Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 06/19/2008CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMISSION Meeting Minutes June 19, 2008 Commission members attending: Bob Browning, Chair Eric Berglund, Vice Chair David Carr Michael Kulisheck Phil Majerus Jeff Taylor Staff attending: Ken Waido, Commission Staff Liaison Heidi Phelps Julie Smith Sharon Thomas Chairman Browning opened the meeting at 6:37 p.m. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizen comments were offered. WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS New members were introduced prior to the meeting. COMPLETION OF THE PERIODIC REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE The Periodic Review is done every 5 years, and is a communications tool for City Council and Boards and Commissions relations. Mr. Waido suggested that the Commission go through the questions one by one, starting with the previous cycle's answers as a base. When needed, answers could then be updated or modified. Question 1: Duties realistic? Additions or deletions? It was noted that the Human Services Program funding stream is now part of the Competitive Process responsibility. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of June 19, 2008 Page 2 Question 2: Annual Work Plan -- too much, too little, about right? The Commission discussed the pros and cons of one versus two Competitive Process cycles annually. Mr. Waido noted that when City Council approved the Competitive Process in 2000 for allocating funding for affordable housing and community development activities, it essentially doubled the workload for both City staff and for the CDBG Commission. Staff noted that the original intent of the two cycles was to help with timeliness for agencies, particularly those developing affordable housing, and especially as they worked to secure commitments from other funding sources, or negotiated on land purchases. The following perspectives were brought forth in the ensuing discussion: • The two-cycle process creates a lot of confusion for some of the applicants. • Entities have to manage their applications a little bit better. • From a logistics perspective, one cycle makes more sense because it puts everything on the table at one time. It also levels the playing field. • One cycle could be prudent considering the economic conditions of the city at this time. • Is the two-cycle process really helping agencies as originally intended? This would need to be researched, i.e. deals that would have actually fallen through had there only been one annual cycle. • Agencies may be maneuvering the two processes to their strategic advantage in a way that is detrimental to the overall process. • With new HUD regulatory constraints on officially "committing" HOME funds within a 2-year time frame from the date of ORIGINAL federal release (October 1), the following pros and cons were noted: ➢ One cycle (Spring) would actually help with expending funds faster, since contracts would be in place for immediate expenditure as of October 1 in any given year. ➢ Conversely, any reprogrammed or carry-over HOME funds would have to wait until the following Spring cycle, significantly delaying expenditure opportunities, and potentially shutting the door on regulatory compliance due to missed deadlines. If there were significant carryover during a one -cycle calendar, a special cycle could always be considered. ➢ Currently, the fall cycle is not as "comfortable". Funding allocation occurs in November, and most contracts are not even executed until January, due to holiday delays and getting signatures, etc. • Does two cycles spread out the workload? Staff noted that it actually doubles the workload, since all legal financial, administrative, and regulatory requirements and work tasks must still be met for each cycle. • The goal is to become more efficient with whatever the process is. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of June 19, 2008 Page 3 • The Commission needs to be putting forward what it thinks is the best recommendation. • Cost -benefit at all levels needs to be part of the analysis of this issue. • Would the current Competitive Process Customer Service survey help with this issue? [No.] Competitive Process customers will be asked about the one vs. two cycle issue in a separate feedback process. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Berglund: to go to one annual Competitive Process cycle. Motion amended by Mr. Majerus: to study this issue and come back to it later. Second withdrawn by Mr. Berglund. Chair Browning stated that the Commission doesn't need to take action on changing the procedures at this meeting. Mr. Waido summarized that based on the Commission's discussion, he will compile the Periodic Review responses. The document will be sent out to the Commission for final review. He will send it out next week before he sends the Review to the City Clerk's office. There were no comments/edits on Questions 3-5. Question 6: Are Council -Commission communications effective? Improvements? Mr. Kulisheck wanted to highlight the Commission's appreciation of Council visits. Mr. Berglund restated the importance of having study sessions with Council. A response highlighting that for Question 6 was suggested. DEBRIEFING ON THE SPRING 2008 COMPETITIVE PROCESS Mr. Waido asked the Commission to provide comments on the recently completed Competitive Process, and highlight any changes desired. He shared that staff is updating the Project Ranking Criteria "point charts", and will be working with a subcommittee comprised of Affordable Housing Board and CDBG Commission members. Another member from the Commission is needed to sit on the subcommittee. The criteria are used to assess how well an application meets certain requirements and funding priorities. The questions are being assessed for their current relevancy and objectivity vs. subjectivity. Mr. Taylor shared that applicants need to do a better job of specifically sharing why they need the City's money. At the same time, the overall applicant presentations this year were improved because of questions asked and staffs coaching and technical assistance received on the front end of the process. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of June 19, 2008 Page 4 Staff shared that the component of Commission follow-up questions by e-mail was originally intended to provide a venue for clarification if something on an application wasn't clear or more information on a response was needed for understanding and context. It was noted that during this cycle, the questions took a different bent, and many were more across-the-board. If there is consensus on asking a more universal question, then it should become part of the application. An example was cited using the question: "What is your measure of success?" Mr. Browning verbally shared some of Ms. Wagner's written comments, since she was unable to attend the meeting. Ms. Wagner's concerns also pointed out that if the Commission starts asking the same e-mail questions of all of the applicants, then those questions should perhaps be put in the application. Commission members emphasized the need for quantifiable or more concrete responses from applicants. Mr. Taylor stated that some of his probing was an attempt to get more at the heart of what agencies' plans and senses of mission were, e.g., "Tell me what your internal plan is." Discussion ensued on empirical measurements of success versus other aspects. Commission members shared that since there was such a wide range of programs and purposes, "success" might not be an equitable measurement. Chair Browning asked the Commission to come up with some thoughts regarding the type of questions being asked, and the information that is needed from applicants. Mr. Browning will summarize a -mails comments received, and get that information back to the Commission. Mr. Waido noted the differentiation between potential questions being asked of public service agencies vs. those asked of affordable housing providers. An example was: "What are your goals?" The responses from the two different application categories would be very different. Ms. Smith stated that with this clearer direction from the Commission, staff might be able to work on better assisting applicants during the technical assistance sessions in providing more definitive responses to questions such as these. Ms. Phelps shared that if the Commission was trying to address more quantifiable goals, then an option might be for applicants to provide something such as the top 5 outcomes from their United Way applications, since most agencies also apply for United Way funding. However, if the Commission is trying to get at something such as an agency's "internal mission", then that information would be harder to capture. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of June 19, 2008 Page 5 Mr. Taylor said that he was wanting to ask these questions of agencies whom he believed hadn't done a good job of defining their goals. However, in order to be fair, he believed he needed to ask the question of every applicant. Mr. Berglund shared a "success" differential from the housing category -- adding new units to the market versus preserving existing units. Due to the clear difference in goals and mission, asking the "success" question is not as important here as it is in the public service sector. Staff suggested that another option would be to tell applicants in advance that there are 3 to 5 "standard" questions that might be asked during the applicant presentation, and to let agencies know those potential questions in advance. Chair Browning reminded the Commission that it is a competitive process, and that there are always more requests than available money. Mr. Kulisheck stated his preference for more narrowly focused questions. He also questioned the value of obtaining long answers by e-mail when agencies have usually have adequate time to respond to questions during the presentation meetings. Commission members noted that allowing unlimited e-mail responses from agencies might also be giving some an unfair advantage, since they might use the opportunity to share additional, unsolicited information in support of their proposal. Mr. Waido explained the process of sharing answers to Commission e-mail questions. As the Commission's staff liaison, the e-mail question gets sent to Mr. Waido. He sends it to the agency for a response. That response is then sent back to Mr. Waido, who forwards it to all Commission members. This process avoids any issues with ex parte communications. FEBRUARY MINUTES The Commission discussed the status of the as-yet-unsubmitted February 2008 minutes. Chair Browning noted that due to his just -completed Boards and Commissions training, he had received clarification on minutes protocol. It was clearly outlined that minutes production is staffs responsibility and minutes review is the Commission's responsibility. Staff asked the Commission if its preference at this point was minutes in verbatim vs. summary form. Commission members present noted that their preference at this point was summary minutes. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of June 19, 2008 Page 6 TOUR Mr. Waido shared about the 'Plan Van" tours that the Advance Planning Department does twice a year. In May, one of the tours highlighted affordable housing projects. Mr. Waido solicited Commission interest in a possible future tour of affordable housing/public service projects and programs. All Commission members present were amenable to such a tour. A late afternoon time frame seemed most workable, as long as the Commission would be given adequate prior notice. OTHER BUSINESS Commission Calendars are needed for the two new members, Mr. Majerus and Mr. Carr. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.