ORDER OF BUSINESS

MEETING: COMMISSION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAHAC) – REGULAR

I. CALL TO ORDER: January 28, 2010, at 8:45 a.m., in the McEaddy Conference Room, 12^th Floor, Governmental Center, West Palm Beach, Florida.

I.A. Welcome

I.B. Introductions

Members, Officers, and Staff Present:

Chair Suzanne P. Cabrera

Vice Chair Bill Sanders

Committee Member Peter Applefield

Committee Member Seymour A. Fine – Absent

Committee Member Shelley Gottsagen

Committee Member Joseph Gray – Arrived later

Committee Member Patrick J. McNamara – Arrived later

Committee Member Christine Oberlink – Arrived later

Committee Member Paula J. Ryan

Committee Member Wendy Tippett

Assistant County Attorney Tammy Fields

Commission on Affordable Housing Senior Planner Carol Eaddy Langford

Commission on Affordable Housing Principal Planner Linda Goddard

Deputy Clerk Julie Burns

II. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

II.A. Approval of the Agenda

Committee Member Shelley Gottsagen requested that an item regarding the compliance monitoring report and audit be added to the agenda. She stated that the audit portion could be considered under old business because the item had been referenced at the last meeting, and the report could be considered under new business.

Chair Suzanne P. Cabrera stated that she believed that the CAHAC had requested a Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) update, which would be considered under old business.

Ms. Gottsagen also requested that the outreach to nonprofit organizations be considered under old business because in the last minutes a reference had been made to schedule a February discussion regarding the item.

MOTION to adopt the agenda, as amended. Motion by Paula J. Ryan, seconded by Shelley Gottsagen, and carried 6-0. Seymour A. Fine, Joseph Gray, Patrick J. McNamara, and Christine Oberlink absent.

II.B. Approval of Minutes:

II.B.1. For December 14, 2009 – Adm.1 to Adm. 6

MOTION to approve the December 14, 2009, minutes. Motion by Shelley Gottsagen, seconded by Peter Applefield, and carried 6-0. Seymour A. Fine, Joseph Gray, Patrick J. McNamara, and Christine Oberlink absent.

II.C. Monthly Expenditure Report – Adm. 7 to Adm. 8

Commission on Affordable Housing (CAH) Principal Planner Linda Goddard made the following comments:

● The total budget for Adm. 7, 2007/2008, was $12,682,800.11.

○ Expenditures were $11,119,989.53.

○ The remaining balance was $1,562,810.58.

○ This was a close-out year, and it would be closed out as of June 30, 2010.

○ The majority of the money was obligated, and the CAH was waiting for projects to begin.

● The total budget for 2008/2009 was $11,281,442.04.

○ Expenditures were $18,923,881.91.

○ The remaining balance was $5,040,380.24.

(CLERK’S NOTE: The following amounts were reflected on the CAH Expenditure Detail Report for the period ending December 31, 2009, ADM 7: Total budget for 2008/2009 reflected $23,964,242.15; the expenditures reflected $7,803,892.38; and the remaining balance reflected $3,477,549.66.)

● Some of the remaining funds that were not expended for the 2007/2008 closeout could be carried forward.

○ If a project was committed and the developer needed an extension, the funds could be moved forward.

○ At some point, the developer would need to notify the CAH whether the project was still feasible, and if not, the CAH would have an opportunity to obligate the funds to someone else.

(CLERK’S NOTE: Committee Member Patrick J. McNamara joined the meeting.)

Assistant County Attorney Tammy Fields clarified that the Village Center project was in foreclosure, and the County would probably not recover any funds that were already expended on the project. She added that the project’s $400,000 allocation would be allocated to another project.

Housing and Community Development Director Edward C. Lowery brought up the following points:

● The $400,000 was 2007/2008 dollars so the CAH had until June 30, 2010, to expend that allocation.

● All other projects were appropriately moving forward.

● In order to receive a credit by June 30, 2010, the $400,000 would not only need to be obligated to an identified project, it would need to be expended.

● There were no existing projects where allocations had been expended and an extension was requested.

Mr. Lowery said that the CAH was considering implementation of the Rental Assistance Program (RAP), and he added the following comments:

● The CAH was working directly with the Department of Community Services (DCS), who had implemented the RAP.

● The RAP provided financial assistance to low and very low income households to help them pay for rental deposits and in some instances, utility deposits.

Mr. Lowery recommended that if the CAHAC was taking the RAP into consideration today, $800,000 of the State Housing Initiatives Program’s (SHIP) income, which had been allocated to tax credit projects, was available for reallocation due to only one project that had received a perfect score. In addition, he stated that the $800,000 also needed to be obligated to an identified project or expended by June 30, 2010.

Chair Cabrera suggested that the SHIP’s income should be shown on every report that the CAHAC received, including timeframes, so that strategies could be developed.

(CLERK’S NOTE: Committee Member Christine Oberlink joined the meeting.)

Mr. Lowery clarified that because the DCS had a direct link to the other financially assisted agencies, information on funding availability was disseminated throughout its community centers. Additionally, he said that the CAH was required to advertise when a funding change would be taking place.

MOTION to approve allocating $700,000 to the DCS’s RAP, for expenditure by June 30, 2010, with a funding priority to assist people who were homeless, who had disabilities, who were domestic violence survivors and youth transitioning from foster care. Motion by Shelley Gottsagen, and seconded by Paula J. Ryan.

Ms. Ryan suggested that the motion be divided into two sections.

AMENDED MOTION to include directing that staff provide the CAHAC with a monthly funding status report. The seconder agreed.

Mr. Lowery made the following comments regarding the RAP:

● Eligibility was determined strictly by income.

● Benefits included payment of the first and last month’s rent, and a deposit, as well as payment of a utility security deposit.

● A minimum one-year lease was required.

● The landlord was required to execute an agreement with the County whereby the landlord needed to advise the County if the tenant broke the lease.

○ If the tenant abided by all the provisions, the deposit funds were returned to the County.

Mr. Lowery stated that although the concept of month-to-month leases frequently arose, he believed that the SHIP funding needed to be used for permanent housing which, in turn, required at least a one-year lease. He said that he would get a clarification if a suggestion was made to either create a new program or amend the current program.

Ms. Fields provided the following clarification:

● The Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) needed to be followed as currently stated.

○ A change to the LHAP would require that it be amended, further delaying the expenditure of funds.

● Requesting that restrictions be placed on a program that was already established by the DCS would vary the set of criteria by which the program operated.

Ms. Gottsagen suggested that the CAHAC meet with community non-profit organizations to inform them of the previously discussed available funding.

(CLERK’S NOTE: Committee Member Joseph Gray joined the meeting.)

Committee Member Patrick J. McNamara stated that the online version of the LHAP differed from the version that had been provided to the CAHAC. Mr. Lowery stated that the updated, current version would be placed online.

Ms. Ryan stated that she would make an alternative motion if the first motion was withdrawn. Ms. Gottsagen stated that she wanted to hear the substitute motion before withdrawing her motion.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve allocating the 2007/2008 dollars, which were in jeopardy of being lost, to the RAP as it currently existed within the LHAP. Motion by Paula J. Ryan, and seconded by Peter Applefield.

ORIGINAL MOTION WITHDRAWN.

Committee Member Wendy Tippett commented that it was unrealistic to provide a first and last month’s rental payment, and a security rental deposit for a homeless person, then expect that person to be self-sufficient the following month.

Assistant County Administrator Shannon LaRocque-Baas clarified that the CAHAC was an advisory board that could provide policy recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), but it could not give direction to staff.

Ms. Gottsagen stated that she wanted the monthly reporting requirement to be included in the substitute motion.

Chair Cabrera responded that the CAHAC could request the information rather than put it in the form of a motion.

UPON CALL FOR A VOTE, the motion carried 9-0. Seymour A. Fine absent.

Continuing, Ms. Goddard clarified the following:

● Adm. 8 compiled all the grant years and the remaining budget.

● The budget amount, as shown per year, included all SHIP income.

Mr. Lowery stated that SHIP income was listed in the fiscal manager’s advantage report. Next month, he said, he would attempt to show the CAHAC specifically where the program income was included, and he would request that the CAH’s fiscal manager attend one of the CAHAC’s meetings.

Mr. Lowery made the following comments regarding the Florida Home Buyers Opportunity Program (FHBOP):

● Funds remaining in the FHBOP also needed to be expended by June 30, 2010.

○ The FHBOP funds were under a separate set of regulations, and they could not be reallocated to another activity at this time.

○ The CAH was waiting for instructions from the State as to how the FHBOP funds would be treated after June 30, 2010.

● The FHBOP was not successful, and no one wanted to participate.

○ There were issues with how Florida had set up the FHBOP.

○ Most people wanted a grant or a subsidy instead.

II.D. Purchase Assistance Report – Adm. 9 to Adm.11

Ms. Goddard stated that there was a budget of $3,882,625, and all funds had been expended, which was reflected on Adm.11 as a zero balance.

Mr. Lowery added that when CAH staff referred to any other available dollars, they were referring to home repair funds and funds that were left in the delinquent mortgage assistance program.

Mr. Lowery made the following clarification regarding a misstatement that had been made at the last CAHAC meeting:

● All of the funds in the special needs replacement housing program had been allocated to previously qualified applicants, and the applications would soon be processed.

○ Approximately $33,000 was left in the barrier-free program, and United Way of Palm Beach County had been notified regarding those funds.

● CAH staff would provide the CAHAC with a copy of the report regarding the clarified information.

Ms. Ryan stated that it would be helpful if CAH staff provided an update on those programs or projects that were impacted by the budget.

III. OLD BUSINESS

III.A. Village of Delray Approval

Committee Member Joseph Gray requested that he be recused from participation in item III.A. due to a previous contractual relationship with Auburn Development Group (Auburn).

Vice Chair Bill Sanders stated that item III.A. should be titled, “Village of Delray Proposal,” for voting purposes.

Chair Cabrera clarified that the item had been previously approved, and it was on the agenda for discussion.

Mr. Sanders stated that item III.A. was a different project than the previously approved item.

Chair Cabrera said that although she did not think that the agenda could be changed, she would note the correction. In addition, she disclosed that someone who worked for Auburn was also a member of her board of directors at the Housing Leadership Council of Palm Beach County, Inc.

Ms. Fields clarified that there was no pecuniary gain for Chair Cabrera so her association with someone who worked for Auburn did not rise to the level of a voting conflict.

Mr. Lowery provided an update, and he made the following comments:

● Approximately a year ago, Auburn came before the CAHAC and submitted an application under the multifamily rental developer program.

● Auburn had been conditionally awarded $750,000.

● Since the time of Auburn’s partnership with the Delray Beach Housing Authority (Delray), the project had changed.

○ Delray was no longer a partner.

○ The number of units and the configuration of the project had changed to a proposed 144 units.

○ Under the currently proposed 144 units, 128 of them would be restricted to 60 percent area median income (AMI) and below, and 16 of the units would be restricted to 28 percent of AMI.

● The project met all SHIP requirements, and it provided housing units to constituencies that were historically targeted under the multifamily rental development program.

● The $750,000 had been part of the CAH’s regular, annual allocation that was set aside for multifamily rental development.

Ms. Ryan stated that the Village of Delray approval should have been a request to make changes to its initial application. Ms. Fields clarified that the Village of Delray would be coming back with a reconfiguration, and she added the following:

● She and Mr. Lowery did not believe that they could come before the CAHAC with the new configuration based upon the old approval because it was substantially different from the original approval.

○ There was a different number of units, and there were different partners.

Allan Schnier, Auburn president, clarified that the Village of Delray was originally a 264-unit development, with 192 units set aside for families at 100 percent - not 60 percent - of AMI. He also stated that:

● 72 units had been set aside for workforce housing.

● Although the project lost its financing due to the economic downturn, it did receive funding for 144 affordable rental units through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

○ 128 of the 144 units would be for families 60 percent or below the AMI.

○ 16 of the 144 units would be for families 28 percent or below the AMI.

Mr. Applefield commented that the Village of Delray should be considered a new project and not an amendment to the original project.

Ms. Fields responded that when staff became aware that the project was being reconfigured and it had not yet been before the BCC for approval, they believed that it was more appropriate to bring it back to the CAHAC for approval.

Ms. LaRocque-Baas clarified that historically this project had been financially supported by the BCC, and she also said the following:

● The project had received $1 million in BCC discretionary funds, which was still in place for infrastructure, and there was $1.5 million in Community Development Block Grant funds for infrastructure.

● Although the dynamics for the project had significantly changed for various reasons, it was still considered to be an amended project.

Mr. Schnier stated that he was ready to close on the project within 30 days and begin construction.

Ms. Ryan and Mr. Applefield stated that they were opposed to making a decision today regarding the Village of Delray.

Mr. McNamara suggested that if it was a timing issue, the CAHAC could set aside a subcommittee to vet the project.

MOTION to approve that the CAHAC form a subcommittee to vet the Village of Delray project in order to make a determination at a later date. Motion by Patrick J. McNamara, and seconded by Paula J. Ryan.

Ms. Ryan asked whether the determination needed to be made within the next 30 days.

Mr. Schnier replied that he needed to go before the BCC by the last BCC meeting in February.

Ms. LaRocque-Baas clarified that by Monday she needed to know what the agenda items would be for the February 23, 2010, meeting.

Mr. Schnier stated that it was critical that the item be placed on the February 23, 2010, BCC agenda.

Mr. Sanders recommended that because procedure was not followed, that the CAHAC only approve the project with a repayment modification in place.

Mr. Lowery pointed out that a repayment modification could not be done per the program guidelines defined in the LHAP, which had been approved by the State, the BCC, and the CAHAC.

Mr. Applefield offered to make a motion that the CAHAC not make a recommendation on the Village of Delray project because A) not enough information was available to make a timely determination, and B) the procedure for the project was being questioned. He added that he could take out part B if it was requested.

Ms. Gottsagen stated that she believed that part B of the proposed motion should be more strongly worded. She recommended that the motion should state that the procedures were violated.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve that the CAHAC not make a recommendation on the Village of Delray project because A) not enough information was available to make a timely determination, and B) there was concern that the procedures may not have been appropriately followed. Motion by Peter Applefield, and seconded by Shelley Gottsagen.

Mr. Applefield stated that he was satisfied with his motion. He clarified that he did not want to say with certainty that a procedure had been violated, only that the CAHAC was questioning whether procedures were followed.

Mr. Lowery replied that it was his intent, as far as the BCC agenda item was concerned, to merely state that the CAHAC felt that it did not have sufficient information. Other than that, he said he would not be willing to indicate anything in writing regarding policy or procedure.

Mr. Applefield stated that he could restate the motion and remove part B.

Ms. Fields suggested that Mr. Applefield withdraw his motion.

Mr. Applefield said that he would withdraw his motion, and restate it.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN.

Ms. Gottsagen stated that she did not want part B removed, and she wanted someone else to second the motion because there should be a level of accountability.

MOTION to approve that the CAHAC not make a recommendation on the Village of Delray project because the CAHAC did not have sufficient information. Motion by Peter Applefield.

Chair Cabrera asked whether the first motion needed to be changed if the seconder was not willing to have the motion withdrawn.

Ms. Gottsagen clarified that she was not comfortable in seconding the second motion.

MOTION SECONDED by Patrick J. McNamara, and carried 8-0. Seymour A. Fine absent, and Joseph Gray abstaining.

UNSCHEDULED ITEMS

III.B. Compliance Monitoring Report and Audit

Mr. Lowery stated that the Florida Planning Group had hired the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) to conduct audits of the various SHIP programs within the state, and he added the following comments:

● The FHFC audited the County’s SHIP program in February 2009.

● In April 2009, the CAH was contacted with the FHFC’s findings.

● The CAH responded, stating that it contested some of the FHFC’s findings regarding some of the CAH’s mathematics and calculations.

● Since the CAH’s response to the audit, the FHFC had additional questions, and the CAH was in the process of finalizing the FHFC’s request.

○ The CAH’s response could be available one week from today.

● A copy of the FHFC’s initial audit, the CAH’s initial response, and the CAH’s follow-up response would be provided to the CAHAC.

● The audit referenced some advertising dates that the CAH had missed, and some of the calculations in the CAH’s files were off by 15 cents to $25.

● The 2006/2007, 2007/2008, and 2008/2009 annual reports were available, and they would be distributed.

III.C. NSP Update

Mr. Lowery reported that approximately $7.2 million of the $28 million NSP I funding had been approved by the BCC for allocation towards a homeless resource center, and $5 million would go towards non-profit organizations.

Mr. Lowery made the following comments regarding the First Mortgage Loan Program’s $12.8 million in funding:

● Approximately 20 closings had taken place where the CAH had provided first, and in some instances, second mortgages to homebuyers.

● Another 70 loans were approved, and the homebuyers were looking for property.

● The Wells Fargo (Wells Fargo) Home Mortgage Company, as part of its First Look Program, was working with the CAH to send properties directly to the CAH. The CAH would be distributing that information to homebuyers and local realtors.

● The CAH was also working with Fannie Mae, as part of its First Look Program, to receive all of Fannie Mae’s foreclosed properties. The information would be placed on the CAH’s Website and mailed to the approved homebuyers.

Ms. Ryan requested that she be placed on the CAH’s mailing list.

Mr. Lowery made the following comments regarding the NSP II:

● The CAH just received knowledge that its application had been approved.

● One of the three main components of the NSP II was a second mortgage program for homebuyers to purchase foreclosed homes.

● The second component of the NSP II was $9 million in funding to enable non-profit organizations the ability to purchase foreclosed homes in order to rent or resell them to qualified individuals.

● The third component of the NSP II was a redevelopment initiative where the CAH would be working with for-profit and some nonprofit developers to rebuild or begin new construction within the urban redevelopment area (URA) to provide housing opportunities for qualified individuals.

Ms. Ryan requested that she be provided with the Request for Proposal application form that the CAH would give to people who wanted to purchase homes with the intent of renting or selling them to low-income individuals.

Mr. Lowery responded that he could provide what was available under the NSP I, but the application for the NSP II had not yet been developed.

Mr. Lowery said that the first thing to take place would be an execution agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and he said he was unsure when the agreement would be sent to the CAH.

(CLERK’S NOTE: Ms. Gottsagen left the meeting.)

Chair Cabrera clarified that 50 percent of the grant needed to be completely expended within two years, and the entire grant needed to be expended within three years from the date that the agreement was signed.

Ms. Ryan stated that the URA encompassed a 25-mile square area bordered by Community Drive to the north, Interstate 95 to the east, Jog Road to the west, and 6^th Avenue to the south.

III.D. Outreach to Nonprofit Organizations

Mr. Lowery stated that he was unsure what Ms. Gottsagen wanted to discuss regarding the item, and Chair Cabrera said that a clarification could be made later in the meeting.

(CLERK’S NOTE: For continuation of item III.D., see below.)

IV. NEW BUSINESS

IV.A. Sadowski Act Funding Resolution

Mr. Lowery stated that the CAH had received a sample resolution from the Florida Planning Group (FPG), who was employed by the FHFC. He added that the FPG had sought the voices of all SHIP jurisdictions to convince their city councils or county commissioners to draw up a resolution supporting that the cap be lifted and supporting full funding for the SHIP.

Ms. Fields said that the CAHAC could recommend the resolution to the BCC.

(CLERK’S NOTE: Ms. Gottsagen rejoined the meeting.)

Ms. LaRocque-Baas stated that staff could review the sample resolution, and she could place the item on the February 23, 2010, BCC agenda.

MOTION to approve recommending the sample resolution, as submitted, to the BCC. Motion by Paula J. Ryan, seconded by Wendy Tippett, and carried 9-0. Seymour A. Fine absent.

(CLERK’S NOTE: Item III.D. was continued at this time.)

Ms. Gottsagen stated that at the last meeting the CAHAC had discussed bringing forward information regarding any available funds that nonprofit organizations were not aware of or did not know how to access, particularly the special needs nonprofit organizations.

Ms. Tippitt stated that the best avenue for notification would be the 211 Call Center.

(CLERK’S NOTE: Item IV.B. was presented at this time.)

IV.B. Strategic Planning

Ms. Fields clarified that replacement of CAHAC members would be addressed as an item on the February 23, 2010, BCC agenda.

Ms. LaRocque-Baas made the following comments:

● The BCC determined the CAHAC’s roles and responsibilities, which were defined in the local affordable housing policy.

● The BCC was responsible for any decisions and changes made to the CAHAC.

● The CAHAC could request information from staff, and it was Mr. Lowery’s responsibility to timely bring back that information so that the CAHAC could make recommendations to the BCC.

○ It was not incumbent upon the CAHAC to direct staff, to have workshops, or to advertise.

○ Directing staff, etc., was considered implementation of policies and procedures, which were approved by the County administrator.

Ms. Fields clarified that when changes occurred to the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan, the CAHAC could review those changes.

Mr. Sanders suggested that a CAHAC subcommittee could be established to study key aspects of various programs, and to clarify the ordinance regarding the CAHAC.

Chair Cabrera pointed out that the CAHAC needed to meet the minimum requirements regarding how often to hold regular meetings, which was not less than quarterly.

Ms. Ryan suggested that the subcommittee could produce a summary of each relevant section of the ordinance and bring it back for discussion.

To comply with the Florida “Sunshine” Law, Ms. Fields clarified that:

● meetings needed to be publicly noticed;

● a record needed to be taken of the meetings; and

● meetings needed to be held in an accessible location where the public could participate.

Ms. Fields added that the Clerk & Comptroller’s Office recorded the meetings.

Ms. LaRocque-Baas recommended that a representative from the County Attorney’s Office should be present at the subcommittee meeting, but she would discuss that recommendation internally.

Ms. Fields suggested that with new CAHAC appointments taking place in February, the CAHAC could set aside a half-day session to discuss the Sunshine Law, the ordinance requirements, and perhaps request that someone from Planning, Zoning and Building be present to discuss the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Gottsagen suggested that a complete orientation for all the CAHAC members should take place.

Mr. Lowery clarified that a process was under way to identify individuals who were interested in becoming CAHAC members.

Ms. Gottsagen stated that through strategic planning, the CAHAC should be able to identify which areas needed to have a subcommittee.

Chair Cabrera suggested that what could be called an “initial orientation and strategic planning subcommittee” could review what the CAHAC needed to do in order to allow strategic planning to take place.

Ms. Fields clarified that public notice of the subcommittee, starting with at least a week from tomorrow, would be reasonable because it was not considered an emergency.

Concluding, Chair Cabrera made the following comments:

● The agenda for the subcommittee meeting would first entail orientation to determine what information the CAHAC members – and subsequently the new CAHAC members – would need before strategic planning would take place.

● She would review what method would be required to record the subcommittee meeting.

● The subcommittee meeting would be held February 16, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to noon, with the location to be determined.

● Once the location was determined, staff would send out a notice.

V. SPECIAL ITEMS & COMMENTS

V.A. CAH Advisory Committee – None

V.B. CAH Staff

Ms. Goddard said that staff was in the process of preparing a new LHAP for the next three years, beginning in 2011. She added that no later than March, staff would provide the CAHAC with some preliminary information.

Mr. Lowery stated that a staff member would attend the February 16, 2010, workshop, and information would be brought back at the March CAHAC meeting regarding any possible funding for the 2010/2011 SHIP fiscal year.

V.C. Public Comments – None

The following members of the public were present but did not speak:

Robby Block, Jack Weir (phonetic), Suzanne Turner, Lisa Delhomin (phonetic), David Brant, Shawn Wilson.

VI. MEETING SCHEDULE – Not Discussed

VII. ADJOURNMENT

At 12:00 p.m., the chair declared the meeting adjourned.