HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 03/27/2014CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
BOARD MEETING MINUTES
300 Laporte Ave
Fort Collins, Colorado
March 27, 2014
4:00–6:00pm
Chair: Troy Jones
Staff Liaison: Sue Beck-Ferkiss 970-221-6753
City Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw
Board Members present: Tatiana Martin, Troy Jones, Diane Cohn, Eloise Emery, Curt Lyons, Jeffrey Johnson
Board Members absent: Terence Hoaglund (recused himself for conflict of interest)
Staff present: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist; Dianne Tjalkens, Board Support
Council Members present: None
Guests: Chadrick Martinez, Fort Collins Housing Authority; Jonathan Carnahan, citizen
Meeting called to order by Troy Jones at 4:08pm.
AGENDA REVIEW
No comment.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No comment.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 1: PRIORITY RANKING OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
Sue gave an overview of the ranking process the board will use in the meeting. Members shared their rankings for
each project. Sue recorded on chart and calculated results. Sue opened results for discussion.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Eloise said her decisions are based on dollars. Redtail Ponds was first because they need the money now
and it is an important project. She looked primarily at finances. She felt Matuka was also very important.
• Sue clarified that the AHB does not look at the money. If it is helpful to members’ decision making, that is
okay, but this boards decisions are policy based.
• Troy said that the board’s number one priority is the creation of affordable units. All of the applications
were important, but his focus was on the creation of more units. HO2 would probably not happen without
this financing. He thinks Redtail Ponds is over the critical hump and will be funded elsewhere. There are 72
new units proposed in HO2. The rehabs and Habitat are lower on his ranking. Habitat is creating 10 units,
as opposed to 72. Another priority that may be identified is proximity to transit. If the location is not near
transit, maybe it is not the best location for affordable housing.
• Diane added that she looked at transit for that project and Flex will connect with the project.
• Tatiana said it is more than ½ mile walking distance, which is less than ideal.
• Troy added that the rehabs are great, but are less important based on the board’s priorities.
• Sue asked Troy if he considered ownership versus rental. Troy said he did. The 10 units of ownership are
important, but the other serves more. He also wondered why they need that much money when the land was
donated, but that question was less of a deciding factor.
• Jeffrey said he ranked Avondale as number one because of the distinction between ownership and rental.
We need diversity in housing choice at affordable levels. The 50-80% AMI affordability has been largely
ignored as the focus has been on lower income. Those are extremely important, but we need ownership
units as well. He has questions and concerns about the lot. Last night the FCHA ranked the projects
themselves, and he trusts their judgment. A little help for higher AMI, and ownership and accepting
FCHA’s ranking were the factors in his ranking.
• Curt said he was biased toward Avondale because of the ownership aspect. That is a big niche. He would
rather see people have the opportunity to own. Habitat is going to struggle because it is hard to compete
with large scale projects that provide places to live, but they are not “homes.” FCHA is competing against
itself, so when they gave their priorities, I trust their research.
• Diane said she chose Avondale as number two because it is important to have homes and home ownership
in addition to rentals, but it also is an opportunity for home ownership for those who would not otherwise
have the opportunity and are making good use of it. She put Matuka as number one because of their
partnership with Project Self Sufficiency that is supporting single parents in education and housing. The
other rehab project is at the bottom of her list, though she is sure the repairs and updates need to be made. It
is one of our priorities to maintain current housing stock.
• Tatiana said she ranked Cunningham Corners higher. Last year they asked for over $800,000. After hearing
Council’s opinion, they cut back and looked at only what needs to be done in order to continue operating.
• Troy said he ranked that 3. He totally agrees. Their new request was more reasonable.
• Tatiana asked how many bedrooms are in each unit at Matuka. Chadrick said 13 2-bedrooms and 7 3-
bedrooms. She compared the financial request versus the number of units and found a per-unit cost of
about$ 31,000 at Cunningham versus $36,000 at Matuka. The square footage is similar, so Matuka seems
high.
• Eloise said she went with Matuka because it was recommended by FCHA. It is important to maintain the
housing stock and no one should live in a slum. It is important to keep people housed.
• Sue said only Redtail Ponds has high marks and came out as number 1. Avondale is split. 72 is split,
Cunningham is across the board. Matuka was more at the bottom. Is 72 slightly higher ranked than
Cunningham?
• Troy said he is considering what our charge is. Creating new units is more important from the board’s
perspective.
• Sue said they are trying to use disaster relief funds that are time limited. They accelerated their plan for this
project to apply for this time limited funding. The land is already owned by FCHA.
• Tatiana asked to change her ranking. She ranked Redtail Ponds as one, but now thinks they are over the
hump financially. She would take her vote to a two or three.
• Eloise added that she is afraid if they don’t get funding the whole project could fail.
• Diane said they are all good projects, which is the difficult part of this process.
• Jeffrey said FCHA has its finger on the pulse of the state funding cycles, tax credits, etc. There is so much
that goes into funding projects with a limited pool of capital. If they did their rankings like this, maybe they
didn’t think they have the state wide positioning or internal capacity to do the project right now. He was
heavily influenced by their ranking. However, he would have put the Matuka rehab before Retail Ponds. He
was persuaded by the residents’ discussion of the utility bills in the winter. That is a huge deal. Redtail will
find a way, but FCHA still put them number one and he trusts that.
• Eloise said the person who spoke of having a child in an apartment with no carpeting and freezing in the
winter let her know the need for the rehab.
• Curt said the man who said he had a voucher for seven months and was still homeless because he couldn’t
get a unit speaks to the need. FCHA knows something he doesn’t.
• Jeffrey said if the project is credible and the agency is, he looks at it from a policy standpoint. The cost of
the rehab is not his area. It is a reasonable value. It is their passion and they will try to save money
wherever they can.
• Sue added that FCHA brought up unique characteristics of Matuka because it is a small size and won’t
have access to some of the same funding strategies.
• Jeffrey said he believes we need variety. They can’t all be 200 unit apartments. Those are cheapest to build,
but aren’t a one size fits all for everyone.
• Eloise said housing is needed so desperately for the people who will be served by Redtail Ponds.
• Tatiana said one project is not eligible for HOME funds. Troy said it is Matuka.
• Jeffrey asked if after CDBG Commission makes decisions and awards are made, he would like to know
why FCHA ranked the projects the way they did. He would like Chadrick to come back to discuss this.
• Sue said CDBG asked FCHA to prioritize within projects, but it was unique for them to have four projects.
Troy said usually it is four to six different applicants.
• Jeffrey said if FCHA put the building low on their priorities, maybe the time is not right for it. Sue said
FCHA is trying to change from a 9% to a 4% for the project. The Division of Housing is offering help to
move what would be 9% competitive projects to 4% to make it easier for them to happen.
• Diane clarified that FCHA’s ranking for 72 was a three, not all the way at the bottom.
• Chadrick said FCHA’s rankings were very strategic and he would be happy to explain the process at a later
date.
• Curt asked if Matuka was purchased or built by FCHA. Curt said the fact that the windows need to be
replaced after 20 years is outrageous. He hopes when they are replaced they are of higher quality because
that is one of the most expensive replacements for housing.
• Troy said he could see 40 year windows being that bad. He is surprised they need to be replaced.
• Curt asked Troy if his frustration is that 72 is not higher. Troy said he ranked it higher, but he is not
disappointed in the board’s ranking.
• Sue reminded the board that CDBG Commission will take the board’s rankings into consideration, but will
make the final decisions.
• Chadrick clarified that Matuka was built in 1970. Curt said the windows are older than 20 years then.
• Curt added that maintenance helps with the perception of what affordable housing is. We don’t want the
public to perceive it as blight.
• Jeffrey said self-esteem starts upward mobility and is as important as public perception.
• Eloise asked when a child grows up in this housing, what are her standards going to be? It helps her choices
as she grows older to live in a nice place.
• Curt said a building with a broken window is more likely to get vandalized. When it looks like pride is
taken in the building, it is less likely to be vandalized.
• Jeffrey added that tenants are more likely to keep the place up as well, if it is kept nice.
• Sue said Troy will present the chart to CDBG Commission and will take reasons for the board’s decisions
as well.
• Diane said the key thoughts she feels should be presented are around ownership and diversity of housing
inventory for options, and income diversity.
• Jeffrey added you have to have move-up housing, which opens up rental supply for vouchers and other
lower income people.
• Sue said that for Redtail Ponds housing the homeless and adding new units are deciding factors in the
ranking. Eloise added another reason for the ranking is the permanent support that will be given to
residents.
• Sue said Matuka upgrading for current residents seems appropriate. Diane added that their collaboration
with PSS is a benefit. Curt said lowering the burden of utilities benefits the residents financially as well as
quality of housing.
• Sue said the board likes 72 because it is new rental units. Troy said it is ranked lower because of FCHA’s
rankings.
• Diane said Cunningham Corner ranked lowest because not everything could be first. If you had to pick
between rehabs, it needs it more right now. We have invested in Cunningham before.
Curt moved to approve the rankings as listed. Tatiana seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
Rankings
HO1, Redtail Ponds ......................... 1
HO2, 72 ........................................... 4
HO3, Avondale ............................... 2
HO4, Cunningham Corner .............. 5
HO5, Matuka ................................... 3
OTHER BUSINESS
Tatiana said she saw an interesting post last night on how things go to the Ethics Boards. The Ethics Board has no
public record or documentation of what comes through. In the past, it went straight to Council and public record.
Now it goes under the table.
• Curt asked if nothing was found is nothing recorded. Anyone can make a complaint about anyone and there
doesn’t have to be any validity to it to file a complaint. Previously, if someone made an accusation, whether
valid or not, it was a tarnish. This is a safety measure.
• Eloise said now it is anonymous and no information is given. Troy asked if that meant it is easier to be
unethical. Tatiana said only 5 of the 25 boards gave a recommendation to Council regarding the Ethics
Board’s procedures. The Parking Board had more deliberation on the subject and liked the confidentiality,
but was concerned that nothing would ever be published from the Ethics Board.
• Troy said someone being falsely accused and not having tarnish on their record is good. But if people are
getting away with something that is a different story.
• Sue clarified that if an allegation rises to the level that it has merit, it goes to Council and becomes public
record.
• Troy asked who decides what goes to Council.
• Sue said the matter came to this board via the City attorney. We can put this back on an agenda to talk
about it more. We could ask someone from the attorney’s office to speak about it, or the board can ask Sue
to look into it more and provide additional information.
• Tatiana said it could be coming up in the news/publicly. Troy said if someone becomes disgruntled, we
may want to rethink this. Until then, leave it as is. Tatiana said she wonders if we created a new problem in
fixing the old one. Perhaps the board can reread the January minutes and bring it up in the next meeting if it
is important.
Troy said he wrote the draft memo to Council regarding Transportation and will incorporate comments and send it
back to the group.
• Sue said we can do this next week. Troy will email it in advance. The board can make a motion at the next
meeting.
• Sue clarified that Council has already decided not to move forward with Sunday Max service at this time.
• Diane said she read in the paper that the first three months of Max service are free.
– Meeting adjourned at 5:18pm by Troy Jones. –
The next meeting of the Affordable Housing Board is scheduled for:
April 3 at 4:00pm
Participants will meet at:
Fort Collins City Hall
Council Information Center
300 Laporte Ave