Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 04/10/2003Commission members present: Staff: Phil Majerus, President Terri Bryant, Vice President Robert Browning Bruce Croissant Michael Kulischeck Billie Rosen Shelley Steele Dennis Vanderheiden Cheryl Zimlich Ken Waido Heidi Phelps Maurice Head Julie Smith Melissa Visnic Produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.482.1506 970.482.1230 fax meadors@reporterworks.com e-mail MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Majerus announced that he will not be present for the Council work session on Tuesday, April 225, 2003, at City Council Chambers. Ms. Bryant will chair for the Commission's presentation, with assistance from Ms. Rosen and Mr. Browning. Ms. Phelps displayed the tally sheet for projects. Staff believes this is one of the most difficult funding nights ever, particularly for public service projects. Public service requests exceed funding supply by $77,000. She reviewed the criteria and focus questions. The most critical items will ultimately receive the most focus for funding. CDBG funding tends to be either seed money, or desperation funding when little else is available. Ms. Phelps urged the Commission to be as objective as possible. She asked the Commission to be very clear on their pros and cons for its decision and to be orderly to keep a good record. Mr. Waido suggested starting with housing and going to public service, since the public service will present the most arduous decisions. On the housing tally sheet, the figure for CDBG Housing and Public Facilities includes funding for administration. The total available for non -administration funding is $893,748. Numbers have been entered in boxes, not as a suggestion for funding total, but to show eligible categories for the funding. Mr. Majerus noted the amount of money being left behind in this cycle for housing funding. This is in the face of City Council not funding the Affordable Housing Fund. Mr. Majerus noted the high vacancy rates in the city and the sharper competition between housing suppliers. Mr. Waido noted that no profound competition was present between housing suppliers in this cycle. Ms. Rios of the Affordable Housing Board will send that Board's recommendation to Mr. Waido concerning the replenishment of the Affordable Housing Fund. Mr. Waido will disseminate the letter by e-mail and gain consensus from the Commission on whether to endorse the letter. General discussion included sentiments of feeling rushed in the evaluation of housing applicants; and the priority of housing and the other mission goals and accomplishments of the CDBG program. Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend full funding of HOME and CDBG Administration requests. It was noted that the program needs funded administration in order to exist. Much of the administration costs are absorbed in the City budget. Staff performs in an exemplary fashion. Motion approved unanimously. HOUSING PROJECTS HO-1 — Homebuyer Assistance Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend funding of $300,000, to be taken from HOME unprogrammed funds. Motion approved unanimously. Mr. Browning asked if interest could be charged on this award. It was noted that the program eventually regenerates its award through the due -on -sale clause. Total recommended funding level - $300,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Successful program. High need is demonstrated by its popularity and success. The loan program is the most immediately available source for funding. The dollar amount is such that the program has become very meaningful to the community. The funding is always used. HO-2 - Hot ABCs Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend no funding. Motion passed with one abstention. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application The project may fail without matching This funding would be drawn from funds. It presents a valid community need. affordable housing funds, which are designed to be used to stimulate housing for families. As such, it is not an appropriate target for those funds. The jail is not in the needs and strategies evaluation. It is curious that the County is approaching the City for funding. An award may create an unwanted precedent for institutional housing funding. 3 REA — Sleepy Willow Deck Replacement Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $64,077 from HOME unprogrammed funds, and funding of $19,353 from CDBG unprogrammed funds. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $83,430 Pros of Application Cons of Application With vacancies, there is a problem with Maintenance should not be funded ad cash flow, creating this unforeseeable and infinitum. emergent situation. The project has already used reserves for some repairs. This is a safety issue, and no other funding appears to be available. This project represents the highest number of vacancies for this program, and it is necessary to be presentable in order to fill vacancies. PF-1 — Respite Care - Playground Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $50,000. Motion failed 4-5. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Croissant: to recommend funding of $10,000. Motion failed 3-5, with one abstention. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend no funding. Motion failed 4-5. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: To recommend funding of $25,000. Motion passed 6-3. In technical assistance, the funding gap was presented as $273,000. Staff's advice to applicant was to present a unique, self-contained piece. The application, as drafted to include the playground, was due to advice of Staff. Total recommended funding level - $25,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This presents a unique program devoted Further development of alternative funding to unique needs, with its higher price due sources is a real possibility. The project is to the uniqueness of the service rendered. not specifically targeted to lower -income Good effort in raising alternative funding. levels. CDBG funding may not be an The project provides a valuable and immediate necessity for the success of the needed service and is impressive in its project. Needier projects exist. Future scope. Lack of funding would deny an CDBG funding remains viable if other integral and important part of the project. A funding falls short. lower level of funding would provide useful seed money for the project. The applicant should not be penalized for successful fundraising. This is targeted for a community need as opposed to a low- income need. PF-2 Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Services Center Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of $750,000, comprised of $647,954 from CDBG funds and $102,036 from the Affordable Housing Fund. Motion ultimately withdrawn with consent of the second. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of $200,000 from CDBG funds for land acquisition and related eligible development costs of the Phase I facility. Friendly amendment accepted by Ms. Zimlich and Mr. Croissant: That any development of the land be used for public facility or affordable housing -related purposes. Motion passed 5-3. In response to questions, Staff explained that a grant will not exceed appraised price. Total recommended funding level - $200,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program appears well thought out and Project options seem to be changing daily, is the product of a good collaborative including other space, funding, and timing effort. Funding applications will persist possibilities. CDBG money is best served through all phases. The proposal is flexible as seed money, and this project lacks solid to address the highest needs that are commitment for any particular phase. This presented. Neighbor to Neighbor will not does not provide units for families as an be conducting the homeless program but optimal use for affordable housing fund will collaborate with experienced agencies. dollars. More collaboration should be done The applicant has an excellent track with other agencies. Feasibility studies record, and has definite increased space should be more solid and defined and need to continue to provide optimal other funding sources identified. Funding community services. A high need exists applications will undoubtedly be repeated for a possible day shelter phase. through all phases of the project. The request has an element of uncomfortable vagueness as to the specific use of the proposed future facility phases. The applicant could easily have the attitude of having an entitlement status for CDBG funding. M PF-3 — Northern Colorado AIDS Project Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $50,000. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $50,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The proposal and negotiation was well thought out and well researched. Applicant was very impressive in pursuit of this arrangement. This project serves a needy segment of the population. It is in a good location for the services. This presents the best deal imaginable in view of the circumstances. With the building being condominiumized and comprised of a clearly separated unit, funding will only go specifically to the subject unit. There will be a due -on -sale loan with deed restriction for use by NCAP or a similar public service facility. LB-1 - Land Bank Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of $400,000 from the Affordable Housing Funds. Motion passed 5-4. Moved by Mr. Browning: That the contract be modified to include a due -on -sale, with funds realized from an early sale to be returned to the Affordable Housing Fund. Mr. Browning expressed a concern that funding would be tied up for 15 years, even if the property were to sell earlier than that time frame. Motion approved 7-0, with one abstention. Total recommended funding level - $400,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This has been a good program. Purchases so far are impressive. Developer came with an opportunity that the Commission does not want to miss in order to preserve this site for affordable housing. At the end of the funding discussions regarding housing proposals, moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Browning: To accept and advance the recommended funding levels in toto. Motion approved 8-1. Public Service Discussion Staff briefed the Commission regarding questions on residency status. Some programs serve, as an example, foreign students. While it is acceptable to serve families of those holding green cards, no CDBG money is to go to temporary visitors of the U.S. Staff has asked HUD to highlight this issue as a subject for future discussions. It was generally agreed that decisions tonight should not be subject to having a new policy. It can be difficult for applicants to monitor this process and likewise difficult for agencies to monitor the applicants. Many of the applicants will have an element of this issue in their programs. There should be a reasonable effort on the part of applicants to be mindful of these issues. Program funds are directed to programming rather than monitoring. In the future, the contracts may encourage monitoring and self -policing. The total level of available funding is $210,860. Even at stated minimum requests, funding requests total $287,607. Some applicants will need to receive lower than requested, or none. The Commission was reminded that on occasion, awarding lower than minimum can be a handicap to a particular program. The history of the Commission has been to favor higher -priority applications with substantive levels of funding rather than to handicap every application. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS PS-1, Child Care Collaborative Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $66,519, with stipulations as mentioned regarding residency status. Motion passed unanimously. Moved by Ms. Steele: To recommend funding of $6,000 to Ensight Skills Center, PS-3, to be subtracted from Child Care Collaborative, PS-1, funding. Motion died for lack of second. Total recommended funding level - $66 519 Pros of Application Cons of Application Not funding this program will result in people not working for lack of affordable child care. This program is enabling to the working population in the community. With a lower cap of funding, scholarship money becomes critical. This helps the lowest AMI elements. Cost per child is impressive. This application represents a very good collaboration. PS-2 Consumer Credit Counseling Services Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 6-2. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good program, providing a mediator for The problems and needs addressed are people who are needy. The program widespread across the population, at all benefits all parties at the table. It income levels. This does not target low addresses a growing problem and growing income. The bulk of people served are demand in the community. Funding is higher income. The applicant should be falling short from usual sources. encouraged to work more with banking institutions to help people with funding to provide for refinancing and better creditworthiness. The application does not show a critical health or safety need. There should be a level of quantifiable success of the ro ram. 10 PS-3 — Ensight Skills Center Moved by Ms. Steele, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of $10,000. Motion failed 1-7. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Kulisheck: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 7-1. Moved by Ms. Steele: To recommend funding of $6,000 to Ensight Skills Center, PS-3, to be subtracted from Child Care Collaborative, PS-1, funding. Motion died for lack of second. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Tremendous need in the community for The request places "the cart before the services for low -visioned. Present funding horse." There are not enough clients and sources are drained. The program has not enough outreach has taken place yet effective education and provision of to build a client base. This program seeks services. There was a very positive infrastructure before clients are garnered. presentation by applicant. The program The request does not address a pressing makes a cross -generational effort. Well- need for infrastructure. The program does written grant. not specifically serve a low-income population. In the hierarchy of the present funding cycle and competing higher needs, this application is a lower priority. The program will provide services at the resent level re ardless of CDBG fundin . PS-4 Elderhaus Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of $5,000. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $5 000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Respite services provide health and welfare benefits. The program provides services in a multicultural community setting. High value is seen for the funding provided. The program addresses a high- level community need. I PS-5 Springfield Court Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of $15,000; to encourage this applicant to integrate into the Child Care Collaborative; and to restrict CDBG funding to families under 50% AMI levels. Motion passed unanimously. This recommendation is lowered from the total level requested in order to help meet service to equivalent low AMI levels of the other applicants. Total recommended funding level - $15,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This program presents similar advantages as the Child Care Collaborative. This applicant should not be penalized for not being part of the collaborative. They do present the same need for a different part of the population. They are effectively part of the entire child care coalition effort. There is no apparent redundancy, due to the geographic area that it serves and the needs that it meets. The service supplements rather than duplicates existing services. PS-6 - FirstCall Enhanced Information & Referral Program Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 7-0, with one abstention.. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application This concept meets needs assessments in This ranks lower on the "hierarchy of the area of public service. The program needs" than more basic services. 211 may has been improved and made very useful well provide other public funding. There is in terms of database access. duplication of services by other agencies. With too many applicants for too little funding, this need falls short compared to more urgent needs. This is not critical funding for the program and represents a small portion of its budget. 12 PS-7 — Project Self -Sufficiency Moved by Ms. Bryant, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $20,000. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $20 000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This is a needed and valuable service. The program puts people to work rather than simply providing subsistence. Career counseling helps single parents to have and meet realistic goals. Impressive leveraging. This is an empowering program with long-range effort and long- term results. PS-8 - Education and Life Training Center Moved by Mr. Browning: To recommend no funding. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Steele: To recommend funding of $12,000. Motion passed 5-4. Total recommended funding level - $12,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program empowers people to obtain skills for self-sufficiency. It addresses a segment of the population that has a high need for this program. The services provided are unique, providing a safety net for people in need of these skills to obtain employment. Unemployment is going up as funding for employment programs is being cut. The grant itself is well -written. The program provides courses that are relevant and show potential for advancement. 13 PS-9 - Disabled Resource Services Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $14,015, with $5,000 to be subtracted from the Catholic Services Northern, PS-14, recommendation. Motion failed 3-4, with two abstentions. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $9,015. Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $9 015 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program provides for financial The targeted population is well - independence through case management. represented and receives services from It services a very low income segment of the municipal to Federal level. The the population and addresses a high need program does not address as high level a not served elsewhere in the community. A need as other worthy programs in a tight commendable, high level of volunteerism. budget. There is a lack of specificity concerning the success of the program; the stated results sound more like referral services statistics. 14 PS-10 Lutheran Familv Services Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of $9,015. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $9,015, with $5,000 to be subtracted from the Catholic Services Northern, PS-14, recommendation. Motion failed 2-6. Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend no funding: Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program presents a worthy cause There is possible duplication of services caught in a tight funding cycle. It targets a with other programs offering parenting low-income population. The program classes. The grant would not comprise gap addresses a health and safety issue. or seed money. High reserves level may There is a high need for the goals of the allow interim funding, and the level of program. leveraging to be obtained is questionable. The Commission was unsure of the effectiveness of class -based programs. This does not present a critical need compared to other programs. A low number of persons are served through a high budget. Clients have a fee associated with services. The program serves a broad spectrum of income levels. 15 PS-11 — VOA Handyman Program Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application This is relevant to housing issues to keep Person receiving services pays for the low-income people in their homes, and product at cost; labor is supplied by meets a safety need for seniors. volunteers. CDBG funds would pay for the administrative service. This is not a critical need in the present funding cycle. The program is working towards full funding; it does not demonstrably need CDBG help. This funding would go only to overhead. Some of the funding would be for projects other than in Fort Collins. 16 PS-12 — Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of $30,000. Motion failed 1-7. Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $15,000. Motion passed 5-3. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of Northern Colorado AIDS Project, PS-18, of $8,000, with Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling, PS-12, to receive the $5,000 reduction; total funding of Neighbor to Neighbor, $20,000. Motion passed 7-1. Discussion was held over the differences between this program and Consumer Credit Counseling. This program is broader in scope than simple counseling and addresses housing concerns over a spectrum of needs. If this program were not funded, HOME would, if need be, find other classes to provide housing counseling for recipients of the home buyer assistance program. Total recommended funding level - $20,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This provides a unique service. The The program has a stated goal of self - program targets a needy portion of the funding but has not seen a falling off of population. It encourages self-sufficiency CDBG funding. The applicant could and promotes effective housing tailored to perhaps use encouragement to achieve the client. The need for this service is self-sufficiency. Despite the stated critical and ever -rising. The program minimum request, the applicant could use scores high in its targets and goals. It the money that is made available in this addresses the housing continuum from environment of tightly limited funding. homelessness to home ownership. The applicant has a proven track record and encompasses high -priority services. PS-13 Catholic Charities Senior Services Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 6-2. Total recommended funding level - $15 000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Reaches out to needy frail population. Helps to keep people in their homes. Companionship and counseling provides a valuable service to this fragile group, 17 PS-14 Catholic Charities Shelter Services Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of $25,000. Motion passed unanimously. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $9,015 to Lutheran Family Services, PS-10, with $5,000 to be subtracted from the Catholic Services Northern recommendation. Motion failed, 2-6. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $14,015 to Disabled Resource Services, PS-9, with $5,000 to be subtracted from the Catholic Services Northern recommendation. Motion failed 3-4, with two abstentions. Total recommended funding level - $25,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This is the only provider for this type of Concern was expressed with leveraging needed service for the homeless. The with the absence of United Way funding. program serves the very lowest level of income. The applicant has a good track record. The program serves a high number of people. A high level of benefit is seen for the funding. 18 PS-15 CASA Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $8,326. Motion passed 6-1, with one abstention. Discussion for clarification. Volunteers are sworn in as quasi -officers of the court to provide one-on-one casework as part of an evaluation team to help judge view cases for individual children. Total recommended funding level - $8,326 Pros of Application Cons of Application Extremely intensive training for the With many volunteers in the system, the participants and intense commitment for potential liability levels are suspect. the children. This represents a last safety Perceived high level of power with the net available for this population and individual participants. provides a highly valuable service. The program protects community health. Participation as part of an overall team helps to reduce liability concerns. The nature of participation helps to glean information that is not so readily available to social services workers. PS- 16 women's Center Health Care Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding $7,000. Motion passed unanimously. Discussion was held concerning compliance. Conditions of compliance can be in the contract; the inherent problem is enforcement. There is no evidence of behavior that would raise a red flag for resolution on a policy issue. The onus of compliance should be on the applicant. Staff will discuss this issue with HUD and the City Attorney's Office and bring their guidance to the Commission. Total recommended funding level - $7 000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program serves and has found ways to reach a unique population. There has been demonstrated success in helping participants. The dental program is a safety net. The program addresses a high need. Compliance with Federal regulations is assumed by the applicant's signing of the contract, agreeing to that compliance. PS-17 - Women's Center Career Quest Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Shelley: To recommend no funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Valuable program, serving some unique No effort at collaboration with other population niches, such as women at the effective services. Because of the program Larimer County Detention Center. stopping and starting, it presents a lower level of efficiencies for the cost involved. A grant will not have a great deal of effectiveness for the funding level of the program. PS-18 Northern Colorado AIDS project Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Kulischeck: To recommend funding of $13,000. Motion passed 7-1. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of Northern Colorado AIDS Project, PS-18, of $8,000, with Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling, PS-12, to receive the $5,000 reduction. Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $8,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This is an important community health The program draws from areas other than program. It deserves higher funding level Fort Collins. Some emergency housing but has high -need competing applicants. funding may be duplication of other The program is impressive in its scope and available services. services. The non -Fort Collins population is carefully segregated for the CDBG application. Leveraging is impressive. The program encourages self-sufficiency and serves a particularly fragile segment of the community. The need for these services is rising. The education segment is impressive. 20 In discussion following distribution of available funding, moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To accept the recommended funding levels in toto. Motion failed 4-4, with one abstention. Moved by Ms. Steele: To recommend funding of $6,000 to Ensight Skills Center, PS-3, to be subtracted from Child Care Collaborative, PS-1, funding. Motion died for lack of second. In discussion, it was noted with some irony that the biggest funding cut to this point had occurred in housing funding within the Neighbor to Neighbor application. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of Northern Colorado AIDS Project, PS-18, of $8,000, with Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling, PS-12, to receive the $5,000 reduction. Motion passed 7-1. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To accept and advance the recommended funding levels in toto. Motion passed unanimously. 21