HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/07/2000 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS RELATING TO THE COMPLETION AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 32 A-B
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 7, 2000
STAFF: Ken Waido
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing on Items Relating to the Completion of the Fall Cycle of the Competitive Process
for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and Community
Development Activities:the City's Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Home Investment Partnerships(HOME)
Programs and the City's Affordable Housing Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions. The CDBG Commission presents a list of
recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Home Investment Partnerships(HOME)Program provides Federal funds from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to
affordable housing related programs and projects,thereby reducing the demand on the City's General
Fund Budget to address such needs.The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two
Resolutions. The first Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with
HOME funds for the FY 2000-2001 Program year, which started on October 1, 2000. The second
Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding from the City's Affordable
Housing Fund. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs
and projects should receive funding.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2000-135 Adopting Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Home Investment
Partnerships Programs and Projects.
B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2000-136 Allocating Funding from the City's Affordable
Housing Fund.
The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two Resolutions. The first Resolution
establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with Home Investment Partnerships
(HOME)Program funds for the FY 2000-2001 Program year,which started on October 1,2000.The
second Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding from the City's
Affordable Housing Fund. The two Resolutions represent completion of the fall funding cycle of
the competitive process for the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities. Additional background material about
the competitive process is included in Attachment "A".
DATE: November 7, 2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 32 A-B
BACKGROUND:
Since early January of this year,the CDBG Commission and members of the City staff's Affordable
Housing Team have conducted public hearings to assess community development and housing needs
in Fort Collins, conducted technical assistance training workshops for applicants, and solicited
applications for HOME and City funding. The City's Affordable Housing Board reviewed the
written applications for affordable housing projects and forwarded a priority ranking of proposals,
as well as comments, to the CDBG Commission. (See Attachment `B" for copies of the Board's
materials sent to the CDBG Commission.) The CDBG Commission, in addition to reviewing the
written applications, personally interviewed each applicant, analyzed the applications, and
formulated a list of recommendations to the City Council as to which programs and projects should
receive funding.
The competitive process established refined criteria to determine priorities between proposals
received by the City. The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category is
given a total number of points that has been weighed according to their importance with respect to
local and federal priorities. The five major categories are:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The ImpactBenefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups.
The Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted City goals and priorities. The
Feasibility criteria reward projects for timelines and documented additional funding. The Leveraging
Resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds to the City (loans) and for their ability
to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History criteria help gage an applicant's ability
to do the project and reward applicants that have completed successful projects in the past (have
good track records). The ranking sheet used to assist the CDBG Commission and the Affordable
Housing Board is included in Attachment "A".
The Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable
Housing Needs and Strategies report adopted by the Council on February 2, 1999. These
guidelines include:
• HOME funds should generally be allocated as follows: 90% for Housing
projects and 10% for Program Administration. HUD Home Program
regulations also require the City to set aside 15% for Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO)projects and allow an allocation of 5%
for CHDO operations;
• Funds allocated to housing should generally be divided as follows: 70% for
rental projects and 30% for homeownership opportunities; and
• The average subsidy should be$5,000 per unit,with relatively more funding
to projects producing housing for lower income families.
17"-
DATE: November 7, 2000 3 ITEM NUMBER: 32 A-B
The HOME Program is an ongoing grant administration program funded by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received HOME Program
funds since 1994. The City is a Participating Jurisdiction recipient of HOME funds, meaning the
City is guaranteed a certain level of funding each year. The level of funding is dependent on the total
amount of funds allocated to the program by Congress and on a formula developed by HUD,which
includes data on total population, minorities as a percentage of population, income levels, housing
stock conditions,etc. Additional background information on the City's HOME Program is presented
in Attachment "C".
AVAILABLE FUNDS
The amount of the City's HOME Grant for FY 2000-2001 is$615,000. Added to the HOME Grant
will be $85,000 of HOME Program Income to make a combined amount of$700,000 available for
projects and administrative purposes. Subtracting $70,000 (10% maximum allowed by HOME
regulations)for administrative purposes,leaves$630,000 available for projects and programs. The
HOME funds will be combined with $400,000 from the City's Affordable Housing Fund to create
a total of $1,030,000 of funds available for programs and projects from the fall cycle of the
competitive process.
The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT SOURCE
-------- --------------------
$ 630,000 FY 2000 HOME Grant and Program Income
400,000 City's Affordable Housing Fund
------------------------
$1,030,000 Total
Below is a summary of recent HOME funding levels allocated from HUD to the City of Fort Collins:
Program
Year Grant Income Total Funds
1994 $500,000 $0 $500,000
1995 $450,000 $0 $450,000
1996 $539,000 $0 $539,000
1997 $533,000 $0 $533,000
1998 $569,000 $0 $569,000
1999 $614,000 $42,250 $656,250
SELECTION PROCESS
On January 13, 2000, the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on
community development and affordable housing needs. The HOME Program office placed legal
advertisements in local and regional newspapers starting in July to solicit requests for HOME funded
programs and projects and for proposals for the use of funding from the City's Affordable Housing
Fund. The application deadline was Thursday, August 24. At the close of the deadline the City
received 6 applications requesting a total of approximately $1.7 million.
DATE: November 7, 2000 4 ITEM NUMBER: 32 A-B
Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on
September 7 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on September 7 copies of the
applications were distributed to the Affordable Housing Board and CDBG Commission.
On Thursday, September 28, the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to review
the housing proposals and prepare a priority listing of applications to the CDBG Commission. On
Thursday,October 5,the Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification questions from
each applicant. The Commission then met on Thursday, October 12, for the purpose of preparing
a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded with
funds available from the fall cycle of the competitive process. At this meeting the Commission
reviewed the written applications, the applicant's verbal presentation, the information provided
during the question and answer session, and reviewed the performance of agencies who received
HOME funds or funding in other previous years. The Commission then worked on the formulation
of their-list of recommendations.
CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
HUD HOME regulations limit the amount of available funds that can be allocated to various
categories. Funds for Administrative purposes are limited to 10% of the HOME Grant and any
anticipated Program Income. This means that 9017c of available funding must be used for housing
programs and projects. Within the 90% required for projects,the City is required to set aside 15%
for Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) projects and allows an allocation of
5% for CHDO operations.
The Commission, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects
which best fit into the City's HOME Program,but also had to insure funding allocations were kept
within HUD regulations and follow the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable
Housing Needs and Strategies report.
Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's list
of recommendations.
Volunteers of America—Development Fees
Request for HOME funds to help pay the City's Development Impact Fees on a 60-unit
independent living apartment complex reserved for very low-income elderly located at 1401 W.
Horsetooth Road.
Request: $500,000 Recommendation: $250,000 HOME funds
Habitat for Humanity—Development Fees
The initial request was for HOME funds to pay the City's Development Impact Fees for 5
properties that are located in the Waterglenn development at Vine and I-25. The applicant
revised the request for 2 properties at the same location.
Request: $62,650
Revised Request: $25,060 Recommendation: $0
DATE November 7, 2000 5 ITEM NUMBER: 32 A-B
City of Fort Collins—Land Bank/Acquisition
I� The City is implementing a Land Bank Program to preserve scarce land resources for future
affordable housing development. This is a request for City Affordable Housing Fund dollars to
purchase land for a future affordable housing development. Because a site for the project is not
yet determined HOME funds cannot be used for this proposal.
Request: $300,000 Recommendation: $175,000 AHF dollars
I
iFort Collins Housing Corporation - Rehabilitation
Request is for funding to repair 70 units of existing low-income housing owned by the Housing
Corporation. The units primarily provide housing to families at 30% of AMI.
Request: $404,200 Recommendation: $52,750 HOME funds
$92,250 HOME (CHDO funds)
$75,000 AHF dollars
CARE Housing—Land Acquisition
I
Request for City Affordable Housing Fund dollars to purchase land for a future affordable
housing development. The project will likely be similar to previous CARE projects. Because
a site for the project is not yet determined HOME funds cannot be used for this proposal.
Request: $200,000 Recommendation: $150,000 AHF dollars
Funding Partners—Northern Hotel
i
Request for HOME funds for architectural fees, construction origination fee, construction
interest,other title work,and operating reserves for the Northern Hotel rehabilitation project.The
project will provide 47 units of senior housing.
Request: $235,000 Recommendation: $235,000 HOME funds
Total amount of HOME Program funding requested = $1,201,850
Total amount of City Affordable Housing Fund funding requested = $500,000
The total amount of HOME funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was
approximately $1.2 million,however,only $630,000 of HOME funds are available. Also, the total
amount of City Affordable Housing Fund requests considered by the Commission was
approximately $500,000 with only $400,000 available. With the amount of total requests far
exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be funded.
The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for only one proposal,the Funding Partners
Northern Hotel project. Proposals which did not receive full funding were deemed of a lower
priority and, in some cases, a lack of funds, program category limitations, or funding guidelines
prohibited their full funding.
DATE: November 7, 2000 6 ITEM NUMBER: 32 A-B
The Commission has recommended no funding for two proposals,Habitat for Humanity and the Fort
Collins Housing Corporation's CHDO Operations requests.
The Commission's reasons for either full funding, partial funding, or no funding are presented in
Attachment"D".
RESOLUTION 2000-135
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE FY 2000-2001 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, the Home Investment Partnerships Program provides federal funds from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to the City which can be allocated to affordable
housing related programs and projects; and
WHEREAS, the City's Community Development Block Grant Commission ("CDBG
Commission"),in cooperation with the City's Affordable Housing Board,has conducted an extensive
public process, including conducting public hearings to review housing proposals; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Commission has submitted to the City Council a list of
recommendations for the fiscal year 2000-2001 Home Investment Partnerships Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommendations of the CDBG
Commission are in the best interests of the City and should be approved for the fiscal year 2000-
2001 Home Investment Partnerships Program.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit the FY 2000-2001 Home Investment
. Partnerships Program application as follows:
Volunteers of America—Development Fees $250,000
Fort Collins Housing Corporation—Rehabilitation $ 52,750
$ 92,250 (CHDO)
Funding Partners —Northern Hotel $235,000
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
7th day of November, A.D. 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
• RESOLUTION 2000-136
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE FUNDING FROM THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
WHEREAS, the City has established an Affordable Housing Fund to provide support to
affordable housing related programs and projects; and
WHEREAS, the City's Community Development Block Grant Commission ("CDBG
Commission"),in cooperation with the City's Affordable Housing Board,has conducted an extensive
public process, including conducting public hearings to review housing proposals; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Commission has submitted to the City Council a list of
recommendations for programs and projects which should receive funding from the City's Affordable
Housing Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommendations of the CDBG
Commission are in the best interests of the City and should be approved for funding from the City's
Affordable Housing Fund.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the following projects are approved for funding from the City's Affordable Housing
Fund:
• Fort Collins Housing Corporation—Rehabilitation $ 75,000
City of Fort Collins—Land Bank/Acquisition $175,000
CARE Housing, Inc. —Land Acquisition $150,000
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
7th day of November, A.D. 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
• Attachment "A"
Background Information on the Competitive Process
for the Allocation of City Financial Resources
to Affordable Housing Programs/Projects
and Other Community Development Activities
In February of 1999, the City Council approved the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and
Strategies report, which contained the following strategy:
"Change from an administrative funding mechanism...to a competitive application process
for the Affordable Housing Fund."
Between September and November of 1999, a subcommittee consisting of members from the
Affordable Housing Board and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission
met with staff to review issues and develop options for establishment of a competitive process. In
addition, the staff solicited ideas from existing affordable housing providers. The subcommittee
established the following Mission Statement for their work:
"Develop a competitive application process and establish a set of shared criteria for the
allocation of the City's financial assistance resources to affordable housing
projects/programs that address the City's priority affordable housing needs."
Competitive Process
Five options for a competitive process were reviewed and discussed by the subcommittee. The
subcommittee reached a general consensus to support a competitive process that involved both
the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission. The option selected would have the
Affordable Housing Board providing recommendations to the City Council in regards to
affordable housing policy. In addition, the option would have the Affordable Housing Board
reviewing all affordable housing applications for CDBG, HOME and Affordable Housing funds.
The Board would then provide a priority listing of proposals to the CDBG Commission. The
CDBG Commission would then make the final recommendations to the City Council for funding.
Funding Cycles
The subcommittee also agreed that there should be two funding cycles per year, one in the spring
and the other in the fall. CDBG Program funds would be allocated in the spring to affordable
housing programs/projects and other community development activities (public services, public
facilities, etc.). HOME Program and Affordable Housing funds would be allocated in the fall
primarily to affordable housing programs/projects.
The staff and subcommittee agreed that overlaying the new process and cycles would be
heightened staff technical assistance to applicants. Both the subcommittee and staff recognize
• that a bi-annual process will require additional meetings by both the CDBG Commission and
Affordable Housing Board, and will require more time from current City staff, and increase the
City Council's involvement.
Schedule
The subcommittee also discussed two alternative schedules for the funding cycles. The option
selected incorporates a spring cycle that starts in January and ends in May, and a fall cycle that
starts in July and end in November.
Review Criteria
The subcommittee also discussed and agreed to a new set of review criteria to be used to rank
proposals. The criteria are divided into the following five major categories:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups
and provide longer benefits. The Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted
City goals and priorities. The Feasibility criteria reward projects for timeliness and documented
additional funding. The Leveraging Resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds
to the City(loans) and for their ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History
criteria help gage an applicant's ability to do the project and reward applicants that have
completed successful projects in the past(have good track records).
See next page for a detailed criteria scoring sheet.
Application Forms
Two new application forms have also been developed. One form would be used for Housing
proposals while to other form would be used for Non-Housing Proposals(public services, public
facilities, etc.).
City Council Adoption
On January 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 2000-13, formally adopting the
competitive process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities and the component parts discussed
above.
• Ranking Criteria for CDBG, HOME and Affordable Housing Funding
The ranking criterion is divided into five major categories.Each category is given a total number of points that has been weighed
according to their importance with respect to local and federal priorities.This ranking sheet will be used to assist the Community
Development Block Grant Commission(CDBGC)and the Affordable Housing Board(AHB)in the FY01 Competitive Funding
Process.CDBG and AHB members will rank projects according to the questions and criteria shown below.
lmpacUBenelit(maximum 30 points)
1. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10)
(0-30%of AMI= 10 pts,31-50%—8 pts,51-80%=4 pts)
2. Project produces adequate community benefit related to cost? (0-5)
3. Does the project provide direct assistance for persons to gain self-sufficiency? (0-5)
4. Does the project provide long-term benefit or affordability? (0.10)
(1-10 yrs=3 pts,11-19 yrs=6 pts,20 to 30 yrs—8 pts,and Permanent—10 pis)
Sub-total
Need/Priority(maximum IS poimh)
I. Meets a Consolidated Plan priority? (0-5)
2. Project meets goals or objectives of City Plan and Priority Needs and Strategies study (0-5)
3. Has the applicant documented a need for this project? (0-5)
Sub-total
Fessibiliry(maximum 15 points)
1. The project will be completed within the required time period? (0-3)
2. Project budget is justified?(Costs are documented and reasonable)? (0.4)
3. The level of public subsidy is needed?(Private funds not available)? (04)
4. Has the applicant documented efforts to secure other funding? (0-4)
Leveraeine ResourcesSub-total
(maximum 2S points)
1. Does the project allow the reuse of our funding? (0-8)
A. Principal and interest(30 year Amortization or less) 8 points
B. Principal and no interest or Principal and balloon payment 4 points
C. Declining balance lien(amount forgiven over time) I points
W
D. Grant(no repayment) 0 points
2. Project or agency leverages human resources(Volunteers) (0.7)
3. Project leverages financial resources?(Including in-kind) (0.10)
A. Less than 1:1 0 point=
B. 1:1 to 1:3 4 points
C. 1:4 to 1:6 7 points
D. More than 1:7 10 poinr
Sub-total
Capacity and History(maximum 15 points)
1. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project? (0.10)
2. If previously funded,has the applicant completed prior project and maintain regulatory compliance? (0-5)
3. If new,applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-15)
Sub-
GRAND TOTAL
•
Attachment "B"
Affordable Housing Board
Recommendations, Questions,Comments and Concerns
Presented below are the recommendations, questions, comments, and concerns the
Affordable Housing Board wishes to pass along to the CDBG Commission regarding the
applications for funding in the fall cycle of the competitive process.
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA
Questions regarding design and budget on Kay Rio's handout:
1. . Do all units have outside access or internal hallways that link them? If outside
access, what security is available?
2. How is parking addressed?
3. How will management staff be selected? Is there an age requirement for the on-
site manager? Will the income levels apply to the manager as well (VoA states
that 100% of units are affordable)? How about training requirements for the
manager?
4. VoA proposes a residents' association to help with management/resident issues.
This is an absolute key to the success of the project in terms of assuring quality of
life for the seniors.
5. The administrative fees seem quite high. Maintenance line item seems low. Is
this a salary for a live-in manager?
Recommendation: $500,000 of funding as follows: $300,000 from the HOME Program and$200,000
from the City's Affordable Housing Fund.
FORT COLLINS HOUSING CORPORATION REHAB
1. What is the root cause of the required maintenance, age of the structures or
mismanagement of the units by failing to incorporate routine maintenance?
2. Are all units for families under 30% AMI, or is there an income mix?
3. Funding this application will set a precedent for funding routine maintenance in
other projects. Does the City desire to do this?
4. The AHB feels that helping to maintain low income housing helps to preserve the
project, but the Board is not recommending full funding because there is some
inherent responsibility of management to budget and collect adequate rents for
necessary repairs.
Recommendation: $200,000 of total funding as follows: $79,555 of HOME funds for
rehab, $92,250 of HOME (CHDO project) for rehab, and $28,200 of HOME (CHDO
operations).
NORTHERN HOTEL
I. The AHB feels that there are many unanswered questions regarding this project;
specifically the physical aspects of the building that will be appropriate for senior
housing, e.g., lighting, A/C, parking and other issues that affect quality of life.
Information is the proposal is unclear.
2. Define"senior" for this project, is it 55-years and over, or 62-years and over, etc.?
3. What is the actual income level, 40% or 50%of AMI?
. 4. Does the actual projected cost of$6.3 million include the cost for commercial
space or is this figure just for the 47 unit residential aspect of the project?
5. A contract was signed with the contractor that guaranteed a maximum price. Why
now are they coming back for more money for asbestos abatement when the
contractor should have known from the beginning that this would be an issue,
given the age of the existing building? How is it that asbestos only occurs on the
top 3 floors and not the first floor?
6. What is the actual breakdown of City funding and where is it being spent? There
seems to be about $1 million of City funding missing in the spreadsheets.
7. Why are the developer's fees so high? Why is the vacancy rate at 7%? And, why
are the maintenance fees so high?
8. If funded, this should be a loan, not a grant.
9. . Why should affordable housing dollars fund commercial rehabilitation over-runs?
Recommendation: No funding.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
1. The AHB wishes to show their support for Candace Mayo and that they have
confidence in her abilities to improve all aspects of the organization. However,
the AHB is concerned that Habitat for Humanity is already delinquent on another
project and feels Habitat should continue working on this particular project before
requesting additional money for another one. The Board suggests that Habitat
correct these problems and re-apply for funding in the spring cycle.
Recommendation: No funding.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND BANK
1. The AHB unanimously believes any land bank program will be counterproductive
to affordable housing. It will increase competition for vacant land and thus raise
prices. The community needs affordable housing now, not in five years from
now.
Recommendation: No funding.
The AHB will be sending a separate memorandum to the City Council regarding the land
bank proposal and expressing strong opposition to the concept.
CARE HOUSING
1. The AHB unanimously applauds CARE for their continual implementation of
quality and fiscally responsible housing projects. The Board recommends full
funding of their application.
Recommendation: $200,000 from the City Affordable Housing Fund.
GENERAL STATEMENT
The Affordable Housing Board wishes to convey their sentiment that all applicants must
meet applicable standards in order to be considered for funding. The Board does not feel
compelled to fund sub-standard projects just because money is available. Therefore, the
Board has recommended that all available funding not be allocated at this time.
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA POINTS
The VOA is proposing 60 units designed to serve seniors 62 years and older with a
median income of 50% or below. They have received almost $4.2 million from
HUD as a Section 202 grant.
The request of$500,000 will be used to defray the cost assessed by the City of Fort
Collins in terms of development fees.
Several points/questions to consider:
1) NEED:
a) The need for this group has been documented (although somewhat
loosely). Waiting lists at existing and upcoming complexes have
appear to substantiate the need (the Office on Aging Senior Attainable
Housing Committee has conducted an informal survey that produced
the same information in terms of waiting lists).
. 2) DESIGN:
a)Do all units have outside access or internal hallways that link them?
If outside, what security is available?
b) How is parking addressed?
c) How will management staff be selected? Is there an age requirement
for the on-site manager? Will income level apply to the manager as
well (they state that 100% of units are affordable)? How about training
requirements for manager?
d) VOA proposes a residents' association to help with
management/resident issues. This is an absolute key to the success of
the unit in terms of assuring quality of life for the seniors. VERY
UV PRESSIVE!!
2) LOCATION:
a) Transit is readily accessible within a short distance and though some
transferring on fixed route might be necessary, Dial-A-Ride should be
able to cover special needs.
b) Services and a variety of amenities are located near-by or accessible
by public transportation.
• c) The Senior Center is on the bus route that is at this corner and, so,
residents could access the meal program.
3) OPERATING BUDGET:
a) The Administrative fees seem quite high. I'm assuming this is a
salary for the live-in manager plus benefits but, if that's the case, and
the rent is included, I want that job! It appears that the $40,000 is for
on-site staff but then a management company is being paid as well —
perhaps for maintenance work. Then benefits are listed separately as
well as payroll taxes.
b) Maintenance line items seem low until you consider the management
fee above as well. If there is a manager on site, a management
company that would probably do the maintenance, why are there
separate maintenance fees?
4) DEDICATION TO NEEDS OF TARGETED CLIENTELE:
a) VOA has already demonstrated a dedication to senior needs through
its RSVP and Senior Nutrition programs. In addition, VOA took the
time to send representatives out to talk to senior advocates before they
started the project or even purchased the land. This is a very
impressive organization with a history of impressive and long-standing
programs.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD'S FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
FALL CYCLE OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS
City
HOME Affordable
Program Hounsing
Funds Fund Total
Available for Allocation: $630.000 $400,000 $1,030,000
Rental Projects REQUEST
Volunteers of America-Fees $500,000 $300.000 $200,000 $500,000
FCHC-Rehab $283,750 $79,550 $0 $79,556
(CHDO Project) FCHC-Rehab $92,250 $92,250 $0 $92,256
(CHDO Operations) FCHC- Rehab $28,200 $28,200 $0 $28,206
Funding Partners- Northern Hotel $235,000 $0 $0 $0
Homeownership Projects
Habitat for Humanity- Fees $62,650 $0 $0 $0
Land Acquisition Projects
City of Fort Collins- Land Bank $300,000 N/A $0 $0
CARE, Inc. $200,000 N/A $200,000 $200,000
TOTALS: $1,701,850 $500,000 $400.000 $900.000
Unallocated: $130,000 $0
Attachment"C"
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
on the
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GUIDELINES
(Adopted by the Fort Collins City Council,July 18, 1995)
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Home Investment Partnership(HOME)Program is to increase the supply of decent,
safe,and affordable housing in the City of Fort Collins for an extended period of time. All of the
HOME funds must benefit low and very low income households which are defined by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development as having a total household income not exceeding 80%of the
median household income for the Fort Collins area.
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS:
HOME funds must be used in the following ways:
1. To help low-income individuals to purchase housing for their principal residence. Applicants
must meet income guidelines of no more than 80%of the median household income for the
Fort Collins area and will be required to attend a homebuyer workshop. Assistance is in the
form of zero percent deferred loan up to a maximum of$5,000 to help cover downpayment
and closing cost expenses. The funding is repaid when the property is sold or transferred out of
the buyer's name. See Eligible Property Types section below for a list of property types
eligible for HOME assistance and purchase price restrictions. Restrictions will apply which will
assure the property remains affordable. This is accomplished by the"recapturing" of the
HOME investment.
Income Limits: 1 person $29,850
2 persons $34,100
3 persons $38,400
4 persons $42,650
5 persons $46,080
6 persons $49,440
7 persons $52,880
8 persons $56,320
2. For new construction of units for homeownership as well as rental occupancy targeted for low-
income individuals and families which are developed, sponsored, or owned by community
housing development organizations (CHDOs),non-profit agencies, and for-profit developers.
3. For acquisition of undeveloped, or developed, land resulting in the development or purchase of
units for homeownership as well as rental occupancy. All regulations regarding income
1
guidelines, purchase price limitations, resale limitations, rental rates, etc., will apply to
acquisition projects.
ELIGIBLE PROPERTY TYPES:
Eligible property types for purchase include both existing property or newly constructed homes.
Eligible property includes a single-family property, a condominium unit, a manufactured home
(including mobile homes on a permanent foundation), or a cooperative unit. For purposes of the
HOME program, homeownership means:
(1) ownership in fee simple title, or
(2) a 99 year leasehold interest, or
(3) ownership or membership in a cooperative, or
(4) an equivalent form of ownership which has been approved by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
The value and purchase price of the HOME assisted property to be acquired must not exceed 95% of
the area median purchase price for that type of housing as established by HUD. RECAPTURE
RESTRICTIONS WILL APPLY. (The value must be verified by a qualified appraiser or current tax
assessment.) Initial purchase price limit established by HUD is currently$151,905.
• PROGRAM ACTIVITY BY YEAR
Home Buyer Construction
Year Administration Assistance Acquisition Total
1994-95 50,000 50,000 400,000 500,000
1995-96 45,500 165,700 243,800 455,000
1996-97 53,900 269,500 215,600 539,000
1997-98 53,300 319,800 159,900 533,000
1998-99 56,900 319,750 192,350 569,000
HOME PROGRAM PRIORITIES
The 1995-99 Consolidated Plan identifies the following priorities for housing related needs:
1. Stimulate housing production for very low, low and moderate income households.
2. Increase home ownership opportunities for very low, low and moderate income
households.
3. Increase the supply of public housing for families and those with special needs.
Implementation and funding of activities to address these priorities will come, in part, from the City of
Fort Collins HOME Investment Partnership Program.
• 2
Commission members present:
Terri Bryant
Linda Coxen
Vi Guthrie
Brett Hill
Tia Molander
Jennifer Molock
Dennis Vandenheiden
Cheryl Zimlich
Staff:
Ken Waido
Jackie Davis
Maurice Head
Julie Smith
Stacy Kelley
Produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 West Oak Street, Suite 266
Fort Collins, Colorado 60524
t ,
MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
In the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman, moved by Ms. Coxen,
seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To appoint Cheryl Zimlich as Chair for the Meeting.
Motion approved unanimously.
Mr. Waido reviewed the handout of funding recommendations and reviewed the normal
and customary procedures followed by the Commission in its past meetings. A review
was held regarding the vagaries of CHDO funding, particularly the set-aside
entitlements strictly for CHDO projects and the discretionary nature of operational funds.
A study session will be held with City Council on October 24 to review the funding
recommendations and for the Council gain any needed clarifications from the
Commission on the various items.
A public hearing concerning the recommendations will be held by City Council on
November 7, 2000. Ms. Bryant stated she would be unable to attend.
Following discussion of all funding recommendation, moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by
Ms. Coxen: To forward the Commission recommendations to City Council. Motion
approved unanimously.
With nine Commission members attending the study session, Staff will ask for a 6:00
p.m. meeting time.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
3
HOME Proaram Funds
Moved by Ms. Coxen: To follow the HOME program funds recommendations of
Mr. Majerus in total. Motion died for lack of a second.
Volunteers of America—fees. Request$500,000
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding of
$250,000. Motion carried unanimously.
Concerns and responses of the Commission and Staff:
$250,000 is a sufficient amount to demonstrate local support.
Development fees are the final aspect of the project, and not many funding
sources have been sought to this point. The applicant will be able to return to the
Commission to seek closure of other funding gaps.
The schedule for completion of the project is realistic.
Total recommended funding level - $250,000
FCHC— Rehabilitation. Request: $283,750.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To retain $52,750 in unallocated
funds; to recommend no funding for the remaining projects (non-CHDO FCHC
rehabilitation and Habitat). Staff recommended that unallocated funding come from
the discretionary Affordable Housing fund rather than the less-discretionary HOME fund.
Motion failed, 2-6.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding of $52,750.
Motion passed unanimously.
Concerns and responses of the Commission and Staff:
The prioritization of the project's rehabilitation "needs" is suspect.
Rehabilitation and maintenance are commonly-funded items. FCHC has been
accountable for the funding it receives.
People at 30% AMI should not live in dilapidated conditions while new housing is
being funded.
Total recommended funding level - $52,750
4
Funding Partners— Northern Hotel Project. Request: $235,000.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of
$235,000 through means of a loan. Motion passed, 5-3.
Concerns and responses of the Commission and Staff:
Staff will attempt to monitor the disbursements and relate payments to invoice for
work in the targeted areas.
'Questions remain for some Commission members as to whether this is an
appropriate project for seniors. Those pros and cons were discussed.
Staff reviewed the history of the building and the meaning of the project to the
downtown area for housing, rehabilitation, and economic development.
Discussion was held regarding the contractor agreement. Mr. Vandenheiden
explained the nuances of the design-build concept. Further discussion was held
regarding the reasonableness of extra funds needed for this mitigation.
• Total recommended fundina level - $235,000
CHDO Project— FCHC— Rehabilitation. Request: $92,250.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding.
Motion carried unanimously 7-1.
The discussion concerning this item was integrated in the discussion of FCHC non-
CHDO rehabilitation, FCHC operational funding, and the restrictions and regulations
involving CHDO applicants.
Total recommended funding level - $92 250
•
5
CHDO Operations. FCHC— Rehabilitation. Request: $28,200
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion
carried unanimously.
Concerns and responses of the Commission and Staff:
Some Commission members found the request disquieting. Prioritizing is suspect
for this project; funding is better used for tangible items rather than operational
expenses.
Discussion was held whether projects serving 30% AMI tenants can and/or
should be self-sufficient for operational expenses.
For the AN level served, this project faces the highest subsidy needs. Existing,
older projects need more funding for maintenance and operations.
Staff stated that this request is for 50% of operating costs. If funding is allowed, it
could be viewed as an aid for specific items to allow catch-up on other needy items.
Total funding recommended -$0
Habitat for Humanity— Development Fees. Request: $25,060.
Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding
of$25,060. Motion failed 2-6.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend no funding.
Motion carried 5-3.
Concerns and responses of the Commission and Staff:
Funding would give motivation and momentum to supply other homes.
With the uncertainty of the project, it would be more prudent to allocate funds
elsewhere and encourage this entity to return for funding in the future.
There is no construction manager for the proposed projects, and volunteer help
is chancy for projects which are still theoretical in nature. The development fees are on
the back side of the project, and progress is relatively slow to this point. The inability or
unwillingness of the City to waive or reduce development fees was discussed.
Total recommended funding - $0
6
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
Volunteers of America— Development Fees. Request: $300,000.
No motion was made on this item in light of higher-priority items. Development
fees in general were discussed as lower-priority items, applicable to the final phases of
a project.
Total recommended funding - $0
FCHC— Rehabilitation. Request:
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of
$75,000. Motion passed, 6-2.
Concerns and responses of the Commission and Staff:
This funding is a matter of applicant entities; the funding target stays the same.
The applicant's funding priorities were questioned.
Any unspent funds can be retained in the fund. The fund is discretionary with the
City. Some Commission members advocated keeping funds in.reserve for future
applicants. Staff noted that the purpose of semiannual funding cycles was to capture
projects that rose up outside of the traditional annual funding cycle.
Total recommended funding - $75 000
CARE, Inc. —Acquisition of Land. Request: $300,000.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $160,000.
Motion passed 7-1.
Concerns and comments of Commission and Stafff:
The applicant's concept is sound and track record is quite good. But there is no
site as yet. This type of organization needs to be supported.
Several sites have been explored but have fallen through. Realtors are helping to
look. This money would provide seed money; the Division of Housing could supply
more, with this allocation seen as a local contribution.
Total recommended funding: $150,000
City of Fort Collins — Land Banking
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$300,000. Motion failed, 3-5.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding of
$200,000. Motion failed, 4-4.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$175,000. Motion passed, 3-5.
Moved by Mr. Hill: To apply the $175,000 allocated to Land Banking to CARE.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Discussion on this concept was extensive.
Concerns and comments of Commission and Stafff:
Over time, experience has shown that applicants want to build affordable housing
on a regular basis but cannot find the land. This project would acquire land to be sold at
a level to help make affordable housing projects more viable.
Affordable housing development has been in a crisis mode in the past; now the
Commission can be proactive in its efforts.
There were questions as to whether the City is a better repository for the land
than private entities.
8
. Situations exist where the City knows about land availability beyond what the
private market does. Examples were given by Staff in response to queries.
Five years is minimum banking (holding) time in order to allow for enough
appreciation to discount land to the affordable housing provider. But if it is obtained by
the affordable housing provider at the time of availability, appreciation is avoided.
This concept allows for land to be available when the applicant becomes ready to
obtain it. However, need for such land exists now.
Land banking is not the complete answer. It provides a smaller piece of the
answer.
The City has lower overhead costs for maintaining land for availability than would
private owners.
Money made by the City in this concept would be reprogrammed into the
affordable housing effort.
A competitive process would be carried out to obtain and/or sell land.
There was general disagreement with the proposition that this program would
inflate land prices.
Building and encouraging projects is a more appropriate present use of funds.
This effort would not produce huge tracts of land. $300,000 in purchase funds
equates to six to eight acres. A three-to five-acre parcel is appropriate size for
something like a CARE project.
In a city's effort to promote affordable housing, the city often becomes a
stumbling block with increased supervision and regulation that results in housing cost
increases.
The free market will dictate if incentives exist to develop affordable housing. The
City's proper role is to provide encouragement and incentives to help create the market
and thus stimulate activity by affordable housing developers. Using an entity as an
umbrella to obtain tax credits was provided as an example.
If City can offset the cost to buy land, it can just as well offset other costs, such
as development fees, to provide equal-value incentives.
Total recommended funding - $175 000
•
9