Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 04/09/1992CDBG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 9, 1992 Council Liaison: Loren Maxey Staff Liaisons: Ken Waido, Jackie Davis The regular meeting of the CDBG Commission began at 6:40 p.m. in the Community Planning and Environmental Services Conference Room at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Commission members present included Tom Dougherty, Rachael Michels, Joe Zimlich, Carolyn Early, Lou Stitzel, Dan MacArthur, Bobbie Guye, and Tina Marie Ribera. Members absent included Tom Byington, Bill Bertschy, Jim Burrill and Josie Mata. Staff members present include Chief Planner Ken Waido, Community Development Specialist Jackie Davis, and Kayla Ballard. Meeting guests included Council Member Loren Maxey and Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman. COUNCIL MEMBER LOREN MAXEY Council Member Maxey stated that Council had not awarded any change in policy relative to direction of the CDBG grant. He stated that there was a strong desire by Council to get as much as possible for the dollars that are available. He stated that another on -going policy was to review the programs which appear to be dependent solely upon block grant monies. He stated that Council's reaction was good relative to the first year of the CDBG Commission's operation. Chairman Dougherty stated that the Commission would consider the leverage of funds with applications and would give attention to the on -going programs. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 13, 1922 MEETING Member Zimlich moved to approve the minutes of the February 13, 1992 meeting. Member Stitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. ETHICS POLICY Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman suggested that the Commission seek the opinion of the Board of Ethics which Council had created. He stated that the Board of Ethics was authorized and charged to review and investigate actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of interest presented by individual Council members or boards and commission members and to render advisory opinion or interpretations pertaining to such inquiries. He stated that, according to the City Code, any Council member may present, directly to the Review Board, any inquiry or complaint regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under a state statute or the charter or code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Council member or board or commission member. He believed that this was interpreted in the past as to seeking access to the Board of Ethics through the Council Liaison. If the liaison was willing to take the situation to the Board of Ethics, then an opinion could be formed by the Board of Ethics. He believed that the charter has a good provision regarding conflicts of interest, in both financial and personal interests, of which he saw no financial interest arising in this case. Mr. Waido stated that the issue of whether this case was financial or personal needed to be discussed separately. He believed that the current discussion should be the role of a commission member and a decision maker on the commission and if there was a relationship as to who was a board of director and who might be an employee. 1 • • CDBG Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 1992 Page 2 Mr. Eckman cited the charter as saying: "Any officer [by definition is any board member of the CDBG Commission] who has or who's relative has, a financial interest or a personal interest in a decision of a public body [by definition is the CDBG Commission] of which he or she is a member or to which he or she makes recommendations, must upon the discovery of that interest, whether it be financial or personal, disclose the interest in the official records of the City. After disclosing, they must refrain from voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in the decision in any manner as an officer or employee." Mr. Eckman stated that a personal interest was defined as any interest other than a financial interest arising from blood or marriage relationships, or from close business, political or personal association or concerns, of which this was a personal association, which would, in the judgement of a reasonably prudent person, tend to impair independence of judgement or action in the performance of official discretionary duties. He stated that the idea for adding the word 'concern" to this definition was that there might be an occasion where a Council or Board member was not a partner with an issue before the board but was a competitor, so that the Board member would tend to vote against anything that the applicant was requesting because of the competition. Member Early stated that there was no funding given to New Bridges last year although an application was submitted. Member Coxen arrived at this time. Member Stitzel stated that she was a member of the board of New Bridges however, she did not vote on the application last year. She added that the TRAC submittal for this year was for an acquisition with no request for operation or administration funding which she would have no personal or financial gain. She stated that she would not be involved in answering questions of the TRAC application in May. She added that since TRAC was an acquisition request, she would refrain from voting on, or participating in discussion of, any of the acquisition request items. Mr. Waido explained that there was no set monies for just acquisition. He stated that the funds were in one pot and all the applications would be drawing from the same pot of money. Member Stitzel stated that this brought up the issue that if anyone with any kind of housing interest should not be able to serve on this Commission. This Commission is supposed to be dedicated to housing. She asked if this meant that people that do not have other experiences should be eliminated. She stated that the funds that she was requesting were only in the acquisition field. Member Cozen stated that this was not an issue of trust but rather of the appearance that there not be any conflict of interest. Chairman Dougherty believed that what was lacking in this situation was whether a person was prudent. 1 • • CDBG Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Eckman stated that the Charter does not require that the appearance of a conflict be avoided although this might have been one of the preambles to the issue when it first arose. He stated there must be an analysis of whether, in the judgement of a reasonably prudent person, this interest would tend to impair Member Stitzel's impedance of judgement. He questioned if this would appear, to a reasonably prudent person, that her independence of judgement was impaired. Council Member Maxey stated that this would have the same effect on everyone and not a selected effect. Mr. Eckman stated that one way to resolve this issue would be to take it to Council's Board of Ethics. He had a concern that someone might say this was a conflict and would file a complaint, of which they would have the right to seek the assistance of the City Attorney's office in the filing of a misdemeanor complaint. Any violation of the Charter is a misdemeanor. If a person is found to be guilty of a violation of the Charter, then they would be deprived of their office or employment for a period of two years. Member MacArthur stated that this Commission would not be able to determine this issue and it should be resolved before the Commission goes into their deliberations on the new applications. He believed that the Commission should proceed with the formal request of having the Board of Ethics resolve the situation. Mr. Eckman stated that even if the Board of Ethics makes a decision on this issue, there would not be a force of law. However, if the Commission were to operate under the protection under an ethics opinion, they would be acting in good faith. Council Member Maxey stated that he would take this to the Board of Ethics. David Herrera, Director of the Housing Authority, asked, hypothetically, how it would be perceived if the Housing Authority petitioned the City Council for appointment of himself for the CDBG Commission and he turned in an application for a $500,000 request from CDBG Program funding. He asked if this would pass the test for appearance of impropriety. He also asked if there was a conflict with the City of Fort Collins participating in the CDBG funding request. He asked if it was a conflict in all circumstances. Member Coxen asked Member Stitzel if it was possible for someone else from her organization to operate and apply for funding instead of herself and if she could relinquish some of the control that she has with that agency. Member Stitzel stated that a person could separate themselves from their agency to apply. She reiterated that other people from her agency would be present during the question and answer session with the Commission. She added that TRAC was not asking for administration funding. Member Guye asked that, since she was an employee of Disabled Resources and they applied for funding, would she have to refrain from voting on or discussion of, items under the Public Services category, although the request is for funding from a different project other than what she is employed. CDBG Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 1992 Page 4 Chairman Dougherty stated that Member Guye's situation would be under a secondary conflict. Member MacArthur stated that deciding who was a prudent person brings it back to appearance again. He believed that the Commission needs to go forward or the issue needs to be resolved. Ms.Davis commented that if there was an acquisition project application and there were funds coming from mortgages and other sources, it would be the total project, not just the CDBG projects as far as HUD is concerned. If there is a financial benefit from other funds that are not CDBG, it would still have an effect on the CDBG funds. Member Stitzel stated that if TRAC had any administration funding, it would come from an outside foundation. Ms. Davis replied that this would not make any difference in that it is all lumped together. Chairman Dougherty stated that since the Commission serves at the pleasure of City Council and ultimately the Commission decisions are to influence the Council, then this should be a Council issue or a Council -appointed commission issue. Mr Eckman stated that the Code authorized all affected Council members or board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering their opinion. Another option would be to ignore it and see what happens. Member Stitzel believed that it would be better if this issue were to be taken to the Board of Ethics because this will become more and more of an issue since the dollars are becoming more scarce. She stated that whatever the results, she would be able to adhere to the decision. Member Guye again questioned if she would be able to discuss or vote on the Public Service category items. Mr. Eckman stated that he believed she did not have a financial interest but it could be questionable as to whether she had a personal interest. He stated that a financial interest could be an interest of an employee of a business in a decision of any public body when the decision financially benefits or otherwise affects such business, of which Member Guye is an employee of a business, and the decision of the public body does financially benefit the business. But it is not a financial interest if her interest does not entail foreseeable or measurable financial benefit to the employee. He did not see how the grant could affect her salary in any way. However, is it foreseeable that if the grant is not received, could she be laid off. Member Cozen stated that the grant would not affect her employment status since it is a different project than where Member Guye is employed. Member Coxen asked how it was perceived if members of the Commission were on boards of organizations that have received money in the past but did not vote on their particular item but on items in the same category. Chairman Dougherty stated that this was the question at hand. 1 • • CDBG Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 1992 Page 5 Council Member Maxey stated that if the request is made of the Ethics Committee, it is received and does not need support of Council. If it is a Council Member requesting the support of the Ethics Committee, then it does not need to have a formal motion from the board or commission. He stated that he would take this to the Board of Ethics. PUTNAM-FULLANA PARK AMENDMENT REQUEST Mr. Waido presented a brief background on the request to change the $25,000 proposal from a land acquisition project to the purchasing of playground equipment. Jim Sandoval, Poudre R-1 School District, stated that two things occurred to the school district in not acquiring the land, first the land purchase was significantly more than the assessed value of the property and the school district believed they could not expend the funds at this time to renovate the land to make it appropriate for the community in that particular area. He encouraged the Commission to consider transferring the $25,000 to the purchase of playground equipment because it would serve the same purpose that the land acquisition would. Member Early asked what equipment they had in mind to purchase. Mr. Sandoval stated that it would be outdoor equipment such as slides and swings. He stated that the playground equipment that had been there was removed due to safety reasons, with the understanding that the $25,000 could be used for new equipment and that the PTO would try to raise dollars for additional equipment. Member Coxen asked Mr. Sandoval if he had any price quotes. Mr. Sandoval stated that there was quotes but he did not have them with him. However, it was not to exceed $25,000. Chairman Dougherty asked how much money had been raised independently from the grant. Mr. Sandoval replied $10,000. He added that the cost of playground equipment is costly and what you would get for $10,000 is minuscule. Member Coxen asked Mr. Sandoval if the Commission could receive a copy of the price quotes. Mr. Sandoval stated that he would supply the quotes for the Commission. Member Coxen commented that the removal of the playground equipment was premature not knowing that this grant would be awarded. She asked what the contingency plan was if the grant was not awarded. Mr. Sandoval stated part of the equipment was removed for safety considerations and it would be replaced with the $10,000. He added that Poudre R-1's goal was to establish partnerships within the community. Last year the City assisted the school district in placing sod in the playground area. The district donated $12,000 for the sod. Their goal is to continue that partnership with the City and do something for the minority population of that part of the city and to link up with the Parks and Recreation Department. 1 • • CDBG Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 1992 Page 6 Member Coxen asked why the property acquisition was not the priority. Mr. Sandoval stated that the property owner was asking $29,000 for the property and the assessed value was $19,000 and, secondly, the school district did not believe that they could allocate the dollars to develop the property to include playground equipment and things for the community. Mr. Waido added that in order to acquire the land, the City would require an appraisal of the property and the City would not pay more than the appraised price. Member MacArthur asked if there were negotiations with the property owner. Mr. Sandoval stated that there were no negotiations. Chairman Dougherty asked if the City granted land acquisition dollars contingent upon Poudre R-1's willingness to develop the site along with whatever other funds were available. Mr. Sandoval stated that this was correct. Member Coxen asked what happened with grants in the past that have not been able to meet specifications at the time the grant was originally made. Mr. Waido replied that if the project cannot be fulfilled as requested, then the funds would come back for reprogramming. He added City Council has adopted a resolution which allocates the funds to certain applicants for certain purposes. This particular request is a change in that must be formally amended. Chairman Dougherty had concerns that two taxable entities, the City and the school district, each have line items for playground equipment. He commented that these entities were approaching CDBG to gratify their shortfall. Member Coxen moved to reprogram the funds for land acquisition since the applicant could not meet the criteria and asked the school district to reapply. Mr. Waido stated there could be an exception since the Commission knows what the application was for and wishes to change the stated purpose. Member Coxen amended her motion to include the exception for reapplication for the school district since the deadline has expired. Member MacArthur seconded the motion. Member Stitzel stated that $35,000 was not enough and believed that Parks and Recreation should assist in acquiring the equipment. Member MacArthur commented he felt strongly about this since it was an entire change of use and it had not been reviewed by the Commission. He stated that he would not have voted to support this application because there are many other worthwhile needs that the reappropriated money could support. _ • • CDBG Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 1992 Page 7 The motion passed 6-3 with Members Stitzel, Early and Zimlich in the negative. Chairman Dougherty stated last year the Commission concurred once their decisions were established, they would go to Council with a consensus decision. He asked the Commission if they wished to continue this policy. Member Stitzel stated that since this vote was a majority and the Commission was not a legislative body, there should be a minority opinion report. Chairman Dougherty stated that the Commission was recommending denial of a proposal and that they were not funding items that should conceivably be funded somewhere else. Member Zimlich believed that only one vote should go to Council. Member Stitzel moved that the reports to City Council on the CDBG Commission action of the Putnam-Fullana Park Amendment issue be reported as a unanimous recommendation. Member Coxen seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 9-0. HUMAN SERVICES POLICY Mr. Waido presented to the Commission a video tape of the City's involvement in the Human Services Policy. He stated that City Council will conduct a worksession on May 12, 1992, regarding this issue and will receive any comments and feedback that the CDBG Commission submits. Member Coxen commented that since there are other agencies that contribute money, maybe a centralized human service commission could be better equipped to screen all human service grant applicants, then the 15% of the City's portion of CDBG funds could be put toward a general fund that could be managed by the million dollar agencies to then allocate and centralize the entire process. Mr. Waido stated that this would be an option although it may create some complications from an administrative perspective. Member Stitzel commented that this was a possible place for innovative programs although it has not always come across that way. She added that there was an opportunity for visionary programs. Since the status quo is not solving what all of the intense needs are, areas are needed to be kept open for innovative programs. She stated that the more bureaucratic one gets by having things all together, some of the programs that won't be applied for may be squeezed out. Mr. Waido stated that this was an issue that the Commission should not take lightly. The Commission will have to respond to City Council because of their relationship with human service applicants and the decision process to fund or not fund certain applicants is helpful to City Council. Member Stitzel commented that there has never been a true delineation of the scope. She added that she was pleased to see some of these scopes defined through the Human Services Policy. 4 CDBG Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 1992 Page 8 Member Coxen commented that another way to determine how the City should identify what human services needs are not being meet with the community would be to survey those individuals who are currently receiving services. Those are the individuals who would best know what needs are not being met. She suggested that a way to do that would be through agencies contacting their clientele. Member MacArthur commented that more resources need to be put into doing it than studying it and finding out what the problem is. Member Stitzel stated that it is not finding out what the problems are but finding out what the extend is of them and to know where the agencies are that might be doing this. She stated that this is the role of the CHAS. Mr. Waido stated that the Commission should forward their opinions on these questions, individually, to the CDBG office then they will be forwarded to the City Council. City Council will continue on with the process after the May 12 worksession and the CDBG Commission will be involved. Member MacArthur commented that this could be dealt with as a Commission at a special session after the funding cycle is over. UNITED DAY CARE AMENDMENT REQUEST Mr. Waido presented a brief background on the request to change the $100,000 awarded to United Day Care in purchasing the LCSI building to assign their rights to the United Way because United Way would be the owner of the building. He believed that this was a procedural process because the money was going for the same purpose but would be under different names. He added that there was no change in the application or the way that the money would be used. Ms. Davis stated that the tenants would not have a reduction in rent until the building was paid off. Member Coxen commented that a part of the agreement was lowering the rent so more services could be provided. She added that she did not feel comfortable with the rent not being lowered. She asked that if this cannot be done, can the Commission ask that a contingency be placed with this approval. Member MacArthur asked that if they keep the rents at the current level, would it accelerate the principle payoff of the building. Ms. Davis replied that there would be a reduction in principle which would save on interest then they could apply for the balance of the funds. She added that it has been stipulated that it be paid off within three years or they would have to pay it back. Chairman Dougherty believed there were two issues, one being that the deal did not appear to be sound and two, that this was not a marketable security. CDBG Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 1992 Page 9 Ms. Davis stated that a question HUD had regarding this matter was that if United Way did not serve 51% of CDBG's low -mod by definition, then the total amount could not be allocated. Member MacArthur moved to deny this request for transfer of assignment and that the funds be reprogrammed with the provision that they be allowed to reapply for those funds in this year's funding cycle. Member Dougherty seconded the motion. Member Coxen asked why they were requesting the reassignment. Ms. Davis replied that United Day Care applied for the funds. When the application was submitted, the intent was that United Day Care would not own the building. United Day Care then decided that there was no need to form a new non-profit because United Way was willing to take ownership of the building and the administration of the building at a time when the funds were totally paid off. Then at that point, they would only charge maintenance and upkeep but would still own the building and liquidate the assets. Motion to deny the request carried 9-0. DISTRIBUTION OF PROPOSAL PACKETS Mr. Waido presented a memo that explained the FYI 992 grant which was for $795,000 and that $7,000 had been added to the program from FY1990. Notification of this additional money for 1990 was received too late to put into the program in 1991 so it has been carried over to this year's program. He stated that there was $50,000 of program income which makes a total amount of $852,000 for allocation. The $795,000 needs to be kept separate from $7,000 because HUD would not allow CDBG to take the percentages out of the $7,000. He briefly explained the breakdown of the three categories and the amounts and HUD's allowances for each. He noted that more information on the TRAC application and CARE, and amendments to the two Neighbor -to -Neighbor applications had been distributed to the Commission. He asked the Commission if, at the time of proposal review, wished to have just question and answer periods or have each applicant make a presentation. The Commission concurred that the applicants not be allowed to give presentations. Mr. Waido stated that a letter would be sent to all of the applicants informing them that they would not be allowed to give a presentation. He added that the schedule for the question and answer session would be extremely tight and CDBG Commission members should be prompt on both May 6th and 7th. Chairman Dougherty asked that two letters be sent to the Commission as a reminder of the review of proposals and that their attendance is of great importance. Mr. Waido stated that the Commission received a Proclamation by Mayor Kirkpatrick regarding Community Development Week at the April 7, 1992 Council meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.