Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/02/08-Minutes-HEDCCITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Present: Committee Member Jungus Jordan, Chairman Committee Member Carter Burdette, Vice Chairman Committee Member Mike Moncrief Committee Member Salvador Espino Committee Member W. B. "Zim" Zimmerman Committee Member Danny Scarth (arrived at 1:53 p.m.) Committee Member Frank Moss Committee Member Kathleen Hicks Committee Member Joel Burns City Staff: Susan Alanis, Assistant City Manager Peter Vaky, Deputy City Attorney Marty Hendrix, City Secretary Jay Chapa, Director of Housing and Economic Development Department Robert Stums, Manager, Housing and Economic Development Department Cynthia Garcia, Assistant Director, Housing and Economic Development Department Other City Staff in Attendance: Tom Higgins, Interim City Manager (arrived at 2:25 p.m.) Vicki Ganske, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Law Department LeAnn Guzman, Assistant City Attorney, Law Department With a quorum of the committee members present, Chairman Jungus Jordan called the meeting of the Housing and Economic Committee to order at 1:44 p.m., on Tuesday, February 8, 2011, in the Pre - Council Chamber of the Fort Worth Municipal Building, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102. Approval of Minutes of the January 4, 2011, Housing and Economic Development Committee (Agenda Item 2) Chairman Jordan opened the floor for a motion on the approval of the minutes. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 2 of 18 Approval of Minutes of the January 4, 2011, Housing and Economic Development Committee (cont'd) (Agenda Item 2) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Committee Member Moncrief and seconded by Committee Member Zimmerman , the Committee Members voted eight (8) "ayes" and zero (0) "nays ", with Committee Member Scarth being temporarily absent, to approve the minutes of the January 4, 2011, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting. The motion carried unanimously. Written Reports (Agenda Item 3) Jay Chapa, Director of the Housing and Economic Development Department, provided the following written reports as a matter of information to the committee members: A. Memo on M /WBE Solicitation Requirements and Ordinance Revision Update B. Memo regarding the Purchase of Tax Foreclosed Lots in the Como Neighborhood for the Lakeside Village Homes Project Chairman Jordan acknowledged receipt of the reports. Chairman Jordan adjourned the regular meeting of the Housing and Economic Development Committee into Executive Session at 1:45 p.m. in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Open Meeting Act. Executive Session (Agenda Item 4) Chairman Jordan called to order the Executive Session at 1:45 p.m. in order to discussion the following items: A. Seek the advice of its attorneys concerning the following items that are exempt from public disclosure under Article X, Section 9 of the Texas State Bar Rules, as authorized by Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code: (i) legal issues related to any current agenda items; B. Discuss the purchase, sale, lease or value of real property, as authorized by Section 551.072 of the Texas Government Code. Deliberation in an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the position of the City in negotiations with a third party; and, CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 3 of 18 Executive Session (cont'd) (Agenda Item 4) C. Discuss or deliberate negotiations relating to any economic development negotiations, as authorized by Section 551.087 of the Texas Government Code. (Committee Member Danny Scarth arrived at 1:53 p.m.) Chairman Jordan adjourned the Executive Session at 1:58 p.m. Chairman Jordan reconvened the regular session of the Housing and Economic Development Committee at 1:58 p.m. Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Using a PowerPoint Presentation, Jay Chapa, Development Department, spoke before the committe e Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund. (Agenda Item 5) Director of Housing and Economic regarding the priority uses of the Mr. Chapa advised of the three (3) year consolidated plan objective for the CDBG Funds as follows: Objective 1 — Decent Housing Objective 2 — A Stable Living Environment Objective 3 — Expanded Economic Opportunities Mr. Chapa reviewed the first objective, decent housing as follows: Strategies Increase rental and new home construction opportunities Down Payment assistant Weatherization, rehab Programs: New construction of single and multi - family Housing trust fund Down payment assistant program Weatherization Cowtown brush up CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 4 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) Mr. Chapa reviewed the second objective, a stable living environment as follows: Strategies Public services to youth, elderly and special need citizens Projects in low to moderate income neighborhoods for lighting, sidewalks, and infrastructure Programs Public Service Programs Elimination of Blight (Demolition) Infrastructure Projects Hardy Street Program Street Lights Streets Sidewalks ADA Ramps Mr. Chapa reviewed the third objective, expanded economic opportunities as follows: Strategies Subsidized childcare in order that parents can access education, job training and employment Programs Public Service Contracts with agencies to provide childcare Mr. Chapa showed a map of the City of Fort Worth with color -coded sections of the city with the CDBG eligible areas in the color brown, with lakes in the color blue and the other areas of the city limits shown in grey. Mr. Chapa advised that the 2010 -11 CDBG funds were $7,331,207.00. He added that based upon the action plan, the funds were spent on: public service, housing programs and services, community facilities and infrastructure, repayment of 108 loan and funds for administration costs of the staff to oversee this program. Mr. Chapa presented the CDBG 2010 -11 Budget Summary as follows: CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 5 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) Public Services (Non - profits) Non - Profit Programs Total: $1,081.780 Economic Development Repayment of Section 108 Loan Debt Service Total: $720,624 General Administration Administration of Federally Funded Grant Programs Contract Compliance Finance, Budget & Planning Total: $1,486,241 Mr. Chapa then review the housing programs as follows: Housing Programs Project Ramp $50,000 Rehab /Construction Mgmt Program Delivery $930,236 Housing Services & Info Delivery $166,168 Emergency Home Repair $1,005,329 Cowtown Brush -up — Project Funds $293,814 Cowtown Brush -up — Program Delivery $46,557 Pilot Roof Program $200,000 Housing Trust Fund Homeowner Rehab Loans $550,000 Total: $3,242,104 Mr. Chapa also presented the program for the discretionary funds as follows: Discretionary Funds programs Terrell Heights Lights $50,000 Targeted Infrastructure Diamond Hill $466,724* Neighborhood Streets $381,733 Total: $900,457 *Includes $100,000 in estimated program income CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 6 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) Mr. Chapa presented and reviewed the following chart of the CDBG: 2011 -12 Proposed Budget Summary: Housing Programs Current Proposed Project Ramp $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Rehab /Construction Mgmt Program Delivery $ 930,236 $ 930,236 Housing Services & Info Delivery $ 166,168 $ 166,168 Emergency Home Repair $1,005,329 $ 750,000 Cowtown Brush -up — Project Funds $ 293,814 $ 293,814 Cowtown Brush -up — Program Delivery $ 46,557 $ 46,557 Pilot Roof Program $ 200,000 $ 0 Housing Trust Fund Homeowner Rehab Loans $ 550,000 $ ** 0 Total $3,242,104 $2,236,775 Difference $1,005,329 * *Currently approximately $3.7 million available in the HTF Discretionary Funds Programs Mr. Chapa then reviewed the recommended prioritization for funding as follows: Demolition ($500,000) — Prioritization w /Code Compliance Current Proposed Terrell Heights Lights $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Targeted Infrastructure Diamond Hill $468,724* $0 Neighborhood Streets $381,733 $0 Total $900,457 $ 50,000 Difference $ 850,457 Amount of Available Funds from Housing Programs from Recommended Changes $1,005,329 Total Available $1,855,786 Mr. Chapa then reviewed the recommended prioritization for funding as follows: Demolition ($500,000) — Prioritization w /Code Compliance CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 7 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) 2. Traffic Signals (new) ($600,000)— Prioritization with T/PW 3. Redevelopment Project Support ($755,000) a. Streets b. Sidewalks c. Lighting 4. Streets Mr. Chapa advised that the next steps were: • CDC Action Plan Process Presentation would be done on February 16, 2011 • Bring forward the Mayor and Council Communications on specific projects as set by prioritization for use of CDBG funds Mr. Chapa concluded his presentation. Chairman Jordan opened the floor for questions and /or comments. Committee Member Scarth requested a clarification on the funding shown for demolition and he requested to know if it was for single - family homes that were identified by the City's Code Compliance Department or substandard apartments or just what type of demolition. Mr. Chapa responded that it was primarily single- family homes. He stated that for commercial properties, the City had to own them in "fee" in order for the City to be able to do anything with them. He added that if they were in a tax foreclosure situation then the City had to receive approval from all of the other taxing entities. He added that they had indicated that they did not want to participate in that process. He stated that typically commercial property was older and could have environmental issues and in that situation it could eat up all of the program dollars. Council Member Scarth stated that he wanted to come back to that point later. He stated that in terms of the street lighting, sidewalks, etc., he requested a clarification on the criteria for the areas for the use of those funds. Mr. Chapa responded that it had to be CDBG eligible areas. He pointed out for an example that it could not be an arterial street if the passengers using the roadway were not from that area of town. He added that the City staff was recommending that these funds be used to support redevelopment projects. He stated that they did not want to utilize CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 8 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) those funds in a neighborhood area to have lighting if there was nothing that went with it that would make a difference in the area He stated for examples it would be infill housing in the area or roadway construction along with sidewalks for the neighborhood. He stated that the point was to leverage funds with additional improvements that were being made in an area for redevelopment opportunities. Council Member Scarth returned to the issue of demolition funding. He pointed out that he was not sure whether the emphasis needed to be something that the City worked through legislative or Housing and Economic Development, he was not sure. He reminded the committee members of the issues with the demolition of the Cowtown Inn and an apartment complex that was a test case in Woodhaven on the alternate asbestos removal or the "wet" method as it was called. He stated that method was moving along very well when Richard Green was Regional Director for the EPA. Committee Member Scarth stated obviously he was removed with the change over in the federal government administration with the election. He added he had talked with Shelley Poticha, Director for Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, with HUD, who was in charge of their "Building Communities" program but it was very difficult to get anything happening on the federal level particularly when the labor unions were blocking the use of that methodology. He added he felt it was something that the City needed to continue to push. He added that the City could save hundreds, if not thousands or millions of dollars in demolition costs if the City could use the alternate method of asbestos removal. He pointed out that it cost one -half to one -third as much if the City could use that method. He stated that then those dollars could spread a lot further in the redevelopment projects, particularly when going into the older neighborhoods, with the older apartment complexes and commercial buildings. Committee Member Scarth indicated that he did not know how the City could keep that fire lit but he was going to keep bringing it up every time the word "demolition" popped up some place. He reiterated that the City needed to keep pushing to see if changes could be made to the EPA regulations. Chairman Jordan asked if a formal request to that end had been made. Mr. Chapa indicated that this would probably need to be part of the City's legislative agenda. He pointed out that the City was not allowed to use that method. Chairman Jordan requested Mr. Chapa come back to the next meeting with a recommendation on that issue. Committee Member Moss added that there was another piece on the demolition concern and in his neighborhoods it was the demolition of city -owned properties or tax foreclosed CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 9 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) properties that were not contributing to the neighborhood. He requested to know where the concentration would be. Mr. Chapa indicated that they would work with Code Compliance to identify those most substandard projects or properties that were out in the community. He indicated that Code Compliance always provided a listing. He stated that they had heard in the Stop Six Sunrise Addition Neighborhood of some priority properties that they would like to see torn down. He added that City staff had to make sure that under the City's Code they could be demolished or whether it made more sense that the properties be rehabbed. Mr. Chapa indicated that the City staff was looking into this issue and it was actually his next presentation as part of changing the home improvement program. Mr. Chapa reiterated that he would work with Director of Code Compliance Brandon Bennett to develop the list of properties which would then be provided to the City Council Members in order to determine if there were any properties that the Council Members would not want to see demolished or whether other properties should be moved up on the list due to neighborhood concerns. Committee Member Espino spoke about the prioritization list and the fact that there were limited funds for demolition. He pointed out that there were many, many substandard structures throughout the City so he understood that Mr. Chapa would be working with Code Compliance to develop a priority list but given the limited amount of funds he was hopeful that City staff would identify a geographically diverse area so that demolition of substandard structures would be taking place in all parts of the City. He stated that while he understood the concept of demolishing structures in one particular area would have the most meaningful impact; however, he felt that the citizens wanted to see the demolition in all Council Districts where there were substandard structures. He added that he understood that the structures had to be located in CDBG identified eligible areas; however, he felt that most all of the Council Districts had those areas. He reiterated that he understood that there was limited funding; however, he requested Mr. Chapa take his comments into account. Mr. Chapa explained that the funding that had been identified for that purpose was just a place holder. He stated that if that was the Committee's priority and they wanted to see more dollars in that area then this was the type of information that would be provided to the Community Development Council (CDC) and then they would help the City staff made the ultimate recommendation to the City Council. Committee Member Espino indicated that he wanted to provide follow -up. He added that he appreciated the allocations that had been presented but as he reviewed the list again he CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 10 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) questioned the need for $755,000 for redevelopment project support. He indicated that it was his preference to have more funding in the demolition item. He spoke about the demolishing the substandard structures and creating a vacant lot and having a plan for what could be developed on the vacant lot(s). He pointed out that if there was no plan in place, and then the City had to deal with high weeds and grass, litter and other issues on the lots. He pointed out that there had to be a coordinated plan. Mr. Chapa explained that was the goal of the redevelopment dollars. Committee Member Hicks requested clarification regarding the Terrell Heights lights and how long it would take to finish out that project if they were doing $50,000.00 per year. Mr. Chapa stated that he believed the plan was 10 years. Committee Member Hicks then reviewed the amount of funding for traffic signals and that the $600,000 figure only represented about three (3) new traffic signals. She added that she did not receive a lot of complaints about traffic signals in her district. She indicated that she would also prefer to see more funding in the demolition rather than the traffic signals and the redevelopment project support. She asked Mr. Chapa if he heard a lot of complaints about that issue. Mr. Chapa indicated that they had heard from various neighborhood groups and then when they looked into the issue with TPW, they had some traffic signal needs in eligible CDBG areas which they just had not had the dollars to do. Committee Member Hicks questioned how TPW could resurface University Drive, which cost $800,000, if they did not have money to do traffic signals. She stated that as Mr. Chapa going forward with the Transportation/Public Works Department (TPW), this was the type of questions that she really wanted to hear the answers. She stated that she did not understand how they were able to utilize those funds when the committee members were fighting over $1.2 million. Committee Member Hicks requested that when Mr. Chapa came back, that he team up with TPW and explain that situation as she would like to utilize the proposed funding for demolition rather than the traffic signals. She also requested to know how much funding TPW had for discretionary funds throughout the City. She reiterated that she did not understanding how they could make the decision to pave University without the City Council making that decision when there were projects all over the City that had been greatly delayed. She added that she was not just talking about CDBG eligible areas. There was further deliberation about that request and whether it should be presented to this committee or the Infrastructure and Transportation Committee. Committee Member Hicks indicated that she was not on that committee. Chairman Jordan interjected that it probably should be an agenda item for the City Council's Pre - Council Agenda if there were no objections from the committee members. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 11 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) Committee Member Moncrief stated that as the committee and the City looked at streets it continued to be a challenge. He then referenced the recommendation that came forward from the recent Task Force that looked at transportation infrastructure and their recommendation for a transportation fee to fund the needed improvements. He pointed out that with that funding for streets he felt that might free up some of the dollars that had been identified in this presentation for street improvements to be moved to demolition projects. Committee Member Moncrief stated that until the demolition was accomplished, the City was not going to be able to construct or reconstruct in those various locations. He also added that he could not agree more with what Committee Member Scarth stated regarding the Fort Worth "wet" method for asbestos removal that the City tried to get passed through the EPA. Committee Member Moncrief advised of caution with the EPA because he felt that they were not happy with the City at this moment and he felt that if they were approached about this issue, it might cause more harm than good. Committee Member Scarth advised that the City was presented with this concept through Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD), EPA and Texas Department of Transportation. He explained that since those agencies were involved he thought that perhaps it could be funneled through the Housing and Economic Development side and have it come in as a HUD idea. Committee Member Scarth explained that the City could redevelop neighborhoods and parts of the community if that method could be utilized. He felt that was a more viable approach than the City approaching EPA with this request. He felt that HUD could then approach EPA and request assistance. Mr. Chapa explained that approximately one (1) year ago HUD hosted a group of the City staff to attend a meeting to talk about that cycle of all three (3) of these agencies working together and what HUD could do differently. He pointed out the issue of where redevelopment occurred using federal dollars and when the City had to get rid of an existing depilated structure and the process that the City had to go through to do so. He indicated that they took notes on the comments made; however, City staff had not seen anything come out of that meeting to date. Committee Member Moncrief pointed out that the City was allowed to use that method with the demolition of the Cowtown Inn and it worked. He added that it was a test and it did work and he had not hear any complaints against it. He pointed out that the test was passed. Committee Member Scarth interjected that he had delivered to Director Poticha the documentation that showed the various tests that were conducted showing the 23 various CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 12 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) sampling sites and he advised of the positive results of that testing. Committee Member Scarth indicated that the science was there; however, he felt they were waiting for some peer review from the study. He felt it was politics and not science any more. Committee Member Espino referenced the traffic signals and indicated that he supported the funding if the signals were part of a redevelopment project. He gave as an example the Diamond Hill area, Hardy Place where new housings were being built. He pointed out that with those new homes came more traffic, thus there would be a need for traffic signals. He stated that he felt that if the traffic signals were part of a redevelopment project then that would be a good prioritization. Mr. Chapa clarified with Committee Member Espino his recommendation. Committee Member Hicks indicated that she supported that recommendation. She reiterated her request to see the TPW funding coupled with the CDBG dollars. She talked about the Code Compliance issue on demolition and indicated that it was frustrating because the City Council Members got complaints from people about properties that were in bad shape and then Code Compliance came back and indicated that those properties do not meet the threshold to be thorn down. She provided as an example the Webber Funeral Home on Evans and her question was how bad would it have to get before the building can be torn down. She pointed out that she realized that Mr. Chapa could not answer some of her questions; however, she would like a future agenda item before the entire Council to answer these questions on the demolition piece. Chairman Jordan clarified that these funds were annually appropriated, i.e., from October through September. Mr. Chapa concurred that the City had requested and received a change in the program year requirement for these funds to match the City's funding period. He pointed out that with this change the process was a little behind for review by the CDC. He indicated that process would start in March. Mr. Chapa explained that City staff wanted to get the committee's direction for any CDBG discretionary fund dollars, for example a project that could fall out of the system and then there were other projects that could move up on the priority list. He reviewed again when the CDC would be reviewing and holding their public hearings. He indicated that the City Council would not be voting on the Action Plan until perhaps the last week in July or the first week in August. He pointed out that it would run along with the City's general fund budget process. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 13 of 18 Presentation Regarding Priority Uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) Chairman Jordan referenced the emergency home repair portion of the presentation was funded at $750,000.00 and pointed out that they ran out of funding last year. He asked if they were going to restart the process or take the back log of applications to fund. He stated this was an administrative question that probably the CDC should answer. Mr. Chapa provided background information that last year the City ran out of the federal budget of $550,000.00 in April of the old time frame that ended on May 31. He pointed out that the City Council approved the use of $150,000.00 in other CDBG monies that were not assigned to any project to be utilized to get through this program. He explained that due to that fact, this was the reason that the City staff had recommended increasing that project funding to $1 million. He added that the requests for funding this year have been down from previous years; therefore, the City staff was recommending only the funding amount at $750,000.00. He pointed out that the City was not going to run out of dollars for this year. Chairman Jordan reviewed the consensus of the comments that had been made by the committee members. He stated that traffic signals would now move down to number 3 priority, redevelopment of projects would move up to number 2 priority if it was associated with a demolition project and to increase the amount of funding going into the demolition project funding. He recommended that $1 million be placed in the demolition funding and whatever else could just trickle down the list. There were no objections from the committee members in this regard. Mr. Chapa clarified that the City staff would work with Code Compliance on the demolition issue to see what they could do on an annual basis. He added that they could now provide the CDC clearer direction on the funding priorities. Chairman Jordan recognized Mr. Chapa and his staff for their work to clean up issues regarding the federal funding dollars that the City received and how those dollars were spent. He expressed appreciation for that work. Committee Member Moss requested clarification of the issue of monies being left over in this funding year from the $1 million funding for housing rehabilitation. Mr. Chapa explained that it appeared that only $750,000.00 would be utilized, thus leaving approximately $250,000.00. He added that the City staff would not know that until they get closer to the end of the funding year. He stated that then in the new funding year the City would be able to reallocate those funding dollars to the priorities that had just been identified by the committee. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 14 of 18 This concluded the presentation and discussion on this agenda item. Presentation Regarding Proposed Changes to the Home Improvement Program (Agenda Item 6) Using a PowerPoint Presentation, Jay Chapa, Director of Housing and Economic Development Department, spoke before the committee on the proposed changes to the Home Improvement Program (HIP). Mr. Chapa spoke about the HIP guidelines as follows: Repairs must meet local building codes Homeowner must earn less than 80% of AMI Max of $33,500 assistance Owner occupied Owner must maintain escrow account with City for insurance and taxes Payback within 10 years Mr. Chapa showed a loan repayment /deferment schedule as follows: % of Median Income To Be Repaid 0% to 30% 0% 31% to 40% 20% 41% to 50% 20% 41% to 50% 30% 51% to 60% 45% 61 %to 70% 55% 71% to 80% 75% *Deferred Payment Loan *Loans are 0% interest and on a 120 -month term Mr. Chapa explained the HIP ineligible activities as follows: To Be a DPL* 100% 80% 80% 70% 55% 45% 25% • New construction, replacement, or the completion of unfinished spaces not required to meeting Housing Quality Standards (HQS). • Materials, fixtures, equipment or landscaping of a type of quality which exceeds that customarily used for surrounding properties of the same general type to be rehabilitated. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 15 of 18 Presentation Regarding Proposed Changes to the Home Improvement Program (cont'd) (Agenda Item 6) • Acquisition of land. • Refinancing or repayment of existing debt against the property or the applicant. • Repairs to mobile homes or manufactured homes, if the property is not taxable as real estate of attached to a permanent foundation • Costs of repairs incurred prior to the execution date of the assisted contract or not included in the signed contract. • Additional items that are ineligible: Barbeque Pit Fireplaces Flower Box Tools Sidewalk Sprinkler Systems Greenhouse Waterproofing Patio Deck Swimming Pool Storage Sheds Kennel Outdoor Fireplace Sauna Satellite Dish Mr. Chapa presented the recommended changes to the Homeowner Improvement Program. He advised that the increase maximum assistance was moved up to $50,000, with a higher cap increases affordability period and a change in the loan payback requirements. Mr. Chapa showed the following char for the loan repayment /deferment schedule: % of median income 0% to 50% 51% to 60% 61% to 70% 71 % to 60 "% *Deferred Payment Loan *Loans are 0% interest and on a 120 month term To be repaid To be a DPL* 0% 100% 20% 80% 30% 70% 50% 50% CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 16 of 18 Presentation Regarding Proposed Changes to the Home Improvement Program (cont'd) (Agenda Item 6) Mr. Chapa then presented and reviewed a chart showing the FY 2010 income limits documentation system and the FY 2010 income limits summary. Mr. Chapa advised that the next steps in this process would be a Mayor and Council Communication to be placed on the March 1, 2011, City Council Agenda to modify the program. Mr. Chapa concluded his presentation. Chairman Jordan opened the floor for questions and /or comments. Committee Member Burdette requested clarification about the $50,000.00 maximum assistance for the homeowner improvement program. He asked what would occur if the improvements were estimated at $48,000.00 and when the work began on a home and there were associated problems which raised the costs to $60,000.00. He added that he felt there should be some way up front of determining how much the repairs were going to cost. Mr. Chapa explained that under the federal guidelines the City could not over subsidize a home. He provided an example of if a home was very low in value; the City could not put in $40,000 to $50,000 for the improvements because it would be over subsidizing the home, particularly if it was going to turn into a grant. He added that the HUD representatives were recommending that $60,000.00 be the cap. Mr. Chapa explained that the City staff felt that figure was too high. He pointed out that most of the projects in the past have capped at $38,000.00 or $39,000.00. Mr. Burdette requested clarification on where the funding would come from if the project went over $50,000.00. He asked if the homeowner would be required to acquire that funding or would the City provide that funding because it was due to an unexpected problem. Mr. Chapa explained that the City staff would probably have to come before the City Council and obtained approval for an appropriation of non - federal funds to do so. Mr. Chapa explained that once the repairs begin, certain federal standards have to be followed. Committee Member Espino requested to go back to slide 5, which showed the recommended changes to the Homeowner Improvement Program. He requested further explanation of the chart and what the homeowners would have to pay back or what would become a loan. Mr. Chapa reviewed and explained the chart and added that a homeowner was required to pay their taxes and insurance. He advised that there would also be a lien on the CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 17 of 18 Presentation Regarding Proposed Changes to the Home Improvement Program (cont'd) (Agenda Item 6) home. Committee Member Espino requested clarification on the 0% to 50% median income and that this group would be eligible for a deferred payment loan, which was interest free and on a 120 month term. Mr. Chapa provided the clarification and that Mr. Espino interpretation was correct. There was further review of the chart as to what would be repaid and what would be a deferred payment loan for each of the income categories. Committee Member Espino requested to know if someone in Mr. Chapa's department would be monitoring these loans and making sure the payments were being done, etc. He expressed his concern that the City was providing for maximum assistance and more people will be eligible for these loans. He explained that he wanted to make sure that there were sufficient controls in place to monitor this program effectively. Mr. Chapa explained their monitoring process in the department. Committee Member Espino requested to know the total pool of funding for this program. Mr. Chapa indicated that in the model block program, it was $1.2 million. Committee Member Burns requested clarification on the issue that since this was a loan program; he asked if there were any ties to property evaluations. Mr. Chapa indicated that the City staff had to run the numbers through the HUD matrix in order to determine if it was an over subsidization. This concluded the presentation and discussion on this agenda item. Request for Future Agenda Items (Agenda Item 5) Chairman Jordan pointed out that several future agenda items had already been requested during the meeting discussions. He advised that they were the presentation to the full Council by TPW regarding their discretionary funding for infrastructure projects; the recommendation coming back to this committee from the CDC on the recommendations for the CDBG funding and the presentation by Code Compliance regarding their demolition list of properties, how it is determined, what was the threshold that a property had to be ranked to be demolished and how many can be accomplished each year. There was no further future agenda items requested. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Page 18 of 18 Date of Next Regular Meeting — March 1, 2011 (Agenda Item 6) Chairman Jordan advised that the next regular meeting of the Housing and Economic Development Committee would be held on Tuesday, March 1, 2011. Adjourn (Agenda Item 7) With no further presentations or discussions, Chairman Jordan adjourned the regular meeting of the Housing and Economic Development Committee at 2:20 p.m., on Tuesday, February 8, 2011. These minutes approved by the Housing and Economic Development Committee on the 5th day of April, 2011. APPROVED: Jun q s J an, C I irman Minutes Prepared by and Attest: Marty Hendrix, &ty Secretary