Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 03/07/2002CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Phil M jeruv s, Chair Terri B yant, Vice Chair Bill Be schy, City Council Liaison Vice Chair Terri Bryant called the meeting of the Community Development Block Grant Commission to order at 6:45 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Vice Chair Terri Bryant, Bob Browning, Vi Guthrie, Brett Hill, Tia Molander, Jennifer Molock, Billie Rosen, and Cheryl Zimlich. Linda Coxen arrived late. Not present: Phil Majerus and Dennis Vanderheiden. Staff present: Ken Waido, Maurice Head, Heidi Phelps, and Stacy Kelley. yI ptll APPROVAL OF JANUARY 10, 2002 MINUTES Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To approve the January 10, 2002 minutes. Motion approved unanimously. AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS Mr. Waido distributed a paper outlining this issue. The Affordable Housing Board will be involved in the competitive process, as enumerated in the material, but in a different manner than the past. The Affordable Housing Board will forward recommendations to the Commission about which applications best meet the City's policies. The Board will also submit relevant areas of inquiry for the Commission to consider in questioning applicants. In the past, the Affordable Housing Board has been uninformed as to the results of their input. A feedback loop will be implemented to educate the Board on the results of their priorities. The Board Chair and Vice Chair will attend the Q&A session of the Commission. Staff will also forward the final report of the Commission concerning recommended awards. In response to questions by the Commission, Mr. Waido noted that the meeting on final recommendations is open to the public and may be attended by anyone, including members of the Affordable Housing Board. Some members of the Affordable Housing Board are not comfortable with this procedure. In a meeting with City Council, Council did not set participation in the competitive process as a high priority. Lobbying continued for a higher -profile role. The present guidelines are the result. The Affordable Housing Board is taking a more aggressive role is Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 7, 2002 Page 2 assigning liaisons to other City Boards and Commissions that have potential input in affordable housing. Ms. Rosen suggested that any presentations by the Affordable Housing Board come after presentations of the applicants rather than before in order to present the benefit of the research and knowledge of the Board. Discussion was held as to the efficacy of the Affordable Housing Board's input of the prior year and the advisability of order of presentation. Commission members noted that they framed questions based upon the knowledgeable input of the Affordable Housing Board before the applicants' presentation. It was agreed that the feedback loop would be beneficial to the communication process between the Board and the Commission. UPDATE ON THE LAND BANKING PROGRAM Mr. Head presented an update. After the Land Bank Team's review a number of sites, a site has been identified and an offer made on a five -acre location south of town. It will accommodate 40-50 units and is close to the desired amenities. The specific location will be revealed later in the process. Mr. Head noted the difficulty in identifying a site that was both affordable and desirable in terms of location. Several other sites are targeted as well; this site had received the highest priority. Mr. Waido reiterated the difficulty of finding a site. After running through this process with this program as well as others, there is a heightened appreciation of the price and location problems. Staff specifically wishes to avoid competition with existing services and their search processes as well. In some cases, staff has seen 300-400 percent appreciation in market value within a 24-month period. This site meets the program's per -acre pricing criteria. A farmhouse presently exists on the property, and sale or rental of that portion of the parcel would mitigate the expenditure. Mr. Head stated that the City's real estate office is negotiating for the site and will inform everyone once the transaction has been agreed by all parties. No other offers have been made for this site. Another 10-acre site that is not presently on the market is being explored. This secondary site meets goals of the Stormwater Department for stormwater detention with a detention pond becoming an amenity to a housing site. Mr. Waido noted the importance of cooperation rather than competition in obtaining land that is needed by other City departments. Mr. Browning noted the expenditure necessary and questioned whether this competes with land immediately needed by other agencies. Staff replied that the site is not immediately buildable but presents sterling development possibilities in the future. It was reiterated that the land acquired by this program is meant to be Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 7, 2002 Page 3 stored for future use as opposed to obtaining land that is immediately available for development. UPDATE ON THE "AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDY" Mr. Head presented an update. Bay Area Economics, the same consultant used for the land bank study, is being used in this effort. A presentation of the BAE draft report will be made to the Affordable Housing Board and Council Growth Management on April 8. Staff will amend the report based on input and will present it to City Council in June, presently scheduled for June 11. A public process may be involved in this effort in terms of the report's impact after City Council's direction in June. The report will review impact fees and inclusionary zoning policies to address the new affordable housing needs that arise due to new development generating a in need for affordable housing. The report will require the input of Council and the Affordable Housing Board. The Chamber of Commerce and the Homebuilders Association have expressed interest in having input and being informed of this process, since options that are being considered include impact fees and developers building affordable housing. Mr. Head noted that staff has been working closely with the City's legal office to ensure that any policies resulting from this process comply with all applicable law. SPRING CYCLE APPLICATIONS Applications and supplemental information were distributed to Commission members. A summary of available funds, existing policies, and HUD regulations were promulgated. Mr. Waido gave a process overview as reflected on the sheet titled "FY 2002-2003 CDBG Program." He explained the addition of $767,262 that consisted of disallowed program funds by HUD. Mr. Waido noted that of the $842,865 available for affordable funding, 70% would be targeted for rental and 30% to home ownership over time. It is not necessary to follow those guidelines strictly in one program cycle, and awards are dependent upon the quality of the applications. $1,610,127 is available for housing. The $767,262 carryover was originally apportioned to rental projects; the Commission has the option of channeling these more immediately available funds to projects that have more pressing funding timelines. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 7, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Waido reviewed the HUD regulations that 20% is allowable for administration, although the request has never approached that level. Public service funds are strictly limited to 15% of grant and program income. Mr. Waido distributed a letter from the Women's Center explaining certain perceived deficiencies. An executive summary was distributed, giving an overview of projects and staff comments. Ms. Phelps explained that the "cons" noted by staff have been offered to be reviewed with the applicants. Ms. Kelley stated that audits of the applicants would be made available upon request. Mr. Waido reviewed staff's initial review and scoring of the proposals. He also distributed a spreadsheet of this package. Some criteria are completely objective; others are more subjective and are judgement calls on the part of staff. Scoring that is anomalous presents a red flag to the reviewer for concern and/or follow-up information. Mr. Waido advised that any request for additional information should be filtered through Staff. It is inappropriate for Commission members to contact applicants directly. Ms. Phelps noted that the scoring sheets are a work in progress and are not finalized. Not all items are entirely applicable to every applicant or every process, and these items should be looked at in relative terms to the applicants. Requests vs. available funds are close to a 2-to-1 ratio. Applicants are reminded that no one has an entitlement interest in funding. Every application is strictly viewed on its own merits. However, past funding is noted as part of the application process. Bad past performance will be a detriment to an applicant's scoring. Mr. Waido distributed a proposed schedule for the question -and -answer session. Concerns should be addressed, but with an eye to being equivalent in opportunities to all projects. Some attention has been taken to grouping multiple proposals from a single applicant and putting those applicants to the last of the schedule in order to accommodate any special time needs. Staff gave some consideration to expanding the schedule to three nights, but has proposed a two -night schedule. Ms. Coxen expressed concern about the ability to concentrate toward the end of an arduous session. The question -and -answer schedule is tentatively scheduled for April 3 and 4. Deliberations on recommendations will be held on April 11. The recommendations will be presented to Council on April 23rd. The possibility of two nights of deliberations was discussed. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 7, 2002 Page 5 Ms. Coxen questioned about the desirability of a third night of combination of Q&A and beginning deliberations. Objections included the need for some applicants to provide more information and the ability to properly process analysis upon the conclusion of the question -and -answer session. Mr. Hill revealed very real scheduling problems that he is facing due to workload and calendar issues that have been delayed. He will in all likelihood not be able to be present the first week of April. Ms. Kelley noted that the room is available from 5:00 p.m., and the schedule could be moved up accordingly. A straw poll was taken for earlier attendance of a 5:00 p.m. dinner and 5:30 Q&A session. While the majority favored an earlier time, several Commission members noted their inability to attend early. Ms. Phelps solicited input from Commission members as to their needs and desires regarding scheduling. Ms. Kelley solicited input from Commission members as to their needs and desires regarding the menu. It was decided that the proposed schedule would remain. The reporting service raised an issue of the burden of reporting for four straight hours. Staff stated that reporting of the presentations was not necessary; verbatim reporting would be needed for the Q&A portions. Both the presentations and Q&A sessions will be summarized for minutes. OTHER BUSINESS No other business was presented. Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Molock: To adjourn. Motion approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.