction, down payment/closing cost assistance, housing
counseling, and CHDO operational funding. Housing units assisted will
be single or multi-unit affordable housing to be sold, rented, or
lease/purchased, as allowed by CDBG and HOME regulations.
Beneficiaries of housing activities will be low- and moderate-income
households. Funding will also be utilized for project delivery costs and
administration of housing programs, as allowed by CDBG and HOME
regulations.
Target Date 6/30/2022
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The following are expected to benefit from the proposed activities:
• 2 rental housing units planned for rehabilitation. Activity will
benefit two low income renter households.
• Acquisition of a 3 to 4 bedroom home. Activity will benefit a
low income renter household and is intended to help a larger
family.
Location Description Funding is available citywide. Addresses of activities are unknown.
Planned Activities Planned activities at this time include:
The City will provide funds to a certified CHDO to assist in rehabilitating
two rental units for low income households.
The City will provide funds to a certified CHDO to assist with the
acquisition of a 3-4 bedroom rental home to benefit a larger family in
the community.
Table 12
One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported
Homeless 0 2
Non-Homeless 39 13
Special-Needs 0 4
Total 39 19
Table 13
One Year Goals for the Number of Household Supported Through
Rental Assistance 0
The Production of New Units 0 2
Rehab of Existing Units 24 22
Acquisition of Existing Units 15 1
Total 39 25
Public Comments Received with Staff Response
The 30-day public comment period for the FY22 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment #1
began November 12, 2021 and ends December 14, 2021. The City Council is holding a public
meeting on December 14, 2021.
Comments Received:
TBD.
Staff Response:
N/A
EXHIBIT B
FY22 Substantial Amendment
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Nasr Mohammed, Peter
Nkumu, Becci Reedus
MEMBERS ABSENT: Megan Alter, Theresa Lewis, Kyle Vogel
STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Sara Barron, Crissy Canganelli, Simon Andrew, Simon Fall, Anthony
Smith, Caitlin McGowan, Kevin Sanders
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 19, 2021:
Nkumu moved to approve the minutes of August 19, 2021. Mohammed seconded and a vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) noted the State of Iowa had the opportunity to give out $195
million to residents of Iowa and as of a few weeks ago they had made it through about $5 million. Barron
stated that tells them a few things, none of which are that not very many people need this help, but rather
that they have been pretty slow to operationalize and support this. The good news is that the process is
improving, they have probably hundreds, if not 1000 or more households, now that in Johnson County
that have received this support, but they continuously see even among need for the support and ask for
the Commission’s continued assistance in getting the word out to anyone in Johnson County that not only
is there more help available now than there has ever been for people who have lost income and are
unable to pay their basic housing bills, but also that there are places where they can go to get that
support. They can make appointments at Johnson County Public Services for help filling out all those
applications as well as general assistance, there's expanded support for this program at Community and
of course Shelter House. In addition, Iowa City Alliance for Worker Justice is available every Wednesday
at 6pm to help people complete these applications now until the end of October. So even if someone has
not accepted this assistance yet, it's definitely not too late. Now that the moratorium is lifted it's especially
important that they do more communication with landlords and learn how to sell this program because
people can be removed from their homes.
The other thing Barron wanted to let the Commission know about is that the Johnson County Affordable
Housing Coalition and its board of directors made a suggestion to all of the city governments and the
county government about how to send their American Rescue Plan dollars and their board identified the
top priority to be the preservation of affordable housing, and acquisition and rehabilitation and
construction of more affordable housing. When we see units come up for sale in the private market, they
don't currently have a great way to acquire those units and keep them affordable or make them more
affordable. If the City and the County and the other cities put about 45% of their rescue plan allocation
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 2 of 15
2
into a single fund, they can mobilize that fund for no or low interest loans or even grants for some projects
and could acquire a large number of units at a suitable time to preserve affordable housing, rehabilitate if
needed, and then keep that housing permanently affordable. It also allows them to get back some of
those units that are vulnerable to the private market and put them under the management and support of
a local nonprofit, a resident owned cooperative, or some other organization whose mission is to preserve
affordable housing. They can't do that without a large commitment that can allow them to respond to the
private market. Their other recommendation is that money is given directly to households who have not
benefited from other stimulus programs, because they see a large number of people coming to them who
did not have stimulus checks or rent assistance and those folks are getting debt and borrowing money
from family and friends directly. Barron closed by saying if anyone has further questions or wants more
information they can contact her at the Affordable Housing Coalition.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION FOR APPLICATIONS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS ( HOME) PROGRAMS:
The first application is the City down payment assistance program. Reedus stated she is brand new to
this process and noted this is a down payment assistance program with the City but there's another one
with Green State that the City was partnering with so what is the difference between the two. Kubly
replied this is a third phase of a program that the City already offers in the South District neighborhood.
The City has been acquiring duplex properties and converting them to condos and selling them for
homeownership. They also rehab the unit so they're ready to purchase and ready to move in. This
application for funding would allow the City to continue that program and would provide home down
payment assistance for those buyers. They try to cater to residents that live within the South District,
specifically people who are already living on Taylor Drive and Davis Street in the South District area and
give the opportunity for homeownership. The Green State program is similar, it’s down payment
assistance with HOME funds however, it's not directly to City owned units or directly to the South District,
but it is limited to low-income census tracts. The City is partnering with the credit union to provide down
payment for people who are purchasing homes in those areas who would also qualify for the HOME
income guidelines. An individual would not be able to use both programs, they are two separate
programs.
Dennis asked if they had any applicants. Kubly noted as of today they have 13 people on the applicant
list, she wouldn't say they're ready because they have not finished all the steps to apply for the program
and don't all have preapproval for lending but they're working through those steps and they have a couple
of people that are just about ready to purchase the existing homes that the City has. Dennis asked how
the City screens the applicants. Kubly stated they have to income qualify for the HOME funds, 80% of
the area median income, so they do an income verification, they have to take a homeownership
education course through Horizons, that costs $99 but the City reimburses that amount, and then they
have to get preapproval for a loan for the cost that's not covered by the down payment assistance. The
City doesn’t run the credit score, but the lender of course would do that, so the City tries to work with
people to help them get set up and working with a lender.
Nkumu asked if this just for first time homebuyers. Kubly said it is for anybody, but they do have
preference categories such as a geographic preference for people who live in the neighborhood that
they're working in. They also have a preference for people who are on the Housing Authority’s Family
Self-sufficiency Program so if they are interested in purchasing a home and have been working with that
program they might get a priority.
Mohammed asked why give priority for people to are on the Housing Authority Family Self-sufficiency
Program. Kubly noted those people have been working with the Family Self-sufficiency Program
coordinator with the City and setting goals for homeownership so they just expanded it to that group of
people. Mohammed stated the priority should be to the people who need it the most. Kubly stated the
initial goal with the program was because this neighborhood has a higher proportion of the renters versus
owner occupied units and so they're trying to get those renters opportunities to purchase within their own
neighborhood. They have a quite a few properties and plan to continue to program and if they get to a
point where there's no eligible applicants in the immediate neighborhood, they would expand out.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 3 of 15
3
Dennis asked if they anticipate any of the recovery money coming in for something like this. Kubly does
not believe so, with the pace that they're moving their regular HOME funds would serve the purpose of
this program the best. They have properties purchased to continue the program and have used local
funds for that.
Mohammed acknowledged they said they had 13 applicants and wondered if there is enough housing for
them. Kubly stated right now the City owns three properties that are under rehab, and then they
purchased 16 more, so there are enough units for all applicants, they're just not ready for homeownership
yet and it's going to be a longer-term program over several years.
Reedus noted the application stated three units have already been sold, and another two units they
anticipate the sale by June 2022 so that's the whole target, like seven units. Kubly stated they have six
right now but are saying they’re going to do four more on top of that. Reedus asked if the timeline for that
is in the City Steps Plan, so if it wasn’t funded this year it could still be eligible next year. Kubly
responded it just depends, right now some of the properties that they own are rented out and so
availability will depend on people vacating those units, because the City is not going to have anyone
move out if they don't want to. Once they get a duplex and can vacate both sides, they'll start with the
rehab.
Mohammed asked if this housing program is limited to geographically the South District and not if people
can find housing outside of the South District. Kubly replied for this program they are specifically looking
for the duplex homes on Taylor and Davis. The next application, with Green State, is for throughout the
City but limited to low income census tracts.
Reedus asked if people from other areas can participate in the program by purchasing the home itself if
they're eligible, correct? Kubly confirmed yes if they don’t have anyone in a preference category. People
who live there would have the highest preference but if they don't find buyers within the preference
category, they will open it up to a broader area.
Drabek noted the second application is the City of Iowa City and Green State, Kubly will also speak to this
application as no one from Green State is present.
Drabek asked if the main goal is to close the racial homeownership gap and the method is by targeting
certain neighborhoods and income groups and he is assuming that there are legal regulatory reasons
why that might be the simplest way to target a racial group. Drabek asked if they were able to measure
the race of buyers or applicants and who the assistance goes to. Kubly stated the will be tracking
demographics of who they’re serving, they are also require to do that for federal funds.
Reedus asked if staff can provide a couple of examples on the flexibility allowed for the requirements for
the lending. Kubly stated they would maybe consider a lower credit score than they might have previously
considered or consideration for certain credit issues that someone might have in their report that would
give them a lower score, a lower required down payment, which of course the City is going to help with
via the HOME assistance and then the other thing is the job-life tenure, so if someone has been
consistently employed but maybe they have moved around jobs that might negatively impact their
applications. Overall, they're taking a longer look at some of these things to see how they can help. After
looking at these expanded guidelines if people are still not eligible, they're also partnering with Horizons
to offer homeownership or financial education courses and pay for that.
Nkumu asked how many this funding will support. Kubly stated they have applied for 10 households for
HOME down payment assistance. If they got less funding, they would do fewer but as much as they can
with that amount of money, and then maybe apply in the future.
Mohammad asked how is this different than UniverCity program. Kubly replied the UniverCity program
was similar to the South District program where the City purchased properties and rehabbed them and
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 4 of 15
4
resold them. They didn't necessarily have down payment assistance for that program but the rehab costs
were forgiven so that's how it made it more affordable for buyers. For this program they’re not doing any
rehab, it's just assistance for financing and then down payment assistance to make it more affordable for
the buyers.
Drabek stated the next application is Shelter House.
Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) first had a question about funding projects underway, Shelter House
staff contacted City staff to see if this would be an allowable goal under this program because normally
the City does not use CDBG grant funds to projects underway. Kubly confirmed they could make it work
confirming normally if the project is underway, they're unable to fund it but it sounds like how this one is
set up with other federal funding already that they probably could.
Dennis noted it looks like Shelter House is asking for all of the funds that are available. Canganelli
confirmed that was correct. Dennis asked if there a requirement for a CHDO. Thul stated they do have
about $77,000 of CHDOs set aside separate from the $500,000 available for this round.
Dennis asked then if the Shelter House doesn’t receive funds from this Commission, or a
recommendation from this Commission, what programs fall short. Canganelli stated the construction loan
would revert to a long-term mortgage and what they're trying to do is reduce that debt burden on the front
side of the project so that they're not taking out a mortgage because that does weigh heavily on their
success for the project. She also noted it's not just the construction of the units as an expense but also
the operating expenses for managing the facility and 24/7 case management and support services that
are provided. Otherwise, they're patching together from myriad of different funding sources and
fundraising activities, and they are continuing to move forward with fundraising efforts to overall reduce
that effort.
Dennis asked about the National Housing Trust Fund deadline being extended. Canganelli replied they
are just now extending the deadline, but construction is to completed by June.
Dennis asked if there is any concern about that deadline. Canganelli said there's no concern, they're on
schedule in spite of supply chain issues but costs are increasing over three quarters of a million dollars
since they started.
Drabek noted what stands out about this application is it is to provide housing to individuals that have
been chronically homeless for years and decades. Canganelli agreed and noted Cross Park Place was
the initial example and they've been successful. Dennis asked if there are there any vacancies at Cross
Park Place now and Canganelli replied no.
Reedus asked what the anticipated length of time is to be at full occupancy. Canganelli replied their goal
is to have occupancy by June and by mid-July be completing full. They will use the winter shelter period,
through the course of that season, to really be meeting with folks, encouraging them, getting any financial
documents that require research, project-based vouchers, etc. and getting all of that work done in
advance.
Canganelli stated this is targeted and just has to do with homelessness and the number of episodes
within a certain period of time, and about 100% of the people have serious illness, substance abuse
histories and brain injury, intellectual disabilities, chronic health issues. As far as reducing homelessness,
the real goal here is reducing crime in society that will be very close to ending crime. As a service
provider they talk about ending homelessness an say that they're at functional zero and functional zero
means that they're getting to a position where anyone who presents themselves as homeless and wants
to be housed, they can help them. They’ve retooled and realigned their resources with Community so
that they can meet with that person and get them housed, if they so choose housing within them. The
challenge for community members is that they believe that when they see people on the streets with the
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 5 of 15
5
signs that say that “I'm homeless” when oftentimes they are not and that creates some cognitive
dissonance from the data and from the understanding or research work.
Canganelli states is a new radically process to help people maintain their housing. The key to this type of
housing is to work closely with the City Housing Authority that has dedicated project-based vouchers for
the project, so every unit has a voucher that is attached to the unit. The Housing Authority has reduced
the technical requirements in and around criminal histories, credit, and different things that often are
barriers for the folks that they are working with. The only the federal limitations that stand are the persons
cannot be on a national registry with a sex offender status. Many of the tenants have $0 in income so it's
their work as the provider case managers to work with folks to rapidly get people connected to the
benefits, whether it's social security disability benefits or whatever so they do have a revenue source.
Canganelli stated the lease is an annual reviewed, the project-based voucher is theirs, there are two
income recertifications on a regular basis, but as long as they don't break those federal requirements,
they can keep the voucher and be eligible. Otherwise, the Housing Authority has gone one step further
and created what's called in the homeless service world “move on strategy”, meaning that when people
are tenants that they stay for at least one year and then if from that point forward are interested in moving
on from this permanent supportive housing project that project-based voucher converts to tenant based
rental assistance and they help relocate people interested.
Reedus noted The Housing Fellowship is asking for $160,000 for this particular project and that does not
the $78,000 in CHDO. Dennis replied it does because the Housing Fellowship is the only agency that's
eligible for that $78,000 and oftentimes with an application like this they would be asking for utilization
from one of their existing properties.
Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship) noted there have been additional expenses for materials for
contractors at the three locations they've been doing this year but that's another challenge that probably
waiting for next year for a rehab project is a better thing as they’ll get more bang for their buck that way.
This is envisioned as purchasing a home that requires several months with the estimated target in mind
depending on the applications, but they are targeting a six-person household because most of the
applicants that they are turning away right now need three or four bedrooms so that's what they're really
looking to target. They do have some vacancies, but this is where they're staying focused as that's what
they view as one of their key contributions to a neighborhood community. Affordable for more than a
decade is what contributes to stability. They are targeting another 15 years of affordability because then
that’d be the duration of the loan, but they also use the equity in their organization to continue to provide
affordability in perpetuity for those dollars.
Drabek moved onto the next application from Unlimited Abilities.
Dennis noted the application said they plan on serving 40 people, how many people does Unlimited
Abilities serve now.
Simon Fall (Director of Operations, Unlimited Abilities) said this would add to that 40. Dennis asked if
there are any vacancies at any other properties. Fall replied no, right now they have record waiting list for
openings and actually serve individuals with coordination between Unlimited Abilities and Successful
Living and can retrieve a few people coming from different places.
Reedus noted before they had a project funded in fiscal year 21 so what is the progress on that project.
Fall stated the project is fully leased. Thul stated the completion report needs to be submitted, and then
the period of affordability begins. Staff have not received the completion form yet.
Fall states they will finalize the purchase by February 1. Sometimes placement will take three weeks and
sometimes months. They are currently talking to a couple of clients who rely on the community and being
able to discharge today. For example, they have two people because of the mental illness their landlord
is shutting them out.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 6 of 15
6
Drabek had a question for staff, he did see the one application was not eligible so is there a reason as to
why the application wasn't HOME eligible the way it was submitted. Thul stated they’ve funded that
specific COVID related activity before with CDBG-CV, which was a little bit more flexible funding, but it
didn't fit with these funds.
Nkumu had a question for Unlimited Abilities, the application states they have $50,000 pending status.
What would happen if approved, do they have a plan B for that? Fall stated he just received all the stuff
from the bank and it's pretty much going to be approved.
UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY:
Drabek noted they are looking at two projects, one is the Little Creations Academy project and the other
is the Successful Living Project. They will first discuss the Little Creations Academy project.
Pastor Anthony Smith (Little Creations) stated he did receive the notification from the City stating that he
had to give a project updated. He did resubmit the project to two bidders but didn't get a return on the bid
work for the project, so they were unable to do the project. They finally got a third bid and Kennedy
Construction came through. He did turn in the annual reports and as of right now there's nothing
stopping him. The biggest hurdle was that there was no time from the time that she had submitted that
letter to the time to actually give the contractors enough time to get react. What's not written on paper is
they appreciate more time to talk. Pastor Smith also wanted to reflect back on some of the other things
that he doesn’t know if the Commission knows. He already had an agreement with the City ready to be
signed but the bid that came through was at $119,000 and he was only allocated $78,000. He wanted to
share that because he was not sure if his allocation was mentioned at the last meeting. He wanted to
mention that because there has been progress on this on this project. One of the drawbacks was the
putting the hood installed in the kitchen, the original design was supposed to come out of the side of the
building and then go up to the roof and the City changed the guidelines and they had to change the
engineering and now the exhaust has to go through three floors and that wasn’t in the budget. Since they
were way over budget they went back to the drawing board and met with the City Inspector and they gave
guidelines to move forward. Now instead of using a commercial hood they were able to downgrade to a
top of the line residential and could go out the side of the building.
Thul noted that the memo summarizes staff perspective on the situation. Kubly notes that the issue they
had with the recent bid was that the bid was only open for four business days so they felt that wasn’t an
open and fair bidding process and it didn't meet the City’s procurement guidelines so it will have to be bid
again for an appropriate amount of time.
Reedus noted that was a question she had, they’ve got Kennedy set up, but it was a short timetable, so
now they have to go and bid again. It seems like one step forward and two steps back. She also noted
one of the concerns that she has, and she likes the project and is sympathetic to all that has happened to
this point, but what is the timetable now after delay after delay. Do they need to recapture the funds?
Kubly noted from staff’s perspective there's not a specific deadline for each project but collectively they
have to spend so much CDBG money every year or the City will be out of compliance for HUD. So they
try to format the CDBG projects to be one year projects and when they have projects that are larger, or
multiple projects that will go past one year that gets them closer and closer to their compliance mark and
why they have the unsuccessful and delayed projects policy. They have checkpoints and need to make
sure things are moving forward. Thul added it’s a lot more complicated if the project does move forward
and partial funds are expended if something else happened, then it's harder to cancel a project and get
those funds back.
Reedus asked if the amount of money they were awarded was $78,000 and the bid from Kennedy
Construction was $70,000. Smith replied he’d have to check the project agreement to see how much
match was put up but he thinks the total project was around $86,000 in the agreement.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 7 of 15
7
Reedus asked then at this point what is a normal timeline for putting projects out to bid, and to have
submitted some sort of documents to the City for approval. Thul explained staff typically review the
packets before it would go out for bid.
Reedus asked what Kennedy said in terms of being able to start the project. Smith stated Kennedy is
ready to go, but they have to order the equipment so as soon as he can order the equipment they can get
started. However, if they now have to repeat the whole project over again it is going to take some time.
The Commission asked him to have the project underway so he did all he could do within the time limits.
Smith stated that signing the agreement takes time to get all the signatures.
Thul commented that they have already entered the project agreement prior to the last HCDC meeting
and that was when they secured the mortgage. At this stage a construction contract was needed. Thul
explained the next steps are to get the construction contract and do the pre-construction conference
meeting. They have also only received three quarters of the CDBG quarterly reports and the project has
been over a year now so they are missing a couple quarters. The City requires quarterly reports from
CDBG grantees.
Pastor Smith requested they be allowed to continue with this project because of the climate that they're in
right now, their daycare capacity is has, has grown exponentially, when he first started this project they
only had 12 kids, they have over 30 now, and use the dishwasher and the three sink compartment as a
means of sterilizing all of their equipment and it takes lots of man hours. They need to continue on with
this project.
Reedus doesn’t want to see a repeat of delays so if there's a timeline she’d like the City's perspective if
the Commission decides to abandon last month's decision and not pull funds for the project.
Kubly stated from staff’s perspective, their annual funding round starts in December so if they were to pull
funds, they want to do it ahead of that because then they can put those funds back in the pool for people
to apply for. Reedus would like to see a really firm timeline with Pastor Smith because he has to go back
out to bid again and there are some steps to go through. She just doesn’t want it to be November and
they’re thinking about this question of recall again.
Drabek states that it is his view that if they do not accept the staff’s recommendation, they are going to be
here talking about this again in November.
Pastor Smith questioned if all he has to do is re-bid the project. He was not aware of these other reports
he also needed to do.
Kubly stated they have quarterly reports due every quarter, they are behind on the July report and then in
October they will generate another quarterly report. Kubly stated the next steps after the bidding would be
to approve contracts and then they’ll have a pre-construction meeting with the contractor or
subcontractor.
Smith asked how long does it take? Thul stated it depends on the length of the bid but they could
schedule the conference any time.
Dennis noted that all of the City requirements are outlined in the agreement and that things might have
gone better if they were submitted as required by the agreement versus later.
Pastor Smith stated he was only given two weeks by the Commission to do it before and if that wasn’t
correct they shouldn’t have given him that deadline, it wasn't attainable. He acknowledged he made
some mistakes but if they take away his funds and have to reapply they won’t get this done until June.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 8 of 15
8
Reedus stated he is spinning the story and for the benefit of the people who are listening to this, she
doesn’t want there to be a misunderstanding that he only had two weeks to comply with this. She is
sympathetic to the fact that there were a lot of problems in getting this started and daycare center are one
of those programs she does want to see funded but does have a concern with the fact that the program is
so far behind. She thinks not having a report last month made an impact because they were expecting
some sort of report or appearance from him in August so that has impact and at least one reason on her
decision to put forward that motion. Reedus just wants to make sure that that Pastor Smith understands
that this project is way beyond deadline. If he had to reapply in January, he couldn't start the project until
July but certainly would have a lot of planning time to get that done.
Thul wanted to echo what Reedus said, these funds were awarded in July of last year. She
acknowledged there were some issues early on, before they signed an agreement. Staff wanted to get
some monitoring documentation from Little Creations and that took a long time to be submitted and that
was something that delayed the project several months. Also, there was a time when Little Creations
needed to submit the SAM registration and that was another project delay. All subrecipients receiving
federal funds are required to register in the federal SAM database. She feels that it's a bit of a
misrepresentation to suggest that staff haven’t been working on this because they have spent a lot of time
trying to make this project work and noted staff don’t take any pleasure in this situation either.
Kubly confirmed that they’ve spent a lot of staff time on this and there's certain federal requirements that
they have to meet and make sure the project is following the CDBG rules. The fact of the matter is they
could have started this a year ago if those steps had been taken concisely.
Nkumu would like to know what is really realistic for this project and for them to possibly complete this
project. Pastor Smith replied it would depend on how long it takes the contractor to get in and do the
project. He stated the only thing holding up the project right now is ordering product because of COVID
and there's a backlog on building materials. He can't submit for materials until the project was started.
Reedus moved to recapture the funds and invite them to reapply at the next round. Dennis
seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Drabek moved onto Successful Living. Thul noted there were FY21 funds allocated to Successful Living
originally to acquire three homes. So far they've acquired one home and there's some vacancy issues so
it is brought forth to the Commission to decide if the two remaining projects should go forward, or if the
fund should go back in the pot. There are some other issues that Successful Living is working through not
only with vacancy, but previous projects. The FY20 Hickory project is vacant still but may be close to
being leased up based on the most recent information, and with the last FY21 project on Hollywood
typically there's a six month window that project's lease up in and that project has not leased up and it
does not have a rental permit to date.
Caitlin McGowan (grants and development director, Successful Living) and Kevin Sanders (housing
director, Successful Living) were present to answer questions. McGowan noted Sanders, herself and the
intake coordinator are all new in their roles so with regards to the Hickory project, they believe that they
will have that completed soon. They also have two referrals and are just in the process of waiting for their
funding from their case managers for services. So those three residents should be moving in soon. Then
over at Hollywood, one of the issues they ran into was that the recommended contractor that they bid it
out to just stopped responding. They waited a long enough time to give them the chance to respond but
ended up having to rebid the project. The concrete work has all been done and they've now applied for
the rental permit. They have also developed more of a marketing plan and are both going back out to the
community within the next couple of weeks and access other referral sources. One of the major issues
they ran into with having these vacancies is just the transient population that they work with, adults with
chronic mental illness, but also due to COVID. A lot of their referrals come from Integrated Health Homes
through Abbey Center as well as the central region and during COVID they had a lot a lot of turnover with
case managers. Successful Living definitely saw a huge impact with that in just claims being served and
having referrals sent out for housing and mental health support. Per HUD guidelines, they can't have a
client move in if they're not able to pay for the rent, or they don't have an ability, they have to collect rent,
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 9 of 15
9
and the East Central Region changed their parameters for rental systems significantly and it's pretty
nonexistent for their client population now. It has caused a major issue with clients who have no income,
being able to initially move in, once they have the services, Successful Living certainly can get them set
up with Social Security Disability for all systems, but it does cause a significant delay.
Reedus asked if they have to have some sort of income before they can move in. McGowan stated per
guidelines they have to charge rent and can't have someone coming in and not collecting rent.
Reedus also asked about the contractor delay, is that on the current home. McGowan said it was on the
one they purchased and ended up delaying them getting the rental permit and the inspection setup over
at Hollywood Boulevard. Reedus asked about the other homes that need to be purchased, what's the
status of those. McGowan replied they’re working with realtors but a lot of them are going to require a lot
of work to be able to fit in to the requirements they have for HOME funds and being able to have
residents in there. However, they are fully prepared to purchase more homes, they just wanted to focus
on getting Hickory filled before moving forward.
Thul stated the total awarded was $144,000 and they’ve spent $44,990 so there's about $99,000
remaining.
Dennis noted if they purchase the homes, and then you have to rehab that means a lot of vacancies and
she understands that they also get Medicaid. McGowan replied for their residents who are mentally ill
they receive Medicaid, but that's not for property that's for providing mental health counseling and
services and staffing. Dennis stated it doesn’t make sense to go forward to buy two more homes if they
still have these vacancies. McGowan explained it’s within recent months to have these vacancies, they
have seen referrals increasing. They getting more creative on where they’re looking for referrals and
changing their tactics going forward. Other agencies have better staffing so they are giving them a lot
more referrals. McGowan also noted that during COVID she was home and was unable to even know
whose case manager was who because it was changing so often. They are now seeing more stability that
way and referrals are increasing in the recent months.
Reedus noted she is a little concerned about what they're still working on because a third of the money
essentially has been awarded and they don't have a third of the project done. She asked what the
timeline is for finishing that other stuff extending out of the $99,000. Reedus wondered if they are able to
modify to funds spent at this point based on what they have done, and then recapture the other $99,000.
Thul confirmed that is the direction staff is looking for, what should be done with that remaining $99,000.
Thul added for all HOME projects they have to do HOME underwriting and vacancy rate is a part of that,
they have to make sure the project can cash flow, so the higher the vacancy rate the more difficult it is to
underwrite. She explained with the high vacancy rates, they wouldn't be able to underwrite one of these
new projects at the moment. She did acknowledge that the vacancy rates have improved, but at one
point it was almost 50%.
Dennis asked then they could keep the house on Hollywood and then come back in and reapply for the
others. Kubly confirmed staff is not recommended anything with the property that they already went
through the acquisition, only the ones that haven’t proceeded yet.
Dennis asked if Successful Living has the rental permit inspection. McGowan replied yes, Dennis asked
how many bedrooms was the house. McGowan replied three bedrooms, She added they were hoping to
maybe come back and revisit in this in December because just in the last couple weeks, with new staff
coming in and getting creative with referrals they’ve got three people scheduled to be at Hickory and
satisfy that creative affordability and so it was their hope that they could continue to try and do everything
they can and maybe come back and revisit and discuss their progress in December.
McGowan and Sanders explained they have been with the organization for years, in other positions, so
they do have the history. Another thing they are trying to implement is reaching out to the City and try
and figure out a way that they can utilize vouchers in their houses, they would hopefully be able to find a
creative way to be able to have clients utilize vouchers.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 10 of 15
10
Dennis feels perhaps they should go ahead and get the rest of money back and then Successful Living
can come back in because if they don't get an update until December that's really too late to figure out the
budget for the next round. Kubly stated they usually put the applications out mid-December, so it'd be
kind of around the same time.
Drabek noted as they are seeing these projects one goal is using the money in the best way possible.
With this case what gives him reservation is the best practice would probably be to recapture along the
lines staff recommends, but he also feels there might be more they could do, this is the first time they are
talking about this project, they haven’t been talking about it for months like the other one. He wondered if
there is a way to recapture projects and put a note in there saying that the agency is eligible for the next
application round and not hold the recapture against the agency.
Reedus agreed she doesn’t think it necessarily is a bad mark but just for whatever circumstances they
haven't been able to successfully launch the project so isn't it better to give the money to projects that can
get off the ground.
Dennis agrees and stated that nobody should get a bad mark for what's happened over the last year
because it's been a very challenging year and Successful Living has a good track record, they have a
budget, they have everything in order, they just haven’t been able to fulfill what needs to be done so it
won't be very difficult to come back in for the next round.
McGowan acknowledged they can understand the reservations. It's their understanding that the deadline
for purchasing houses is June 2022 so they still have quite a bit of time to locate and then get those
properties ready to go and start a period of affordability after that's approved. The deadline for filling
Hickory is December and just in the last couple of weeks they have identified and located three clients
that will be hopefully moving down there soon.
Dennis asked if they can invite Successful Living back next month to see what's going on in November
and then see where these projects stand.
Kubly noted that would be fine it just gives them less time to make progress but if they would know their
inspection status by November that’s two months out.
Reedus stated the reason why she would want to go into November is because they gave Little Creations
two months, she would like to see a progress report in November.
McGowan noted presenting a progress report in November would be very doable for them, they could
also come back in October if needed.
Reedus asked staff about the vacancy rates and issues with underwriting. Thul replied the Hickory
project is in danger of having the funds invested returned to HUD because there's an 18 month deadline
and if the project isn't leased up then the funds invested in the vacant units have to go back to HUD. Also,
they have to have a reasonable vacancy rate to be able to underwrite, usually that's around 5% to 10%,
and right now their vacancy rate is 29%. Reedus noted it might be tough to see an improvement in 30
days but she is willing to do a 30 day check in and then maximum two months to see if there is progress.
Drabek stated a benchmark would be the vacancy rate, especially in a big gap between 5% to 10%.
Reedus noted some presenting applicants tonight have talked about being able to close that gap pretty
quickly, so that may not be a problem.
Reedus stated if they were to give Successful Living two months with the check-in period at the October
meeting, that would still create enough time to recapture those unspent funds. She is not as concerned
about the vacancy rate but rather really concerned about being able to find houses because real estate
moves so quickly and that's a huge issue. McGowan said they’ve seen enough come through that they
are confident to eventually being able to time the right ones, they might take a little modification, but they
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 11 of 15
11
previously bought five-bedroom houses and now may need to change the model in what they look for in a
house to be able to find the right kind of parameters. So, they're trying to look at every avenue and at
other ways they can help their clients or residents getting rental assistance and other programs available
that maybe they're underutilizing or are not fully aware of.
Beining moved to invite Successful Living to the October 21 HCDC meeting to provide a status
update on HOME funded activities, including the lease-up of the FY20 Hickory project and the
inspection and rental permit progress for the FY21 Hollywood project. Nkumu seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE & EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER):
Drabek notes that the next agenda item is the CAPER and state that our main goal here is to provide any
comments on the report.
Reedus states that the report was interesting and that it is a lot of reading moving between the report and
the various links. Doesn’t have any comments.
Drabek inquired about the shelter projects which appeared to be form of an unbudgeted surprise sort of
expense and asked if there are plans to budget accordingly to prevent that in the future. Thul notes that
the winter warming shelter project was funded with CDBG-CV through one of the competitive funding
rounds for nonprofit public services. Kubly states that the City does budget for the winter overnight
shelter.
Reedus states that she would love to see essential services through Aid to Agencies move towards a
process of funding rather than an application. If she could make that happen during her 3 or 6 year term
on HCDC that would be great. Reedus does have one question about the requirements to become a
Legacy Agency after being an Emerging Agency.
Kubly states that all the Legacy Agencies are listed in City Steps. A new agency would need to apply to
be a Legacy Agency and the City Steps plan would be amended if approved. Kubly notes that there is an
agency interested in applying and that they were asked to apply during the next application for Aid to
Agencies to revisit at that time.
Drabek notes that in the practical category there is a spelling error on page 38 where the Iowa City Police
Department is referred to as the Policy Department. Thul thanked Drabek.
Mohammed inquired about the delay on the two City parks projects. Thul explained that the derecho
storm and the pandemic delayed two neighborhood improvement projects and that both projects have
since been completed. Both activities will fall in FY22 for completion.
Kubly confirmed that they were not closed out in time to include in the FY21 CAPER.
Drabek states that nonhousing community development activities did not get as much attention and
wondered if the delays related to the parks projects had something to do with that. Thul confirmed.
Drabek moved to approve the CAPER as amended (typographical error correction). Beining
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
OVERVIEW OF SCORING CRITERIA:
A review of the scoring criteria. This is brought up especially for first year commissioners to see if anyone
has questions.
Dennis noted this is her first meeting as a commissioner however, when she was working she filled out
these applications for many years and it can be frustrating as an applicant. The City HOME and CDBG
applications were not the only funding application that she prepared in my career, but this particular
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 12 of 15
12
scoring criteria was really more of suggestions for the commissioners who are scoring applications. Every
other funding application she ever submitted had hard and fast scoring systems. So when an applicant is
preparing a project, especially when it's a housing project, because that takes a lot of time and content,
they can score the project before they even send in the application to see if it's even worth pursuing to try
and get funding. For this particular system, applicants prepare an application according to these
guidelines and then they get to the meeting, where commissioners have scored everything, and it's all
over the map. There's not a lot of consistency in the scores. So she would like to either see some
changes or also to see more of the goals for City Steps be used because City Steps is a prescribed
document. The City's able to do some narrative but really, HUD says this is what has to be included in
that report. So the scores need to match more to what the City Steps requires.
Reedus agrees 100%, she has done many applications also and honestly when writing applications, they
pay attention to scoring criteria. She urges them if they're going to include scoring criteria then they take it
seriously. If the City wants the Commission to meet the highest impact areas of service then they need to
start with high impact years of service. Reedus asked if the with the HOME loans is there a matching
dollar amount required. Thul confirmed the City must match 25% for HOME. Reedus stated then
nowhere does it ask if the agency is meeting the 25% match, if that is a hard and fast rule then they
should be sticking to it. Dennis stated it's really the City that has to prove the HUD that the City has
provided the information.
The match can come from many forms, for instance if Neighborhood Centers received some HOME funds
for rehab for their childcare, but the childcare is free, and they don't get any revenue from those they are
providing the services to, they can say to the City that’s their 25% match. Thul confirmed the City has to
demonstrate 25% match to HUD. She showed an example from the CAPER on how they calculated the
match for FY21. They took several of the projects that were completed and were able to calculate the
amount of property taxes that were forgiven as an eligible form of match. Dennis noted the match can be
carried forward to future years if there is more than required.
Dennis feels there should be more weight given to the applicant having the capacity to successfully
complete the project. To be good stewards of the money when they provide recommendations to City
Council they should make sure that the applicants have good capacity to work with staff and carry out
their projects. That should be weighted a little bit more.
Drabek’s sense is that they all likely disagree with at least one of the ways the scoring document weighs
things. He thinks those other financial resources should be weighted less than it is and then does the
project provide a long-term solution to identify should be listed, but probably one of the difficulties that
they tend to have and shows some of the good and bad of the criteria is telling the difference between a
really good project and a really low scoring project. Looking through some of the history of allocations is
pretty rare for anything to be scored under about 60. In most years they denied everything that is was
scored under 60, but then it starts to get really tricky between the 70s and 80s, there's rarely a meaningful
difference between those projects. He stated they use the scores as a starting point and bring the
scores to the table and where they see some small differences, that's when they start getting into the
strengths and weaknesses of particular application and looking at more details such as finding a long
term solution to the problem or leverage of other financial resources.
Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) stated there are nine individual
commissioners whose scores translate into those means scores and that is really where the variability
happens and where the test of the rubric as a tool happens because nine scorers should use this tool and
come up with mostly similar scores if the tool is a reliable way to assess. She has not seen that action,
she has seen flat scores, so that's something for them to think about, the validity of the tool. The other
thing she wanted to emphasize is the City used to give money to people who provided the essential
services and didn't send it through this whole process. That may have been more for the Aid to Agencies
process and not HOME or CDBG. Barron noted they keep having these conversations each year
because the process is still not quite right, but as Reedus and Dennis have noted nonprofits really
depend on these local resources to execute projects, they put a lot of work into the applications and then
in the fourth quarter the Commission comes up with wildly different ideas about the same application. It's
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 13 of 15
13
pretty disruptive with that variance, so she just wants to reinforce some of those methods and the best
thing that can happen is to be as clear and as consistent as possible in letting people know what they're
doing and what are those benchmarks.
Drabek acknowledged they have discussed this for a long time in a number of different ways and does
feel like the point system probably provides a misleading impression, and the impression that there is a
precision of some kind that probably doesn't exist. He looks at it as a way to guide conversation. He
stated they discuss what they want to prioritize and the answers they come up with here each year are
fairly consistent. The highest scores get funded the largest percentage of funds.
Reedus stated she will have to sift through this process and see how it goes, her only point of reference
was as an applicant for Aid to Agencies and to be honest she didn’t know what the heck those scores
meant. One year she was upset because the as the former director of Community they had the highest
score and were high impact and were getting one of the biggest cuts. She will sit through this first year
process and see what happens, but she won't sit passively if she thinks something is unfair.
Kubly stated when they do the regular annual allocation, at one of the meetings before they put the
application out, the Commission will have to approve the scoring criteria so that'll be a good time to
implement any changes
Reedus asked if this Commission will be doing a special funding round of ARP funds. Kubly replied
probably at some point but don’t know yet when.
Nkumu stated what he is hearing is that the scoring system is probably subjective but does wonder if
there a better way to do this.
Thul stated if they want to get in the weeds on changing the scoring criteria they should probably put it on
an agenda, because this agenda item was just intended to be an overview. If it's something they want to
revisit for an upcoming funding round, they can put it on an agenda for approval or adjustment.
Reedus suggested in addition to scoring the applications it would be helpful to have a comment section to
spark conversations and help the Commission to go back to the application and maybe reread something
a little bit differently.
Beining asked if applicants are required to submit a engineers projected budget. Thul said they typically
ask for a scope of work with a CDBG project and people will submit bids or an estimate. Thul also noted
for example, if a project is funded, for the underwriting they have to see certain documentation of fiscal
capacity and those kinds of things to be able to underwrite the project. So technically even if a project is
awarded, it's possible that the project wouldn't go forward if they couldn't demonstrate those things for
underwriting. Kubly confirmed that staff includes those types of notes on the cover sheet for the
Commission.
The Commission reviewed scores from previous funding rounds and Thul noted the Little Creations
project from FY21 didn't really have a great score and perhaps that could have been an early indicator
that there may have been problems later. Drabek noted that did come up at the time and that score was a
factor and there was disagreement about the score, the prioritization, or consideration of trying to find a
wide range of agencies that might be able to reach varied populations.
Reedus thinks those kinds of issues might come into play more with the newer emerging organizations or
with organizations like Little Creations they might agree it is a high need area. However, if the agency
doesn't have capacity to manage the project then they end up recapturing the money.
Drabek noted in summary everyone should take the scoring criteria seriously, though, they're certainly not
required to follow them exactly, it's always important to look at things seriously and correlate them with
funding levels.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 14 of 15
14
Reedus noted if there is a project for a specific, vulnerable population, maybe it needs to be higher score,
there's some targeted areas the City would want to fund, and maybe that needs to be higher scored to
pull them out.
Dennis noted but even that that's subjective, what applicant ever comes in here that doesn't provide some
sort of service to a vulnerable population. Reedus noted priorities are listed in City Steps but she wouldn't
mind the City giving this Commission a little more direction and guidance.
Nkumu stated he first has to look at the information provided on the application and then first look at the
higher scores and go through the process from there.
Drabek is skeptical of the idea of removing the human element and doesn’t think they will ever come up
with some score and just go with it. If this is put on a future agenda they need to come up with a plan on
what they want to see. Overall he thinks the system works okay.
Dennis noted the staff cover sheet is very good and wondered when they will get to see
recommendations from staff. Thul said staff will share their recommendations at the next meeting. She
will need the scores early, maybe a week before the next meeting, and then staff could get the staff score
and recommendations out to the Commission.
Reedus stated it would be helpful to have the staff scores and recommendations and cover sheet before
the commissioners do their scoring. Thul said the next meeting is the October 21st so they could try to
have staff scores by the seventh and the Commission could submit their scores by the 14th and that gives
everyone a week to digest.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Two Commissioners are assigned each month to monitor Council meetings and this agenda item
provides an opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to the HCDC business.
Commissioners will not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
No updates covered at the meeting.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Thul put a calendar together for HCDC showing an overview of the funding rounds. In November they’ll
review the FY23 application materials.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 15 of 15
15
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/20 9/17 10/15 11/19 1/21 2/18 3/11 4/15 6/17 8/19 9/16
Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X O/E X X X X X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Lewis, Theresa 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E O/E
Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2021 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Nasr
Mohammed, Peter Nkumu, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Theresa Lewis
STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship), Hailey Behmer (Unlimited
Abilities), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House), Charlie Eastham (Center
for Worker Justice), Simon Fall (Unlimited Abilities), Karen Fox (Center
for Worker Justice), Roger Goedken (Successful Living), Kevin Sanders
(Successful Living)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends the following CDBG/HOME funding allocations to Council.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 16, 2021:
Dennis moved to approve the minutes of September 16, 2021, Reedus seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the minutes were approved 7-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 2 of 17
2
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY:
Staff requested direction from HCDC in September on the remaining $99,010 in FY21 HOME funds
allocated to Successful Living for the purchase of two additional homes. Staff recommended the
recapture of remaining funds ahead of the FY23 funding round scheduled for winter due to risk factors
detected during monitoring, but the recommendation was not accepted by the commission at that time.
Roger Goedken (Successful Living) provided an update to HCDC at the commission’s request. Goedken
noted when he read the minutes the commission had concerns about a few things. One is the vacancy
rate or the occupancy of the properties that they have. They have been tracking it and have shown
improvement since May and continue to do so. Their vacancies are down to 10 currently and they are due
to give another report at the end of this month or first of next month and they're on trend to continue to
maintain that improvement. Goedken noted there's always some things in flux, but right now they still
have improvement from the 10 and he thinks they may have a couple tenants that might move out for
certain personal reasons, but the occupancy is continued to improve. Other things that were noted was
getting the period affordability started, which they did do that earlier this month, so that satisfied. With the
property at 1340 Hollywood the rental permit wasn't obtained because they had issues with contractors
and such which delayed things pretty significantly but they have those things rectified and addressed.
They were able to submit and get approval for the rental permit at 1340 Hollywood on the sixth of
October, so that's satisfied. They also have three residents pending to move in, looking at about
November 1 for that to occur. Goedken believes they’ve satisfied everything that was asked for and then
maybe some.
Drabek doesn’t recall offhand within the vacancy rate was before but it was quite a bit higher than 10%
correct. Goedken replied it’s more than 10% and clarified that they have 10 units open. Goedken said
they have 41 federally funded units so 10 out of that would be around 24%. Drabek recalls it was
hovering in the high 20s low 30s before so it's down.
Drabek noted the commission had discussed the issue of seeking the ability to take voucher recipients.
Goedken stated they’re looking at that and have been in contact with multiple people but they haven't
really gotten to the point where they've been able to utilize somebody with a voucher at this point.
Goedken noted it's something they're definitely interested in pursuing. One of the barriers that they've
had throughout COVID is their usual referral sources and the usual sources that would assist with rent
base have dried up or change their approaches so it wasn't utilizable. But in the last couple few months
they've been starting to see a thaw in things and a definite improvement in the referrals that they have.
Alter apologized if this was covered in the last meeting because she was unable to attend but looking
through the notes she wonders if they are having any issues with the vacancies because of staffing.
Goedken replied it is a factor, but it’s not the reason, it’s really been the referrals. Alter asked if they were
able to get more units would that stretch staffing or at what point would they be concerned about the ratio
of staffing to units. Goedken replied with the current properties they have, they don't really have any
concerns, they have plans and people hired and trained and are still continuing to do some more hiring
because they want to have more but they have enough coverage for what is required.
Goedken also spoke about was planned for the down payment funds, the $99,010, he had mentioned in
the marketing report he sent in that they could, and have, pursued purchasing houses in the latter half of
the fiscal year, successfully as well. He noted this is a really wacky housing market and they had looked
at a couple earlier, but they go fast and they go high. He also noted they do have formally till June 30 to
expend those funds so he doesn’t think that there's any major pressure as far as that goes. His intention
would be to pursue seeking houses in December if that would be approved by HCDC.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 3 of 17
3
Reedus noted stated they heard last month from the staff that was present that the changes in funding
coming through PCR had a big impact on their ability to find individuals who have income to move into
those houses, is that going to be an ongoing factor moving forward. Goedken confirmed for that source,
yes. Basically, what happened was last year in July they changed their rules as far as what can qualify for
that housing assistance and in that living source. Goedken has talked to the regional executive director
on more than one occasion but they’re not going to change that specific rule. However Goedken noted
they have found other sources to help with that and it's helped them to grow and think outside the box a
little more.
Drabek asked if the agency will be invited to provide a November report in person or just provide a written
report in the agenda packet. Thul said that is up to the commission.
Goedken asked what detail the commission want moving forward in next month’s report. They do provide
the occupancy report monthly.
Drabek is personally interested is the occupancy and vacancy issue, Goedken noted that’s in the report
that already goes to City monthly.
Dennis asked if the commission wants to see any marketing efforts. Thul stated they would want to know
ahead of the next funding round if there was going to be a discussion about recapturing funds. Drabek
noted if there were discussions about recapturing funds they would want to invite that person and not just
have a written report. He was not planning to have a recapture discussion but they could if they wanted
to.
Reedus would want to know from the City what are the goals in terms of what is full occupancy and a
timeline. Thul stated they can't underwrite a HOME project until the vacancy is at a reasonable rate
meaning 5% to 10% as a benchmark. So staff’s question to the commission is do they want to keep the
funds with Successful Living and allow them time to improve the vacancy rate or do they need to have the
discussion of a potential recapture before the next funding round. That is the direction staff is looking for.
Reedus noted to get to that vacancy rate it would mean eight of the ten open would have to be rented or
occupied, what is the timeline for that and if they didn't meet that when would the City need to recapture
the funds. Thul stated they approve the materials in November and the funding round opens in
December and runs through January.
Vogel thought it was in the spring and they had some time but filling ten units at this time is not going to
be easy to do, especially if they're not taking any vouchers. He feels they would want to have a
discussion at the next meeting and make a decision on whether to recapture with the understanding that
obviously when vacancy rates get better, they can apply for more funding in future funding rounds. If the
City can’t underwrite it then it's pointless to keep funds out there. Vogel stated they do have to have that
discussion in person and have that vote on the agenda for next month to pull those funds and reuse them
in December when they start looking at other candidates who can use those funds in a more imminent
way.
Goedken added that by HUD rules they should have until June 30 to spend these funds, not till the next
funding round, in December. HUD rules do state they have that much time, eight months or so.
Drabek noted essentially they’re looking for a reduction of vacancy from 10 units to 2 or 3 units by next
month.
Thul stated there's nothing to say that they can't leave the funds in that project but it would be with the
understanding that that money would be pending vacancy report improvements to be able to move
forward.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 4 of 17
4
Vogel asked about the HUD rule and is that an issued if the commission recaptures funds. Kubly noted
with HOME funds they have longer than CDBG funds, there's usually a two-year commitment deadline
from HUD but that's waived at the moment. Vogel would like to have it clarified because if it is an issue
where they can't pull those funds due to outstanding requests require on the back can staff report on that
because then there is not need to have that discussion next month. Thul replied the requirement is that
they have a certain period of time to spend the funds she believes four years.
Kubly noted the issue with December is that they want to know ahead of the funding round whether they
have more funds to allocate to other projects, it's not a hard and fast deadline that they need to deal with
next month. It's just if they wanted to recapture those funds and give them out in the next funding round, it
has to be dealt with next month.
Vogel asked if Goedken is saying HUD says the City can’t recapture those funds. Goedken replied what
he is saying is that they are legally allowed until June 30 to spend those funds. As far as trying to
recapture that he doesn’t see an urgency to do it now because there'll be another funding round next year
in April or something like that.
Reedus noted the commission is discussing this project because it is listed and labeled as an
unsuccessful or delayed project so it must be past some deadlines. She requested staff go through the
deadlines again. Thul stated these were FY21 funds and the reason they brought it to the commission as
a part of the Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects policy is that there are a number of risk factors
associated with the projects, vacancy is one and also some of the other issues were listed in the last
packet, like the rental permit delay. That Hollywood house that closed in February, it just got a rental
permit but hasn't been leased up yet. So when staff review projects, they see all those items as risk
factors. For example, that Hickory project that finally leased up was two months shy of having to have
funds repaid to HUD and that becomes a pressure point of trying to move the projects along.
Vogel asked about the funding round in April. Kubly explained that is this funding round, the applications
will go out in December, are due in January, but the commission won't do their recommendations until
probably March. Vogel stated then if they recapture those funds and those funds were available, there's
nothing stopping Successful Living from reapplying for those funds at a point when their occupancies are
back up. Dennis stated they would have to be back in the applicant pool for those with eligibility.
Goedken stated that they utilized HOME funds with a total of 10 houses successfully overall. He
acknowledged it’s been a uniquely challenging last year and a half and they definitely suffered a lot of
ways and occupancy is one of those. Also, the population they often serve is one that has a lot more
transient, their AMI is closer to 15% on average, and that indicates that they're taking some of the harder
cases or persons who are challenged against as far as residency and staying at the one place. They are
not going to see that with an average landlord. He asks the commission to have a little understanding of
discretion as those persons that are in their houses versus the typical landlord. Those are the challenge
they have, because they can bring in 10 people but might lose 3, 4 or 5 in that period too. They had one
last month that had a parole violation, nothing they can do about that, another one went in the hospital
with significant mental health issues. So there's things that are beyond their control to contain. Goedken
stated they have shown solid diligence over the last month plus and satisfied everything that was asked.
He really prefer not to have to recapture the funds and then re-ask for them, that's a large process that is
pretty involved for providers. He stated they have a history of utilizing the funds very well and this
$100,000 is still well put with them.
Dennis asked about when the City would have to send money back to HUD. Thul stated there are
variables. For example, if they buy a house and they couldn't lease the units, then there's the possibility of
having to repay to HUD for the units if they're still vacant. There's also the possibility of them leasing up
initially and then going vacant, like there's a federally funded project right now that's been vacant for over
a year, so there's a lot of unknowns and variables but typically the City has four years to spend their
whole grant.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 5 of 17
5
Kubly added for this particular project if they weren't able to proceed within the two-year HOME allocation
deadline they’d probably amend the agreement and just go with that one that they've already done. There
are other vacant projects that need to meet specific HOME deadlines, when a organization acquires their
property they have so long to lease up that property and if they don't do it within a certain time the funds
have to be repaid to HUD. So what they’re working on right now is making sure that they're able to lease
those up and not have to trigger those HUD deadlines.
Vogel asked if historically Successful Living has ever had a problem. Kubly states they have never had to
repay, they got very close with the Hickory project. Vogel asked if they keep an escrow account in place
to pay back those funds. Goedken confirmed they have funds. He did also want to highlight that the only
deadline they missed was that six month for the 1340. Hollywood and HUD does allow 18 months total if
needed, and by the end of the month or early next month they’ll have people moving in there. Beyond
that, the only next deadline will be next year sometime.
Dennis stated the commission does need a report in November and then they can make a decision then.
Drabek asked if the decision would be recapture or revisit closer to June 30. Dennis said if they don’t
recapture then that’s the only other option for Successful Living.
Goedken wants to know what the expectation is for the report next month because an occupancy of 95%
is unrealistic for their population, he would ask that they have more flexibility or leniency as far as that
goes. He noted there is progress moving in the right direction and a new agency is going to take a year or
whatever to fill those number rooms as well. Vogel agrees that 95% is a crazy number to try to reach in
Iowa City in the rental market overall right now. He thinks 10% is a reasonable number to achieve and for
the City to expect.
Drabek noted when they're talking about 41 units it gets hard to sort of distinguish 5% or 10%, it’s just a
distinction between two units or four units, he thinks they need to set something a little bit concrete, but to
only have two units vacant by next month is unrealistic.
Vogel asked then what do they consider as a commission a happy movement forward, he is in the
business and to reduce occupancy by 50% would be tough, and to find qualified applicants, but 33% of
the vacancies to be occupied or at least to have a lease in place seems reasonable and he would be
comfortable with that being positive movement forward in a month and at that point he wouldn't feel the
need to push further for recapturing. If they can achieve 33% then it puts them in a position that by the
time next June comes around, theoretically, they’ll be on that right path and moving forward towards
having the project completed.
Drabek agrees and would take seven vacancies as evidence of good progress.
Goedken stated they have two or three very probable tenants’ lines up for the Hollywood property on
November 1. He did note again there might be attrition so that's going to be part of that factor they might
fill six and lose three or something like that.
Mohammed asked how far from the deadline is Successful Living. Thul stated the most recent one would
be the Hollywood project and that is at six months but now they have a rental permit, and it sounds like
there's potential tenants lined up. However, there's two other acquisition projects in the FY21 project,
there's going to be three homes total. Staff’s question for the commission was should they allow those
remaining two homes to go forward, or should they put the remaining money into something that might
proceed in the more immediate future.
Goedken clarified they would have until June 30 to purchase two houses and have 18 months to occupy
them, but of course they’d like to do it in six months.
Vogel asked about where they get leads for tenants from and stated places like the Shelter House are
seeing increases now that the moratorium is over, so is Successful Living getting leads from them or from
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 6 of 17
6
Veterans Affairs over in Coralville, or where. Goedken stated their funder referral sources are the
Integrated Health Homes which are managed care organizations that oversee all the human service stuff,
and they give most referrals. They get some from the University of Iowa, some from Department of
Corrections, Shelter House goes through the funder sources, they don't come to Successful Living
directly. But to answer the question they’ve seen an increase as far as the amount of referrals.
Vogel asked if most are SSI tenants. Goedken confirmed they are all Medicaid.
Vogel motioned to request a vacancy report from Successful Living ahead of the November
meeting with the understanding that if more than 7 federally funded units remain vacant, the
commission will discuss the recapture of remaining FY21 funds. If 7 or less units remain vacant,
the discussion will be deferred until June of 2022. Seconded by Drabek.
Motion passed 8-0.
DISCUSS FY22 MID-YEAR FUNDING REQUESTS (CDBG/HOME) AND CONSIDER BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL:
Drabek suggested they start by looking at any issues with the scores and rankings and then have a
discussion of funding allocation. He noted he didn’t really see any major differences or ambiguity in
scores from commissioners. They were similar, at least on the individual questions, where he saw major
differences in range were on the questions he didn't expect to have differences in range. Really the only
differences were on the question of does the project leverage other financial resources or what primary
percentage median income persons are targeted. At least by attempt those are supposed to be objective
questions that have the same answer. Drabek noted they talked about looking into rubric revisions in the
future and that might be one area. He thinks where some of the ambiguities came from, at least on what
a percentage median income people are targeted is some projects targeted multiple median income
ranges and maybe some of them did an average and some of took the higher and lower. In the area
about leveraging other financial resources, some of the projects leveraged internal resources and some
of the projects applied for but had not yet received funding.
Reedus asked if there is an expectation from the City in terms of what percentage should be leveraged
from elsewhere. She doesn’t think there's a difference if an organization uses its own funds, they could
have some sort of designated funds available for that, or they seek other funding, whether it's fundraising
dollars or grants or something, but is there an expectation of how much. What is the minimum they
should be leveraging other funds because that was a difficult one for her because to compare an agency
like Shelter House they may have the ability to have extra funds to use for leveraging but other
organizations don’t have as much.
Kubly stated in the application guide the City recommends or suggests 25%.
Alter noted this has been a question ever since she’s been on the commission and been up for a
difference of perspective in does a lack of leveraging additional funds do not indicate strength or
weakness, but does it indicate a much more need for the money. There's a lot of different ways to look at
this and the City has recommended on balance and there be more evidence of that shared ways of
obtaining money. Alter noted however, it's always still a question to her about is that the proper way to
look at it because one can argue that those relationships and those ties to places that have additional
funding sources will then perhaps have an advantage over the places that that don't have those
resources. It's both a point of interest and a point of pain.
Vogel agreed with what Alter was talking about, because looking at the Green State and the City Down
payment Assistance, they have all the leverage in the world. The City has tax funds and other sources of
income and the Green State Development are literally working with a bank. So in that case, even though
the leverage was huge, they've absolutely got all this ability to get other assistance, he doesn’t feel that
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 7 of 17
7
makes them a more worthy project in any way, then Shelter House or The Housing Fellowship or
Unlimited Abilities who obviously don't have that kind of pocket available to them and may not have the
same amount of partnership resources. He looked at it as a very objective score, who has a pocket full of
money to the side that they can borrow, who's got 50% of their project funded from someplace else, but it
was a tough one subjectively because it didn't really speak to the value or worth of the project. He had a
really hard time with the City and Green State. He does have the question of if the people with down
payments, are they getting a loan through Green State as well, if so the Green State obviously has a
vested interest in collecting the interest payments for those 20 and 30 year loans down the road. It’s hard
to believe that even if they didn’t get this down payment assistance that somebody like Green State can't
come up with $50,000 or $75,000 on their own to put towards eight homes at 20-30 year mortgages
making even 7%-8%. So he definitely scored lower on more subjective stuff he could score on because
he was trying to offset that hard 25 they absolutely had for the financial circumstances.
Reedus noted her perspective is if they’re going to say someone organization will get a pass because
they'd have a hard time matching then let’s not have it on there, they have to have some rationale for a
score, that's what applicants are expecting. So if it is 25%, and they don't have that 25%, it should be a
zero in that box, that's what applicants are expecting and then the commission has some rationale for the
scoring,
Dennis thinks it's difficult to say that a certain applicant has to meet a certain percentage of leveraging
funds because they have to consider the whole thing, they have to consider the population that they're
serving, the income levels of the of the population that they're serving, how the rents or the mortgages
can be paid and that's really difficult. In her experience, the industry standard is that $1 of public funding
to affordable housing would leverage about $7 of other sources, whether that's other public sources or
private sources. And she would think that all of these applicants have banking relationships.
Vogel agrees but Shelter House isn’t putting their clients in touch with Green State Credit Union to get
loans that they're going to pay for 20-30 years. Dennis is taking about the whole concept, not just Green
State.
Reedus noted that here they’re talking about per the application, they're asking for $100,000, how much
are they asking for from us and what other funding do they have as leverage. If they shouldn't be asking
that then they should not ask it, because what gives them difficulty is the way they're scoring when they
don't understand how they should be scoring, then it skews what might otherwise be a first place
applicant to the third place. There was another question, the primary percent of median income targeted,
for which she created an expanded scale so that if somebody fell in the middle she gave them five points
or even 15 points because she wanted to be fair. She wants to be able to explain to an applicant why she
gave them a particular score.
Alter asserted they are not just throwing darts at the board, and they are adhering to the rubric. She
acknowledges the point that, certainly, for the applicants, they want to have it clear and want to have
rationale for them and that happened to the best of their ability.
Reedus is just suggesting if they want to say it’s okay if an applicant doesn’t have the 25% then they take
that score out, they don't need to have that score to come up with a total. If it does stay in the scoring
rubric than anybody that doesn't have the 25% should get 0 or 1, whatever is the lowest.
Dennis noted however for tonight they already have the scores turned in. Drabek noted in theory, but
they very well could redo them in certain limited ways, it has been done in the past. One of the strange
things here is that there really is no need to redo them, because their scores are very similar. Scores are
almost exactly the average on all five agencies. He was noting a couple of particular ambiguities in the
questions that might explain what little differences they did have, which is just when an applicant falls into
multiple median income ranges, how do they adjudicate between those scores, do they give them the
higher score, the lower score, an average.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 8 of 17
8
Reedus thinks as long as they are consistent in the scores and as long as they can justify to an applicant
how they came up with that score, that's fine.
Drabek noted the other ambiguity being what counts as another financial resource, if they just had a brief
description of that it might help a little bit on that question.
Dennis believes staff providing input may have been a factor for not having a wide variation of scores, it
was helpful. She didn't necessarily follow it but did use it as a guide.
Drabek appreciated having the top line number but not the actual breakdown on every question, that
might have been a bit too much guidance. He would suggest the commission next year does the same
thing, just the big number but not all that breakdown of every question.
Dennis asked as just a point of process, for the City that submits applications and then the City scores the
application, is the person who submits the application the same person that scores the application. Kubly
confirmed they are scoring themselves, but the commission is making the ultimate recommendation.
Dennis noted however the commission got a memo saying that the commission can't talk to the
applicants, but if the applicant is the City the commission has to talk to the City. Reedus noted she asked
about this at one of the last meetings because reviewing the City application is a little intimidating in this
process.
Drabek asked if they want talk about the rankings, Shelter House scored the highest, that seems to be
pretty clear, but it is a little bit closer with some of the other applications.
Thul showed the staff recommendations for the funding and noted the commissioner scores as well.
Drabek had one question about the staff recommendation, they can look at this in absolutely dollar
amounts or percentage of requests. But if they start with absolute dollar amounts, then there's a pretty
good correlation here between score and recommended allocation, the highest ranking applicant gets the
most absolutely dollar amount and for the most part it goes down from there. Obviously, if they look at it
as percentage of request, it's very different in some ways, almost the opposite. He’d like to hear more
about is the what's going on with the CHDO Reserve, is this is money that could only be used by the
Housing Fellowship. Thul confirmed they are the only ones that can get that money because they’re the
only provider under that definition.
Drabek questioned though why it is important enough that $80,000 of HOME funding goes to the lowest
scoring applicant. Why would it not be a better decision of the commission to take the rankings very
seriously and award that $80,000 to a couple top scoring applicants. Kubly explained the City wants to
see a successful CHDO Reserve activity so they felt that was even though they had a lower score it was
important to set that project up to be successful. The CHDO is so important to the HOME allocation and
The Housing Fellowship is an experienced agency.
Dennis is wondering why if a Shelter House gets such a high score, why the City would only recommend
half funding of the request. Kubly explained they were looking at it as absolute dollars, rather than
percentage, and just looking at all the applications as well. They did get the highest allocation of all the
requests.
Alter asked if in the past, have there been projects that simply were not funded. Kubly confirmed there
have been. Alter does think that these projects are worthy of funding and that too is part of the logic of
what the City was looking at when they were making recommendations for the dollar amounts. But the
bigger question is the scores are one thing but are they going to fund based on absolute dollar or
percentage of very high scoring projects. Are there guidelines in place or is this where that subjectivity
comes in. For this particular round, these are all worthy projects and therefore, to the extent that it's
possible they will fund them in accordance with the scores, proportionally, but everyone will get some
money, whereas in some cases, the projects just don’t get funded. This question circles back to letting
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 9 of 17
9
the applicants know what they can expect. Coming up with scores can be painstakingly work but then at
the end of the day what they want is the money, the funding. Does the commission need to have a
similar conversation about applicants having an understanding of scores and if they are underneath a
certain score, then they are not funded.
Drabek stated they have one good thing that they could use, it would be the capacity history section of
the rubric because if they see low scores there that's really concerning. The problem he has this time is
they gave every application a perfect score on that section, he did not have any reservations at all with
any of the applicants on that section.
Dennis looked at the readiness to proceed, this is only her second meeting and they’ve already
recaptured funds from one project and possibly doing it to another. Shelter House is already past ready,
they have applicants who have identified properties that they're ready to purchase, they have applicants
that propose to acquire properties they have identified and haven't bought for the City because the
duplexes are still occupied. It wasn't clear to her that all of the projects are ready to go and she thinks
that's important.
Vogel stated first he thought staff’s recommendations were great and he understood where staff was
coming from but the minute he saw scores, and the minute he saw the recaptured and the CHDO he was
like The Housing Fellowship is going to get the money and they got the lowest score. They’re getting
$77,000. Unlimited Abilities does great work, but they have had some issues with getting houses, buying
houses and putting people in houses and have vacancy issues as well. And the regarding Iowa City and
Green State, as he mentioned earlier he has a little bit of an issue with the whole giving Green State
money to give down payments to people who are then going to pay them for 30 years. He would rather
see a bigger chunk of that go towards just the City, a lot of City’s down payment systems comes out from
other funding sources, or the general fund, but if they have HOME funding he’d rather see the money
that's in the City of Iowa City and Green State and possibly the Housing Fellowship go towards down
payment assistance from the City of Iowa City, which is not a program he’s a huge fan of for the record,
but it is a program the City is doing. And then, the Shelter House over and over proves that they can do
big projects, providing massive amounts of support to huge amounts of people, and get it done. He
would allocated $77,000 CHDO, $78,000 to Unlimited Abilities, maybe $50,000 to the City of Iowa City
and Green State, fully funded $100,000 to the City and put the rest to Shelter House. He does feel
Unlimited Abilities should get the $78,000 recapture as it’s for housing.
Reedus stated the Green State is a down payment assistance program, and the City was purchasing
duplexes in the south district also as a down payment assistance, which targets different income levels
and that's a huge difference. Shelter House got a huge score because they're in that lower income range
where Green State and the City lost points in that section a little bit. She also struggles with how they
divide up the pot of money when they have one applicant that does really well but they do have to take
into account how they want to target this money, and it's not just the lowest income class, but there is a
medium range. Down payments are hard for working folks to come up with and the beauty of the Green
State program is coming up with money that can assist people in buying homes. Shelter House asked for
$500,000, which was actually the entire pot and she doesn’t disagree with that because they
demonstrated the need, but they can't give the whole pot of money to one organization but the lowest
amount she would want to give them is 50% of the pot of money. Drabek agreed with that.
Drabek suggested they start with things that they could endorse, at least $250,000 to Shelter House and
he was certainly convinced by the City's reasoning for giving the CHDO money, at the very least, to the
Housing Fellowship.
Alter is proposing zero allocation for Unlimited Abilities, Dennis agrees with that. Drabek noted if they are
going to go the route of funding one agency zero, based on a combination of the scores, plus other
considerations, that is the only application that they could really do it because the Housing Fellowship has
to get the CHDO funding
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 10 of 17
10
Reedus acknowledged the Housing Fellowship scored low, however the difference is that they're
proposing to rehab a three to four bedroom home and that's a little bit different niche and there aren’t
many of those in the community so she suggest they try to pull the Housing Fellowship up from the
depths because of that one issue.
Vogel asked if the CDBG funds are available to the non-legacy applicants. Didn’t they do some kind of
mid-year round of funding for smaller non legacy emerging agencies. Kubly replied no, they can only use
so many CDBG dollars for public services.
Drabek asked if there are any applications here that are ineligible for CDBG funds. Thul stated CDBG
cannot be used on construction of rental housing. They’ve gotten around that before by doing a lot
acquisition but since this is already owned by Shelter House that would be not a use of CDBG. So if they
wanted to move the $78,000 recaptured CDBG funds, it could not go to Shelter House but could go to
either of the City down payment projects.
Vogel would rather see that money move forward to the next round, he is just not excited about the whole
down payment assistance programs but if anything he would rather fund the one that's coming straight on
the City coffers than the one that's once again a back end agreement with Green State. But if everyone
else is more comfortable with going ahead and getting rid of that $78,000 this round, he’d rather it go to
the City South District Program and fully fund that $
Alter noted both programs actually have some value as it is down payments going for people who could
be first time homeowners, it’s geared towards unrepresented minorities as potential property owners and
that gap is so huge. This program is attending to a pretty stark statistical and lived experience of too
many black people being turned down for mortgages and this is helping them gain equity and really
create legacy for families.
Vogel stated he will support this commission if they decide to put that money there, he will vote for it, he
just won’t be the one who made the motion.
Reedus agreed and noted she did score lower because of AMI but because what she heard at one of the
first few meetings is that is that there isn’t enough housing for some of the large families the Housing
Fellowship does fill a need there so she is in support even though they scored low.
Vogel asked what the Housing Fellowship’s current vacancy rate is.
Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship) replied it is roughly 10% but that's largely being driven by the
project from last year, their nonprofit entity is closer to 7%.
Nkumu asked staff what the rationale for awarding funding to the Housing Fellowship is when Unlimited
Abilities scored higher than the Housing Fellowship. Kubly explained staff recommended the HCDC
recapture CDBG funds from Unlimited Abilities. The additional funds for the Housing Fellowship is
because they're CHDO and so they're important to the overall HOME allocation and are required to do so
many total projects, and this will allow them to carry that out.
Vogel noted staff did recommend $80,000 from HOME to the Housing Fellowship and $0 to Unlimited
Abilities. Was that because of the FY21 issues and the accounting issues. Thul noted HOME has a lot
more regulatory requirements so they thought CDBG would be easier for them to administer.
Drabek suggested perhaps they use staff recommendations with the exception that they took the $78,000
CDBG money and distributed it between the two City of Iowa City programs. So there would be $100,000
for the South District Program, $50,000 out of HOME funding and the other $50,000 would be recaptured
CDBG funds. And then $120,000 from HOME for the Green State and $28,000 from the recaptured
CDBG.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 11 of 17
11
Reedus asked if Green State doesn't get all of its money, and the allocate them $100,000 instead of
$150,000 they will still be able to move forward, but what happens if the Iowa City South District project is
not fully funded. Kubly stated they would typically offer $25,000 per unit and so if they could get funding
in increments of $25,000 that would help them with allocations, if they $50,000 they would just do two
units instead of four. She noted they're duplexes so they typically come into two at a time.
Reedus also asked Andrew what happens if the Housing Fellowship got less than requested. Andrew
replied it depends on if the 77 will be paid back or not, the other 80 they are envisioning as a loan they
will pay back and they requested the other half to be forgivable at the end of the period of affordability.
So if the 77 was forgivable, they'd probably still move forward with it.
Reedus asked if the Shelter House request for $500,000 goes to their bank loan, and any money they get
will help alleviate that so costs can be spread to the program and have less overhead costs going
forward. So, the question is if the allocation is less than $500,000 isn’t going to prevent the project moving
forward, anything received will apply to lower overhead costs, correct.
Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) confirmed that, the worst-case scenario is 0% as that produces the
commercial debt for 3.5%. So to reduce that commercial debt is what they're looking at right now. It is a
forgivable loan and reduces the overall loan and that's where that liberates money for the overall
operating costs.
Reedus just wanted to make sure they would not be giving a program difficulty if they reduced allocations.
Drabek noted it seems like they’re trying to balance on one hand respect for the rubric scores and on the
other hand maintaining of the City’s HOME funding and perhaps to visualize a more controversial
proposal for the last $80,000 what if they split it $ 40,000 apiece between the Housing Fellowship and
Shelter House. That would be basically staff scores with two exceptions, one being recaptured CDBG
funds moved from Unlimited Abilities to a split between the two Iowa City programs and the other is that
they fund the Housing Fellowship at $117,000 rather than $157,000.
Dennis doesn’t agree with the $120,000 for Green State and would like to lower that. Reedus supports
lowering that too. Dennis proposes allocating Green State $100,000 and then the other $20,000 to either
go to Shelter House or the Housing Fellowship.
Drabek stated that puts the Housing Fellowship with the CHDO funds plus $40,000 which is about half of
where it was from the city staff recommendation.
Dennis noted the City of Iowa City South District Program asked for $100,000 and would get fully funded.
Drabek noted that seems reasonable in the sense that it's this second highest average score.
Vogel noted he is okay with not allocating anything to Unlimited Abilities, they are more than welcome to
come back in the spring, and hopefully have things cleaned up, and the commission will be happy to
consider a future request.
Kubly requested they adjust the City funding so that the South District is all HOME and the other one is
split between HOME and CDBG recapture funds, it's just a lot more administration of two funding sources
in a project. The commission agreed.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 12 of 17
12
Dennis motioned to recommend the following CDBG/HOME funding allocations to Council.
Seconded by Vogel. Motion passed 8-0.
LEGACY AGENCY REQUEST – AID TO AGENCIES:
Staff received a request from Center for Worker Justice to be included as a Legacy Agency which would
allow them to apply for Aid to Agency funding.
Drabek noted this is something that they’ve speculated on in various ways over the past few years of how
an emerging agency moves into legacy status. Is this agenda item to discuss the request from Center for
Worker Justice or to decide when the commission will discuss it. Kubly replied they could discuss at the
November meeting as staff will need to prepare a substantial amendment but before doing so wanted to
know if the commission even wanted to put that on the agenda.
Reedus asked for a refresh on the rules on emerging agencies. Do they receive funds as an emerging
agency for a specific number of times before they can be considered for legacy agency. Kubly replied not
necessarily, anyone can apply to be a legacy agency just with written requests to staff and then it gets
reviewed by HCDC, but it requires a substantial amendment to the City Steps five-year plan. Therefore,
staff needs to plan ahead and start the public input process ahead of that meeting. Staff needs to be able
to plan for that meeting and do all the necessary paperwork and public notices. The amendment is
needed because they have all the legacy agencies listed in City Seps so if anyone else wanted to apply
to be on that list, it needs to go through that amendment process.
Alter asked if those instructions are posted or documented anywhere. She knows of an agency that has
wondered about this process and they had no idea how to do it. Kubly stated she believes it's briefly
discussed in the City Steps but doesn’t know how much detail is in there. Anytime there are questions
please forward them to staff and they could give them more information.
Drabek would find it helpful for the actual discussion if there is anything to put in the packet as criteria for
legacy status.
Dennis asked if it is required to list the agencies in the City Steps. Kubly replied yes, it's mostly local
funding, but some CDBG funding, but that's the processes, they specifically put it in a Plan so that it
would require the amendment to add additional agencies. Dennis asked if they could put in the City
Steps that the City does support a number of agencies under this with their own money, basically, so if an
agency wanted to become part of that then they wouldn’t have to amend the Plan. Kubly explained when
they did the City Steps Plan they deliberately made it a process to add another agency because of the
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 13 of 17
13
feedback they got when they did the Aid to Agency process, because when they add another agency the
budget stays the same, and then the rest of the agencies get lower allocations.
Vogel explained without that they would have more turmoil as far as how much they can distribute.
Reedus stated as far as she is concerned, if they add agencies to legacy lists then they have to add
funding, she is not going to vote for anything that cuts the pie smaller because that's exactly the hole they
climbed out of a couple years ago.
Vogel stated while he agrees with that, it seems what HCDC does now is very much just housing based
and the Center for Worker Justice is alternative community help. Reedus does not agree with that, they
also support the free medical clinic, which doesn’t have anything to do with housing. Vogel has never
seen an application from them. Alter explained that they put the legacy agencies in the City Steps so
they didn't have to apply and that’s why he hasn’t seen any applications.
Reedus reiterated she will absolutely not support anything that makes the pot smaller, if they are going to
add legacy agencies, then they have to add funding. She does have a question about it requiring a
substantial amendment, does that mean substantial time from staff. Kubly responded not necessarily, it
just means they have to follow the citizen participation plan so there's a 30-day public comment period,
they put notices in the paper, they hold a public meeting at this meeting and at Council. Reedus
suggested than they should have a City process for this if there's other agencies that want to apply.
Otherwise, they could get one of these requests every month. They should set a time of the year when it
is open up and the commission can consider multiple agencies rather than one at a time.
Drabek noted it's very rare to get such a request.
Reedus said there are emerging agencies all over the place and there are a couple of legacy agencies
who haven't gotten funding from the City recently, one hasn’t gotten funding in the last six or seven years.
Maybe they need to moved out of the list. The problem is the pie keeps getting sliced into smaller pieces,
which reduces them the amount of funds but it doesn't reduce the work the agencies have to do, it shifts
the cost barrier to the agency. Reedus suggests they have an annual program, one time per year when
anybody could come forward with an application become a legacy that would be better. Then if they
decided there was reason to add more they could submit a request to Council, in addition to increased
funding at the same time.
Alter noted to be a legacy agency there does have to be a track record of good agency activity, so if all
applications are reviewed at the same time then it becomes almost like a scoring process. She doesn’t
know that they'll be flooded with a lot of them, because emerging agencies, several of them, are ones that
really are simply starting up and don't have a track record of actually being able to become a legacy
agency just yet.
Dennis asked if the Center for Worker Justice is now an emerging agency even though they've been
around for awhile. Drabek explained the definition of emerging agency is just not a legacy agency.
Vogel noted at this point the Center for Worker Justice has applied, they put in a request, the question of
staff is does the commission want to start that 30-day public comment process. The Center for Worker
Justice has put in the request and under the current rules he feels they need to put it on the agenda, start
the public comment, etc.
Nkumu supports Reedus’ idea that they should have a period for allowing emerging agencies that are
interested in becoming legacy to come and apply.
Drabek also supports the idea of pairing admission to legacy agency with requests for more funding for
the pot.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 14 of 17
14
Alter noted they were successful in doing that a couple years ago, by putting forth a recommendation to
Council and were able to present the fact that there had been no increase to the budget over at least a
decade, if not longer. She agrees having more legacy agencies with the same budget isn't helpful.
Reedus agrees they need a partnership with Council because before the commission advocated for the
nonprofit groups and got more money, the City Council didn't know. She had gone to the yearly budget
meetings on the first Saturday of the new year and asked Council why they never gave any of their
discretionary funds to the nonprofits and they simply didn't know that there was a need. It’s helpful for
them as leaders in our community to know that their funding 50% of what agencies really need in terms of
funding, so it might help the cause and getting more money. She is not opposed to funding more
agencies, but they’ve got to have additional money.
Mohammed stated he would like to see the Center for Worker Justice become a legacy organization.
They have received funding in the past and were there any issues, or what is the status of that funding.
Kubly replied as an emerging agency they received operational funds and it is on a schedule that is paid
out. It's not like a CDBG or HOME project where they'd have to accomplish something and then get
reimbursed for the funding. Staff can try to get the reports for that project and provide that as they do
have the written request, but this agenda item wasn't intended to be the full discussion about whether
they should become a legacy agency. Staff can provide some history on the Aid to Agencies past couple
years and their request and updates on projects. The Center for Worker Justice also received local funds
for COVID related projects, they did emergency payments for people who need it during COVID.
Reedus is confused about how this process is going to go because the commission has not done this
before. If they say yes to the Center for Worker Justice, do they have more money to allocate, or do they
say no because they don’t have more money. What comes first, do they get a commitment from the City
Council to provide more funding for the pot for legacy agencies if they add more agencies.
Dennis asked if there are two different pots, one for emerging agencies and one for legacy. Kubly
explained there's one pot but 5% of the total funding amount can go to emerging agencies.
Reedus asked what that funding increases by each year. Kubly replied it’s been 3% in recent years. So
Reedus noted they only way they can fund the Center for Worker Justice is to take funding from another
agency.
Dennis feels that the Center for Worker Justice has followed the process as it is stated now and it seems
punishing to not allow this because they've done what they're supposed to do so. She understands they
may not have enough money.
Reedus had a question with regard to the budget, when departments, or this group, were to ask for more
money for the pot, when in the City calendar can they do that to have it considered by City Council. Kubly
explained this request would actually first be eligible, because of the application cycle, to apply next fall.
Right now the City is starting the budget process for FY23 funding, which is next July, so it’s almost two
years out and they would have to make that request with next year's budget.
Vogel noted that City Council could also take a recommendation to approve new legacy agency and say
no, all this commission is doing is making a recommendation.
Drabek stated the Center for Worker Justice requested this and the commission should put it on the
agenda.
Reedus suggests the commission chair and/or vicechair have an initial conversation with the city
manager about adding legacy agencies and increasing the budget by more than the annual increase
percentage. Having the commission communicate to the City about what the agency need is and the
ability to fund it is important for everybody to know.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 15 of 17
15
Drabek and Alter agreed they would initiate a meeting with the City Manger to discuss the budget and
how they can help agencies move from emerging into legacy where there's not enough money to help
agencies.
Reedus noted it should be that emerging agencies are in that role for a specific specified period of time
and then they can go into the legacy agency status, the difference is just the cut off for emerging
agencies the total dollars is $15,000 and that's the bottom amount of funding for the legacy agency. So
that's the big difference.
The commission agreed to review the request from the Center for Worker Justice in November and also
work with the City Manger’s office to come up with a process to be clearer in the future.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Two Commissioners are assigned each month to monitor Council meetings and this agenda item
provides an opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to the HCDC business.
Commissioners will not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
Reedus stated the meeting this week actually was on the system for the police department. The first
meeting of October was on formed based zoning, which is a different way of zoning that's been proposed
and voted upon by the City Council. Reedus noted this is supposed to have some benefits for affordable
housing but she couldn't discern that in the presentation that was made to City Council but in her limited
Google search activity she thought it might be beneficial for the commission to have a presentation by
staff on the benefits to neighborhoods for housing and such.
Vogel did sit in on the September meeting and there was discussion about the change in Slumberland
space to self-storage, which is kind of a bummer to see more retail disappearing from the south district.
The other question that came up was there was a the council passed that at the vacation and conveyance
for development by Gilbane Developments to develop the entire block which raised a question in his mind
of will this be in the downtown district and therefore not include the required affordable housing
requirement. The developer discussed their affordable housing projects at the meeting on their website
there is an area for affordable housing and the link is blank, and there are zero actual affordable housing
projects showing as completed on the website. So he is just curious if this is just another obviously large
student oriented housing and won't be required to have affordable housing requirements. Kubly
confirmed the project is in Riverfront Crossings and they're required to either provide 10% affordable
housing or pay a fee in lieu.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Thul stated the next meeting is November 18, that meeting will be approval of the FY23 application
materials and they’ll have some project monitoring presentations and then on the calendar they have a
break plan for December.
Thul noted a potential training for board and commissioners was scheduled, so anyone interested in that
can attend via zoom.
Kubly noted they included in the agenda packet the results of recent City public outreach for affordable
housing information sharing which includes outreach that the City conducted for Affordable Relief Act
funding, as well as outreach done as part of the Affordable Housing steering committee efforts.
Reedus asked if there is any timeline yet on when there is going to be decision made for the City’s
allocation or about possible uses. Kubly stated she doesn’t expect that to come to this commission but
there are HOME funds that they've been allocated and they’ll do a competitive round for those funds with
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 16 of 17
16
this commission. Reedus noted under consideration is $1.52 million for nonprofit agencies. Kubly stated
that's part of the City’s ARA money but they were also allocated about $1.8 million in HOME funds.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 17 of 17
17
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
R = Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21
Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X O/E X
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X
Lewis, Thersea 6/30/23 O/E O/E R
Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 18, 2021 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Peter
Nkumu, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nasr Mohammed
STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Heath Brewer (Habitat for Humanity), Karen Fox (Center for Worker
Justice), Roger Goedken (Successful Living), Caitlin McGowan
(Successful Living)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of Substantial Amendment #1 to the FY22
Annual Action Plan.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 21, 2021:
Dennis moved to approve the minutes of October 21, 2021, Reedus seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the minutes were approved 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Roger Goedken (Executive Director of Successful Living) thanked HCDC for their efforts and time on the
commission. Goedken wanted to point out that Successful Living met the vacancy benchmark requested
by HCDC at the October meeting. The Commission set a metric for Successful Living to go from 10
vacancies to seven or fewer, which they did meet and exceed. He acknowledged they’re not through all
the steps that they need to get through but are at the point where they hope to be able to move forward
with the underwriting and utilize the funds.
ANNUAL PROJECT MONITORING PRESENTATIONS:
Heath Brewer (Habitat for Humanity Executive Director) gave an update on their unexpended FY20 and
FY21 funds. They currently have a project with the foundation and some walls built and progress on that
place is slated to complete in June. He noted it’s a big project to get that going again when volunteers
ramp back. For the other three funds, they have roughly $25,000 without assistance for each. They have
five homes slated to be built on Indigo but will have to design requirements to make sure that they fit for
working with Homes for Iowa as for that project they were contracted to provide affordable housing with
their habitat partners and homebuyers, getting them some help cash flow and project management. That
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 2 of 13
2
is also slated to be built this next summer and completed by the fall. Brewer noted they were delayed in
using funds because of the pandemic, obviously, and then this opportunity was one that they couldn't
pass. The initial home design did not work with the people, the housing design criteria, so the next round
of homes that they have purchased for next year, they will work with the builder to get some of those
things changed.
Reedus asked if they are seeing more volunteers now, noting since the pandemic they obviously had
interruptions or loss of volunteers, so what is the percentage of returning volunteers. Brewer noted they
have been active throughout with Restore, so that hasn't been terrible for them, but in the home
construction areas it's probably 40% to 50% of what they would be expecting in a normal year, especially
considering groups such as the university or other community groups that come out and work on
weekends. They are reducing the amount of folks that are allowed on site to be safe.
OVERVIEW OF AID TO AGENCIES – LEGACY AGENCY REQUEST:
Drabek noted the Commission discussed in their last meeting a request from the Center for Worker
Justice to be added to the list of legacy agencies and the Commission expressed desire to look at how
this would work. Drabek met with Kubly and Thul a couple weeks ago and what came out of that was the
idea to give a presentation of the history of Aid to Agencies and then to have a discussion to put together
a vision for what these sorts of requests should look like how they should handle them.
Kubly gave an overview of the Aid to Agencies program since there were newer commissioners who
haven't been through the application process. Aid to Agencies may also be called the human services or
public services and is intended to provide a flexible operational funding for Iowa City nonprofits who
provide services to low-income residents based on the funding priorities set in City Steps. This
Commission typically looks at CDBG and HOME projects and those are for specific projects, whereas the
Aid to Agencies is operational funding that is not eligible through CDBG or HOME. This is for things like
staffing and is really desirable by agencies and it's really necessary for other projects. This is primarily
funded by the City's general fund but they also use 15% of the CDBG allocation for this purpose, which
ends up to be about $100,000 to $120,000 annually. That is the maximum that's allowed by CDBG to be
put towards Aid to Agency. The current CDBG budget is about $719,000.
Regarding the whole history of agencies, Kubly could not comment on that because she hasn’t been with
the City that long but she could comment on the recent changes over the past couple years. The first one
is that the Commission eliminated the high, medium and low funding priorities that were in the previous
City Steps 2016 - 2020. Previously homeless services was listed as high, senior services as medium and
legal services as low and the Commission had to categorize each agency but they found that was really
difficult because agencies don't fit neatly into a category and many provide a variety of services.
Additionally, they decided that all the agencies are high priority and put that in the new City Steps. The
other change was newer agencies were coming into the picture that really couldn't compete with the more
established agencies, so HCDC developed the Emerging Agency program and set aside funds for new or
emerging nonprofits. At that time they defined who the legacy agencies were in the five year Consolidated
Plan, City Steps 2025 and then HCDC and agency leaders worked with Council to increase the budget
substantially for the Aid to Agency program. Kubly noted on the spreadsheet that was included in the
Commissioner’s packet it shows that increase between FY19 And FY20 and right now they're looking at a
3% increase in the City’s budget annually. The emerging agencies were developed and intended to help
agencies grow and develop capacity. Because the legacy agencies are listed in the Consolidated Plan
and City Steps, essentially any nonprofit that’s not a legacy is eligible for emerging agency funds. Similar
to legacy they must provide services to low-income residents in Iowa City and meet a City Steps priority.
HDDC sets aside 5% of the total Aid to Agency budget for this purpose and that’s usually around
$30,000. Funding for the emerging agencies can be between $5,000 and $15,000 for an agency, and the
application runs alongside the CDBG/Home application annually. Kubly noted it is a much more simplified
application than the legacy application, the applications for emerging agencies will be due in January for
funding in the following July. The legacy agencies are a core group of agencies that are identified in the
City Steps 2025 Consolidated Plan and Kubly put a list of those agencies in the Commissioner’s packets.
The number was limited to return the program to its original intent of providing an ongoing and stable
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 3 of 13
3
funding source for those agencies. There's a minimum funding of $15,000. The agencies apply through
the United Way joint funding process, which is a pretty extensive application, and the City also has
questions specific to Iowa City within the application. HCDC reviews these applications and then make a
recommendation to Council, similar to CDBG and HOME. The City is accepting applications on a two year
cycle currently. There are 19 agencies in City Steps 2025, but the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County
doesn't currently apply because they receive funding through the City's Affordable Housing Fund for
operational costs.
Kubly next discussed the City Steps 2025, the current process is to review the legacy agencies every five
years during the consolidated planning process so the next timeline to do that would be 2024. Any
changes to the Consolidated Plan right now requires a substantial amendment with a 30 day public
comment period, HCDC will review the requests, and then make a recommendation to City Council.
As discussed at the last meeting, City staff received a request for an agency to be added as a legacy
agency, which then triggers that substantial amendment process. They provided a written request to staff
and staff then asked them for a description of services provided, their need for funding, how they meet
the priorities of City Steps, and the population that they serve, specifically in Iowa City. Kubly also shared
the scoring criteria that they use for the legacy agency applications, it's based on needed priority,
impacted delivery, and evidence of financial and administrative capacity.
Staff has listed some questions they have such as under what circumstances would an agency be
considered for legacy status, and if any agency comes along can staff vet those and decide when or if
they want to pass those onto HCDC or when they would maybe refer them to another funding source or
to emerging agency funds. When will HCDC review requests for legacy status, Kubly would recommend
those be no more often than every two years when they do the applications. Staff also wants to know any
other information that HCDC would want the agency to provide in the written request. Regarding the
timeline of the application process and the City budgeting process, she suggests the requests will need to
be reviewed before August for them to be eligible in the next application process but they won't know the
City's fiscal year budget at that time so the decision will have to be made without any budget
amendments.
Drabek asked if every five years there is a certain window where it would not require a more substantive
process to add an agency to the legacy list correct. Kubly replied every five years the City rewrites the
Consolidated Plan but they’ve never done this before because this is the first time that the legacy
agencies have been listed in the Plan. The Plan review does go through a whole public input process
and they could make the change as they develop the new Plan and that goes through HCDC and Council
similarly. It’s not really less of a process, but rather just intertwined into the consolidated planning
process.
Reedus stated she thinks it should be more frequent than five years but does agree it makes sense to
follow the two year funding cycles and that is then someplace in the middle where they open up the
process and do a public notice that they’re going to be considering agencies and have some sort of
formal process that's tied to the calendar.
Dennis asked if Reedus is suggesting the Consolidated Plan be done every two years. Reedus clarified
no, only the review of legacy agencies every two years. She has other issues that she would look at in
terms of the length of time an agency has been incorporated or operating, because it's closely tied to their
ability to succeed long term and they want their money to go to things that produce measured outcomes.
Five years is such a large window of time that none of them are going to have that history from one time
to the next so won't be a continuity, so to speak. The other thing is it would probably result in leaving
agencies who are really not ready to become legacy agencies to apply for it. It makes sense to her to tie
to the two-year funding cycle. She also thinks United Way operates like that with their partner agencies,
they have a period of time to become a partner, etc. That is what Reedus would recommend
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 4 of 13
4
Drabek agrees with the two-year idea as anything longer than two years would present the continuity
issues.
Drabek noted while this topic is open for discussion, they might start with essentially answering the three
questions staff presented. They are discussing the timeline and length of time of a cycle, but the second
question is what the criteria are needed to be considered legacy.
Alter agreed they need to discuss the criteria, Reedus had talked a little bit about the output in terms of
what the agency is providing, so what is the data needed and what is enough output and service, should
there be some version of what legacy agencies have to fill out. Since the emerging agency application is
a much-simplified smaller application than the legacy one. Some of the criteria that they might be
looking for is how many people they are serving, who they are serving and that type of thing. She
suggests they find some of the specific criteria of what are the hallmarks that they want to actually look at
and what they're asking legacy agencies to provide.
Reedus noted the first bullet point for under what circumstances would be considered legacy status can
be answered in two ways. One is based on experience, years ago she went to Community Foundation
Cedar Rapids and heard a presentation about life cycles for organizations and for new organizations they
keep the funding low for the first seven years because there's such a high rate of failure. Reedus believes
that is true and can name a couple of organizations that have tried for three or four years and then
realized they couldn’t get it done because they couldn’t get the infrastructure they needed. She is not
suggesting that an agency has to be around for seven years, but does think they should have cut-off, or a
point at which they should have been in existence for, maybe three years, five years or something, so that
they can take a look at their track record of performance. The other thing is, she knows from personal
experience a number of years ago a legacy agency came in and totally changed what they asked for and
it was one of those hot topics at the time like backpack food or one of those kinds of things were really hot
for a while. And so Council approved that agency to get the money and it took money away from elder
services, like $15,000 or $20,000, out of senior Meals on Wheels and then the next year the agency didn’t
apply for it again so to her that was just like taking that money and tossing to something new and not on
an ongoing program. She feels they do need to look at legacy agencies to make sure that what they are
using the funds for City Step priorities, are they purchasing shelter services, food services, youth
services, things like that.
Drabek agreed and stated they need to see how well the agency meets the City priorities, what are the
services and then also the continuity, he would expect a legacy agency to want to continue to be a legacy
agency for years to come and not just a one or two years thing.
Vogel noted this must have been discussed when the legacy agencies were created, which was not that
long ago, and 39 agencies got whittled down to 19, so what were the criteria then. What were the
requirements and what were the circumstances? He noted they should not be creating a new whole new
concept; this was all decided by a previous group at some point before.
Kubly stated they looked at who was funded over maybe the past 5-10 years and consistency of funding
and there was a clear number of agencies that received funding each year for the past five years so they
determined that those were legacy agencies.
Reedus noted prior to that it was handled in a different department, or maybe by the same department
but different individual and does anyone know what that criteria was because Reedus believes that staff
member directly gave recommendations to City Council.
Vogel noted ICARE, Red Cross, MYP were all organizations that were getting money every year and then
it just stopped and he is assuming that is maybe because of new requirements. He is wondering if there is
any documentation from staff at that time about a matrix that was put together to define a legacy agency.
He doesn’t feel they should be rewriting it all now.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 5 of 13
5
Reedus doesn’t believe there was every any criteria written and when agencies were defined as legacy
agencies there weren’t 35 or 40 agencies. Some of those agencies that dropped out some years ago was
due to lack of services, lack of funding priorities, maybe direction of Iowa City, but the legacy status only
happened prior to the Commission going to the Council and asking for more money in 2019. No agency
was considered legacy much before that, that’s relatively a new word.
Kubly confirmed the first year that they had legacies was FY20. At that time they came up with a list
based on past funding and they put it in the Plan and had everyone review the Plan. Essentially it was
based on prior funding but Kubly added all these agencies have to do reporting quarterly so staff looked
at their reports for trends and outcomes.
Vogel stated they could set a guideline of an agency having to be in existence for five years to be eligible
for legacy status, they could still get emerging agency funds during those five years.
Reedus noted they don't have to get any emergent agency funds in order to be added to legacy, she just
has a preference that they would just have to be in inexistence for a set number of years, say three years
or five years, to make sure the City is investing the money with an organization has got some sort of track
record of being able to handle it, do the reporting and use that money wisely. As public stewards of
money she thinks that's important.
Vogel agreed they need to set a baseline of an organization having been in existence, so should it be
three years, five years, seven years or what. It was noted earlier that seven years is normally the line
where organizations fail so there's more risk in the first seven years.
Reedus agreed there is more risk in the first seven years however the rest of that cycle is most
organizations also reinvent themselves every 20 years so every 20 years of an organization's life they
have some risk because they're reinventing themselves, which could be one of the reasons why some of
the old agencies on that list are no longer funded because they change.
Alter feels they need to look at an agency’s track record, who they're serving, and other such metrics
rather than a hard and fast rule of X amount of years, that doesn't necessarily account for all of the other
components that go into the success of an agency.
Reedus suggested the stated an organization must be in existence for at least three years, preference for
five year, to be considered legacy but to also note in those years have they met the metr ics used in
ranking other legacy agencies who are funded.
Drabek agrees, they could pull information from the current legacy agency application and write it as
these are the 12 things they're looking for and they'd like to see most of these before an organization can
be made a legacy and then HCDC would make a decision yes or no.
Alter noted it also could be contingent on budget availability, because adding legacy agencies will
decrease the amount every legacy agency gets unless Council increases the overall budget and they
don't want to penalize agencies by welcoming someone who deserves to be a legacy agency into the
fold. This is not something that Council has deal with but is something that does need to be thought about
on a regular basis. So while there should be a certain amount of criteria for an agency to become a
legacy agency, she feels there needs to be guardrails or caveats that may also be contingent upon
availability of funds in order to be fair to all of the agencies.
Reedus agreed, if they apply to become legacy and apply for funding and score high, there is a minimum
of $15,000 they will be requesting and will take a minimum of $15,000 from another agency's allocation.
Vogel asked then why the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, which hasn't asked for any funding in the
last three years, or hasn't gotten funding in the last few years, still listed on the legacy list. They could
show up next year and request money that will also take away money from the other 18 that have been
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 6 of 13
6
receiving funding last three years. So if they are concerned about putting more people into the pool and
everybody less from the pool, that could happen now by the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund so he
doesn’t think that should part of the discussion of whether or not to add a new agency to the legacy list.
Either they are a qualified agency that deserves funding for their operating expenses, because they have
shown worth in this City, or they're not. City Council could just choose not to give anybody money in two
years, and that wouldn’t take away from an agency's value as a provider of services in the City. He
doesn’t like making a statement that they’re not going to give them legacy status/value, because it may
end up getting less money in other groups pockets. If an organization applies for legacy status, it is
HCDC’s place to determine whether they are a value and should be added to the list of legacy agencies.
Drabek agrees with that and is actually really sympathetic to a point and that point is where the second,
third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth applications get added to the legacy list and if the City
did not add funds it would really cut into the funding quite a bit. So he is sympathetic to having some sort
of clause that says that availability of City funds may be a factor the decision
Dennis suggested they also add if a legacy agency hasn’t applied for funding for a number of years, say
three years, they then have to reapply to be a legacy agency. It’s a unique situation for the Johnson
County Housing Trust Fund because they do still get funding, it just now comes from a different pot of
money.
Reedus noted another thing is there been a lot of new agencies or new services pop up because of the
pandemic because there's a lot of pandemic money to help with a little bit of this, a little bit of that and
unique special kinds of needs that popped up because of the pandemic. This is why it would be
necessary to see a mission statement and to be in existence for at least three years because it may be a
need that won’t be as necessary three years from now. It also raises the question of duplication and how
do they deal with duplicative services and that's something they should consider in the application, not
just is another agency doing it, but maybe the service is provided in some other way and it's just thinking
outside the box a little bit and taking a look at how people's needs can get met, not necessarily through
agency services, but in some other way.
Dennis noted these funds are for operational expenses and this Commission is the stewards of the
money in making recommendations to Council. So she feels there is value in asking what percentage of
the request that they're asking is their operational budget. Typically, the operational budget would be
about 25% of their overall budget. They need to look at what their budgets are, look at their most recent
990 and see what their operational costs was based on their entire budget. Dennis noted as
Commissioner’s it is hard to say which ones are more valuable than the others as far as what their
missions are, what they do for the community, and for the low-income people in this community. What
they need to decide the money part of their budget, their operational plan and are they getting other
funds.
Alter agrees the budget should be part of that consideration. Just to actually kind of summarize, they are
looking at minimum years of existence, without it being hard and fast, she likes the minimum of three,
preferably five, next to show the track record, a historical narrative, to show the consistency of mission,
and a consideration from the commission about whether it's duplicative services or not, where's the value
to the community, noting there are multiple ways in which the same populations can be served and finally
to consider budget.
Reedus asked if Houses to Homes is a legacy agency. Kubly replied no, they received funding once
through emerging agencies. Alter noted they are one of those truly unusual agencies because they're
only three years old and they have just exploded in terms of providing services.
Reedus agrees but wants to make sure that the services are needed, that they have the capacity,
because what she doesn’t want to have happen is for an agency to pass around the Commission and go
straight to the City Council because they have a budgetary crisis, because they weren't planning well, or
because of whatever reason they sought money out. Houses to Homes was one that did go around the
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 7 of 13
7
process because she thought that they had gotten $25,000, but maybe they did only get $15,000 as an
emerging agency. Kubly stated they only got $5,400 from emerging agency funding, but they also did get
a direct allocation from Council through the emergency request process and that was more like $25,000.
Reedus takes exception to that process and thinks Council should be directing agencies to come in
through the front door because it's just not fair to others.
Dennis noted when they are talking about duplicative it's also important to say how they may partner with
other similar agencies. For example, the Center for Worker Justice is an emerging agency as is the
Sudanese American Community Services, maybe they're related but if somebody walks into CWJ and
doesn’t feel they can support their needs, perhaps the CWJ directs this person to another agency they
have some working relationship with that is providing similar services.
Reedus thinks it's helpful to encourage collaboration, partnerships, and coordinated entry is an excellent
example of agencies working together to have a better outcome for client’s needs and that those that
need the help don't have dozens of application processes to go through. She would personally love to see
some collaboration grants, perhaps have a pot of money, for organizations who come forward with a
great opportunity to collaborate.
Vogel is questioning the role of the Commission overall in this process, the Commission is just making a
recommendation to Council. If there are three applications to legacy status and the Commission only
recommends one, can Council go ahead and approve all three. Kubly replied the Commission will make
their recommendation to Council in the form of substantial amendments and recommend that this one
agency gets added to the legacy list and the Consolidated Plan. However, Council is going to see all the
meeting minutes and are able to read the discussion so they can go with the Commission’s
recommendation, or they could change it and do whatever they chose. Most of the time Council takes the
recommendation of the Commission, even if the agency goes to Council directly.
Kubly feels staff now has a good list of everything the Commission wants to consider for adding new
legacy agencies and that seems like everyone's in agreement with those items. She did want to know if
the Commission felt it should be required for an agency to be funded through emerging funds first. Could
someone who has never even applied for emerging funds be eligible for legacy funds just right off the bat.
The Commissioners agreed they should apply to emerging agencies first as it would be desirable if
emerging agencies were 5 or 10 years old so the Commission has more of a track record to look back
upon. It will be a requirement that they have successfully received at least one year of emerging agency
funding before they can apply for legacy status.
Kubly thinks that'd be helpful and noted they do require reporting for emerging agencies and then could
provide that as part of the application.
Reedus noted they do have one agency that has indicated that they want to apply for legacy status, so
are they going to have an application process upcoming in the next few months and put that information
out so that others can also apply.
Vogel stated his opinion is Center for Worker Justice has already put in an application request and any
rules they make now should not be grandfathered back to them. His opinion is they just present and the
Commission figures it out.
Drabek asked if there is any existing language at all. Kubly replied no, she doesn’t believe the intention
was to have like an application route, it was just for those who expressed interest they would direct them
to this process. She added they did get an inquiry from another agency recently as well. So staff will go
through the checklist and see how the agencies compare with the categories. There isn’t an application,
staff just asks them to provide a written request.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 8 of 13
8
Reedus was suggesting at the onset that they actually have an application process and the reason why
she doesn’t like considering one at a time and that's exactly what they're doing. They're not put through
the same type of comparative process so she would advocate that they have an open door, whether
that's every two years, where they state they will be considering new applications for legacy agencies,
and then close the door. Otherwise, they could be doing one every single meeting, literally. She would
advocate that they create a process of a timeline for consideration, and then close that door until it
happens the next time again. She suggests every two years because that is also when the legacy
agencies are reviewed for funding, every two years.
Alter believes the question right now is specifically about CWJ, she agrees moving forward there should
be an application and process in place.
Kubly said they can make CWJ wait until an application process is open, but they just need to know
because the emerging agency cycle is coming up and they probably want to know if they need to apply
there.
Reedus stated the next legacy application process is not happening until next fall, the applications will be
next fall, so they should continue to apply for the emerging funds, because the legacy application process
is not until fall and the funding will not be until the next fiscal year, July of 2024. She also thinks they
need to get the word out to other agencies. It needs to be open and transparent for everyone. CWJ isn’t
going to get any additional funding by getting legacy now.
Staff will notify agencies that have received Emerging Aid to Agencies funds previously that HCDC will be
considering applications to become Legacy Agencies at the January meeting. The Center for Worker
Justice will be asked to fill out the application once developed to make the process fair for all qualifying
agencies.
{Vogel had to leave the meeting}
Reedus asked if Drabek or Alter had meet with the City Manager yet to talk about increasing the funding
for Aid to Agencies. Drabek replied he has just met with Kubly and Thul as discussion of the budget
would be at a much later time. Kubly confirmed the City hasn’t even approved the FY23 budget at this
time so they're not even thinking about FY24 yet. Reedus asked when the Commission makes decisions
recommendations for funding would that fall before budget requests go to the City. Kubly confirmed the
Commission would be making their recommendations prior to the City's budget being approved. Reedus
asked if the budget is going to be different if they have two new emerging agencies that become legacy
and therefore want more money for the budget. Kubly said they will be working off an estimated budget
that's not approved.
Drabek noted the date is next spring for when they will want to put in a request for an increase in budget.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT #1 TO THE FY22 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN:
Thul noted this is a vote on the updates the Commission recommended at the last meeting to the Annual
Action Plan.
Dennis motioned to recommend approval of Substantial Amendment #1 to the FY22 Annual Action
Plan to Council. Seconded by Drabek. Passed 7-0.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FY23 CDBG/HOME AND EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATION
MATERIALS:
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 9 of 13
9
They began with the FY23 CDBG/HOME application materials. Drabek noted what they have is a
reworking of the current year's rubric. Thul noted staff tried to take some of the feedback that has been
mentioned in the last several meetings and adjust the criteria to hopefully respond to some of that.
Drabek stated the questions are more detailed and have more detailed criteria, and the number of points
is standardized at 20 for each question. Thul stated they also changed the weight distribution that was
discussed last time to make the sections more even, the previous scoring criteria didn't have very even
weight per section.
Reedus noted she could see some of her issues incorporated in here because during the last round she
struggled through how to do the income levels. She appreciates the more detailed questions and the
more detailed criteria for awarding partial points.
Drabek stated he didn’t want to comment too much on this because he is not going to be using this rubric
next year but he appreciated the offer to give staff scores for the a couple of very objective type
questions.
Dennis asked about the feasibility as far as the median income of the person is targeted. She has never
understood why the City would require applicants, especially for HOME funds, to be more restrictive than
what the HOME program allows. For example, if The Housing Fellowship came in and applied for HOME
funds and said that everybody they were going to serve that lived in those houses had to be zero to 30%
of area median income. What if they had a mother come into apply and be literally $2 over 30% of the
area median income and staff would have to say, sorry, you're over income. The rule is it has been under
60% so why did the City put even more restrictive criteria on that then what’s required by HUD.
Drabek believes that was an earlier commission that probably just wanted to put an extra emphasis on
zero to 30%. Dennis noted in her opinion that was a wrong decision.
Thul noted they did adjust the weight on that question, it used to carry a ton of weight in the scoring
criteria which really skewed the whole thing, so they did try to adjust for that to make it more fair.
Reedus agrees it is concerning to hear a $2 difference would cut somebody off from receiving something
because $2 at that level isn't doesn't make anybody stable, one can’t even buy a loaf of bread for that
much money.
Drabek noted the change in the real estate space being taken up by the LP AMI question, it went from 20
points out of 100 points to 20 points out of 320, so he was worried that that might have gone a little bit too
far. He thinks the issue Dennis is raising is a another one, which is do they need the fine-grained
distinctions within AMI, is there such a meaningful difference between zero to 30%, 31% to 50% and 51%
to 60%.
Dennis is stating that for the HOME funds, HUD has requirements, and the City has always added
additional requirements. They added more than what it requires and it’s HUD funds, so why was that, as
long as the project meets the HOME/HUD requirements.
Alter stated she can't say where that came from exactly but does know on previous commissions there
were some commissioners who really emphasized making sure that the lowest AMI’s got more funding.
That may be some of that community impact piece. But in terms of fairness and transparency it does
make sense to have it in sync with what the HOME requirements are and would allow for those horrifying
examples of being $2 over. Not to mention if they are concerned with affordable housing throughout,
there's the missing middle, and it's really expensive to live here. She would agree to put it to the HOME
requirements, there's a symmetry there that makes sense.
Thul also mentioned they are using the same scoring rubric to also score public facilities projects so that
makes it complicated.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 10 of 13
10
Reedus asked if those are the actual questions that are asked on the application. Thul replied they tried
to fine tune this to make it more parallel to the application, some of them are almost verbatim and some of
them are broader. For example, they added that third column to look at specifically what question it
relates to in the application.
Reedus asked regarding question number nine, will the project assist any special population, that is a
good question and she’d actually like to see more information than a yes or no, like how the agency will
demonstrate because oftentimes some agencies might eyeball something and she’d just like to know how
the agency gathers that information. She had a similar question about the racial equity, she would like the
organization to illustrate how the project promotes racial equality and inclusivity for marginalized
populations.
Alter recalls the question invites explanation, and this is one place where if an agency just does say yes
and they don't provide any explanation, as a commissioner, she would questions their judgment and
perhaps not give as high of a score.
Reedus agreed but then instead of having to wait until the meeting where the agency could explain, she
rather encourages that information up front.
Thul noted she changed the scoring on the application based on looking at other cities scoring criteria
that seemed easier to have a flat number, there's one question in here that still uses range, it doesn't
mean that they have to do it that way, but at the last meeting she heard Commissioners say that they felt
it was subjective, so this was just an idea to try to make it more straightforward.
Dennis noted she really appreciates number three where they get to a point where it says the budget
appears questionable and reasonable and the budget is substantially mathematically incorrect.
Reedus noted the criterial needed for number 12 is what she is looking for in back up in question number
nine, the project assists special populations, yes or no, but under 12 it states the proposal clearly
demonstrates some long-term efficient use of funding. She would like to see number nine have more like
three tiers of options, same with the question on racial equality and inclusivity.
Alter moved to approve the FY23 CDBG/HOME application materials as amended that the question
9 scoring criteria be changed from a two-tier score to a three-tier score. Seconded by Drabek. A
vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Moving on to the FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies application, Thul noted it didn't change much from last
year, staff didn't make any major adjustments.
Reedus stated she knows they're looking for project budget but are they also looking for overall agency
budget. She’d like to see an overall agency budget and a project budget. She’d also like to see their
990 because that demonstrates what kind of operating funds they have and if they actually have the
financial capacity to do the programming. Additionally, she’d like to see the fund balance, if they have that
as that's something she is going to want to see from legacy agencies also because that's part of running a
strong organization.
Dennis asked if that wasn’t already part of the United Way application. Reedus said they should look at it
anyway because there can be times when an agency has too much money and then the question is are
they actually using the annual dollars to meet a need in the community or increase an agency's fund
balance. Even as a new organization these are things that they should be thinking about and it goes with
their financial competency to manage a program.
Alter stated to give a little bit of historical perspective there are certainly some agencies whereas they
talked about creating the emerging funds was to actually help some agencies get that first start. So while
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 11 of 13
11
asking for this demonstrates seriousness but the weighting of it should be taken into account. There was
one situation where they gave an agency a minimum of $5,000 just to get furniture to go into an office
space. They didn't have that in their budget, per se, and that’s why they were coming here to try and get
funding for furniture. So again, in the past, some of this was intentionally supposed to help some get up
on their feet rather than for them to demonstrate that they already were.
Reedus acknowledged that's a good point but question number nine is asking them to describe
sustainability because hopefully the City's money isn't 100% of their budget. She wants to see they are
writing other applications or have a fundraising plan and to show the goals they intend to raise.
Dennis suggested they asked for the list of board of directors, or board of trustees. Thul stated they can
add that as a requested field or make it required as an attachment. Dennis would like that added. Reedus
agreed, they want to see a level of no conflict and don't want just see friends of Becky in Becky's
organization that are going to vote her way instead of their right to vote for the good of the organization.
Reedus would also like more information on question number six, why is the project needed. She wants
to know did they start because of some need that came out of the pandemic and if so are they're still
going to see a need. She would like a little bit of background in terms of why they're still in existence and
how they morphed into something else, because she thinks that's going to be a big question for some
organizations who started during the pandemic, are those services still needed. She would like to see a
little bit more in the historic history. Also do they ask about duplication or working with partners. Thul
noted question seven asks about how the project fills a gap in the community, but not really about
partnerships.
Reedus noted Coordinated Entry is a partnership of agencies that utilizes a lot of their individual strengths
and each agency making some tactical type of issues and comes up with a great product that every
single agency benefits from and more importantly individuals in the community benefit from. Everything
doesn't have to be a defined collaboration or anything like that but just a note of who they are partnering
with. For example, Table to Table has over the past four or five years done a lot more special projects
with agencies where they might partner with a church or small program to help feed kids after school or
something like that. She feels it’s important for them to become part of that larger picture by partnering
with others if they can.
Alter agrees it’s great advice for an emerging agency to think of partnering but if they have only been in
existence for a year or so it might be too daunting to think of that.
Dennis agrees and again, if it's only $5,000 she thinks they are getting a little bit too much in the weeds
for an agency that's only been in existence for three years.
Reedus is concerned about duplicating services. Alter noted that can be discussed during the discussion
part, a lot of information can be found out during those informational sessions. Reedus wants to see a
budget and an attachment of 990 or financial statements.
The Commission agreed they should request additional attachments from applicants including agency
budget, board of directors list, and agency financial information (990 form, financial statements, or
similar).
Reedus moved to approve the FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies application materials as amended.
Seconded by Drabek. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Two Commissioners are assigned each month to monitor Council meetings and this agenda item
provides an opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to the HCDC business.
Commissioners will not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 12 of 13
12
Alter noted at the last meeting Council approved a lot of P&Z stuff. There was an explanation of fringe
areas, and basically how they work with the County to be able to expand in anticipation of City growth and
to how to create city-friendly growth in fringe areas. They also had the next voting for the South District
Plan, which has to do with rejuvenating the area in terms of building. Dennis stated this Commission will
have a presentation on the form-based code at some point. Council is doing a work session on the ARPA
funds and Council is allocating some funding to nonprofit agencies. Dennis asked if that will come
through this Commission. Kubly did not believe they would, however the HOME ARPA funds will come
before this Commission for distribution.
The Commissioners discussed who would attend upcoming Council meetings. Reedus volunteered to
watch the upcoming meetings in 2021 and Drabek will watch the January ones.
Reedus asked regarding the ARPA allocations she is assuming agencies that are involved will have to
submit to the Agency Impact Council a needs assessment. If that actually happens, can this Commission
get a presentation from the Agency Impact Council in terms of how they're going to do that because she
thinks it might be a good idea for somebody from this group to monitor that process because the needs
assessment will probably be a more in depth needs assessment than has been done a long time. She
thinks they plan on hiring a professional group or finance consultant to do it she has seen the proposed
funding options so it looks like it's going to be funded.
Reedus asked when Council is going to do the final vote on the APRA funds. Alter is not sure, they are
working with the County as a partner to figure out which things they should partner on and what they
shouldn't. After that then the City will work among themselves to distribute the rest of their monies.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Kubly noted at the last meeting staff got a request for a presentation about the South District form-based
code which was approved by Council this week. The planning and zoning staff have a meeting the same
night on Thursday nights as well so it's kind of challenging to get a staff to present but Anne Russett did
provide a memo about the code changes for this Commission to review and also the presentations that
they've given to Council and Planning and Zoning Commission are online as well.
Thul noted the next meeting is in January with project presentations. They are going to open the FY23
funding round on December 29th and it will be open until January 31.
The Commission vacancy is posted so Council will do an appointment for the next HCDC member in
December.
Drabek congratulated Alter for her election to City Council and thanked her for her three plus years of
service on this Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Dennis moved to adjourn, Reedus seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 13 of 13
13
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18
Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X O/E X X
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X
Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X X X O/E
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X
Vacancy 6/30/23
ic .
Prepared by:Brianna Thul, Neighborhood Services,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5230
RESOLUTION NO. 21-315
Resolution Approving Substantial Amendment #1 to Iowa City's FY22
Annual Action Plan
Whereas, HUD requires the City of Iowa City, Iowa to prepare and submit an Annual Action
Plan as part of the City's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan, City Steps 2025, to plan the use of
federal funds to assist lower income residents with housing, jobs, public facilities, and public
services; and
Whereas, the FY22 Annual Action Plan was approved by City Council Resolution 21-122 on
May 4, 2021; and
Whereas, a midyear competitive funding round was held to distribute unallocated funds; and
Whereas, four projects were awarded funds totaling $78,000 in Community Development Block
Grant funds and $578,000 in HOME Investment Partnership Program funds for a combined total
of$656,000; and
Whereas, Substantial Amendment#1 to the FY22 Annual Action Plan includes new activities
awarded funding through the midyear competitive funding round; and
Whereas, the City has disseminated information, solicited public input, and held a public
meeting on the amendment to the FY22 Annual Action Plan; and
Whereas, the amended FY22 Annual Action Plan contains the updated allocation of CDBG and
HOME funds attached hereto in the amended Appendix B; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the public interest will be served by the approval of an
amendment to Iowa City's FY22 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. Substantial Amendment #1 to the City of Iowa City FY22 Annual Action Plan is hereby
approved and adopted.
2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to submit to HUD all necessary
certifications or documents related to the submission of the amendment to Iowa City's
FY22 Annual Action Plan.
Passed and approved this 14th day of December, 2021.E
M
Attest: .r 11110k, G
City Clerk City Attorney' Office
(Sue Dulek— 12/08/2021)
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Mims the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Appendix B
FY22 Substantial Amendment#1
HOME Persons/Households/
Project Planned activities CDBG Award Award Facilities Assisted
Aid to Agencies-Shelter House S 15,000 NA 800
Public Service Activities Aid to Agencies-DVIP $ 52,000 NA 600
Aid to Agencies-NCJC $ 57,000 NA 1.500
Shelter House- Emergency Shelter HVAC Rehab $ 225,000 NA 850
Public Facility Activities
NCJC-Broadway and Pheasant Ridge Rehab $ 37,242 NA 2,012
Neighborhood and Neighborhood Improvements Set Aside $ 75,000 NA 300
Area Benefits
Homeowner/Rental Comprehensive rehabilitation $ 235,000 $ 90,000 22
Housing Rehabilitation
The Housing Fellowship-CHDO Ops $ - $ 24,000 NA
Shelter House-Rental New Construction $ - $300,000 2
Other Housing Activities City of Iowa City-South District Program $ - $ 100,000 4
City of Iowa City&Greenstate Credit Union-
Downpayment Assistance $ 78,000 $ 50,000 8
CHDO Reserve Activities The Housing Fellowship-Rental Acquisition $ 128,000 1
Economic Development Economic Development Set-aside $ 50,000 NA 2
Administration& CDBG Administration $ 148,000 NA NA
Planning HOME Administration NA $ 56,000 NA
Total $ 972,242 $ 748,000 6,101