HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 04/12/2001Commission members present:
Phil Majerus, Chair
Terri Bryant
Linda Coxen
Vi Guthrie
Brett Hill
Tia Molander
Jennifer Molock
Bill Steffes
Dennis Vanderheiden
Cheryl Zimlich
Staff:
Ken Waido
Maurice Head
Heidi Phelps
Julie Smith
Stacy Kelly
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
The study session with Council for review of these recommendations will be held on
Tuesday, April 24, 2001 (see Appendix 1).
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To approve the recommendation
to increase home buyer assistance to 4.5 and 9 percent rather than the present
fixed dollar amount. The actual resulting numbers are $8,000 and $16,000,
respectively. While this would theoretically deplete allocated funds more quickly, the
base of potential applicants is widened. The program is experiencing fewer applicants.
A higher level of assistance is appropriate due to the high housing costs in the area.
Motion carried unanimously.
At the end of discussion on Public Service items, moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms.
Zimlich: To lock in Public Service recommendations as they presently exist. Mr.
Hill pointed out the stalemate status that existed with regard to funding levels of some
programs. Motion passed 6-4.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To forward the package of
recommended funding to City Council in full. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Molock commented for the record that she was extremely offended during the April
5 question -and -answer session by the continued discussion among the representatives
of the Affordable Housing Board. Those discussions precluded her, and perhaps
others, from being able to hear much of the presentations.
Upon motion, second, and unanimous approval, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
ADMINISTRATION
AD1. HOME Investment Partnership (for next funding cycle). Request: $783,000
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molock: To accept the proposed budget,
to be allocated in the fall competitive process. It was noted that the Consolidated
Plan must be submitted to HUD in July in order to have funding available. Approval of
this budget does not affect the allocations to be made in the fall cycle. Motion passed
8-1, with one abstention.
AD2. CDBG Administration. Request: $149.307.
Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend full funding, with
the caveat that Council consider using the general fund for payment of
F)
administration. It was noted that the City general fund is finite. Motion failed 2-8.
Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend full funding. Motion
carried unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $149 307
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Programs should pay for their own
administration. General fund contribution
is dollar for dollar. Federal funding for
administration offers much higher leverage
then local funding. More administration is
required due to Federal requirements. The
actual staff expenses are higher than the
grant allocated amount. The history of the
City has been to support this funding with
the entitlement grant.
HOUSING APPLICATIONS
AQ1. Habitat for Humanity of Fort Collins. Request: $500.000 -7
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no
funding. Motion passed 7-3.
Moved by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding of $50,000. Motion died for lack of
a second.
Moved by Ms. Molock: To reduce recommended funding of Housing Authority
rehab by $25,000; to recommend funding of Habitat of $25,000. Motion died for
lack of a second.
Moved by Ms. Molock, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce recommended
funding of Housing Authority rehab by $50,000; to recommend funding of Habitat
of $50,000. Motion failed 2-8.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application I Cons of Application
3
Addresses home ownership, which is key
to building to self-sufficiency. Seed money
could be appropriate for this effort.
Unsatisfied with the developer and
partnership presentation. Lack of approval
from the Affordable Housing Board. Lack
of funding and participation from the for -
profit developer. Presentation is short on
detail. Numbers do not add up. Best use
of funds in this instance would be seed or
startup money. Not a sterling track record;
to jump to a yet higher level of
development is risky.
AQ2. Fort Collins Housing Corp. Request: $554,132
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no
funding. Motion passed 6-4.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend funding of $277,066
for acquisition pertaining to the 34 for -sale units. In support of his motion, Mr. Hill
stated that this award would capture the property for affordable housing, whether or not
the developer was successful with the project. Motion failed 4-5.
Moved by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $421,997. Mr. Hill offered a
friendly amendment of $277,066 for acquisition pertaining to the 34 for -sale units;
friendly amendment accepted by Ms. Coxen. Motion seconded by Mr. Hill. Motion
passed 7-3.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To reduce the recommended
funding level of the Rigden project to $5,000 per unit; to recommend funding of
$144,931 for Housing Authority rehab, with total funding for Fort Collins Housing
Authority projects of $251,997. Motion failed 1-8, with one abstention.
Total recommended funding level - $277,066
Pros of Application I Cons of Application
4
Fills a community need for affordable
housing. Good neighborhood for the
planned housing. The integration is good
to defray NIMBY attitudes. Healthy
replacement reserve. Reasonable level of
per -unity subsidy, although future
applications are anticipated. The
developer can improve the presentation
and numbers for the next funding round.
The applicant may not be able to make
units affordable without a high level of
Program package does not appear solid
and presents some risk. The filing has not
been approved. The affordable housing
component is clustered in a "back of the
bus" manner. The development role is not
as appropriate for the Housing Authority
as a rental role. The program is likely to
return in future funding rounds. The
proposal addresses the higher end of the
AMI spectrum. Listing of fees lacks detail.
No track record, although the effort
A� Q3. Neighbor to Neighbor. Request: $100,000.
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full
funding. The Commission noted that the circumstances of the application amendment
have precedents in other applications that have been approved in the past. Motion
passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $100 000
Pros of Application
Cons of Applicatio
The project is highly worthy and addresses
a community need. The applicant has an
excellent history. There is proximity to
existing affordable housing, thereby aiding
the program's efficiency. Not acquiring this
property could return it to for -profit stock.
Desirable location. Cooperative seller.
Units are available quickly. This effort aids
the applicant further in its quest for self-
sufficiency. The applicant's collaboration
with other programs is excellent. Not
funding this proposal would create a
missed opportunity to provide a new stock
of affordable housing.
AQ4. CARE Housing, Inc. Request: $300.000
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend full funding
in the form of a loan. Motion passed, 6-4.
5
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To decrease the recommended
home buyer assistance award by $50,000; to decrease the recommended CARE
funding by $50,000; to recommend funding of the Housing Authority rehab by
$100,000. Motion failed 2-8.
Total recommended funding level - $300 000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Excellent history. Well -run efforts. High
High developer fee. Startup appeItolevel
of expertise. Presentation was open
premature for this type of proto
loan possibilities. Applicant tends to
considering the project is in
achieve what it targets. The nature of the
Program will proceed without thisproperty
allows for quick startup. New level
If the applicant feels that a propo
of collaboration with a for -profit group.
of funding cannot allow for targeted AMI
Reduced funding would necessarily result
levels, it can refuse the contract.
in raising the AMI level reached.
L AQ5. Volunteers of America. Request: $290,000
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding.
Motion passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $290 000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Fills a community need. Meeting a good
target for AMI levels. Affordable units
provided to the elderly.
HQ1. Home buyer assistance. Request: $200,000
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding.
Motion passed 9-1.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To decrease the recommended
home buyer assistance award by $50,000; to decrease the recommended CARE
funding by $50,000; to recommend funding of the Housing Authority rehab of
$100,000. Motion failed 2-8.
Total recommended funding level - $200 000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
At present levels, the program will
With a present high balance, available
experience problems in the near future
funds may be better suited for pressing
finding buyers due to the cost of housing,
needs, with the ability to revisit this
The velocity and availability of money will
program in the fall cycle.
be increased with the higher percentage
allowed. The present fund balance is
available for 23 families; 30 are in process.
Home ownership is key for creating
economic stability.
L RE1. Fort Collins Housing Corp. Request: $327,750.
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend funding in the form of a loan, with
interest to be applied to reserves. Following discussion with Staff, the motion
was withdrawn.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To decrease the recommended
home buyer assistance award by $50,000; to decrease the recommended CARE
funding by $50,000; to recommend funding of the Housing Authority rehab of
$100,000. Motion failed 2-8.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of
$144,931. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of
$174,931. Motion passed 5-4, with one abstention.
Moved by Ms. Molock: To reduce recommended funding of Housing Authority
rehab by $25,000; to recommend funding of Habitat of $25,000. Motion died for
lack of a second.
Moved by Ms. Molock, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce recommended
funding of Housing Authority rehab by $50,000; to recommend funding of Habitat
of $50,000. Motion failed 2-8.
Total recommended funding - $174 931
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Program serves a very low AMI, with
Listed items are suspect in some areas,
funding for such items as rehab
and proper priorities should be given.
necessarily very low. Despite the unease
with the listing of priorities and the lack of
funding for maintenance, the items still
need to be addressed.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
PF1. Boys & Girls Club. Request: $133,362.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding
for any public facilities project. Motion failed 3-7.
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of
$31,000 for Boys & Girls Club, specifically for flooring; and to recommend no
funding for all remaining public facilities projects. Motion passed 8-2.
Moved by Ms.
$94,350, to be
abstention.
Molock, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend funding of
applied to gymnasium expenses. Motion failed 4-5, with one
Moved by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding of $44,500, to be applied to
flooring, bleachers, and scoreboard. Motion died for lack of a second.
Total recommended funding - $31.000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Has good outreach to high -risk kids.
Much community support available for
Services provided are very valuable to the
funding or in -kind contributions.
target population. Highly valuable services.
Questionable in its addressing of
Addresses a pressing community need.
racial/ethnic issues. Funding this project
also constitutes a grant to Poudre School
District in its use of the facilities.
PF2. Northern Colorado AIDS Project. Request: $175,000.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding
for any public facilities project. Motion failed 3-7.
[3
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of
$31,000 for Boys & Girls Club, specifically for flooring; and to recommend no
funding for all remaining public facilities projects. Motion passed 8-2.
Total recommended funding - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
The Commission had already enabled the
purchase of the building for others and is
unwillin to do so a gin.
LF3. Beaucaire Youth Services. Request: $200,000.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding
for any public facilities project. Motion failed 3-7.
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of
$31,000 for Boys & Girls Club, specifically for flooring; and to recommend no
funding for all remaining public facilities projects. Motion passed 8-2.
Total recommended fundina - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
This item is not appropriate for CDBG
funds. This is a project better assisted
through State funding. The method of
acquiring the building is suspect. The
Commission noted that this building was
apparently being negotiated while the
applicant appeared before the
Commission last year in support of the
Remin ton ro ert
PF4. BAVA SID. Request: $100,000.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding in full.
Motion failed, 2-7, with one abstention.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding
for any public facilities project. Motion failed 3-7.
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of
$31,000 for Boys & Girls Club, specifically for flooring; and to recommend no
funding for all remaining public facilities projects. Motion passed 8-2.
0
Total recommended fundina - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
This proposal helps to eliminate slum and
Cannot support a subsidy
of government
urban blight. The amount of assessment
funding for a clear
governmental
($24,000) per unit is reprehensible, given
responsibility. The funding
is better used
the area history, contribution, and abilities
for capital improvements
as opposed to
to pay.
engineering.
PUBLIC SERVICE
PS1. Education & Life Training Center — Adult Literacy Services. Request:
$9,500.
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full
funding. Motion passes, 7-2.
Total recommended funding - $ 9500
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Highly valuable program. Very few dollars
Mild concern on high turnover rate and
spent for numbers of people reached.
cost of training due to that turnover.
Education helps self-sufficiency. Request
Measure of success is problematic.
amount seems to decrease from last year,
a rarity.
PS2. Project Self -Sufficiency. Request: $25 000
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of
$25,000. Motion failed 3-6.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend funding of
$20,000. Motion approved unanimously.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce Women's Center
Health/Dental to $2,500, to be applied for educational purposes only; to apply
$4,500 to Project Self -Sufficiency. Resulting recommendation: $24,500 to Project
Self -Sufficiency; $2,500 to Women's Center Health/Dental. Motion failed 3-6, with one
abstention.
10
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce recommended funding of
NCAP to $10,000; to expand recommended funding of Project Self -Sufficiency to
$22,000. Motion failed 5-5.
Moved by Ms. Coxen: To reduce recommended funding of First Call by $5,000,
and to increase recommended funding of Project Self -Sufficiency by that amount.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Moved by Ms. Coxen: To reduce recommended funding of First Call by $4,000,
and to increase recommended funding of Project Self -Sufficiency by that amount.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Total recommended funding - $20 000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Good success with a group that has a high
Program does not have a good handle on
level of need. Information is always
number of volunteers, although it is
forthcoming and plentiful. Program is
commendable that they have such a high
critical in light of welfare reform. Job
level. Request level is high in relation to
coaching is highly effective and helps to
available funding.
produce focused, motivated clients.
I PS3 Child Care Collaborative. Request: $63,352. 1
Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding: $63 352
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The program addresses a community
need. Amount requested is reasonable. It
provides a necessary ingredient to
maintaining affordability. Funding goes
directly to the family. Report is highly
impressive.
PS4. Northern Colorado AIDS Project. S18.000.
Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$12,000. Motion failed 4-5.
Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of
11
$8,000. Motion failed, 3-6.
Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$12,000. Motion passed 5-4.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce recommended funding of
NCAP to $10,000; to expand recommended funding of Project Self -Sufficiency to
$22,000. Motion failed 5-5.
Total recommended funding - $12,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Good program addressing a community
Need has not been shown for a full grant.
need. The educational component is
Questions were raised whether the
highly important. Victims of the disease
program does outreach properly to lower -
are generally taken out of the job force
income target groups. Program stability
and need help. Few alternatives exist to fill
and leadership may be uncertain. Concern
a funding gap. The program has a more
was expressed about the level of hospital
focused priority than the hospital may
participation, particularly when a small
provide. This is the only agency providing
group tries to educate a large population.
for an infectious disease clinic.
Hospital assistance would give an
educational effort more credibility.
Educational venues were questioned. The
program goals may be more regional than
community. There is a shotgun approach
to the funding request. Literature that this
program is the only educational source for
this issue is in contradiction to literature
from other r ro rams.
PS5. First Call Service Net. Request: $22 090. 1
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$11,000. Motion failed, 5-5.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of
$7,646. Motion passed, 5-4.
Moved by Ms. Coxen: To reduce recommended funding of First Call by $5,000,
and to increase recommended funding of Project Self -Sufficiency by that amount.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Moved by Ms. Coxen: To reduce recommended funding of First Call by $4,000,
and to increase recommended funding of Project Self -Sufficiency by that amount.
Motion died for lack of a second.
12
Total recommended funding - $7 646
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Centralized service is valuable for a
Duplication of services is troubling. A
community of this size. The after-hours
major effort for a comprehensive referral
component is highly important. Actual
would be preferable to low -scale funding
community service exceeds the material
year by year. Proposal was poorly written.
presented in the proposal. Good presence
Electronic aspect doesn't reach much of
electronically. A contract would mandate
the target group. No indication of how
monitoring to ensure compliance in
much of the service hits the target
reaching the targeted economic levels.
population for CDBG efforts.
PS6. Supported Youth Employment Program Request: $15,000.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full funding.
Motion passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding: $15 000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Important for the clients of this program to
obtain job skills for their long-term
success. The program helps parents in
their efforts. Good history, good results.
Addresses a community need.
I PS7. Catholic Charities Northern. Request: $30,000.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend full
funding. Motion passed, 6-2.
Total recommended funding - $30 000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Good track record, high value of services,
Receives major funding from other
particularly in light of the vacancy of
available sources.
service provisions caused by the
withdrawal of New Bridges.
13
PS8. Food Bank. Request: $35,000.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of A lication
Good organization with good track record
Not an urgent request. Questionable
of community work.
whether the truck selected actually meets
the stated needs. Capital campaign
underway that will garner support. Prior
contributions by CDBG have been
generous.
PS9. Women's Center— Health/Dental. Request: $7 000.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding in full.
The Commission noted the discount offered by participating dentists. Motion passed,
6-3.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce Women's Center
Health/Dental to $2,500, to be applied for educational purposes only; to apply
$4,500 to Project Self -Sufficiency. Resulting recommendation: $24,500 to Project
Self -Sufficiency; $2,500 to Women's Center Health/Dental. Motion failed 3-6, with one
abstention.
Total recommended funding: $7 000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Program effectively reaches the Hispanic
Individualized services may be overdone
community, with a demonstration of
in the amount of attention to individual
tangible results. Individualized services
clients. Doctors have a certain level of pro
may be needed for effective outreach and
bono requirements to meet during the year
aid in evaluation. Program provides a
in any event. The Health District has a
tangible, high value to society using
responsibility to meet community health
comprehensive resources. Reducing the
needs absent outside subsidies. The
award does not ensure that the Health
Health District should maintain higher
District will adopt increased funding for the
control of this program.
program.
PS10. Women's Center Child Care referral. Request: $8.000.
14
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend full
funding. Motion failed 4-4.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend full funding. Motion
passed 7-2.
Total recommended funding - $8 000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The program serves a high community
Questions were raised if the service
need. It reaches areas not reached by
duplicates other efforts. A plethora of
other agencies. Existing referral services
referrals are springing into existence,
do not reach the population needing child
appearing to be self -feeding and self -
care and cannot refer out as effectively in
serving to the creating agency. Outreach
the specialized and knowledgeable way
should be more targeted to specific
that this service provides.
programs rather than a spectrum of
referral agencies. The requested amount
nnnpars to be a ve hi h cost er referral.
I PS11. Women's Center — Resource, Referral, Advocacy. Request: $4,000.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed 8-1.
Total recommended funding - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The emergency funding portion of the
Need for this service is questionable given
program is commendable.
the similar efforts of other agencies. The
background of the split with First Call is
unclear, as is the impetus for a
replacement effort. The service appears to
be redundant, without explanation of how
it rovides a s ecial, uni ue need.
PS12 . Elderhaus — Caregiver advocacy. Request: $13,108.
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no
funding . Motion passed 8-2.
Total recommended funding: $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
15
Program provides intensives efforts and
alleviates the need for home health care.
Families need resources to help the aging
population. Bureaucracies have complex
requirements for which assistance is
Duplicates existing services. This program
is cumulative with other Elderhaus
services. It is unclear whether care is
directly provided through this program.
PS13. Neighbor to Neighbor. Request: $25,000. I
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended fundina - $25,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Excellent track record. High value
received for the dollars spent. Request is
in line with prior awards. Only
comprehensive housing referral.
Appendix 1
Commission representatives, by issue, for the Tuesday, April 24, 2000 study session
with City Council:
Habitat for Humanity
Brett Hill
CARE Housing
Cheryl Zimlich
Home buyer assistance
Bill Steffes
Neighbor to Neighbor, acquisition
Dennis Vandenheiden
Fort Collins Housing Authority, Ri den
Bill Steffes
Volunteers of America
Che I Zimlich
Fort Collins Housing Authority, rehab
Tia Molander
CDBG Administration
Brett Hill
Boys and Girls Club
Jennifer Molock
Beaucaire Youth Services
Dennis Vandenheiden
BAVA SID
Phil Ma'erus
NCAP, public facility
Tia Molander
Neighbor to Neighbor, public service
Vi Guthrie
Food Bank
Dennis Vandenheiden
16
Child Care Collaborative
Cheryl Zimlich
Education and Life, Adult Literacy
Phil Ma'erus
Project Self -Sufficiency
Vi Guthrie
NCAP, public service
Bill Steffes
Women's Center, child care
Jennifer Molock
Women's Center, resource referral
Cheryl Zimlich
Women's Center, health/dental
Tia Molander
First Call
Vi Guthrie
Elderhaus
Bill Steffes
Supported Youth Employment
Vi Guthrie
Appendix 2 - Programs, Requests, and Commission Recommendations
Acquisition/Facilities/Rehabilitation/Administration
No.
Program
Requeste
d
Recommende
d
AQ1
Habitat for Humanity
$500,000
$0
AQ2
FC Housing Authority -Acquisition
$554,132
$174,931
AQ3
Neighbor to Neihbor-Acquisition
$100,000
$100,000
AQ4
CARE Housing, Inc.
$300,000
$300,000
AQ5
Volunteers of America
$290,000
$290,000
PF1
Boys and Girls Club
$133,362
$31,000
PF2
Northern Colorado AIDS Project
$175,000
$0
PF3
Beaucaire Youth Services
$200,000
$0
PF4
BAVA SID
$100,000
$0
RE1
FC Housing Authority-
Rehabilitation
$327,000
$174,931
HO1
Home Buyer Assistance
$200,000
$200,000
AD1
HOME Investment Partnership
$783,000
N/A
AD2 I
CDBG Administration
$149,307
$149,307
Public Service (not to exceed 15% of program funds)
No.
Program
Requeste
d
Recommende
d
PS1
Education & Life Training - Adult
Literacy
$9,500
$9,500
PS2
Project Self -Sufficiency
$25,000
$20,000
PS3
Child Care Collaborative
$63,352
$63,352
PS4
Northern Colorado AIDS project
$18,000
$12,000
PS5
First Call Service Net
$22,090
$7,646
PS6
Supported Youth Em to ment
$15 000
$15 000
17
PS7
Catholic Charities Northern
$30,000
$30,000
PS8
Food Bank
$20,775
$0
PS9
Women's Center — Health/Dental
$7,000
$7,000
PS10
Women's Center — Child Care
$8,000
$8,000
PS11
Women's Center — Resource/Referral
$4,000
$0
PS12
Elderhaus
$13,108
$0
PS13
Neighbor to Neighbor
$25,000
$25,000
Appendix 3
THE WORK OF WAIDO
l- y
11KE'i-
76rc(..y�v Asyy
18
Ij> ,
lqb/i�
mac.
Vic e,
S, c'cu
N -
�3. 3> 2
Cr,rd C4K
�7� Sin
;R,!.,tt GrrR�y
3 0, oao
PSS
12,00o
A/CAP
d00 WC-Co'ec.c
O we Re <R
7, cow 6vc•�w;�;,t �w,
- 7�Y6 tarsf(47�
d Eldedt„yi