Minutes of the Meeting of the CDBG Commission September 23, 2010

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Meeting of the CDBG Commission September 23, 2010 Members Present: Linda Begley-Korth, Brian Bigler, Pluma Cool, Paulette Harder, Ron Johnson, Gail Shea, Gus Vander Wegen, Donna Vogel Members Absent: Denise Duranczyk, Donald Madelung, David Phillips, Marechiel Santos-Lang, Cynda Solberg (all excused) Staff and Others Present: Lori Bastean (staff), Barb Crawford, Rita Giovannoni (Independent Living), Sarah Traver (Policy Student) Call to Order: Chair Donna Vogel called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. As there were new Members, all introduced themselves. Discussion and Action on Minutes of 8/26/2010 Commission Meeting A motion to approve the minutes of the August 26, 2010 Commission meeting was made by Gail Shea, seconded by Gus Vander Wegen. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Public Comment on Items not on this Agenda There was no public comment. Agenda Items 4-9 Regarding the CRLF and RLF Agenda items 4-9 regarding the CRLF and RLF were deemed not properly before the Commission and therefore, no action was taken. The RLF request for the Sun Prairie Professional Building had not yet been approved the Revolving Loan Fund Committee. Individuals representing PLH were not able to attend due to other conflicts. Review of HUD and County Options for Administering CDBG and HOME Programs and Selecting Subrecipients and/or Contactors The handout on CDBG/HOME Options was briefly reviewed by Lori Bastean. Gail Shea suggested that under the section on Formal Application Process, the third bullet point, changing the sentence to read, Changing priorities or other community issues require standardized, consistent treatment of all requests for funding in order to lower the level of potential bias. Facilitated Discussion and Action on Options for Administering CDBG and HOME Programs and Selecting Subrecipients and/or Contractors Paulette Harder arrived at 5:55 p.m. Commission members identified information that they would like to have in order to make decisions regarding all applications overall plus public facilities and rental rehabilitation applications using a facilitated process. As items were identified, Commission members who felt the item was a priority, could add a dot (*). The results were: 1

2 Public Facilities Historic impact - ** Accessibility - ****** Status of other funding - **** Percentage of CDBG funding to total project costs - **** Will project go forward but for CDBG funding Compliance with Davis-Bacon and other federal labor standards - * Area served Percent of low-and-moderate income population served - * Copy of CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) Total amount of funds needed; if extra funds were provided, what would be done with those funds Underwriting Rental Rehabilitation If funds are provided as a grant, matching funds - ******* If funds are provided as a loan, repayment ability - ***** Historic impact - * Accessibility - ** Prequalify amount of rehab by property (>50% is not rehab) - * Pre-inspection of possible sites Green/energy efficiency - **** Lead based paint exposure - * If loans, underwriting All Applications Past project success rate - **** Past history of expending CDBG funds - *** When will the money be spent - *** Provide specifics of how will address the need - * Area of greatest need identified in the plan, numbers of people served, jobs, etc. - * More job creation data - *** Specific results Verified shovel-ready plans - *** What will not get done if funds are not received - ** Specifics on how will increase use of partnerships to increase level of coordinated projects Percentage of CDBG to entire project $ - ** Percent of low-and-moderate income persons served Percent of admin costs Other discussion regarding the application process included: In inquiring as to whether a project would go forward if funding was not provided, Gus Vander Wegen gave the example of library project that could proceed despite the geo-thermal being cut. Brian Bigler noted that people may couch the amount they apply for and then may not be able to do the project. In response to an inquiry from Donna Vogel as to the opinion from a subrecipient organization, Rita Giovannoni commented that she preferred the unified application that was used in the past by the United Way, City of Madison, and Dane County. She mentioned that while the Commission was encouraging partnerships, if someone was going to have to do the service at a discount, that might be a disincentive. Donna Vogel commented that there might be economies of scale. Ron Johnson weighed in noting that lots of times partnerships don t make sense. Paulette Harder commented that she didn t have as many problems with the application as with the responses that were received. She said it is not an acceptable response that the applicant will 2

3 work with staff to flesh out the project. She expressed the need for more time for staff review. She would like to have more information available at the time of review. In response to a question from Lori Bastean, Donna Vogel confirmed that allowing additional time for staff review during the annual application cycle, especially for public facilities applications, would not be problematic for the County Executive s budget. Donna Vogel further mentioned that she had no problem with staff going back and telling agencies that they need to tighten up their applications and be more specific. There was some discussion regarding options for the application process, such as continuing with the annual process, having a rolling application process, etc. Gail Shea expressed concern regarding the amount of work entailed for the Commission and staff with receiving applications throughout the year. Paulette Harder added, Gail and I agree, the annual process is the best way to have flexibility for staff. In terms of next steps, it was agreed that staff should survey applicants and obtain their input on the process. Discussion and Action on a Jobs Creation Focused Subcommittee Gus Vander Wegen inquired as to whether it was worth it to have such a Subcommittee. Gail Shea commented on the need to broaden the scope for the use of the economic development dollars and perhaps do better marketing of the funds. Donna Vogel commented that she had a hard time envisioning what the Subcommittee would do. She suggested tabling the item until David Phillips was in attendance noting that Chamber folks have a different perspective. MOTION: A motion was made by Ron Johnson, seconded by Brian Bigler to table the discussion and action on a Jobs Creation Focused Subcommittee until key Commission members were present. Motion carried, 8-0. Review, Discussion, and Action on Release of RFPs for Handicapped Accessibility, Rental Rehabilitation, and Public Facilities Projects Rita Giovannoni spoke regarding a potential project for rental rehabilitation funds from Independent Living. The proposed project, located in Fitchburg, would provide assistance to a HUD 202 rental property serving very low-income persons that has a water problem. Rita Giovannoni stated that the Architect recommended replacing the vinyl siding. She expressed hope that the RFP for rental rehab could be released as waiting until next year is a problem. HUD recommended that we come to the unit of local government for funding. It was suggested that the public facilities applications be expanded to include all public facilities. Donna Vogel commented that she was not interested in funding infrastructure projects. Donna Vogel added that if an organization had previously applied for the 2011 public facilities funding that they should be asked if they want to reapply and be able to augment their prior application for more specificity. MOTION: A motion was made by Gus Vander Wegen, seconded by Paulette Harder to release the RFPs for handicapped accessibility, rental rehabilitation, and public facilities projects and to allow organizations that previously applied for 2011 public facilities funding to augment their previous applications if they were interested in being reconsidered for funding. Motion carried,

4 Report on Program Activities, Expenditures, and Timeliness Ratio The handouts on the 2010 CDBG expenditures and timeliness ratio was covered by Lori Bastean. The County has to expend $275,021 in order to meet the timeliness ratio that will be measured by HUD on November 1, She also shared an from Carolyn Parham, Executive Director, Dane County Housing Authority regarding changing the scope of their 2010 contract to include acquisition/rehab, as well as, either changing the scope of the 2009 HOME contract to include the same or to allow it to be extended beyond December 31, Donna Vogel commented that she had real strong opinions about the down payment assistance programs due to her experience with the higher rate of foreclosures among assisted homeowners in her other job. She added that she was anxious to hear what Ms. Parham had to say. Updates and/or Announcements on HUD Site Visits and HOME Re-Inspections The letters from HUD regarding the results of the monitoring of the County s economic development activities and environmental reviews were shared with the Commission. Lori Bastean also noted that the bids on the homes needing rehab work that were identified as part of the 2009 HOME monitoring were due October 3. Adjournment It was moved by Gus Vander Wegen and seconded by Ron Johnson to adjourn to the October 28, 2010 Commission meeting or at the call of the Chair. Motion carried unanimously 8 0 at 7:50 p.m. Recorded by Lori Bastean Note: These minutes are the notes of the recorder and are subject to change at a subsequent meeting of the Commission. 4

5 CDBG/HOME OPTIONS POTENTIAL PROGRAM PARTNERS Entity CDBG HOME Community Based Development Organization (CBDO) X Community Development Financial Institution (CFDI) X Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) X Contractors X X Developers X Faith based Organizations X X Grantee Staff X X Private Lenders X Subrecipients X X DEFINITIONS Community Based-Development Organization (CBDO) CDBG funds may be provided to CBDOs to carry out certain activities in connection with neighborhood revitalization, community economic development, or energy conservation programs. CBDOs must meet a number of criteria including being organized under state or local law to engage in community development activities in a specific geographic area within a community. CHDOs may qualify as a CBDO if they serve a single neighborhood. Community Development Financial Institution (CFDI) A CFDI is a community-based lending institution that meets certain characteristics. Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) A CHDO is a private, nonprofit organization that meets a series of qualifications prescribed in the HOME regulations. Each PJ (PJ i.e., Dane County) must use a minimum of 15 percent of its annual allocation for housing owned, developed, or sponsored by CHDO s. Contractors CDBG A contractor can be either a for-profit or a nonprofit entity that is paid CDBG funds by the Grantee (Dane County, a subrecipient/cbdo) in return for specific services, where payment is made to the contractor as compensation for such services. A contractor must be procured competitively according to OMB rules and once the procurement process is completed, most of the uniform administrative rules do not apply to contractors. Contractors are typically used for discrete activities with a clearly defined beginning and end date, such as for a physical project or a social service activity. HOME - A PJ may contract with a private for-profit contractor to administer all or a portion of its HOME Program. Unlike public agencies or nonprofits, contractors must be procured through a competitive process in accordance with applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) procurement requirements. Developers/Owners/Sponsors Individuals, for-profit entities, and nonprofits can participate in the HOME program as owners, developers, or sponsors of housing. When CHDOs use HOME funds as owners, developers, or sponsors, this use of HOME funds counts toward the 15 percent CHDO set-aside. 5

6 Faith Based Organizations Faith Based or religious organizations are able to compete on an equal footing with other organizations for HUD funding. Funding may be provided directly to any recipient, as long as those funds are not used to support inherently religious activities. Private Lenders PJs are required to make all reasonable efforts to maximize participation by private lenders and members of the private sector. The Community Reinvestment Act requirements provide an incentive to private lending institutions to become involved in HOME activities. These relationships may be on an informal, semi-formal, or formal basis. A typical role is using lenders to assume loan processing responsibilities for homebuyer assistance programs including credit checks, income and debt verifications, appraisals, etc. Subrecipient CDBG A subrecipient is a public or private non-profit agency or organization receiving CDBG funds from a grantee (Dane County) or another subrecipient to undertake eligible activities. HOME - A subrecipient is a public agency or nonprofit organization selected by a Participating Jurisdiction to administer all or a portion of the PJ s HOME Program. A public agency or nonprofit organization that receives HOME funds solely as a developer or owner of housing is not considered a subrecipient. OPTIONS FOR SELECTING PARTNERS (From Basically CDBG) There are a variety of approaches that grantees use to select activities and organizations for funding under local CDBG programs within the framework of the Consolidated Plan. Note, however, that contractors must be selected in accordance with the procurement requirements of 24 CFR Part 85. Communities take many different approaches toward activity selection, including: Some communities take a wait and see approach: evaluating each activity on a caseby-case basis as it is proposed. Other communities take a more proactive approach: seeking out and choosing only those projects clearly falling within the scope of a concrete series of objectives and plans. Many communities are somewhere in between these two: on the lookout for interesting opportunities, but working from a basic program design framework. There are four basic models upon which the selection process can be based; however, different variations of these approaches may be necessary or appropriate to meet community needs. Formal Application Process Requires the submission of a formal application or proposal from the subrecipient, and is typically undertaken once a year in conjunction with the grantee s planning and budgeting process. Under the formal application process, applications are evaluated based on explicit selection criteria. This process works best in communities with: Numerous or complex activities; Numerous potential applicants with varying degrees of experience; or Changing priorities or other community issues require standardized, consistent treatment of all requests for funding. Advantages to a formal application process are that: 6

7 It requires the subrecipients to provide all the information needed (e.g., details on the proposed activity and on the organization s experience and capacity); and It helps to ensure consistency throughout the evaluation process. Disadvantages to a formal proposal approach are that: This type of process tends to favor more experienced subrecipients (i.e., those familiar with the application process); Staff time to ensure consistency, from the preparation of application packages to the review and evaluation of submissions, may be substantial; and This approach may limit new activities or new subrecipients to only one chance per year. Limited Application Process This approach is similar to the formal application process, but the application is not as detailed and grantees provide more follow-up and hands on involvement in the process. Grantees may review the applications and narrow the number of applications under consideration before requesting additional detailed information from the subrecipient. This approach may be useful for grantees interested in encouraging the participation of potential subrecipients not familiar with the program or the application process, or when the grantee s program is not complex. Some of the advantages of the limited application approach include the fact that it is more open and may attract new organizations or new ideas to the program. On the other hand, this approach shifts the responsibility for determining capacity and experience to the grantee. This, in turn, may require more grantee staff time. In addition, this process may not ensure the consistency and fairness that is more evident in the formal application process. Solicitation of Applications from Qualified Organizations Grantees identify potential qualified applicants through an informal process or through a general Request For Qualifications (RFQ). From the identified group, grantees identify organizations to carry out specific activities and approach the organization about their interest in doing so. This approach is proactive and is more focused on qualified organizations. Because of this, it may result in less grantee staff time. However, this approach is much more closed door than the previous two and can result in criticism of the grantees selection process. In addition, by focusing on the known, qualified organizations, lesser known, but possibly equally capable organizations may be overlooked. Open Door or Unsolicited Application Process This is a laissez faire approach to selecting activities and subrecipients. It either encourages or allows consideration of requests for funding at any time during the program year, and may or may not include an actual application. In reality, unsolicited applications may occur regardless of the type of approach in place in the community. However, if there is another process in place (e.g., formal application), the unsolicited application should be required to meet the requirements of the process already in place. This may mean that the application is held until the next application process is conducted, or the application is evaluated based on the criteria used during the regular application process. 7

8 If the grantee uses the open door process as its only means for accepting applications, it must ensure that all applications are treated consistently and that the same types of information are received and reviewed by the grantee. One of the advantages of this type of process is that it is open and may allow opportunities for grantees to more quickly respond to community needs. The primary disadvantage of this approach is that it is unplanned. Applications may come in at any time and require crucial staff time and effort to respond. Another disadvantage to this approach is timing. By not conducting the process at a specific time of year, grantees may commit funds to projects before qualified applications are received. This process tends to result in budget changes and program amendments throughout the year. Mixed Approach As mentioned previously, the reality in many communities may be that one application process only is not feasible or does not work given local politics and community needs. In these cases, a variation of any of the above approaches or a mix of the four approaches may be more appropriate. Grantees should use caution however when mixing very different types of application processes and strive to maintain accountability to applicants and consistent treatment of requests for funds regardless of the process used. /cdbg partner options.doc Rev