Loading...
05/16/2000 NEIGHBORHOOD & AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER May 16, 2000 Present: Mayme W. Hodges Acting Chair/Board Member Peggy M. Cutkomp Board Member Howard Groth Board Member Milly Joplin Board Member Joyce L. Smith Board Member William Turner, Sr. Board Member – arrived 7:21 p.m. Absent: Warren Hunt Chair Steven Jefferies Vice-Chair Rev. William Graham 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 7:06 p.m. at Ross Norton Park. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM 3 – APPROVAL OF APRIL 18, 2000 MINUTES Member Smith requested that Item #5, paragraph 3, sentence 1 “Vice Chair Hunt will become the new Chair.” Member Groth moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 18, 2000, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 4 – CITIZENS TO BE HEARD In response to a question, Assistant Housing Director Nina Bandoni explained the NAHAB’s (Neighborhood and Affordable Housing Advisory Board) purpose and the process for application to obtain program funds. Jerry Spilatro, Community Service Foundation, requested at all meetings staff provide citizens with the same information distributed to the NAHAB. Lois Cormier, resident, said she distributed fliers regarding the NAHAB meeting to the head of a local church to share with his congregation. ITEM 5 – AGENCY REPORTS – None. ITEM 6 – PRESENTATION OF SCORING RESULTS Ms. Bandoni reviewed a proposed scoring methodology for consideration by the NAHAB. She said the area of Public Services is of major concern as $150,000 is available when $585,480 has been requested. The TRC (Technical Review Committee) and the NAHAB scored applications submitted. Scores were combined and staff has proposed 3 scenarios for allocation of funds: 1) 100% funding; 2) 50% funding; and 3) 25% funding. Three agencies would be funded under the 100% funding methodology; 7 agencies under the 50% methodology; and all the agencies that applied under the 25% methodology. Ms. Bandoni noted that the NAHAB can request additional options other than those proposed by staff. She said all the agencies that applied for funding in the Public Facilities, Housing programs, and Economic Development programs were funded. She said some nonprofit organizations have indicated that 25% funding would create a greater hardship than not being funded at all. There are no carry-over funds. Traditionally, funds have not been carried over to the following year in the Public Services category. Funds from one category cannot be applied to another. Consideration is being given to development of a CBO (community-based organization) to increase the Public Services cap. In response to a question, Ms. Bandoni said a CBO serves as a clearinghouse for other social service agencies. The CBO applies for funds and those funds are passed through to other agencies. Information will be distributed to agencies regarding the CBO. As the cap for funding is higher through a CBO, more agencies could be funded. Agencies can elect to obtain funds through a CBO or continued to apply directly to the City. Ms. Bandoni said if an agency is not funded through the NAHAB process, they also can apply for social service funds through the City’s Human Relations Department. Discussion ensued and consensus was to obtain feedback from the agencies attending the meeting. Comments from the agencies included: 1) some agencies that scored lowest would receive more money than those that scored highest under the 25% category just because they asked for more funds; 2) agencies that excel and demonstrate their needs should receive funding; 3) 25% funds are better than no funds; and 4) many nonprofits will not be able to operate under the 25% category as Clearwater offers one of the few opportunities to provide operating expense funding to nonprofits. One subrecipient questioned why the NAHAB and TRC scores were extremely different. He felt as the NAHAB is an advisory board to the Commission and is more knowledgeable of agency programs, needs, and results, their scores should carry more weight than the TRC’s. Housing Manager Michael Holmes said the TRC scores applicants on information provided in the application. Other criteria are considered in addition to that information. TRC members have experience with the application process and knowledge of the agencies that apply. Some NAHAB members stated they had attempted to have the weighting system changed to no avail. One Board member said he would not have trouble denying funding to some agencies. He said one organization has repeatedly gone out of business only to operate again with the same staff under various other names. It was suggested eliminating those agencies that did not receive a score and placing a cutoff for scores below a specific number. In response to a question, Ms. Bandoni said staff presents the NAHAB and staff’s suggestions to the Commission, who ultimately decides how agencies are funded. Member Groth moved that the NAHAB select the 50% level of funding proposal, and the $25,000 from the Salvation Army’s withdrawal be allocated to fund the Boys and Girls Club of Suncoast for $18,250 and Pinellas Cares for $6,088, to make up the funding recommendation along with the other items shaded on staff’s proposed funding allocation list. It was noted that one of the agencies in the Public Services category scored higher than one Member Groth recommended for funding, and that the NAHAB is not following the scoring process. Member Groth said the amounts requested by two agencies he recommended for funding come as close to the $25,000 available due the Salvation Army’s application withdrawal. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Groth, Cutkomp, Joplin, Smith, and Turner voted “aye”; Member Hodges voted “nay”. Motion carried. It was suggested scheduling a special meeting to discuss the funding allocation process because the motion falls outside the scoring guidelines. Member Groth moved to schedule a special NAHAB meeting at 10:00 a.m. on May 31, 2000, at City Hall to discuss options for replacement of the “all or nothing” system in the Public Services category. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Bandoni said the City conducted a series of meetings in preparation for the Consolidated Planning process. The meetings were held to identify community needs and were open to the public. The outcome helped staff identify goals and objectives for the next 5 years. She reviewed input obtained from housing, economic development, homeless and special needs, and general public services workshops. ITEM 7 – OLD BUSINESS – None. ITEM 8 – NEW BUSINESS NAHAB Retreat, Ralph Stone, Director of Planning, Housing, Neighborhood Services Ralph Stone, Director of Planning, Housing, and Neighborhood Services, suggested an annual brainstorming session with staff and the NAHAB to ensure best use of available funds, efficient use of programs, priorities regarding community needs, etc. Staff will coordinate a time, date, and meeting location with the NAHAB. Ms. Bandoni noted that the NAHAB does not meet in July and August. It was suggested a separate meeting be scheduled at the end of June for the brainstorming session. ITEM 9 – ANNOUNCEMENTS AND BOARD COMMENTS Member Groth said at the last meeting concern had been expressed the City decides issues without considering NAHAB recommendations. He felt the Board should know that when the Commission was considering the SHIP plan, Commissioner Hooper had expressed interest in the NAHAB’s recommendation. ITEM 10 – NEXT REGULAR MEETING, 7:00 P.M. JUNE 20, 2000, AT THE MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER The next regular meeting of the NAHAB is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on June 20, 2000, at the Martin Luther King Center. ITEM 11 - ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m.