Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 03/06/2003CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Meeting Minutes March 6, 2003 Phil Majerus, Chair Vice Chair, Terri Bryant Bill Bertschy, City Council Liaison Chairman Phil Majerus called the meeting of the Community Development Block Grant Commission to order at 6:35 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Phil Majerus, Bob Browning, Tia Molander, Billie Rosen, Shelly Steele, Dennis Vanderheiden, Cheryl Zimlich. Not present: Terri Bryant, Linda Coxen. Staff present: Heidi Phelps, Julie Smith, Maurice Head, and Melissa Visnic. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA Ms. Phelps presentation. As her memo indicated, since the January meeting, many pieces have fallen into place. Robin Keller, Vice President of Development, flew to Fort Collins for the Commission meeting in order to answer questions and provide an overview. The extension request, although at the Commission's discretion, is substantially a formality to make sure all the technical requirements are in place for the project to go forward. There was much better news to report at this meeting than when the letter was received in January. Once the new Congress was sworn in and the new HUD appropriation passed, the HUD Section 202 money became available. The project is ready to be closed by March 315t. Loan documents have been picked up from Ms. Phelps. The applicants thanked the Commission for its patience. The project is coming to fruition. In response to questions by the Commission, Ms. Keller affirmed that the need for this project is ongoing, absent a drastic reduction in the elderly population, which is not supported. The application to HUD (Section 202) has to apply for substantiated need. A waiting list for resident applicants is in place. In response to questions, Ms. Phelps affirmed that there is no timing problem. The State has extended its commitment through the summer. The program needs an extension from the Commission through 12/31 of this year in order to be qualified for money coming in during the year. The project is classified as a qualified affordable housing project, with a development fee delay granted with the building permit. Building fees are not due until 12/1. The City will collect them sometime during the calendar year due to TABOR requirements. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 6, 2003 Page 2 Discussion was held over the rationale of fees not being paid sooner than later, since they are available and delaying was designed to benefit the developer. If the fees are being covered, why wait? It was generally agreed that the HUD portion of the fees could be paid quickly. Quicker payment could benefit the City. Staff will research the issue and ensure quick payment if practical to do so. The time line is not set for this project. The Environmental Review has been completed. Other legal formalities will take approximately 45 days, but these can be done with the permit phase. The fees can be paid sooner than December. The Commission inquired as to how the facility meets the need for increased services, case management, long-term care, and other services. Ms. Keller stated that Volunteers of America does not build housing without providing services. Services are provided for delivering meals, nurses, transportation, and other social needs. HUD provides funds for a service coordinator to see to residents' needs. All units are adaptable for ADA-type conversion or conversion to assisted living in order to meet "aging in place" needs. This phase has not been reached with other projects in Colorado. A facility in Montrose is a three-part facility. Residents are provided the benefit of meals and services from other units. Rochester, Minnesota, is another example where all phases exist for access to services. HUD has only provided grants in the last three years for conversion to assisted living. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To grant an extension to grant time of performance through December 31, 2003. Motion carried unanimously. A general consensus was stated by the Commission to encourage Staff to research an earlier payment of fees. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 2002 AND JANUARY 2003 MEETING MINUTES Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To approve the October 2002 minutes. Motion approved unanimously. Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To approve the January 2003 minutes. Motion approved unanimously. CITY BUDGET PREPARATION Staff reviewed the memo from Mr. Waido with the Commission. Recommendations are to be made by a certain date for affordable housing funding or face postponement to the next year's budget. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 6, 2003 Page 3 $200,000 was not allocated to the Affordable Housing Fund, with only a slim chance of it being revived, due to the financial situation of the City. Options are open for a Commission budget recommendation. Discussion ensued concerning the fund being an easy place to cut money and the City's priorities concerning other budget items. The deadline for recommendations is April 28th. No formal meeting is scheduled for April. The Commission discussed the dynamics of this item: Belt tightening is necessary, but it should be a pro rata reduction in comparison to other departments. A soft market and loss of jobs will increase the need for the fund. It is not up to the Commission to set needs, priorities, and places to cut; full funding should be requested, commensurate with the Commission's advocacy role. Discussion was held, weighing the following: Simply recommend full funding as an advocate of housing; suggest other places to cut; collaborate with the Affordable Housing Board in order to keep recommendations consistent; agree with the Affordable Housing Board's recommendation. Upon questioning, Staff advised the Commission that it was within the Commission's purview to make whatever recommendation it wished to, based on prevailing sensibilities. Upon questioning, Staff further advised the Commission that the $200,000 referred to came from the land bank program. The City froze the existing level of the Affordable Housing Fund. There will be $893,000 will be in this round of funding. The affordable housing study recommended an increase. The Affordable Housing Board will likely ask for that amount to be sustained and built upon. Commission members expressed the following: A strong position paper or statement should be produced on the need for funding. This funding is to benefit people two years hence, and the problems may be worse by then. Staff could communicate to the Affordable Housing Board that the Commission wishes to see and support its recommendations, with time to rewrite or renegotiate if the recommendation was not acceptable. The driving factor of the supplement is in the Needs and Strategies report. The need is for 10 years, based on a given growth rate that determines additional number of affordable units to be produced each year to meet that need. Staff stated that it would advise the Affordable Housing Board that the CDBG Commission wishes to support its recommendation to maintain the affordable housing budget. The Commission was in general agreement with that intent. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 6, 2003 Page 4 CDBG COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2002 Ms. Smith noted that the report is for review. It has been distributed due to a deadline. It is fairly generic for the usual and customary things that the Commission accomplished. In response to questions by the Commission, Staff stated that demographic reports are made to HUD. This is a generic report on what was done. A much larger annual report is required every fall containing demographics, which can be provided to the Commission at any time. Several reports are taken off of the HUD Web site to determine who was served and the demographics thereof. The City had acted to adhere to the Priority Needs and Strategies recommendation, and the Commission has looked to maintain a proper rental/ownership ratio. That fact can be included in the report next year as speaking to the Priority Needs and Strategies Report. The "big picture" of funding is seen as following City policies. If project names were shown to be on track with those policies, it would present a good illustration for the City. A history of the demographics and populations served would be used and is available. The same providers are present this year as prior years, with a few additions. A history of demographics would be in evaluation of ensuring that needy populations are being served. Staff has in the past and will continue to monitor demographics and inform the Commission of any red flags that arise. The request for a report was focused on public service. The report is available, is two or three pages long, and will be sent out. It was generally agreed that a quarterly report would be desirable, with September being a good month to see it. In response to a question about the Land Bank Program, land banking progress is reported to the Affordable Housing Board and which sites are being considered. The due diligence portion of that progress has an element of updating the Affordable Housing Board, and the Commission can be included as well. The land banking team is made up of staff in Current Planning, Ken Waido, Joe Frank, Maurice Head, and the real estate office. The team reviews sites, based on given criteria, to be considered for the program. If the property is viable, it goes through development review process with all departments in determining how to develop the sites. Costs and viability are determined. If viable, a low-level due diligence is performed with soil testing and other issues. The Affordable Housing Board is kept informed of the program's progress. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 6, 2003 Page 5 Presently in the program, 300 to 360 units will be generated from three sites that comprise 30 acres. A fourth site is under consideration to be purchased from a private developer. The program is open to looking at sites that come in for partnership. If site is legitimate, with limited problems, and meets the program criteria, it will be considered. The program has to be extremely conscientious with the City's housing funds. A history of the demographics and populations served would be used and is available. The same providers are present this year as prior years, with a few additions. A history of demographics would be in evaluation of ensuring that needy populations are being served. Staff has in the past and will continue to monitor demographics and inform the Commission of any red flags that arise. The request for a report was focused on public service. The report is available, is two or three pages long, and will be sent out. It was generally agreed that a quarterly report would be desirable, with September being a good month to see it. DISTRIBUTION OF COMPETITIVE PROCESS APPLICATIONS Ms. Smith introduced Melissa Visnic, newest staff member with the CDBG/HOME programs. Melissa was with Advance Planning for six years prior to this assignment. Staff gave an overview of the upcoming cycle. Requests total approximately $3 million, with over $2 million available. HOME funding is up to $773,000, from $684,000. The CDBG grant was increased about $35,000. This is a pleasant surprise, as no increase was expected. Poudre Valley Hospital is giving a $170,000 credit for the building that was originally purchased through CDBG funding. New applicants include CASA and Consumer Credit Counseling. The Women's Center has new director, Melissa Selby, who is addressing last year's issues. Ms. Molander and Ms. Coxen noted that they would not be at the meeting on the 10th. Those who cannot be part of allocations are encouraged to send in their thoughts on the proposals. Telephone conferences can be arranged. The presentations will be made at the new City Administration Building, Community Room. Parking is not paid at night. The meeting on funding recommendations meeting will be at 281 North College. Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 6, 2003 Page 6 UPDATED COMPETITIVE PROCESS SCHEDULE FOR 2003 Julie Smith report. The Council work session will be held April 22. The funding session will be on May 20th. Commission members should be available at 6:00 p.m. Thirty days must to be allowed for a public comment process. This session was originally scheduled for May 6tn For the Commission's April meeting, dinner will be held at 5:30, with the meeting at 6:00. A meeting will be held November 18th rather than November 4th to allow for time required by HUD. A HUD audit is taking place, and they take exception to Program Income. Because of home buyer assistance and loans, the program income has ballooned. In the past, City approval for these funds has not been expeditious. Starting with this cycle, Program Income is immediate dollars. HUD has generally approved the schedule. The auditors found it to be a concern, and it was returned as a "finding" from higher administrative levels within HUD. Another concern expressed was that a file from 1999 did not have a comparison for replacement rather than repair of a roof, for a total of $1,600. The presentation schedule was reviewed with some noticeable dismay. The noted breaks will probably not happen. The program is for the applicant to summarize but not repeat information, followed by 10 minutes for questions. New programs are being presented by: Consumer Credit Counseling; Volunteers of America; Handyman; and CASA. FirstCall is not new, but is not currently funded. At the second meeting on April 3rd, the Affordable Housing Board will present its recommendations with regard to housing. Their meeting is on March 27th. The recommendation is based on written presentations. The Board will also suggest questions to ask of housing applicants. Springfield Court is talking to the Child Care Collaborative. CCAP funding was cut due to State cuts. The poverty level was increased to receive benefits and increased work requirements. The presentation and recommendation process was reviewed. The Affordable Housing Board and Staff provide guidance in terms of recommendations and rating. The Affordable Housing Board's recommendations apply only to housing projects. The Commission's ratings and decisions are based on its own evaluation. The point system in place is very effective, and the results are Community Development Block Grant Commission Meeting of March 6, 2003 Page 7 generally in line with the guidance provided, with the caveat that the Affordable Housing Board may have different priorities due to its mission. Nonqualified applicants are weeded out before the Commission's evaluation process. The final results are determined by the Commission through voting and final consensus. OTHER BUSINESS The memo from Karla Smith was reviewed regarding boards and commissions training. Mr. Majerus stated that the training last year was worthwhile. The training is an hour and a half to two hours, targeted particularly to new members. The conflict of interest piece is valuable, along with cautions concerning ex parte discussions. Staff will provide Ms. Steele with a Boards and Commissions Manual. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.