Loading...
05/31/2000NEIGHBORHOOD & AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER May 31, 2000 Present: Warren Hunt Chair Steven Jefferies Vice-Chair – arrived 10:06 a.m. Mayme W. Hodges Board Member Peggy M. Cutkomp Board Member Howard Groth Board Member Milly Joplin Board Member Joyce L. Smith Board Member – arrived 10:37 a.m. William Turner, Sr. Board Member Absent: Rev. William Graham Board Member Also Present: Nina Bandoni Assistant Housing Director Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM 2 – DISCUSSION OF SCORING OPTIONS Assistant Housing Director Nina Bandoni reported at the last NAHAB (Neighborhood and Affordable Housing Advisory Board) meeting, the NAHAB had expressed concern regarding issues related to scoring of the Public Services section of the Consolidated Plan. That section had over $500,000 in requests for funding and only $150,000 is available. Ms. Bandoni reviewed the scoring process. The scores of the TRC (Technical Review Committee) and the NAHAB are combined and top rated scorers receive funding. Staff had suggested 3 scenarios: 1) 100% funding for the top 3 organizations; 2) 75% funding for the top 6 organizations; or 3) fund all organizations at 25%. After that meeting, staff ran 3 more scenarios: 1) 100% funding for the top 3 organizations; 2) 75% for the top 6 organizations; or 3) a sliding scale with a cutoff at 60 points. The sliding scale method would provide funding for 8 organizations as follows: 1) the top 2 scores would receive 60% of their request; 2) the next 2 organizations would receive 50% of their request; 3) the next two would receive 40% of their request; 4) the Boys and Girls Club would receive 30% of their request; and 5) Lockheed Martin would receive 15% of their request. Ms. Bandoni said for those agencies that do not receive funding through the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant), the Human Relations Department has funding opportunities. She said staff also developed 2 other funding options: 1) funding at 60% for fund 7 agencies, or 2) funding at 75% of requests with a 62 point cutoff to assist the top 7 agencies. Sylvia Costello, Partners in Self-Sufficiency, expressed concern that partial funding is insufficient to sustain many agencies. She felt a smaller reduction of the funds requested is more viable. She also suggested granting seed money to new agencies. She felt it unwise to change policy mid-stream. Police Chief Sid Klein and Chairman of CHIP (Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project), expressed concern that agencies that receive a 50% cut in funds will suffer greatly as they are not prepared for it. He encouraged the NAHAB to consider agency track records with regard to their objectives and how they benefit the City as a whole. He said CHIP falls within the category of dealing with significant social issues that will greatly affect the City. He felt the NAHAB should adhere to their current policy of 100% funding. Tom Spencer, Boys and Girls Club of Suncoast, Inc., and President for Jasmine Courts Boys and Girls Club, suggested the NAHAB consider the sliding scale method. He said his organization received the highest score from the NAHAB but an extremely low score from the TRC. He said it is vital to fund programs that benefit children in the community. Barbara Green, CHIP and Partners in Self-Sufficiency, recommended full funding. Patty Stow from the Kimberly Home recommended the sliding scale method. She said infant care is desperately needed in Clearwater. Cynthia Fox, Executive Director of Pinellas Cares, said regardless of the formula the NAHAB chooses, her organization will not be funded. She thanked the NAHAB for allowing her to participate in the process and hopes NAHAB will get to know her organization better. Barbara Brackum, Turning Point, said she is grateful for any funds her organization receives. Discussion ensued regarding the difficult task the NAHAB has to fund 12 agencies with only $150,000 in available funds. It was remarked the current process penalizes too many people. Concern was expressed the scoring process is inadequate as large discrepancies exist between the NAHAB and TRC’s scores. It was remarked that the problem of what to do to find more funding as a community is the real issue. The need for funding is much greater than the funds available. ITEM 3 – VOTE ON OPTIONS Member Groth moved that the NAHAB adopt the sliding scale method. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Hunt and Members Jefferies, Cutkomp, Groth, Joplin, and Turner voted “aye”; Member Hodges voted “nay”. Motion carried. Member Smith was not present for the vote. It was requested that before agencies apply for funds next year, requests be limited. Ms. Bandoni said staff will prioritize scoring and activities based on the Consolidated Plan for the next 5 years. The highest priority will be those items that have been identified as significant needs in the community. The Consolidated Plan will help the NAHAB to make decisions and address those specific areas where there is a great need for funding. A NAHAB member expressed concern that he would have difficulty awarding an agency 90% of available funds if only $150,000 is available and their request is for $120,000. He suggested limiting funds to a percentage of the request. ITEM 4 - ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:38 a.m.