Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 09/30/2004Commission members present: Staff: Phil Majerus, President Robert Browning Eric Berglund Michael Kulisheck Jeff Taylor Dennis Vanderheiden Cheryl Zimlich Tia Molander Laura Sutherlin Ken Waido Heidi Phelps Maurice Head Julie Smith Katherine Martinez Produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 171 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.482.1506 970.482.1230 fax meadors@reporterworks.com e-mail MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Extensive discussion was held concerning the Council priorities, and the Commission's efforts to adhere to them, concerning suggested percentages of individual funding sources to be applied to provision housing, rehabilitation, and public facilities versus the overall percentages to be applied to those programs. While the suggested percentages represent worthy goals, the dynamics of the applications for each funding cycle may dictate different results. At the conclusion of motions and discussions regarding funding: Moved by Ms. Zimlich and seconded: To accept the funding recommendations in toto. Discussion was held that the Commission was striving to meet the highest needs of the community with the funding sources available. Motion passed, 7-2. Designated speakers for the October 26, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Council session: HO-1: Mr. Taylor HO-2 Mr. Taylor HO-3: Mr. Berglund HO-4: Ms. Molander HO-5: Mr. Vanderheiden PF-1: Mr. Browning PF-2: Ms. Molander PF-3: Ms. Sutherlin PF-4: Mr. Vanderheiden PF-5: Mr. Taylor FALL FUNDING CYCLE (HOUSING ONLY) HO-1 — Home Buyer Assistance - $500,000 Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To recommend full funding, from the following sources: $246,138, HOME funds; $200,000, program income; $53,862, HOME American Dream funds. Friendly amendment offered by Mr. Browning, but declined by the mover: To add the stipulation that no more assistance is offered than needed, and that the assistance is not applied if monthly payments are not affected. This concept will be explored in future meetings. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $500,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Highly successful program, both in short The program would be better served by and long terms. Private lenders report a tailoring the amount of the assistance to great demand for the program. The funds the specific need; this option is being are fully used year to year, demonstrating studied. the need. HO-2 — Land Bank Program - $450,000 Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Discussion was held over the possibility of the Land Bank receiving program income in the future through partnering with a for -profit entity. Motion passed, 5-4. Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate funds through adding $297,000 to the Affordable Housing Fund, by reducing the HO-2 Land Bank program recommendation by $200,000 and the HO-3 Sleepy Willow program recommendation for the remainder. Discussion was held over the priority guidelines as set by City Council. Motion failed 3-6. Total recommended funding level - $450,000 Pros of A plication Cons of Application The program invests in longer -term needs The treatment of this application and HO-5 when available land will be even less could be viewed as inconsistent, i.e., available than in the present day. Good funding for acquisition in full rather than in insurance program for the city. The use of part. The land is held for potential use in any land purchased is tied to affordable the future even though a present need can housing. Funds available to the CDBG be shown. system are the only funds that can be used to fund this program, 3 HO-3 — Sleepy Willow Apartments - $426,000 Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of $426,018; sources, $329,120 CDBG and the remainder from the Affordable Housing Fund. Friendly amendment, accepted by mover and second: Funding to be contingent upon complying with the recommendations of the consultants report. The Commission strongly urges the applicant to seek alternate funding sources to aid the remainder of the $790,000 in needs. Staff noted that the preferred use of the Affordable Housing Fund is for production. Motion passed 5-2, with one abstention. Moved by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding of PF-1 CASA, Inc. Discussion was held concerning available funding for the motion. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding, with $48,807 reallocated from HO-3 Sleepy Willow recommended funding. Motion failed 4-5. Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate funds through adding $297,000 to the Affordable Housing Fund, by reducing the HO-2 Land Bank program recommendation by $200,000 and the HO-3 Sleepy Willow program recommendation by $97,000. Discussion was held over the priority guidelines as set by City Council. Motion failed 3-6. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $45,000 for rehabilitation in accordance with the priorities established by City Engineering. Source: Reallocation from HO-3 Sleepy Willow funding recommendation. Friendly amendment proposed by Mr. Majerus, accepted by the mover and second: To allocate an additional $7,193 from CDBG program income, to be applied to replacement of lead -based paint. Motion passed, 7-2. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To reduce HO-3 Sleepy Willow recommended funding by $52,000 of CDBG funding; and to recommend allocation of those funds to PF-4 Crossroads Safehouse Community Outreach Center. Mr. Majerus noted that this motion was made both in response to the needs of Crossroads Safehouse and the dissatisfaction expressed with the management fee inherent in the Sleepy Willow application. Motion passed, 7-2. Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Mr. Browning: To reduce HO-3 Sleepy Willow recommended funding by $56,000 of CDBG funding; and to recommend allocation of those funds to PF-1 CASA, Inc. Harmony House. Mr. Kulisheck noted the urgent needs of Harmony House as precedence over items of less need in Sleepy Willow. Motion passed, 6-3. Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Mr. Browning: To increase funding by $69,018. Source: Affordable Housing Fund. Motion passed unanimously. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate CDBG- sourced recommended funding for PF-2 United Way and PF-3 Crossroads Safehouse to HO-3 Sleepy Willow. Motion failed 2-7. 4 Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reallocate $10,500 of recommended funding for PF-2 United Way to HO-3 Sleepy Willow. Motion failed, 4-4. Total recommended funding level - $342,018 Pros of Application Cons of Application Prior funding was withheld pending study; Program seems to focus on minimum rent now the study is complete, and findings rather than 30% AMI; as such, it is not support funding. The project has good presently competitive with other minimum - housing for very low income that needs to rent locations. Business plan still shows a stay in inventory. The applicant has taken loss in this difficult market. Other projects appropriate steps to reduce the amount show more solid promise. The project has requested. Measures have been taken to serious challenges to its success, and reduce the operating loss. Funding would funding brings risk to public moneys. It is help the program's competitiveness. This not determined whether funding would project was acquired when there was a allow the project to carry its ongoing high need and is following measures of losses. Probable short-term success of the improvement been recommended by the project seems questionable with present consulting as suggested by the resources. The problems are too broad in Commission, I scope to be easily resolved. HO-4, FCHC 300 First Street SRO Rehab - $136,455 Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To recommend full funding; source, HOME FY04 funds. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $136,455 Pros of Application Cons of Application The project serves a unique and High numbers seen in the management underserved niche of very low- and no- fee. income residents. The funding requested is appropriate for the number of units. The visual aspects are impressive. 5 HO-5, CARE Housing, Inc. - $250,000 Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding. Discussion was held over the appropriate amount of seed money needed by a project to be credible in the eyes of potential funding sources. Motion failed, 4-5. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of $100,000. Motion passed, 8-1. Total recommended funding level - $100,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Program has an excellent track record in Funding request is higher than needed at providing affordable housing. The project this early juncture, particularly without a will add a significant number of affordable site having been selected. Funds are units to the City's inventory. Funding right being used somewhat speculatively. A represents a vote of confidence by the City concern was expressed of encumbering when the applicant approaches lenders. If too much funding for a speculative site a site is not selected, the applicant will not when other more immediate projects can use the funding, use the funding. PF-1, CASA, Inc. — Harmony House Visitation Center - $56,000 Moved by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding. Discussion was held concerning available funding for the motion. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding, with $48,807 reallocated from HO-3 Sleepy Willow recommended funding. Motion failed 4-5. Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Mr. Browning: To reduce HO-3 Sleepy Willow recommended funding by $56,000 of CDBG funding; and to recommend allocation of those funds to PF-1 CASA, Inc. Harmony House. Mr. Kulisheck noted the urgent needs of Harmony House as precedence over items of less need in Sleepy Willow. Motion passed, 6-3. Total recommended funding level - $56,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Program addresses a community need. Full leverage for historical funding and/or The repairs are sorely needed. The alternative sites may not have been fully requested funding request is surprisingly explored. Long-term maintenance has not low when viewing the scope of repairs. been addressed. Funding would help restore a historical site. PF-2, United Way — Housing Services Day Center - $87,500 Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding. Mr. Waido advised the Commission regarding HUD concerns of apportioning off any part of the building committed to worship services. This reduces funding eligibility to $70,500. Motion amended by Mr. Berglund, with consent of the second: To recommend funding to the legally applicable limit of $70,500. Motion passed unanimously. Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate $40,500 of recommended funding from PF-2 United Way in favor of PF-3 Crossroads Safehouse. Motion failed for lack of a second. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate CDBG- sourced recommended funding for PF-2 United Way and PF-3 Crossroads Safehouse to HO-3 Sleepy Willow. Motion failed 2-7. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate $40,500 of recommended funding from PF-2 United Way in favor of PF-4 Crossroads Safehouse. Motion failed 4-4, with one abstention. Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reallocate $10,500 of recommended funding for PF-2 United Way to HO-3 Sleepy Willow. Motion failed, 4-4. Total recommended funding level - $70,500 Pros of Application Cons of Application The proposal encompasses a public The ready availability of these facilities can facility that addresses a real and ongoing serve as a magnet for nonresidents who community need. The Commission has come to use these services. A question been in agreement concerning the need of exists whether this project would proceed this facility. Leveraging is effective, without this funding. particularly for sources such as Loveland. The applicant's diligence is impressive. The project scores high on the ranking criteria. PF-3, Crossroads Safehouse — 25" Anniversary Rehab - $225,000 Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $45,000 for rehabilitation in accordance with the priorities established by City Engineering. Source: Reallocation from HO-3 Sleepy Willow funding recommendation. Friendly amendment proposed by Mr. Majerus, accepted by the mover and second: To allocate an additional $7,193 from CDBG program income, to be applied to replacement of lead -based paint. Motion passed, 7-2. Total recommended funding level - $52,193 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program serves a high need. Repairs Other priorities can be addressed in future would make the location more attractive applications or by other funding sources. for the people in need who seek to use it. Rehabilitation concerning lead -based paint The roofing and electrical repairs present was not in the proposal. the highest priorities of this application. Structural concerns are higher need than aesthetic concerns. PF-4, Crossroads Safehouse — Community Outreach Center - $105,000 Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend full funding, with $98,000 reallocated from HO-3 Sleepy Willow recommended funding. Motion failed, 3-6. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To reduce HO-3 Sleepy Willow recommended funding by $52,000 of CDBG funding; and to recommend allocation of those funds to PF-4, Crossroads Safehouse Community Outreach Center. Mr. Majerus noted that this motion was made both in response to the needs of Crossroads Safehouse and the dissatisfaction expressed with the management fee inherent in the Sleepy Willow application. Motion passed, 7-2. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate $40,500 of recommended funding from PF-2 United Way in favor of PF-4 Crossroads Safehouse. Motion failed 4-4, with one abstention. Total recommended funding level - $52,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program addresses a high and unique Many unforeseen expenses are possible community need and facility. The facility or even inherent in moving a building. The needs more room, and support by the City application does not rank high with would generate more support by others. housing needs. Other funding sources The buildings will be destroyed if not put to may well be implemented. use. 9 PF-5, Wingshadow, Inc. Facility Improvements - $67,029 Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend no funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application The project is admirable and effective. The construction proposed is not a high priority for housing. Although it is admirable that the program is working to be debt -free, it could consider an encumbrance in order to fund this project. Commission members are not reassured that all reasonable funding aids have been explored. H