HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Block Grant Commission - Minutes - 04/06/2004Commission members present:
Staff:
Phil Majerus, President c4l�
Cheryl Zimlich, Vice Preside/" ' 'I
Robert Browning
Bruce Croissant v/
Michael Kulischeck /
Tia Molander
Jeff Taylor
Dennis Vanderheiden
Jennifer Wagner
Heidi Phelps
Maurice Head
Katherine Martinez
Julie Smith
Melissa Visnic
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
Ms. Phelps distributed handouts:
The funding matrix. She noted that PS-9 had been withdrawn. The Fort Collins Housing
Corporation increased its request for funding for Sleepy Willow to over $1 million.
Project Self -Sufficiency. This document was to answer Mr. Browning's question and set
forth its annual programming report.
Child care agencies. These documents provided rates and sliding scale tuition sheets.
Memo from Project Self -Sufficiency clarifying items that were not clear in their
presentation concerning Loveland/Fort Collins issues. The Fort Collins program is
growing, needing new space, and is bursting at the seams.
A Neighbor to Neighbor end -of -year programming report.
A memo from Crossroads Safehouse, detailing changes of priorities.
Focus questions with regard to the public service category.
Ms. Phelps noted the following items:
United Way's HPI Coordinator and Elderhaus' carpeting requests have been withdrawn.
Mr. Waido sends his greetings and regrets for not being present.
The public service category must have its entire funding pool allocated. Funds left over
from other categories may be allocated in the fall.
A running tally will be kept on a spreadsheet projected for the Commission's convenience.
Ms. Phelps reviewed the conflict of interest standards. A financial benefit to a Commission
member or member's family could constitute a conflict of interest. If a member has a conflict
with one project, that member should not participate in discussions and voting for any project
in that category so that no effect is perceived on the competitive process.
Mr. Taylor stated that he was a former Wingshadow board member, over a year ago. Ms.
Phelps stated that was out of the conflict time framework.
Ms. Zimlich noted a public facilities project that she has thorough knowledge of. She recused
herself from discussions within that category.
Ms. Phelps reviewed the general procedures, the need for objectivity, and clarity in motions for
purposes of the record. She outlined the followup procedures that will take place once the
Commission has concluded its funding recommendations.
Mr. Croissant questioned the mathematics of figures on the tally sheet, and a lively discussion
ensued. It was ultimately determined that the balance under the CDBG column, rather than
$1,016,150, should read $1,036,150.
Following discussions and action in all categories: Moved by Mr. Browning, second by Ms.
Molander: To accept funding recommendations, and the resulting grid, in toto. Motion
approved unanimously. (Ms. Zimlich recused.)
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
O
O
0
¢
0
8
0
0
O
O
O
0
•sr
O
0
.Cs
v+
o
.s�
O
O
0
`u 0 u
oN
8
Z
0
N
LO
N
co
d 0 c
co
Un
—
O
0
LO
co
co
O
OO
10
N
<
0
6.r
O
A. m
t4
0
v+
V9.
V
wi
64
e9
n
pp
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
h
O
b4
0
tR
O
O
S4
O
O
O
O
O
0
h
C
O
O
O
vi
h
O
O
O
O
O
O
«
n
Cl)
n
N
O
Cl)
N
h
8
O
O
Opp
V,
N
O
PV
O u°D1
8
00
LO
M
M
b r
b4
NNi
tR
V}
b.,bl}
b->
0
L
N
VT
00
e
e
E
*0-4-
�E 8
8
O
o E
q
d o 0
0
0
c
v
U' y
«sr
eii
7
G
U
N
d
�
�
e
y
o
E 0
0
g
g
a
m c
8
o
O
O
O
G OI C4
U C4
LO
to-,�
o
tr
a
d
O
8
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
8
O
M:
O
e4
0
b4
O
O
O
0
O
H
O
M
N
LO
�p0
O
O
O
O
m
O
10
N
O
G
P
�
N
O
L
W
1+)
U
00
Cl)
-
+
69.
w
6cr
m�
e r
Uf
O
O
C "O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
tPr
O
O
O N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
_
h
O
o�
O
Ln
u'i
O
O
y
8
N
co
M
O
CN
n
N
0
In
000
Oo
E
O
I�
M
O
E .O
E '-
O
O
00
0�
O
n
n
L6
'O
O
N
N
h
ZN-
O
V
m
h
m
N
E
E
LO
-
O
O
w}
e'T
di
♦o+
<ff
M
e4
U
(V
d
V}
u4
^7E
¢
U
O
¢
Q
E
N
o
c
¢
Uw
o
L
a
m
_
u
o_
u
>
m
o
a
3
a
m
h
D
O
h
E
D
°
=
U
m
o
r
Oa
C
cm0
�n
W
H�
30
.o
U
rn
LL
U
Z
a
o
0
6
a
m
0
¢
3
6
N
O
U
E
U
�
U
c
o
E
2
2
Y
m
N
O
Z
N
N
0
O
c
U
2
�
9
�
U
3
U
N
(h O
04
�n
O
O
O O
O
N
I?
V
L�l
�
2
2
2 ck�
2
0_
¢
o_
o_
o-
D_
o_
0_
0
cq
8
n
m LO
U LO
N
N
U 0
o
D O
0 cH
+
a
N � M
0`
N N
Vi
� I I
N
O EO
OO U
W
N
d} �
(D
-O O
D d
U +
C
0
c u
� U
0 a)
a -0
U
� C
�6 N
o
o E
m
'p U
CL
o �
m U
U L
Funding Matrix Spring Cycle 2004
Public Service
Agency & Project
Request
Total Funds
Available
$200,850.00
Project unfunded
Balance
PS-1 PSS
$22,000.00
$10,000.00
$12,000.00
PS-2 VOA Handyman
$3,500.00
$0.00
$3,500.00
PS-3 RVNA
$15,000.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
PS-4A Springfield Court
$17,500.00
$17,500.00
$0.00
PS4B United Day Care
$25,500.00
$25,500.00
$0.00
PS-5 Elderhous
$7,213.00
$7,213.00
$0.00
PS-6 CASA
$12,344.00
$12,344.00
$0.00
PS-7 Respite Care
$10,000.00
$7,500.00
$2,500.00
w
PS-8 BASE Camp
$19,685.00
$19,685.00
$0.00
u
z
d
PS-10NCAP
$14,000.00
$10,000.00
$4,000.00
N
PS-11 Wingshadow- salaries
$10,000.00
$0.00
$10,000.00
PS-12 Wingshadow - The Wing
$13,500.00
$0.00
$13,500.00
PS-13 Women's Center
$15,000.00
$6,608.00
$8,392.00
PS-14 CCN - Shelter
$30,000.00
$25,000.00
$5,000.00
PS- 15CCN-Senior
$15,000.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
PS-16 Sunshine School
$15,500.00
$14,000.00
$1,500.00
PS-17 Crossroads - Triage Assistant
$19,553.00
$0.00
$19,553.00
PS-18 ELTC
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
PS-19 Disabled Resource Svcs
$13,500.00
$10,500.00
$3,000.00
PS-20 N2N - Housing Counseling
$30,000.00
$25,000.00
$5,000.00
TOTAL:
$323,795.00
$200,850.00
$122,945.00
BALANCE:
Remaining $
$0.00
Funding Matrix Spring Cycle 2004
HOME Funds
Available $
HOME
Agency & Project
Request
723 OD6.t 0 .
AD-1 HOME Admin + Projects
$723,006.00
$723,006.70
Admin Only
$72,300.00
v
a
BALANCE:
Remaining $
$0.00
HOUSING PROJECTS
Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Molander: All housing and public
facilities recommended allocations are subject to due -on -sale notes, such notes
to include a 5% administration fee. Motion approved, 8-0.
HO-1 — Homebuyer Assistance - $500,000 request
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $500,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Successful program. High need is
demonstrated by its popularity and
success. The loan program is the most
immediately available source for funding.
The dollar amount is such that the
program has become very meaningful to
the community. The funding is always
used.
HO-2 — FCHC — First Street SRO Rehab - $127,820 request
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed 7-1.
Total recommended funding level - $ 0
Pros of Ap lication
Cons of Application
Provides permanent housing for a special,
The Housing Corporation does not seem
high -needs population. Unique program
to place this as a high priority, given their
model.
offer to withdraw the proposal in favor of
HO-5 funding. The need for rehab this
year is not consistent with the
representations of the Housing Authority
last year. Concerns regarding
management fee subsidy structure.
Concerns regarding loss of 1 housing unit
for resident manager. Need to prioritize
health/safety issues on list of rehab items.
HO-3 Larimer Center for Mental Health — Rehab-$123,307 request
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Wagner: To recommend full funding. The
Commission noted its appreciation of the Affordable Housing Board's comments;
however, CDBG priorities have wider application than needs addressed by the
Affordable Housing Board's advocacy. It was discussed whether this difference would
be minimized if this project were placed, or is appropriate to be placed, in Public
Facilities. Friendly amendment by Ms. Molander to recommend funding at the
minimum requested level, $81,770; amendment accepted. Motion approved, 7-1.
Total recommended funding level - $81,770
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Program provides a unique and highly
Low priority for the Affordable Housing
needed service. Strong results compared
Board. Very high cost per client. High level
to the amount of investment. Impressive
of reserves available, although this
presentation indicates that management is
number may be deceptive.
knowledgeable and capable.
HO-5 - FCHC — Sleepy Willow - $1,050,100 request
Moved by Mr. Browning: To recommend funding of up to $50,000 for a City -
directed marketability and retention study. In discussions involved in the crafting of
the motion, Ms. Phelps noted restrictions on planning -type projects. Motion withdrawn.
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend no funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Further discussions and actions regarding this application are enumerated in PL-1.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Project serves the very low AMI clients.
Hastily assembled application for such a
The Housing Corporation apparently
large request. The building is sound;
needs CDBG help to continue.
health and safety does not apply. This is
more of a remodel than rehab request.
CDBG funding necessitates higher -than -
market costs to complete the project. The
11/04 timing of bid solicitation makes this
do -able for a fall funding cycle request.
This request is to improve marketability;
other potentially effective tactics have not
been attempted. Question of project
management dollars being subsidized
exists. Concern that additional subsidies
will not necessarily help FCHC meet its
goal of lowering vacancy rates. Need for
more strategic rental and marketability
information.
AD-1 — HOME Admin and Projects - $723,006 request (admin only, $72,300
request)
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full
funding. Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $723,006
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Good administrative track record. Highly
effective program. Highly efficient use of
funds. Creates affordable housing
opportunities for lower income levels. Use
of portion of funds meets an otherwise
difficult mandate of the City needs and
strategies to increase home ownership._
M
AD-2 CDBG Admin - $210,635 request
Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended fundina level - $210,635
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Staff support is needed and cannot be
obtained for free. The proposal is less than
the full amount allowable. City Staff has
always been able to operate at lower than
Federal guidelines. The City provides
other support services and staff time at no
cost. The quality of staff support is
excellent.
PL-1 — City of Fort Collins — Rental/Marketability Study (Commission initiated)
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding
of up to $50,000 to commission a study and/or consultant, directed by City staff,
to include market analysis and options available to sustain this project. Ms.
Phelps stated that RFPs could be prepared shortly after Council approval. Motion
approved unanimously.
Total recommended fundina level - $50,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Proposal should help City be more
Anticipated product provided by consultant
strategic in its use of funding dollars in
serves only as a guideline for decision -
support of Sleepy Willow and other similar
making.
affordable housing projects. Intent is to
enhance long-term project viability.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Ms. Zimlich did not participate in Public Facilities discussions.
Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Molander: All housing and public
facilities recommended allocations are subject to due -on -sale notes, such notes
to include a 5% administration fee. Motion approved, 7-0.
PF-1 — United Way — Housing Services Center - $100,000 request
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend no
funding. Motion approved 6-0, with one abstention. The applicant is encouraged to
return in the fall with a more detailed concept.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Good concept. Meets community need
Plan is premature for time -sensitive CDBG
with the dissolution of New Bridges.
funding. Proposal lacks sufficient detail
and planning to be appropriate for funding
in this cycle. Some questions on the
match of timeline of available funding to
budget line items requested for subsidy.
PF-2 — Turning Point — College Building Repairs - $48,725 request
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend full
funding. Motion approved, 7-0.
Total recommended funding level - $48,725
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Valuable and effective program. The
The staff -to -client ratio is curious.
building is in genuine need of repair. The
due -on -sale provision helps the City now
by providing a better facility and ensures a
return on investment in the event of a sale.
Management appears to be effective and
diligent.
10
PF-3 — Wingshadow - Facility Improvements — $89,279 request
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of
$22,250, to cover requested Items 1-7, excluding the parking lot. Motion
approved, 5-3.
Total recommended funding level - $22,250
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The program performs well and gets high
value from the available funding. Important
project for the City to support. Reaches a
high number of at -risk people. Facility is
impressive both in its design and cost
effectiveness. Addresses some health
and safety issues.
PF-4 — CCN — Mission Building Refurbishing - $50,000 request
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend full
funding. Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $50,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
This is a vital service provider to a sector
of the public with a high degree of need.
The impetus of this request has a strong
health and safety factor. The numbers of
clients served will produce unavoidable
wear and tear. Project is well -leveraged
with both money and volunteer efforts.
11
PF-5 — Sunshine School — Building Upgrade - $37,559 request
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Wagner: To recommend funding of
$22,330 for siding and gutter work. It was discussed by construction -knowledgeable
Commission members that doors and windows should be done at the same time as
siding for maximum efficacy. The Commission expressed unease with the evaluation
process and wished for the City to play a lead role. Mr. Browning offered a friendly
amendment to recommend authorization of $30,000 for health and safety repairs
to the building, such priorities to be established City facilities professionals;
amendment accepted. Motion approved unanimously. Ms. Phelps will seek action
by Facilities before the upcoming City Council meeting.
Total recommended funding level - $30,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Highly valuable service. Good program.
Windows and doors
replacement may not
Good building. Good environment for the
provide substantive
benefit. Bid process
kids served. Siding and gutter are health
was not complete. The building is owned
and safety issues and enhance curb
by the City; City
oversight should be
appeal. The school may do better in
sought concerning
bidding and value of
attendance with a nicer appearance.
replacement items.
PF-7 — Crossroads — Shelter Rehab - $27,825 request
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of
$10,500, directed to boiler repairs. Some Commission members were educated by
others on certain elements, such as fin tubes, on heating systems. Friendly
amendment by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of a maximum of
$10,500 for the City inspection of the boiler and heating system, to determine and
provide the proper extent of needed replacement and/or repairs. Amendment
accepted. Motion approved, 6-1.
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend funding
of an additional $5,550 for repair of playroom, sliding door, buckling carpet,
installation of dusk -to -dawn lighting, two vinyl windows in the southeast room,
and replacement of three security sensors. Items not approved in this cycle can
return for the fall cycle. Motion approved 7-0.
12
Total recommended funding level - $16,050
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The heating system appears to be a safety
Applicant may not have received complete
issue for a program with a proven
and necessary information from which to
community need. The concerns are worthy
present this application. Inadequate
of funding; uncertainty exists if the
bidding process. The house is owned by
perceived concerns are actual concerns.
the City; City oversight should be sought,
The other items are genuine security
and City responsibilities of ownership
and/or health and safety concerns.
should be explored where tenant safety is
concerned.
13
PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS
PS-1 — Project Self -Sufficiency - $22,000 request
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend full funding.
Motion failed, 3-5.
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding.
Motion failed, 1-7.
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Wagner: To recommend funding of
$10,000. Motion approved, 6-1.
Total recommended funding level - $10,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
This is a needed and valuable service. The
Money -saving measures should include
program provides a safety net to aid
volunteers; however, the program has
people in acquiring self-sufficiency. Highly
released its volunteer advocates. Success
effective for the dollars used. Motivated
at fundraising may lessen or eliminate the
staff helps ensure that funding is used
need for these funds, particularly in a very
prudently. Good leveraging. Program
tight funding cycle for public service
should not be penalized for effective
applicants.
fundraising. Good track record. Returns
the public investment by producing
productive citizens.
PS-2 — VOA Handyman Program - $3,500 request
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend no
funding. Motion approved, 7-1.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Good program. Maximum use is made of
Addresses more repair than basic needs.
the funds available. Benefit is received by
both recipients and providers.
14
PS-3 — RVNA - $15,000 request
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Wagner: To recommend no funding.
Motion approved, 7-1.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Funding requested intended to serve an
No initial data available on number of Fort
indigent population.
Collins residents served. Unclear as to
how CDBG subsidy would fit in with other
health care funding sources.
PS-4A - Springfield Court - $17,500 request
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved, 7-1.
Total recommended fundinsa level - $17,500
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Good presentation for the needs of clients
Appropriations for day-care services
being served. Good leveraging to acquire
should be applied equivalently per child in
other funding. Serves low-income families.
PS-4A, PS-4B, and PS-16 in order to
Addresses a high community need. Serves
provide consistent funding.
a geographical area not served by others.
Program has assembled itself better to be
an appropriate funding recipient.
PS-4B — United Day Care - $25,500 request
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding.
A friendly amendment to make funding equivalent to other programs on a per -unit basis
was not accepted. Motion failed, 4-4, with one abstention.
Extensive discussion was held over ways to devise an appropriate yardstick for
determining equivalent funding levels for equivalent services, to define "affordability" in
the child care arena, and to prevent manipulation of such criteria by applicants,
particularly if this results in cutting clients.
15
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved, 7-1.
Total recommended funding level - $25,500
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Good presentation for the needs of clients
Appropriations for day-care services
being served. Good leveraging to acquire
should be applied equivalently per child in
other funding. Serves low-income families.
PS-4A, PS-413, and PS-16 in order to
Addresses a high community need.
provide consistent funding,
PS-5 — Elderhaus - $7,213 request
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend funding
of $6,500. Friendly amendment by Ms. Molander to recommend full funding;
amendment accepted. Motion approved unanimously.
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To reallocate $713 from
Elderhaus in favor of PS-13, for a total recommendation of $6,500. Motion
approved, 6-2.
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate the following: $713 to PS-5 from PS-13;
$2,000 from PS-20 to PS-13; $1500 from PS-4A to PS-13; $1500 from PS-4B to WC;
$2,000 from PS-10 to PS-13; total to PS-13 of $6,287. Motion died for lack of a second.
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Molander: To reallocate the following
to PS-13: $1,500 from PS-4A; $1,500 from PS-4B; $1,000 PS-10; $1,000 from PS-
18; $2,000 from PS-20; and to reallocate $713 from PS-13 to Elderhaus; total
funding recommendation of $7,213. Motion failed, 3-4, with one abstention.
Total recommended fundino level - $7,213
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Serves an important community need.
Would like to see a scholarship program.
Addressed a specialized population. Good
The multicultural program is not essential
leveraging. Good track record. High level
to the program's success.
of service for the dollar, particularly
considering the fact that for every client
served, others have time freed up.
16
PS-6 — CASA - $12,344 request
Moved by Kulischeck, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding.
Mr. Browning noted that in the past, he was a volunteer for the applicant and on its
board of directors. Motion approved 6-2.
Total recommended fundina level - $12.344
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The group served is in critical need and at
high risk. The need will skyrocket in the
coming years, without concomitant raises
in funding. High community need for this
service. Overlooked program that is worthy
of funding.
PS-7 — Respite Care - $10,000 request
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: To recommend full
funding. A friendly amendment of a $7,500 recommendation was rejected. Motion
failed, 4-5.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: To recommend funding of
$7,500. Motion approved, 6-2.
Total recommended fundina level - $7,500
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The program addresses a high-level
CDBG funding would provide a higher
community need. The services are
level of sliding scale subsidy than other
specialized and not duplicated by other
day-care programs. Success at fundraising
agencies. The services are valuable. The
may make these funds unnecessary. The
funding sought is small in comparison to
program successfully completed its
the program's needs. Knowledgeable,
mission on less funding than requested in
solid, well -funded program. Raised its
the previous year.
ability to self -fund. Model program.
17
PS-8 — BASE Camp - $19,685 request
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended fundina level - $19,685
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The location at school makes this program
highly desirable for needy families and
helps prevent latchkey kid situations.
Funding is always stretched and well -
used. Sources for sliding scale money are
well -leveraged. Good track record. High
community need.
PS-10 — NCAP - $14,000 request
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full
funding. Motion approved, 7-1.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To reallocate $4,000 from NCAP
to PS-13. Motion approved, 7-1.
Total recommended funding level - $10,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The program targets a truly at -risk group in
Some services provided to clients who are
the community. The group's efforts are not
not city residents, although the greater
duplicated elsewhere. Solid track record.
majority live in the service area.
Useful member of the Fort Collins area.
The program is maturing and working out
its management and administration
systems. Program is closer to the edge, in
terms of funding, than other programs
18
PS-11 - Wingshadow — Daycare Salaries - $10,000 request
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend no funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Program serves a very high number of
The efforts in the funding requests can be
students with needs. Presentation of the
leveraged with available help and
program and the portrayal of community
volunteers. Funding is better used on
needs were impressive.
stabilizing the status quo rather than on
new program efforts.
PS-12 - Wingshadow — The Wing Youth Shelter - $13,500 request
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend no funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Program serves a very high number of
The efforts that are the focus of funding
students with needs. Presentation and
requests can be leveraged with available
community needs were impressive.
help and volunteers. Funding is better
used on stabilizing the status quo rather
than on new program efforts.
PS-13 — Women's Center - $15,000 request
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$2,608. At this point in the proceedings, the allocated funding had been appropriated,
and discussions were held over reallocating funds. Mr. Croissant proposed a friendly
amendment to add $3,500 to this proposal, with $2,000 subtracted from PS-1, $500
from PS-4A, and $1,000 from PS-4B; amendment not accepted. Mr. Kulischeck
proposed a friendly amendment to add $5,950, with $1,000 subtracted from PS-4A,
$750 from PS-5, $1,000 from PS-6, $1,000 from PS-10, and $1,000 from PS-18;
amendment not accepted. Motion approved, 6-1, with one abstention.
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To reallocate $713 from PS-5
in favor of the Women's Center. Motion approved, 6-2.
19
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate the following: $713 to PS-5 from PS-13;
$2,000 from PS-20 to PS-13; $1500 from PS-4A to PS-13; $1500 from PS-413 to PS-13;
$2,000 from PS-10 to PS-13; total to PS-13 of $6,287. Motion died for lack of a second.
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Molander: To reallocate the following
to the Women's Center: $1,500 from PS-4A; $1,500 from PS-4113; $1,000 PS-10;
$1,000 from PS-18; $2,000 from PS-20; and to reallocate $713 from the Women's
Center to PS-5; total funding recommendation of $9,608. Motion failed, 3-4, with
one abstention.
Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Ms. Molander: To reallocate the following
to PS-13: $1,500 from PS-4A; $1,500 from PS-41B; $1,000 from PS-10; $1,000 from
PS-18; $2,000 from PS-20; and to reallocate $713 from PS-13 to Elderhaus; total
funding recommendation of $7,213. Motion failed, 3-4, with one abstention.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To reallocate $4,000 from NCAP
to PS-13. Motion approved, 7-1.
Total recommended funding level - $6,608
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The programs provide a very useful
service. A portion of funding helps a
population through cultural barriers to
obtain appropriate medical care. Services
are not duplicated and are focused on a
group with demonstrable needs.
20
PS-14 Catholic Charities Shelter Services - $30,000 request
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of
$25,000. Motion approved, 6-1 with one abstention.
Total recommended funding level - $25,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Meets the most basic of services. Does a
Although the applicant places a higher
fine job in its range of services. It is
priority on funding for PS-15, the
imperative for the community that this level
Commission is obliged to recommend
of service not be reduced. Meets every
funding consistent with CDBG priorities.
important need in the ranking criteria.
Good track record; the program delivers
on its promises. The program has difficulty
finding funding for this type of needed
service.
PS-15 - Catholic Charities Senior Services - $15,000 request
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding.
The Commission once again had a discussion on minimum -request strategies; Ms.
Phelps quickly reviewed applicant training on that issue by Staff. Motion approved 6-0,
with two abstentions.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Addresses a valid need of a special
Lack of confidence in ensuring how the
population.
funding will enable the program to
succeed. High percentage of program
subsidy requested in the absence of other
funding sources. Unclear on the structure
of case management. No minimum
amount needed set forth, and the program
will continue without the funding. Although
the applicant places a higher priority on
this funding than for PS-14, the
Commission is obliged to recommend
funding consistent with CDBG priorities.
21
PS-16 — Sunshine School - $15,500 request
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of
$9,000. Friendly amendment by Mr. Croissant to change the level to $12,400, or
80% of the funding request; amendment accepted. Friendly amendment by Mr.
Browning to change the level to $14,000, or the minimum requested; amendment
accepted. Motion approved, 5-3.
Total recommended funding level - $14,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Highly valuable service. Good program.
Cost per child is much higher than other
Good building. Good environment for the
applicants; on that basis, the program is
kids served. Full funding may be
oversubsidized. Need better marketing for
preferable to put the program on notice for
higher -paying clients to subsidize lower -
next year regarding the funding
income clients. Management in the past
equivalency and management concerns.
has not been greatly effective. There are
possible inconsistencies between what is
actually needed and what is perceived to
be needed.
PS-17 — Crossroads — Triage Assistant - $19,553 request
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To recommend no funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
One of the program's lowest priorities.
Volunteers are available for that program.
This person will apparently be providing
administrative support to the rest of the
staff. Probability of becoming a constant
CDBG funding request. A bilingual staff
person can handle this role. The program
has a steady flow of volunteers. Not well -
leveraged; it is possible that one of the
clients could be converted to that position.
This request is low on the scale of basic
needs.
22
PS-18 - Education and Life Training Center - $15,000 request
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck: To recommend funding of $12,000. Motion died for lack
of a second.
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of
$10,000. Motion approved, 5-4.
Total recommended funding level - $10,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The program addresses building self-
Doubts about the program's net
sufficiency skills. The targeted population
effectiveness, given the short length of
has a high need for this program.
training. Lacking statistics over
Promotes useful and applicable skills. Aids
effectiveness of program graduates
low-income people in achieving a living
achieving a living wage versus strictly
wage. The services provided are unique in
graduation numbers.
the community.
PS-19 - Disabled Resource Services - $13,500 request
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$10,500. Discussion was held over the advisability and tactics involved in requesting a
"minimum amount" from applicants. Motion approved unanimously.
Moved by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding. Motion died for lack of a second.
Total recommended funding level - $10,500
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
The program reaches clients who are not
About 40% who are served live outside the
otherwise able to live independently.
service area. However, funding requested
Serves a special and very low-income
falls within appropriate dollar -to -local -
population with unique needs. Good
clients ratio.
feedback from clients.
PS-20 — Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling - $30,000 request
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend full funding.
Discussion was held over the minimum requested and the previous year's funding. Mr.
Vanderheiden offered a friendly amendment of $25,000 rather than full funding;
amendment accepted. Motion approved, 6-2.
23
Total recommended funding level — $25,000
Pros of Application
Cons of Application
Serves a key part of low-income families
The program could provide the same
with rental assistance. The program is
services with less appropriation, based on
solid, with a good track record. Provides a
history.
unique service.
PUBLIC SERVICE - CONCLUSION
Following allocation of available funding, moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr.
Croissant: To accept the recommended funding levels in toto. Frustration was
expressed with weighing intangible and subjective factors. Mr. Majerus commended the
Commission for the level of balance and careful thought in its deliberations. Motion
approved, 8-1.
24
Appendix
Commission members to present to City Council on funding items:
HO-1, Home Buyer Assistance
Mr.
Browning
HO-2, FCHC First Street SRO
Mr.
Taylor
HO-3, Larimer Center for Mental Health
Ms.
Molander
HO-5, FCHC Sleepy Willow
Mr.
Taylor
AD-2, CDBG Admin
Self-evident
PL-1, Rental Marketability Study
Mr.
Taylor
PF-1, United Way Housing Services
Mr.
Vanderheiden
PF-2, Turning Point
Ms.
Molander
PF-3, Win shadow
Mr.
Taylor
PF-4, CCN
Mr.
Croissant
PF-5, Sunshine School
Mr.
Vanderheiden
PF-7, Crossroads
Mr.
Vanderheiden
PS-1, Project Self -Sufficiency
Ms.
Molander
PS-2, VOA Handyman
Mr.
Browning
PS-3, RVNA
Ms.
Molander
PS-4A, Springfield Court
Ms.
Zimlich
PS-41B, United Day Care
Ms.
Zimlich
PS-5, Elderhaus
Ms.
Molander
PS-6, CASA
Mr.
Browning
PS-7, Respite Care
Ms.
Molander
PS-8, BASE Camp
Ms.
Zimlich
PS-10, NCAP
Mr.
Croissant
PS-11, Win shadow - Salaries
Mr.
Taylor
PS-12, Win shadow -The Wing
Mr.
Taylor
PS-13, Women's Center
Mr.
Vanderheiden
PS-14, CCN -Shelter
Mr.
Vanderheiden
PS-15, CCN - Senior
Mr.
Vanderheiden
PS-16, Sunshine School
Mr.
Vanderheiden
PS-17, Crossroads
Mr.
Croissant
PS-18, ELTC
Mr.
Browning
PS-19, Disabled Resource Services
Ms.
Molander
PS-20, Neighbor to Neighbor
Mr.
Croissant
25