Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 10/02/2014CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD BOARD MEETING MINUTES CIC Room, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado October 2, 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, Terence Hoaglund, Troy Jones, Diane Cohn, Jeffrey Johnson, Eloise Emery, Curt Lyons Board Members absent: Staff present: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist; Dianne Tjalkens, Board Support; Beth Rosen, Affordable Housing Program Administrator Council Members present: None Guests: Marilyn Heller, League of Women Voters Meeting called to order by Troy Jones at 4:09pm. AGENDA REVIEW Adding to New Business: Affordable Housing Board Work Plan for 2015 Adding to Old Business: BFO Offer Reminder PUBLIC COMMENT No comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Tatiana moved to approve the September 4 minutes as presented. Troy seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1. Jeffrey abstained as he was absent from the meeting. Tatiana moved to approve the September 22 minutes as presented. Troy seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1. Diane abstained as she was absent from the meeting. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: COMPETITIVE PROCESS GRANT RANKINGS Board members provided their initial rankings of the presented projects. Sue recorded individual rankings and calculated overall rankings. Villages on Redwood received strong overall support. Discussion/Q & A: • Diane struggled with the separate admin application from FCHA for the rental assistance program. Should it not be in the rankings at this time? • Beth added that historically these requests would come in with two applications due to eligible expenses from various programs. They could have combined these two under one application if the change had been caught in time. • Diane said ranking them separately is an issue, when one cannot be done without the other. • Sue asked the board’s opinion on Coachlight. • Tatiana said updates to Coachlight have come before the board a number of times. They are getting close to completion. They have had a strong application each time. It is an older facility and this work needs to get done. Neighbor to Neighbor is keeping up the property and has a good standing in the community. • Curt ranked Coachlight last because the windows are vinyl, which are cheap and off-gas, affecting indoor air quality. It is $1600 per window which is too high. That creates a 100 year return on investment. The window will wear out and need to be replaced again before it pays for itself in utility costs. He cannot speak for how bad the existing windows are. The cost includes installation, which doesn’t include paint. • Sue asked if it is the same price as phase one. • Diane said she thinks yes. • Terence said when you replace windows there is a lot of other work that needs to be done. • Sue asked if Tenant Based Rental Assistance should have a higher or lower ranking. • Diane said this population is the toughest to house, with dual diagnosis, so that was a key factor for her in ranking them higher. Some of that population is not going to be able to use the vouchers to live on their own, but what we can do to make it an option is important. • Jeffrey said he put Coachlight at number one. Maintaining the physical asset is his primary concern. He put rental assistance last, not because it isn’t needed or the population not worthy, but because putting the dollars into the physical asset is preserving, and creating affordable housing to him comes first. • Diane said this is a disabilities issue as well. • Tatiana ranked rental assistance lower as well, because she does not think this population should be living alone. Why spend the money to get someone just under a roof and two months later they are out of housing again? • Beth said there is a partnership with Touchstone Health Partners, so there is a two year commitment of housing and mental health services. The mental health issue is combined with a substance abuse issue, which is often a self-medication of the underlying mental health issue. Frequently, the lack of housing exacerbates the mental health issues. Once someone is secure in housing, it becomes possible to address the other issues and a person can become independent. Case managers help the clients secure housing and work with the landlord The tenant must work within the rules of the housing. Once the mental health and substance abuse issues under control, and it’s possible to graduate from the program to a Section 8, voucher, or market rate rental. The program works with the landlord to create a successful renter. • Tatiana asked what percentage is taking advantage of this in our community. • Beth said a total of 15 this year. • Tatiana asked if it was 15 each year. Beth said they requested additional funds in this application to serve more individuals. • Jeffrey asked if this has come before this board before. Beth said it has been funded twice, and she is unsure if this program came before this board before. She said that with possible upcoming changes in the competitive process, this board may be looking at more service-oriented applications in the future. • Tatiana said the amount is $627 per month per person. Does that just include rent, or rent plus mental health? Beth said it is rent plus utilities and the renter must pay $50 per month toward their housing. • Diane said the issue is what the City really pays if we don’t do this, considering trips to the ER, police services, etc. We gain much more than we lose. • Tatiana said HPI helps everyone, not just targeted populations. They serve hundreds of people each year. This is a one-time program for only certain individuals. • Sue added that these are people who have been identified as having high needs, who would be getting many other services. • Beth said with Tenant Based Rental Assistance, you create a program around a particular targeted population. Without this, it is hard to target assistance to those most in need. This is an approach that looks at how limited housing is, and how can we make a dent in the homeless issue with housing and intensive case management. • Curt ranked the rental assistance low because it seems like a social service thing, and not one of the board’s strategic goals. He is unsure how many other agencies provide this kind of service. • Jeffrey said he put rental assistance as last, because sticks and bricks is the objective of this board. We need these kinds of supportive services, no question, but it is not one of the board’s priorities. • Eloise said identifying special needs populations for housing is one of our goals. • Troy said it does meet our primary goal of creating more rental units. It is a unit that wasn’t there for someone to get into for at least two years. It increases our inventory for two years. It is a bargain for 15 more units. We get requests for the ADA compliance and that is not our focus. This is right on the money for our focus right behind Redwood. • Beth added that this group has been unit focused over the years, especially with separation from CDBG Commission. But another thing to consider is matching the special populations to housing. As you look at portions of the market that are most stressed and least likely to get into housing, we have housing shortages below 30% AMI. • Diane said perhaps we need to look at our four goals and determine if they are the ones we should still be using. • Sue said one of the next projects will be revisiting the goals. • Tatiana asked if the goals are ranked by importance. Curt answered that the numbering reflects the priority. • Tatiana said she thinks we should not prioritize the goals, but give them each equal weight. • Troy said he ranked LHIP highest among those applications that are not creating new units. They are only asking for 28% of their project budget. They are leveraging the funds we provide. • Curt asked why the application is from the Loveland Housing Development. Beth answered that Fort Collins chose not to do the administration of this, and Loveland takes care of all of Larimer County. They use our funding for the requests they get for Fort Collins. They do emergency grants and amortized loans at 0-3% for health/safety repairs for homeowners. The repayments are self-sustaining if they can get the funds to run the program. Beth added that the emergency funding goes mostly to emergency repairs for mobile home owners. • Sue added that the emergency funding is for those at 50% AMI and below, while loans are given to those up to 80% AMI. • Eloise said she would be willing to change some of her rankings so long as Redwood remains at number one. • Sue asked for comparison of Coachlight and Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA). Four members would like Coachlight ranked above TBRA. • Terrance said Coachlight, TBRA, and CARE are close in ranking for him. It is important to maintain the units. Coachlight is using an affordable product and gets the most bang for the buck. • Tatiana asked if Coachlight is going to keep coming in for additional funding. Beth said this is the final installment for the windows. Sue added that the building was built in 1982, so they may come in later for other repairs. • Jeffrey said they had good presentation on livability and savings on utilities and this project preserves the physical structure. • Tatiana said the problem with providing funding for administration is he amount is about 50% of one person’s salary for two years. It is $13,000 per year. That is 50% or less AMI. Beth said this pays for a portion of one full time employee who spends a portion of his/her time on this project. Tatiana asked how much that person makes. Beth would have to look that up. Tatiana does not like the idea of paying an employee. Beth said an example is that if you have a full time employee paid partly by Section 8 administration or HUD funding, they must perform that percentage of their position for that purpose. You cannot use federal funding to pay for non-federal work. It can be challenging to piecemeal together a full time position together with funding from different sources. • Jeffrey said the rental assistance program is an existing program. Where does the funding come from? Beth said it has been funded with HUD funds and is possible it went through the CDBG Commission in the past. It is on a two year cycle. Jeffrey said if they are going to be changing what comes to this board, he will need to shift his thought process on the next five year goal. • Sue said there are two processes now: social services and housing. However, some applications could fall into either category. • Beth said the fall process has always been for HOME and Affordable Housing Funds, which have historically gone to units and rental assistance. • Troy amended his vote, to be more consistent with the rest of the members’ votes. His amendments do not change the overall ranking of the applications. • Diane said CARE seems like an outlier. They got audited and “dinged.” How does that qualify them for this process? Beth said she has no experience with this director and the agency has had 100% staff turnover in the last two years. There were a number of fair housing complaints two years ago in people went all the way to HUD. The Office of Fair Housing came out to do a monitoring. There were no findings on the specific complaints; they were not found to be substantiated. However, a monitoring of the housing was done and they were found to not meet the 5% accessible unit compliance requirement. All of their properties were surveyed. The previous director entered into a voluntary agreement to do $800,000 worth of work in 2 years. He did not have the monetary figure, but a list of work that needed to be done. Later staff realized how much it would cost and how little time was left to complete the work. It is still not clear what the $127,000 will pay for in the 8 units it is requested for.. There should have been further negotiations with HUD and conversation about intention of compliance. Could they have a reserve account and make the modifications as potential resident require them? • Diane said in the presentation the number of units was not clear. First he said 9, then 12. • Tatiana said 5% would be 16. • Beth said 5% of total units have to be accessible to people with mobility impairments and usable by someone in a wheelchair. • Terrence asked if any of their units are in compliance already. • Beth said yes, and they made units adaptable at the time of construction. So this is the question about the percentage of units. Do you displace the people in the units to make them accessible to people who have not yet been identified? Beth said she included a lot of this information in her staff summary. Terrence moved to accept the board’s rankings of the Fall 2014 Housing Applications. Eloise seconded. 5-2-0, Diane and Tatiana opposed. • Tatiana said LHIP should be ranked above CARE as home ownership if often overlooked. She thinks Coachlight should be second. Tenant based rental assistance helps a small specific number of people and LHIP targets a population that gets overlooked. We don’t talk about homeowners who need assistance with minor repairs and could become homeless as a result. • Diane said that the LHIP project should go higher and CARE should go lower. • Troy agreed with their assessments, but feels the voting is fair. • Curt said his approval was reluctant. He gave new rankings. • Tatiana and Diane amended their rankings as well. Tatiana moved to rescind the previous priority rankings for funds. Curt seconded. Motion passed, 6-1-0. Jeffrey opposed. • Adjustments were made to rankings. Sue took note. Diane moved to approve new rankings. Terrence seconded. Motion passed, 5-2-0. Jeffrey and Tatiana opposed. Overall Conclusions/Notes for CDBG Commission: COACHLIGHT: • Improves existing units, improves quality of life of tenants, Neighbor 2 Neighbor has good track record, maintains existing housing stock. • They should consider more environmentally sustainable windows. • Repairs help tenants reduce energy cost and be more sustainable in energy use. TBRA: • We are not adding new brick and mortar units, but are helping a targeted disadvantaged population. • This saves the City money. • This board is geared toward sticks and bricks, and inventory. Housing first is important, but we are not rental assistance. • It assists a minute percentage of the population. If you can get 15 new units in two years, those will house more people in the long term. Those units will always be there. This is a short term solution that does not account for long term needs. • If we need more money for social services, that ought to be funded separately from the physical housing. LHIP: • Homeowners are a specific population as well, and meet one of our four goals in our strategic plan that has not had as much attention as others. • We don’t want owners to lose ground due to repairs. If they lose their home, they will end up in a potentially more expensive situation. CARE: • The history of CARE shows they have not been the best partner and have been less than clear in the information they have provided. • CARE should have been ranked higher as they are adding physical, long term capacity for those with special needs. • Their application was unclear and confusing. Their remediation process is not understood. • The presentation on what they will actually do was confusing. FCHA ADMIN: • Need someone to administer the program, but struggled with this being a separate proposal. • Would have been inclined to rank the FCHA proposals together if they had not been asking for 100% of funding for the administration. Would like to encourage them to better leverage funding. ITEM 2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN Discussion/Q & A: • Jeffrey would like to know more about the future of the competitive process changes before working on the strategic plan. ITEM 3: MIGRATION OF COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR HOUSING APPLICATIONS Sue said the City will be implementing the plan, but the process has been slowed down. We may be implementing some of the suggestions, such as the project review, but that could be a joint effort with the CDBG Commission. Discussion/Q & A: • Curt asked how much influence the board has on the rankings of the housing projects at this point. We spend a lot of time and energy on this, and how much do they really care? • Troy said the commission usually goes with the board’s recommendations. • Beth said with limited dollars they look at how to maximize the dollars. If they went strictly with these rankings, they would spend all the available funds in Redwood. • Curt said this board has been asked not to look at the funding. • Beth suspects they will come up with something that spreads the funding around more. One or two projects may get shut out, or they may fund all with some getting much less than requested. Some applicants may be able to come back in the spring for additional funds. • Sue said there is value in having the two boards look at these differently. They do want to hear from this board. • Curt asked if projects ever get partial funding. Sue answered yes. ITEM 4: 2015 WORK PLAN Sue has provided a copy of last year’s work plan. She asked for the board to give input via email. She will compile edits and bring a draft to the next meeting. Discussion/Q & A: • Tatiana asked if Lisa Poppaw has been invited to a board meeting. We had in our work plan to invite Council members, but did not follow through with that. Should we invite her or another Council member to the meeting regarding Housing Affordability Policy Study in December? Sue will add this to another agenda. ITEM 5: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY POLICY STUDY DRAFT REPORT AND NEXT STEPS—SUE BECK-FERKISS Sue said she is starting to do more outreach to groups that have invited her to speak. She is refining the action items/strategies we are highlighting that are not already happening. She is revising numbers to remove students and low income persons who own their homes free and clear to refine our target numbers. ITEM 6: BFO Sue said the board can pass a recommendation or authorize the chair to draft an email to give input on the budget. There is an ongoing offer that funds our department and an offer to add money to the Affordable Housing Fund. Members have received a link to view the offers. Discussion/Q & A: • Troy said HAPS identifies programs that need funding. Should we be suggesting these? Sue said any that require funding should be requested between funding cycles in the interim year. It is too late to add requests to the 2015/16 BFO cycle since HAPS is not complete yet. • Jeffrey asked the reason behind the staff requesting $200,000 for the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). Beth said before the recession up to $700,000 came to the AHF from the City’s general fund and was allocated to eligible housing projects. Jeffrey would like to support a request for these funds, but needs to be able to justify it. • Diane asked if we are losing federal funding. Sue said staff has discussed taking all of the federal funds and putting them into housing. Beth added the City can retain 15% of CDBG funds for public service. The commission has allocated $150,000 to public services but many are housing related. If they transfer 100% of CDBG funds to the housing cycle, would it be fair to transfer the housing human service applications to the housing cycle? If you remove $150,000 from human services, that is a lot. Can it be a wash, if you also transfer the housing related human service applications? • Sue said the question tonight is whether or not the board wants to take the opportunity to comment on this year’s BFO offers. • Sue will send the link to the BFO offers to the board. • Tatiana said October 21 is Council’s first reading. Tatiana moved that the board agree to have the chair draft a memo to Council regarding the board’s opinion on the 2015/16 BFO, which can be reviewed and approved by the board via email. Diane seconded. Friendly amendment: Troy added guidance of adding comments regarding supporting the addition of $200,000 with the preference of taking the funding back to its historical levels with consideration of population growth. Tatiana seconded the amendment. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0. Troy will draft memo, email it to the board for edits, make finalizations, and submit to Council. OTHER BUSINESS ITEM 1: OPEN BOARD DISCUSSION • Not discussed. ITEM 2: LIAISON REPORTS • Not discussed. ITEM 3: FUTURE MEETINGS AGENDA • Not discussed. ITEM 4: CITY COUNCIL SIX-MONTH PLANNING CALENDAR REVIEW • Not discussed. – Meeting adjourned at 6:25pm by Troy Jones – The next meeting of the Affordable Housing Board is scheduled for: November 6 at 4:00pm Participants will meet at: Fort Collins City Hall Council Information Center 300 Laporte Ave