HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/27/2004 - DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SPRING 2004 HOUSING AND C DATE: April 27, 2004 STUDY SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Julie Smith FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Discussion Regarding the Spring 2004 Housing and Community Development Competitive Process.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources to affordable
housing projects/programs and community development activities. The financial resources available
for allocation include funds from the following sources:
$ 220,400.57 Reprogrammed CDBG funds
120,000.00 Projected CDBG Program Income
1,219,000.00 FY2004 CDBG Grant
$1,559,400.57 Total
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED:
1. Does the City Council have any comments or questions with the recommendations for
funding as suggested by the CDBG Commission?
General direction will be derived through the discussion of,and the answers provided to,the above
listed question.
SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR FUNDING:
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION- Maximum 20%of CDBG(Grant&Program Income)
Funds - $267,800
City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration
Request: $210,635
Recommendation: $210,635
City of Fort Collins Planning Retention and Marketability Study (Commission initiated)
Recommendation: $ 50,000
April 27, 2004 Page 2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
City of Fort Collins CDBG Program- Homebuyer Assistance
Request: $500,000 (Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee)
Recommendation: $500,000 (Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee)
Fort Collins Housing Corporation—300 First Street SRO Rehabilitation
Request: $127,820 (Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee)
Recommendation: $ 0
Larimer Center for Mental Health -Rehabilitation
Request: $123,307 (Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee)
Recommendation: $ 81,770 (Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee)
Fort Collins Housing Corporation—Sleepy Willow Upgrades
Request: $1,050,100 (Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee)
Recommendation: $ 0
PUBLIC FACILITIES
United Way—Housing Services Center
Request: $100,000 (Due on Sale Loan +5% Fee)
Recommendation: $ 0
Turning Point—College Street Building Repairs
Request: $48,725 (Due on Sale Loan +5% Fee)
Recommendation: $48,725 (Due on Sale Loan +5% Fee)
Wingshadow—Facility Improvements
Request: $89,279 (Due on Sale Loan +5% Fee)
Recommendation: $22,250 (Due on Sale Loan + 5% Fee)
Catholic Charities—Mission Building Refurbishing
Request: $50,000 (Due on Sale Loan + 5% Fee)
Recommendation: $50,000 (Due on Sale Loan + 5% Fee)
Sunshine School—Building Upgrade
Request: $37,559 (Due on Sale Loan +5% Fee)
Recommendation: $30,000 (Due on Sale Loan + 5% Fee)
Crossroads—Shelter Rehabilitation
Request: $27,875 (Due on Sale Loan + 5% Fee)
Recommendation: $16,050 (Due on Sale Loan + 5%Fee)
April 27, 2004 Page 3
PUBLIC SERVICE-Maximum 15% of CDBG (Grant &Program Income) Funds - $220,850
Project Self-sufficiency of Loveland/Fort Collins
Request: $22,000
Recommendation: $10,000 (Grant)
Volunteers of America—Seniors Handyman Program
Request: $3,500
Recommendation: $ 0
Rehabilitation and Visiting Nurse Association
Request: $15,000
Recommendation: $ 0
Springfield Court Early Leaming Center—Sliding Fees/Scholarships
Request: $17,500
Recommendation: $17,500 (Grant)
United Day Care Center—Sliding Fees/Scholarships
Request: $25,500
Recommendation: $25,500 (Grant)
Elderhaus Adult Day Programs—Multi-Cultural Group and Community Group Programs
Request: $7,213
Recommendation: $7,213 (Grant)
Court Appointed Special Advocates—CASA
Request: $12,344
Recommendation: $12,344 (Grant)
Respite Care—Sliding Fee Program
Request: $10,000
Recommendation: $7,500 (Grant)
Base Camp—Sliding Fee Program
Request: $19,685
Recommendation: $19,685 (Grant)
Northern Colorado AIDS Prevention—Case Mgmt &Homelessness Prevention
Request: $14,000
Recommendation: $10,000 (Grant)
Wingshadow—Day Care Salaries
Request: $10,000
Recommendation: $ 0
April 27, 2004 Page 4
Wingshadow—The Wing Homeless Youth
Request: $13,500
Recommendation: $ 0
The Woman's Center of Larimer County—Health Care Resources
Request: $15,000
Recommendation: $ 6,608 (Grant)
Catholic Charities Northern - Shelter and Supportive Services for the Homeless
Request: $30,000
Recommendation: $25,000 (Grant)
Catholic Charities Northern - Senior Services
Request: $15,000
Recommendation: $ 0
Sunshine School—Sliding Fee Tuition Assistance
Request: $15,500
Recommendation: $14,000 (Grant)
Crossroads Safehouse—Bilingual Front Desk Triage Assistance
Request: $19,553
Recommendation: $ 0
ELTC—Literacy &Employment Skills Training
Request: $15,000
Recommendation: $10,000 (Grant)
Disabled Resource Services—Access to Independence Program
Request: $13,500
Recommendation: $10,000 (Grant)
Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. —Comprehensive Housing Counseling
Request: $30,000
Recommendation: $25,000 (Grant)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda and Staff Report.
2. Attachment A - Background Information on the Competitive Process.
3. Attachment B —Affordable Housing Board's Listing of Priorities.
4. Attachment C—Background Information on the HOME and CDBG Program.
5. Attachment D—CDBG Comments on Proposals
6. Attachment E—Commission Memo to Council
7. Attachment F—Focus Questions
• AGENDA
April 27, 2004
City Council Study Session
Competitive Process for Allocating
Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Funds
I. Introductions and Background - 2 minutes
A. Summary of the Competitive Process —Julie Smith, Administrator, CDBG/HOME
Programs
B. Introduction of CDBG Commission Members—Robert Browning, Vice-Chair
II. FY 2004-2005 Program Application Screening and Recommendations - 8 minutes
A.. Commission Summary of Recommendations by Category—Robert Browning, Vice-
Chair
III. Council Questions and Comments Regarding the Commission's Recommendations - 20
minutes
• Commission members are prepared to answer Council questions regarding their
Recommendations for Funding.
•
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;
C', i
From: Julie Smith-Administrator, CDBG/HOME Programs
Thru: John F. Fischbach, City Manager "
Gregory Byrne, Director, CPES
Joe Frank, Director, Advance Plannin
i
I
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 FY 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 • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Colhns,CO 80522-0580 (970)22 i-657t.
FAX(970)224-6111 • TDD(970)224-6002 • E-mail:aplannmg(?vfcgov.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. 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.
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
• The amount of the City's CDBG Entitlement Grant for FY 2004-2005 is $1,219,000. The
Entitlement Grant will be combined with $220,400.57 of Reprogrammed funds and anticipated
Program Income of $120,000 to create a total of $1,559,400.57 of CDBG funds available for
programs and projects during the next CDBG Program year. CDBG Reprogrammed funds
include funds not expended in previously approved projects (in this case funds previously
allocated to Neighbor-to-Neighbor, Inc. to help purchase a new facility and unspent
administrative funds). Program Income includes anticipated repayments from rehab loan sand
home buyer assistance loans along with repayments from development loans,
The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
CDBG Program
AMOUNT SOURCE
$1,219,000.00 FY 2002 CDBG Entitlement Grant
220,400.57 CDBG Reprogrammed Funds
120,000.00 Anticipated Program Income
$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
1992 802,000 30,000 50,000 882,000
1993 1,091,000 50,000 90,000 1,231,000
1994 1,187,000 30,000 50,000 1,267,000
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
•
SELECTION PROCESS
The selection process for the City's FY 2004-2005 CDBG Program began on January 8, 2004,
when the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on community
development and affordable housing needs. The CDBG Program office placed legal
advertisements in local and regional newspapers starting in January to solicit requests for CDBG
funded programs and projects for FY 2004-2005. The application deadline was Thursday
February 26, 2004. At the close of the deadline the City received 32 applications requesting a
total of approximately $2.6 million.
Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council
on March 4 2004 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 18 the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to review the
housing proposals and prepared 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 CDBG 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.
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
Proposal covers the administrative costs of the FY 2004-2005 CDBG Program Administration
including salary, benefits and operating expenses for 2 staff positions.
• Request: $210,635
Recommendation: $210,635
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 501/o 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—3001' 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 project 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: UNTIED 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 wom carpets at the facility.
PF-7: CROSSROADS SHELTER REHAB
Request: $27,875
Recommendation: $16,050 Due on Sale Loan +5% Fee
Crossroads Safehouse seeks to renovate its shelter facility in order to provide a cleaner,
safer 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-10: NCAP CASE MANAGEMENT AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
Request: $14,000
Recommendation: $10,000 Grant
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 Nor-them 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 Latimer 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% AM)
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.
Total amount of CDBG funding requested = $2,689,095
A summary of the Commission's CDBG funding recommendations by category for the total
amount of funds available is as follows:
•
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 Uncommitted
$1,559,400 100.0 TOTAL
The total amount of CDBG funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was
approximately $2.7 million, however, only $1.5 million of CDBG funds are available. With the
amount of total requests far exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be
funded. Due to HUD funding limitations, some Public Service applications received no funds or
less 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.
Attachment E contains a letter to the City Council from the Commission providing further
information on their deliberations.
Attachment F contains the focus questions used by the Commission to review the applications.
• Attachment A
Background Information on the Competitive Process
for the Allocation of City Financial Resources
to Affordable Housing Programs/Projects
and Other Community Development Activities
In February of 1999, the City Council approved the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and
Strategies report,which contained the following strategy:
Change from an administrative funding mechanism...to a competitive application process
for the Affordable Housing Fund.
Between September and November of 1999, a subcommittee consisting of members from the
Affordable Housing Board and the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Commission
met with staff to review issues and develop options for establishment of a competitive process.
In addition, the staff solicited ideas from existing affordable housing providers. The
subcommittee established the following Mission Statement for their work:
Develop a competitive application process and establish a set of shared criteria for the
allocation of the City's financial assistance resources to affordable housing
projects/programs that address the City's priority affordable housing needs.
• Competitive Process
Five options for a competitive process were reviewed and discussed by the subcommittee. The
subcommittee reached a general consensus to support a competitive process that involved both
the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission. The option selected would have the
Affordable Housing Board providing recommendations to the City Council in regards to
affordable housing policy. In addition, the option would have the Affordable Housing Board
reviewing all affordable housing applications for CDBG, HOME and Affordable Housing funds.
The Board would then provide a priority listing of proposals to the CDBG Commission. The
CDBG Commission would then make the final recommendations to the City Council for funding.
Funding Cycles
The subcommittee also agreed that there should be two funding cycles per year, one in the spring
and the other in the fall. CDBG Program funds would be allocated in the spring to affordable
housing programs/projects and other community development activities (public services,public
facilities, etc.). HOME Program and Affordable Housing funds would be allocated in the fall
primarily to affordable housing programs/projects.
The staff and subcommittee agreed that overlaying the new process and cycles would be
heightened staff technical assistance to applicants. Both the subcommittee and staff recognize
• that a bi-annual process will require additional meetings by both the CDBG Commission and
Affordable Housing Board, and will require more time from current City staff, and increase the
City Council's involvement.
Schedule
The subcommittee also discussed two alternative schedules for the funding cycles. The option
selected incorporates a spring cycle that starts in January and ends in May, and a fall cycle that
starts in July and end in November.
Review Criteria
The subcommittee also discussed and agreed to a new set of review criteria to be used to rank
proposals. The criteria are divided into the following five major categories:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups
and provide longer benefits. The Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted
City goals and priorities. The Feasibility criteria reward projects for timeliness and documented
additional funding. The Leveraging Resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds
to the City (loans) and for their ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History
criteria help gage an applicant's ability to do the project and reward applicants that have
completed successful projects in the past (have good track records).
See next page for a detailed criteria scoring sheet.
Application Forms
Two new application forms have also been developed. One form would be used for Housing
proposals while to other form would be used for Non-Housing Proposals (public services, public
facilities, etc.).
City Council Adoption
On January 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 2000-13, formally adopting the
competitive process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities and the component parts discussed
above.
• Ranking Criteria for CDBG, HOME and Affordable Housing Funding
The ranking criterion is divided into five major categories.Each category is given a total number of points that has been weighed
according to their importance with respect to local and federal priorities.This ranking sheet will be used to assist the Community
Development Block Grant Commission(CDBGC)and the Affordable Housing Board(AHB)in the FY01 Competitive Funding
Process.CDBG and AHB members will rank projects according to the questions and criteria shown below.
Impact/Benefit(maximum 30 points)
I. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10)
(0-30%of AMI= 10 pts,31-50%=8 pts,51-80%=4 pts)
2. Project produces adequate community benefit related to cost? (0-5)
3. Does the project provide direct assistance for persons to gain self-sufficiency? (0-5)
4. Does the project provide long-term benefit or affordability? (0-10)
(1-10 yrs=3 pts, 11-19 yrs=6 pts,20 to 30 yrs=8 pts,and Permanent= 10 pis)
Sub-total
Need/Priority(maximum 15 points)
1. 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)
• Leveraeina Resources(maximum 25 points) Sub-total
1. Does the project allow the reuse of our funding? (0-8)
A. Principal and interest(30 year Amortization or less) 8 points
B. Principal and no interest or Principal and balloon payment 4 points
C. Declining balance lien(amount forgiven over time) I points
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
Suh-total
Capacity and History(maximum 15 points)
I. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project? (D-10)
2. If previously funded,has the applicant completed prior project and maintain regulatory compliance? (0-5)
3. If new,applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-15)
Sub-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 D
APRIL 2004 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Meeting held April 8, 2004
6:00 p.m. - 10:45 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
• meadors@reporterworks.com e-mail
1
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 adjoumed at 10:45 p.m.
2
0 0 0 ¢ � 0 � 0 � $ 0 0
Go 'a c C4 M CDZ $ N h N
O Vn m W
O i\ CDi O pCN h
d m � 0 ao 10 Vi v}
• e4 vi
L 0 � 0 � 0 0 � S 0 0 S 0 S
G O O LO u'i O O 0 O 0 0
C h O n S n N 0 S N F h S OD o00
N O Ci `o O V,
17 � 4'T e'} N b} e4 to:* 6M e4 O M
64
N yy
E o 0 0 �
c �
o E o 00
d o c o 0
v t7 c
cm —
U Lo
o
d m
CD
d 0 ^ O 0
o E o 0 0
c > E e 8 S g
NU- cE, r o Ci o n
u u
C to+ N
� = d u o
V � o
o
C o ca o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S o p rtr
o .fr o e» o es o 0 0 0 0
a = ci 0 � � o S o 0 0 0 +
• m S o co > o
x c o m co o co Ci o o LO 0
1+1 P 6- V N h M h n
�( V O toPr 64 e4 e4 e4 �} di � Vi N P
Z E N
� a 0000 ` 000000000 "'� �
:, o o o '� m
C C d o w o o a Lcoo S- N P. o L u -0 o E
O co M E = 'O O N S h co M C O O
C W S N N o E 'C 0 cd CO6 M N 0 E C
Q U 64 e4 vi v+ e4 6'} e4 t9. m O p E
{L = V} yNq �' ONE O
UJ
O
J W LJ
CL
N o a Z U +E m N
.a N > C < m
r O U m O N O m U
`p a
w u p x > `° E > > r o
U m m C C
V Q y O a N C x m O z 7 N
_O z
C iC U O v> C
O T _ .O O �., U E
"O -O -0 6 Q m O ¢ a O N O — N
E _ _ Y m m i r o
E a
U
z o
x o9u 0
U
7 L 3 U o U m u
• c� M 6 N N M V
� I� O
O 0 0 O LL LL LL L U
x S x x d Q d d d d . a
Funding Matrix Spring Cycle 2004
Public Service
Total Funds
Agency L Project Request Available Project Unfunded
Balance
$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
e PS-8 BASE Camp $19,685.00 $19,685.00 $0.00
u
t PS-10 NCAP $14,000.00 $10,000.00 $4,000.00
e
N
--au PS-11 Wingshodow-Salaries $10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00
d 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 L Project Request HOME
723 006.00
c AD-1 HOME Admin + Projects $723,006.QO $723,006.00
E Admin Only $72,300.00
Q 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.
H0-1 — 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.
R
• 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 fundina 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 fundina 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.
•
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 Ap lication 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 fundina 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 fundin 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 A plication
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 fundinca 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-4B, and PS-16 in order to
Addresses a high community need. provide consistent funding,
PS-5 - Elderhaus - $7,213 request
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend funding
of $6,500. Friendly amendment by Ms. Molander to recommend full funding;
amendment accepted. Motion approved unanimously.
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To reallocate $713 from
Elderhaus in favor of PS-13, for a total recommendation of $6,500. Motion
approved, 6-2.
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate the following: $713 to PS-5 from PS-13;
$2,000 from PS-20 to PS-13; $1500 from PS-4A to PS-13; $1500 from PS-4B to WC;
$2,000 from PS-10 to PS-13; total to PS-13 of$6,287. Motion died for lack of a second.
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Molander: To reallocate the following
to PS-13: $1,500 from PS-4A; $1,500 from PS-4B; $1,000 PS-10; $1,000 from PS-
18; $2,000 from PS-20; and to reallocate $713 from PS-13 to Elderhaus; total
funding recommendation of$7,213. Motion failed, 3-4, with one abstention.
Total recommended 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 pro2ram.
•
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
is
• 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 pro ram 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 pro ram efforts.
PS-13 —Women's Center. $15,000 request
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$2,608. At this point in the proceedings, the allocated funding had been appropriated,
and discussions were held over reallocating funds. Mr. Croissant proposed a friendly
amendment to add $3,500 to this proposal, with $2,000 subtracted from PS-1, $500
from PS-4A, and $1,000 from PS-4B; amendment not accepted. Mr. Kulischeck
proposed a friendly amendment to add $5,950, with $1,000 subtracted from PS-4A,
$750 from PS-5, $1,000 from PS-6, $1,000 from PS-10, and $1,000 from PS-18;
amendment not accepted. Motion approved, 6-1, with one abstention.
• Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To reallocate $713 from PS-5
in favor of the Women's Center. Motion approved, 6-2.
19
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate the following: $713 to PS-5 from PS-13;
$2,000 from PS-20 to PS-13; $1500 from PS-4A to PS-13; $1500 from PS-46 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: $1,600 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-413; $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 fundina level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Addresses a valid need of a special Lack of confidence in ensuring how the
population. funding will enable the program to
succeed. High percentage of program
subsidy requested in the absence of other
funding sources. Unclear on the structure
of case management. No minimum
amount needed set forth, and the program
will continue without the funding. Although
the applicant places a higher priority on
this funding than for PS-14, the
Commission is obliged to recommend
funding consistent with CDBG priorities.
•
21
PS-16 — Sunshine School - $15,500 request
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of
$9,000. Friendly amendment by Mr. Croissant to change the level to $12,400, or
80%, of the funding request; amendment accepted. Friendly amendment by Mr.
Browning to change the level to $14,000, or the minimum requested; amendment
accepted. Motion approved, 5-3.
Total recommended funding level - $14,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Highly valuable service. Good program. Cost per child is much higher than other
Good building. Good environment for the applicants; on that basis, the program is
kids served. Full funding may be oversubsidized. Need better marketing for
preferable to put the program on notice for higher-paying clients to subsidize lower-
next year regarding the funding income clients. Management in the past
equivalency and management concems. 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 'I
constant
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 fundina level — $25,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Serves a key part of low-income families The program could provide the same
with rental assistance. The program is services with less appropriation, based on
solid, with a good track record. Provides a history.
unique service.
PUBLIC SERVICE - CONCLUSION
Following allocation of available funding, moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr.
Croissant: To accept the recommended funding levels in toto. Frustration was
expressed with weighing intangible and subjective factors. Mr. Majerus commended the
Commission for the level of balance and careful thought in its deliberations. Motion
approved, 8-1.
24
Appendix
• Commission members to present to City Council on funding items:
HO-1, Home Buyer Assistance Mr. Browning
HO-2, FCHC First Street SRO Mr. Taylor
HO-3, Larimer Center for Mental Health Ms. Molander
HO-5, FCHC Sleepy Willow Mr. Taylor
AD-2, CDBG Admin Self-evident
PL-1, Rental Marketability Study Mr. Taylor
PF-1, United Way Housing Services Mr. Vanderheiden
PF-2, Turning Point Ms. Molander
PF-3, Win shadow Mr. Ta for
PF-4, CCN Mr. Croissant
PF-5, Sunshine School Mr. Vanderheiden
PF-7, Crossroads Mr. Vanderheiden
PS-1, Project Self-Sufficiency Ms. Molander
PS-2, VOA Handyman Mr. Browning
PS-3, RVNA Ms. Molander
PS-4A, Springfield Court Ms. Zimlich
PS-413, United Day Care Ms. Zimlich
PS-5, Elderhaus Ms. Molander
• PS-6, CASA r. Browning
PS-7, Respite CareEieSI
s. Molander
PS-8, BASE Cams. Zimlich
PS-10, NCAP r. Croissant
PS-11, Win shadow- Salr. Ta for
PS-12, Win shadow-Ther. Ta for
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-ITCrossroads Mr. Croissant
PS-18, ELTC Mr. Browning
PS-19, Disabled Resource Services I Ms. Molander
PS-20, Nei hbor to Nei hbor Mr. Croissant
•
25
Attachment E
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FR: Phil Majerus, Chair, CDBG Commission . :"?
DT: April 19, 2004
RE: Background on the CDBG Commission's Recoririnendations for the Fort Collins
Housing Corporation's Spring Competitive Pf ocess 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 first 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-term 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 (FW2) 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 Fall 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
Attachment F
Public Service Category
Focus Questions for CDBG Commission Decision Making
"The Big Framework"
One of the three main national objectives for CDBG funds is"BENEFIT to low and moderate
income persons or households."
Questions:
1) Is it serving the lower end income levels?
2) How many is it serving?
3) Is there a majority of Fort Collins area residents being served?
4) Is it a good cost/unit (understanding that the cost of case management is more than the cost
of a hot meal)?
5) Who else needs to be stepping up to the plate in terms of fundin or service (volunteers)?
6) Maslow's Hierarchy: Is it a more"feel good service", or is it critical in terms of:
a) Food, shelter or other basic needs
b) Health and safety issues
c) Serving a special population,or
d) Self-sufficiency or major empowerment (teaching to fish vs. giving a fish)?
7) Is there anyone else in the community who can or is serving this need?
8) Is CDBG being used as "gap financing", match money, or seed money?
9) Is this a program/project where CDBG$ is really making a difference for, i.e., -- it's nobody
else's "baby" or there's been a critical cut in funding?
10) Has project/program been aggressively seeking other funding sources?