Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 12/08/2005CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMISSION Meeting Minutes December 8, 2005 Bob Browning, Chair Commission members attending: Bob Browning, Chair Trina Buxton -Flores Michael Kulischeck Tia Molander Jeff Taylor Dennis Vanderheiden Jennifer Wagner Cheryl Zimlich Commission members absent: Eric Berglund, Theresa Ramos -Garcia Staff attending: Maurice Head Heidi Phelps Julie Smith Chairman Browning opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizen comment was offered. DEBRIEFING ON THE FALL COMPETITIVE PROCESS Council appeared to appreciate the proposed process. The Commission was queried as to its comfort with staff allocating funding to the appropriate sources, rather than the Commission undertaking those efforts in its deliberations. Mr. Browning expressed some discontent with the use of the Affordable Housing Fund, espousing the philosophy that the most flexible funds should be held in reserve the longest to have the greatest latitude in future funding. Commission members requested: A preview of how funding can be expended from the available sources; More detail on the matrix regarding the approved use of moneys in the various available funds. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of December 8, 2005 Page 2 HUMAN SERVICES CONTRACT FUNDING/SPRING COMPETITIVE PROCESS Ms. Phelps reported. The moneys formerly earmarked for the Community Partnership Program are now available for distribution in funding overseen by the CDBG Commission. This will total approximately $340,000, with close to $10,000 budgeted for administration costs. Mr. Waido is working with the City Attorney to explore the available ways to fold this funding into the competitive process, beginning spring 2006. A lot of duplication of applicants existed in these funding avenues. The Commission may see the addition of a few applicants who applied to the Community Partnership Program but not CDBG. This fund is less restrictive than Federal dollars and can be used for programs that benefit Fort Collins but are outside of the geographical limits, with the Island Grove detoxification program in Greeley being one example. Staff will be exploring strategies to make the funding allocations from the various sources as efficient and streamlined as possible. An example of an applicant that would be eligible for funding solely from Community Partnership would be a faith - based organization, which had a program that did not meet HUD guidelines. CHILDCARE FUNDING DISCUSSION Mr. Browning reviewed this issue. An interest was raised about having a definition of affordable child care. Mr. Browning and staff tried to codify this on a form to agencies. The resulting compliance process may be too cumbersome and complex to be viable, because the numbers of children affected were much higher than initial impressions. However, the results of these efforts are available if Commission members wish to review the variables of child care affordability. The concept was to have a template for evaluation of child care agencies. Mr. Head noted that a number of agencies provide different levels and types of services, thereby complicating a given linear evaluation tool. Agencies are not often directly comparable in their services and structures. Mr. Browning recapped the State of Colorado's view on the concept, which was not one of approval or even agreement on specific levels. Mr. Browning expressed the result of this effort that affordable child care could be defined as 14 percent of AMI spent on child care per family. A discussion was held concerning the closing of Sunshine School. This agency seemed to have a higher need of funding per child than other agencies, and this Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of December 8, 2005 Page 3 inconsistency among agencies was further discussed. Ms. Phelps outlined the various elements that the agencies face. Common denominators can be found, but there may not be enough to adequately standardize the process of evaluation. Mr. Browning delineated the areas of concern that would appear to be common to all applicants. Given the variety of applications, questions were raised of the need for intrusive research if the most likely result would be funding in any event. The closure of Sunshine has provided a lesson for staff in perceiving danger signs of a troubled agency. In response to questions, staff outlined the chain of events that led to the license suspension and closure of Sunshine. If the City ultimately leases this property to an ineligible renter, or sells the property, the CDBG contribution would be returned as program funds. Staff will e-mail the designed template from Chair Browning to Commission members for their evaluation. APPLICATION CHANGES Jennifer Wagner's Review Ms. Wagner expressed her desire to have a clearer, more current financial snapshot of applicants in a way that is as useful as possible for the Commission's review. She reviewed the categories and questions in her proposed review form and explained the background, intent, and positive and negative interpretations of those items. Although this could be a learning tool for applicants, it is not the Commission's role to be financial advisers but rather to be diligent in understanding the benefits and risks when evaluating the allocation of public money. The Commission expressed its interest in pursuing this review, given the more thorough and helpful insights that Ms. Wagner brings to the table in financial overview. It is desirable to have a higher level of scrutiny than a "feel -good" measurement of an agency's ability to carry out its mission. The economic dynamics have changed through the years, and this style of review has become much more desirable. Discussion was held on ways to incorporate the elements of the review into the application process and the benefits the review will have for both applicant and evaluator. Ms. Wagner and staff will work on incorporating financial questions into the revised Competitive Process application. New HUD Requirements, HUD Performance Measurements and City Human Services Fund Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of December 8, 2005 Page 4 Additional items are being added to the Competitive Process application as a result of changes or requirements in each of these areas. Agency Capacity Discussion was held on the desirability of having a scorecard of an applicant's past performance available to the Commission when reviewing a new application from that agency. Staff currently covers this issue in training, and it is available for discussion and the pro/con analysis. Contracts do have compliance provisions that allow for barring a nonperforming agency from future applications. Staff will keep the Commission fully apprised of agencies that fall short of expectations or promises. LAND RESALE TERMS DISCUSSION This concept would allow funds used to buy property share in the appreciation should that property be sold in the future. Loveland has revised its contracts to allow for this event. Cases may arise when an agency sees a windfall profit from the sale of property, and if CDBG funds are used to obtain that property, then the CDBG program should share in the profit realized. Mr. Waido's e-mail reviewing this concept was reviewed and discussed. This would not affect the Land Bank program or Habitat for Humanity transactions in their present structures. This was not originally intended to apply to buildings as well as land, but the Commission could take that initiative if it wished. The Commission agreed to this concept in principle and requested a thorough briefing and staffing of the language needed, with a follow-up review at the next meeting, to be timely for implementation in the spring funding cycle. LAND BANK PROGRAM UPDATE Mr. Head reviewed the proposed purchase of the Kechter property, as a joint purchase with the City and CARE Housing. CARE will supply $500,000, and the City will contribute $1.1 million, with funds being transferred from the original allocation for the 1-25/Prospect site. Staff is currently conducting its due diligence and completing an initial site plan. Mr. Head reviewed the proposed siting and an overview of construction as currently envisioned. 5 acres would be used for CARE; 11 acres are zoned for LMN; and 5 acres are zoned for urban estate development. The acreage not used for affordable housing would be sold for development. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of December 8, 2005 Page 5 Other general overview included a proposed community center, existing buildings, and the infrastructure needed. The property exists outside of current city limits. The Commission can anticipate that CARE will be making an application for funding to help with its share of the land purchase. Discussion was held on latitude that should be allowed for the Land Bank program to move quickly when opportunities arise. The Commission schedule or quorum problems can result in slowing down the program when quick action is needed. The Land Bank program has criteria it must meet, and property sales are also channeled through the City's real estate office. Neighborhood resistance can be expected on a given proposal and must be dealt with appropriately as the individual situation dictates. CARE has a good track record of working with neighborhoods. Moved by Ms. Wagner, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To allow Mr. Head to administer the Land Bank program within the guidelines set down by the City, updating the Commission as appropriate, but absent the need for Commission approval of specific transactions. In addition, future Land Bank Competitive Process applications should not be denied funding solely on the basis of being non site -specific. Motion approved unanimously. OFFICER (CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR) ELECTIONS Mr. Browning opened nominations. Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: Mr. Browning as Chair; Mr. Berglund as Vice Chair. No other nominations were offered. Mr. Browning closed nominations. Motion approved unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Phelps announced that two of the three open Commission positions have been appointed by Council. Ms. Buxton -Flores noted that she could continue to serve on the Commission in lieu of a replacement appointment until her house is sold. A gift was given to Ms. Molander for her years of service to the Commission. She expressed her appreciation for her experience and recognition for the fine work that the Commission accomplishes. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.