Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 08/08/20131 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APPROVED Minutes 215 N. MASON ST., FORT COLLINS August 8, 2013, 6:30 P.M. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Anita Basham Kay Rios, Chair Robert Browning Catherine Costlow Gordon Coombes Jamaal Curry Margaret Long Kristin Stephens STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Thomas; Heidi Phelps OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Poppaw, Fort Collins City Council; Kate Jeracki, Note Taker The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Robert Browning at 6:33 p.m. with a quorum present. PUBLIC COMMENT None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Margaret Long moved to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2013, meeting as presented. Gordon Coombes seconded. Motion passed unanimously. AGENDA REVIEW The Commission decided to move Housekeeping and Staff Reports to the beginning of the meeting to allow more time for discussion with the Commission’s Council Liaison. HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS/STAFF UPDATES Heidi Phelps said that lots of changes are underway in allowing the City of Fort Collins to continue to deliver “exceptional service to an exceptional community”. As part of that effort, City Council will be discussing ways to update and improve the efficiency of all Boards and Commissions at its upcoming retreat. The improvement process also includes the Commission updating its bylaws, which were last looked at in 2005. She distributed a copy for future discussion. 2 The City is also considering a possible name change for the Commission, to reflect that there are now five funding streams administered, not just Community Development Block Grant funds. A number of City Code changes need to occur, as well. Staff is working with the City Attorney’s Office on the Code items. The Code changes must be approved by City Council. She also distributed a copy of the CDBG Commission Work Plan for 2014, and asked Commissioners to for review and comment. The Work Plan must be approved by the September meeting of the Commission. Phelps reported that the City will be paying closer attention to compliance performance related to receipt and use of federal and state grants across the organization. The City has hired a Grants Compliance Administrator [former Commission member Emily Sander] to assist with standardization and conformance of grants administration processes across the organization. Sharon Thomas reported that part the September CDBG Commission meeting will also be a Public Hearing. Staff is also in the middle of the Fall Competitive Process launch, with applications due next week. To date, the City has received 10 program proposals for $2.1 million, and two public facility proposals for $1.1 million. Thomas asked the Commission if it would be possible to reschedule the application deliberations now set for October 10th, to allow both staff and applicants to attend the State Housing Conference in Vail that week. Presentations would remain on September 26th. Bob Browning asked that the entire Commission be polled by email, to be followed by a Commission decision. Thomas said the conference, which occurs annually, is being noted on next year’s CDBG Commission scheduling calendar, in order to avoid a scheduling conflict. Phelps presented a letter from Elderhaus thanking the Commission for its support. DISCUSSION WITH CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, COUNCIL MEMBER LISA POPPAW The Commission welcomed City Councilmember Lisa Poppaw, who is the Commission’s Council Liaison. She said she was here to get the Commission’s input on the funding process and what improvements Commissioners would like to see. Bob Browning said he thought the most recent funding cycle process went well. He suggested that the application be revised to add more items more relevant to the Commission, to help the applicants tell the Commission about their project or how they would use the money they are requesting. He said having more information about the projects would allow Commissioners to do a better job making a decision‐‐especially when deciding between two worthy projects‐‐based on the limited amount of funds available. 3 Sharon Thomas said staff is already in the process of redesigning the application, and removing things that are only needed after a funding decision is made. She said she hoped to have a draft for the Commission to review at the September meeting. Gordon Coombes said it would be helpful to know where each project fits in with other things the City is doing. He said that more information on Council and City priorities and strategic efforts would give context to decision making. Poppaw agreed that funding should fall in line with Council priorities, which are set out in both City Plan (Plan Fort Collins) and the current City Budget. City Plan represents the opinions of more than a thousand community members who voted for their priorities in the most recent update. Since it is a very long document, she said it should be best to highlight key areas for the Commission in a condensed form. Margaret Long pointed out that improving the documents and application forms will help applicants explain not only what they are doing, but the impact that their work makes on the community. She said she thinks the Commission did a good job in this funding cycle, even though some applications didn’t get funding. Commissioners need to be educated about the projects, and applicants need to educate the Commission. Poppaw asked for the best way to ensure Commissioners have enough information to make an educated decision. She made some of the following suggestions: inviting regular visits from agencies that have received funding for updates on how they are spending the money; site visits by Commissioners to applicants’ facilities; and education and training sessions for the Commission. She also noted that five‐minute applicant presentations followed by 10 minutes of questions can’t get to the root of the work that applicants are doing, and its impact on the community. Poppaw also said it was important for Commissioners to check their biases at the door, and be sure that decisions are made based on to make verbal and written information presented. Anita Basham said she gets more out of the presentations and questions, than from the applications. She said she would find site visits educational, including informational sit‐ down sessions with agency directors. Coombes said it was important to avoid conflicts of interest. At the same time, it is helpful for Commissioners to understand more about the agencies, in order to bring more knowledge into the funding recommendation deliberations. He noted that a balance has to be sought. Kristin Stephens said the number of applicants in this cycle who had not asked for funding before, had her thinking about the parameters of what the Commission should 4 fund. She said that while many were good projects, some proposals—especially this year‐‐seemed not to have been the best match for Competitive Process funding. She thought Commissioners should be respectful and hear applicants’ presentations, but stand by any decision not to fund a proposal. She said she voted the way she did during deliberations, based on her understanding regarding the priority for funding basic needs and affordable housing over public facility proposals. She said it was important to preserve the affordable housing inventory that the City has, since that inventory is shrinking and the quality is slipping. While a worthy need, the request for public facilities [direct client service space for agencies] funding is only part of the equation, and may be a lesser priority. Stephens also noted that just because the goals of a proposal are worthy, doesn’t mean the project, as presented, is ready for the funding requested. [SHARON, wasn’t part of this you?] Heidi Phelps said that in the coming year, the City’s Social Sustainability Department will be focused on more analysis and strategic mechanisms in decided program and funding priorities. One of those projects is the Gap Analysis, which can be compared to a municipal version of a HUD‐required Consolidated Plan [community snapshot of needs and priorities]. The outcomes of that project, as well as other initiatives, should to allow Commissioners to make more strategic decisions on ways to spend the limited amount of Competitive Process money available. Sharon Thomas also reminded Commissioners that staff is always available to answer questions about procedure. If a member is not comfortable voting to approve a particular proposal, they have to option to abstain. Coombes said it was a competitive process for a reason. No entity, no matter how many times its proposals have been funded, should expect to receive funding every year, sole based on it being requested. Previous funding awardees need to realize that the proportion of available dollars to requested funding amounts, is shrinking. He noted that agencies should always be focused on improving their services to better serve the community. Phelps suggested that staff include a brief summary of City Plan housing and community development highlights‐‐as well as any other pertinent City strategic priorities‐‐for the Commission’s information during competitive process cycles. Thomas said she hoped staff would be able to provide that during the fall Competitive Process round, so that the Commission could review proposals for alignment before deliberations. Thomas also suggested that possible changes to the applicant presentations format could be discussed at a future meeting. Poppaw put forth possible alternative action on Commission meetings that have been cancelled in the past, due to a lack of pressing agenda items. She suggested that the Commission instead use those opportunities to developing increased context for 5 evaluating applications. Some time frames could include formal training sessions in various areas. Long said she would like to be able to share thoughts about the presentations before the actual formal public deliberations, in order to clear up any possible misunderstandings. Stephens agreed, saying that she feels pressure in making decisions in front of so many people at the deliberations session. She also shared that she sometimes does not feel confident making a motion that expresses her true intent. Basham agreed, and noted that motions are especially difficult to make at the end of the evening, when the Commission needs to make the numbers balance. Poppaw said that staff is there to help Commissioners facilitate the meeting, and to be sure that Robert’s Rules are followed. Council has a parliamentarian that fills that role, but Council is still responsible for the actual decisions. Browning asked if it would be possible to go into executive session to receive guidance on wording a motion. Poppaw said that couldn’t be done, since requirements for going into executive session are very narrow, and does not include the above option. Phelps said that while the intention is to keep the process clean by not linking two actions in one motion, there needs to be a better understanding of how to have one action follow another. Thomas reminded Commissioners they can stop the proceedings to ask staff for clarification at any time. Poppaw asked that the discussions and deliberations remain professional at all times, and be focused on the application, not on the applicant. The Commission could practice these discussions in training, she added. There was discussion on the appropriate amount of staff involvement in clarifying any misinformation or misstatements during deliberations, in particular. Browning said past protocol was for staff interaction with the commission to be limited, since the City’s often also being an applicant for funding presented some challenges. Poppaw stated that the Commission’s greater goal was to make the best possible funding decisions based on the most accurate information, and that staff interaction should contribute to that outcome as much as is necessary. Poppaw said she would take the Commission’s feedback back to City Council, and asked anyone with additional issues or recommendations not discussed during this time to email them to her. She is leading the Boards and Commissions Futures Committee. That committee is tasked with considering the contribution each Board and Commission makes, their relevance and processes, and evaluating the roles of Boards and Commissions are not aligned with the City’s current direction. She again stressed that it was critical for Commission members to make site visits to agencies receiving funding. Thomas said she does many site visits. She offered to make arrangement for 6 Commissioners to accompany her, or to do site visits separately. Poppaw said it would be up to the Commission to decide how to ensure against creating conflicts of interest. Both Basham and Coombes said they found being able to review the recorded presentations at a later time helpful in their decision‐making process. It helped with refreshing information and clearing up any personal question on what was actually said. Thomas said that taping this past spring’s round of presentations was especially critical, because of the anticipated lag between presentations and deliberations [due to hold‐up on Congressional decisions on federal funding]. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next meeting is a regular Commission meeting, and will also include a Public Hearing on current program year use and planned upcoming use of federal funds. That meeting will occur on Thursday, September 12, 2013, 215 N. Mason, Community Room, at 6:30 p.m. Applicant presentations for the Fall 2013 Competitive Process will be heard on September 26th, beginning at 6:00 p.m.