HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 03/23/2006Affordable Housing Board Working Meeting Summary
Spring 2006 Competitive Process Housing Application Ranking
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Members Present: Staff Present:
Denise Rogers, Chair Julie Smith, Administrator, CDBG/HOME
Jon Fairchild, Vice -Chair Heidi Phelps, Administrator, CDBG/HOME
Kevin Brinkman
Michelle Jacobs
Pete Tippett
The meeting began at 5:15 p.m. at 281 N. College, Conference Room A.
Members present generally reviewed, brought forth specific questions, and discussed
each of the five housing applications:
HO-1 Fort Collins Housing Corporation - Village on Swallow
HO-2 Fort Collins Housing Authority - First Step Rental Assistance
HO-3 Accessible Space - Supportive Housing Development, Phase II
HO-4 Danco Communities - Redstone Village Apartments, Phase II
HO-5 CARE Housing - "Green Built' Land Acquisition
Members then individually ranked each proposal in contribution towards a group
ranking decision. A ranking of "1" for a project was the most favorable; a ranking of "5"
for a project was the least favorable.
Ranking: Corporate Total:
#1 9 points
#2 (tie) 11 points
#2 (tie) 11 points
#3 19 points
No Ranking 25 points
Project:
HO-1: FCHC - Village on Swallow
HO-2" FCHA - First Rental Assistance
HO-3: Accessible Space - Supportive Hsg Dev, Ph II
HO-5: CARE Housing "Green Built' Land Acquisition
HO-4: Danco Communities - Redstone Village, Ph II
Members did not want to break the #2 tie. They believed that each of the two projects
had its own set of unique and commendable merits, and should not be compared.
Board members ascertained that there would probably only be enough funds available
to fund the first three projects. Given that reality, Board members wanted it noted for
the record that they believed HO-4 and HO-5 were worthy projects, but had some
concerns regarding the current conceptual nature of each. Members present thought
that HO-4 and HO-5 might be a good match for funding in future cycles.
AHB Working Meeting
S06 Competitive Process
Housing Projects Ranking Page 2
Concerns around HO-5 (CARE) centered around the lack of more specific financial
information available at this time. Additionally, Board members highlighted the need
for more specific information around the "Green Built" aspects of the project, e.g., cost
to the project for additional standards of construction, informal construction
components vs. official LEED certification, CSU's role and contribution in this area, etc.
Concerns around HO-4 (Danco) centered around the high development cost per unit,
the current lack of a confirmed non-profit partner, funding timing issues regarding
officially lifting the FEMA floodplain designation, and other environmental issues
(wildlife corridor mapping) potentially impacting the viability of the project. The Board
recommended no funding for HO-4.
[Danco has since formally withdrawn its HO-4 application.]
Denise Rogers, Chair, will present the AHB's ranking decision to the CDBG
Commission on Thursday, March 30`h, at 5:45 p.m., with highlights noted by Board
members.
The meeting ended at 6:40 p.m.
c