Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 10/03/2002Commission members present: Staff: Phil Majerus Terri Bryant Robert Browning Linda Coxen Vi Guthrie Brett Hill Tia Molander Billie Rosen Dennis Vanderheiden Cheryl Zimlich 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 noted the importance of detailing pros and cons with specificity Mr. Waido gave an overview of the process and recommendations. He reviewed the schedule of the October 22"d Council work session and the November 5th Council meeting for final resolution. He then explained the matrix, its organization, and the categories of allocable funding. Recommendations by Affordable Housing Board: The Board did not review the CHRP,(Larimer County Community Corrections), or Beaucaire proposals. Priorities recommended by the Board, by order of preference: 1. Home buyer assistance 2. CARE debt reduction 3. Neighbor to Neighbor 4. Fort Collins Housing Corporation Rehab 5. Habitat for Humanity. The Board recommended full funding for all these applicants. In response to questions and from discussion by the Commission and Staff, the following salient points emerged: Home buyer assistance is a likely and desirable target for surplus allocations. Whether a surplus can be carried to another funding cycle is dependent on the category. CDBG can assist up to 50% of the moneys allocated to home buyer assistance from the Affordable Housing Fund; HOME can match it. Staff noted that it was making no recommendations, due to the City's status as an applicant. Following voting on funding recommendations: The Commission noted the surplus left from this cycle. This is a deliberate strategy to address larger -scale projects that may be on the horizon for the spring cycle. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To adopt the final recommendations in toto, to be forwarded to City Council for its determination. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Home buyers assistance. Request $300,000, from HOME funds. Moved by Ms. Bryant seconded by Ms. Rosen.: To recommend full funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $300,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Excellent program. Excellent goals. Excellent track record and success history. Many families successfully served. The waiting list proves the need. The program is timely due to availability of product and interest rates. Home buyers assistance. Request $100,000, from the Affordable Housing Fund (rentals). Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding. Motion approved 9-1. This funding source is applicable to families buying former investment housing. In the present market, landlords may be looking to sell their units, and assistance for buying such units can only be achieved without funding that does not have Federal restrictions. Total recommended funding level - $100,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Excellent program. Excellent goals. Brings rental units off the market. Excellent track record and success history. Many families successfully served. The waiting list proves the need. The program is timely due to availability of product and interest rates. This particular category makes housing available that would not be under present regulations. This program helps bring rental units into affordable ownership 7 Home buyers assistance. Request $200,000, from Affordable Housing Fund. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding of $200,000, comprised of $123,174 from HOME, 76,826 from CDBG funds. Motion approved 7-3. Commission comments: Leaving money in HOME leaves it flexible, with potential future applications potentially needing the funding. Money left in the Affordable Housing Fund has the greatest flexibility; in the Federal program, HOME has more flexibility than CDBG, which is the most highly restricted. The Commission debated at length on ways to manipulate the funding among the various categories to maximize expenditures within the applicable restrictions. Total recommended funding level - $200,000 ($123,714 HOME: $76,826, CDBG) Pros of Application Cons of Application Excellent program. Excellent goals. Excellent track record and success history. Many families successfully served. The waiting list proves the need. The program is timely due to availability of product and interest rates. This particular allocation to the various categories maximizes funding within the applicable restrictions. Habitat. Request $150,000, from CDBG funds. Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 9-1. Total recommended funding level - $150,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Many families are served. The program Funding still remains from last cycle. The seems to be hitting its stride and has program could inadvertently enter a land improved its ability to resolve its projects. banking situation, which is not allowable The program is showing good direction. It under CDBG rules. Progress needs to be encourages home ownership. The recent proved with the funding it has received and history is favorable. This program provides will receive. The completion of project will a valuable service within the housing be two years from acquisition; the spectrum. Should the program not meet its Commission needs to feel comfortable goals, unused funding would be with the two-year limit of CDBG funds. By reprogrammed. Federal regulation, the applicant has until September 2003 to acquire property. No contingencies presently exist to have a structure in place within a given time. Fort Collins Housing Corporation. Request $258,000, from HOME funds. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend full funding from CDBG funds. Motion approved 9-1. This funding is recommended to be taken from CDBG because those more restrictive funds need to be expended. Total recommended funding level - $258,000 (from CDBG funds) Pros of Application Cons of Application Rehab needs to move ahead. Accessibility Level of discomfort about how the and safety problems are untenable. applicant is providing for reserves and Applicant has hit its targets timely. The future maintenance needs. Reserves need program addresses a very low AMI level, to be built up to ensure maintenance self - which reduces opportunity for reserve sufficiency. building. Rehab would help reduce the appearance of urban blight. 5 Beaucaire. Request $391,000, from CDBG funds. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend no funding. Unanimous. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Reduces recidivism. Program has worthy The application is premature, with many goals. possible changes on the horizon. The program can continue with its current situation. Program numbers are not solid. The request is not timely when considering status of the project. The neighborhood situation needs to be clarified; funding may show disregard for neighbor concerns. The funding applied more to administration and less applied to benefit of youth. With two beds added, there is a high subsidy level per unit. The program received funding in the last cycle and needs to establish a track record for future funding possibilities. Community Housing. Request $650,000, from Affordable Housing Fund. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding. Motion failed 3-5, with two abstentions. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $450,000. Motion failed 1-7, with two abstentions. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 7-1, with two abstentions. Some commission members wished to see funding at some level. Staff noted that the application in form was one of the best ever seen. The program is only eligible for funding from the Affordable Housing Fund; that fund's stated purpose is housing for low- income families. This is a very worthy cause seek funding from an inappropriate source. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Worthy project. May be able to leverage Community corrections issue is the State funding. High number of units for the responsibility of the County. Example: level of subsidy. Present facility is not Broomfield became a county unto itself adequate. City realizes a benefit from the trying to build jails and take on country program; its participation is valid. The responsibility. It is not an appropriate population is demonstrably from Fort target of the Affordable Housing Fund; the Collins, even before incarceration. The more appropriate target of that fund is program provides transitional housing and housing and families. Fort Collins life skills that are needed for this residency is not clear, in that it is defined population. The existing structure can by the fact of the residents' incarceration. leverage resources. The view that this is a It does not fit within the priority needs and "County -only" function is not correct, the definition of transitional housing as because local law enforcement agencies those priorities and definitions presently share these responsibilities by agreement. exist. The Affordable Housing Board The program serves a needy population recommended no funding. which the community does not care to serve. It leverages tax dollars by taking inmates into community -based and more productive housing. Neighbor to Neighbor. Request $102,600 from CHDO funds. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding of $102,600. Motion approved unanimously. Growth of this program is a concern, and the program structure needs to match its growth. The organization is being responsible with its resources and trying to target self- sufficiency. The applicant has always worked cooperatively with other programs. The program is run like a business, with planned reserves. It has a good board of directors and dynamic executive director. Total recommended funding level - $102,600 Pros of Application Cons of Application Impressive organization. This rehab project is more impressive than that proposed by other applicants. The organization has an exemplary history. Serves an important community need. Addresses an important AMI level. The Commission has a high comfort level with the organization and its goals. Excellent location. CARE. Request $200,000, from Affordable Housing Fund. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding. Motion approved 8-2. This program is seeing trouble due to past mistakes. This particular project was structured differently than past projects. Painful lessons have been learned. Staff will be continually monitoring the numbers. The Commission has concern that the program advertising itself as low-income stigmatizes the development and reduces the level of community pride. Total recommended funding level - $200,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This project is illustrative of the targets of The Commission is not fully comfortable this type of funding. A low AMI is served with subsidizing debt. The numbers and by this project. The applicant serves the chance for success is somewhat community well and builds quality units. problematic. The units would be lost to market rate units without this funding. The applicant is one of the few viable affordable developers. This project received a high ranking by the Affordable Housing Board. 8 Appendix 1 Commission representatives, by issue, for the study session with City Council: Ms. Rosen Home buyer assistance Ms. Bryant Habitat for Humanity Mr. Vanderheiden Fort Collins Housing Corporation Ms. Molander Beaucaire Ms. Coxen Community Housing Mr. Hill Neighbor to Neighbor Ms. Molander CARE