Pima County Housing Commission
Committee Meeting
Pima County Administration Building
130 W. Congress - 1st
Floor Conference Room
Members
Present: Staff & Guests:
Tim
Escobedo Karen
Friar
Frank
Moreno Betty Villegas
David
Greenberg Gary Bachman
Jon Miles Hank
Atha
Kathleen
Longnecker Margaret Kish
Ken
Anderson Celina
Cuaron
Henry Boice Marcos
Ysmael
Erin
Morris
Mike McDonald
Terry Galligan
Emily Nottingham
Commission Chair Frank Moreno called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. with a quorum present. Mr. Moreno welcomed everyone and had everyone introduce himself/herself and what agency they represented. Betty Villegas made reference to the official roster and asked the Commission members to sign above their name and make sure information on roster is accurate.
II. Approval of Minutes from
April 27, 2005
Correction needs to be made to the
April 27th meeting minutes.
Number VII Chair and Vice Chair Elections, nomination of David Greenberg
for Vice Chair was made by Kathleen Longnecker and seconded by Ed
Taczanowsky.
Motion by Kathleen Longnecker to approve
the April 27th minutes with the correction to number VII as noted. Second
by Jon Miles. Motion carried
unanimously.
III. Ratify the Application Review
Sub-Committee
Commissioners discussed the need to
ratify the sub-committee meeting held on June 1st to review the City
of Tucson Depot Plaza application. Betty
Villegas explained that the full Commission needed to approve the sub-committee
in order to move forward with the sub-committee’s recommendations. Sub-committee members included: Frank
Moreno, David Greenberg, Tim Escobedo, Ed Taczanowsky and Ken Anderson.
Motion by Tim Escobedo to approve the
ratification of the sub-committee that met on June 1st and
Seconded by David Greenberg. Motion carried unanimously.
IV.
Sub-Committee Report on Depot Plaza Application reviewed June 1, 2005
Betty Villegas gave a brief summary
of what transpired at the June 1st sub-committee meeting. A summary of the meeting detailing the City
of Tucson Martin Luther King Depot
Plaza application was distributed to Commissioners.
Commissioners discussed the project
and had questions for the applicant.
The applicant was asked to give a brief overview of project.
Emily Nottingham, Director of
Community Services Dept. for the City of Tucson did a brief presentation of the
project and answered questions from Commissioners. Emily also had several site plans and display boards for
Commissioners to review.
V.
Commission Discussion and Possible Action on Depot
Plaza Application
Frank Moreno stated that the
sub-committee voted on June 1st to forward the application to the
full Commission for recommendation to fund in the amount not to exceed
$1,272,678.00.
Tim Escobedo further stated that the
sub-committee had reviewed the application and the scoring criteria used to
score the project. The highest possible
number of points was 100, this project scored 95, and met all the criteria and
the guidelines requested in the application.
Frank Moreno commented that since he
was seeing the material distributed for the first time, and it was difficult to
absorb all the information, but in fairness to the applicant, the Commission
should proceed. He suggested that in
the future, staff should have the materials distributed to Commissioners with
plenty of time for them to review prior to the meeting date.
Motion by
David Greenberg that the Commission endorses the application and grant the
amount not to exceed $1,272,678.00.
Seconded by
Tim Escobedo.
Betty Villegas interjected a
clarification that the Commission must make the recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Moreno requested that
the motion be reread for clarification.
Motion by
David Greenberg that the Commission forward to the Board of Supervisors the
recommendation to approve bond funds for the City of Tucson Martin Luther King
Depot Plaza project in the amount not to exceed $1,272,678.00.
Seconded by
Tim Escobedo. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioners discussed the process
for future applications. Staff
recommended that the Commission establish sub-committees to review the
applications as was done for the 1997 Housing Bond Oversight Committee. One recommendation was to have an A and B
sub-committee with each one reviewing different applications. The sub-committee
would meet as necessary, making recommendations to full Commission at the
regular monthly meeting. Staff opened
up recommendation for discussion by Commission.
Jon Miles shared concerns regarding
the scoring criteria. Staff discussed scoring criteria and other handouts used
in underwriting bond applications. Marcos Ysmael gave a brief overview of what
the staff does prior to the Commission getting an application. Marcos Ysmael explained the threshold
checklist that is required from the applicant before proceeding.
Ken Anderson asked how many
applications were in hand that had threshold issues. Gary Bachman responded that they had three in hand with threshold
issues. Hank Atha suggested to the Commission that staff bring an updated
spreadsheet of all applications received
and pending to future meetings. The log
will allow the Commission to keep updated on all pending applications.
Kathleen Longnecker asked what are
typical funding amount requests? She
stated that there was ten million dollars in bond funds, and we had just spent
almost $1.3 million. She raised issues
regarding replenishing this fund with developer contributions, which seems to
be the “elephant in the room”. Funding will
eventually run out and there is not a
long-term process. She went on to say that this process would be short lived if
the Commission didn’t have any money to fund additional projects. She suggested the Commission set a temporary
policy to get through this initial phase of proposals in order to get to the
meat of the issue which is how do we continue to fund projects, who funds them,
how long does the Commission exist and what is our true mission. The Commission needs to talk about the
obvious.
Betty Villegas explained that we are
talking about two different issues. The
Housing Trust Fund is totally separate from the bond applications. This is a separate pot of money, but it can
run out. Project amounts can range, and
$1.2 million is the highest ever
funded. Typically the range starts at
around $200,000. She went on to say
that is why she is suggesting two separate sub -committees so that when the
Commission meets they are not spending all of their time reviewing bond
applications.
Motion made by Kathleen Longnecker to establish two sub-committees of
this Commission to review applications for recommendations to the full
committee insuring that there is not a quorum at anytime at a sub-committee
meeting
Seconded by Tim Escobedo.
These sub-committees will be by
volunteerism by which weekday each member is available to attend. A sheet was passed around for each member to
determine which day (Wednesday or Thursday) would work better for him or her.
Mr. Moreno excused himself and
turned the meeting over to Mr. Greenberg to chair the remainder of the meeting.
VII. Staff
Report
Hank Atha introduced Karen Friar
from the Pima County Attorney’s office.
Karen said she was available anytime the Commission had questions.
Commissioners discussed the goals as
outlined in memo dated November 16, 2004
Betty Villegas gave a staff report
on goals and responsibilities of the Commission and provided everyone with a
handout with information taken directly from the November 16, 20/04 memo
approved by the Board of Supervisors.
The goals were broken down in three areas:
·
Housing
Trust Fund
·
Adopt
an Affordable Housing Strategy
·
2004
Housing Bond Funds
The summary included objectives
under each of the items listed.
Kathleen had some questions as to
whether there was an action plan or did Commission have to develop one.
Hank explained where the resources
came from: Federal Home Program, CDBG funds, the contribution schedule and the
issue of leveraging funds. He suggested
that the Commission add one goal to the next agenda.
Motion by Kathleen to put at least one of
each of these items outlined by staff as being the goals of this commission on
each agenda so we can move this commission forward in a timely manner. It was agreed by the Commissioners that no
motion was required as long as everyone agreed and gave that direction to staff
to do so.
Letter to Board of Supervisors
requesting extension on public hearing report due May 10, 2005 – It was agreed
by the Commissioners that staff would prepare a letter requesting an extension
until October 18, 2005.
VIII.
Future Meetings
a.
Commissioners
agreed next meeting will be July 18, 2005
Betty brought to the Commission’s
attention that the September meeting would need to be changed because a
mandatory staff conference on September 19th. It was agreed that meeting would be
September 12th.
b.
Sub-committee
meetings will be Wednesdays and Thursdays as needed.
c.
Public
Hearing will be September 12, 2005 and that will be the only item on the
agenda.
The Commission requested transcripts
and minutes of the November 16, 2004 Board of Supervisor’s meeting. They also requested the memorandum that was
included with the Board of Supervisors agenda.
They would like this information to assist them in understanding what
the BOS (delete was thinking and) intended in order that the Commission (delete
to be thinking along the same lines) may maintain the Board’s intent as well as
for discussion in future meetings.
Betty will provide this information and send it to each Commissioner.
IX. Call to the Audience
No
members from the public spoke at this time.
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.