HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/18/2004 - ITEMS RELATED TO THE COMPLETION OF THE SPRING CYCL ITEM NUMBER: 18 A-E
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: May18, 2004
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ken Waldo
SUBJECT
Items Related to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City
Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and Community Development
Activities: the City's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant and HOME
Investment Partnership Program Funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions and the Ordinances. The Community Development
Block Grant Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects
should receive funding.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2004-062 Approving the FY 2004-2005 Community
Development Block Grant Program for the City of Fort Collins.
B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2004-063 Approving the FY 2004-2005 HOME Investment
Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins.
C. Resolution 2004-064 Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development the 2004 Fort Collins Consolidated Action Plan.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community
Development Block Grant Fund.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
HOME Investment Partnership Fund.
The Community Development Block Grant("CDBG")Program and HOME Investment Partnership
Program ("HOME") provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development("HUD')to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community
development 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 related to funding under the CDBG and HOME Programs.
May 18, 2004 -2- Item No. 18 A-E
The first resolution (Resolution 2004-062) establishes which programs and projects will receive
funding with CDBG funds for the FY 2004-2005 Program year, which starts on October 1, 2004.
The CDBG Commission developed a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects
should receive funding. The programs and projects are identified below with the recommended
funding allocations.
The second resolution (Resolution 2004-063) establishes the major funding categories within the
HOME Program for the FY 2004-2005 Program year. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds
will be determined in November as a result of the fall funding cycle of the competitive process for
the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housing programs or projects and
community development activities.
The third resolution(Resolution 2004-064)authorizes the City Manager to submit for approval the
2004-2005 Fort Collins Consolidated Annual Action Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. This Annual Action Plan which identifies and implements the priorities set by
Council is required by HUD.
The following are the allocations recommended by the Community Development Block Grant
Commission to the Fort Collins City Council:
PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION
City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration $210,635
City of Fort Collins Retention and Marketability Study $ 50,000
HOUSING
City of Fort Collins Home Buyer Assistance $500 000
REHABILITATION
Larimer Center for Mental Health $ 81,770
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Turning Point - College Street $ 48,725
Wingshadow Facility $ 22,250
Catholic Charities Mission $ 50,000
Sunshine Day Care Facility $ 30,000
Crossroads Shelter $ 16,050
PUBLIC SERVICES
Project Self-Sufficiency $ 10,000
Springfield Court Early Leaming Center $ 17,500
United Day Care Center $ 25,500
Elderhaus Adult Day Programs $ 7,213
May 18, 2004 -3- Item No. 18 A-E
Court Appointed Special Advocates $ 12,344
Respite Care Sliding Fee Program $ 7,500
B.A.S.E. Camp $ 19,685
Northern Colorado AIDS Program $ 10,000
Women's Center of Larimer County $ 6,608
Catholic Charities Northern Homeless Shelter $ 25,000
Sunshine School Day Care $ 14,000
Education, Life and Training Center $ 10,000
Disabled Resource Services $ 10,500
Neighbor to Neighbor $ 25,000
UNALLOCATED
Pending projects due for Fall 2004 approval process $349,120
TOTAL $1,559,400
ATTACHMENTS
Staff report
Attachment A- Background Information on the Competitive Process
Attachment B - Affordable Housing Board's Listing of Priorities
Attachment C -Background Information on the HOME and CDBG Programs
Attachment D - CDBG Comments on Proposals
Attachment E - Commission Memo to Council
RESOLUTION 2004-062
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE FY 2004-2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS,the Community Development Block Grant("CDBG") Program is an ongoing
grant administration program funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
("HUD"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins has received CDBG Program funds since 1975; and
WHEREAS,on January 18,2000,the City Council approved Resolution 2000-013,formally
adopting a competitive process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2004, the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain
citizen input on community development and affordable housing needs, heard presentations and
asked clarification questions from each applicant that submitted a proposal to the City requesting
funding; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Commission met in a special meeting for the purpose of preparing
a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded for the
FY 2004-2005 program year.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit the FY 2004-2005 Community
Development Block Grant Program application as follows:
PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION
City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration $210,635
City of Fort Collins Retention and Marketability Study $ 50,000
REHABILITATION
Larimer Center for Mental Health $ 81,770
HOUSING
City of Fort Collins Home Buyer Assistance $500,000
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Turning Point—College Street $ 48,725
Wingshadow Facility $ 22,250
Catholic Chanties Mission $ 50,000
Sunshine Day Care Facility $ 30,000
Crossroads Safehouse $ 16,050
PUBLIC SERVICES
Project Self-Sufficiency $ 10,000
Springfield Court Early Learning Center $ 17,500
United Day Care Center $ 25,500
Elderhaus Adult Day Programs $ 7,213
Court Appointed Special Advocates $ 12,344
Respite Care Sliding Fee Program $ 7,500
B.A.S.E. Camp $ 19,685
Northern Colorado AIDS Program $ 10,000
Women's Center of Latimer County $ 6,608
Catholic Charities Northern Homeless Shelter $ 25,000
Sunshine School Day Care $ 14,000
Education, Life and Training Center $ 10,000
Disabled Resource Services $ 10,500
Neighbor to Neighbor $ 25,000
UNALLOCATED
Pending projects due for Fall 2004 approval process $349,120
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held
this 18th day of May A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2004-063
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE FY 2004-2005 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, The City's 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,and
(3) Increase the supply of public housing for families and those with special needs; and
WHEREAS, specific projects for the use of new HOME funds will be determined in
November as a result 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.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit the FY 2003-2004 Home Investment
Partnerships Program application as follows:
ADMINISTRATION
Administration $ 72,300
Projects $542,256
CHDO Reserve $108,450
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held
this 18th day of May A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2004-064
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLUNS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT TO THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
THE 2004 FORT COLLINS CONSOLIDATED ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, the National Affordable Housing Act requires that, in order to apply for certain
Department of Housing and Urban Development("HUD")programs,local governments must have
an approved Consolidated Plan; and
WHEREAS, after substantial analysis and public process, the Council approved the Fort
Collins 2000-2004 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan (the"Plan")on June
20, 2000 in Resolution 2000-084; and
WHEREAS, the Plan contains a detailed discussion of the housing and community
development needs of low and moderate income people of the community; and presents a listing of
priority housing programs and support services that will attempt to address those needs during the
five years; and
WHEREAS,the Plan requires the City to develop a one year action plan each year to identify
and implement the specific projects that will help implement the priorities in the Plan; and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared a 2004-2005 Action Plan, and Council has conducted a public
hearing on May 18,2004,in order solicit citizen comments on the 2004-2005 Action Plan, and has
requested and received written comments through May 18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, staff has considered all comments received and presents for Council approval
its final version of that Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the 2004-2005 Action Plan reflects the
community development and affordable housing priorities the Council has identified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS,that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit for approval the 2004 Fort Collins
Consolidated Annual Action Plan, which Plan is on file and available for public inspection in the
office of the City Clerk.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 18th day of May, A.D.
2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 084, 2004
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE AND
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN
PROGRAM YEARS IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins ("Charter")
permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the
fiscal year,provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations,in combination with
all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and
anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS,Article V, Section 10,of the Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by
ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital
project to another fund or capital project,provided that the purpose for which the funds were initially
appropriated no longer exists; and
WHEREAS,Article V, Section 11,of the Charter provides that federal grant appropriations
shall not lapse if unexpended at the end of the budget year until the expiration of the federal grant;
and
WHEREAS,the City will receive in federal fiscal year 2004-2005 unanticipated revenue in
the form of federal Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") funds totaling $1,219,000,
constituting a new revenue source; and
WHEREAS,the City expects to receive CDBG Program income,from earlier projects,in the
2004-2005 federal fiscal year in the amount of$120,000; and
WHEREAS, unexpended funds are also available from the CDBG program for the federal
2003-2004 fiscal year in the amount of$220,400; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of unanticipated CDBG grant
revenue from the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development("HUD")and unanticipated
Program Income, as described herein, will not result in total appropriations in excess of the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2004; and
WHEREAS,by adoption of Resolution 2004-062 the City Council approved the 2004-2005
Community Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution 2004-064 the City Council authorized the City
Manager to transmit for approval the 2004-2005 Fort Collins Consolidated Annual Action Plan to
HUD as required to receive the grant funds.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in
the federal fiscal year 2004-2005 into the Community Development Block Grant Fund,the sum of
ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED NINETEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,219,000), upon
receipt thereof from federal fiscal year 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant Funds.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated program income revenue for
approved Community Block Grant projects,upon receipt thereof into the Community Development
Block Grant Fund, the amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($120,000) for approved Community Development Block Grant projects.
Section 3. That the unexpended and unencumbered amount of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($220,400)is hereby authorized for transfer from the
2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant Program to the 2004-2005 Community
Development Block Grant Program and appropriated therein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
May, A.D. 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of June, A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 1st day of June, A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 085, 2004
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN
THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS FUND
WHEREAS, the HOME Investment Partnership Program ("HOME Program") was
authorized by the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 to provide funds for a variety of
housing-related activities which would increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary and
affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution 94-92 authorizing
the Mayor to submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") a
notification of intent to participate in the HOME Program; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 1994, HUD designated the City as a Participating Jurisdiction in
the HOME Program, allowing the City to receive an allocation of HOME Program funds as long
as Congress re-authorizes and continues to fund the program; and
WHEREAS, the City has been notified by HUD that the City's HOME Participating
Jurisdiction Grant for the federal fiscal year 2004-2005 is $723,006, constituting a new revenue
source; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins permits the
City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal
year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all
previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and
anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the HOME Program
funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the HOME Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during
any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11, of the Charter provides that federal grant
appropriations shall not lapse if unexpended at the end of the budget year until the expiration of
the federal grant; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution 2004-063, the City Council approved the 2004-
2005 HOME Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in
the federal fiscal year 2004-2005 into the HOME Program Fund the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED
TWENTY THREE THOUSAND SIX DOLLARS ($723,006), upon receipt thereof from federal
fiscal year 2004-2005 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant Funds.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
May, A.D. 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of June, A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 1st day of June, A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Advance Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Ray Martinez and members of the Fort Collins City Council
Date: April 27 2004
E
i
From: Julie Sm1 -7Administrator, CDBG/HOME Programs
Thru: John F. Fischbach, City Manager
• Gregory Byrne, Director, CPES
Joe Frank, Director, Advance Plannin
Subject: Background regarding the recommendation for allocation of financial
resources to Community Development Block Grant applicants
BACKGROUND
At the May 18, 2004, regular City Council meeting, the Council is scheduled to conduct a public
hearing and consider the adoption of a resolution establishing which programs and projects will
receive funding with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the ITY 2004-2005
Program year, which starts on October 1, 2004.
The resolution establishing which programs and projects will receive CDBG funds represents the
culmination of the spring cycle of the competitive process approved in January 2000 by the
Council 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.
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 CDBG funding. The City's Affordable Housing Board reviewed
281 North College Avenue • PO.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-637b
FAX(970)224-6111 • TDD(970)224-6002 • E-mail:aolannine(d4cenv.com
the written applications for affordable housing projects and forwarded a priority ranking of
proposals, as well as comments and questions, to the CDBG Commission. See Attachment B for
a copy 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 its importance with respect to
local and federal priorities. The five major categories are:
1. ImpactBenefit
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.
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 presented 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:
o CDBG funds should generally be allocated as follows: 65% for Housing projects;
15% for Public Services; and the balance for Administration and Public Facilities;
o funds allocated to housing should generally be divided as follows: 70% for rental
projects and 30%for homeownership opportunities; and
o the average subsidy should be $5,000 per unit, with relatively more funding to
projects producing housing for lower income families.
The CDBG Program is an ongoing grant administration program funded by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received CDBG Program
funds since 1975. In 1975 and FY 1976-1977 the City received HUD CDBG discretionary grants.
Since FY 1977-1978, the City has been an Entitlement Grant recipient of CDBG 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
Community Development Block Grant Program is presented in Attachment C.
•
•
AVAILABLE FUNDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.
The amount of the City's CDBG Entitlement Grant for FY 2004-2005 is $1,219,000. The
Entitlement Grant will be combined with$120,000 of CDBG Program Income and$220,400.57 of
Reprogrammed funds to create a total of$1,559,400.57 of CDBG funds available for programs and
projects during the next CDBG Program year. CDBG Program Income includes funds returned to
the City through the payment of past housing rehabilitation loans and homebuyer downpayment
assistance loans. CD$G Reprogrammed funds include funds not expended in previously approved
projects.
The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
CDBG Program
AMOUNT SOURCE
$1,219,000.00 FY 2004 CDBG Entitlement Grant
120,000.00 CDBG Program Income
220,400.57 CDBG Reprogrammed Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,559,400.57 CDBG Total
Below is a summary of recent CDBG funding levels allocated from HUD to the City of Fort Collins:
Entitlement Reprogrammed Program
Year Grant Funds Income Total Funds
1995 1,231,000 0 40,000 1,271,000
1996 1,202,000 0 40,000 1,242,000
1997 1,188,000 181,273 50,000 1,419,273
1998 1,162,000 216,875 50,000 1,428,875
1999 1,169,000 0 50,000 1,219,000
2000 1,175,000 34,358 93.544 1,302,902
2001 1,227,000 403,151 89,651 1,719,802
2002 1,209,000 767,262 87,712 2,063,974
2003 1,243,000 19,950 161,000 1,420,950
2004 1,219,000 220,400 120,000 1,559,400
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP FUNDS
•
The amount of the City's HOME grant for FY 2004-2005 is$723,006.
The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
HOME Program
AMOUNT SOURCE
$723,006 FY04 HOME Investment Partnership Grant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$723,006 Total HOME funding
•
•
SELECTION PROCESS
The selection process for the City's FY 2004-2005 Competitive Process Program began on January
11,2004,when the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on community
development and affordable housing needs. Legal advertisements were placed in local and regional
newspapers starting in January to solicit requests for eligible projects for FY 2004-2005. The
application deadline was Thursday February 26. At the close of the deadline the City received 32
applications requesting a total of approximately$2.7 million.
Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on
March 4 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on March 4, copies of the housing
applications were distributed to the Affordable Housing Board and copies of all applications were
distributed to the CDBG Commission.
On Thursday March 25 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
Tuesday, March 30, Wednesday March 31 and Thursday April 1, the Commission met to hear
presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on
Thursday April 8 for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which
programs and projects should be funded for the FY 2004-2005 program year. 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 FY 2003-2004 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 CDBG regulations limit the amount of available funds which can be allocated to various
generic categories. Funds for Planning and Administrative purposes are limited to 20%of the total
of the Entitlement Grant and any Program Income. This means the 20%limitation for Planning and
Administrative purposes is $267,800. CDBG funds for Public Services are limited to 15% of the
total of the Entitlement Grant and Program Income,making the amount$200,850.
The Commission, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects
which best fit into the City's CDBG 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. In addition, HOME and Affordable Housing Funds are
reserved for housing projects only.
Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's list of
recommendations.
• PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
AD-2: CITY OF FORT COLLINS CDBG ADMINISTRATION
Request: $210,635
Recommendation: $210,635
Proposal covers the administrative costs of the FY 2004-2005 CDBG Program Administration
including salary,benefits and operating expenses for 2.65 staff positions.
PL-1: CITY OF FORT COLLINS RENTENTION AND MARKETABILITY STUDY
Request: Commission Initiated
Recommendation: $ 50,000
This proposal was initiated by the CDBG Commission following a lengthy discussion of where
Federal funding might best be spent to increase the marketability of large affordable
housing projects and aid in their viability over the long term.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICATIONS
HO-1: CITY OF FORT COLLINS —HOME BUYER ASSISTANCE
• Request: $500,000
Recommendation: $500,000 Due on Sale Loan+ 5% Fee
This program is administered by the Advance Planning Department and provides zero- percent
interest loans to eligible first-time homebuyers. The assistance covers down payment and closing
costs to a maximum of$9,576 for households at 51%to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) and
$19,152 for buyers at or below 50% of AMI. Approximately 50 households will be assisted in the
next year with this portion of the program. Matching HOME funds will be requested in the fall
cycle.
HO-2: FORT COLLINS HOUSING CORPORATION—300 1" STREET
Request: $127,820
Recommendation: 0
The Fort Collins Housing Corporation (FCHC)proposes to reconstruct the foundation, replace
the roof, heating system, windows, landscaping, resurface the parking area, and perform several
other Housing Quality Standards items for the building. The facility is home to 12 individuals.
This project is part of the "Homecoming Program"which offers permanent housing and case
management to individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
•
HO-3: LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH—REHAB
Request: $123,307
Recommendation: $ 81,770 DUE ON SALE LOAN + 5%FEE
Larimer Center for Mental Health is requesting funds to rehabilitation two properties in Fort
Collins that serve 45-55 individuals with mental health issues annually. The properties are
located next to each other at 214 and 218 S. Whitcomb Street. The rehabilitation will consist of
roof and gutter replacement, interior and exterior painting, plumbing and electrical work, and
several other Housing Quality Standards items for the buildings.
HO-5: FORT COLLINS HOUSING CORP—SLEEPY WILLOW
Request: $1,050,100
Recommendation: 0
The Fort Collins Housing Corporation is requesting funds to increase the curb appeal of Sleepy
Willow with interior and exterior rehabilitation.The proj ect consists of the replacement of windows,
cabinets,doors,floor coverings,locks,electrical items,boiler upgrades,plumbing,exterior finishes
and several other items to improve the marketability of the building. The project is located at Taft
Hill Road and West Plum Street. The project is conveniently located near shopping, schools and
public transportation.
PUBLIC FACILITY APPLICATIONS
PF-1: UNITED WAY - HOUSING SERVICES CENTER
Request: $100,000
Recommendation: 0
United Way of Larimer County,representing a collaboration of non-profits, faith communities
and local governments,proposes to construct a 10,000 square foot Housing Services Center that
provides daytime comprehensive service and outreach in meeting the needs of those who are
homeless and at risk of becoming homeless. The Center anticipates serving 700 unduplicated
people annually. The CDBG request covers some site-related development and construction
fees, and soft costs (architect, engineer). The estimated construction cost for the facility is
roughly$1,200,000.
PF-2: TURNING POINT COLLEGE BUILDING REPAIRS
Request: $48,725
Recommendation: $48,725 Due on Sale Loan + 5% Fee
Turning Point Center for Youth and Family Development proposes to rehabilitate property
located at 1644 and 1640 S. College Avenue. Turning point provides oversight and
• administration/logistical support to all other services from this location, as well as housing up to
eight young adults at the site. The property was originally built in 1928 and was purchased by
Turning Point in 2000. The repairs include new roof, window and storm window replacement,
exterior paint,new HVAC, sewer line replacement, new flooring,upgrade electrical service and
several other items.
PF-3: WINGSHADOW—FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Request: $89,279
Recommendation: $22,250 Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee
Wingshadow was founded in 1993 and operates several programs: Frontier School, Outreach,
Sheltering Wings, The Aerie, Eagle Homes, and the Wings. Frontier School is an alternative
school that provides a safe learning environmental for students in grades 7 through 12 who have
dropped out,been expelled, or referred by public schools because of high-risk status. The project
is located at 1225 Redwood Street and serves over 1,100 persons. Wingshadow is requesting
funds to widen sidewalks,build new sidewalks, build wheelchair ramp, add outdoor lighting, and
resurface the parking lot.
PF-4: CATHOLIC CHARITIES —MISSION REHAB
• Request: $50,000
Recommendation: $50,000 Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee
The Mission Building, located at 460 Linden Center Drive,houses a homeless shelter that
accommodates 28 single men, 6 single women and up to 7 families with children. It has sleeping
rooms and bathrooms, as well as laundry facilities for their use and that of the shelter programs.
There is also a large cafeteria, commercial kitchen, office space for direct services and
administration offices for Catholic Charities Northern. The facility was built fifteen years ago in
1989. Catholic Charities is requesting funds to replace the flooring in the main building, along
with refurbishing the bathrooms and several other items that need improvement.
PF-5: SUNSHINE SCHOOL BUILDING REHAB
Request: $37,559
Recommendation: $30,000 Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee
Sunshine school is requesting funds to rehabilitate the building located at 906 Stuart Street. The
building is 25 years old and owned by the City of Fort Collins. The City makes the building
availability at practically no cost to Sunshine School. The improvements include all new
windows and doors and new siding and gutters on the exterior. City Facilities has agreed to
provide new tile which is a health and safety issue.
•
PF-6: ELDERHAUS—CARPET
Request: $3,000
Recommendation: Withdrawn by applicant
Elderhaus proposes to replace the flooring at 605 S. Shield Street with linoleum and/or carpet.
This improvement will help resolve safety issues with worn carpets at the facility.
PF-7: CROSSROADS SHELTER REHAB
Request: $27,875
Recommendation: $16,050 Due on Sale Loan+5% Fee
Crneernade qnfPhn1vQP. ae ks to renny ate it¢ qhdtm facility in nrder to i rne'de a cleaner cafer and
more attractive environment for victim of domestic violence and their children. The
rehabilitation will focus primarily on replacing the heating and cooling systems, and several other
Housing Quality Standards items for the buildings. The project serves 100 very low and low
income households each year. The facility is owned by the City of Fort Collins.
PUBLIC SERVICE APPLICATATIONS
PS-1: PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Request: $22,000
Recommendation: $10,000 Grant
Project Self-Sufficiency provides one-on-one career planning and support to low-income single
parents so they can become financially independent. CDBG funds are to support staff salaries.
PS-2: VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA—VOA SAFETY OF SENIORS
Request: $3,500
Recommendation: 0
Volunteers of America proposes to serve 450 seniors in Fort Collins with minor home repairs
targeted to health and safety issues. 60% of those served would be under 50% AMI. This is an
average subsidy per senior of approximately$8. CDBG funding would be used to pay for 20%
of the salary and operating costs of the program (9% of program budget).
• PS-3: REHABILITATION AND VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION
Request: $15,000
Recommendation: 0
RVNA proposes to provide services for 25 extremely low-income homebound adults at a cost of
$600 per person per year. Services include professional services (nursing, case management) as
well as personal care and homemaking.
PS-4a: SPRINGFIELD COURT EARLY LEARNING CENTER
Request: $17,500
Recommendation: $17,500 Grant
PS-4b: UNITED DAYCARE CENTER SLIDING FEE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
Request: $25,500
Recommendation: $25,500 Grant
Springfield Court and United Day Care Center both provide affordable, full-day care for the
• children of low-income families. The sliding fee scholarship program allows families to make a
lower monthly payment; funds from scholarships (like CDBG) fill in the gap. Springfield Court
proposes to provide CDBG-assisted childcare for 35 children; the CDBG portion represents 20%
of their overall scholarship program budget. United Day Care Center proposes to provide
CDBG-assisted childcare for 47 children; the CDBG portion represents 15% of their overall
scholarship program budget. 91% of the families will be below 50% of Area Median Income.
Subsidy per child served averages $500 (Springfield) and $542 (UDCC).
PS-5: MULTI-CULTURAL GROUP AND COMMUNITY GROUP PROGRAMS
Request: $7,213
Recommendation: $7,213 Grant
The Multi-cultural Group reaches out to Hispanic, Italian and Native American elders and their
caregivers, who all face additional barriers in dealing with special needs. The Community Group
gives participants a sense of ownership in the community, and promotes continued autonomy
through volunteerism. Elderhaus proposes to serve 60 income-eligible persons in these two
groups. 83%of all elders served are less than 50% AMI and at-risk. CDBG funds would be used
to support 43% of staffing expense for these programs.
•
PS-6: CASA—COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES
Request: $12,344
Recommendation: $12,344 Grant
CASA proposes to serve 136 low-income(below 50%AMI) children with volunteers appointed
by the court to represent the best interests of abused and neglected children. CDBG funds will be
used to support staff salaries (13% of total) for a cost per child of$96.76 per child.
PS-7: RESPITE CARE SLIDING FEE SCHOLARSHIPS
Request: $10,000
Recommendation: $ 7,500 Grant
Respite Care, serving exclusively families who have children with developmental disabilities,
provides child care services through a sliding scale fee program. CDBG funds are used to
support the sliding scale fee scholarship program for low-income households. The funds provide
for a sliding scale subsidy of$667 per family(15 clients)which is 100% of the funding provided
for the scholarship program. Percentage of CDBG contribution towards the agency's annual
operating budget is less than 3%.
PS-8: B.A.S.E. CAMP SLIDING FEE
Requested: $19,685
Recommendation: $19,685 Grant
B.A.S.E. Camp provides Ft. Collins' only before-and-after school day care services to low-
income households through a sliding scale fee program. This agency also provides full-day care
during the summer and for"school-out" days. CDBG funds would provide for an average sliding
scale subsidy of$193 per child (103 children), which is 25% of the funding provided for the
sliding scale program.
PS-9: UNITED WAY- HOMELESS PREVENTION COORDINATOR
Request: $15,000
Recommendation: Withdrawn by applicant
On behalf of the Homeless Prevention Initiative, United Way of Larimer County is requesting
CDBG funds towards the salary expense of a program coordinator. The Community Coordinator
would focus on fundraising, community education, volunteer recruitment, and administration.
The position would not be involved in the already-occurring direct assistance (intake at 4 sites;
direct assistance through Neighbor to Neighbor). The request represents 27% of the position's
staffing expense.
• PS-1 0: NCAP CASE MANAGEMENT AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
Request: $14,000
Recommendation: $10,000Grant
NCAP proposes to provide services to 149 individuals with HIV/AIDS (69%below 30%AMI
and 28%below 50%AMI) with emergency housing,utilities assistance and critical emergency
aid. CDBG funds will be used to supplement salaries and benefits, emergency utilities payments
and emergency housing payments. The subsidy per client is $94.00. The CDBG portion would
be 7%of the program budget.
PS-11: WINGSHADOW - SHELTERING WINGS: DAYCARE FOR TEEN PARENTS
Request: $10,000
Recommendation: 0
Wingshadow proposes using CDBG funds towards the staff salaries in its Sheltering Wings
daycare facility for teen parents. Due to lack of income,Wingshadow receives no significant
payment towards child care from teen parents. The $10,000 CDBG request helps fill the$51,000
gap in salaries not covered by CCAP funding and other small grants.
• PS-12: WINGSHADOW—THE WING: SHELTER FOR HOMELESS YOUTH
Request: $13,500
Recommendation: 0
The Wing is a large-group care facility,providing emergency shelter and crisis intervention
services for displaced, runaway, and homeless youth aged 12 to 17, for a period of 1 to 90 days.
Wingshadow is requesting $13,500 in CDBG monies towards assisting with staff salaries
($9,332), as well as direct services for medical and dental assistance ($4,168).
PS-13: WOMEN'S CENTER—DENTAL ASSISTANCE&HEALTH CARE
Request: $15,000
Recommendation: $ 6,608 Grant
The Women's Center proposes to provide 485 very low income (less than 50%AMI) and 27
low-income persons (51 — 80% AMI) , persons with Dental Assistance, early detection of breast
and cervical cancer, and HIV prevention and patient navigation targeting elders, the Latino
community and victims of domestic violence. CDBG cost per person: $29.29. CDBG funds
would be used to supplement staff salaries and facilities (7% of total operating cost).
•
PS-14: CATHOLIC CHARITIES — SHELTER AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
Request: $30,000
Recommendation: $25,000 Grant
Catholic Charities Northern supports the homeless population of Fort Collins by providing
shelter, food, case management and transitional housing for homeless families. CDBG funds
will be used to support staff salaries for services to 1,100 very low-income persons (below 30%
AMI). The contribution represents 10% of the yearly overall budget for the shelter.
PS-15: CATHOLIC CHARITIES — SENIOR SERVICES
Request: $15,000
Recommendation: 0
Catholic Charities Northern assists frail and at-risk elderly to maintain independence through
their Case Management services. CDBG funding would be used to support staff salaries for
services to 120 low-income seniors (92% less than 30%AMI). CDBG monies would cover 65%
of staffing expenses, and 54% of all non-volunteer program budget.
PS-16: SUNSHINE SCHOOL SLIDING FEE
Request: $15,500
Recommendation: $14,000 Grant
Sunshine School is the community's long-standing,-smaller subsidized day care facility located
in mid-town. The facility itself is owned by the City of Fort Collins. CDBG funds are requested
to support the sliding scale fee program. The funds would provide for an average subsidy of
$861 per child for 18 children, and represents 30%of the funding provided for the sliding scale
fee program. 83% of the CDBG-eligible children served are below 50% of AMI.
PS-17: CROSSROADS TRIAGE ASSISTANT
Request: $19,553
Recommendation: 0
Crossroads Safehouse would like to increase customer service and staff response time by
providing a permanent part-time triage person at the front desk.
PS-18: EDUCATION & LIFE TRAINING CENTER
Request: $15,000
Recommendation: $10,000 Grant
Education and Life Training Center provides literacy and employment skills training to help the
low-income, and disadvantaged population of Larimer County achieve increased educational and
economic skills. CDBG funds would be used in support of staff salaries and operations to serve
180 low-income individuals (89%below 50% of AMI). This is a cost per person of$83. CDBG
request represents 9% of staffing expenses.
PS-19: DISABLED RESOURCE SERVICES
Request: $13,500
Recommendation: $10,500 Grant
Disabled Resources proposes to serve 84 very low income individuals(below 30% AMI) with
case management and community assistance through its Access to Independence(ATI)program.
ATI supports integration and inclusion into the community and its services, while fostering
• independence and self-sufficiency. The CDBG request represents 17%of the program staffing
needs for the Fort Collins branch.
PS-20: NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING COUNSELING
Request: $30,000
Recommendation: $25,000 Grant
Neighbor to Neighbor provides housing counseling and case-management to over 3,711 lower-
income persons during the year. Housing counseling is required of all prospective home buyers
using area down payment assistance program. In addition, they assist persons along the housing
continuum from homelessness to homeownership with referrals for housing, reverse mortgages
help and foreclosure prevention.
•
A summary of the Commission's funding recommendations by category for the total amount of funds
available is as follows:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
RECOMMENDED % of
FUNDING TOTAL CATEGORY
$ 260,635 16.7 PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION (Maximum$267,800
based on 20% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
581,770 37.3 HOUSING
167,025 10.7 PUBLIC FACILITIES
200,850 12.9 PUBLIC SERVICES (Maximum $200,850 based on 15%of
Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
349,120 22.4 Unprogrammed available in the Fall cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,425,686 100.0 TOTAL
The total amount of CDBG funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was
approximately $2.7 million with $1.5 million available. Due to HUD funding limitations, some
Public Service applications received no funds or fewer funds than requested in order to keep the
generic category within program maximums.
The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for eight(8)proposals. In the Commission's
opinion, these applications recommended for full funding best fit CDBG Program national
objectives, the selection-criteria, and the funding guidelines.
Proposals,which did not receive full funding,were deemed of a lower priority and,in some cases,a
lack of funds,program category limitations (especially in the Public Services category),or funding
guidelines prohibited their full funding.
The Commission has recommended no funding for nine(9)proposals.
The remaining uncommitted amount of$349,120 will be forwarded to the Fall Competitive Process.
The Commission is expecting that several unfunded projects from the Spring Cycle will be
resubmitted in the fall along with new projects.
The Commission's reasons for either full funding, partial funding, or no funding are presented in
Attachment D.
• CARRY-OVER FUNDING FOR THE FALL COMPETITIVE PROCESS CYCLE 2003
In the current Spring cycle,the CDBG Commission recognizes its recommendations for funding do
not fully allocate all of the available dollars. There will be a carry over of$349,120 in allocated
funds. These funds will be made available in the Fall funding cycle. The CDBG Commission would
like to see organizations have well-defined applications in the Fall cycle and would feel
uncomfortable in fully supporting any projects with numerous unanswered .
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
The amount of the City's HOME Grant for FY 2004-2005 is $723,006 available for projects and
administrative purposes in the Fall Competitive Process Cycle.Subtracting$72,300(10%maximum
allowed by HOME regulations)for administrative purposes,leaves $542,256 available for projects
and programs and$108,450 reserved for special CHDO projects
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Background Information on the Competitive Process
Attachment B: Affordable Housing Board Recommendations
Attachment C: Additional Background Information on CDBG and HOME
Attachment D: Additional information on Commission Recommendations
• Attachment E: Memo to Council
•
• 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 tanking 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.
Impact/Benefit(maximum 30 points)
I. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10)
(0-30%of AM1= 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 dire;(assistance for persons to gain self-sufficiency? (0-5)
4. Does the project provide long-term benefit or affordability? (0-]0)
(1-10 yrs=3 pts, 11-19 yrs=6 pts,20 to 30 yrs=8 pts,and Permanent= ]0 pts)
Subtotal
Need/Priority(maximum 15 points)
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
Feasibility(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)? (0-4)
4. Has the applicant documented efforts to secure other funding? (0-4)
• Sub-total
Levera¢inc Resources(maximum 25 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) _ 1 points
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 points
B. 1:1 to 1:3 4 points
C. 1:4 to 1:6 7 points
D. More than 1:7 10 points
Sub-total
Capacity and History(maximum 15 points)
I. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project? (0-10)
2. If previously funded,has the applicant completed prior project and maintain regulatory compliance9 (0-5)
3. If new,applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-15)
Sub-total
GRAND TOTAL
•
• Attachment B
Spring 2004 Competitive Process
The Affordable Housing Board's priority listing of the affordable housing
applications is as follows:
1. HO-1, Homebuyer Assistance Programs
2. HO-2, FCHC SRO rehab
3. HO-5, FCHC Sleepy Willow
Comments/Concerns: Funding for Sleepy Willow should be for
health and safety concerns only.
The Board did not review the remaining application. The Board feels it did
not meet the definition of an affordable housing project.
• 4. HO-3, LCMH Rehab
•
• ATTACHMENT C
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
on the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
CDBG PROGRAM NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the CDBG Program is Othe development of viable urban communities,by
providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities,
principally for persons of low and moderate income.0 Programs and projects funded with CDBG
funds must address at least one of the following three broad National Objectives:
(1) provide a benefit to low or moderate income households or persons,
(2) eliminate or prevent slum and blight conditions, or
(3) meet urgent community development needs which pose an immediate and serious
threat to the health and welfare of the community.
Presented below is a comparison of City CDBG expenditures for programs and projects categorized
• according to the National Objectives:
National Objectives
Low/Moderate Slum/Blight Urgent
Income Benefit Elimination Need
National Average 90% 10% 0%
City Expenditures
for: 2003 100% 0% 0%
2002 100% 0% 0%
2001 100% 0% 0%
2000 100% 0% 0%
1999 100% 0% 0%
1998 100% 0% 0%
1997 100% 0% 0%
1996 100% 0% 0%
1995 100% 0% 0%
1994 90% 10% 0%
1993 100% 0% 0%
1992 100% 0% 0%
•
CDBG PROGRAM ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES
CDBG funds can be used on a wide range of activities including:
(1) acquiring deteriorated and/or inappropriately developed real property (including
property for the purpose of building new housing);
(2) acquiring, constructing, rehabilitating or installing publicly owned facilities and
improvements;
(3) restoration of historic sites;
(4) beautification of urban land;
(5) conservation of open spaces and preservation of natural resources and scenic areas;
(6) housing rehabilitation can be funded if it benefits low and moderate income people;
and
(7) economic development activities are eligible expenditures if they stimulate private
investment of community revitalization and expand economic opportunities for low
and moderate income people and the handicapped.
Certain activities are ineligible, under most circumstances, for CDBG funds including:
(1) purchase of equipment,
(2) operating and maintenance expenses including repair expenses and salaries,
(3) general government expenses,
(4) political and religious activities, and
(5) new housing construction.
Presented below is a comparison of CDBG expenditures by activity category:
National City Expenditures for:
Activity Average 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996
Housing 43% 54.2% 73% 72% 64% 73% 73% 63% 61%
Public Facilities 21% 18.0% 11% 2% 5% 2% 2% 13% 15%
Planning/Admin. (20%) 14% 13.9% 7% 11% 17% 10% 10% 9% 9%
Economic Development 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Public Services (15%) 9% 13.9% 9% 15% 14% 15% 15% 15% 15%
The Planning and Administration category can include funds allocated for planning related
projects as well as program administration. In the past, planning projects have included funds for
the East and West Side Neighborhood Plans and the Downtown Plan. The 2000 figure includes
funds for the BAVA Neighborhood Plan. The 20043 Administrative percentage was 13.9%.
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$9,000 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 $37,250
2 persons $42,550
3 persons $47,900
4 persons $53,200
5 persons $57,450
6 persons $61,700
7 persons $65,950
8 persons $70,200
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
• 1
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 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
$201,000.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY BY YEAR(includes Program Income)
Home Buyer HOME
Year Administration Assistance Projects 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
1999-00 61,500 253,309 342,250 657,059
2000-01 70,000 75,000 630,000 775,000
2001-02 78,300 251,000 433,500 762,800
2002-03 78,400 423,174 372,426 874,000
2003-04 78,400 300,000 348,110 726,510
2
• HOME PROGRAM PRIORITIES
The 2000-2004 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.
• 3
Attadball t
APRIL .2004 FL1N01N1G RECOMMENDATIONS
'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEW� GRANT
Meeting held Aprll8D
'OD p.m. — 10:46-p.m.
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, ,Colorado
Commission members present:
Phil Majerus, President
Cheryl Zimlich, Vice President
Robert Browning
Bruce Croissant
Michael Kulischeck
Tia Molander
Jeff Taylor
Dennis Vanderheiden
Jennifer Wagner
Staff:
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
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.
2
T -v T -V -0 _0 -0 D 'a S A S 2 2
• n T T T T T T
C
LT � V cn A W N N O Q O O J
tp n C n � C 7 n T Q r T 2
(n Gl p 7 n 5' 3 0 n O = O
0 Z (a = (D m �c S 2 3
(D in �n
0• o o o ° Q n m n m
`° ° CL `�° a o o a _� n T c to
o 3 to
O N O 7 1 1 = 7 to '0 O ' D n
C 3 O
D m a s o ° a � m a'
n - CD 3
CD
G Q
(Op O 2 cl CD (C C 3 00 < 2 A CD +
n Q (O 6 (O
CD
O
7 03 0 A n
m ° a co cu ?
G) > y 3
+ n z 00 m 9.
:3CD
_ N
0 O T r
O N N d+ = T
A
3 e m W 1v ea +n to en n�i 0 0 0 C c
cm g � o Aw g o j 3 0 e a N
0 0 � w m u, b K) : b o. = 3, iv b 7 C.
3 0 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 cW �, O O UOCD cc
w (Q 7
+N 8 O O 0 0 0 8 S �. 7 O O 8 0 O
ts+ de Q, fl
N (p
o CD =" w v. -W4 -&4 r n u N .64 0 0LM n k
O co Ub
< 0 V tT O O N co 0 00 P G N
w 8 (D V A O O Op
O. IJ CA) Cn O O O cNn .w O
o
+ O O 0 0 O
Q.
w o b b b b b 0 b b, b. O -b+ 8 0 (C
O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0
c n
'00 6
n A n
'o
CD .64 o 0 0 o p 0 Q
A (D A b b a 3 � > n o
8 0 0 0
{,+ — -+
0 c
°' n T
C
ON N N C v w
$ 8 0
3 m
o O o p
-64 0 0 e o 3
t! 4:2
es+ t6q ts+
W O iA bM iA 4) b'1 O Ln o O 0 W y
�c � a O O p m
A O IJ V P O V O to
8 S O e
O O O O O O cn (Wn O O 8 O
Ln b b b b b if1 b b +A b 14 b N
V 8 O O O O O O O O O O O O V
• in V
b4.4
6n c
O knco a O A N 0 7
C C
O � � O 8p v O n N
0 O 8 O O 0 8 O D O O 8 O A a
Funding Matrix Spring Cycle 2004
Public Service
Total funds
Agency i Project Request Available Project
Bal antunded
ance
$200,850.00
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 Elderhaus $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
a PS-8 BASE Camp $19,685.00 $19,685.00 $0.00
u
it PS-10 NCAP $14,000.00 $10,000.00 $4,000.00
PS-11 Wingshadow-Salaries $10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00
s 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-15 CCN -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
4
Funding Matrix Spring Cycle 2004
• HOME Funds
Available
Agency& Project Request HOME
723 006.00
AD-I HOME Admin + Projects $723,006.00 $723,006.00
Admin Only $72,300.00
BALANCE: Remaining $ $0.00
•
•
5
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 Application 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.
6
• 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.
8
• AD-2 CDBG Admin - $210,635 request
Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding 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.
PLA — 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 funding 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.
•
9
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.
•
tt
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 workers. Success at
effective for the dollars used. Motivated 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 funding 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-413, 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-46, 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; $1,060 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 funding 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 funding 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 funding 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 funding 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-413; 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-4B; $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-4B; $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.
II �
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. Ta for
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. Brownin
PS-3, RVNA Ms. Molander
PS-4A, Springfield Court Ms. Zimlich
PS-46, 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
Attachment E
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council n
FR. Phil Majerus, Chair, CDBG Commission 7 ^'
DT: April 19, 2004
RE: Background on the CDBG Commission's Recommendations for the Fort Collins
Housing Corporation's Spring Competitive Process Proposals
The CDBG Commission wanted to give City Council a fuller briefing on its reasons for
the "no funding" recommendations on the two Fort Collins Housing Corporation
Competitive Process proposals:
• Sleepy Willow Apartments (95 units):
Rehabilitation and Marketability Upgrades - $1, 050,100
• First Street SRO (12 units): Rehabilitation - $127,820
Although it might fast appear as a vote of"no confidence" in these two projects, that is
absolutely not the case. The Commission's issues centered mainly around the need for
more specific information in order to make the most well-reasoned recommendations
• possible.
Sleepy Willow
• The Board did not recommend any funding for this project at this time.because it
was not satisfied that granting the additional subsidies requested would really help
the project's goals in terms of making the units more rentable, and thus lower the
overall vacancy rate of the project (currently at 30%).
• The Commission is recommending, instead, expenditure of up to $50,000 by the
City for a study and recommendations regarding maintaining the long-terrn viability
of the Sleepy Willow project. Using Sleepy Willow as the primary case study, the
analysis would examine rental and marketability components, as well as other
strategies in preserving these existing affordable housing units.
It is believed that this information will also help the City in making focused funding
decisions for other projects during this current economic cycle, and therefore allow
the City to be a more strategic support to other area affordable housing providers, as
well.
• The Commission is mindful that in all cases of granting funds to this project, the City
functions in a "second mortgage" capacity to the primary lender for this project. If,
• for some reason, the project would need to be sold, or face other distress action, the
Memo to Mayor& City Council
FCHC Recommendations: CDBG Commission
April 19, 2004 Page 2
City would be lowest on the totem pole in terms of funds reimbursement. Julie
Brewen, Executive Director for the Fort Collins Housing Authority, stated during the
Commission's Question and Answer session, that were the Sleepy Willow property to be
sold today, it would likely be at a $400,000 loss. The City currently already has invested
$650,000 (FY02) in the property's initial purchase, and nearly$100,000 (FY03) in
health and safety housing rehabilitation items.
First Street SRO
• The SRO Rehab project was not recommended for funding in this cycle for two
reasons. First, additional information on rehabilitation efforts for this building is
needed. There were questions on the project management fee, the loss of one
housing unit for a resident manager's quarters, and the need for some prioritization
of the rehabilitation tasks. Secondly, in an addendum memo to the CDBG
Commission,Julie Brewen shared, that in the face of limited available funding,
Sleepy Willow was the priority for the Spring cycle. The Commission, therefore,
wanted to allow the Fort Collins Housing Corporation to preserve its options in
submitting projects for funding and in stating its corresponding priorities for the
Fall Competitive Process cycle.
Summary
The Fort Collins Housing Corporation has advised City staff that it anticipates re-
submitting both these projects for the Tall Competitive Process cycle. Hopefully, the
additional time for information gathering will help with a more well-grounded
recommendation in 6 months. The good news is that there is only an 8—10 week gap
(Nov. 1" vs.January) in Spring and Fall CDBG money actually being available and ready
to use (after Council appropriation, contract execution, etc.).
The Commission takes its City Council advisory role very seriously. The Commission, in
acting as such, is faced with the difficult balance of assisting Council in tangibly
supporting worthy community development and affordable housing activities and in
helping exercise a careful watch over Federal funds granted the City. Hopefully,
delaying a decision until autumn will help the City achieve both these goals.
CC: CDBG Commission Members
Julie Brewen, Executive Director, Fort Collins Housing Authority
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Department Director
Greg Byrne, Community Planning and Environmental Services Director
City Staff Affordable Housing Team Members: Maurice Head, Heidi Phelps,Julie
Smith, Melissa Visnic, Ken Waido