Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 10/16/1991CDBG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991 The regular meeting of the CDBG Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Development Services Conference Room, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Commission members present included Chairman Tom Dougherty, Joe Zimlick, Tina Marie Ribera, Linda Coxen, Jim Burrill, Tom Byington, Carolyn Early, Lou Stitzel, Dan McArthur, and Bobbie Guye. Staff members present included Ken Waido, Jackie Davis, and Kayla Ballard. Mr. Dougherty stated that the Commission was going to discuss the Selection Process, consider the Policy Development, and the CHAS. Mr. Waido explained that CHAS was an acronym for the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. Jackie Davis introduced Jim Burrill, the new Commission member. REVIEW OF SELECTION PROCESS Mr. Dougherty believed that the Selection Process went real well. Mr. Waido stated that, all things considered and the fact that there was a new Commission and it was the first time that the Commission had been through the process, we had grown accustomed to doing things certain ways over the previous six or seven years. He believed that everything worked out well. The purpose of having this item on the agenda is to see what things could be improved upon for next year. When the Commission talks about the selection process, they are talking about everything from the application that we passed out to have the applicants fill out with all their attached information to the written materials that are submitted to the Commission, the question/answer period that the Commission had, the worksession that the Commission had with City Council, and then final public hearing. If there is any improvements that can be made to any of those steps or any of those aspects of that selection process, the Commission definitely needs to deal with them in terms of logistics. There are a couple of other items, the Policy Development and The CHAS, that are also going to impact that selection process, not so much from the logistics part, in terms of the steps involved, but in terms of the basis upon which the Commission will base its decision. He stated that he would turn this back to Chairman Dougherty and the Commission to give any feedback that they wished to give at this time concerning that process. Mr. Dougherty encouraged the Commission to comment on any concerns that they had with the process or give any ideas they had to facilitate the process. He stated that the Commission worked hard on the process but it seemed like it went fairly quickly considering the magnitude of what the Commission did. The application forms do not get the job done. They are too verbose. There was a boilerplate the Commission reviewed and they saw paragraph after paragraph that was alike. Basically, the Commission had to read a lot of material just to find out what the drift was. Mr. Waido stated that this year there was a one page summary sheet on the top of the application but obviously that didn't serve the purpose. Ms. Coxen commented that the summary page was real helpful and helped synthesize the information very quickly. It was a good point of reference and very effective. She believed that maybe the redundancy is a screening process in itself to ensure that the applicant is consistent. Ms. Stitzel stated that there are certain things that HUD requires like any federal bureaucracy. Mr. Dougherty asked if the form was mandated by anything? Mr. Waido replied no, not really. Mr. Dougherty asked if the questions were mandated? Ms. Davis replied that some of them were. Mr. Waido stated that the Commission has to make the applicant aware that certain federal regulations, for example if they are going after monies for construction purposes, that the fair labor standards will apply. Or if they are going for something else, that environmental regulations will apply. They have to cover all of those aspects. Certain aspects are required so that the applicant, in making up their budget for the request, aren't blind -sighted later on by regulations that they may not be aware of. The applicant has to pay Davis -Bacon wages which will increase the cost 35%. The information is intended to give the Commission the basis upon which to screen and wait and make the recommendation. Mr. Byington stated that he agreed but it seems like it had been so long without going back and reviewing it. The applicant has got to have the framework so everybody can be compared. He stated that there as something about the process and with the application that made him feel like they were having to fill in the blank. If the Commission didn't ask the right question, they didn't get the right answer. He believed that to some extent that's why he agreed that a summary page gave the applicant an opportunity to say what is on their mind and what they are doing. He didn't believe that many of them did a very good job but sometimes that as very telling. As a lender, sometimes the Commission gets these great applications and all the blanks are filled in but when they sit down and communicate with the applicant, they find out whether they really are good or not. He believed that he wouldn't want to appear to be critical but the format that he was frustrated with he couldn't put a finger on. He stated that he heard that the applicants would have appreciated an opportunity to make a presentation rather than simply answering the Commission's questions. Mr. Waido stated that the Commission had gone through that and the presentations were nothing more than a regurgitation of what was on the written material. He believed that it was symptomatic of what Chairman Dougherty had said and what the applicants were saying was that they weren't able to put their best foot forward. They needed an opportunity to make their presentation to put their best foot forward and they didn't feel like they were able to do it by filling in the blanks. 2 Mr. Waido stated that is if this was the consensus of the Commission and they are willing to spend the time, it can be set up to where the applicants will have the opportunity to make the presentation. This will require another two or three additional evenings. Mr. Byington stated that he would rather volunteer to spend some time to see if the Commission could revamp the application because he would not advocate any presentations. Ms. Coxen stated that some people communicate more effectively orally rather than they do in writing. She asked if the Commission should disqualify a candidate because they did not communicate well in a written format. Chairman Dougherty commented that this does not get down to who is the best grant writer. He believed that eventually the Commission would get it to the basis. Ms. Davis believed that the Commission should go on tours during National Community Development Week to see some of the projects. She added that maybe the Commission could go back to some of the ones that have been submitted in the past that some of the members didn't see. This way they would be more familiar with the projects. Chairman Dougherty stated that this was a possibility. He added that they might ask the applicants to pay particular attention to the review of their request, the summary page and to make it right as though they were presenting it to somebody who had never heard this before. Mr. Waido stated that one of the things that concerned him was that the application specifically asks for the regulation that this qualifies under, or give justification as to why they are applying for it. (The applicants are writing in their own thing, not answering the question that is really there.) The applicants writing in a tear jerking statement which is not the question that is there. The Commission has to qualify these. There should be an understanding as to how they think it is and sometimes we have to ask if it is really an eligible activity but they respond that they don't know. Ms. Coxen asked if this was something where the Commission could have a sub- committee to review the grant application and report back to the Commission? Chairman Dougherty stated that this was a good idea. He stated that the instructions that go with it were probably as important as the applications. Mr. Waido stated that he would welcome two or three of the Commission members to volunteer to look at the application form to clarify and simplify it. Chairman Dougherty appointed Linda Coxen and Tom Byington to be the Application Oversight Committee. Mr. Waido stated that City Council had adopted a new policy related to the application or applicants requesting City financial assistance. Council had a goal on their previous two year work program to develop a single room occupancy program. That, when it evolved and went to the City Council worksession, they 3 • •. decided not to make it a policy specifically for single room occupancy units but made the policy to be that when an applicant comes in for financial assistance to the City, they should show that they are helping to achieve city goals and policies through that financial assistance. Staff developed a policy, that Council adopted, that requires applicants, for all types of financial assistance, to do what is called a FAIR, Financial Assessment Impact Report. With this there is a whole series of criteria. Each of the applicants of the CDBG program will have to fill out that report. He stated that it was mainly a policy based on how this request for money help further adopted City goals and policies. Chairman Dougherty asked why Council was doing this? He asked if this was to certify compliance or for somebody to review it in the city to see if the applicant complies. Mr. Waido stated that it was to aid the Council. It was not a form that scores points and then determines whether or not you get the financial assistance. It was another aid to Council to allow them some type of criteria upon which to make a decision whether or not the applicant should or should not receive money. Ms. Coxen asked if it would be helpful for the Application Oversight Committee to have to know what else to require of the applicant in the application process. Chairman Dougherty stated that this sounded burdensome. Ms. Coxen believed that if the Commission was going to develop comprehensive instructions, they need to indicate, possibly in the instructions, that this was also a section that needed to be required by the applicant. Chairman Dougherty stated that this would be important to review and see how it impacts what the applications do and what the Commission does. He asked how large the F.A.I.R. was? Mr. Waido stated that this depended upon the magnitude of the applicant's request for grant monies from CDBG Program. It wouldn't be a large report if an applicant were to ask for $3,000 to $5,000. If an applicant was asking for a very large amount of money for tax increment financing to build a high-rise office building downtown, it could be a fairly substantial report. Ms. Coxen stated that one thing she liked that the Commission did last year was the worksession with City Council. She believed that this was helpful in securing that the Commission's recommendations were going to have some merit when they were presented to City Council so that the Commission wasn't faced with making those recommendations and have Council vote against them. Chairman Dougherty stated that he was pleased that Council honored the Commission's effort by approving the process. Ms. Stitzel stated that she concurred because it allowed Council to ask questions and get certain things aired that don't necessarily have to be aired in public. It simplified it for City Council, the Commission and the public. Chairman Dougherty commented that the worksession should continue. 4 Mr. Waido stated that continuing the worksession was not always a given. In fact, some Council members questioned holding a worksession this year. POLICY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Waido stated that the Policy Development is an attempt to make the decision - making process easier, or finding a justification of saying no, to certain requests. He stated that Staff is currently working on two separate policies that will impact the CDBG Program. The first one is called the Human Services Policy. It is designed to, eventually, determine what the City's role is in the provision of human services or social services in the community. This Commission is very aware of the fact that there is a great demand for more financial assistance for the variety of human services in the community. There is a limitation of CDBG funds that can be allocated to public services. Like everything else, there is a $2 request for every $1 that we could allocate in that human service category. With the ending of revenue sharing, the Council is now initially allocating $176,000 of general revenue to Larimer County for distribution to Social Services. During one of the CDBG hearings a couple of years ago, another $15,000 of general revenue was put into the 1991 Budget for Human Services. This brings it up to $191,000. Council put in the budget a total of $196,000 of general revenue to go to Larimer County for distribution. The idea of the Human Services Policy is to help define what role the city plays in providing human services. It goes to Larimer County Human Development. They have a committee that works and receives application similar to the CDBG Commission. They look at applications and make recommendations as to which agency should get what amount of those funds. Some people feel that the City's role should be to limited to just providing infrastructure for human services and let the County or United Way fund the actual operations. This policy, as it goes through the process, is in its embryonic stages in terms of staff development work on it but, as it goes through the process and through this Commission and on to the City Council, that policy may become more in focus. The other policy that we are working on, which is being put into form and ready to go to Council in a worksession format in two weeks, is a policy on Affordable Housing. He asked for the Commission's feedback on this policy and, as this continues on, stated that he would appreciate comments back on this policy. This policy is essentially outlining City focus as to what City government should be doing in terms of affordable housing. Mr. Waido continued by stating that the first section deals with the CHAS. It covers the full gamut, from land planning and zoning to a look at development fees, to reviewing building codes, new policy development to affordable housing and to have the City again review the various sections to eliminate any unnecessary barriers to private developers or non-profit agencies who propose affordable housing in the community or cut some slack in some other way. This will be going to Council in about two weeks stating that this is what the Commission has arrived at and to ask if this is what Council wants or do they require something different. Some of the Commission's comments will be considered by Council as it goes through the process. Hopefully, the Human Services Policy and the Affordable Housing Policy will be adopted by February so that, as we start the application cycle for the next CDBG Program year, those policies will be in place which will assist the Commission and Council to make decisions about CDBG allocations. Mr. McArthur asked how the Housing Authority fits into this policy. Mr. Waido replied that they are also reviewing this proposal. The Housing Authority will be one of the "non-profit agencies" that could be given special treatment, such as development fees. A resolution is already in the report that Council passed a couple years ago giving the Housing Authority a break on certain application charges of development fee payments for the purposes of the use of the cost of housing. Ms. Coxen commented that this document discusses grant programs and they specifically mention CDBG. Under the policy section, again CDBG is specifically mentioned. There is some discussion as to a more structured policy for distribution of the CDBG funds for specific programs. She asked if this is going to come out of the Administration portion or are they going to mandate that a percentage fee be applied? Mr. Waido stated that all of those could come out of the policy. With the fact that the Human Service Policy and the Affordable Housing Policy are going to run parallel, Council may say, as a policy, that the monies allocated to Human Services will come from the General Fund and there will be no monies from the CDBG Program to Human Services. Those will go into either housing programs or public disability services. Or Council may make a policy that each year we will make sure that 15% of the CDBG monies continues to go to Human Services. It could go either way. Ms. Coxen asked when is the proposed final policy? Mr. Waido stated that he had no idea when the final policy will be made. This will go to worksession in two weeks to get Counci1's feedback and, depending upon that feedback, Council may say that this looks fine or they may say this is not what they were looking for and direct Staff to go back and re -work it. If they make those kind of comments, Staff will ask for more specific directions. Ms. Stitzel stated that there was no way that the City could be assured that housing will get funded because there is no say in how they select the people. Mr. Waido stated that there was no say in how the County selects the people but we have a say as to how the money would be spent. We have the option to decide which agency gets the money. City Council is concerned that the County is not going for other state and federal grants due to the lack of matching money. One of the things that has been discussed, in terms of the Human Services Policy, is that a certain percentage of the City funds should be held in a line item to act as matching money and that the County wouldn't get that money unless they use those funds to leverage additional state and federal grants. Ms. Stitzel stated that she was aware of some homeless programs were not funded to the extent that they should have been funded through the County process. She believed that as long as there was some safeguards placed with some healthy percentages put toward support services, then the assurance would be there. Ms. Davis stated that one of the policies that Human Development had these last two go -rounds was whether they would not fund the program. 0 • 9 Chairman Dougherty asked that if the County had certain funds available through the state CDBG funds, they have to have matching funds. He stated that the County has been reluctant in obtaining those because they do not want to pay the matching portion. He asked if the City's contribution could be used to fund that. Ms. Davis stated no, the County Commissioners have to kick in a certain amount. Ms. Stitzel stated that the County does not have a high priority on affordable housing. Ms. Davis stated that one of the problems this year was the application process that they have just gone through. Children's Clinic came in to match the City's funds for the acquisition of the building and Neighbor -to -Neighbor came in for the continuation of the housing rehab, which was actually under the Larimer County Housing Authority. These had to be prioritized by the County and by the Commissioners as to which one was the higher priority. This makes them compete against each other which, in the past, had never been the case. Housing was separate from other projects. Ms. Stitzel stated that unless there was some way that the County can be encouraged to give money to specific agencies. Mr. Waido stated that as the City develops the Human Services Policy, the City will define what is their role in the provision of Human Services and how much tax money or what other efforts it would make in the provisions of Human Services. Currently, part of the general revenue funds goes to the County Human Development Department. Ms. Coxen asked if this was also to provide services for both the City and the County. Mr. Waido stated that the County, under state law, should provide human services. Ms. Guye asked if transportation was provided under Human Services. Mr. Waido stated that this was one of the issues that the City was attempting to decide, from a staff level, as to what was the definition of Human Services. He stated that there is nothing in the City Charter or state law that mandates the City to be involved with Human Services. However, the City is involved because there is a need. The policy is asking how much and what is the City's role. Chairman Dougherty asked if the $192,000 applied to CDBG Administration and the City provides the rest. He stated that almost every service that the City allocates funds to provided community -at -large service, not just to the City. Mr. Waido stated that the City cannot co -mingle the CDBG funds. Chairman Dougherty stated that the City can provide administration with no charge to CDBG. Then the administration money can be used. 7 0 • Mr. Waido stated that this cannot be put into the public service category because the public service category is capped at 15%. Council attempted to do this a couple of years ago. He believed that the general fund could pay administration costs of the CDBG Program so there would be more money to allocate to applicants but that would not increase the amount of money that would go to human services. Ms. Coxen stated that the Commission could be vocal in recommending that the City and the County and Loveland have equal representation on that committee that allocates those funds. Ms. Davis stated that there would be public hearings in Loveland in a week or two regarding the State CDBG. The Commission could have input in applying to the State CDBG for low income housing but not for public services. Chairman Dougherty asked if the Commission should attempt to influence the policy decision that the Council is about to make or should the Commission allow them to make and then have them direct the Commission as to what the Council wishes them to do. Ms. Coxen stated that it would also be the responsibility of the Commission to advise the Council. Mr. Waido stated that he will distribute the information as he gets it. Currently there is nothing to hand out in terms of the Human Services Policy. He requested that the Commission submit their feedback and input to him which he could present to Council. CHAS Mr. Waido stated that CHAS is a new requirement by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There was previously the Housing Assistant Plan which was a technical game that Staff had to go through to fulfill a requirement to continue to get CDBG funds. In the new federal affordable housing law that was passed, the housing assistance plan requirements were dropped and replaced with the CHAS. The difference is that the CHAS is a needs -based review at what the community needs in terms of affordable housing. There are three parts to CHAS: 1. Community Profile. The CHAS needs to discuss housing needs of low-, moderate-, and very low-income people, renters, owners, large and small families and to substantiate those needs. 2. Five Year Strategy. These are program and project priorities developed which would assist in addressing the needs that were identified in the Community Profile. 3. One Year Action Plan. This would define what would be done over the next year that is a component of the Five Year Strategy that is designed to meet the needs in the community. Mr. Waido stated that since July, he had been working with members of the Larimer County Affordable Housing Task Force, which was essentially composed of individuals and agencies that deal with housing issues. He stated that this Task E Force has put together the Community Profile, the Five Year Strategy and has begun work on the One Year Action Plan. This plan will set the basis for funding decisions by HUD. There will be other grant and aid programs as part of the act, such as Hope Programs, Hope One, Hope Two, and Hope Three, that deal with providing federal subsidies for the new construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing units in the community. The CHAS will be used by HUD to determine the appropriateness of the application within the overall strategy and help prioritize who will get some of the monies. Some monies are a formula allocation basis so there is no competition. Mr. Waido continued by stating that the process would be that this document would be available in the next month for public review, which is a requirement of the law, for a sixty day period. At the end of that sixty day period, comments will be compiled, necessary revisions will be made, and then the document will be submitted to HUD. He stated that there will be a meeting to discuss this on October 30. Any member of the CDBG Commission that would like to attend that meeting may do so and will get a revised copy of the CHAS. This is a document that is being prepared by the agencies who have the most benefit to gain from this document. He believed that this document would cover all aspects of affordable housing in the community. Chairman Dougherty asked how this document would affect COBG. Mr. Waido stated that this would affect CDBG in that there would not be any entitlement grant money received unless there is a HUD -approved by CHAS. Chairman Dougherty asked if there was any role that the Commission could take to expedite this document. Mr. Waido stated that the Commission could talk to the agencies who would be involved and have them get their information submitted. He stated that he had received requested information from various agencies. Ms. Stitzel believed that the Commission was impacted by the One Year and Five Year programs. She stated that if the non-profit and pro -profit groups are not working on this or there wasn't something included, this may affect what the Commission may or may not fund. Mr. Waido stated that if the Housing Authority does not have in the One Year Plan that they want to build five new units using CDBG money, and they make an application to the Commission and it is approved, HUD could say that this was not in the plan and they would not have to approve the project. Ms. Stitzel stated that there might be something that the Commission could do, something in the policy. She believed that this would not happen this year. But as the CHAS goes along, most of these agencies are not in a position to be looking down the road at a five year plan. Those agencies are lucky to keep going day to day, month to month. She believed that there is a real need to look at visions to say here is the vision for five years or ten years down the road and move back from that. Then the agencies are more sure of what needs to happen within a year. Ms. Coxen stated that the target continues to move and that is why the one year plan is workable. She believed that the five year plan will continue to change because as technology changes and funding changes, agencies come and go. She believed that it is healthy for any business or non-profit agency to have a five, ten or twenty year plan to know if they have some plan for the future. But if those plans change, the agencies change because their needs change. Mr. Waido stated that the community profile is designed to identify the need and, if there is a need for 3-bedroom units, it is actually identified. Ms. Stitzel commented that this does not show what, she believed, was the big piece missing. There is nothing there for innovation. It is status quo multiplied. There are no real solutions when this happens. Mr. Waido stated that this what is being discussed in the first priority. Chairman Dougherty asked if, given the intrinsic air that will go with this report, it is better to overstate the need or understate the need. Mr. Waido replied that it is better to overstate the need. He added that he will keep the Commission updated on CHAS. Chairman Dougherty asked what the process was for CHAS. Mr. Waido stated that the document would be submitted to HUD. They would review it and eventually have to approve it for completeness and accuracy. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Davis stated that contracts are being held up on Juan-Fullana School playground because Poudre R-1 wants put signs up, if they acquire the property, stating that people must go to the school office before they can go onto the school playground. Mr. Waido stated that the School District and the Principal of Juan-Fullana is concerned for the safety of the school children. He stated that they would like to have school district control over the park/playground area. The HUD regulations state that the park/playground needs to be an open, public park and not be for the exclusive use of the school. Other areas are being looked at such as Beatty Park and Troutman Park that has no fencing or signage. He stated that CDBG was waiting for a response from HUD. However, CDBG's question to HUD is if it works at Beatty Park and Troutman Park, why wouldn't it work at Juan-Fullana. Ms. Davis stated that there is already a contract negotiated between Poudre R-1 and the City for the funds that came from General Fund that were used for development. That contract, Poudre R-1 states that no one may have access to the playground/park during school hours. Ms. Davis stated that there is not a 501-C (3) with New Bridges. She stated that a letter had been sent stating that if they do not have this submitted within a timely manner, then these funds go to another agency and New Bridges may apply next year. She added that Lutheran Family Services currently has a conflict of 10 interest which CDBG advised them about during the summer. At this point, CDBG is waiting for them to straighten out the conflict or relinquish the funds. She stated that the owner of the building that the Lutheran Family Services is currently residing in is the Executive Director and her husband/partner is also in the ownership of that building. They are paying rent. Ms. Davis added that the owner took her name off the ownership of the building but this has no bearing because she is still living with her husband/partner. It is a federal regulation that this cannot be done. Ms. Coxen asked what was the deadline that monies had to be used or lost. Mr. Waido stated that all monies had to be expended by September 30 which makes the bookkeeping easier. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. III