HomeMy WebLinkAboutAHAB Meeting Minutes (12192023) ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board(AHAB) Minutes
Tuesday, December 19th, 2023 at 6:00 PM
Whiffed BOCC Meeting Room
Members Present: Kyle Myers,Andrew Robinson, Lynn Nilson, Dion Graham, Hasan Abdullah, Holly
Meschko, Mary T.
Staff Present: Bonnie Hammersley(Interim Director, Housing),Travis Myren (Interim County Manager),
Erica Cormack (Community Development Manager, Housing),Thomas McCallister(Community
Development Analyst, Housing)
I. Call to Order: 6:03
II. Approval of minutes(5 minutes)
Lynn moved to approve minutes, approved by holly and seconded by kyle
III. Updates (10 minutes)
a. Board Members
No member updates
b. Staff
Lynn: Lets approve the meeting minutes. Does anybody have any questions? Okay, any changes or
edits?Okay. Could I have a motion to approve the minutes?
Holly: I motion
Kyle: Second
Lynn:The November agenda is approved.Are there any member updates?
Erica: We do have staff updates. In our January meeting, we're gonna have to work on our annual
report and work plan instead of having outside agency presentations.Then for our March meeting,
we will do outside agency scoring and February meeting, we'll do outside agency presentations. Do
you have any other staff updates?
Bonnie: I'm Bonnie Hamersley, I'm the Orange County Manager. I've currently been acting as the
interim housing director for the last two months. I'm here tonight just to provide any clarification
you all might need. Also,Travis Mirren, my deputy manager is on the zoom, he will provide
clarification on the leveraging. We did change the process a little with the scoring sheet and we hope
going forward,that we will keep this format. We appreciate the important work you're doing.
Kyle: February outside agency presentations, and March outside agency scoring,that means that no
decisions will be made until that time?
Erica: Until the March meeting
Kyle:There are applicants who had some deadlines with the towns that expire before that so thats
something we probably need to communicate.
Bonnie:The outside agency presentations are for fiscal year 2024-25 funding. Outside agencies
applications are due January 15,the county reviews those and then we distribute them.Then in late
March, I meet with every outside agency after you all have listened to and ranked them.They do not
receive funding until July 1 of 2024 because I make a recommendation to the Board of Orange
County Commissioners as to what their funding should be.That shouldn't change anything for
outside agencies because they don't usually know what their funding is until May 2nd,when I
present the recommended budget to the board.
Kyle: Wasn't there some 2023 money also involved?
Bonnie:That's what we're talking about tonight.This is the RFP for affordable housing money. $5
million was for CIP and then there was$700,000 that was heldover from the bond.That's why we
have $5.7 million tonight.That is separate of the outside agencies. Our hope is that what we
complete tonight we will be able to take to the board on January 16 for approval.
Holly: I had a question. When I was doing the scoring, I saw in the column, a smaller number, and
when I did the scoring there was a higher number. I dont understand why that was.
Erica: Thomas went through and made sure that the scoring was consistent.
Holly: Okay, thanks.
IV. Score RFP Applications(75 minutes)
Erica: So what staff have done is we've gone through every application, and we're just showing the
average awards for each one.
Lynn: I had a question about how the local and residency was tabulated, because I weighted them.
Did everybody else do it that way?
Hasan: I had a similar question, if you're talking about the AMI categories, I struggled on how to
weight them based on the different AMI categories the application was requesting. In addition I
think that quantity matters and in the scoring I think that nuance was missed.
Lynn: So that we're consistent, how did everybody calculate that?
Erica: Also,Thomas updated some of the scores. Did you want to talk about that?
Thomas:There were some scores that did not reflect the scorecard accurately so scores that went
over the highest possible score on the scorecard, I just applied the highest possible score.That's
essentially all that I changed.
Bonnie: I made a mistake on the AMI portion when I drafted the form and someone caught that
correct?
Erica:Yes,Thomas and I caught and corrected that.
Lynn: Does anyone have more questions about allocating percentage of units?
Kyle: Clarifies his approach scoring AMI percentage.
Erica: The 45 should have also included the special needs population.
Andrew: Expresses concern with scoring and states that we need to fix scoring matrix moving
forward in order to avoid the problems.
Kyle: I thought it was very helpful the way that you guys broke up the three different empowerment
projects.
Bonnie:Travis do you want to provide some clarification on how we scored applicants that used
county land?
Travis: Applicants using a county parcel,that site control is pretty much guaranteed so they should
score perfectly on that metric.
a) Discussion on Final Scores
Mary: expresses her surprise with leveraging being 20 points below.
Kyle: I believe CHP should be the top of the list because it's shovel ready.They can start building it
immediately. So I agree that it should have scored the highest.
Andrew: States that he agrees, it makes sense for CHP to be at the top of the list because they are
shovel ready.
Hasan: I agree with Kyle, shovel ready is really important to me.
b) Discussion on Pee Wee Homes
Travis: Explained the role of leveraging in the scorecard and the importance of external funding.
Lynn: Noted that many Pee Wee Homes project elements in the leveraging section are not
applicable.
Holly: Voiced her support for Pee Wee Homes' high score.
Hasan: Raised concerns about the income targeting category possibly inflating Pee Wee Homes'
score.
Kyle: Pointed out the impact of larger projects over smaller ones when considering cost per unit. RFP
Creation and Review
Lynn: Suggested collaboration between the board and staff for the next RFP due to existing
confusion.
Bonnie:Agreed to have the board review the next RFP,which she has revised.
c) Discussion on Empowerment(Wentworth)
Kyle: Asks if this should be included since it was just for land conveyance.
Bonnie: Explains that this RFP includes land conveyance.
Lynn: Asks for clarification on Wentworth building plans.
Erica: Explains the Wentworth building plans.
Kyle: Explains that he did not give Wentworth high scores on the leveraging section because many of
the fields were not applicable, also explains special needs scoring confusion.
d) Discussion on CHT
Kyle: Expresses that he scored CHT higher than other members.
e) Discussion on CASA(Cedar Village)
Lynn: Praised the project's location and cost-to-unit ratio.
Holly: Noted changes in the project's scope over time.
f) Discussion on Habitat for Humanity
Kyle: Explained his higher scoring for Habitat, particularly in the leveraging section.
Lynn: Expressed a desire for more emphasis on environmental sustainability in project scoring.
g) Discussion on CASA(Homestead)
Kyle: Asks if the scoring for leveraging is low due to the amount of county funds being requested.
Lynn: Confirms this is why they scored low in the leveraging section, Explains this would be part of
the larger homestead project.
Kyle: Voices his concerns about the homestead project due to CASA's finances
h) Discussion on Empowerment(Davie Circle)
Erica: Highlighted that this is a NOAH project, seeking clarity on future scoring for such projects.
Kyle:Agrees with Erica that it is important the board score NOAH's move favorably moving forward,
Commented on the low building design score due to the project's existing structure and lack of
renovation plans.
Lynn: Agrees the lack of renovation plans are the reasons for her low scores as well.
Lynn: How old is the property?
Erica: Explains it was built in the 1960's.
Lynn: Expresses her wish for the board to see the properties to see if it is a good use of county funds,
asks for clarification on what Empowerment is purchasing exactly.
Kyle: Explains that it is impossible to acquire and renovate existing affordable housing quickly
however this is a better option than building new affordable housing units.
Hasan: Asks for clarification concerning the application funding request.
Lynn: Clarifies that Empowerment are asking$500,000 for this project.
Hasan: Expresses his dismay at the projects score
Kyle: Explains this has been scored low because the scorecard does not necessarily reflect the
project correctly.
Hasan: Expresses his wish for the board to be more thoughtful when reviewing this project.
Lynn: suggests that this is something we take into account when fixing the scores in the future.
Kyle: Explains that he would have previously scored empowerment as a zero for many criteria
however his opinion has changed due to the context
i) Discussion on Empowerment(Homestead)
Kyle: Explains the situation regarding the empowerment project: "Once again, empowerment has
received a low score.This is due to the scoring sheet's incompatibility with the project's nature,
despite my personal support for the project."
Lynn: Expresses confusion about the funding amount requested by Empowerment.
Kyle: clarifies the request: "Empowerment is asking for$1,000,000 in CIP Funds for this project."
Lynn: I'm in favor of funding this project. However, I'm confused about the requested amount.
Empowerment included an agency budget, but there's no specific budget for the project itself.
Kyle: Agrees with Lynn's observation about the lack of clarity in the funding request.
j) Discussion on Final Funding Recommendations
Erica: Explains that the board has the option to fully, partially, or not fund projects.
Kyle: States that board members can recommend affordable housing projects to the BOCC regardless
of their scoring. Inquires about the next availability of funding.
Bonnie: Clarifies that CIP funding will next be available in 2025.
Hasan: Questions the progression of projects with only partial funding.
Lynn: Remarks that it's uncertain how projects would proceed with partial funding.
Dion and Hasan: Emphasize the need for the board to understand the impacts of partially funding
projects.
Bonnie:Asks if partial HOME funding aids projects.
Erica: Responds that HOME often provides partial funding without issues in past projects.
Kyle: Mentions examples of fully funded projects that still faced delays. Suggests prioritizing
applicants needing funds more. Seeks clarification on Trinity Place applicant.
Holly: Requests identification of the Trinity Place applicant.
Kyle: Identifies Trinity Place as CHP, noting his familiarity due to near involvement in its
development.
Andrew: Argues for funding allocation based on scoring, not deviating significantly from it.
Kyle and Andrew: Request a combined scoring and funding display on an Excel sheet.
Kyle: Proposes specific funding amounts for several projects and a land conveyance. Advocates for
the CASA project but recuses himself from scoring due to involvement.
Hasan: Questions Kyle's involvement in the CASA project.
Kyle: Elaborates on his role in the CASA project.
Erica: Urges further discussion on NOAH's project.
Lynn: Notes that CASA project will be partially funded by CIP funds.
Hasan: Suggests full funding for Cedar Village.
Holly and Andrew:Agree with full funding for Cedar Village, Andrew expresses funding concerns for
other projects.
Kyle: Discusses implications of fully funding Davie Circle on other projects.
Holly and Hasan: Advocate for prioritizing Davie Circle due to potential funding challenges.
Lynn: Expresses frustration over lack of information for decision-making.
Kyle and Lynn: Ask about the possibility of conditional funding.
Bonnie: Clarifies that final funding decisions rest with the BOCC.
Holly: Concerns about inadequate support for non-new construction projects impacting affordable
housing.
Lynn: Proposes funding for Empowerment projects,with remaining funds to CASA Homestead
Horizons.
Andrew: Suggests explaining any deviations from scoring in funding decisions.
Bonnie: Inquires about remaining funds.
Erica and Thomas: Address issues with the funding tab in the PowerPoint.
Hasan: Supports the board's decision but expresses personal reservations about fully funding
Empowerment Homestead due to low scoring.
Mary: Concurs with Hasan's concerns.
Board:Agrees to fund Habitat$733,500.
Kyle: Points out Habitat receiving more funding than higher-scoring projects.
Board: Revises Habitat funding to $800,000, adjusting other project funds accordingly.
Bonnie: Notes that funding request percentages will be shown in the board presentation.
Holly: Supports Empowerment.
Lynn: Motions to approve the allocation of funds.
Andrew and Holly: Support and second the motion, respectively.
Board: Unanimously votes to approve the funding suggestions.
V. Adjourn: 7:52 PM