Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 02/14/2008CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 14, 2008 Minutes Chair: Bob Browning Vice Chair: Eric Berglund Staff Liaison: Ken Waldo Council Liaison: Ben Manvel SUMMARY OF MEETING PUBLIC HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS This public hearing was conducted as required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City must ask the public to comment on what they believe are the critical community development and affordable housing needs in the city. Five people spoke on the need for affordable rental housing and supportive human services. DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL LIAISON BEN MANVEL Council member Manvel attended the meeting to discuss the Competitive Process used for allocating the City's financial resources. Council Member Lisa Poppaw was also in attendance as a visitor. In discussing the process in general, many references were made to last fall's funding cycle where the Commission recommended against providing funding for the Housing Authority's Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program, which was approved for funding by the Council. The Commission was told that the Council made its decision, in part, based on information that the Council had received from the Housing Authority. Commission members questioned why they were not provided the same information. The Commission requested that in the future they be allowed to conduct a Work Session with Council regarding the Commission's funding recommendations so there could be a better exchange of information. There was no commitment made for a future Work Session. The Commission was told that it came across as intimidating to applicants and was not friendly during the Competitive Process. This perception surprised and offended several Commission members who believe they treat applicants with respect. There were questions regarding who had made the allegations and whether or not those applications were funded. There was discussion about the process and allowing applicants to provide input during the meeting where the Commission formulates its funding recommendations to Council. There were pros and cons to this suggestion. A pro would that applicants could provide corrections, if information was being misunderstood by the Commission. A con would be that allowing additional input could evolve into a free-for-all with applicants lobbying the Commission at the last minute. The Commission will discuss this potential step at its next meeting. USE OF RANKING SHEETS FOR THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS The use, and misuse, of the Ranking Sheets was discussed. The sheets were approved by Council when the Competitive Process was established as a means of helping to separate the better proposals/applications from the more average proposals. It was recognized the sheets could not cover all aspects of an application, they were not to be a Staff Recommendation, there was no minimum score necessary to receive funding, and there was no score which guaranteed funding. The sheets contain criteria based on objective measures and criteria that are more subjective in nature. Staff will be working with a subcommittee of the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission to investigate potential changes to the sheet. Any changes would need to be approved by Council. MINUTES OF MEETING CALL TO ORDER The Commission meeting was called to order by Bob Browning, Chair, with a quorum present at 6:30 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Commission members attending: Michael Kulischeck, Jennifer Wagner, Jeff Taylor, Autumn Kiser, Kay Rios, and Catherine Costlow. City Staff attending: Ken Waido, Julie Smith, and Sharon Thomas. City Council members attending: Ben Manvel and Lisa Poppaw. GUESTS Matt Robenalt and Ed Stoner Fort Collins Housing Authority; Richard Guest, Larimer County Health and Human Services; Tracy Mead, Education and Life Training Center; Nancy Jackson, Disabled Resource Services; Ashley Frost, reporting; Gavin Kaszynski, Housing; Vicki Lutz, Mary Anne Paul, James C. Paul, Crossroads. WELCOME NEW MEMBERS The first order of business was to welcome Autumn Kiser and Catherine Costlow as new Commission members. PUBLIC HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS Mr. Browning noted that it is a HUD requirement that the Commission receive input from the public on how the public thinks the Commission should be spending the available grant funding on community development activities and affordable housing. Richard Guest, Larimer County Health and Human Services (HHS) Mr. Guest, Senior Management Analyst for Larimer County HHS, commented on the critical needs in Larimer County. One thing that cuts across all needs is housing. Roughly 10,000 families (data from 2 years ago) can't afford a house and 7,400 families were without housing. If someone needs public services they can't get them without a permanent address. People coming out of jail without a place to live are likely to return into the environment that placed them in jail. A place with a valid address is needed to apply for a job, give a way for a doctor to contact a patient, and give kids continuity when attending school. Mr. Guest encouraged the Commission to consider these things as it allocates funds. Vicki Lutz, Executive Director, Crossroads Ms. Lutz introduced Mary Ann Paul, President of the Board of Directors, and husband Jim. She represented housing needs facing victims of domestic violence, because 60% of the time Crossroads is filled. There is a need for transitional housing for victims of domestic violence. In this county there are only 13 units of transitional housing — usually fully occupied -- which doesn't begin to meet the need. For most of the women who leave after six weeks they have 3 choices: they go to the street; they go to a homeless shelter; or they go back to their situation. Most go back to the home because they have children and there is no alternative housing available. Crossroads is trying to find affordable housing for families in the range of 20 to 40% of Area Median Income (AMI). The Fort Collins Housing Authority will be expanding its number of 2 transitional units by three, if funded under a federal grant. The cost for lower cost housing (2-3 bedroom apartments) is $463 to $583 a month. During their first month out of the Safehouse, 90% of women can only afford $50 to $250 a month. The issue of homelessness affects hundreds of women and children. Ms. Lutz distributed a handout and urged the CDBG Commission to keep this issue in mind as it allocates funds. Nancy Jackson, Director of Disabled Resource Services Ms. Jackson discussed the unique challenges that face people with disabilities. Aid to the Needy and Disabled (AND) provides a benefit of $230 a month, but is not enough for rent and food. This doesn't include Medicaid. To qualify for Aid to the Needy and Disabled, one must have a disabling condition that lasts at least six months or longer. People who apply for Supplemental Security Income receive $637 a month, which includes Medicaid. SSI requires people to have a strong case about their medical condition such as medical records showing they are too disabled to work. However, when a person applies for SSI, they don't have medical coverage; therefore they are unable to afford doctors to obtain the documents showing their condition. For those who do get on SSI, there are still downfalls. For example, one can get an eye exam but can't purchase glasses. It is frustrating for people with disabilities to navigate social services and get the help they need. Ms. Jackson asked the Commission to consider funding agencies that will provide people access to the help they need. Matt Roubanalt, Commissioner for the Fort Collins Housing Authority Mr. Roubanalt asked that acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing be included in the priorities for housing and community development funding. FCHA has been very effective in providing preservation of affordable housing. He also asked that funding go to fill gaps. Direct subsidies and tenant based rental subsidies help fill gaps because they are flexible (not linked to federal money). This is the only way to serve those families below 30% of the Area Median Income. PUBLIC COMMENT: Chairman Browning asked if anyone present wished to discuss any item not on the agenda. Ed Stoner, member of Fort Collins Housing Authority Mr. Stoner stated that the CDBG Commission should use the same underwriting criteria as the Colorado Department of Housing or Colorado Housing Finance Authority, and the scoring system of proposals should be kept consistent with a minimum of subjectivity. DISCUSSION WITH CDBG COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, BEN MANVEL Points/Comments Made to the Commission 1. The purpose of the Competitive Process is to have the best outcome for the City, citizens, people who need housing, and social programs. 2. There is a great deal of respect for the CDBG Commission from the City Council. 3. Is the process now optimal, or are there things that can be done to tweak the process and make the outcome more convincing to everybody involved? 4. A Work Session would be good so the Council and Commission could debate issues. 5. Regarding the process, at the funding deliberation meeting when the Commission makes choices on funding recommendations, there is no opportunity for an applicant to clear up a question raised by the Commission. This lack of ability to clarify facts during the Commission's deliberations is a possible weakness in the process. 6. More than one applicant has expressed frustration about the inability to clarify information at the funding deliberation meeting. 7. If the City Council doesn't rubber stamp the Commission's recommendations, then some Commission members may feel that's a mistake. 8. Comments have been received from the finance side of the local housing community that the Commission doesn't do a good enough job with the City's money. 9. The Competitive Process is too confrontational. There is the hope that the tone of the meetings would be supportive to all applicants. 10. People from the community are refusing to come before the Commission and present their cases because they believe they won't be respected. Responses/Comments Made by the Commission 1. It is not unheard of for the CDBG Commission to unanimously vote to recommend funding for a project, but it is quite rare to unanimously vote not to fund a project. 2. There are lessons to be learned from what happened in the fall process that will help make the process better in the future. 3. There is a frustration with applications that are not complete and presentations to the Commission that are not done to a standard that allows the Commission to make good decisions. 4. Questions came up at the Council meeting that could have been addressed in a Work Session or by staff prior to the final funding decision. 5. There were allegations about some behind -the -scenes maneuvering prior to the Council meeting. Questions from Council members during the meeting seemed to be orchestrated. 6. The fact that the FCHA is exempt from City impact fees and has a Council person sitting on its Board shows there is not a level playing field for all applicants. 7. When the Commission is deciding between applications, it doesn't seem fair to ask an applicant to defend/clarify its proposal when not all applicants may be present to do likewise. 8. There would be too fine a line between clarification and advocacy when it came to allowing an applicant to provide information during the final funding debate. 9. When the Commission receives something that is incomplete, the Commission feels the applicant hasn't met the standards as the other applicants have during the process. 10. The Commission absolutely does not expect Council to rubber stamp its recommendations. 11. The Commission believes its underwriting criteria are very clear, of which the Point Chart is just one part of the process. 12. The Commission took particular offense to a statement made about its "attitude". The Commission works very hard to make decisions based on the big framework policies and works with staff to address information issues. 13. Challenging questions from the Commission to applicants can also be perceived as a negative attitude, and/or having tough questions can seem confrontational. DISCUSS USE OF RANKING SHEETS FOR COMPETITIVE PROCESS Staff gave some background on the Competitive Process Point Chart: • It is a set of criteria that is used to begin to separate the better applications from the more average applications. • The Chart was put together with help from the Commission and the Affordable Housing Board. • The Chart was never intended to be an end-all decision making tool, although it has been called everything from that to a Staff Recommendation. • Staff informs all applicants up -front that there is no minimum score needed for funding. An application with a higher score end may not get funding and vice versa. • The Chart can't cover every aspect of an application and that is why the Commission is important. • There is no question that some of the criteria are extremely objective while some things are more subjective. 13 • The categories are weighted. The Impact and Benefit criterion is twice as important as the Feasibility criterion. • Staff knows that something needs to be done with the Chart. Staff has asked the Affordable Housing Board and the Commission to appoint a subcommittee to work with City staff and look at the criteria. The group will look at what is truly objective and if the subjective criteria can be made more objective. • Staff doesn't think it should ever get to the point where the Chart makes the decision because then there would be no need for the Commission or the Council. Ms. Kiser and Ms. Rios volunteered to be a part of the subcommittee looking at the ranking sheets. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. �C� 5