HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 10/02/2003Commission members present:
Staff:
Phil Majerus, President
Terri Bryant, Vice President
Robert Browning
Linda Coxen
Bruce Croissant
Michael Kulischeck
Billie Rosen
Shelley Steele
Dennis Vanderheiden
Cheryl Zimlich
Ken Waido
Heidi Phelps
Maurice Head
Julie Smith
Melissa Visnic
kth�sr � s v
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
Mr. Waido displayed the electronic spreadsheet and reviewed voting and tallying
procedures.
Ms. Phelps urged the Commission to speak in turn, particularly during motions,
identifying themselves for motions and seconding. She asked for clarity concerning
explanations of pros and cons as the basis for any motions.
Funding Source Adjustments Motion
Following motions on funding, Mr. Waido recommended the following adjustments be
made in order to fit within the available funding and applicable requirements: The
HOME $450,000 portion of the HO-1 recommendation to be adjusted to $470,458; the
CDBB $350,000 portion of the HO-1 allocation to be adjusted to $329,542; the $20,458
HOME portion of the HO-8 allocation to be removed; the $9,687 CDBG portion of the
HO-8 allocation to be adjusted upward to $30,145.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: To accept the
recommendation of funding adjustments. Motion passed unanimously.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Browning: To accept the funding
recommendations in toto. Motion passed 8-1. [See also Funding Matrix.]
Mr. Waido reviewed the next steps in the process. There will be a discussion with City
Council in a work session on October 28, 2003. The discussion will encompass the
recommendations made in this session as well as the proposed policy change voted on
last week concerning the recommendation of the 5% finance charge on any loans made
from our funding sources.
Staff is checking with lenders and legal staff as to the designation of this charge.
Currently, it appears that it will be disclosed as a finance charge due to truth in lending
requirements. Council may show curiosity as to the reasons for 5%. It was noted that
the figure was generally based on a historical CPI/inflation rate of 4%. Council may then
be curious as to why the proposal exceeds that rate. Staff is receiving more input from
the Finance Department.
Designated speakers
Policy change: Mr. Vanderheiden and Mr. Browning
AD-1:
Mr.
Vanderheiden
HO-1 (both):
Ms.
Molander
HO-3:
Ms.
Bryant
HO-4:
Ms.
Rosen
HO-6:
Ms.
Rosen
HO-7:
Mr.
Kulischeck
HO-8:
Mr.
Kulischeck
LB-1: Mr. Vanderheiden
LB-2: Mr. Vanderheiden
Mr. Majerus noted that he may be absent for the Council meeting on November 18. Ms.
Bryant will be absent as well. Mr. Browning will represent the Commission if both the
Chair and Vice Chair are absent.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
RmCc
TL
Nc
O
�
01
p
O
O
LO
L
O
�
p
O
p
O
N
O
0
ti
O
O
N
CO
P
1
O
00cs
00
ao
O
N
(N
N
Vim}
N
(�
00
Cj
y}
N
CN
N
p
pOp
:c
O
O
O
O
CD
O
0.
"`ry�h
K ,'!•.Y
CD
F: u:
Y'
'_.
a; ,*�Z
O
.�;�t4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
,
OO
.. ?F
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
N
p.,
O
O
[f;.
i'Ltity
c
C
LL
"' -
hi
o
N
0
pp
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
O
v
N
0
p
o
N
v
CV
o
N
lL P
A4
Ld
V
N
O
O
CT
f-
Z
Q COo
CD'G
04
IZT
o7
"'
N
o
6
n wr
U 1�
N
rIU1`. t
N
N
N
l
N
�.
Co
A%
0
N
CD
N
N
N
N
O
LO
O_
O
O
tq
O
O
O
O
O
O
L
N
M
(T
CD
CDU')
OO
O
Oo
o
O
O
Q
m
N
O
O
O
C'N
N
N
Ld
O
10
Ld
O
O_
CD1�
C
C
CCN
10
N
V
6
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
R
dr
N
N
CU
c
C
E
y
E
C
o
J
Q
u
z
x
f
Y o
v
O
Q
a
Q
m
m
N
a"
o
o
c a
a
c
J
m
as
O
N
c
Q
Co
�°
m
u
o
O U
o �
U
N
C)
o
6 o
a�
o
m
O
x
x o
z
c
x
x y
p p
a o
r,: —
loci
(U
Q
o
Oy0N
O
O
O
OEOc)^�
Q
x¢
xQ
x
x
x
x lox
o
m �mCD
a
FALL 2003 COMPETITIVE PROCESS FUNDING CYCLE
AD-1, CDBG Administration - $53,910
Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full funding;
source, CDBG funds. Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $53,910
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Expenses generated by the CDBG
Takes funding from projects.
program should be met by the program
where possible. The funding is less than
that allowed in the program requirements.
The percentage of funding is less than
other comparable Colorado communities.
HO-1 — Home Buyer Assistance - $200,000
HO-1 — Home Buyer Assistance (Rentals) - $1,000,000
Moved by Mr. Brown, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of
$1,200,000 for both HO-1 categories, apportioned as follows: CDBG (PI), $100,000;
HOME (PI), $100,000; CDBG, $350,000; HOME, $450,000. Motion approved
unanimously. [See also Funding Source Adjustments Motion and Funding
Matrix.]
Total recommended funding level - $1,200,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Highly successful program. Provides the
best value for the dollar of any other
program, particularly in light of the funding
generated. The funds are fully used year
to year, demonstrating the need.
HO-3 — Fort Collins Housing Authority SRO - $222,565
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend full funding;
source, CDBG funds. Motion passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $222,565
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Serves a critical, special needs population
Could have future windfall depending on
with permanent, supportive housing.
outcome of Section 8 program.
Maintenance reserves and funding present
a problem at this level of AMI population.
With the necessary deep subsidy, the
program will have a higher level of
operating comfort. FCHA already cross -
subsidizes operation of this unique
property. Program should not be placed in
a position of selling other highly needed
properties. This presents an opportunity to
address maintenance needs and protect
Cit 's investment over time.
HO-4, Neighbor to Neighbor eight-plex - $235,500
Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full funding;
source, CHDO, $109,581; CDBG, $125,919. Motion passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $235,500
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Good track record. The location provides
for a benefit in consolidating service and
management economies. This acquisition
is a good match for the entire project. This
presents an improvement for the
neighborhood. The project enjoys
neighborhood support. This program
serves a low 30-40% AMI level.
HO-6, Rigden Farm - $600,000
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Steele: To recommend full funding; half of
funds allocated from HOME, half from CDBG. Motion failed 0-9, with one
abstention.
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed 8-0, with two abstentions.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Program involves a for -profit developer.
Price points of product very high for
Provides for a desirable mix of market and
subsidy requested, when compared with
affordable housing.
other higher priority needs and in light of
limited, available funding. High AMI
targeted. The cap on equity could be
disadvantageous to the home owner.
Other programs have higher priority. No
long-term statistics on success. A market
already exists for $200,000 homes without
need of subsidy and equity cap. Other
similar Droiects are not true com arables.
HO-7, Habitat Multi -family project - $695,500
Passed Motion: Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: To
recommend funding of $695,500 from HOME funds, with the stipulation that an
explanation of the partnership structure be provided prior to funding and
approved by City staff. Amended, with consent of the second: To apportion
funding of $250,000 from HOME, $445,500 from the Affordable Housing Fund.
Following discussion, the motion was tabled. When untabled, it was discussed that
$250,000 of HOME funding could be used for raw land and be subject to Federal
requirements; the remaining, $445,500, could come from the City's Affordable Housing
Fund, without those requirements. Staff assured the Commission that no funding could
be used for any inappropriate purpose.
Motion passed 7-2, with one abstention.
Failed Motion: Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Ms. Molander: To reallocate
$145,000 from the Affordable Housing fund dollars from HO-7, to be divided
between HO-8 ($45,000) and LB-2 ($100,000). Motion failed 2-8.
Total recommended funding level - $695,500
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The affordable housing continuum needs
No other financial leverage yet explored.
stick -built homes. This involves a for -profit
Fees are high. The location lacks services
developer. Good mix with market units.
that affordable units may need. This
This project may serve as an example for
subsidy may serve to aid the for -profit
other for -profit development. Good track
developer for the entire development.
record of applicant, but this partnership
structure has not been seen before locally.
Exciting approach. The lack of transit
services is offset by the fact that
historically, all Habitat families have owned
a car.
HO-8, Habitat, acquisition - $240,000
Withdrawn Motion: Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To
recommend funding of $62,569 for one lot. After discussion, motion withdrawn
with consent of the second.
Passed Motion: Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To
recommend funding of $62,569; sources: HOME $20,458, CDBG $9,687, and AHF
$32,424. At this stage of the discussion, the remaining desirable targets for remaining
funds were HO-8 and LB-2. Motion passed 6-3. [See also Funding Source
Adjustment Motion & Funding Matrix.]
Failed Motion: Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Ms. Molander: To reallocate
$145,000 from the Affordable Housing fund dollars from HO-7, to be divided
between HO-8 ($45,000) and LB-2 ($100,000). Motion failed 2-8.
Total recommended funding level - $62,569
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
An immediate need exists for this funding
Program may have its hands and focus
due to the number of families applying.
fully occupied with the multifamily housing
Good track record of the program.
project. High subsidy for one housing unit.
Immediate needs override the future goals
The cost to benefit ratio is higher with the
of land banking in competition for funding.
multifamily development.
A variety of inventory is desirable for the
Habitat program. Larger or special needs
families are sometimes served. Very little
land remains within the city that will be
available for affordable housing.
LB-1, Land Bank, Interstate Land - $410,000
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of
$410,000. Motion passed 8-1.
Total recommended funding level - $410,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The program is committed to the first half
The program goal is long-term, and does
of the project and should complete its
not serve immediate need.
commitment. This has the potential to be a
good project. The land bank concept
appears sound, and this is an appropriate
use.
LB-2, Land Bank, General Application - $500,000
Passed Motion: Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To
recommend no funding. Motion passed 8-1, with one abstention.
Failed Motions: Moved by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $62,569. Motion
died for lack of a second.
Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Ms. Molander: To reallocate $145,000 from
the Affordable Housing fund dollars from HO-7, to be divided between HO-8
($45,000) and LB-2 ($100,000). Motion failed 2-8.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Land banking seems to be a sound
Paucity of funding. Loses priority in light of
concept, and this project may be
other more worthy, specific, and
appropriate for the next fundin cycle.
immediate projects.
10