Loading...
11/10/1999 - SpecialNEIGHBORHOOD & AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER November 10, 1999 Present: Rev. William Graham Chair Warren Hunt Vice Chair Howard Groth Board Member William Turner, Sr. Board Member Stephen Jefferies Board Member Milly Joplin Board Member Peggy M. Cutkomp Board Member Absent: Mayme W. Hodges Board Member Joyce L. Smith Board Member Also Present: Michael Holmes Housing Manager Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. at the Main Library. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM 2 – Introduction of NAHAB Board Members Members introduced themselves and their area of representation. ITEM 3 – Citizens to be Heard One resident expressed her appreciation of the good work being done by Habitat for Humanity and the number of people willing to give of their time for such causes. ITEM 4 – Subrecipient Ranking System Discussion Housing Manager Michael Holmes said the purpose of today’s meeting is to discuss the Subrecipient Ranking System. In response to a question, Mr. Holmes said staff will complete Items A – J of the Subrecipient Ranking System questionnaire and provide the NAHAB with results. He explained the subrecipient application process. In response to a question, Mr. Holmes said the TRC (Technical Review Committee) is invited to conduct subrecipient site visits with the NAHAB once a year and attend agency presentations at NAHAB meetings. It was suggested staff invite the City Manager and the Commission to annual subrecipient site visitations. It was felt the visitations help the TRC and the NAHAB see the conditions under which subrecipients work. In response to a question, he said the City uses 20% of available funding for planning and administration purposes. The remainder is available to nonprofit organizations. Discussion ensued regarding how much weight the TRC and the NAHAB scores should have in the ranking system process. Subrecipients with grant writers and others more versed in completing applications may receive higher scores since the TRC ranks them solely on information provided in the application. Mr. Holmes said regardless of weight, the NAHAB makes the final decision regarding funding allocations and recommendations to the Commission. One NAHAB member submitted 5 suggested questions that the NAHAB can use to make final decisions regarding allocation of funds to subrecipients. He suggested weights be associated with each question. The meeting recessed from 10:46 to 10:56 a.m. Discussion ensued regarding the questions submitted to the NAHAB for consideration in the subrecipient ranking system process. It was suggested that a specific weight be assigned to the subrecipient ranking system questionnaire and that it be evaluated by the TRC. Member Joplin moved to accept the 5 suggested questions presented as part of the NAHAB’s subrecipient ranking system evaluation process. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding how much weight to assign to the TRC’s scores. Currently, TRC and NAHAB scores count equally. In response to a question, Mr. Holmes said the TRC is an advisory committee to the NAHAB. Consensus was to invite TRC members to the November 16, 1999, NAHAB meeting to discuss the subrecipient ranking system. It was requested in the event that TRC members cannot attend that meeting, that staff attempt to obtain a consensus of the TRC regarding the weight allocation and subrecipient ranking system changes. Member Jefferies moved that the TRC be responsible for scoring of Sections 7 and 9 of the Subrecipient Ranking System questionnaire, that a 30% weight be assigned to their scores, and that a 70% weight be assigned to NAHAB scores. Those weights may be amended at the November 16, 1999, NAHAB meeting. The City will calculate scores for Sections 1–4 and Sections 5 and 6 will be eliminated. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 5 – Old Business Discussed ensued regarding unused allocated consolidated program funds at year-end that are put back into the program for reallocation. It was suggested the NAHAB have the authority to partially allocate funds regardless of the amount an applicant requests. The current process allocates funding on an “all or nothing” basis. It was remarked that if caps are established, subrecipients may be tempted to inflate their requests. It was remarked it is important to establish a procedure that is measurable and justifiable. Member Jefferies moved that the subrecipient ranking system include a process by which the NAHAB can implement a procedure that allows for the option of a second pass scoring system, if deemed necessary, for reallocation of unused funds at year end. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 6 – New Business Member Joplin said she will remove herself from participating in the discussion regarding this issue as she is on the Tampa Bay CDC Board of Directors. A subrecipient housing pool has been established to rehabilitate housing, down payment assistance, and new home construction. At a previous NAHAB meeting, a subrecipient had expressed concern that organizations, other than agencies listed on Mr. Holmes’ report, can apply for funds from the housing pool. Previously, non-profits tied up funds without using them. Concern was expressed that for profit agencies will have an advantage as they already have a process in place to cover administrative costs, can more easily acquire land, etc. It was remarked that public money should not be awarded to for-profit agencies. It was commented the end-user will benefit from funds. It was remarked that the City should not change rules mid-year. Some remarks were made that as long as the job gets done, regardless if the program includes for-profit or not-for-profit organizations, funds should be allocated to both. Consensus was to continue discussion of this item to the next meeting. It was requested that the NAHAB review funding allocations bi-annually. ITEM 7 – Announcements/Board Comments Concern was expressed that an enormous amount of traffic will be generated at the former Sunshine Mall site due to numerous apartment/condominium units being built. ITEM 8 – Next Regular Meeting The next regular NAHAB meeting is scheduled for November 16, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall. ITEM 9 – Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.