HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/05/2002 - RESOLUTION 2002-015 ESTABLISHING A GEOGRAPHIC LOCA AGENDA .ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 31
DATE: February 5, 2002
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM:
Ken Waido
SUBJECT:
Resolution 2002-015 Establishing a Geographic Location Priority Policy for the Allocation of
Funding Through the Competitive Process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. The Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG
Commission also recommend adoption of the location priority policy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City uses a competitive process to allocate financial assistance to programs and projects that
expand or preserve the inventory of affordable housing and/or provide needed community services
to the citizens of Fort Collins. The City allocates funding from the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) federal programs and the City's own
Affordable Housing Fund through the competitive process. In most cases,applications are received
for the use of funds at locations within the city limits and are for the benefit of the citizens of the
city. However,occasionally, a proposal is received for the use of funds at a location that is outside
the city limits. On November 6, 2001, the City Council directed staff to develop a geographic
location policy that would help determine where City funds could be allocated through the
competitive process. With the passage of this Resolution, the Council will establish a policy that
indicates funding priority will be given to projects and programs that are located within the city
limits or within the City's Growth Management Area(GMA)boundary and can demonstrate a direct
benefit to the citizens of Fort Collins. The policy, while stating priority will be given to locations
within the city limits or GMA boundary, does not state that a program or project must be located
within the city limits or the GMA.
BACKGROUND:
During the fall 2001 cycle of the competitive process, the City received an application from
Bethphage to acquire a property located in the Imperial Estates Subdivision,located outside the city
limits, to be used as a group home for developmentally disabled individuals. The Bethphage
proposal was reviewed by the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Commission which
discussed and debated the benefits of the services provided to Fort Collins citizens and the location
of the property outside the city limits. The Commission eventually recommended that the Council
approve funding for the project in an amount lower that what was requested by the applicant.
Council, in its review of the Bethphage proposal,also expressed some questions and concerns with
the property's location outside of the city limits. Council approved the funding amount
DATE: a rnary 3,M
ITEM NUMBER: 31
recommended by the CDBG Commission for the project, but also directed staff to develop a
geographic location policy that would help determine where City funds could be allocated through
the competitive process in future cycles.
Staff developed a draft policy that was reviewed by both the CDBG Commission and the Affordable
Housing Board. Staffs initial draft policy set an exact location limitation that proposals requesting
funding through the City's competitive process mast be located within the City's GMA boundary.
Neither the CDBG Commission nor the Affordable Housing Board supported such a policy that set
an absolute restriction requiring sites to be within the GMA. Both bodies believed the City should
remain flexible in terms of site location and that the primary concern should be whether the project
or program provides a benefit or services to the citizens of Fort Collins. However, both bodies
believed that priority should be given to projects located within the GMA.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARDS RECOMMENDATION
At its regular monthly meeting on January 3,2002,the Affordable Housing Board discussed a draft
policy that would limit funding allocations through the competitive process to locations within the
City's GMA boundary. The Board did not support a policy limiting sites to the GMA. The Board
voted to recommend a policy be adopted that gives priority to proposals within the GMA,serves the
people and workers of Fort Collins,and does not contribute to urban sprawl. A copy of the Board's
minutes is attached.
CDBG COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
At its regular monthly meeting on January 10,2002,the CDBG Commission discussed a draft policy
that would limit funding allocations through the competitive process to locations within the City's
GMA boundary. The Commission also did not support a policy that limited funding to sites only
within the GMA. The Commission voted to recommend adoption of a policy that gives preference
to projects within the GMA boundary. A copy of the Commission's minutes is attached.
IMPLEMENTATION
The City utilizes a set of ranking criteria (copy attached) to help determine which applications
requesting funding through the competitive process best address identified affordable housing and
community development needs in the city and established City policies. Points are assigned based
on how well individual applications address the established criteria. There is no minimum point
total required in order to receive funding,however,the higher an application's point total the more
likely it is to receive funding because its score would be higher as compared to other proposals in
the competitive process.
Implementation of the proposed policy would involve the scores of several existing criteria as
discussed below.
In the"ImpactBenefit"section,question#2 asks if the project produces adequate community benefit
related to cost. In order to receive points for this criterion,the application needs to describe how it
benefits the citizens of Fort Collins. This benefit is then reviewed as a ratio of housing units per
dollar of subsidy requested or as a ratio of persons served through a community service per dollar
of requested funding. Thus,the answer to this question is not dependent on a site specific location,
DATE: February 5,2002 3 ITEM NUMBER:
meaning a proposal could be located outside the city limits and outside the GMA boundary,and still
receive points.
In the "Need/Priority" section a couple of existing questions will help implement the proposed
policy. Question#1 of this section asks if the proposal meets a priority of the City's Consolidated
Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a Department of Housing and Urban Development requirement for
recipients of federal funding to have a plan as to how federal and local financial resources will be
used to address affordable housing and community development needs. Projects/programs listed in
the Consolidated Plan are located inside the city limits. Thus, the answer to this question is a
location site specific answer. Proposals located inside the city limits would receive points,but those
located outside the city limits would not. This would help establish a"priority"to proposals within
the city limits.
Question #2 in this section asks if the project meets the goals and objectives of City Plan and the
Priority Needs and Strategies study. In order to score points according to this question,a proposal
must address an affordable housing or service need priority from the Priority Needs and Strategies
study and help implement City Plan. Since a major purpose of City Plan is growth management
through the established GMA boundary,the answer to this question is also a location site specific
answer. A proposal located outside the GMA boundary would not score any points for this question
because such a location would not be supportive of growth management purposes of City Plan. A
location within the GMA would score points for this question and help establish a "priority" for
proposals located within the GMA.
The combination of scores from question#1 and question#2 in the"Need/Priority" section would
help give the highest priority to proposals located inside the city limits, because such a proposal
would score points for both questions. A proposal located outside the city limits but within the
GMA would score points for question #2 but not question #1, and a proposal located outside the
GMA would not score any points for either question. These are the existing ranking criteria that
would implement the proposed policy.
. RESOLUTION 2002-015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ESTABLISHING A GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION PRIORITY POLICY
FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDING THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS
WHEREAS,the City of Fort Collins allocates financial assistance to programs and projects
that expand or preserve the inventory of affordable housing and/or provide needed community
services to the citizens of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the City uses a competitive process to analyze and prioritize proposals for
funding for affordable housing and needed community services to assure that funding is provided
to the applications that best fit the City's goals and policies; and
WHEREAS,on November 6,2001,the City Council directed staff to develop a policy that
helps determine where City funds could be allocated through the competitive process.
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That allocations of funding through the competitive process shall be subject
to the following:
• a. Funding priority will be given to projects/programs that are located within the
city limits or within the boundaries of the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area(GMA).
b. Projects/programs must demonstrate that they provide a direct and substantial
benefit or services to the citizens of Fort Collins and help further the City's
affordable housing and community development program goals in order to
receive funding.
Section 2. That City staff may establish administrative criteria to implement the policy
established in Section 1 hereof.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
5th day of February, A.D. 2002.
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
. City Clerk
Limiting the City' s Financial Assistance to the Growth Management
Area (GMA)
City Council asked staff to develop a policy determining
appropriate locations for programs receiving funding from the
City through the competitive process. Staff has developed a
resolution containing draft policy limiting funding allocations
to areas within the City' s Growth Management Area (GMA) . The GMA
is about 75 square miles in size, and is the area Fort Collins
will likely grow into. Staff presented the draft policy to the
AHB for comment and recommendation to the Council . There was
much discussion and debate about the need for this policy and its
wording.
David Danforth moved: The AHB does not support this resolution as part of the
competitive process; Kay Rios 2°a. Motion defeated. (2 in favor, 1 abstained,6 against).
Discussion revealed concerns regarding sprawl and the distance between affordable housing
projects and the jobs of those living there and therefore the related traffic concerns for the City.
Jon Fairchild moved: The wording in the resolution be changed to:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that allocations of funding through the competitive process give priority to
projects within the geographic boundaries of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area
(GMA);David McKelfresh,2nd
Mary Glade moved: The AHB prefers projects within the GMA. However,also important
to the AHB other than geographical location is whether a project serves the people and
workers of Fort Collins and that sprawl is not increased; Jane Phelan,2"a. Motion carried.
(5 in favor,4 against).
The amended motion carried (8 in favor, 1 against).
Community Development Block Grant Commission
Meeting of January 10,2002
Page 2
GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATION OF FUNDING POLICY
Mr. Waido gave a brief history of the origination of this policy, with Council
questions concerning the Bethphage project. In response to the situation; Staff
drafted a poricy that limits funding of projects and programs to those that have a
physical location inside the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary. The
proposed policy is scheduled to be presented to Council on February 5.
Federal regulations mandate that HOME dollars be spent within the City limits.
There was a desire to consider worthy applicants at least within the GMA. The
Affordable Housing Board has recommended that the City give priority to
projects within the GMB, but did not find desirable a hard-and-fast arbitrary
boundary of the GMA. Staffs draft policy was in response to the perceived
direction by Council to set a solid boundary.
In response to questions, staff explained that the GMA boundary is the same as
the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary. The Affordable Housing Board felt that
projects that benefit the citizens of the city should be considered without specific
rule as to boundaries. Bethphage is the first funded project to date that exists
outside of city boundaries. It was noted that such projects as Catholic Charities
Northern and the Food Bank routinely extend services to clients who are not city
residents.
Regardless of any preferential policies, Council will have the ultimate authority to
approve funding for applicants. However, under the proposed policy, applicants
would need to show a benefit to city residents as part of their baseline
qualifications.
Discussion was held as to the desired arbitrariness of the boundaries.
Commission members raised hypothetical situations of applicants who would
benefit city residents but have a physical location outside of the GMA. Stringent
restrictions lessen the Commission's ability to address the situations before it.
Commission members spoke favorably of a policy of preference rather than
inclusiontexclusion. It was noted that Bethphage received reduced funding due
to location concerns; under the proposed policy, it would be fully qualified.
Mr. Waido noted that the staffs recommendation grew out of the Council
direction. He stated that based upon the discussion by the Affordable Housing
Board and the apparent direction of the discussion of the CDBG Commission,
staff would likely amend its approach to the policy. It is unlikely that Council
would revert to the actual city limits as boundaries for the applicants.
Community Development Block Grant Commission
Meeting of January 10,2002
Page 3
If the policy is for arbitrary boundaries, points and preferences would not apply. If
the policy is for preference, location may then become a matter of weighting
within individual applications.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: That the CDBG
Commission recommend a policy that location in regard to the Growth
Management Area boundary be part of a ranking criteria rather than an
arbitrary policy, with a preference factor given to projects within that
boundary. Mr. Majerus advocated continuation of the present lack of policy but
felt that the motion as framed was preferable to an arbitrary boundary. Motion
approved unanimously.
•
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.
Impact/Benefit(maximum 30 points)
1. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10)
(all units 0-30% of AMI = 10pts, at least half of the units at or below 30% of AMI and the
remaining units below 50% of AMI= 8pts, at least one quarter of the units at or below 50% of
AMI and at least one quarter of the units at or below 30% of AMI and.the remaining units
below 80% of AMI=6pts, at least half of the units at or below 50% of AMI and the remaining
units below 80% of AMI=4pts.,all units between 50-80%AMI=2 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 or maintain
independence? (0-5)
4. Does the project provide long-term benefit or affordability? (0-I0)
(1-10 yrs=3 pts, I 1-19 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)
Sub-total
Leveracine Resources (maximum 25 points)
1. Does the project allow the reuse of our funding? (0-8)
A. Principal and interest(30 year Amortization or less) 8 points
B. Principal and no interest or Principal and balloon payment(repayment) 4 points
C. Declining balance lien(amount forgiven overtime) I points
D. Grant(no repayment) 0 points
2. Project or agency leverages human resources(Volunteers) (0-7)
3. Project leverages other financial resources?(Including in-kind) (0-10)
A. Less than 1:1 0 points
B. 1:1 to 1:3 4 points
C. 1:4 to 1:6 7 points
D. More than 1:7 10 points
Sub-total
Capacity and History(maximum 15 points)
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 (0-5)
compliance?
3. If new, applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-15)
Sub-total
GRAND TOTAL