HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/16/2021 - RESOLUTION 2021-107 ADOPTING A REVISED COMPETITIVE Agenda Item 21
Item # 21 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 16, 2021
City Council
STAFF
Adam Molzer, Grant & Community Partnership Coordinator
Ingrid Decker, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2021-107 Adopting a Revised Competitive Funding Process for the Allocation of City Financial
Resources to Human Services Programs and to Affordable Housing Programs/Projects.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt a revised framework for the Competitive Process for allocating affordable
housing and human service funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On January 18, 2000, Council adopted Resolution 2000-013, establishing the Competitive Process for the
allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and other community
development activities. On January 20, 2015, Council adopted Resolution 2015 -009, revising the Competitive
Process to establish a single springtime process with an optional fall process.
These prior Resolutions define the framework of the Competitive Process in fixed and specific terms, causing
administrative and implementation challenges and inefficiencies. The current terms restrict the City’s ability to
adapt the funding process responsively to community interests or to incorporate emerging best practices.
This new Resolution would adopt a new Competitive Funding Process framework as shown on Exhibit “A” to
the Resolution. The proposed revisions remove outdated language from the version adopted in 2015 and
enable the Social Sustainability Department to quickly and efficiently advance process improvements,
including:
• Developing standard application forms for agencies to use in applying for funding.
• Updating Competitive Process forms as necessary to comply with regulatory changes or to improve the
funding process.
• Diversifying funding cycle cadences and award term lengths.
• Permitting the City Manager to authorize designees to approve changes.
• Describing the respective Competitive Process roles of th e Affordable Housing Board, Human Services
and Housing Funding (HSHF) Board, City Council, City Manager, and City staff.
The process itself will continue to be run through the HSHF Board, with the Affordable Housing Board lending
supportive insights and non-binding rankings for the affordable housing project proposals.
Agenda Item 21
Item # 21 Page 2
The HSHF Board will continue to submit funding recommendations to Council, which will retain its authority to
review and approve the final funding awards for affordable housing projects and human services programs
proposed during the Competitive Funding Process.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The approval of this request will result in more efficient use of staff and City resources, by improving the
administration of the annual Competitive Funding Process and related contracting activities.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At a public meeting held on October 13, 2021, the HSHF Board voted unanimously to endorse the principal of
extracting CDBG Public Services funding from the larger 2022 Competitive Funding Process fund pool and
recommending to Council that those funds be awarded to eligible human services programs for the remainder
of the HUD FY20-FY24 Consolidated Plan. This is an example of a specific administrative process
improvement that would be supported by the revised Competitive Funding Process framework and the related
removal of current structural barriers limiting the creation of new applications and multi -year funding agreement
term lengths without additional action by Council. (Attachment 1).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Between September 29 and October 14, 2021, staff met with six nonprofit community organizations that are
either current or recent recipients of federal CDBG Public Service funding awards from the City. The
organizations were provided with an outline of the proposed process improvements being considered for the
human services component of the Competitive Funding Process. All six organizations shared their favor for the
process improvements. (Attachment 2) This Resolution would remove current structural barriers limiting the
implementation of these process improvements.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Human Services and Housing Funding Board Minutes (excerpt) (PDF)
2. Engagement Summaries (PDF)
Human Services & Housing Funding Board
REGULAR MEETING DRAFT
October 13, 2021 at 5:30 PM
Remote/ZOOM due to COVID-19
10/13/2021 – MINUTES – Excerpt Page 1
1.CALL TO ORDER
•At 5:32 PM the meeting was called to order by Josh Johnson.
2.ROLL CALL
•Board Members Present
o Josh Johnson, Chair
o Olga Duvall, Vice Chair
o Sara Maranowicz
o Steve Backsen
o Mike Kulisheck
o Pat Hastings
•Board Members Excused
o Ethnie Treick
•Board Members Absent
o Nick Verni-Lau
•Staff Members Present
o Adam Molzer, Staff Liaison, Social Sustainability - City of Fort Collins
o Kleena Brown, Social Sustainability – City of Fort Collins
*******Excerpt Related to this Resolution Begins Below*******
7.NEW BUSINESS
c.FY22 Competitive Process Improvements
Adam Molzer facilitated a discussion regarding improvements to the upcoming FY22 grant process due to
the funding model changes from predominantly HUD and Federal to mostly City funding. In preparation
for today’s meeting, Adam sent out visuals and details of proposed improvements. There are smaller
improvements being considered, like simplifying or removing the Triple Bottom Line related questions;
however, the three larger process improvement suggestions were:
•Allow 10% of funding awards towards indirect and administrative costs
More of an administrative change that allows grantees to claim up to 10% for overhead and
administrative costs of the award. The 10% should not be a factor in funding recommendation
amounts, since permitted across all grantees. This is a common best practice with many funders.
•Increase the minimum grant amounts for HSP programs to $15,000
Current minimum is $5000; moving up to promote more substantive progress towards City and
community objectives. Out of the 39 programs recommended last time, only 9 were below
$15,000, with one at $14,000. Out of the 45 funding requests last year, only 4 were below
$15,000. Board Members raised concerns regarding how the minimum amount will result in
ATTACHMENT 1
Human Services & Housing Funding Board
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
10/13/2021 – MINUTES Page 2
more organizations receiving no funds and whether it will disproportionally impact organizations
supporting areas around inequities and race. Adam shared the list of organizations that received
less than $15,000 in the 2021 grant cycle. Adam also shared that there may be an additional
$150,000 in funds available in the 2022 Competitive Process but will be specifically earmarked for
COVID related programs; however, this means that some requests will be flagged as COVID
specific and can be paid from these funds. Steve Backsen also raised concerns about artificial
inflation of requests to reach the minimum threshold.
• Fund the HUD Consolidated Plan goals for the term of the Plan with programs best aligned and
eligible to manage HUD CDBG funding
Larger structural change. This would separate out the HUD Consolidated Plan funding
applications and extract them out of the of the rest of the HSP program proposals. This would
follow a separate application process, allowing targeted questions, and follows a more percent-
based process to better accommodate the slight funding changes each year. This would be a 3-
year funding commitment, then be a 5-year funding cycle. This should help stabilize funding for
CDBG recipients, reduce grant writing burden for nonprofits, and follows a cleaner administrative
process. Adam shared the goals of the Consolidated Plans and how the Board can balance out
which programs move to just the HUD funds and which can move to just the City funds. Adam
and team has discussed this plan with 5 of the CDBG-eligible agencies and received favorable
responses. One more agency is scheduled to visit with. Board members raised questions around
the loss of flexibility, enforcing the separation of funds in future years, as well as whether long
cycles may perpetuate existing inequalities.
Steve Backsen motioned to endorse the extractions of CDBG Public Service funding from the
larger funding pool; dedicating those funds to eligible programs for FY22-23-24. Olga Duvall
seconded. Motion approved with roll call. Passed unanimously.
Engagement Summaries from Eligible & Current CDBG-Eligible Partner Organizations
Neighbor to Neighbor 9.29.21
Favorable towards this proposed process improvement. Shared that they feel multi-year funding is a beautiful thing, and
believe that it is a sensible move. Shared that they like the idea of structuring the funding commitment as a percentage
of the total funding available, which has similarity to the EFSP funding program administered by United Way. Shared
that administering CDBG funding can be a bit of a challenge and would favor a structure that pairs optimal program
functions/services with the cleanest fitting funding sources.
Crossroads Safehouse 9.30.21
Favorable towards this proposed process improvement. Shared that they believe it is a great idea in principle and
positive news. Shared that the time, effort and financial costs on an agency to administer grants compounds and
necessitates additional staff capacity, so reducing those costs is welcomed. Shared that they do not see much downside,
and that the potential variability year-to-year of the dollar amount award is not a worry since variations exist now with
the City’s current process. Shared a concern that their organization’s services are modeled around the client’s
continuum of needs (wraparound service) and are not cleanly transactional, so they may have difficulty dividing and
differentiating specific duties or hours performed by staff into CDBG-eligible or non-eligible activities. City staff offered
to examine this further with Crossroads to see where specific sheltering expenses would clearly align with CDBG
allowable costs.
Catholic Charities 10.01.21
Favorable towards this proposed process improvement. Shared that in the big picture, this would make a lot of sense,
and that dependability and consistency of funding is helpful for nonprofits. Shared that the administrative time savings
would be appreciated, and liked the spirit behind the idea and that it would help agencies out. Shared a concern about
potentially locking in for multiple years of funding for their largest service/operation, since the client numbers are
increasing and there are larger, long-term growth plans in the works. City staff shared that other funding sources
focusing on the homelessness priority in Fort Collins could still be evaluated for fit, including federal stimulus funding
and other budget resources.
SummitStone Health Partners 10.04.21
Favorable towards this proposed process improvement. Shared that they would appreciate knowing that 3-years of
funding is secured. Inquired about whether their two programs could be merged into one proposal, or if certain program
elements that exclusively serve persons experiencing homelessness could be combined into the CDBG-eligible proposal.
City staff shared that a closer examination of the programs could be convened to determine optimal eligibility.
Family Housing Network 10.05.21
Favorable towards this proposed process improvement. Shared that this makes great sense, and allows an organization
to do their work and stay focused. Shared that the proposed improvement would promote consistency and
concentration of the funding, specifically towards housing and homelessness services. Shared that nothing is glaring as
an issue for them. Inquired about what may happen if organizations or programs were to merge in the future, and
whether CDBG funding would follow. City staff shared that the City Attorney’s Office would be consulted to consider
how best to transition the funding towards its intended purpose, if appropriate.
Elderhaus Adult Day Program 10.14.21
Favorable towards this proposed process improvement. Discussed that their program would shift over to City-only
funding rather than CDBG funds. Shared that they would welcome more relaxed reporting requirements (e.g. Head of
Household tracking), and that they are okay exceeding reporting standards that have been built over time as a CDBG-
sourced grant recipient. Confirmed that their Presumed Benefit status would remain as a City-sourced grant recipient.
Inquired about whether this shift would reduce or increase funding, and City staff responded that the evaluation process
would continue to be based on scorecard criteria and HSHF-Board volunteer deliberations, so we cannot determine.
Shared that dementia care is not always an attractive cause (comparatively with other community needs) and inquired
about the City’s future identification of funding priorities. City staff responded that a priority refinement process is
anticipated and that perhaps by FY23 there may be a narrower scope of human service priorities for SSD to address,
based on analysis of community data and engagement.
ATTACHMENT 2
-1-
RESOLUTION 2021-107
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING A REVISED COMPETITIVE FUNDING PROCESS FOR THE ALLOCATION
OF CITY FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 2000-013,
establishing a competitive process for allocating funds the City receives from the federal
Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs, as well as City Affordable
Housing funds (the “Competitive Process”); and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 2015-009,
adopting a revised Competitive Process that required only one funding cycle per year instead of
two, and giving the City Manager authority to approve changes in the application forms or
method and ranking criteria rather than such administrative changes requiring further Council
approval; and
WHEREAS, the existing Competitive Process contains outdated language, and limits the
ability of the Social Sustainability Department, which manages the process with the Human
Services and Housing Funding Board and the Affordable Housing Board, to quickly and
efficiently adopt process improvements that will enhance the administration of the Competitive
Process; and
WHEREAS, the proposed revised process framework is attached as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference (the “Competitive Funding Process”); and
WHEREAS, proposed changes, compared to the Competitive Process adopted in 2015
include:
• Specifying that the Social Sustainability Department will develop standard application
forms and update the forms as necessary to comply with regulatory changes or to
improve the funding process;
• Adding review criteria for human services applications;
• Adding more options for funding cycles, including the potential for multi-year funding
awards;
• Updating the name of the CDBG Commission – now the Human Services and Housing
Funding Board – and removing other outdated references; and
• Specifying the role of the City Manager, or their designee, to approve changes to
applications forms, method of application and funding review criteria as necessary or
appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will retain its authority to review and approve the final
funding awards for affordable housing projects and human services programs proposed and
recommended during the Competitive Funding Process.
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the revised Competitive Funding Process for the allocation of City
financial resources to human services programs and affordable housing programs/projects, as
described in Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
16th day of November, A.D. 2021.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Competitive Process
Presented below is a description of the Competitive Process for making allocations of funding
from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership
program (HOME), and the City’s Human Service Program (HSP) and Affordable Housing Fund
(AHF). This description profiles the framework and cycles of the funding process.
Competitive Process Framework
1.The Social Sustainability Department will develop standard application forms for
agencies to use in applying for funding and will update the forms as necessary to comply
with regulatory changes or to improve the funding process.
2.Applications are currently submitted online through grant management software.
3.Distinctive review criteria will be used to evaluate human services applications.
4.Distinctive review criteria will be used to evaluate affordable housing applications.
5.Affordable housing review criteria incorporate current City policies, guidelines and
priorities outlined in the following documents:
a.Current City of Fort Collins Consolidated Plan
b.Housing Strategic Plan
c.Affordable Housing Underwriting criteria
6. Human services review criteria incorporate Social Sustainability priorities, plans,
community needs and data.
Competitive Process Cycles
Funding will be allocated in cycles that best align with the budget availability and desired
outcomes of the funding source (CDBG, HOME, AHF and HSP). This may include multi-year
funding awards. Funding allocations will primarily occur in a spring cycle. An optional fall cycle
will be implemented when there is approximately $500,000 or more in funds available for
allocation and/or there is a critical timeliness need on the part of the City or housing provider.
Role of the Affordable Housing Board
The Affordable Housing Board reviews all affordable housing applications and provides a
non-binding priority ranking of those proposals to the Human Services and Housing Funding Board.
Role of the Human Services and Housing Funding Board
The Human Services and Housing Funding Board makes the final recommendations for funding
for all funds, including CDBG, HOME, Human Services Program, and the Affordable Housing
Fund. HOME funds (by federal regulations) and Affordable Housing Fund dollars are restricted
to affordable housing projects and programs. The majority (65%) of CDBG funds are earmarked
to support affordable housing, but also offer wider potential usages including: public facilities,
infrastructure, and economic development, depending on the priorities set forth in the current
Consolidated Plan. Up to 15% of CDBG can be allocated to public service projects and
programs (human services).
Role of City Council
City Council will receive the recommendations for each Competitive Process, both human
services and affordable housing, including a listing of the projects, recommended funding
amounts, and composition of funding sources. Council maintains authority to approve, modify or
disapprove of the funding recommendations.
Role of the City Manager
The City Manager, or their designee, is authorized to administratively approve changes to the
application forms, method of application, and funding review criteria, as necessary or
appropriate to comply with regulatory changes or to improve the funding process.
Role of City Staff
City staff will design and coordinate all phases of the Competitive Process activities.
EXHIBIT A