Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 02/13/2019CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:30pm 222 Laporte Avenue Colorado River Meeting Room, First Floor 02/13/2019 – AGENDA Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL At 5:35 PM the meeting was called to order by Serena Thomas. • COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: o Serena Thomas o Olga Duvall o Margaret Long o Sara Maranowicz o Steve Backsen o Joshua Johnson o Pat Hastings o Amy Dondale • COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: o Anita Basham • STAFF MEMBERS: o Adam Molzer, Staff Liaison – City of Fort Collins • GUESTS: o Jessica Runchey, interested community member, CSU graduate in Economics and Sociology o Holly LeMasurier, Director of Homeward 2020 2. AGENDA REVIEW Serena Thomas reviewed the agenda with the Community Development Block Grant Commission (“CDBG”). The Commission accepted the agenda without modification. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Jessica Runchey and Holly LeMasurier introduced themselves to the Commission and shared their general interest in learning more about the group’s functions. CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 02/13/2019 – MINUTES Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 2019 Regular Meeting reviewed. Josh moved to approve the minutes with suggested changes; Adam seconded. The vote passed unanimously. Edits: Sara: bottom of page 3, last line (“Sara noted”… change to “asked if there might be”; page 4, “Sara continued noting… context unclear, please delete; page 6, staff reports, change to: “Serena inquired if other CDBG members were aware of United Way’s efforts to create a back service” Josh: Change to A and B Bank to ANB Bank. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 6. LEARNING SERIES PRESENTATION a. Affordable Housing Sue Beck-Ferkiss; City of Fort Collins – Social Policy & Housing Program Manager Beth Rosen; City of Fort Collins – Grants Compliance & Policy Manager • Housing Attainability Fundaments chart to show what’s going on in the market. Goes through 2017. Struggling with income to housing prices; not in-line. Need to provide affordable housing, keep the end-user in mind. Anyone can go to Social Sustainability website for the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Strategies. (They are not in any particular order: all are important). • Would like to include CDBG commission members in the upcoming revisions process to the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (two participated before). • Below 80% AMI is City’s definition of affordable housing ($68K/year). Goal is defined by AHSP (188-228 units/year). • New constructions and renovations (PowerPoint slides 6-7) - Redtail Ponds: 60 units at $12.5 million, $208k/unit - Legacy: 60 units at $14.7 million, $245/unit - Village on Redwood: 72 units at $19.4 million, $269k/unit - Village on Horsetooth: 96 units at $26.5 million, $276k/unit - Oakridge Crossing: 110 units at $22 million, $200k/unit - Village on Shields: 285 units at $64 million, $225k/unit (renovation) - Village on Matuka Court: 20 units at $1.1 million, $55k/unit (renovation) - Village on Plum: 95 units at $16.1 million, $169k/unit (renovation) • City Areas of Influence: CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 02/13/2019 – MINUTES Page 3 - Possible approaches: Policy, Funding, Education, Programs, Utilities, Land Use Regulations, and Development Standards. - Can sometimes negotiate on affordable units, but if they don’t have a mission to provide affordable housing, these initiatives alone are not enough to get them to enact. • Affordable Housing Goals: (slide 10) Each year, expected to grow by 1%, would like to increase by 2024. Current Plan Goal of 188 per year, will be at 187 units in 2019 if all goes as planned. Expected gap: 825. Know that existing programs and tools are not enough if we want to get to the 10% of new builds. Next plan estimated goal of 228 per year. • Beth: works more on contract/administrative side and working with partners on funding. This gives a birdseye view on where they fall with goals. Three pots of money: 1. City General Fund (affordable housing fund =$525,000) -Federal funds from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2. Community Development Block Grant -Must benefit low-income households; approximately $650,000 annually 3. HOME -Tied to the outcome of an affordable unit -Approximately $450,000 annually Goal is to report units: what has been created or observed in community. • What is Underwriting? (slide 12) - The process undertaken by the City to assess developer capacity, financial feasibility and long-term sustainability of housing proposals - Required by HUD for the HOME program - Best practice of all housing funds to ensure (evaluated by three things): 1. Alignment with City goals (Affordable Housing Strategic Plan) 2. Ensure stewardship of taxpayer dollars 3. Evaluate all housing projects to an objective criteria • At the end of the day, if we fund bringing a unit into the community, budget will be based on standard that it will be maintained for 20 years. Want a forecast for what investment is needed for what’s sustainable for the next 20 years. Need the full picture; hard to invest without knowing all information/needs. Underwriting Criteria (slides 13-14) • Key Themes: - Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Alignment: 1. Beneficiary Households 2. Market Assessment—demand for type of project - Site & Location Standards: CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 02/13/2019 – MINUTES Page 4 1. Proximity to amenities 2. Compliance with land-use code 3. Distribution of AH across the City - Developer Capacity: 1. Demonstrated history with similar projects 2. Demonstrated compliance with funding - Financial Capacity: 1. Costs documented 2. Attempts to secure other funding (leverage ratios) - Readiness to Proceed: 1. Ability to move forward if funding awarded • Shouldn’t concentrate affordable housing in just one part of the community • Have they factored in all the costs necessary? Strive for one to ten leverage ratio (for every $1 we put in, another organization puts in $10) Considerations: (slide 15) • Key Questions: 1. What are we getting for our investment? 2. How does this project meet the needs of AHSP? 3. Does this developer have a proven track record? 4. What’s the risk to our goals if this isn’t funded now? a) Opportunity cost for new units: It is tempting to spread money all around, but have potential to lose units if larger goals aren’t met. Money put in rehabbing you can’t get back, so there is risk involved. Potential home displacement: programs for homeowners to allow them to stay in their homes. b) Potential risk of loss of existing units c) Potential homeowner displacement • Matrix shows distribution of incomes served. What is the likelihood that we will ever get the opportunity to invest in this property again? What are we getting for our money? Big picture: need 188 units per year; if we lose units in community, what is the net loss? Timing is key: is this going to be available next year or is it a one-time shot? Sue: Often it is conditional on the partner. Beth: First dollar in: we are committing this with the condition that they will receive the tax credit allocation they have promised. Partners can come back later and re-apply. Sue: This was a process improvement that we learned the hard way. • CHAFA: part of the strength is the involvement in the project. What is the partner’s track record? Do they know the particular niche they’re working in? Do they need a CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 02/13/2019 – MINUTES Page 5 lot of support to enter into new territory? • You will see the matrix in real-time and know any investment will be allocated. Steve: For existing units where future maintenance improvements will be needed, is there a way to build a depreciation fund? Sue: All projects that are run well are building reserves for maintenance on an ongoing basis. Beth: We do have old projects that had not been set up to account for emergency needs; has been a process improvement that I suggest. Can come in for an emergency meeting that impacts health and safety of the building. Want partners to come up with a plan of what it will take to improve/maintain for twenty years based on anticipated rents and have an adequate emergency account. Have had to do training with some partners to set up an operating budget so they have enough money to set that aside for emergencies. Sue: A full-needs assessment is what we want investors to do. They have assessed the situation and are factoring in all the needs. Steve: Essentially, it is the tenants that are paying to for the ongoing maintenance/emergency repairs? Beth: Yes. Sue: That’s where the upfront funding is so important. Capital stack shows all the investments needed to move forward and knowing that the money they bring in later can pay for the unexpected repairs. We have needs at all income levels, but for the 30%, it is more. Margaret: Prioritizing: Like that they are not prioritized. It allows the commission to be much more nimble to utilize things. Sue: By not having to prioritize, it allows the most leeway to invest where you want. Use CDBG and the pulse on the community to see where the biggest needs are at a given time. Sara: Will meet with affordable housing board prior to decision. There are so many details to consider and key questions to think about, so how can we best prepare for that? Sue: Will think about that and preface next meeting with that. Often they see things differently than we do. Maybe they saw the application differently: everyone comes at it from a different angle. Their ranking process is taken very seriously, but you are the decision maker. At the end of the day, it is up to you. You aren’t bound by their ideas but they can be really helpful to your process. Just because you have enough money, does not mean that you have to allocate a project if you don’t support it. Beth: We have a process set up so all money is available in the Spring, but that doesn’t mean that you have to spend it just because you have it. Sue: We will be gearing up in a few months and need a working group for the affordable strategic plan and would like two members from the CDBG to join. It is a time commitment, but we would value the opinions. CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 02/13/2019 – MINUTES Page 6 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Officers for 2019 Chair Serena: Any comments or nominations? Steve: Heard that Amy would be willing to chair (she agreed). Steve motioned, Serena seconded. All in favor. Amy was unanimously voted in as the CDBG chair. Vice Chair: Serena has expressed interest in continuing the role unless others were interested. Josh motioned, Amy seconded. All in favor. Serena was unanimously voted in as the CDBG vice chair. b. Grant Process Update Adam: Pre-application closed at end of January. Have to submit full applications by this Friday at 5 pm. We have three pre-applications for housing and 49 for human services. (There were 39 last year, with 34 going forward). Larger this year. - Pre-app: will have about $1million in funds. All current grantees have reapplied, some have merged, some have added a new program in addition to previous and others are new programs. Binders: Working on them now and will have to CDBG by March 1 st . Gives time to get color-coordinated, bound, etc. Will provide list of names who participated in the technical meetings. Technical Assistance Meetings: had 15-16 agencies participate. Seemed to be approving of the application and changes. 8. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS - Steve: The city had another super issue meeting addressing the Montava project (west of Anheuser Bush facility); quite a bit of discussion on that. Developer contributed a lot of thought about having different groups from the city involved in planning and development. Projected to be a 25 year project of 4-5,000 houses complete with a city center, public library, schools, and nature trails. - Serena: The developer is proposing a Metro Tax District in which the homeowner pays the deferred development costs over time rather than the developer paying on the front end and including in home price. New concept in this area. Talked about three new rapid lines like max: increased frequency and access. All new growth is now in northeast. - Olga: if you haven’t taken the City Works 101 course, it’s a great class. Deadline to apply is Friday. Unfortunately they are on Wednesdays. CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 02/13/2019 – MINUTES Page 7 9. STAFF REPORTS •Executive Director of Alliance for Suicide Prevention has had to step down from the role. Looking to hire a new ED and she is still present during the transition. - Margaret: the agency has been through many directors over the years. Some of the turnovers have been good, sometimes not. Ask Adam to make a note of this. - ChildSafe has new director, Carol Bennis. o Current grants started in October, so have completed over a quarter. Still muddling through them. 32 out of 34 have gotten paid and others are being finished now. o March meeting: possibly having attorney attend. The code needs to be updated, so can ask her any questions. Will have to go to Council for approval. Helpful to have input from group for City Council. - Also, will consider updating the name of this Commission. Gets questions regularly on it. It would also be an administrative change to rebrand and regroup moving forward. - Victoria Shaw will attend in March: TBL Scan tool so that going into special pilot project event in April, the group will have some advanced information/insight into the tool. Will also go into the deliberation rules and protocol: will present some options and be able to discuss with her. Build up those rules in March so when we come in April 24 th , all are prepared. o The group reviewed the Staff Summary of grant proposals example Adam put together and provided feedback. Margaret: I find this helpful and a handy way to get to a smaller scope for evaluating. Amy: Don’t personally find the summaries as helpful, but bullet points are good tips for how the organization works. Steve: One thing we won’t know that Adam may know is any issues with staff members. Sara: Would hate for you to invest your time if the summary is not that valuable, but things like prior performance would be valuable. Sometimes worry about proposals not catching some admin requirements, which seem to be black and white, but is there something that should be called out because it is a key criteria issue? Example: low-income cliental served. If Adam has already encountered it, should note it. If there are things that stand out in the budget, as well as number served, it should be pointed out. Serena: Often they are coming back and have received funding in the past, need to know how they managed the funds in the past 12 months. This is information Adam would have access to. Adam: Usually not huge gaps in projections but would be good to measure against the criteria we use to evaluate. CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 02/13/2019 – MINUTES Page 8 • Scorecard: Adam emailed out. Drafted and staff has looked it over. Will be available in a spreadsheet as well as printed out form. Josh: With electronic format, would it total tabs automatically so they are ranked and have easier access at the end? Adam: Yes, Victoria will make sure she gives users that capability. • Left to right, top to bottom. Based on feedback from CDBG as well as Loveland scorecard (have it narrowed down more than theirs). Bring it back to City’s priorities based on summer discussion: what will program actually achieve for self- sufficiency, needs; how is that program hitting that need? What is their ability to target certain clients? Some exclusively serve below the 80%. How are they bringing other funding partners, resources, volunteers, creating relationships with other partners? Financial stability and success, reserves, debt, etc. o Added: economic, environmental and social equity; critical for the city’s assessment of funding. Gut score: based on your gut feeling (what you might know of the organization and how they operate). Add it all up and you will have your ranking. Criteria lined up with the questions; all are in the application and sequential. Sara: Excited to see the question numbers. Adam: These are all in the application guide, so they should know how they should be directing their responses. • Organizations and staff should not be reaching out independently to Commission to ask questions or check on application status. Would be a disqualifier if they are reaching out to CDBG; should be limited to no conversation about the grant process. Will go over conflict of interest, real and perceived, at March meeting. 10. OTHER BUSINESS a. Joint Boards & Commissions Pilot Update (Steve’s report) Steve: Have another meeting Feb. 25th (reps from different boards and commissions under social sustainability Umbrella). Idea is to plan the first meeting for all these groups. Looking at a meeting that will be around three hours. Adam: City plan and Housing are the two main subjects. Should be in the first part of April, waiting for the venue to get back. Amy: Is the goal to come out of the meeting with ideas for staff? Steve: Will see how meeting goes then have ideas for future meetings with the idea of meeting on a more regular basis and more influence on city policy. Adam: Collectively would be something moving forward to influence city staff. b. Grantee Client Story CDBG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 02/13/2019 – MINUTES Page 9 11. NEXT MEETING a. Wednesday, March 13, 2019 | 5:30pm | 222 Laporte Ave, Colorado Room 12. ADJOURNMENT • Meeting adjourned at 7:32 PM.