HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 03/11/2020
CDBG COMMISSION
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, March 11, 2020 5:30pm
222 Laporte Avenue Colorado River Meeting Room, First Floor
3/11/20 2 0 – AGENDA Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
At 5:37 PM the meeting was called to order by Josh Johnson.
• Commission members present:
o Michael Kulisheck
o Nick Verni- Lau
o Serena Thomas
o Olga Duvall
o Josh Johnson
o Steve Backsen
o Sara Maranowicz
o Pat Hastings
• Commission members absent:
o None
• Staff members present:
o Adam Molzer, Staff Liaison, CDBG Commission – City of Fort Collins
o Beth Rosen, Social Sustainability – City of Fort Collins
o Hannah Tinklenberg, Social Sustainability – City of Fort Collins (Minutes)
• List of guests and public
o Ingrid Decker, City Attorney – City of Fort Collins (presenter)
o Ethnie Tryk, Community Member
o Laura Walker, Larimer County
o Heather O’Hayre, Larimer County
o Holly LeMasurier, Homeward 2020
2. AGENDA REVIEW
Josh Johnson reviewed the agenda with the Community Development Block Grant
Commission (“CDBG”). The commission accepted the agenda without modification.
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
• None
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Olga Duvall motioned to approve the February 12, 2020 regular meeting minutes as
presented, Steve Backsen seconds the motion – unanimously approved.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 650BF50A-A9AE-4455-AF3E-2107265B5F9F
CDBG Commission
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
3/11/20 20 – AGENDA Page 2
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
• None
6. LEARNING SERIES PRESENTATION
a. Affordable Housing - Beth Rosen – Social Sustainability Department
Beth Rosen, Grants Compliance & Policy Manager, joined CDBG members for a
presentation on housing priorities/needs and considerations for funding recommendations.
Beth allocates federal grant funds, manages the contracts, and ensures the City is in
compliance with all grant funding related to HUD.
Beth provided an overview of the continuum of housing affordability and HUD’s definition of
income levels, Area Median Income (AMI), which is calibrated by household size. Affordable
housing is the housing that serves households at or below 80% AMI. Historically, the lower
the income the harder it is to secure housing. Critical housing needs (homelessness and
subsidized housing) is in the 0-30% income bracket, affordable rental housing (workforce
housing) is in the 40-60% income bracket, and 60% is the maximum income that is funded
through the low-income tax credit for affordable housing projects. Prior housing priorities
focused on 60-80% as the target range for moving households from rental housing to
affordable homeownership, but due to rising housing costs, we are no longer seeing this
happen. Staff and City Council are assessing affordable and attainable housing and the
housing inventory in our community. When comparing housing applications, pay attention to
the number of units and the percentage of AMI being served.
Currently, the City is operating under the 2014-2019 Housing Strategic Plan. The City is
hiring a housing manager to address issues on attainable housing and development of the
next affordable housing strategic plan. There are four priorities in the current strategic plan
that relate to funding and the competitive process: 1) increase inventory of affordable rental
units; 2) preserve long-term affordability and physical condition of existing housing stock; 3)
increase housing and supportive services for people with special needs; and 4) support
opportunities to obtain and sustain affordable homeownership. Beth provided an update on
where the City is at in achieving new units and the gap, per the annual affordable housing
goal.
Sara Maranowicz asked if there is a breakdown of inventory across the different AMI
percentages. While not readily available, Beth shared that the low 30% AMI bracket is the
hardest to obtain as these units would never compete with market values. The majority of
units in our cash credit properties are in the 60% AMI range. In theory, the higher-end units
can subsidize the lower-end units. A gaps analysis is currently being conducted and will
report on the units missing in the different income levels.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 650BF50A-A9AE-4455-AF3E-2107265B5F9F
CDBG Commission
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
3/11/20 20 – AGENDA Page 3
Serena Thomas asked why the City does not use living wage to determine funding and what
is the current living wage in the community. Beth explained that given HUD is our primary
funding source we need to use their definition of income limits and align our programs to their
guidelines. Sara Maranowicz added that the annual family self-sufficiency income for a
household of four (assuming infant and toddler childcare expenses) is above $75,000.
Steve Backsen asked what realistic leverage the City has to preserve manufactured housing.
Beth directed that Sue Beck-Ferkiss would be better suited to answer that, however, there is
current dialogue between City Council and internal departments. Larimer Home Improvement
Program’s housing application provides emergency repairs and home improvement
assistance to mobile homeowners (who own unit but rent their lot). The City’s Mitigation /
Anti-Displacement Strategy, outlines invention and tenant-rights in the event that a mobile
home park, within City limits, is sold for redevelopment.
Pat Hastings requested clarification on the relationship between the inventory projection, new
units added per the funding recommendations, and if these will reduce the gap. Beth
confirmed that anything approved for funding will add to the inventory of new units and noted
some units in the pipeline expected to go online this year, with and without HUD funding.
For 2020, the City has approximately $2.2 million in funding to allocate (CDBG funds has
slightly over $1-million, HOME is $860,000, and the City’s Affordable Housing Fund is
$550,000). Adam Molzer highlighted that our available grant funding was finalized early this
year and will not expect any noticeable changes in the days leading up to funding
deliberations. With the exception of any loan repayments received in March that would
increase funding available.
Without guiding decision-making for funding, Beth wants the commission to feel informed
when comparing the applications. The staff summary of each application summarizes factors
to consider such as alignment with the affordable housing strategic plan, project cost, per unit
cost, funding stack, funding needed, and previous funding. Other considerations include
historical experience of the applicant, readiness to proceed, timeliness, other funding
sources, land under contact or land ownership, etc. The Affordable Housing Guidance Chart
shows every project next to each other to compare major components. Application
presentations should address costs associated in the project. Spreading the money across
multiple housing projects reduces the funding for each project and prevents the projects from
moving forward. Projects need full funding to proceed. Consider the entire request in ranked
order based on timing and need, and alignment with the affordable housing strategic plan.
Projects not funded in 2020, will need to come back next year to reapply.
Steve Backsen asked Beth to define “move forward”. This means that the project hasn’t
received all the funding needed. HUD may have an expiration date on the funding, therefore,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 650BF50A-A9AE-4455-AF3E-2107265B5F9F
CDBG Commission
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
3/11/20 20 – AGENDA Page 4
the applicant cannot sit on the City’s conditional commitment and wait for other funding to
come through. One application this year received conditional commitment last year and has
reapplied to fill the new gap (due to increased costs). Rehab project applications have also
received initial CDBG funding when the projects were developed.
It’s okay to not fully allocate money if funding is not available to support a project moving
foward. Beth can reallocate and hold back the least sensitive projects and applicants can
reapply the next year.
Olga Duvall asked about expiration of CDBG and HOME both expire but have different rules.
CDBG allocates these funds to projects that can be used quickly. HOME provides two-years
to use funds.
Josh Johnson asked Beth to explain deferred developer fee. From a high-level they can write
into the project up to 12% the total cost to develop into the project that would be additional
funding/loans against the project when they complete.
Beth concluded her presentation by stating she will be available during deliberations.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Conflict of Interest Policy – Ingrid Decker – Senior Assistant City Attorney
Ingrid Decker is the Senior Assistant City Attorney joined the commission to review the
City’s Conflict of Interest Policy. Handouts were provided to commission members.
The primary provisions that govern ethical behavior and conflicts of interest are found in
the City Charter and City Code – available on the City website. Materials are included in
the boards and commissions manual. A board and commission member who has a
personal or financial interest in the decisions being made must disclose that information
to the City Clerk. The member should refrain from voting, attempt to influence, and/or
participate in the decision-making. That comes up most often in boards taking
applications from outside agencies and make funding decisions about money going to
those agencies as there may be particular personal interest (i.e. volunteer, board
member, etc). After reviewing the charter and code and think there may be a conflict of
interest, let Adam know and /or contact Ingrid directly to talk it through, however, she
cannot make a decision on your behalf. A variance can be requested in the instance that
a conflict of interest is declared that may create a problem on the board. Verbal
recognition, recusal, and/or removal from the voting discussion is acceptable.
Adam would like to be aware of any possible conflicts of interest before scorecards are
submitted and the deliberation meeting.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 650BF50A-A9AE-4455-AF3E-2107265B5F9F
CDBG Commission
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
3/11/20 20 – AGENDA Page 5
b. Grant Funding Protocol
Adam passed around the protocol created by the commission and used at last year’s
deliberation meeting. Before deliberations in six weeks, Adam would like consensus from
members that this is the protocol to be used again, with or without modifications.
Sara Maranowicz requested language clarification that the aggregate desired amount of
recommended funding is referring to the dollar scorecard recommended. Adam said this
matches the desired amount of recommended funding on the balance budget.
Josh Johnson said the process worked well and he is supportive of the process moving
forward. He asked Adam to clarify the meaning of attempting to ‘pull up’. This means that
commission members will not attempt to influence, or “pull-up,” any human service
proposals in the final rankings based on personal preferences. During deliberation this
may impact the ranking and averages of the collective scorecards, essentially altering the
work that has been done in advance of the deliberation meeting.
Serena Thomas requested a reminder on the decision process for the funding proposals.
Adam gave an overview of the color-coded ranking system used last year, which was
intended to help facilitate discussion, but did not necessarily determine full funding for any
particular colored section. Each application was discussed individually. This sparked
questions from commission members who participated in last year’s deliberations. Adam
shared last year’s final funding recommendations as a refresher of the process used last
year. Pat Hastings mentioned that the percentages used in last year’s deliberations and
questioned if they will work similarly this year. Funding available is comparable as last
year so percentages should work similarly.
Josh Johnson motioned to approve for protocol for 2020 deliberations, motion seconded
by Steve Backsen – unanimously approved.
Adam will share the protocol spreadsheet the day of deliberations.
8. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS
• None
9. STAFF REPORTS
• The next CDBG commission meeting is on March 25, 2020. This meeting will include
a work session with the Affordable Housing Board and affordable housing projects
will present (six total, starting at 5:45pm). Each applicant has approximately 20
minutes to present, share handouts, and accept questions from commission
DocuSign Envelope ID: 650BF50A-A9AE-4455-AF3E-2107265B5F9F
CDBG Commission
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
3/11/20 20 – AGENDA Page 6
members. Funding will not be discussed. The open public commission meeting will
begin after presentations and members of the public and presenters are welcome.
• Some have asked if COVID-19 will impact public meeting format. Until further notice,
the City is operating business as usual. If plans change in the coming weeks/months,
back-up plans will be implemented.
• The City recently sold a property used for childcare for 30 years. The City Manager
has requested proceeds be designated to the childcare issue (a Council priority).
Adam and staff from Sustainability Services Area are looking at how funds could be
invested to increase childcare capacity.
• Teaching Tree Early Childhood Center is having an open house / ribbon-cutting
ceremony on April 2, 2020 at 6:00pm.
• Scoresheet spreadsheet hard copies provided to the commission. Each member has
received a link to Zoomgrants (grantmaking portal) where funding recommendations
will be inputted by commission members. Please reach out to Adam if you need any
technical assistance.
• Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) – the City is working on budget offers for 2021 and
2022. The City’s budget director and interim CFO are forecasting the next few years
to have very little growth. Council priorities have recently focused on Social
Sustainability, particularly on homelessness and housing. The reality is that funding
for the competitive process may remain the same. There will be opportunities for
public input in May or June, as more information is available.
OTHER BUSINESS
• Boards & Commissions “Reimagining Boards” meeting – included a discussion on
experiences, diversity, and how to make that happen. Presentation on oil and gas.
10. NEXT MEETING
a. Wednesday, March 25, 2020 | 5:30pm | 222 Laporte Ave, Colorado Room
Work Session and Grant Presentations with the Affordable Housing Board
11. ADJOURNMENT
• Meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.
Minutes were finalized and approved by the CDBG Commission on ____________________
City of Fort Collins Staff Liaison: ____________________________________________
Adam Molzer
DocuSign Envelope ID: 650BF50A-A9AE-4455-AF3E-2107265B5F9F
May 4, 2020