Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 10/12/19950 a CDBG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 12, 1995 The meeting of the CDBG Commission began at 6:25 p.m. in the Community Planning Conference Room, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Commission members present at the meeting included Chairman Dan MacArthur, Tom Hartmann, Tim Ostic, Holly Sample, William Steffes, and Joe Zimlich. Staff members present included Ken Waido, Jackie Davis, Julie Smith, and Mary Hile. Mr. MacArthur noted the resignation letter received by Rick Ramirez. Ms. Davis will confirm the eligibility list with the City Clerk. Mr. Bertschy has called to advise of his absence at the October and November meetings. He wishes to continue on the Commission, subject to approval. Commission members expressed satisfaction with Mr. Bertschy's continued presence on the Commission. Mr. Waido gave an overview of the work session to be held with Council and its importance in facilitating communication between the two entities. The November 28 work session has been postponed to January 9, 1996. Mr. Waido anticipates that the work session will focus on how best to use CDBG and HOME funds for affordable housing needs. He stressed that the Commission will need to formulate their selection criteria before the work session in order to discuss the issues with Council in a cogent fashion. Ms. Smith gave an overview of the progress in the HOME program. She referred to a copy of the report that was sent to Council on the home buyer program. With the encouraging number of closings that have occurred, funds for this program from both the '94 and '95 allocations are down to $38,000. Those funds will probably be allocated by November. Ms. Smith reviewed the allocation of other program funds as contained in the handout. In response to questions, Ms. Smith noted that: Funds can be moved from one program to another. Eligibility is based on 80 percent of median income. FHA mortgages are easier to approve than conventional, due to the second mortgage placed on the property. Discussion was held on the upcoming issue of whether to reprogram more money into the home buyer program or save remaining funds for a large project. TRAC may be requesting funds for a project on 10th Street. Ms. Smith noted that buyers are increasingly able to find homes. She noted that an applicant could own a rental house, as long as the income was accounted for and the HOME house was CDBG Commission Minutes October 12, 1995 Page 2 the applicant's primary residence. The maximum price for a house to qualify for the program is $123,000. Ms. Smith anticipates that in January, she will be placed half-time with the HOME program and half-time with other affordable housing issues within the Planning Department. No additional projects have applied for HOME funds, although some entities have expressed curiosity. Discussion was held concerning the emergence of Kaufman & Broad and possibly other large-scale builders; and the economies of scale in Fort Collins and lack of subsidies that discourage smaller builders from developing projects. Ms. Smith explained how changes in developments and degrees of success in obtaining subsidies present an ever -evolving picture of any given development. She reviewed the HUD criteria and guidelines for HOME allocations. Ms. Smith informed the Commission that she and Ms. Davis are considering hiring a consultant to analyze whether development costs are reasonable and necessary, the application of tax credits, and provide an overview and recommendations for CDBG and HOME programs for ease of reference by the Commission and Council. Consulting would be analytical and less subject to political influences. The proposed consultant would be helping in analyzing the applicants' information. Discussion was held on the delicate balance of the correct amount of subsidy in view of overall need and a project's effectiveness in addressing the need. Mr. Waido emphasized the need for the Commission to place objective rationales on its funding recommendations. In response to inquiry, Staff reviewed: The purposes of, and differences between, CDBG and HOME funding; CDBG priorities; the meaning, importance, and machinations of tax credits; housing eligibility criteria; and compliance monitoring. In response to questions, Ms. Smith stated that the questions concerning housing for elderly resulting from her concerns for that population. Elderly units have modifications similar to those existing for ADA units. Discussion was held on the feasibility of a joint HOME/CDBG application in regard to housing and the weighing of the programs' discrete requirements. It was noted that while CDBG money may be used for land acquisition, land banking is not allowed. Nonprofit entities are not necessarily needed to obtain CDBG funding. The CARE/Housing Authority, Kaufman & Broad, and Rosetree projects were analyzed in terms of funding sources. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mr. Zimlich: That Staff develop a joint CDBG/HOME application form for housing -related proposals. Discussion CDBG Commission lutes October 12, 1995 Page 3 was held on other CDBG funding areas and the application format needed. Concern was expressed that a burdensome application format may drive away prospective applicants. Staff felt that the detail level required by other agencies would familiarize applicants with that process. Critique was held of the Kaufman & Broad project, centering around: Project costs; restrictive deed issues; taking the HOME funding as a loan; and the company track record. Motion approved unanimously. Commission and Staff reiterated the philosophy of evaluating each project on its own merits and not comparing a project with numbers generated through a different application. Mr. Waido noted that due to the January work session with Council, applications will be open for two months - February and March - as opposed to the traditional three months. Discussion was held on the method of evaluating and scoring CDBG applications. Staff and Commission members opined on the relevance that staff scores had on the ultimate funding decisions. A CDC report is critical of the funding process as being fragmented and unsuccessful in promoting effective projects. Commission members noted their rejection of the City application in the past but reiterated their encouragement of a City application containing greater specificity. Staff noted an increase in collaborative efforts among agencies. It was felt that 15-percent level of public service funding is important and should remain. Some reservation was expressed that funding levels are unknown, as the 1996 Federal budget has not been passed. In response to inquiry, Staff reviewed the CDBG priorities and policies regarding: leveraging; current versus ongoing funding; success rate; probability of completion; meeting community needs; collaborative efforts; and other selection guidelines. The Commission discussed the difficulty experienced in initiating last year's funding discussions and their tentativeness in applying the points system. Staff emphasized the importance of setting forth specific grounds for funding or not funding and noted the format used in last year's written funding recommendations. Consensus was reached that this year, Staff will compile the scores advanced by the individual Commission members. A yes -or -no straw poll was recommended as a means of starting discussion on the 1996 funding recommendations. Further discussion was held on whether the Commission's proper role is reactive (evaluating applications) or proactive (soliciting specific and focused proposals). The Commission discussed the potential role of the Affordable Housing Board in a proactive endeavor. Mr. Waido explained the present status of the HUD conflict -of -interest policy and the members of that Board. CDBG Commission Minu,-s October 12, 1995 Page 4 Commission members noted the process and cost of putting a contract on land in order to have a site -specific application. A joint HOME/CDBG application would incur to the benefit of parties having difficulty obtaining a site. In response to inquiry, Staff reviewed: the site requirements; the funding contingencies inherent in most housing applications; the timetable that results from funding efforts; the allotted time for program funds; and the process of applying for additional funds. General Commission consensus was to: 1) not require site -specific applications; 2) create a funding pool to be assigned throughout the year, after review of applications. Commission members agreed that the pool must be sizable. The Commission discussed how this approach could help to alleviate the Pioneer situation as it evolves. Ms. Davis announced the RFP that was published concerning Pioneer. The West Elizabeth property was closed. Upon motion, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.