Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 06/11/2015COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 321 MAPLE STREET, FORT COLLINS JUNE 11, 2015, 6:30PM COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Long (Chair) Anita Basham Holly Carroll (Vice Chair) Catherine Costlow Steve Backsen Taylor Dunn COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephanie Mertens Jamaal Curry STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Thomas OTHERS PRESENT: Kristin Stephens, Councilmember and CDBG Commission Liaison, Donna Visocky, Note Taker The meeting was called to order by Chair, Margaret Long at 6:33 pm with a quorum present. PUBLIC COMMENT: None APROVAL OF MINUTES: Taylor Dunn moved that the minutes from April 16, 2015 be approved as presented. Steve Backsen seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Kristen Stephens thanked the Commission for funding the many projects that they did and said she appreciated the hard work that the group put into the process. She also noted that there will not be a funding process in the fall. Chair Margaret Long asked what the future plans for the CDBG Commission are. She asked Stevens how the BOB Funding for housing will be handled. Who will be making the decisions? Stephens felt decisions will be made by Council and asked if the Commission would have suggestions on how that money should be used. Long indicated that yes, the Commission would like to provide input as they have background knowledge and experience in this area. Stephens felt many on Council are looking at the issue of housing affordability and looking at solutions across the spectrum including workforce housing rather than just low-income housing. The Council’s will is to add affordable housing and use BOB funding for that purpose. They are also looking at the Land Bank program to see how that might be used to alleviate the affordable housing issue. 2 One property is on Kechter Rd., one on Vine and another on west Horsetooth. One is horse property, a couple have houses on them. Also looking at the possibility of multi- use buildings on some of them. Sharon Thomas noted that all of those properties are in discussion right now. She stated that the original purpose for the land bank was to purchase property and wait until there is no more buildable land and then make those properties available for affordable housing. They are now reviewing that plan to see if this an appropriate time. Catherine Costlow asked if land bank property is available for sale to developers. Stephens replied that no, at this time, it is restricted and not available for sale. Holly Carroll commented that it appears Council will be making the determination on how to appropriate the $4 million in BOB funding. Margaret Long said it is a good fit for the Commission to handle facilitating a program like this. Stephens will talk to Council about using the CDBG Commission to help facilitate the program. Long asked how best the Commission can advocate to council for an increase in the service agency dollars. Steve Backsen noted that the Commission feels a strong case can be made for using some of the excess tax revenues in this area. Stephens asked how short the funding was for service agencies. Thomas said they were short roughly a half a million dollars. Backsen mentioned that it has been difficult to get a handle on United Way funding, agency by agency. Thomas agreed saying last year they received the list of agencies funded by United Way, but not the dollar amounts. Backsen feels that United Way is funding health care and prevention programs and many other agencies are being shorted as United Way has shifted their focus. Also their total dollars are dropping. He would like to get the numbers and see the trends, which is important for the Commission as they consider their funding. Long and Carroll are involved in United Way funding. Many agencies are getting less and less in funding according to reports from the agencies. Long said she is seeing significant decreases including an overall 35-50% decrease in funding for basic needs. The question for United Way: Why is this info not transparent? According to Carroll, more and more donations are being designated by the donor. Backsen said there are still immediate needs that require being taken care of now. If United Way is not open to addressing and supporting these immediate needs, then someone (organization) needs to step up and take care of them. He also noted that many agencies have cultivated their own strong development programs in order to meet their growing needs, which also targets more donors directly. Anita Bashan suggested that the focus of the United Way has changed and has forced individual agencies in our community to do individual fundraising. Catherine Costlow suggested that United Way needs to sell their value added. More and more donors are opting out and making other choices and supporting individual organizations. Long agreed. The world has changed and people want to see 3 more value added and more bang for their donation buck. Last year United Way only had $750,000 in undesignated funds to divide up. Unfortunately, United Way’s success is dependent on showing success/outcomes. Stephens agreed; every program today is focused on outcomes. Steve Backsen again asked the question: How do we request more dollars for public service programs? Thomas stated that the budget process is through BFO every two years and Council approves the budget. That is the normal time to ask for more dollars based on greater need. Backsen noted that a few hundred thousand dollars more would really help meet the needs of the agencies, especially since the City is taking in more tax dollars than anticipated. Thomas stated that when the Competitive Process Review took place in 2014 there were discussions about removing the federal dollars from funding the nonprofit human service agencies and backfill with City dollars. Each year the City is allowed to use up to 15% of CDBG funds for human services, roughly $150,000–$200,000. However the 5-7 agencies that receive these funds have an extra regulatory burden placed on them that would not be there if they were awarded City dollars instead of federal. Stephens asked if there are any agencies that are particularly struggling. Thomas said one example was the Alliance for Suicide Prevention. Long commented that a lack of funding has forced some agency collaborations which is good, but it has also forced agencies to spend a large amount of time on fundraising, time that is not put toward programs. Thomas said families are directly affected when programs are cut. She also commented that it is good that there is a lot of focus on affordable housing, but it is also important to support the agencies who help the person/family. Taylor Dunn asked if it is the Commission’s job to advocate for funding for certain programs. Stephens said the Commission’s mission is to advise City Council in matters of funding. Thomas noted that the Commission has gained the Council’s respect over the years and they appreciate their input and suggestions. Backsen emphasized that we are talking about the quality of life for our community. Stephens noted that she is the liaison with Council and requested that the Commission put all requests to Council in one letter and she will present it. Backsen asked if Stephens would need to see a draft of the letter in advance. Yes, she would like to review the letter first and then share with the rest of Council. Backsen noted he would like to be part of this process and asked if the Commission agreed to move forward with this. There was consensus to move forward with a written request to Council. It was decided to create a sub group to compose the letter and then review with the Commission before giving to Stephens. 4 Thomas noted that Stephen’s spot on the Commission needs to be replaced. She will talk to the City Clerk’s office about a replacement. She felt it would be nice to bring the replacement on board now to get them familiar with the Commission. Competitive Process Debrief Margaret Long asked for feedback on the Competitive Process and how the group felt about how it went. Backsen gave kudos to Thomas and staff for putting together a fair and efficient process saying it was well coordinated. Long shared that whenever staff gave information it was very helpful and made decision making easier. She noted that more and more agency representatives are showing up at the meeting. Thomas reported that she didn’t receive any negative comments from the agencies and all were grateful for what they received. Basham said she noticed a lot of mistakes regarding numbers on various grant requests. Thomas said she did not have an opportunity to review the grants closely, look for errors and send back for changes. She will discuss it in the grant training meeting and encourage better oversight. Long stressed the importance of getting the numbers to add up if agencies want to be successful. She suggested they bring the person in the organization who understands the numbers with them when they present their proposal. Backsen said he was impressed with the presentations; overall the agencies were well-prepared and very passionate about their programs. Long asked if they should do anything differently. Dunn said he would like to see the list randomized rather than alphabetical. He felt that the agencies at the bottom got short changed. Basham noted that was inherent in the process, whoever is at the bottom risks getting less. Backsen suggested that grouping services by type might help, rather than having them listed at random. Costlow said that in the past the Commission would recommend funding based on what each Commission member wanted to give, and then negotiate afterwards to balance the budget. Members had their eye on the dollars left rather than what they felt the organization should receive or needed. Basham felt the Commission should determine funding based on the amount they want to give, not the dollar amount left in the budget. Carroll said that despite being aware of the bottom line at all times, she felt the outcome was pretty much the same. Thomas asked if the Commission would like the bottom line number to be hidden until after they had finished allocating and then they could negotiate to balance. It was decided to continue the discussion at future meetings. BY-LAWS REVISION A copy of the current By-Laws with suggested revisions was given to Commission members. Red and blue edits are suggested changes. Taylor Dunn asked for clarification 5 that the By-Laws Revision is only a recommendation to Council on suggested changes. Thomas was waiting for clarification from the City Clerk’s office. It was noted that over the years the Commission went from 13–9 members but that was never changed in the By-laws. Carroll asked if 6:30 p.m. was the best time for the meetings. Dunn offered that 5:30 p.m. would be too early though he thought 6 p.m. might work. It was agreed to change the CDBG Commission meetings to 6:00 p.m. Thomas will see if the Commission can make that change or if approval is needed. Carroll made a motion to accept the draft changes to the By-Laws and that staff liaison move it forward to present to Council. Costlow seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. PERIODIC REVIEW Sharon Thomas told the group that every so often each board and commission must go before Council to show that the Commission is still meeting its mission and purpose. She handed out a copy of the Periodic Review Questionnaire. The Commission’s mission is compared with the City’s Strategic Plan to see if it is still aligned with key strategic outcomes. She noted three areas of strategic outcomes that the Commission is aligned with: 1. Community and Neighborhood Livability 2. Economic Health 3. High Performing Government Council will conduct reviews at the July 7 Work Session. She feels the Commission is on purpose and fully aligned. STAFF REPORTS– Sharon Thomas 1. Sustainability Services year in review hand out (handed out at public meetings) 2. The new Chief Sustainability Officer, Jackie Kozel-Thiel, will be a good champion for the CDBG’s program/purpose. 3. The department is working on a pamphlet that focuses on Social Sustainability exclusively. 4. Thomas reported that they are having some issues with SERVE 6.8. Former and current employees, partners and volunteers have contacted her with concerns about how the agency is being managed. Staff conducted an audit to review files, interview employees, etc. Most information in the files was good. However, after interviewing employees and agency partners they found some inconsistencies with how the agency is run. Staff will be meeting with more agency partners and clients in the near future. Staff is working on a report that describes the concerns about SERVE 6.8 and the audit findings. Basham asked what recourse they have. Thomas replied no recourse; however, 6 if the Commission feels they are not meeting the intended use of the Murphy Center the Commission can choose how to fund them in subsequent years. Backsen asked how the agencies receive their funding. Is it periodically throughout the year? Thomas said they spend their money then submit a request for reimbursement. This is reviewed and if it is satisfactory the agency gets reimbursed; most do this monthly and a few are quarterly. Backsen then asked if it was possible to discontinue the funding based on the concerns. Thomas’ reply was no, concerns are not valid reasons to discontinue funding. It must be a major incident, though they can require certain qualifications and experience for any staff positions hired in the future, if they fund salaries for those positions. Costlow asked about the contract with SERVE 6.8 regarding the Murphy Center. According to Thomas, SERVE 6.8 was given the building when United Way was ready to have another agency take responsibility for managing the facility. Long noted that United Way initially created the program and with a plan to run it for three years. They ended up running it for five years and were anxious to give it up. OTHER 1- United Way Funding – Marcy Yoder from United Way is willing to address the Commission. Backsen is looking for a 3-year history of agency funding. Long will invite her to the August meeting and they will ask for the history at that time. She suggested it might be good to ask for at least five years which would give them a clearer picture. If she is unable to provide the requested info, Thomas will ask the agencies funded by the City for the information directly. Carrol said she would like a good picture of the impact of United Way funding on the community. 2- Letter to City Council requesting an increase in funding for human service programs - Margaret Long asked for volunteers to draft the letter. Backsen volunteered to create the initial draft and then send to Thomas for comments. It will then be shared with the Commission for review. Long will present the letter to Kristin Stephens, Council Liaison. 3- Non-profit Agency Tours – Margaret Long asked who was interested in doing the tours. Thomas suggested it be organized by area (for example agencies on the north side of town). Basham suggested that Thomas create a schedule that works for her and send it to the Commission and whoever can make it will let her know. The tours will start in August. Thomas will provide a City van for transportation. She asked members to let her know when they will be unavailable. 4- Margaret Long shared an article that ran in the Coloradoan titled Supportive Housing is Fiscally, Socially Rewarding. 7 Margaret Long asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion was made by Holly Carroll and seconded by Anita Basham and approved. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. The next meeting will be Thursday, July 9, 2015. 8