HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/26/2004 - FALL CYCLE OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR ALLOCATI DATE: October 26, 2004 STUDY SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Ken Waldo FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
The fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources to affordable
housing projects/programs and community development activities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the City Council have any comments or questions with the recommendations for funding as
suggested by the CDBG Commission?
BACKGROUND
The CDBG Commission presents recommendations as to which programs and projects should
receive funding from the City's HOME Program for the FY 2004 Program year, which programs
and projects should receive funding from available Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)
Program funds,and which programs and projects should receive funding from the City's Affordable
Housing Fund.
The financial resources available for allocation include funds from the following sources:
$ 850,706 FY 2004 HOME Grant and Program Income
53,862 HOME-American Dream Grant
426,813 Available CDBG Funds and Program Income
695,898 City Affordable Housing Funds
$ 2,027,279 Total
The Commission's recommendations are presented below:
Summary of the
Community Development Block Grant Commission's
Recommendations for Funding
Request Recommendation Applicant—Project
$500,000 $500,000 City-Home Buyer Assistance
$450,000 $450,000 City- Land Bank Program
$426,000 $342,018 FCHC—Sleepy Willow
$136,455 $136,445 FCHC—300 First Street SRO
$250,000 $100,000 CARE Housing, Inc.
$ 56,000 $ 56,000 CASA Inc. —Harmony Visitation Center
October 26, 2004 Page 2
$ 87,500 $ 70,500 United Way—Housing Services Day Center
$225,000 $ 52,193 Crossroads Safehouse -Rehabilitation
$105,000 $ 52,000 Crossroads Safehouse—Outreach Center
$ 67,029 $ 0 Wingshadow Inc., - Facility Improvements
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 Program.
5. Attachment D -Background Information on the CDBG Program.
6. Attachment E - CDBG Commission's Comments on Proposals.
• AGENDA
October 26, 2004
City Council Study Session
Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Assistance
To Affordable Housing and Community Development Programs/Projects
I. Introductions and Background - 5 minutes
A. Summary of the Competitive Process—Ken Waido
B. Introduction of CDBG Commission Members— Bob Browning, Vice-Chair
II. Application Screening and Recommendations - 5 minutes
A. Application Process and Available Funds -Ken Waido
B. Commission Summary of Recommendations—Bob Browning
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.
•
• Summary of the
Community Development Block Grant Commission's
Recommendations for Funding
Request Recommendation Applicant-Project
$500,000 $500,000 City of Fort Collins - Home Buyer Assistance
$450,000 $450,000 City of Fort Collins -Land Bank Program
$426,000 $342,018 Fort Collins Housing Corp- Sleepy Willow
$136,455 $136,445 Fort Collins Housing Corp - 300 First Street SRO
$250,000 $100,000 CARE Housing, Inc.
$ 56,000 $ 56,000 CASA Inc. -Harmony House Visitation Center
$ 87,500 $ 70,500 United Way-Housing Services Day Center
$225,000 $ 52,193 Crossroads Safehouse- Rehabilitation
$105,000 $ 52,000 Crossroads Safehouse-Community Outreach Center
$ 67,029 $ 0 Wingshadow Inc., - Facility Improvements
Presented below is a listing of the recommendations by funding source.
CDBG Program ($426,813 available)
Recommendation Applicant- Project
$196,120 Fort Collins Housing Corp- Sleepy Willow
$ 56,000 CASA Inc. -Harmony House Visitation Center
• $ 70,500 United Way-Housing Services Day Center
$ 52,193 Crossroads Safehouse -Rehabilitation
$ 52,000 Crossroads Safehouse-Community Outreach Center
$426,813 Total (100%of available funds)
HOME Program($796,118 available)
Recommendation Applicant- Project
$500,000 City of Fort Collins - Home Buyer Assistance
$136,445 Fort Collins Housing Corp- 300 First Street SRO
$636,445 Total (80% of available funds)
HOME Program($108,450 for CHDOs)
Recommendation Applicant- Project
$ 0 There were no eligible applications for funding within this funding source.
$ 0 Total (0% of available CHDO funds)
Affordable Housing Fund ($695,898 available)
Recommendation Applicant- Project
$450,000 City of Fort Collins - Land Bank Program
$145,898 Fort Collins Housing Corp- Sleepy Willow
$100,000 CARE Housing, Inc.
• $695,898 Total (100% of available funds)
• BACKGROUND
At the November 16, 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 from the City's HOME Program for the FY 2004 Program year,which programs and
projects will receive funding from available Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program
funds, and which programs and projects will receive funding from the City's Affordable Housing
Fund.
The resolution establishing which programs and projects will receive HOME, CDBG, and City
Affordable Housing Fund dollars represents the culmination of the fall 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 staffs 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 funding. The CDBG Commission reviewed written applications, personally
interviewed each applicant, analyzed the applications, and formulated a list of recommendations to
the City Council as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
• The competitive process established refined criteria to determine priorities between proposals
received by the City. The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category is
given a total number of points that has been weighed according to their importance with respect to
local and federal priorities. The five major categories are:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The 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(via 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 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 July 20, 2004. These guidelines
• include:
• • HOME funds should generally be allocated as follows: 90%for Housing projects and
10%for Program Administration. HUD HOME Program regulations also require the
City to set aside 15% for Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
projects and allow an allocation of 5% for CHDO operations;
CDBG funds should generally be allocated as follows: 65%for Housing projects; 15%
for Public Services,and the balance for Public facilities and Program Administration.
• funds allocated to housing should generally be divided as follows: 70% for rental
projects and 30% for homeownership opportunities; and
• the average subsidy should be$7,400 per unit,with relatively more funding to projects
producing housing for lower income families.
The CDBG and HOME Programs are ongoing grant administration programs funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received
CDBG Program funds since 1975 and HOME Program funds since 1994. The City is an Entitlement
recipient of CDBG funds and a Participating Jurisdiction recipient of HOME funds,meaning the City
is guaranteed a certain level of funding each year. The level of funding is dependent on the total
amount of funds allocated to the programs by Congress and on a formula developed by HUD,which
includes data on total population, minorities as a percentage of population, income levels, housing
stock conditions,etc. Additional background information on the City's HOME and CDBG Programs
are presented in Attachments C and D respectively.
AVAILABLE FUNDS
•
•
• The amount of the City's FY 2004 HOME Grant available for projects is $542,256. The City is also
receiving a supplemental $53,862 from a HOME American Dream Grant. Added to the HOME
Grants will be $200,000 of estimated HOME Program Income to make a combined amount of
$904,568 available for projects. The HOME funds will be combined with$695,898 from the City's
Affordable Housing Fund and $379,120 of unallocated CDBG funds plus $50,000 of estimated
CDBG Program Income to create a potential pool of$2,027,279 of funds available for programs from
the fall cycle of the competitive process.
CDBG funds are typically allocated in the spring and are,thus,not available for use in the fall cycle of
the competitive process. However,the City did not allocate all of its CDBG funds in the spring cycle
of 2004 carrying over an amount of$426,813 for allocation in the fall cycle.
The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT SOURCE
$ 850,706` FY 2004 HOME Grant and Estimated Program Income
53,862 HOME—American dream Grant
695,898 City's Affordable Housing Fund
426,813 Unallocated CDBG Funds and Estimated Program Income
--------------------—------
$2,027,279 Total
• SELECTION PROCESS
On January 9, 2003, the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on
community development and affordable housing needs. The HOME/CDBG Program office placed
legal advertisements in local and regional newspapers starting in July to solicit requests for HOME
and CDBG funded programs and projects and for proposals for the use of funding from the City's
Affordable Housing Fund. The application deadline was Thursday August 19. At the close of the
deadline the City received ten(10)applications requesting a total of approximately$2.9 million. The
Fort Collins Housing Cooperation later amended their $1,000,000 Sleepy Willow Rehabilitation
application down to a request of$426,000.
Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on
September 1,2004 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on September 2,2004 copies of
the applications were distributed to the CDBG Commission and the Affordable Housing Board.
•
• On Thursday September 16, 2004, the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to
review the affordable housing proposals and formulate a list of priority projects which was forwarded
to the CDBG Commission (see Attachment B). On Thursday September 23, 2004, the CDBG
Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The
Commission then met on Thursday September 30 for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to
the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded within funds available from the
fall cycle of the competitive process. At this meeting the Commission reviewed the written
applications, the applicant's verbal presentation, the information provided during the question and
answer session,and reviewed the performance of agencies who received HOME funds,CDBG funds,
or other funding in previous years. The Commission then worked on the formulation of their list of
recommendations.
CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
HUD HOME regulations limit the amount of available funds that can be allocated to various
categories. Funds for Administrative purposes are limited to 10%of the HOME Grant which means
90%of the Grant must be used for housing projects. Within the 90%required for projects,the City is
required to set aside 15%for Community Housing Development Organization(CHDO)projects and
allow an allocation of 5% for CHDO operations (if any applications are received). Similarly,HUD
CDBG regulations limit the amount of available funds that can be allocated to various categories.
Funds for Administrative purposes are limited to 20% of the CDBG Grant and estimated Program
Income and funds for Public Services are limited to 15%. The City allocated all eligible funds for
• public services during the spring cycle of the competitive process and designated approximately 13%
for administrative purposes.
The Commission, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects
which best fit into the City's HOME and CDBG Programs,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.
L HOUSING PROJECTS
1. CITY OF FORT COLLINS —HOME BUYER ASSISTANCE
Amount of Request $500,000 Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee
Recommendation: $500,000 Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee
This program is administered by the Advance Planning Department and provides zero-percent
interest loans, to eligible first-time homebuyers. A 5% fee is added to the loan balance at the time
of repayment. The assistance covers down payment and closing costs to a maximum of$9,576 for
• households at 5 1%to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) and $19,200 for buyers at or below
50% of AMI. Approximately 52 households will be assisted with this funding. CDBG funding of
• $500,000 has already been allocated and must be matched with other funds. The combined
funding of CDBG and HOME will serve more than 100 families.
2. CITY OF FORT COLLINS—KECHTER PROPERTY
Amount of Request: $450,000 Due on Sale Loan15%simple interest fee
Recommendation: $450,000 Due on Sale Loan15%simple interest fee
This application is requesting funds to purchase a 10-acre site located at south of Kechter and
west of Ziegler Road. The City implemented the Land Bank Program to preserve scarce land
resources for affordable housing projects. Currently, the City has purchased 30 acres (three
properties),which will yield approximately 300-320 future affordable housing units.
3. FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY — SLEEPY WILLOW MARKETABILITY/
RENTENTION UPGRADE
Amount of Request: $426,000 Due on sale loan15%simple interest fee
Recommendation: $342,018 Due on sale loan15%simple interest fee
The Fort Collins Housing Corporation is requesting funds to increase the curb appeal of Sleepy
Willow with interior and exterior rehabilitation. The project proposes 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.
4. FORT COLLINS HOUSING CORPORATION — 300 FIRST STREET SRO
REHABILITATION
Amount of Request: $136,455 Due on sale loan15%simple interest fee
Recommendation: $136,455 Due on sale loan15%simple interest fee
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.
5. CARE HOUSING—ACQUISITION OF LAND
Amount of Request: $250,000 Due on Sale Loan15%simple interest fee
Recommendation: $250,000 Due on Sale Loan15%simple interest fee
• The proposed project involves the acquisition of land to be used in a Built Green affordable housing
demonstration project in Fort Collins.The Built Green units on a future site will be certified to ensure
• that the housing is healthier, safer and more durable than a typical new home. CARE is requesting
funds for a future site with the intention of constructing 40-50 affordable multi-family housing units
targeted towards very low income families earning between 30% and 50%of AMI.
IL PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. CASA'INC. OF LARIMER COUNTY—HARMONY HOUSE VISITATION CENTER
Amount of Request: $56,000 Due on sale loan15%simple interest fee
Recommendation: $56,000 Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee
This historic facility is used by families who are court ordered to have supervised visitation with
their children. Due to the age of the facility, it is in need of ongoing repairs. Improvements needed
to the facility are new roof, soffit, fascia, and gutters.
2. UNITED WAY—HOUSING SERVICES CENTER
Amount of Request: $87,500 Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee
Recommendation: $70,500 Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee (full legal funding amount
due to HUD regulations of the separation of Church and State activities)
United Way of Larimer County proposes to construct an approximately 18,000 square foot
• Housing Services Day Center using"green"building techniques. This facility will be both a
Salvation Army site and a permanent facility to address the services needed for the homeless and
near homeless population. CDBG funds are requested to purchase Lot 2, a Minor Subdivision
Plat of Conifer Industrial Park, in the City of Fort Collins (corner of Blue Spruce and Conifer
Street).
The proposed site for the Day Center is Lot 2 and Lot 3. Lot 3 is currently owed by Neighbor to
Neighbor. The land was purchased with CDBG funds from the City of Loveland and Larimer
County funds. Lot 2 is the adjoining lot to Lot 3. Transfer of Lot 3 ownership from Neighbor to
Neighbor to United Way is under way.
3. CROSSROADS SAFEHOUSE —25" ANNIVERSARY REHAB PROJECT
Amount of Request: $225,000 Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee
Recommendation: $ 52,193 Due on sale loan/5%simple interest 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
comprehensive rehabilitation is based on 5 and 10 year projections, which include installing a
split air conditioning system, bringing electric to up to code, repairing broken sliding doors,
upgrading sprinkler system, making roof repairs, finishing basement space, installing new carpet,
• landscaping for stormwater improvement and converting current office space to resident
bedrooms. The project serves 100 very low and low income households each year.
• 4. CROSSROADS SAFEHOUSE —COMMUNITY OUTREACH CENTER
Amount of Request: $105,000 Due on sale loan15%simple interest fee
Recommendation: $ 52,000 Due on sale loan15%simple interest fee
Crossroads Safehouse is requesting CDBG funds to relocate two buildings (house and barn) from
the Rule's farm site. The building would be used to create a Crossroads Community Outreach
Center and would house administrative offices, legal services, children's programs, community
education, life skills training and a public meeting space. Moving the administrative and program
offices would create space for more families.
5. WINGSHADOW—FACILITY IMPROVEMENT
Amount of Request: $67,029 Due on sale loan15%simple interest fee
Recommendation No funding.
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
• CDBG funds to resurface the parking lot.
Total amount of funding requested = $2,302,984
Total amount of funding available= $2,027,279
Total amount of funding allocated = $1,759,166
The total amount of funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately$2.3
million,however,only about$2.0 million of funds are available.With the amount of total requests far
exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be funded.
The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for four (4) proposals, partial funding for
five (5)proposals, and no funding for one(1)proposal. There were no eligible applications for the
HOME FY04-50 CHDO funds.The Commission's reasons for either full funding,or no funding, for
all projects are presented in Attachment E.
• The Commission has recommended allocating all(100%)of the available$426,813 of
CDBG funds.
• The Commission has recommended allocating all (80%) of the $796,118 available
HOME funds.
• The Commission has recommended allocating all (100%) of the $695,898 available
• from the Affordable Housing Fund.
• 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 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 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 pts)
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)
Sub-total
• Leveraeine Resources(maximum 25 paints)
1. Does the project allow the reuse of our funding? (0-8)
A. Principal and interest(30 year Amortization or less) 8 point
B. Principal and no interest or Principal and balloon payment 4 point
C. Declining balance lien(amount forgiven over time) I point
D. Grant(no repayment) 0 point
2. Project or agency leverages human resources(Volunteers) (0-7)
3. Project leverages financial resources?(Including in-kind) (0-10)
A. Less than 1:1 0 point
B. 1:1 to 1:3 4 point
C. 1:4 to 1:6 7 point
D. More than 1:7 10 Pon
Sub-total
Capacity and History(maximum 15 points)
1. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project? (0-10)
2. If previously funded,has the applicant completed prior project and maintain regulatory compliance? (0-5)
3. If new,applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-15)
Sub-total
GRAND TOTAL
•
Attachment B
• Fall 2004 Competitive Process
The Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting on September 16, 2004, and
formulated the following priority listing of affordable housing competitive process
proposals:
1. Home Buyer Assistance Program
2. 300 First Street SRO Project
3. Land Bank Program
CARE Housing
5. Sleepy Willow
•
•
• 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$9,576 (plus a
5% fee) 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 $61,950
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
$212,800.
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 68,400 723,174 166,677 958,251
2003-04 72,651 598,970 250,000 726,510
0 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 rental
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
• ATTACHMENT D
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
on the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
CDBG PROGRAM NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the CDBG Program is Athe 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. 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:
2004 100% 0% 0%
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%
• 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
Housing 43% 54% 73% 72% 64% 73% 73% 63%
Public Facilities 21% 18% 11% 2% 5% 2% 2% 13%
Planning/Admin. (20%) 14% 14% 7% 11% 17% 10% 10% 9%
Economic Development 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Public Services (15%) 9% 14% 9% 15% 14% 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 2001 Administrative percentage was 12%.
•
,a
t. a ..�..
5
OLOCK
Y
Meeting .held Sepfiem,,ber 30, 2004
�000t3 p M.
{,. I
✓, kkm r Fro,� �5y
eirsra Q. ,
Commission members present:
Phil Majerus, Chair
Robert Browning, Vice Chair
Eric Berglund
Michael Kulischeck
Tia Molander
• Laura Sutherlin
Jeff Taylor
Dennis Vanderheiden
Cheryl Zimlich
Staff:
Ken Waido
Heidi Phelps
Maurice Head
Julie Smith
Katherine Martinez
Produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
171 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
970.482.1506
• 970.482.1230 fax
meadors@reportenmorks.com e-mail
MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
• Extensive discussion was held concerning the Council priorities, and the Commission's
efforts to adhere to them, concerning suggested percentages of individual funding
sources to be applied to the provision of housing, rehabilitation, and public facilities
versus the overall percentages to be applied to those programs. While the suggested
percentages represent worthy goals, the dynamics of the applications for each funding
cycle may dictate different results.
At the conclusion of motions and discussions regarding funding: Moved by Ms. Zimlich
and seconded: To accept the funding recommendations in toto. Discussion was
held that the Commission was striving to meet the highest needs of the community with
the funding sources available. Motion passed, 7-2.
Designated speakers for the October 26, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Council study session:
HO-1: Mr. Taylor
HO-2 Mr. Taylor
HO-3: Mr. Berglund
HO-4: Ms. Molander
HO-5: Mr. Vanderheiden
PF-1: Mr. Browning
• PF-2: Ms. Molander
PF-3: Ms. Sutherlin
PF-4: Mr. Vanderheiden
PF-5: Mr. Taylor
•
2
FALL FUNDING CYCLE
• HO-1 — Home Buyer Assistance - $500,000
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To recommend full funding,
from the following sources: $246,138, HOME funds; $200,000, HOME program
income; $53,862, HOME American Dream funds. Friendly amendment offered by Mr.
Browning, but declined by the mover: To add the stipulation that no more assistance is
offered than needed, and that the assistance is not applied if monthly payments are not
affected. This concept will be explored in future meetings. Motion passed
unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $500,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Highly successful program, both in short The program might be better served by
and long terms. Private lenders report a tailoring the amount of the assistance to
great demand for the program. The funds the specific need; this option is being
are fully used year to year, demonstrating studied.
the need.
• HO-2 — Land Bank Program - $450,000
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved unanimously. Discussion was held over the possibility of the Land
Bank receiving program income in the future through partnering with a for-profit entity.
Motion passed, 5-4.
Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate funds
through adding $297,000 to the Affordable Housing Fund, by reducing the HO-2
Land Bank program recommendation by $200,000 and the HO-3 Sleepy Willow
program recommendation for the remainder. Discussion was held over the priority
guidelines as set by City Council. Motion failed 3-6.
Total recommended funding level - $450,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
The program invests in longer-term needs The treatment of this application and HO-5
when vacant land will be even less could be viewed as inconsistent, i.e.,
available than in the present day. Good funding for acquisition in full rather than in
insurance program for the city. The use of part. The land is held for potential use in
any land purchased is tied to affordable the future even though a present need can
housing. Funds from the Affordable be shown.
• Housing Fund are the only funds that can
be used to fund this program.
3
HO-3 — Sleepy Willow Apartments -$426,000
• Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of
$426,018; sources, $329,120 CDBG and the remainder from the Affordable
Housing Fund. Friendly amendment, accepted by mover and second: Funding to
be contingent upon complying with the recommendations of the consultants
report. The Commission strongly urges the applicant to seek alternate funding sources
to aid the remainder of the $790,000 in needs. Staff noted that the preferred use of the
Affordable Housing Fund is for housing production. Motion passed 5-2, with two
abstentions.
Moved by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding of PF-1 CASA, Inc. Discussion
was held concerning available funding for the motion. Moved by Mr. Browning,
seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding, with $48,807 reallocated
from HO-3 Sleepy Willow recommended funding. Motion failed 4-5.
Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate funds
through adding $297,000 to the Affordable Housing Fund, by reducing the HO-2
Land Bank program recommendation by $200,000 and the HO-3 Sleepy Willow
program recommendation by $97,000. Discussion was held over the priority
guidelines as set by City Council. Motion failed 3-6.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
• $45,000 for rehabilitation of Crossroads Safehouse in accordance with the
priorities established by the City's Facilities Department. Source: Reallocation
from HO-3 Sleepy Willow funding recommendation. Friendly amendment
proposed by Mr. Majerus, accepted by the mover and second: To allocate an
additional $7,193 from CDBG program income, to be applied to addressing lead-
based paint issues. Motion passed, 7-2.
Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To reduce HO-3 Sleepy Willow
recommended funding by $52,000 of CDBG funding; and to recommend
allocation of those funds to PF-4 Crossroads Safehouse Community Outreach
Center. Mr. Majerus noted that this motion was made both in response to the needs of
Crossroads Safehouse and the dissatisfaction expressed with the management fee
inherent in the Sleepy Willow application. Motion passed, 7-2.
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Mr. Browning: To reduce HO-3 Sleepy
Willow recommended funding by $56,000 of CDBG funding; and to recommend
allocation of those funds to PF-1 CASA, Inc. Harmony House. Mr. Kulischeck noted
the urgent needs of Harmony House as precedence over items of less need in Sleepy
Willow. Motion passed, 6-3.
Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Mr. Browning: To increase funding to
Sleepy Willow by $69,018. Source: Affordable Housing Fund. Motion passed
• unanimously.
4
Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate CDBG-
• sourced recommended funding for PF-2 United Way and PF-3 Crossroads
Safehouse to HO-3 Sleepy Willow. Motion failed 2-7.
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reallocate $10,500 of
recommended funding for PF-2 United Way to HO-3 Sleepy Willow. Motion failed,
4-4-1.
Total recommended fundina level - $342,018
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Prior funding was withheld pending study; Program seems to focus on minimum rent
now the study is complete, and findings rather than 30% AMI; as such, it is not
support funding. The project provides presently competitive with other minimum-
housing for very low income that needs to rent locations. The consultant's report still
stay in the City's inventory. The applicant shows a loss in this difficult market. Other
has taken appropriate steps to reduce the projects show more solid promise. The
amount requested. Measures have been project has serious challenges to its
taken to reduce the operating loss. success, and funding brings risk to public
Funding would help the program's moneys. It is not determined whether
competitiveness. This project was funding would allow the project to carry its
acquired when there was a high need and ongoing losses. Probable short-term
is following measures of improvement success of the project seems questionable
• being recommended by the consultiant's with present resources. The problems are
report as suggested by the Commission. I too broad in scope to be easily resolved.
HO-4, FCHC 300 First Street SRO Rehab - $136,455
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To recommend full funding;
source, HOME FY04 funds. Motion passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $136,455
Pros of Application Cons of Application
The project serves a unique and High numbers seen in the management
underserved niche of very low- and no- fee.
income residents. The funding requested
is appropriate for the number of units.
•
5
• HO-5, CARE Housing, Inc. -$250,000
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full
funding. Discussion was held over the appropriate amount of seed money needed by a
project to be credible in the eyes of potential funding sources. Motion failed, 4-5.
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding
of$100,000. Motion passed, 8-1.
Total recommended funding level - $100,000
Pros of Application Cons of A lication
Applicant has an excellent track record in Funding request is higher than needed at
providing affordable housing. The project this early juncture, particularly without a
will add a significant number of affordable site having been selected. Funds are
units to the City's inventory. Funding being used somewhat speculatively. A
represents a vote of confidence by the City concern was expressed of encumbering
when the applicant approaches lenders. If too much funding for a speculative site
a site is not selected, the applicant will not when other more immediate projects can
use the funding. I use the funding.
• PF-1, CASA, Inc. — Harmony House Visitation Center - $56,000
Moved by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding. Discussion was held
concerning available funding for the motion. Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by
Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding, with $48,807 reallocated from HO-3
Sleepy Willow recommended funding. Motion failed 4-5.
Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Mr. Browning: To reduce HO-3 Sleepy
Willow recommended funding by $56,000 of CDBG funding; and to recommend
allocation of those funds to PF-1 CASA, Inc. Harmony House. Mr. Kulischeck noted
the urgent needs of Harmony House as precedence over items of less need in Sleepy
Willow. Motion passed, 6-3.
Total recommended funding level - $56,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Program addresses a community need. Full leverage for historical funding and/or
The repairs are sorely needed. The alternatives may not have been fully
funding request is surprisingly low when explored. Long-term maintenance has not
viewing the scope of repairs. Funding been addressed.
would help restore an historical site.
•
6
• PF-2, United Way— Housing Services Day Center - $87,500
Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding.
Mr. Waido advised the Commission regarding HUD concerns of apportioning off any
part of the building committed to worship services. This reduces funding eligibility to
$70,500. Motion amended by Mr. Berglund, with consent of the second: To
recommend funding to the legally applicable limit of$70,500. Motion passed
unanimously.
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate $40,500 of recommended funding from
PF-2 United Way in favor of PF-3 Crossroads Safehouse. Motion failed for lack of
a second.
Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate CDBG-
sourced recommended funding for PF-2 United Way and PF-3 Crossroads
Safehouse to HO-3 Sleepy Willow. Motion failed 2-7.
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate $40,500 of
recommended funding from PF-2 United Way in favor of PF-4 Crossroads
Safehouse. Motion failed 4-4, with one abstention.
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reallocate $10,500 of
• recommended funding for PF-2 United Way to HO-3 Sleepy Willow. Motion failed,
4-4-1.
Total recommended funding level - $70,500
Pros of Application Cons of Application
The proposal encompasses a public The ready availability of these facilities can
facility that addresses a real and ongoing serve as a magnet for nonresidents who
community need. The Commission has come to use these services. A question
been in agreement concerning the need of exists whether this project would proceed
this facility. Leveraging is effective, without this funding.
particularly for sources such as Loveland.
The applicant's diligence is impressive.
The project scores high on the ranking
criteria.
•
PF-3, Crossroads Safehouse —25th Anniversary Rehab - $225,000
• Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$45,000 for rehabilitation in accordance with the priorities established by City's
facilities Department. Source: Reallocation from HO-3 Sleepy Willow CDBG
funding recommendation. Friendly amendment proposed by Mr. Majerus,
accepted by the mover and second: To allocate an additional $7,193 from CDBG
program income, to be applied to address lead-based paint issues. Motion
passed, 7-2.
Total recommended funding level - $52,193
rprogram
os of Application Cons of Application
serves a high need. Repairs Other priorities can be addressed in futurethe location more attractive applications or by other funding sources.in need who seek to use it.nd electrical repairs presentpriorities of this application.
Structural concerns are higher need than
aesthetic concerns.
PF-4, Crossroads Safehouse — Community Outreach Center"- $105,000
• Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend full funding,
with $98,000 reallocated from HO-3 Sleepy Willow recommended funding. Motion
failed, 3-6.
Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To reduce HO-3 Sleepy Willow
recommended funding by $52,000 of CDBG funding; and to recommend
allocation of those funds to PF-4, Crossroads Safehouse Community Outreach
Center. Mr. Majerus noted that this motion was made both in response to the needs of
Crossroads Safehouse and the dissatisfaction expressed with the management fee
inherent in the Sleepy Willow application. Motion passed, 7-2.
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To reallocate $40,500 of
recommended funding from PF-2 United Way in favor of PF-4 Crossroads
Safehouse. Motion failed 4-4, with one abstention.
Total recommended funding level - $52,000
rneedsmore
s of A lication Cons of Application
addresses a high and unique Many unforeseen expenses are possible
ed and facility. The facility or even inherent in moving a building. The
oom, and support by the City application does not rank high with
te more support by others. housing needs. Other funding sources
will be destroyed if not put to may well be needed.
use.
8
• PF-5, Wingshadow, Inc. Facility Improvements - $67,029
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of A lication cons of A lication
The project is admirable and effective. The parking lot repair is not a high priority
as compared to housing. Although it is
admirable that the program is working to
be debt-free, it could consider an
encumbrance in order to fund this project.
commission members are not reassured
that all reasonable funding sources have
been explored.
•
•
9