Reinvesting in Communities — A Sunday Conversation with Rob Scott Director, Columbus Community Reinvestment Department

Q: The Community Reinvestment Department manages millions in federal funds and plays a critical role in shaping neighborhood outcomes. How do you define success for your department, and what guiding principles shape how reinvestment decisions are made?

Scott: Because federal resources are designed to serve households at or below 80 percent of Area Median Income, our responsibility is to be intentional, disciplined, and outcomes-driven. We define success by leaving a visible, lasting mark on neighborhoods—one that extends well beyond any single budget cycle or term of public service.

Our guiding principles are equity by design, readiness over rhetoric, and long term community impact. That means we don’t just fund projects—we build systems that ensure the people who need opportunity the most can actually access it, benefit from it, and thrive because of it.
Q: Programs like CDBG and HOME are often discussed in technical terms. For residents who may not see the connection, how do these federal funds translate into real world improvements in neighborhoods across Columbus?

Scott: Through programs like Sweet Home Columbus, HUD income eligible families can access up to $50,000 in down payment assistance, turning renters into homeowners and stabilizing neighborhoods. These funds also support basic infrastructure like street lighting (Light The City Project) and neighborhood facilities and playgrounds that serve kids and families in communities where the majority of residents are considered low income.

When a family buys their first home, a child has a safe place to play, or a neighborhood becomes safer and more connected, that’s CDBG and HOME at work. Our role is to translate federal policy into visible, everyday improvements that expand opportunity, especially for the people who need it most.
Q: Historically, low-income and minority communities have experienced underinvestment. What safeguards or criteria does your department use to ensure funds are distributed equitably and not concentrated in already-advantaged areas?

Scott: Federal programs like CDBG requires that investments be made in areas where at least 51 percent of residents are considered low to moderate income under HUD definitions. When we overlay that requirement with census income data, it clearly directs investment to neighborhoods in West and South Columbus that have experienced decades of underinvestment.

Beyond compliance, we are intentional about strategy. We prioritize readiness, community need, and partnerships that can produce measurable improvements in quality of life. By design, this ensures federal resources are not concentrated in already advantaged areas, but instead are leveraged where they can close gaps, stabilize neighborhoods, and expand opportunity.

Q: Housing affordability remains one of Columbus’ most pressing challenges. How is the department balancing new development with preservation, and what role do non-profits and local developers play in your housing strategy?

Scott: Housing affordability demands a disciplined, outcomes driven strategy. Our approach balances accessibility investments and new development to ensure every federal dollar produces the greatest possible impact. With just under a million dollars in housing funds each year, we make deliberate choices about scale and longevity. New construction can exceed $200,000 per unit and serve a single household, while targeted accessibility investments can stabilize four to five households with the same resources.

At the same time, we strategically deploy these funds within capital stacks to support higher density rental developments, securing long term affordability through 20 year affordability periods or greater. Opportunities like Miles Crossing and Providence Pointe. By blending these tools, we maximize reach, increase housing supply responsibly, and deliver consistent, equitable outcomes across Columbus

Q: Beyond compliance and reporting, how do you measure whether reinvestment projects are actually improving quality of life for residents — and what metrics matter most to you?

Scott: We start by listening, because the people living in these neighborhoods are the best measure of whether reinvestment is working. Beyond compliance and reporting, we spend time in communities having candid conversations about real issues. We host community meetings and intentionally create spaces where residents feel comfortable enough to say what’s actually on their mind. Whether feedback is right or wrong, polished or raw, I stand in the corner, write it all down, and treat it as data.

From there, we begin to strategize. We look for patterns, priorities, and gaps, and we align our investments to address what people are telling us they need, not what we assume they need. For us, quality of life improves when trust is built, voices are heard, as we leverage relationships and solutions informed directly by the community.

Q: Citizen participation is a stated goal, yet many residents feel disconnected from planning processes. How does your department actively engage neighborhood voices before decisions are made — not after?

We don’t lead with plans; we lead with conversations. Before funding priorities are set, we’re in neighborhoods hosting meetings, listening sessions, and small group discussions where residents feel comfortable speaking candidly about what’s working and what isn’t, and what they want and don’t want. For example we partnered with Parks and recreation to build a pocketpark on Mellon Street. Before we decided to spend a dime of federal funds, we had a community meeting at a church and promoted a survey of which more than 40 people responded.

That information directly shapes how we design programs, select projects, and sequence investments. By engaging early and often, we move participation from a formality to a function ensuring community voices aren’t reacting to decisions, but actively informing them.

Q: The department works closely with the Land Bank Authority. How do you decide which properties to acquire or redevelop, and how do you prevent speculation or displacement in revitalizing neighborhoods?

Scott: Excellent Question! Let’s address the speculation While we cannot control perception, we can influence what people perceive and I want to take a moment to inform your audience of the process to minimize speculation of displacement.

Our department works closely with the Tax Commisioner’s office. What properties the Land Bank Authority markets are determined only after the tax Commissioner’s office has exercised its first right of disposition to reconstitute the city for the delinquencies those properties carry. After that, the properties are marketed through the Land Bank Authority.

In my almost 6 years in the role the Land Bank Authority has never initiated a petition on a home owner residing in a property and there should be no expectation of that occurring. Most of the properties carry demolition liens meaning that there are no structures, and for the maybe 10% that do have structures, the houses are not fit for human habitation without significant rehabilitative efforts.

 Q: Cleanup of contaminated or underutilized sites can unlock economic opportunity but also raise concerns. How does the department balance redevelopment with environmental justice and long-term community benefit?

Scott: In the case of HUD funding, Environmental Review and approval is required before you spend the first cent. If an activity fails the lengthy review process, it does not move forward as it is now deemed ineligible. In terms of Brownfield funding, it seeks to identify and remediate environmental contaminations and restores properties to productive use. This form of funding was critical to the preparation of the former Farmer’s Market on 10^th avenue. Had it not been for the assessment and cleanup funding, the future redevelopments would not occur.

So in short, they work hand in hand and we cannot and will not initiate any activity that intentionally disturbs a footprint outlined through the federal environmental review process.

Q: For seniors and long-time homeowners on fixed incomes, home repair programs can be the difference between stability and displacement. What improvements or expansions are planned for these programs?

Scott: The City has long had a home owner occupied rehabilitation program. During the pandemic the City received a once in a lifetime allocation of funding of which it sought to utilize to address sociological needs in a very broad way. One of the ways was a rehabilitation and accessibility program.

With a $3M allocation, we designed and implemented the Home Owner Accessibility Rehabilitation Program (HARP). With the funding many low income households with a large majority being seniors on fixed incomes have benefited by having up to $30,000 of repairs conducted on their homes. In further support our city council expanded the funding for the program which will carry it through parts of 2027.

Q: Federal funds demand accountability. How does your department ensure transparency in grant awards, contractor selection, and project outcomes — and how can the public access this information?

Scott: We are totally transparent with our work. We produce reports that go directly into HUD’s systems for review. We make those reports available. We host community meetings to discuss them. While, it is great to go in the community and highlight successes, it is equally important to go into the community and discuss the failures. For example, Over the past 2 years we did not meet our affordable housing goals in terms of unit availability and accessibility. We openly discussed the failure and asked for patience as we worked to comprehensively develop a compliant reliable strategy. We reviewed the data checked the regulations, developed a strategy that I can comfortably say has yielded the highest number of households getting connected to affordable housing in my 6 years and the probabilities for sustainability continue to climb each day.

Q: Reinvestment intersects with planning, housing, economic development, and public safety. Where do inter-department partnerships work best, and where do challenges still exist?

Scott: Our strongest partnerships are where missions naturally intersect like Planning, Parks and Recreation, Inspections and Codes, Metra amongst several others, because alignment around data, timing, and shared outcomes allows us to move projects from concept to completion more efficiently. When departments are working from the same information and toward the same goals, the impact multiplies.

The challenges tend to arise where processes, timelines, or legacy practices don’t always align and creates bottlenecks that shrink the capacity of the entire supply chain. Federal investment comes with intensively specific requirements and sequencing, and integrating that into existing workflows takes coordination and patience. That’s why we focus on communication, shared accountability, and early alignment because sustainable outcomes depend on collaboration that is proactive and not reactive.

Q: Many community-based organizations rely on your department for funding. How do you support smaller, grassroots non-profits while ensuring compliance with federal regulations?

Scott: Supporting grassroots nonprofits while safeguarding federal funds requires both care and discipline. Many smaller, community based organizations are deeply trusted in their neighborhoods, and that matters. At the same time, federal grants are reimbursable and come with strict fiscal and compliance requirements. That means organizations must have the financial systems and cash flow to manage expenses responsibly before reimbursement occurs.

Our role is to balance access with accountability. We support smaller nonprofits by being transparent about expectations, providing technical guidance, and helping them build capacity where possible—while also ensuring we don’t place them, or the City, in a position of financial risk. Stewardship of public funds is not optional, but neither is our commitment to growing strong, compliant partners who can sustain impact over time.

 Q: Looking back over the past few years, what reinvestment effort are you most proud of — and what lesson did it teach you about what works (or doesn’t) in community development?

Scott: That’s a very tough question. We’ve made so many impacts across a variety of sociological issues, our community daughters with Girl’s Inc., Food Mill shared Kitchen, small business Grant which was probably the biggest project. I guess if I had to pick one it would be the Light the City project. We leveraged roughly $600K to replace more than 1200 streetlights in communities where more than 51% of the people are considered low income by definition.

This was the project that cemented the department’s promise which is to leave a mark on this community that is visibly recognized beyond the terms of our civil service, and that project did just that. I sleep comfortablyat night knowing that pedestrian and drivershave significantly enhanced lighting which has a direct impact on the safety of those neighborhoods.

Q: As federal funding priorities shift and local needs evolve, what should residents expect from the Community Reinvestment Department over the next three to five years?

Scott: Over the next three to five years, residents should expect consistency, clarity, and impact from the Community Reinvestment Department. As federal priorities shift and local needs evolve, our focus will remain the same: designing investments that are intentional, equitable, and responsive to real conditions on the ground. That means continuing to listen to residents, strengthening partnerships across the city, and deploying resources in ways that produce visible, lasting improvements in neighborhoods.

Residents should expect smarter systems, clearer processes, and reinvestment that is guided by data, informed by community voice, and measured by outcomes—not just spending. Our commitment is to steward public resources responsibly while building pathways to opportunity that endure well beyond any single funding cycle.