CDBG Taskforce and SAT Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Thursday, November 12th, 2020 3:30-5:30 PM Virtual Meeting AGENDA 1. Introductions/Housekeeping/Minutes a. SAT Committee 3:30-4:15pm b. CDBG Taskforce: 4:15-5:30pm 2. Review Application Scores & Create proposal budget. a. CDBG-CV3 2020-2021 b. CDBG 2021-2022 c. HOME 2021-2022 3. Other Business 4. Public Comment Staff Contact: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator (atake@charlottesville.gov), (434) 970-3093 CDBG Strategic Action Team (SAT) Minutes ATTENDANCE: Taskforce Member Present Absent Sue Moffett X Kelley Logan X Letitia Shelton X Gretchen Ellis X Diane Kuknyo X Erin Atak X SAT Minutes Grants Coordinator Erin Atak (EA) outlines the pre-application technical assistance process for the CDBG, HOME, and CDBG-CV3 grants. All applicants underwent an application workshop and a CDBG/HOME grant workshop session to review how to complete the web application, and the federal requirements for CDBG/HOME/CDBG-CV3. 12 applicants were met with during the mandatory technical assistance pre-application submittal phase, 8 applications were submitted for review. EA states that one change was made to the coring rubric for all applications. This was to address the HUD timeliness requirement, (24CFR 570.902(a)). Applicants were told during the technical assistance meetings that applicants with outstanding CDBG and HOME funds may not be receiving as strong of a consideration in this review process. This change helps the City and subrecipients stay in compliance with HUD timeliness requirements and promote new applicants to join the CDBG and HOME application process. EA states to the SAT members that they have the option to fully fund the CDBG econ applications, partially fund the applications, fund one application or not the other, or fund none of the applications. Gretchen Ellis (GE) asks if the committee can fund an applicant more than what was requested. EA: Yes – the Taskforce can check with Community Investment Collaborative and Local Energy Alliance Program staff in the audience to see whether they would be able to manage additional funds. GE: Poses the question of whether the grants being awarded to microenterprises through CIC’s application could be increased as we have been in this COVID state for an expended period of time – increasing the grant among would benefit businesses more. CIC Staff member Anna speaks with the Taskforce and states that CIC would be able administer larger grants and could manage extra funding and could also help more businesses at the same small grant threshold depending on how the Taskforce decided. GE makes a recommendation to move some of the CDBG econ overage funding into the CIC econ funding recommendation. Sue Moffett (SM) states that she had difficulty with the LEAP application as there was an absence of data making it hard to measure effectiveness of the project aside from reviewing the purpose of the project. GE: Poses a question for LEAP about whether that have previous experience with working with previously incarcerated individuals transition to the workforce. GE also mentions that LEAP’s application is more focused in the target neighborhood. Chris Meyer from LEAP addresses GE’s questions, states they have experience with working with Home to Hope individuals. States that this is one strategy to build a workforce. Diane Kuknyo (DK) asks Chris Meyer about whether the homes benefiting from the program will be rental properties with wealthy homeowners or low-income homeowners. Chris Meyer from LEAP addresses DK’s concern and states that this program will benefit low- income homeowners. GE moves to fully funding LEAP and to funding CIC at the full amount along with adding the $17,000 overage to CIC so that CIC could increase the number of microloans to the proposed businesses. Kelly Logan (KL) seconds. Moving to CDBG-CV3 Econ category EA explains that the SAT members only review the economic development applications while the CDBG/HOME Taskforce review the public service and housing applications in accordance to the CDBG Citizen Participation Plan. GE moves to fund CIC CDBG-CV3 application at the full $130,970.00 SM seconds. SAT recommends the final budget: CDBG Econ LEAP $29,238 CIC $32,056.28 CDBG-CV3 CIC $130,970 SAT Committee is Adjourned. CDBG/HOME Taskforce Minutes ATTENDANCE: Taskforce Member Present Absent James Bryant X Taneia Dowell X Howard Evergreen X Belmont Rep: VACANT X Nancy Carpenter X Emily Cone-Miller X Matthew Gillikin X Kem Lea Spaulding X Helen Kimble X Erin Atak X CDBG Minutes Grants Coordinator Erin Atak (EA) outlines the pre-application technical assistance process for the CDBG, HOME, and CDBG-CV3 grants. All applicants underwent an application workshop and a CDBG/HOME grant workshop session to review how to complete the web application, and the federal requirements for CDBG/HOME/CDBG-CV3. 12 applicants were met with during the mandatory technical assistance pre-application submittal phase, 8 applications were submitted for review. EA states that one change was made to the coring rubric for all applications. This was to address the HUD timeliness requirement, (24CFR 570.902(a)). Applicants were told during the technical assistance meetings that applicants with outstanding CDBG and HOME funds may not be receiving as strong of a consideration in this review process. This change helps the City and subrecipients stay in compliance with HUD timeliness requirements and promote new applicants to join the CDBG and HOME application process. EA states that the SAT committee members made the funding recommendations for the econ applications. CDBG Taskforce begins to review the CDBG public services applications Howard Evergreen (HE) asks about how the taskforce can allocate the overage in public services EA states that the overage can be directed toward another application in housing that may need it or be directed toward the Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood budgeted at $150,000. Kem Lea Spaulding (KLS) asks what is needed of the taskforce today. EA explains that the Taskforce has the option to either fully fund, partially fund, or not fund the applicants, funds can also be moved to the Ridge Street priority neighborhood taskforce and to housing as needed. Matthew Gillikin (MG) makes a funding recommendation to fully fund PHAR ($34,000) and LVCA ($25,000). MG states both applicants received the same score and fit within the 15% funding cap. Taneia Dowell (TD) seconds. HE, KLS, and James Bryant (JB) also agreed. KLS asks whether all the applications presented today are providing services only for the Ridge Street priority neighborhood. EA explains that the grant is not exclusive to the Ridge street priority neighborhood. Some applicants are providing services within the target neighborhood, and others are providing services to City residents. The Ridge Street Priority neighborhood portion of the CDBG grant focuses solely in Ridge Street. Emily Cone Miller (ECM) and MG make a funding recommendation to fully fund LEAP ($57,000). JB, TD, and HE second. KLS asks whether LEAP is hiring Ridge Street residents for the job training program. Chris Meyer from LEAP addresses this question, staff members come through the Home to Hope program. LEAP is asking for various funds from the CDBG econ and CDBG housing and HOME to service homes with energy efficiency improvements. MG asks whether funds from the CDBG-CV3 could be moved to different funding categories. EA answers that CDBG-CV3 is a separate grant and that those funds would need to remain separate from the CDBG and HOME. HE and MG discuss briefly that Habitat for Humanity submitted two different applications for CDBG-CV3 and HOME, unlike LEAP who submitted the same application for multiple sources of funding. HE explains that Habitat applied for down payment assistance through the HOME grant and applied for a COVID relief rent/mortgage relief program through CDBG-CV3. TD states a concern that she believes Habitat recruited only members through the Homeownership program. Ruth Stone from Habitat addresses TD’s question and states that the pathways to housing program through Habitat produces an applicant pool that needs financial empowerment that can be aided with CDBG and HOME. MG makes one funding recommendation to fully fund Habitat ($24,000) and give the remainder of the budget to AHIP. HE ask if Habitat has outstanding funds. EA states that a reasoning would need to be given to HUD as to why the City continues to re- award organizations with outstanding funds dating back to 2018. EA states that Habitat has outstanding down payment funds totaling $14,813.52. HE states that AHIP’s proposal is to complete one home. Partially funding this application might make this hard to accomplish. He adds that LEAP’s application aims to help more people with the funding requested. TD agrees with HE’s comments, and states that Habitat has not spent all the prior funding and is leveraging to complete said projects with some of the other projects that were funded earlier. Cory Demchak from AHIP typically helps 10-20 homes with federal funds and assisting 1 home eliminates a lot of the admin work. HE asks LEAP how partially funding their HOME application would affect their program. Chris Meyer from LEAP states that a partial funding would reduce the number of homes that would get addressed. The Taskforce moves to vote fully funding Habitat for Humanity ($24,000). HE asks EA whether this will work with the unspent funds. EA states that if the Taskforce moves to recommend fully funding an application, an explanation will be given to HUD. The main concern is addressing the unspent funds with HUD and avoiding having subrecipients having to pay back HUD. TD asks whether COVID-19 has affected projects. EA states yes. Emily Cone Miller (ECM) asks whether HOME funds could get moved to another funding category. EA states that HOME funds need to remain in HOME (No). MG makes a funding recommendation to fully fund Habitat ($24,000) again. MG points out that the AHIP total rehab costs was over $200,000 and that funding the proposal regardless of the amount would only assist partially. ECM proposes funding LEAP the remaining 1/3 of the funds, and AHIP with the remaining 2/3 funds. HE asks if AHIP received partial funding, would this affect the project? Cory Demchak from AHIP states that receiving partial funding could affect this project specifically, but AHIP could switch to providing homeowner rehabs within the Ridge Street Neighborhood if that was the case. Helen Kimble (HK) makes a funding recommendation to fund AHIP at 2/3 of the remaining HOME funds and fund LEAP with 1/3 of the remaining funds. HE adds that the taskforce move to take the overage from the public services and housing category and place it into the LEAP application as they are not receiving full funding in the HOME category. Taskforce approves: AHIP ($37,352), LEAP (19,242) for HOME. Taskforce begins to review CDBG-CV3 MG states that based on the scoring the fund should be divided between CRHA and Habitat. Pearl Transit’s application scored significantly lower than the other two. Members of the Taskforce state that the lack of clarity within the application poses concern. MG asks if CRHA would be able to accomplish their activity on partial funding. Kathleen Glen Matthews from CRHA states that the organization can scale back the scope of work offered within the application and pursue other sources of funding. MG states that the rental assistance portion of the CRHA application was the most appealing given the current health crisis. John Sales from CRHA speaks with the Taskforce about the eviction diversion program. JB asks John about the role of the Housing Stabilization Coordinator. John states that this role would work directly with families to work on repayment agreements and affordability. JB states that homeowner eviction education during this time is a priority. The Taskforce discusses on the CRHA application and the Habitat for Humanity covid application. EA reminds the Taskforce that splitting up funds between organizations means less of the scope of work for both organizations would get accomplished, regarding CRHA and Habitat’s application. HE proposes splitting the funds between the two organizations (CRHA and Habitat). The funding recommendation is made that Habitat and CRHA both receive $67,004.80. ME mentions that he does not mind splitting the funds between the organizations and suggests that CRHA prioritize emergency rental relief. Taskforce members discuss whether the funding recommendation should change. TD proposes of funding CRHA with 2/3 of the public services covid funding, and the remaining 1/3 of the funding would be recommended to Habitat. TD explains that Habitat received funds in the HOME category. TD also proposes to move the overage of econ funds to CRHA CDBG-CV3 application as there are no outstanding grant funds unspent with this applicant. HE agrees. Taskforce discusses on whether to split the public services funding evenly between CRHA and Habitat, or to divide it into thirds. EA reminds the Taskforce that HUD needs justification from the Taskforce as to why the committee is recommending awarding an organization with outstanding grant funds. Taskforce members move to fund CRHA with $91,485.94 and fund Habitat $45,563.26. CRHA was recommended to receive the funding overage. Meeting Adjourned.