Rehabilitation Review Committee

MINUTES OF THE REHABILITATION REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING July 10, 2013 9:15 AM Members Present: Rodney Bowie, Joe East, Gary Evans, Jim Roberts Absent: H. Tucker Braddock, Kevin Lin, Jim Troeger Others Present: Denise Blake, Keisha Changeux, Wayne Sharkey Chairman Rodney Bowie called the Rehab Review Committee meeting to order at 9:16 AM. A quorum was determined. Motion was made by Jim Roberts and seconded by Gary Evans to accept the minutes of the June 12, 2013 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Prior to addressing items on the meeting agenda, Gary introduced Keisha Changeux to the committee. He explained that Keisha was working in the Community Development office as part of a Summer Youth Internship. Gary and Wayne gave Keisha a brief overview of the purpose and functions of both the Lead and Rehab Programs, and the role of the Rehabilitation Review Committee. Old Business None. New Business Wayne Sharkey requested that the discussion under “new business” be done after application approvals. The committee had no objection, and Denise Blake presented the members present with the application information (see next section). Following the approval of the applications, Wayne Sharkey informed the committee that one of the two projects just approved was considered a “priority” since children under the age of six lived there. He stated that due to its priority status and the fact that the rehab funding became available a few weeks before the next scheduled Rehab Review Committee meeting, it was initially proposed that an e-mail poll be used to expedite the approval process, thereby expediting the project. But he felt that a discussion needed to take place regarding under what circumstances e-mail polls are warranted. Wayne went on to say that he hadn’t considered that if conditions requiring an e-mail poll in between RRC meetings need to be screened by the supervisor, then Gary, as a voting member of the committee, would need to recuse himself from the vote, since it is designed to be a “blind” vote. Wayne asked Gary how he might like to address this going forward. Gary responded by saying that in a case of an e- mail poll for an extenuating circumstance, details of the scenario should be discussed with him without including specific information such as name, address, etc. and this would maintain the integrity of the blind process. Having said that, Gary wants to reduce the number of e-mail and/or voice polls in general; however, if Wayne were to present an emergency situation (i.e., an elevated or poisoned child) to him the day after a Rehab Review Committee meeting, he understands that it is not in the best interest of the applicant to wait 30 days until the next RRC meeting for an approved application.  Wayne agreed, and said the terms of how and when e-mail and/or voice polls are done need to be defined. Denise Blake added that the terms would be either a poisoned child or emergency situation, because when she meets with applicants to review their applications, she explains the approval process and gives each applicant the date of the next RRC meeting. She also informs them that if they don’t submit a completed application before that date, they will have to wait a month until the next committee meeting. Gary added that the funding for both programs isn’t always concurrent, which results in Wayne and Denise having to “triage” applicants based on order of application and priority status. His intent is to anticipate when these circumstances will arise, and prevent the need to do an e-mail poll two or three weeks before a committee meeting. Wayne Sharkey then stated to the group that at the last meeting, discussion took place regarding certain situations that arise when additional rehab funding is required to rectify an issue or complete a project, and under what circumstances the Program Manager would have the authority to allocate additional funding without prior approval of the RRC. The committee requested that they be presented with a recommendation at the next meeting of a potential policy regarding this issue. Wayne met with Gary and came up with a proposal for the committee to vote on. He distributed copies of the proposed policy to all members present (see attached). Gary stated that he recently attended a meeting at HUD (that he hadn’t yet discussed with his staff), and that some of the items he’d previously talked about with Wayne regarding this proposal may have to change. He said he could either make a motion to table the discussion until the next meeting, or the members present could discuss and possibly edit the proposed policy during this meeting. Gary added that based on his conversation with HUD, the amount in the proposal may need to be changed. Rodney asked if this policy is something needed right away, or if it could be tabled. Wayne responded that the committee could table it, but it is something he feels should be voted on soon. The group agreed to discuss each item of the proposal and potentially vote on it at the current meeting. Gary stated that according to HUD, any additional allocation exceeding 10% of the total award is considered a substantial amendment, and must be approved by the Rehabilitation Review Committee. Joe East inquired as to why investor-owned properties were not eligible for this additional allocation in the proposal. Denise said that investor owned properties have been historically viewed through the rehab program as a type of business, and that landlords are expected to a certain degree to contribute financially to their projects when necessary. However, this was prior to the rehab program being 100% paid back. Rodney Bowie suggested the first requirement of the proposal be changed from “$3,000.00” to “10% of award.” Joe East stated that he disagreed with number two of the proposal – he felt there was no need to exclude someone who is an investor owner if there is an unforeseen issue that arises that may prevent the completion of the project. He added that it makes economic sense to allocate additional funding while a project is being conducted. Gary had concerns about the amount of money this might allow, since investor properties have multiple units, eligible for a higher amount of funding. Denise informed the group that the maximum amount of money available to an investor is $50,000 (8 or more units), so if the “10% rule” was utilized across the board, the maximum amount of funding the Program Manager could allocate is $5,000. Joe East said that if that were to happen, the Program Manager would still report these occurrences to the RRC despite the fact that their prior approval was not required. Wayne agreed, and said these extenuating circumstances would only occur following the involvement of the Building Department, collection of photos, change orders, his report, and homeowner approval. Wayne asked the committee if they were comfortable with striking proposal requirement number two from the policy – the exclusion of investor owners. All members seemed to be amenable to this revision. Wayne then went on to give a detailed explanation of the third proposal requirement, regarding the very specific circumstances under which this policy would apply. Gary added that, regarding letter “c” specifically (see attached) that this condition arises only when there is a truly unforeseen issue (such as opening up a wall), not because the person doing the assessment missed something in an initial inspection. Jim Roberts suggested that the wording be amended on letter “c” to include “applicable code enforcement officials.” Wayne stated he will make the changes discussed by the committee members and present them with a revised version at the next meeting. This revised version will then become a part of the policies and procedures of the Property Rehabilitation Program. Joe East made a motion to approve the proposed policy as amended, Rodney Bowie seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Application Approvals/Denials/De-obligation of Funds Denise Blake provided all members present with two Property Rehabilitation Program applications recommended for approval. Both are applicants previously approved for the Lead Program who were awaiting availability of Rehab funding. She stated that the applicants met eligibility requirements and all taxes are current. The applications were as follows: Project Application Type # of units Rehab Award RP1212 Owner Occupant 2 $20,000 RP1213 Owner Occupant 1 $15,000 A motion to approve the application was made by Rodney Bowie and seconded by Jim Roberts. Motion carried unanimously. Open Discussion None. Appeals/Requests None. Adjournment Rodney Bowie made a motion to adjourn, Gary Evans seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:08 AM. PROPOSED Policy language for discussion and vote: The Rehabilitation Review Committee hereby authorizes the Property Rehabilitation Program Manager to allocate additional funding without their prior approval for program projects that meet all the following requirements: 1. Additional funding is not to exceed $3,000.00 2. The property in question must have owner-occupied status. Investor owned properties will not be eligible for the proposed overage funding. 3. Additional funding will only be allocated for construction items that are of an unforeseen nature. For this policy, “unforeseen” is defined as: a. Part of, or related to, a work action within the contracted specification. b. Work that extends beyond a specification item or that is discovered to be related to, and required for accomplishing the contracted work item. c. Building Department required corrective actions that were either omitted or not discovered until the execution of contracted work. APPROVED AS AMENDED Policy language (changes are in blue): The Rehabilitation Review Committee hereby authorizes the Property Rehabilitation Program Manager to allocate additional funding without their prior approval for program projects that meet all the following requirements: 1. Additional funding is not to exceed 10% of original rehab award amount. 2. The property in question must have owner-occupied status. Investor owned properties will not be eligible for the proposed overage funding. 3. Additional funding will only be allocated for construction items that are of an unforeseen nature. For this policy, “unforeseen” is defined as: a. Part of, or related to, a work action within the contracted specification. b. Work that extends beyond a specification item or that is discovered to be related to, and required for accomplishing the contracted work item. c. Corrective actions required by applicable code enforcement officials that were either omitted or not discovered until the execution of contracted work.