Pocket Parks Program FAQ

• A: Project Delivery
• A2: Tier II Review after being awarded are also PD.

No, according to Iowa Code chapter 28E, not required if performed by a COG.

Yes

This is dependent upon the program applied for. Section 106 and some ERR processes can always start prior to the Application, and this can result in higher scores for readiness. Upper Story and other rehabilitation programs require a 2-tier ERR and have a different process to follow:

• “Responsible Entity” (the Applicant UGLG) completes an initial environmental review at a broad or programmatic level, followed by site ‑specific environmental clearance at a later stage:
• The first tier (draft ERR – unsigned, unpublished) evaluates the proposed project (typically a rehabilitation program of some kind) and the types of activities to be undertaken and identifies applicable environmental laws and authorities that can be addressed without knowing the specific project sites.
• The second tier is completed once individual properties are identified and addresses site specific environmental conditions—such as historic preservation, floodplain status, contamination, and other property specific environmental conditions— ‑specific environmental conditions—such as historic preservation, floodplain status, contamination, and other property‑level factors—before any rehabilitation work or choice limiting‑limiting actions occur.

If you attended the Third Thursdays prior to September 1, 2025, you will not be required to take the Basic Training Course. However, if you started attending on or any time after September 1st, you will be required to. Notifications and instructions will be sent out soon to start that process.   

Q: I have current projects who we are moving forward and am doing my contractor clearance checks on possible contractors and subs. I know that a SAM.gov registration isn’t required and a UEI is. What if I can’t find an active UEI account on SAM.gov? I typically do an entity search prior to the exclusion search. Some will note that they don’t have a full SAM.gov registration however they do have an active UEI#. If it does not show that they have an active UEI, however the engineer is able to provide the UEI #, would that work?

A: This is a common problem, but NO - If an entity does not appear in SAM.gov with an active UEI record, simply providing a UEI number is not sufficient for contractor clearance. IEDA’s Contractor Clearance Policy requires two separate checks for all vendors:

• 1) Verification of a valid Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)
• 2) Confirmation that the entity is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded, as documented in SAM.gov:
  • SAM.gov entity search (business entity name) and
    • SAM.gov exclusion search (both biz entity level & Owner)

A UEI must be verifiable in SAM.gov for IEDA to complete the required exclusion / debarment review. Even entities that are not fully registered must still have a basic SAM.gov entity record to be issued a UEI and be searchable in SAM for exclusion (debarment) purposes. If a vendor provides a UEI number, but does not appear in SAM.gov under an entity search or exclusion search, then one of the following is likely true:

• The entity has not completed the SAM entity registration process,
• The record is inactive, incomplete, or incorrectly entered, or
• The UEI provided is invalid or associated with a different legal entity name

In these situations, IEDA cannot accept the UEI number alone. The vendor must create or update their SAM.gov entity record, at least to the level needed to obtain a UEI, and be searchable in SAM.gov. Also, the vendor must ensure the legal business name and address match what is being used for the contract. Once the entity appears in SAM.gov, or is able to provide proof of registration confirmation and the UEI can be verified, IEDA can complete the required exclusion check.

No, one Application, one Pocket Park. If a city were to submit two applications for one city, both would be reviewed if complete; however, only one would be funded. 

Q: Would an area within the public street right-of-way of a city be allowed, provided it meets other requirements such as no more than a quarter-acre, etc.?

A: No, applicants should plan pocket parks to be built on an individual lot/parcel. Although there may be cities with public street right-of-way areas larger than the traditional small strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street, those areas may pose safety, traffic, or parking concerns and/or raise other complications due to the size, shape, or location of the right-of-way.  

 

Q: I think in the past the "[required] policies" didn't have to be updated if they were within XX years.  Is that still the case and how many years?

A: If the policies cited in the Program Guide to be included are under 5 years old, they are acceptable. However, if there has been a change to the policy templates as periodically updated by IEDA in response to regulatory changes, or the Applicants policies, a new policy would in fact need to be adopted and resubmitted to be capture the resulting changes and be recorded in the project file for future monitoring/audit protections. 

Q: Could the city work with a project partner (i.e.: the Chamber or other community development group) who owns the lot and plans to complete long-term maintenance?

A: No, the city must own the lot.

Q: Can a purchase agreement for a property work that states a date the city would take possession of a property?  Land sales can take months, and a city may miss the deadline.

A: No, the city must own the property at the time the application is submitted.   

Section 3 regulations are based on CDBG funds only. So, for example, if the project budget has $150,000 in CDBG funds and $100,000 in match dollars, Section 3 would not apply.

A: The Pocket Park program has a max cap of 10% for grant administration fees.  Given that the maximum award for this program is only $150,000, a city may request up to 10% in grant administration as long as the cost can be justified upon request.

A2: Most CDBG annual programs have an admin cap of 10%.  The two programs that have a lower cap (5%) are the CDBG Planning Grants and CDBG Public Services.