Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks staff to refine scoring rubric as $535,000 flexible housing fund faces tight timeline
Summary
The Housing Opportunities Commission discussed options for spending $535,000 in ARPA-derived CIP funds that must be used for capital projects, debated whether the existing LIHTC-oriented scoring matrix disadvantages smaller rehab projects, and voted to form a subcommittee to present rubric options in September so an RFP can be issued before year'end.
The Housing Opportunities Commission on Aug. 13 reviewed the city's flexible housing fund balance and directed staff to pursue a short timetable to recommend how the money will be allocated.
"The balance is 535,000. We got confirmation from that from finance. It is CIP funding, so it has to be spent on capital," said Director White, summarizing staff's key constraint for the fund. Staff clarified the money—ARPA dollars allocated to the CIP—cannot be used for down-payment assistance or purely programmatic operating costs and instead must be tied to tangible capital assets.
Commissioners spent the bulk of the meeting debating the scoring rubric used in the prior award round, which was built around LIHTC-style scoring with bonuses for projects serving very low-income households, mixed-income developments, supportive housing and proximity to transit and services. Several commissioners argued the matrix makes it difficult for scattered-site rehabilitation projects and smaller community organizations to compete.
"If we write it this way with no proper nouns, it'll go to this, you know?" one commissioner said, urging safeguards against favoritism toward large developers. Another commissioner warned the timeline is tight: staff said a recommended rubric should be ready for HAWK'recommendation in early September and for council review late in September so an RFP can be released soon after council approval.
To reconcile the need for both speed and careful design, the commission voted to form a publicly noticed subcommittee to draft two or three rubric options for the full commission to consider at its Sept. 10 meeting. The subcommittee will present its recommendations to the commission, which will then forward a recommendation to city council for final approval. Staff emphasized that, while funds need not be fully expended this calendar year, they should be encumbered/committed once awarded.
Next steps: staff will coordinate the subcommittee membership and public notice. The full commission will review subcommittee recommendations Sept. 10 and, if approved, staff will seek council action in late September so the RFP can be released promptly.
