Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 04/03/2019CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, April 3, 2019 5:30pm 222 Laporte Avenue Colorado River Meeting Room, First Floor 04/03/2019 - MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL At 5:34 PM the meeting was called to order by Amy Dondale. • COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: o Serena Thomas o Olga Duvall o Margaret Long o Sara Maranowicz o Steve Backsen o Joshua Johnson o Pat Hastings o Amy Dondale o Anita Basham • COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None • STAFF MEMBERS: o Adam Molzer, Staff Liaison – City of Fort Collins 2. AGENDA REVIEW Amy Dondale reviewed the agenda with the Community Development Block Grant Commission (“CDBG”). The Commission accepted the agenda without modification. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No members of the public were in attendance. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 2019 Regular Meeting and the March 27 Joint Work Session reviewed. Serena Thomas had submitted corrections to the February minutes, which will be incorporated. Anita Basham noted an edit to include her as ‘present’ at the March 27 Joint Work Session. Olga Duvall moved to approve the minutes with suggested changes; Sara Maranowicz seconded. The vote passed unanimously. CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING 04/03/2019 – MINUTES Page 2 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Conflict of Interest Policy – Ingrid Decker – Senior Assistant City Attorney Ingrid Decker introduced city code regarding conflicts of interests. The two types of conflicts of interest are financial conflicts (exceptions include when decision will not lead to direct personal gain and for service in a nonsalaried position); and personal interest (exceptions include when decisions will not provide personal gain based on membership in other organizations and when member could receive services offered to other community members). If there is a conflict, review language in charter or discuss with Ingrid or Adam. If there is a conflict, members should file disclosure statement with City Clerk's office and do not communicate with or try to influence commission on issue. Violations are important because they could call into question and there are potential legal consequences. Members may request variances do be decided by City Council. If a member is not violating code but is still uncomfortable with conflict, members may recuse themselves from decision. Members can participate in final vote even if they have recused themselves from a specific decision. Donations do not count as personal or financial conflict of interest. b. Scorecard Discussion – Amy Dondale Amy Dondale discussed whether proposals serving low-income clients should be weighted differently. Margaret Long also discussed whether the $150,000 in additional funding approved by City Council should be treated differently than other funding because the funding may not be available in two years. Adam Molzer explained that the reasoning behind weighting system was based on sub-committee input, staff members and earlier commission member input. Commission discussed whether already-resourced groups should receive funding and the role of the scorecards, and yes/no votes in reaching final decisions. Commission continued discussion of changing weights and pre-application process in regards to low-income populations. Victoria Shaw explained that in the case of a conflict of interest, scores are calculated by average not aggregate. Adam Molzer explained low and moderate income is an eligibility criteria in pre-application process. Amy Dondale thanked the group for their insights. No changes to the scorecard were adopted for 2019. CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING 04/03/2019 – MINUTES Page 3 c. Grant Funding Protocol – Victoria Shaw– Senior Financial Analyst, Sustainability Services Victoria Shaw explained that members should score consistently for themselves but not as a commission. Commission discussed the role of standardized scores. Victoria replied that if they found in the future that inconsistencies in scored skewed findings, the issue could be revisited. After introductions, Victoria Shaw explained that the purpose of the scorecards is to create an efficient and equitable funding deliberation process. She explained that scores will be used as a starting point for discussion of allotment of funds, but scores are not alone determinative. Victoria discussed three options for determining funding: A) funding at 100% down the ranking list until funding is exhausted; B) determining funding based on final percentage scores (70% score would mean 70% funding); C) determining funding based on natural and statistical breaks. Amy Dondale asked for explanation on how their discussion and decisions tonight would be used. Adam clarified that the Commission will be deciding which of three options will be used in establishing the funding structure. Anita Basham and Victoria Shaw discussed how breaks are determined in option three. Using Excel, conditional formatting can be applied to the average scores to identify the data set’s natural breaks. With Olga Duvall’s prompt, the Commission discussed the purpose of each member’s recommended amount that they are identifying on their scorecards. Adam Molzer clarified that initially the purpose of including a recommended funding amount was for members to balance their own funding decisions, but now it is recognized that this is an additional data point. Victoria Shaw clarified that the three options are adjustable and can be adapted once discussion begins. Sara Maranowicz raised concerns about inconsistencies in language used during deliberation discussion, versus the work already invested in the scorecards. Steve Backsen discussed reviewing the process and adjusting future year's criteria and overall process. Adam Molzer shared that there will be a 360-review following this year’s process to identify improvements. Pat Hastings raised the idea of starting the discussion based on the average of the CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING 04/03/2019 – MINUTES Page 4 recommended funding from the scorecards. Steve Backsen questioned whether agencies might inflate budgets and requests, to hedge their award against the recommendation percentages. Adam Molzer discussed the previous year's process and showed the commission the results, suggesting that the scorecards will be more useful than the red, yellow, green system that was trialed in 2018. Pat Hastings suggested using the average recommended funding from scorecards (new Option D). The Commission discussed how scores would be used if the decision was made to use suggested funding instead of scores, and whether suggested funding should be used for ranking or as a discussion point. The Commission was polled and eliminated options A and B. Option C and the newly introduced option D remained open for discussion. The amount of funding available for this year’s grants was discussed, with Adam Molzer clarifying the commission may not have the final number until April 24 or later. Pat Hastings discussed procedures for determining funding. He proposed including the average amount of funding, and the percent of people that recommended funding be included in the data as a conversation piece, but using Option C as the baseline. This was met favorably by the Commission. The Commission discussed the role of the “yes/no” scorecard notation, and balancing need versus quality of the organization, and the purpose of using average suggested funding. Victoria Shaw asked if there were concerns about using the amended Option C. None were raised. All commission members were polled and agreed to use to the amended Option C. Amy Dondale asked if individual scorecards were public. Adam clarified the data would be available in aggregate but not individually identifiable. Adam Molzer and Victoria Shaw asked if the commission wished to identify where the breaks points should be set in advance. The Commission and Victoria discussed break points in relationship to amount of total requested, and setting cut-off points based on low scores or number of people recommending funding. Adam offered the idea of creating percentage ranges. Victoria offered the idea of using natural/ statistical breaks. CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING 04/03/2019 – MINUTES Page 5 The Commission discussed how organizations' priorities will be taken into consideration when determining funding. The Commission asked for clarification regarding "buckets." Serena Thomas suggested that rather than deciding ranges in advance, the Commission should see the natural break points using the real data. Sara Maranowicz asked if the Commission should try to allocate to level 2 and level 3 proposals, in the case that the level 1 group is large. The Commission discussed the timeline of turning scores into natural breaks. The Commission discussed how to balance fully funding level 1 bucket groups versus level 2 and 3 groups. Victoria Shaw proposed level 1 should be set at 90%, and the Commission agreed to 85%. Victoria proposed proportionally identifying how much should go to level 2 and level 3 proposals. Pat proposed level 2 receives 1.5-times as much as level 3. The Commission agreed. The Commission agreed that level 4 will be 0%. Adam Molzer asked for decision about whether to start at the top or bottom of scores. The Commission agreed top to bottom. Adam Molzer introduced for discussion that in the case that the Commission is over budget at the end of deliberation, funding be cut based on percentage. Serena Thomas proposed cutting from the bottom. Josh Johnson proposed a percentage system up and down the ranked proposals. The Commission discussed options for cutting. Serena Thomas proposed cutting from the bottom a second time. Steve Backsen proposed determining definite yes and definite no. Amy Dondale proposed taking the suggested funding into consideration. Sara Maranowicz proposed that the Commission make a commitment to discuss each application regardless of their place in the ranking. Amy Dondale proposed balancing based on levels, as opposed to line-item balancing. Adam Molzer asked that the Commission find consensus on the suggestion that the cuts come from the bottom. The commission declined to poll on this. Sara Maranowicz suggested the Commission should discuss all organizations with a no funding vote. Victoria Shaw proposed keeping 1.5 funding for level 2, and calibrating for level 3 after level 1 funding amounts are determined, by using a mathematically-based decision and revisiting the proportions. The group agreed to this method. CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING 04/03/2019 – MINUTES Page 6 The Commission discussed how the process will work in regards to the $150,000. Josh proposed that if there are five “no's” the group would automatically say no. Victoria Shaw proposed that they begin by discussing groups with three “no’s” and then discussing “no’s” as they come up. Serena Thomas raised concerns about the procedure for dropping organizations from funding, which Adam Molzer addressed by sharing that majority vote will determine funding approval or funding decline. 7. LEARNING SERIES PRESENTATION a. Triple Bottom Line Scan – Victoria Shaw– Senior Financial Analyst, Sustainability Services Victoria introduced the TBL Scan tool, which is a staff assessment of whether a project’s impacts will be positive, neutral or negative for each of the three sustainability areas (social, economic, and environment). 8. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS None shared. 9. STAFF REPORTS • Adam Molzer shared that there is a new benefit for Commission members from the City Clerk’s office. For those interested, the clerk’s office will create a photo badge that will allow commission members to ride transfort and MAX at no cost. let adam know if there is interest. • The Regional Director of NCAP, Jamie Villalobos, is moving to a state-wide role within the organization. There is an interim director until a permanent staff is selected. • Teaching Tree had a groundbreaking event at the end of March for their childcare facility expansion. 10. OTHER BUSINESS a. Reminder that the Joint Boards & Commissions Pilot Event is occurring on the evening of Thursday, April 11 th from 5-8pm at the Senior Center. 11. NEXT MEETING a. Wednesday, April 10, 2019 | 5:15pm | 222 Laporte Ave, Colorado Room 12. ADJOURNMENT • Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM.