Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 04/11/2002Commission members present: PhilrjeChair Terrice Chair Lind Vi Guthrie Brett Hill Tia Molander Billie Rosen Dennis Vanderheiden Cheryl Zimlich Robert Browning Staff: Ken Waido Heidi Phelps Maurice Head Julie Smith Stacy Kelley 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 Ms. Phelps informed the Commission that the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Statewide Convention is combining with the national association for a convention in Denver on May 15. Registration is $75. She reviewed the various topics to be discussed and recommended attendance highly. Staff will pay the registration fee for any CDBG members who wish to attend. Registration includes lunch. Registrations must be postmarked by April 26. Ms. Phelps advanced Staffs view that the Commission does a terrific job. She reiterated Mayor Martinez' comments from the prior week. Staff noted that some applicants are appearing to take on an entitlement mentality. In fact, every applicant comes as a fresh player. No points are received for past participation in the program. The amount of requests versus funds available is a two -to - one ratio, and it is important to keep advocacy on the back burner and view all applications with objectivity. Staff commented on some the answers furnished by Mr. Prouty in regard to Lagunitas. Staff has not seen HUD and Current Planning data. HUD environmentals are done after the grant is awarded. There remains a question of buildings being subject to noise restriction. There is not a noise impact from the railroad tracks; the noise impact, however, will come from College Avenue and needs to be mitigated. Mr. Prouty has always been compliant and cooperative, and this may be a misunderstanding, but Staff must bring this clarification to the Commission's attention. City development and HUD requirements have different criteria. Staff distributed and displayed mini -matrices for the Commission's convenience. Mr. Waido used a macro -matrix to aid the Commission in its ongoing discussion. Ms. Phelps and Ms. Kelley distributed several answers from applicants in response to the Commission's questions of the prior week. Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To begin discussion with the Public Service portion of the applications. Motion approved unanimously. Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $154,730 for CDBG administration. The Commission noted the following: The high level of service received; the extensive use of Staff funded by the City rather than the CDBG program; the applicant consistently requests far less than allowed by the program guidelines. Motion approved unanimously. Motion by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of $884,000 for the HOME program. Motion approved unanimously. Following discussion, motions, and voting on all applicants, moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To adopt the final recommendations in toto, to be forwarded to City Council for its determination. Motion passed unanimously. Staff advised that the Council study session is scheduled for April 27, 2002. The public hearing for final allocations will be held on May 7, 2002 The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS HOUSING PROJECTS Fort Collins Housing Corporation — Acquisition of Apartments — Application: $650,000 Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding through a grant. A friendly amendment was offered by Ms. Zimlich to fund through the mechanism of a due -on -sale loan. The friendly amendment was acceptable to Ms. Guthrie and Mr. Browning. Motion passed 7-3. The question was raised whether tenant ownership is a possibility in this program. The likelihood is nonexistent, particularly at this AMI level. Total recommended funding level - $650,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good project. High number of units. Applicant lacking on maintenance and Market opportunity to provide affordable replacement reserves, running risk of housing in very long term or perpetuity. promoting tenement conditions. Probable The number of units at this AMI level in underestimate of repair costs. High affordable stock is very attractive and number of dollars coming out of the highly needed. Good location with easy project. Admin and maintenance exceed access to major amenities. Good ratio of replacement reserves by a factor of 10. funding for the number of units received. Neighbor to Neighbor— Acquisition of Apartments — Application: $160,000 Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend full funding through due -on -sale loan. Motion passed 6-4. Total recommended funding level - $160,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good project. Promotes preservation of Lowered priority on the existing stock. Good location.. Applicant can realize thiJnext funding cycle. 4 Care Housing — Acquisition of Land — Application: $300,000 Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend no funding. Motion carried 7-2. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Land not shown to be available. Applicant can provide the needed funding to lock up land as it may become available. Lagunitas — Hilltop Farm — Application: $480,000 Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 5.4, with one abstention. Discussion was held regarding the need and desirability of encouraging the private sector to engage in developing affordable housing. Total recommended fundina level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Potential good program. Could be a model Nearly affordable as -is. The proposed for private developers putting affordable subsidy does not realize a substantial housing in place. The developer is enough level of affordability from the energetic in promoting the program. present status. It would be inadvisable for a buyer to invest money and not receive equity? The developer could realize the same results with HOME down payment assistance and a $2,000 discount on the sale price? The limited equity possibilities make the goals unrealistic. Low-income buyers would be stuck at this level of housing without building equity to advance their housing possibilities. The developer offered to discount the developer fee 50%; this alone could provide the requested subsidy. Habitat for Humanity — Land Acquisition — Application: $150,000 Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full funding through a due -on -sale loan. Motion passed unanimously. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant is seeing an opportunity for receiving six lots for $240,000. This application will be changed beneficially; an additional lot can be purchased with this funding level. Three of the subject lots are contiguous, three others scattered. Due to allocation dynamics, $33,000 of the award will not be available until the next funding cycle. Total recommended funding level - $150,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good program, with a good track record. Contiguous lots can constitute an Program has improved its approach and undesirable situation. Expensive per unit. analysis. Due -on -sale loan guarantees return affordability or return of the moneys expended. Turning Point - Acquisition of Apartments — Application: $132,000. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend full funding through a due -on -sale loan. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To table this item. Motion passed 6-4. Upon reopening of this item, moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend funding of $100,000 through a due -on -sale loan. Motion passed 6-4. Comments by the Commission: The concern of project being a landlord to a client is mitigated by that factor being an aspect of the training program. Total recommended fundina level - $100,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good numbers and ranking from Staff and Slow absorption rate on the units; two the Affordable Housing Board. Good years on Shields property. Commission service provider. lacks confidence in the expertise demonstrated to manage this project properly. 0 City of Fort Collins - Home Buyer Assistance — Application: $250,000. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend full funding. Motion approved unanimously. Upon conclusion of all other items, moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend additional funding of $49,138, as constituting the remaining unapportioned funds. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended fundina level - $299,138 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good program. Good track record. Continues to generate good numbers for home ownership. The program is highly successful. Fort Collins Housing Authority — Down Payment Assistance Set -Aside (Rigden Farm) — Application: $209,150 Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend full funding. Motion failed 0-10. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion approved unanimously. Comments voiced by the Commission and Staff: Applicants to this program will be lacking resources and will need down payment assistance. A possibility may exist that the banks will not fund the project without assistance. Total recommended fundina level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Mirrors a successful program with good Effective double CDBG subsidy between track record. The HOME program is acquisition and down payment assistance. moving fast now and may become The Commission is unclear why the level depleted quickly. contributed to acquisition did not ensure affordability. Down payment assistance should not be tied to a specific program and this funding could become an effective guaranteed presale and profit for the developer. 7 Neighbor to Neighbor— Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing Units — Application: $300,000 Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding as a grant. Motion carried 8-2. Total recommended funding level - $241,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Worthy program needing a boost. Good long-range plan. Preserves and enhances value of housing stock. PUBLIC FACILITIES Crossroads Safehouse - Rehabilitation — Application: $93,367 Moved by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding. Motion failed for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding. Motion failed 2-8. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To fund bathroom -only renovation for $31,093. Motion withdrawn with consent of the second. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend no funding. Motion failed 4-6. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $20,000 for renovation of three bathrooms. Ms. Coxen and Ms. Rosen agreed to a friendly amendment to recommend funding of $20,000 for use within the total proposal. Motion passed 9-1. Total recommended funding level - $20,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Bathroom renovation concentrates on the With repeated requests, the applicant highest stated need. displays an expectation of entitlement. Applicant already sees substantial benefit from previous grants and zero rent. The estimates are excessively high for the needed work. The need for renovations and CDBG funds as opposed to other fundinq sources was not demonstrated. Neighbor to Neighbor— Acquisition of Public Facility - Application: $350,000 Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Total recommended fundina level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application In light of funding limitations, the applicant stated that this application could be postponed until the next funding cycle. 0 Beaucaire — Acquisition for Youth Services — Application: $178,000 Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Following discussion, Ms. Zimlich offered a friendly amendment to recommend funding of 20% of the amount requested for down payment on the property, as a due -on -sale loan. Ms. Rosen and Ms. Coxen agreed to the amendment. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $35,600 Pros of Application Cons of Application The testimonial presented by the current Program income would seem to offset owner was quite compelling. mortgage and monthly expenses. Down payment funding seems appropriate as opposed to a complete purchase. The Commission speculated that the proposed expansion would be fodder for future aDDlications. 10 PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS Comments by Staff: Applicants should not receive a message that the minimum on the application is the only figure looked at by the Commission. If the applicant is worthy, then full funding is appropriate. Minimums are more appropriately used to equalize the inadequate funding that must be apportioned out. The process must not result in applicants submitting fake minimums or declining to enter minimums for fear that is all they would ever receive. The history of this item: Some applicants who received partial funding in the past actually preferred zero funding to partial. Partial funding can work against an applicant, because the reporting requirements are the same whether the funding is for $1 or $1,000,000. It was that phenomenon that generated the request for a minimum. Credence should be given to the minimum numbers in these applications. Following the motion regarding funding of Catholic Charities Senior Services and Adult Literacy Services, moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To table further discussion of Public Service applications. Motion failed 3-5. Following action on all Public Service items, moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Hill: To finalize all Public Service recommendations in their present status. Motion passed 7-2, with one abstention. Lutheran Family Services - Fostering Family Strengths Program — Application: $10,000 Moved by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 9-1. Total recommended funding level - $10,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application High need for the program. The program Other funding may be adequate to fill the serves a highly eligible population. Good program needs. Staff is underpaid and this results. Child abuse cases are on the arguably contributes to social services and increase. Societal funding for prevention is housing programs in the community. low, and prevention is highly needed. Noticeable effort spent on tracking results. Successful anecdotal experiences related. 11 Neighbor to Neighbor — Comprehensive Housing Counseling — Application: $30,000 Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend funding of $25,000. Friendly amendment by Mr. Majerus: To recommend full funding. Ms. Molander and Ms. Guthrie consented. Motion passed 7-3. In discussion by the Commission and Staff: Staff noted that its referrals constitute a small portion of the applicant's client base. The program is open to all applicants, regardless of income. Total recommended funding level - $30,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Highly worthwhile program. A need exists to move the targeted group to higher independence. Good track record. This is a model nonprofit public service group. Housing counseling is necessary for low- income home ownership. The program directs its clients to appropriate referrals. The program serves the transitional housing niche in the community. First Call - 2-1-1 Information and Referral Project — Application: $25,990 Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding. Friendly amendment offered by Mr. Majerus, affirmed by Ms. Coxen and Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $0. Motion approved 9-1. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good project to funnel referrals No good information was gleaned as to the appropriately. A level of funding would contribution of agencies that are receiving help leverage this worthy effort. 2-1-1 is a referrals. If this is a State program, the great concept. State should contribute. High level of funding for a test project. Other agencies have duplicate referrals. The funding is staffing money rather than seed money. The Commission did not have high confidence that a 24/7 operation is feasible ornecessa 12 Child Care Collaborative — Day Care Services - Application: $66,519. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Motion carried 9-1. Total recommended funding level - $66,519 Pros of Application Cons of Application High need for the program. The projects are well organized. Collaborative nature is desirable and appreciated. Successful track record. Great community effort. Effort taken to avoid duplication in applications. Elderhaus Adult Day Care Program- Multi -Cultural Group and Community Group Program —Application: $6,299. Moved by Ms. Bryant, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 8-2. Total recommended funding level - $6,299 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good program. Good track record. Good Staff and in -kind salaries comparison are organization and concepts. not comparable nor are they in compliance with Federal standards. 13 Disabled Resource Services —Case Management and Community Assistance — Application: $25,000 Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend funding of $20,000. Motion passed 7-3. Total recommended fundina level - $20,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The project is worthy. Good use of funds to support this population within the community. The Women's Center of Larimer County — Health and Dental Care — Application: $10,000 Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 7-3. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Demand is high and the waiting list Health District provides arguably extensive. duplicative services. Other resources exist for this need. The Women's Center of Larimer County — Child Care Resource and Referral — Application: $10,000 Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding. Motion carried 9-1. Total recommended fundina level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Specialized service targeting specific Not sure of the quality of follow-up after needs within childcare and thereby training. Low-income Fort Collins families distinguishable from other programs. are a low percentage of clients. Providing training and targeted referrals. Training and referrals help women realize income from day-care. 14 The Women's Center of Larimer - Career Quest — Application: $5,000 Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion carried unanimously. Total recommended fundina level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Nonduplicated population served may be Duplication of services by Job Service, women at the Detention Center, assuming CSU, PSS, Education and Life Training that this population is not covered by the Center. The program could see income by Sheriff's Department or other services. charging fees to applicable clients. Project Self -Sufficiency — Application: $25,000 Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend full funding. Motion failed 4-6. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of $20,000. Motion passed 9-1. Ms. Coxen noted the discrepancy in Commission action from the Staff recommendation. Total recommended fundina level - $20,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application High need. Good track record. Long The $5,000 beyond the minimum need waiting list. The program needs funding to was not clear. This application does not go to next level. Good leveraging effort address the need for expansion of the with fund-raising and volunteers. program to reduce its waiting list but applies itself only to the status uo. 15 Ensight Skills Center — Application: $6,760 Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of $5,000. Motion carried 10-0, with one abstention. Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 7-3. Total recommended funding level - $6,760 Pros of Application Cons of Application Impressive organization and effort. The program is taking a good direction. It seems to operate well as a business in a nonprofit environment. Presenters had good knowledge of the subject matter. Crossroads Safehouse — Crossroads' Specialized Advocacy and Training Project — Application: $18,225 Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 8-2. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Addresses a population with high needs. Many funding sources and large amounts of funding available for these efforts. Agency already enjoys ongoing benefit with zero rent. These efforts are duplicated with law enforcement agencies. 16 Mercy Housing — Springfield Court Community and Resident Initiatives Program — Application: $15,000 Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend no funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Providing services on -site is attractive. Redundant effort in community. Has not seen as high a transportation need as presented. The needs addressed in the application do not have the priority of other pressing needs before the Commission. The program enjoys a well -funded national effort. Educo — Fort Collins Team Leadership Program — Application: $13,214 Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Very good concept. Not a good fit for the intended purpose of CDBG funding. There is a higher need for more basic services. 17 Catholic Charities Northern - Senior Services — Application: $15,000 Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion failed 3-6, with one abstention. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion failed 5-5. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $9,928 for Catholic Charities Northern, Senior Services, and no funding for Adult Literacy Services. Motion passed 8-2. Total recommended funding level - $9,928 Pros of Application Cons of Application The aid provided is valuable, particularly in Other efforts duplicate this service, such paperwork aspects. Provides needed as with churches and RSVP. Higher needs companionship for this segment of society. seen for the available funds. Catholic Charities Northern — Shelter and Supportive Services for Homeless — Application: $30,000 Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding. Motion failed 2-8. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of $25,000. Motion failed, 5-5. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $25,000. Motion passed 7-3. Comments by the Commission: Community needs are increasing across a wide spectrum, spreading out the available sources. Some applicants, like this, will always receive broad community support. Some worthwhile projects are helpless without CDBG assistance. Total recommended fundina level - $25,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application High need of this service in the community Other funding is available to this applicant. particularly with the failure of New Bridges. Other applicants are high need with fewer The program demands a high level of funding sources. participation form its clients. IN CRISP (Creative Recreation in Special Populations) — Application: $7,000 Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend no funding. Motion carried 9-1. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Very good program. Does not meet with CDBG criteria. More funding needed for more basic social functions. Potential abuse factor of volunteers receiving ro ram benefits. Adult Literacy Services — Education and Life Training Program — Application: $9,300 Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend full funding. Motion failed 5-5. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend $5,000. Motion failed 4-4, with two apparent abstentions. Upon discussion and recount, motion failed 3-7. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $9,928 for Catholic Charities Northern, Senior Services, and no funding for Adult Literacy Services. Motion passed 8-2. Total recommended fundina level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Steadily decreasing applications year by Applicant demonstrates marked lack of year. Good track record. organization and specified need for funding. 19 Appendix 1 Commission representatives, by issue, for the study session with City Council: Ms. Rosen: Lutheran Family Services Elderhaus Women's Center - Career Quest Educo - Team Leadership CRISP Beaucaire Turning Point Crossroads Rehabilitation Mr. Browning: Neighbor to Neighbor - Counseling Disabled Resource Services Project Self Sufficiency Mercy Housing - Springfield Court Adult Literacy Fort Collins Housing Corp. - Sleepy Willow CARE Homebu ers assistance Ms. Bryant: First Call Women's Center - Health & Dental Care Ensi ht Catholic Charities Northern - Senior Services Neighbor -to -Neighbor — Acquisition of ei ht lex Habitat for Humanity Fort Collins Housing Authority - Ri den Farm Mr. Vanderheiden: Child Care Collaborative Women's Center - Child Care Resource/Referral Crossroads — Advocacy program Catholic Charities Northern - Shelter and Supportive Services Neighbor to Neighbor — Public Facility La unitas Neighbor to Neighbor — Rehab 20 Appendix 2 - Programs, Requests, and Commission Recommendations (Prepared by City Staff) 21 bb L H O C C C V1 O� O i 60; IA 5Ng O O y N V w U 4 r ruz • HIS', �" t' ? • T �4 u&S"..ti:53��': & { } c O fA u C isr q; 01 d4 V1 H3 a b14 C N O O O O C L ? O O O cl U V L .2 > o O E k. O�' U L o c � Q � x U L y ^ y N M V .� �p O . E pp 01 w 0 0 0 o ao 0 0 0 O M 14 O O b9 6R O O O 69 V3 O O fAl O O O O �O o � o to 0 18 tn fA M N b9 IO &4 00 bR VI 60i M 6.s V1 Qs O M d4 O d4 M 16 N c0 :R r CC tiR 6�' tn 64 M T > a m N O N y to CL yNN U rAi N O N 0 a a `" E - d d Mz a 4z.. a P. U a a, n a v) 0 0 0 0 0 0 vi o O O 6MR ioe� 6A O N b N ^ r. O O O A O O O b N r b O O � pO 00 O �O O O cc O O en �A e4 iA 9z �A O v bMRC76RC7404 N C., O R H b9 G ►� pO C O O O O O O � N 00 O ..+ .+ O a.+ O .+ O +.+ O r1 a+ O w+ \O w+ O oo L. 'n M sue. to 0 4 o L r "' A .ti us U N1 va U n C7 �--I uh U ti vj C7 N va .a N fr C7 enO� 601,ZsiU M ds N Q ¢ cl o a a a a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ x x�d a s H