Loading...
11/16/1999NEIGHBORHOOD & AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER November 16, 1999 Present: Rev. William Graham Chair Mayme W. Hodges Board Member Warren Hunt Vice Chair Howard Groth Board Member Stephen Jefferies Board Member Milly Joplin Board Member Joyce L. Smith Board Member William Turner, Sr. Board Member – arrived 10:08 a.m. Absent: Peggy M. Cutkomp Board Member Also Present: Nina Bandoni Assistant Housing Director Michael Holmes Housing Manager Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall. 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 – Approval of October 19, 1999, Meeting Minutes The Chair announced that the approval of minutes will be postponed to the next meeting. ITEM 4 – Citizens to be Heard In response to a resident’s remark, Mr. Holmes said the draft copy of the October 19, 1999, minutes had not been finalized. ITEM 5 – Agency Presentations – None. ITEM 6 – Subrecipient Ranking System Discussion Housing Manager Michael Holmes said agencies that requested funding last year were invited to participate in discussion regarding the subrecipient ranking system. He said at the November 10, 1999, special meeting, the NAHAB (Neighborhood and Affordable Housing Advisory Board) had discussed how to rank subrecipient applications for the next fiscal year. Board members reviewed last year’s subrecipient form and determined that staff will calculate scores for Sections 1 – 4 of the Subrecipient Ranking System Questionnaire and Sections 5 and 6 will be eliminated. The TRC (Technical Review Committee) will be responsible for scoring of Sections 7, 8, and 9. The NAHAB also agreed to incorporate five new questions they will use as part of the NAHAB’s subrecipient ranking system evaluation process. A two-tier approach was adopted that allows for the option of a second pass scoring system for reallocation of unused funds at year-end. Mr. Holmes said once changes to the subrecipient process, including the determination of weighted scores for the TRC and the NAHAB are finalized and adopted by the NAHAB, they will be presented to the Commission. It was remarked that the reasoning for changing the subrecipient ranking system questionnaire is because the NAHAB members probably gave different answers for each question due to the nature of the subrecipients’ projects. Assistant Housing Director Nina Bandoni said she feels the changes should be discussed with HUD and the administration to ensure these changes will take the process in the direction they would like it to go. The new process will hopefully help the NAHAB devise a better allocation of funds. Mr. Holmes said the Board had also recommended that the “all or nothing” funding concept be changed. It was remarked that the TRC members were not privy to the NAHAB’s recommendations from the November 10, 1999, meeting. Request for Additional City Funding for Social Services It was remarked that there is never enough funding for social services. Discussion ensued regarding if those agencies that apply to the City’s Housing Division for funds also apply to the Human Relations Department. It was requested that a representative from that department be invited to review their programs and funding sources to determine how they compare to the Housing Division’s programs. It was remarked that the Human Relations Department also could be used as a referral source from Housing programs. Mr. Holmes said agencies are encouraged not to apply for funding from both programs for the same project. However, an agency may have five projects and may apply to the Housing Division for one project, and apply for funds from the other programs for funding the other projects. It was requested that staff provide the NAHAB with funding requests received from the Human Relations Department. Ms. Bandoni stated that the Housing Division did not have the authority to do that. Ms. Bandoni said agencies provide the Housing Department with their operating budgets and information regarding other funding sources. Most agencies receive funds from a variety of sources such as the Juvenile Welfare Board and the United Way. They also hold fund raising activities. The City will rely on the operating budgets for financial information. Technical Review Committee Kathy Mitchell, Pinellas County Department of Social Services, said she is on the TRC. She questioned if there is established fatal criteria such as specific items that the City reviews prior to submission of applications to the TRC or NAHAB, etc. She said she has found that partial funding works as well as full funding. She said often times when a review committee is looking at an application there are items in a budget that may not appear to best serve the population or best serve the intended program. On occasion, she has omitted some items on a budget that she felt was not as important to the effectiveness of the program as someone else may think. She questioned if some of the questions that the NAHAB, TRC, and the Housing staff review are intentionally redundant. It was remarked that some of the questions are intentionally redundant. Staff fills out some of the data on the application. Ms. Mitchell said it is the TRC’s responsibility to ensure all the I’s are dotted and the T’s crossed. If an agency can effectively do that responsibly and present their information well, they should be able to provide the NAHAB with the required monthly reports and meet acceptable HUD criteria. At the last NAHAB meeting, how much weight the TRC and the NAHAB scores should have in the ranking system process had been discussed. 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. It was remarked that regardless of weight, the NAHAB makes the final decision regarding funding allocations and recommendations to the Commission. One NAHAB member had submitted five suggested questions that the NAHAB can use to make final decisions regarding allocation of funds to subrecipients. The NAHAB adopted the questions as part of their ranking system process. It also had been suggested weights be associated with each question. Ms. Mitchell said to score 100 for the TRC, the applicant or person writing the subrecipient application would need to be well versed in the grant writing practice. Not every agency has staff that has had sufficient training to do so. The quality of applications submitted varies. She said it may be unfair to rate an application solely on the technical aspects of the application. Mr. Holmes said historically, the criteria ranked by the TRC and NAHAB scores were 50/50. It was remarked that although each committee’s scores were ranked equally, the questions were the same, but are ranked differently by each body. It was noted that the NAHAB is proposing the TRC scores based on the original worksheet and the NAHAB will score subjectively, then as a group score the subrecipients using the 5 newly adopted questions. It was remarked that the NAHAB has more contact with agencies during the year, and it was felt that NAHAB’s scores should carry more weight than the TRC’s scores. Ms. Mitchell was agreeable to that type of weighting system. In response to a question from Isay Gulley, CNHS, Mr. Holmes said staff will complete Questions 1-4; questions 5 and 6 will be removed from the subrecipient questionnaire form. Questions 7-9 will be completed by the TRC. Item 5 of the newly adopted NAHAB questions would require discussion regarding whether the project is so important to the City that it must be totally funded. The NAHAB will discuss such matters, answer and score the 5 final questions, and funds will be awarded based on the final score. Ms. Bandoni said the City’s goals and mission are outlined in the Consolidated Plan yearly based on statistics and other research methods. She said this year, the process will be different as task forces have been set up to work together, identify needs, and shape the business plan. Mr. Holmes said every year as part of the Consolidated Plan, staff performs a 5-year assessment of community needs. This year, the City will embark on the undertaking of another 5-year plan. One area of concern is the Public Services category. HUD has a statutory limit of 15% on CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds granted. He said the City normally receives double the request for the amount of available funds. The City wants to be more proactive in allocation of those funds. It was remarked that the scoring system will eliminate favoritism. Beth Gill, Executive Director of the Mustard Seed Foundation, said since this is the first year that the agency is requesting funding from Clearwater, she is concerned with favoritism. Her agency provides a needed service not being met by any other organization in the County. She said a fair and objective basis for rating can be attained by NAHAB and staff working together to identify existing significant needs in the community. She is a big supporter of partial funding as there is never enough available funding. She felt the scoring weight of the TRC and the NAHAB should be equal as each body reviews different issues. As she writes grant applications, her job is to demonstrate a need for that particular service. She feels her organization is the best agency to meet that need for the City as well as provide all the supporting documentation. Ms. Gill said she also is a member of the Pinellas County Coalition for the Homeless, which will begin the homeless survey on January 13, 2000. She said the organization is working with the U.S. Census Bureau to involve them in the Coalition’s survey to ensure better information. She offered to share the data as part of Clearwater’s Consolidated Plan. Ms. Gill said her agency is located in St. Petersburg. Her agency provides receiving and intervention services and serves as an entryway for homeless individuals suffering from chronic alcoholism and addiction to rebuild their lives. Statistics indicate a significant number of clients come from Clearwater. The agency is searching for a location in Clearwater. ITEM 7 – Housing Pool Participants Discussion Ms. Bandoni said as concern was expressed at the last meeting regarding adding a developer RFP (Request for Proposal) to this year’s Housing Pool program, staff shared those concerns with the administration. Staff and the administration agreed, therefore, the for-profit developer RFP will not be incorporated into the program until next year. Those developers interested in participating in the Housing Pool will apply at the same time as the non-profits and will be held to the same standards. In response to a question, Ms. Bandoni said it was not necessary for the matter to be passed by the Commission. She said there is an opportunity to take all concerns to the administration regarding the board’s and community’s concerns and opinions to allow for-profit developers in the program. Ms. Bandoni said staff is in the process of developing the policies and procedures for participants of the program. The down payment and closing costs assistance portion is complete, incorporates many of the program items that were approved by the County, and has been reviewed by a HUD consultant. Staff will report to the NAHAB regarding the housing development portion of the program. ITEM 8 – FY 1999-2000 Neighborhood and Affordable Housing Advisory Schedule It was remarked that there is no NAHAB meeting in December 1999. Mr. Holmes said consideration was given to scheduling meetings in the neighborhood. No meetings are scheduled in July, August, and December 2000. ITEM 9- NAHAB Visioning Discussion In October, NAHAB members were provided a questionnaire regarding the NAHAB. As only a few members returned the survey, copies will be mailed again. ITEM 10 – Old Business It was remarked that at the last meeting, it was felt it is important to continue tours of agencies requesting funding. Discussion ensued regarding if after input from the TRC, the NAHAB should obtain a consensus as to the weight of scores determined by the TRC and the NAHAB. Member Groth moved that a 70% weight be assigned to NAHAB scores and the 30% weight be assigned to the TRC scores. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was noted the 5 newly adopted questions were approved at the last meeting. Weights still need to be assigned to each question. ITEM 11 – New Business – None. ITEM 12 – Announcements/Board Comments Member Joplin thanked the residents and agencies who attended the meeting. It was remarked that agencies being funded should make an effort to attend NAHAB meetings. ITEM 13 – Next Regular Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for January 18, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. ITEM 14 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:06 a.m.