Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/02/2000 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE CITYS FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 24A-D DATE: May 2, 2000 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ken Waido SUBJECT: i Items Relating to the City's Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnerships Programs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions and of the Ordinances on First Reading. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2000-66 Approving the FY 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant Program for the City of Fort Collins. B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2000-67 Approving the FY 2000 Home Investment is Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the Home Investment Partnerships(HOME)Program provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to address such needs.The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two resolutions and two ordinances. The first resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG funds for the FY 2000-2001 Program year,which starts on October 1, 2000. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The second resolution establishes only the major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2000-2001 Program year. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds will be determined in November as a result of the fall funding cycle of the competitive process for the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. The ordinances appropriate funds to be received for the CDBG and HOME programs, and transfer into the federal 2000-2001 fiscal year programs unexpended program funds from prior year CDBG programs. DATE: May 2, 2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-D BACKGROUND: The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two resolutions. The first resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funds for the FY 2000-2001 Program year, which starts on October 1, 2000. The second resolution establishes only the major funding categories within the Home Investment Partnership(HOME)Program for the FY 2000-2001 Program year. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds will be determined in November as a result of the fall funding cycle of the competitive process for the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housing programs/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 the written applications for affordable housing projects and forwarded a priority ranking of proposals, as well as comments,to the CDBG Commission. See Attachment`B"for copies of the Board's materials sent to the CDBG Commission. The CDBG Commission, in addition to reviewing the written applications,personally interviewed each applicant,analyzed the applications,and formulated a list of recommendations to the City Council as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The competitive process established refined criteria to determine priorities between proposals received by the City. The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category is given a total number of points that has been weighed according to their importance with respect to local and federal priorities. The five major categories are: 1. ImpactBenefit 2. Need/priority 3. Feasibility 4. Leveraging Resources 5. Capacity and History The ImpactBenefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups. The Need/priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted City goals and priorities. The Feasibility criteria reward projects for timelines and documented additional funding. The leveraging resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds to the City (loans) and for their ability to leverage other resources. And,the Capacity and History criteria help gauge 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; 10% for Program Administration; 10% for Public Facilities; and 15% for Public Services; 0 funds allocated to housing should generally be divided as follows: 70% for rental DATE: May 2, 2000 3 ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-D 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 1976-77 the City received HUD CDBG discretionary grants. Since FY 1977-78,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 2000-2001 is $1,175,000. The Entitlement Grant will be combined with $34,358 of CDBG Program Income and $93,544 of Reprogrammed funds to create a total of$1,302,902 of CDBG funds available for programs and projects during the next CDBG Program year. CDBG Program Income includes funds returned to the City through the payment of past housing rehabilitation loans. CDBG Reprogrammed funds include funds not expended in previously approved projects. The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds: CDBG Program AMOUNT SOURCE $1,175,000 FY 2000 CDBG Entitlement Grant 34,358 CDBG Program Income 93,544 CDBG Reprogrammed Funds -------------------------------------- $1,302,902 CDBG Total DATE: May 2, 2000 4 ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-D 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 1990 645,000 50,000 30,000 725,000 1991 728,000 160,000 30,000 918,000 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 SELECTION PROCESS The selection process for the City's FY 2000-2001 CDBG Program began on January 13, 2000, when the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on community development and 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 2000-2001.The application deadline was Thursday February 24. At the close of the deadline the City received 28 applications requesting a total of approximately $2.5 million. Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on March 2 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on March 2 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 23,the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to review the housing proposals and prepare a priority listing of applications to the CDBG Commission. On Wednesday April 12, and Thursday April 13, the Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on Wednesday April 19,for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded for the FY 2000-2001 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 1999-2000 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 anticipated Program Income. This means the 20% limitation for Planning and Administrative purposes is$260,580. CDBG funds for Public Services are limited to 15% of the total of the Entitlement Grant and anticipated Program Income, making the amount $181,403. Ma 2, 2000 5 ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-D ATE: y 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—Maximum 20% of CDBG Funds - $260,580 City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration Proposal covers the administrative costs of the FY 2000-2001 CDBG Program Administration including salary,benefits and operating expenses for 2 staff positions. Request: $139,687 Recommendation: $139,687 City of Fort Collins—BAVA Subarea (Neighborhood) Plan Request for matching funds for a subarea (neighborhood) plan for the Buckingham, Andersonville, and Alta Vista neighborhoods. The plan will cover topics such as land use, redevelopment,transportation, rehabilitation, storm drainage, etc. Request: $100,000 Recommendation: $80,000 Paradigm Development and Consulting,Inc.—Planning,Capacity Building and Admin Project This project will identify undeveloped properties in the urban growth area for future affordable housing development. The properties will be protected for affordable housing development by using means such as land banking,deed restrictions,land trusts, etc. Request: $70,900 Recommendation: $0 Acquisition Habitat for Humanity Request for funding for the purchase of three lots. Request: $150,000 Recommendation: $75,000 Subsidy to be provided as deferred zero-interest loans, due-on-sale for three housing units. FM Fort Collins,L.P.—Fox Meadows Apartments Request is for funding for land acquisition,however,the applicant already owns the property DATE: May 2, 2000 6 ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-D and CDBG funds can not be used for reimbursement payments. Request: $250,000 The proposal was withdrawn by the applicant. Neighbor to Neighbor,Inc. Request for a grant to help acquire an existing apartment complex consisting of 24 units located at 233 N. Meldrum Street. Request: $300,000 The proposal was withdrawn by the applicant. Brisben Companies—Park South Apartments Request for assistance in the payment of City Development Impact Fees. Request: $220,000 Recommendation: $0 Housing Elizabeth Street Senior Apartments Request by Kaufman and Broad for funds to pay City Development Impact/Building Permit Fees to help construct 50 senior apartments on West Elizabeth Street. Request: $250,000 Recommendation: $250,000 Subsidy to be provided as a 30-year loan at 3% interest with a 10-year balloon. CSU Habitat for Humanity—CSU House Project Grant request to help construct a single-family home in northeast Fort Collins. Request: $4,200 Recommendation: $ 10,512 Increased funding as a grant to be used to pay City Development Impact Fees. DATE: May 2, 2000 7 ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-D Homeownership Assistance City of Fort Collins CDBG Program—Homebuyer Assistance CDBG funds are anticipated to be combined with and HOME ($136,950) funds to continue to provide home ownership opportunities through the Homebuyer& Closing Cost Assistance Program. Approximately $5,000 per unit would be available to families earning less than 80% of AML Request: $189,000 Recommendation: $492,939 In special circumstances, increase assistance to $10,000 for families below 50%of AMI. I Public Facilities Respite Care Remodel Project Grant request to remove current food storage area, add shelving, and change lighting in the administrative area of the Respite Care facility. Request: $12,000 Recommendation: $ 12,000 iFood Bank for Larimer County Grant request to help renovate the food cooler floor and add additional pallet racks and shelving. Request: $19,300 Recommendation: $19,300 Crossroads Safehouse, Inc. Grant request to replace door locks at the Crossroads Safehouse Shelter. Request: $6,296 Recommendation: $5,900 Fullana Learning Center—Renovation Project Phase II Grant request to help develop an infant playground and support space renovations to relocate employees. Request: $36,161 Recommendation: $36,161 Forgivable 10-year grant with reverter clause if building is not used for low-income day-care. y DATE: May 2, 2000 8 ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-D Buarcaire Youth Services Grant request to help purchase a facility (total cost$650,000)to operate a halfway house for 25 youthful offenders. Request: $200,000 Recommendation: $0 Public Service Maximum 15% of CDBG funds $ 181,403 Education and Life Training Center—Adult Literacy Services Grant request to provide operating expenses for the Adult Literacy Services Program which provides tutor training for literacy volunteers,maintaining the READ-UP collection, responding to inquires, and coordinating other related adult literacy services. Request: $12,000 Recommendation: $10,000 Disabled Resource Services - Supported Youth Employment Program Grant request to help provide funds for the Supported Youth Employment Program that helps disabled youth participate in summer job training experiences. Request: $18,000 Recommendation: $15,000 Project SelfSufficiency Grant request to provide funds for the Supportive Services for Single Parent Families Program which assists participants in outlining steps towards accomplishment of both career and personal/family goals. Request: $25,000 Recommendation: $20,000 Food Bank for Larimer County Grant request to provide a dock leveler and electric pallet jacks. Request: $4,500 Recommendation: $0 Neighbor to Neighbor,Inc. Grant request to provide partial funds for the operation of the HUD certified Comprehensive Housing Counseling and Case Management Program which provides assistance to people along all points of the housing continuum from homelessness to home ownership to options for older adults. Request: $25,000 Recommendation: $22,000 DATE: May 2, 2000 9 ITEM NUMBER. 24 A-D Child Care Collaborative Project Grant request to help provide funds for the Sliding Scale Child Care Tuition Assistance Program. Eligibility requirements are based on income and requires adults to be working towards economic self-sufficiency. Request: $60,335 Recommendation: $60,335 Northern Colorado Health Network d.b.a. Northern Colorado Aids Project Grant request to provide partial funding for the Northern Colorado Aids Project which attempts to decrease the incidence of HIV in the community and ensure those living with HIV are in appropriate medical care. Request: $20,000 Recommendation: $18,000 New Bridges, Inc. Grant request to help provide operational expenses of a daytime shelter and service referral center for the homeless. Request: $35,000 Recommendation: $0 Mercy Housing- Community Residential Initiatives—Springfield Court Apts. Grant request to provide partial funding for a variety of on-site resident services including childcare,job training, life development,parenting education, and children's activities. Request: $44,550 Recommendation: $0 Elderhaus Adult Day Care Programs Grant request to provide partial funding for three new programs, a Multi-Cultural Day Program, a Community Group, and a Life Transitions Program. Request: $16,640 Recommendation: $8,568 Lutheran Family Services Grant request to provide partial funding for the Fostering Family Strengths: Prevention of Child Abuse Program which is designed to prevent child abuse and neglect by helping families learn to interact in healthy non-violent ways. I Request: $8,000 Recommendation: $7,500 I DATE: May 2, 2000 10 ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-D Catholic Charities Northern- Services for Seniors Request for funds to provide services for seniors and frail and homebound elderly who are unable to access community resources because of lack of knowledge or other barriers such as cultural or language. Request: $6,500 Recommendation: $0 Catholic Charities Northern—The Mission Grant request to help provide operational expenses of a shelter(The Mission) and supportive services (Hope Job Bank) for the homeless. Request: $25,000 Recommendation: $20,000 Total amount of CDBG funding requested=$2,468,069.00 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 $ 219,687 16.9 PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION (Maximum $260,580 based on 20% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income) 828,451 63.6 HOUSING 73,361 5.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES 181,403 13.9 PUBLIC SERVICES (Maximum$181,403 based on 15% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income) ----------------------------------------------- $1,302,902 100.0 TOTAL The total amount of CDBG funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately $2.5 million, however, only $1.3 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 five(5)proposals. In the Commission's opinion, the five applications recommended for full funding best fit CDBG Program national objectives,the selection criteria, and the funding guidelines. The Commission also has recommended increased funding, over what was initially requested, for two (2) proposals, the CSU Habitat for Humanity and the City's Homebuyer Assistance Program proposals. The Homebuyers Assistance Program is recommended for increased funding because, in the Commission's opinion, there were no other proposals worthy of funding over what the Commission has recommended. y DATE: May 2, 2000 11 ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-D 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 seven(7)proposals. The Commission's reasons for either increased funding, full funding,partial funding,or no funding are presented in Attachment"D". RESOLUTION 2000-66 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE FY 2000-2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit the FY 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant Program application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as follows: PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration $139,687 City of Fort Collins—BAVA Subarea(Neighborhood)Plan $ 80,000 ACQUISITION Habitat for Humanity $ 75,000 HOUSING Elizabeth Street Senior Apartments $250,000 . CSU Habitat for Humanity—CSU House Project $ 10,512 HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE City of Fort Collins CDBG Program—Homebuyer Assistance $492,939 PUBLIC FACILITIES Respite Care Remodel Project $ 12,000 Food Bank for Larimer County $ 19,300 Crossroads Safehouse, Inc. $ 5,900 Fullana Learning Center—Renovation Project Phase II $ 36,161 PUBLIC SERVICES Education and Life Training Center—Adult Literacy Services $ 10,000 Disabled Resource Services- Supported Youth Employment Program $ 15,000 Project SelfSufficiency $ 20,000 Neighbor to Neighbor,Inc. $ 22,000 Child Care Collaborative Project $ 60,335 Northern Colorado Health Network d.b.a.Northern Colorado Aids Project $ 18,000 Elderhaus Adult Day Care Programs $ 8,568 Lutheran Family Services $ 7,500 Catholic Charities Northern—The Mission $ 20,000 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 2nd day of May A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION 2000-67 • OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE FY 2000-2001 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit the FY 2000-2001 Home Investment Partnerships Program application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as follows: Administration $ 70,000 Rental Projects $318,000 Ownership Projects $189,000 CHDO Reserve $ 92,250 CHDO Operations $ 30,750 Total $700,000 • Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 2nd day of May A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 52, 2000 . OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN PROGRAM YEARS IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND WHEREAS,Article V, Section 9,of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins(the"Charter") permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year,provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations,in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year,do not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS,Article V, Section 10,of the Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital proj ect to another fund or capital project,provided that the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; and WHEREAS,Article V, Section 11,of the Charter provides that federal grant appropriations shall not lapse if unexpended at the end of the budget year until the expiration of the federal grant; and WHEREAS,the City will receive in federal fiscal year 2000-2001 unanticipated revenue in the form of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds totaling $1,175,000, constituting a new revenue source; and WHEREAS,the City expects to receive CDBG Program income in the 2000-2001 federal fiscal year in the amount of$34,358; and WHEREAS, unexpended funds are also available from the CDBG program for the federal 2000-2001 fiscal year in the amount of$93,544; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of unanticipated CDBG grant revenue from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and unanticipated Program Income in the amount of$34,358, will not result in total appropriations in excess of the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2000; and WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution 2000-, the City Council approved the 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the federal fiscal year 2000-2001 into the Community Development Block Grant Fund,the sum of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS($1,175,000),upon receipt thereof from federal fiscal year 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant Funds. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated program income revenue for approved Community Block Grant projects,upon receipt thereof into the Community Development Block Grant Fund, the amount of THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY- EIGHT DOLLARS ($34,358) for approved Community Development Block Grant projects. Section 3. That the unexpended and unencumbered amount of NINETY-THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($93,544) is hereby authorized for transfer from the 1999-2000 Community Development Block Grant Program to the 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant Program. Introduced,considered favorably on first reading,and ordered published this 2nd day of May, A.D. 2000, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of May, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 16th day of May,A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 53, 2000 • OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS FUND WHEREAS, the HOME Investment Partnership Program (the "HOME Program") was authorized by the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 to provide funds for a variety of housing-related activities which would increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing; and WHEREAS,on March 1, 1994,the City Council adopted Resolution 94-92 authorizing the Mayor to submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development("HUD")a notification of intent to participate in the HOME Program; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1994, HUD designated the City as a Participating Jurisdiction in the HOME Program,allowing the City to receive an allocation of HOME Program funds as long as Congress re-authorizes and continues to fund the program; and WHEREAS, the City has been notified by HUD that the City's HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant for the federal fiscal year 2000-2001 is $615,000, constituting a new revenue source; and . WHEREAS, the City expects to receive HOME Program income in the 2000-2001 federal fiscal year in the amount of$85,000; and WHEREAS,Article V, Section 9, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins(the"Charter") permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year,provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations,in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year,do not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS,Article V, Section 11,of the Charter provides that federal grant appropriations shall not lapse if unexpended at the end of the budget year until the expiration of the federal grant; and WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution 2000- City Council approved the 2000-2001 HOME Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the federal fiscal year 2000-2001 into the HOME Program Fund the sum of SIX HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS($615,000),upon receipt thereof from federal fiscal year 2000- 2001 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant Funds. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated program income revenue for approved HOME Program projects,upon receipt thereof into the HOME Program Fund,the amount of EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($85,000) for approved HOME Program projects. Introduced,considered favorably on first reading,and ordered published this 2nd day of May, A.D. 2000, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of May, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 16th day of May,A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk . Attachment "A" Background Information on the Competitive Process for the Allocation of City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Programs/Projects and Other Community Development Activities In February of 1999, the City Council approved the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies report, which contained the following strategy: "Change from an administrative funding mechanism...to a competitive application process for the Affordable Housing Fund." Between September and November of 1999, a subcommittee consisting of members from the Affordable Housing Board and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission met with staff to review issues and develop options for establishment of a competitive process. In addition, the staff solicited ideas from existing affordable housing providers. The subcommittee established the following Mission Statement for their work: "Develop a competitive application process and establish a set of shared criteria for the allocation of the City's financial assistance resources to affordable housing projects/programs that address the City's priority affordable housing needs." . Competitive Process Five options for a competitive process were reviewed and discussed by the subcommittee. The subcommittee reached a general consensus to support a competitive process that involved both the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission. The option selected would have the Affordable Housing Board providing recommendations to the City Council in regards to affordable housing policy. In addition, the option would have the Affordable Housing Board reviewing all affordable housing applications for CDBG, HOME and Affordable Housing funds. The Board would then provide a priority listing of proposals to the CDBG Commission. The CDBG Commission would then make the final recommendations to the City Council for funding. Funding Cycles The subcommittee also agreed that there should be two funding cycles per year, one in the spring and the other in the fall. CDBG Program funds would be allocated in the spring to affordable housing programs/projects and other community development activities (public services, public facilities, etc.). HOME Program and Affordable Housing funds would be allocated in the fall primarily to affordable housing programs/projects. The staff and subcommittee agreed that overlaying the new process and cycles would be heightened staff technical assistance to applicants. Both the subcommittee and staff recognize that a bi-annual process will require additional meetings by both the CDBG Commission and Affordable Housing Board, and will require more time from current City staff, and increase the City Council's involvement. Schedule The subcommittee also discussed two alternative schedules for the funding cycles. The option selected incorporates a spring cycle that starts in January and ends in May, and a fall cycle that starts in July and end in November. Review Criteria The subcommittee also discussed and agreed to a new set of review criteria to be used to rank proposals. The criteria are divided into the following five major categories: 1. Impact/Benefit 2. Need/Priority 3. Feasibility 4. Leveraging Resources 5. Capacity and History The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups and provide longer benefits. The Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted City goals and priorities. The Feasibility criteria reward projects for timeliness and documented additional funding. The Leveraging Resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds to the City(loans) and for their ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History criteria help gage an applicant's ability to do the project and reward applicants that have completed successful projects in the past(have good track records). See next page for a detailed criteria scoring sheet. Application Forms Two new application forms have also been developed. One form would be used for Housing proposals while to other form would be used for Non-Housing Proposals (public services, public facilities, etc.). City Council Adoption On January 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 2000-13, formally adopting the competitive process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities and the component parts discussed above. Ranking Criteria for CDBG, HOME and Affordable Housing Funding The ranking criterion is divided into five major categories.Each category is given a total number of points that has been weighed according to their importance with respect to local and federal priorities.This ranking sheet will be used to assist the Community Development Block Grant Commission(CDBGC)and the Affordable Housing Board(AHB)in the FY01 Competitive Funding Process.CDBG and AHB members will rank projects according to the questions and criteria shown below. Impact/Benefit(maximum 30 points) 1. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10) (0-30%of AMI=10 pts,31-50%=8 pts,51.80%=4 pis) 2. Project produces adequate community benefit related to cost? (0-5) 3. Dees the project provide direct assistance for persons to On self-sufficiency? (0-5) 4. Does the project provide long-tens 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)? (04) 4. Has the applicant documented efforts to secure other funding? (04) . Sub-total I.evera¢ine Resources(maximum 25 pointsf 1. Dees the project allow the reuse of our funding? (0-8) A. Principal and interest(30 year Amortization or less) 8 points B. Principal and no interest or Principal and balloon payment 4 points C. Declining balance lien(amount forgiven over time) 1 points D. Grant(no repayment) 0 points 2. Project or agency leverages human resources(Volunteers) (0-7) 3. Project leverages financial resources?(Including in-kind) (0-10) A. Less than 1:1 0 points B. 1:1 to 1:3 4 points C. 1:4 to 1:6 7 points D. More than 1:7 10 points Sub-total Capacity and History(maximum 15 points) 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" March 27, 2000 TO: CDBG Commission City Council Members FROM: Affordable Housing Board SUBJECT: CDBG Funding Applications We are pleased to relay our review of the housing applications for year 2000 CDBG funding cycle to you. It is quite obvious that there has been an evolution over the years in the way that public funds are allocated in Fort Collins. It is also obvious that both the Board and the Commission have played integral roles in this evolution towards increased fiduciary responsibility. We sincerely hope that this evolution continues! Our Board reviewed each application for its degree of compliance with the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies document, approved by Council in 1999, how each proposal"fit" with other projects already in the construction pipeline, the project's cost effectiveness, i.e. how many families would be served per dollar of expenditure, and the amount, if any, of public funds already committed to it. We were not as concerned with allocating every dollar as we were in insuring that dollars were allocated to projects worthy of public funding. In other words, we did not recommend allocating money to marginal projects merely because the money was available. We also took the approach that it was somewhat foolish to assume that government housing subsidies will always be available. We believe that adverse impacts on the City, should housing subsidies be eliminated, could be mitigated by the preservation of capital now. In other words, we recommend loans, with favorable amortization schedules, over outright grants. Additionally, we recommend approval of no grants without direct evidence that a project could or would serve lower income families with a grant versus a loan. We believe that there are no projects in this cycle where a grant is appropriate. Our recommendations to you are placed in order of their priority, from highest to lowest. As you can see, there is one proposal for which we do not recommend funding. Our questions, comments, and concerns on each project are also included. We plan to have a representative of our Board available to you for any questions you might have prior to the start of your public meeting in April. More importantly, we believe that the degree of cooperation and support from both the Commission and the Board can only serve to enhance the effectiveness of both groups, provide a boost to the affordable housing situation in Ft. Collins, and further protect valuable taxpayer resources. Affordable Housing Board's Priority Ranking Of the CDBG Funding Applications 1. City of Fort Collins Home Buyer Assistance 2. Colorado State University House Project(Habitat) 3. Elizabeth Street Apartments 4. Habitat for Humanity 5. Park South Apartments 6. Fox Meadows Apartments Affordable Housing Board's Comments, Questions and Concerns City of Fort Collins Home Buyer Assistance Program This project assists members of the community to purchase homes and because the assistance is in the form of a 0%interest due-on-sale loan, the funds are recycled. The Board recommends full funding for the homebuyer assistance program. The Board also recommends funding for four additional projects (see below). The Board's recommendations for funding will not exhaust the funding guideline of 65% for affordable housing. Therefore, the Board recommends that the balance of the 65% funding guideline be allocated to the homebuyer assistance program even though such an • allocation may not be within the funding policies of 70% for rental projects and 30% for homeownership projects. The Board also would like to expand the amount of downpayment assistance from the current $5,000 limit to $10,000 for families below 50% of AMI. Questions and Concerns: How was the $50 fee for homebuyer training determined? Who wrote, and who monitors the curriculum taught in the classes? What sort of follow-up to applicants(homebuyers) is given(status checks, etc)? How does the City know that the assistance given will be used for the homeowner's primary residence? How does the City follow-up to ensure that we are not actually creating low-income landlords? Is there a possibility to provide additional funding for families below 65% AMI? Colorado State University House Project(Habitat) This project is community-based project and a way for CSU students to do something positive for the community. The Board recommends a 0% interest, due-on-sale loan, rather than a grant. . Questions and Concerns: Does the CSU group have the construction management expertise to succeed? Is there a licensed (and insured) contractor in Fort Collins, who will provide the required supervision? Do the students have the time to complete the house within the timeline they gave? If the students falter, does the local Fort Collins Habitat Chapter have the capability to step in and complete the project? Elizabeth Street Apartments The Board recommends fully funding the project and deferring payments for the first year, and requiring the loan to be paid over 30 years at 3%interest, with a 10-year balloon. Questions and Concerns: Some of the costs associated with financing the construction of the project appear to be excessive and the pay back terms are not very favorable. Are the high administrative costs justified? Habitat for Humanity The Board recommends providing only $50,000 for this project with the funds to be in the form of a due-on-sale loan. The funds could be used for either land acquisition and/or the payment of development fees. The recommended funding reduction is based on the extremely high cost per family. Questions and Concerns: Will the selected sites pass environmental review? Does Habitat have the capacity to undertake the project as proposed? Park South Apartments The Board would recommend approval of the modified request of $220,000 only if Brisben agrees to provide some units to families below 30% AMI and that City staff s concerns over timing and terms of loan repayment are satisfied. The Board would support a request for HOME funds from the second cycle only after Brisben determines how many more units for families below 30% AMI would be provided. The Boards recommendation for approval of$220,000 of CDBG funds for this project does not guarantee support of$220,000 of HOME funds during the second cycle of the Competitive Process. Questions and Concerns: Will the site pass environmental review due to proximity to the railroad tracks? Can the market absorb the 3-bedroom units in a timely manner? The cash-flow repayment loan is not acceptable. Fox Meadows Apartments The board does not recommend funding this project due to the $2.7 million of public funding that has already been committed in the form of private activity bonds. • ATTACHMENT "C" ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION on the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG PROGRAM NATIONAL OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the CDBG Program is"the 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 900/0 10% 0% City Expenditures for: 1999 1000/0 0% 0% 1998 1000/0 0% 0% 1997 1000/0 0% 0% 1996 100% 0% 0% 1995 100% 0% 0% 1994 900/0 10% 0% 1993 100% 0% 0% 1992 1000/0 0% 0% 1991 100% 0% 0% 1990 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 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 Housing 35% 43% 19% 25% 17% 8% 18% 41% Public Facilities 21% 2% 2% 13% 15% 7% 15% 33% Planning/Admin. (20%) 14% 100/o 10% 9% 9% 5% 9% 8% Economic Development 13% 0% 0% 0% 00/0 0% 0% 0% Public Services (15%) 90/0 15% 15% 15% 15% 14% 14% 14% Acquisition 8% 30% 54% 38% 44% 66% 44% 4% 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. Commission members present: Phil Majerus, Chair Alfred Flores, Vice Chair Linda Coxen Vi Guthrie Brett Hill Holly Sample Bill Steffes Cheryl Zimlich Staff: Ken Waido Jackie Davis Maurice Head Julie Smith Melissa Islam-Bauer Produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.482. 6 970.482.1230 fax 1 meadors@reporterworks.com e-mail 2 . MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Coxen presented an e-mail response from the County's Human Resources program explaining the outcome-based goals of the County. It is uncertain what the ultimate outcome of these goals will be for the concerned applicants. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mr. Hill: To first consider Public Service. Motion carried unanimously. Concern was expressed over the influence of Staff ranking and the emphasis of the types of criteria that Staff used over what Commission members may use. The evaluation of leveraging is subjective and can vary widely. At 6:20 p.m., the Commission was evicted from its meeting room by the Police Review Board and reconvened at the Police Training Room at 300 West Laporte. During discussions, it was expressed that programs will generally apply for more than absolutely needed in order to negotiate a satisfactory result. Following voting on Public Service and CDBG Administration, Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To consider housing applications. Mr. Waido stated that Staff will investigate the mechanisms of funding and maintenance . for City-owned facilities that are donated or leased favorably to the type of nonprofit applicants that the Commission sees on an annual basis. At the conclusion of motions regarding funding, moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To accept the recommendations and forward them to City Council. Motion carried 6-0. The study session with Council for review of these recommendations will be held on Tuesday, April 26, 2000. • 3 ADMINISTRATION PA1. CDBG Administration - request $139,687 Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend full funding. Motion carried unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $139,687 Pros of Application Cons of Application The applied-for level is under the national average. The staff is highly competent and responsive to community. Staff scores high in Federal evaluations. Increased funding request is due to rises in health care costs and increased costs due to the competitive process. 4 • PA2. City of Fort Collins — BAVA Subarea (Neighborhood) plan. Request: $100,00. Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion failed unanimously. Motion by Mr. Steffes: To reduce funding of Homebuyer Assistance, HA1, by $20,000, to be applied to City of Fort Collins, PA1. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To reduce funding of Homebuyer Assistance, HA1, by $80,000 to apply to City of Fort Collins, PA1, with a recommendation to City Council to give serious consideration to this issue. Motion approved 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $80,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program is worthwhile. The area The City should provide this item through needs planning to help them prepare for its own budgeting and planning process. the dramatic changes that lie ahead in the The plan may well be inadequate given the near future. This area is in high need of area's evolution. funding for the very purposes for which the CDBG was created. This program could improve the voice of this neighborhood within the city community. 5 PA3. Paradigm Development and Consulting, Inc.; Planning, capacity building, and admin project. Request: $70,900. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend funding of $50,000. Motion failed unanimously. Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application The idea is worthy in its stated pursuit. No track record; too many unknown Applicant has expertise and energy in the elements. The dynamics of the program field. The approach is creative and unique. are uncertain. Deed restrictions may not The Commission would like to see this be the best or most practical way to effect idea developed and returned. the program goals. The same solutions could possibly be achieved through zoning; those efforts are currently in place. If the program is beneficial to landowners, it mav be marketable on its own merits. 6 . HOUSING APPLICATIONS ,sw . Habitat for Humanity of Fort Collins. Request: $150,000. Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Mr. Flores: To recommend funding of $75,000 for three units, $25,000 per unit, through a zero-percent loan due on sale. Discussion took place over home values and potential value at time of sale. Motion approved 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $75,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Mixed but overall successful track record Very high per-unit cost. A loan could be of applicant. Expanded efforts should be detrimental to the homeowner if the value supported. The program addresses a decreases. Some discontent was community need. Home ownership expressed over the dynamics of the opportunities are rare for lower-income Habitat administration. The Affordable levels and need to be promoted. Housing Board recommended lower levels. • • HA1. City of Fort Collins CDBG program; home ownership — homebuyer and closing cost assistance— request $189,000 Moved by Mr. Flores, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend full funding. Motion carried unanimously. Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To increase the recommended funding level by $383,939. Mr. Waido noted that increased funding may well decrease the HOME request in the fall and thereby open up greater funding for other projects. If increased funding is offered to lower income levels, close monitoring is needed to avoid setting up applicants for failure. Staff is considering adopting a committee review process to use the lessons learned in the past through this program. The Commission asked for Staff review and recommendations for the fall cycle in regards to the counseling element, per-unit funding levels, and a committee review approach. Motion approved 5-2, with one abstention. Motion by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To reduce funding of Homebuyer Assistance, HA1, by $80,000 to apply to City of Fort Collins, PAII, with a recommendation to City Council to give serious consideration to this issue. Motion approved 7-1. Total funding recommended - $492,939 Pros of Application Cons of Application Program is highly worthwhile and highly successful. Home ownership opportunities provides a high need for the community. It provides great benefit to the targeted segment of society. Recommendation by the Affordable Housing Board. The application of the remaining housing funds is likewise in compliance with the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Board. 8 H1. Elizabeth Street Senior Apartments. Request: $250,000. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend full funding through a 30-year loan, at 3 percent funding, with a 10-year balloon. Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding - $250,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The Commission looks to follow the The design is less than attractive. recommendations of the Affordable Floodplain is a concern, although this is Housing Board and the reasons stated seen as an engineering rather than therein. The applicants demonstrate a funding concern. learning curve from the prior year and were persuasive in their presentations. The project addresses a community need. FH2. CSU Habitat for Humanity; Colorado State University house project. Request: $4,200. Mr. Waido noted that the proposal was amended to apply the proposal to development impact fees. The Building Department has estimated that impact at approximately $10,512; that figure represents the new level of application. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Flores: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 5-3. Total recommended funding - $10,512 Pros of Application Cons of Application Very worthy and commendable effort on No track record. The application is more the part of CSU and its students. The suited to a zero-interest, deferred loan, program is bringing a commendable level particularly in compliance with City Council of talent and energy. The presentation and guidelines. organization is highly impressive. The application is modest and highly leveraged. 9 AQ4. Brisben Companies; Park South Apartments. Request: $440,000. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding level: $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application No apparent leveraging. Program dollars would be at risk over the life of the project. History of the applicant is mixed in its resentation to the Commission. 10 PUBLIC FACILITIES PF1. Respite Care; remodel project. Request: $12,000. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend funding of $5,000, to be applied to food storage violation items. Motion failed 2-6. Moved by Mr. Flores, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 7-0. Total recommended funding - $12,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The food storage violation portion is in The funding last year should have been strong need of funding; the remainder of applied to this element. Funding is the application. The need appears to be available from other sources. The ongoing genuine. The program addresses a maintenance is troubling. The program segment of the community that is in need needs to be held accountable for its stated of the services provided. The program has management and maintenance needs. a good track record and achieves value for • the funds it receives. Moneys are available for worthy applicants in this funding category. PF2. Food Bank for Larimer County— Capital Improvements warehouse. $19,300. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mr. Flores: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 6-2. Total recommended funding - $19,300 Pros of Application Cons of Application Many other nonprofits are supported by this program's efforts. The numbers are impressive. It effectively addresses an important and overriding community need. It is important to maximize efficiency of the facility. • it PF3. Crossroads Safehouse, Inc.; locks. Request: $6,296. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend funding of $5,900, to be applied for locks and installation. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding - $5,900 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program cites a definable, important Administration costs are inarguably too need. The program addresses a high. The program is an annuity project for community need. Maintenance and CDBG funding. upgrades can be anticipated for this type of facility. PF4. Fullana Learning Center; renovation project, Phase II. Request: $36,161. Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend full funding. Discussion was held over what would happen should the program not stay at the present facility. Motion amended, with consent of the second, to include a stipulation that funding is forgivable while the equipment is used for 10 years for low-income day-care. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding - $36,161 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program is highly worthwhile, well- Concerns were expressed over the planned, attractive, and uses collaborative elaborate nature of the structure for the efforts effectively. The application ranked targeted age level. The facility is already high in Commission evaluations. The publicly owned. school district has committed to maintenance. The program addresses a community need to provide affordable day- care and educational needs for low- income sectors of society. The project is well-planned and addresses the needs of both preschool children and their parents. 12 PF5. Beaucaire Youth Services. Request: $200,000. Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Minimal value for the level of funding applied for. Ultimate success of the project is highly questionable. The program is not well-defined to Fort Collins residents. Potential high-maintenance applications. 13 PUBLIC SERVICE PSi. Education & Life Training Center — Adult Literacy Services. Request: $12,000. Moved by Mr. Majerus: To recommend full funding. Motion failed for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $10,000. Motion carried unanimously. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Ms. Sample: To reduce the recommended funding levels of Child Care Collaborative, PS6, to be applied to fully fund Education and Life Training, PSi, and Disabled Resource Services, PS2. Motion failed, 3-4. Total recommended funding - $10,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Provides volunteers for a wide-ranging and highly needed service to aid low-income people in becoming self-sufficient and moving out of poverty. 14 F 2. Disabled Resource Services — Supported Youth Employment Program. quest: $18,000. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend funding of $14,785. Motion failed 1-7. Moved by Ms. Samples, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $15,000. Motion approved unanimously. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Ms. Sample: To reduce the recommended funding levels of Child Care Collaborative, PS6, to be applied to fully fund Education and Life Training, PSI, and Disabled Resource Services, PS2. Motion failed, 3-4. Total recommended funding - $15,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This provides a worthwhile and important A reduced level of funding is appropriate community service to move a given the reduced funds available for all disadvantaged sector of society to self- programs. sufficiency. The program has displayed good results. The job coaching element of • the program is critical to the program's success. PS3 Project Self-Sufficiency— Project Self-Sufficiency. Request: $25,000. Moved by Ms. Zimiich, seconded by Ms. Sample: To recommend full funding. Motion failed 3-5. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend funding of $20,000. Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding: $20,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program addresses a community The program is appropriate for less than need. The program needs support over the full funding in light of the funding long term of assistance. It has limitations for this category. demonstrated clear results. The program treats the cause rather than the symptoms. The program adjusts for the need of the clients. • 15 PS4. Food Bank for Larimer County— operations. $4,500. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 6-2. Total recommended funding - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application The applicant provides a highly-needed This item was not the highest priority for and successful service. It is important to the applicant. This item ranked low in the save volunteer hours and be efficient in Commission evaluation. Many other their food-saving efforts. funding sources are readily available to this applicant. It does not appear to be a critical piece for the operation of this worthwhile service. PS5. Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc.; Housing counseling. Request: $25,000. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend full funding. Motion approved 4-3. Moved by Mr. Flores, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To reduce the Northern Catholic Charities, PS13, recommendation to $18,000; to reduce the Neighbor to Neighbor, PS5, recommendation to $22,000; to recommend funding of $8,568 to Elderhaus, PSI0. Motion passed 5-3. Total recommended funding - $22,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application CDBG relies upon this program for Reduced funding would be appropriate, housing counseling for the HOME given the lack of overall funding. By its program. Proven track record for helping admission, the program is viable with low-income people. This is a needed reduced funding. public service. 16 PS6. Child Care Collaborative — Sliding scale tuition assistance. Request: $60,335. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend funding of $55,335. Motion passed 6-2. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding to Elderhaus, PS10; to recommend full funding of the Child Care Collaborative, PS6; to recommend funding of Catholic Charities Northern, Senior Services, PSI2, of $3,568. Motion failed 3-5. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 5-3. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Ms. Sample: To reduce the recommended funding levels of Child Care Collaborative, PS6, to be applied to fully fund Education and Life Training, PSI, and Disabled Resource Services, PS2. Motion failed, 3-4. Total recommended funding: $60,335 Pros of Application Cons of Application Very important project to enable low- Partial funding may be appropriate in light income families to become self-sufficient. of the paucity of program dollars. The It is more appropriate for full funding. The increase in funding requests is not City cannot afford to lose sliding-scale matched by an increase in revenue. Child programs for expensive but highly-needed care workers generally do not expect high services. The program scored higher on levels of compensation. some Commission members' evaluations than Staff's. The programs have shown stability over the years. Evidence of funding need is seen in the low compensation of their workers. 17 PS7. Northern Colorado Health Network dba Northern Colorado AIDS Project. Request: $20,000. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mrs. Sample: To recommend full funding. Motion approved, 4-3. Total recommended funding - $18,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program is worthwhile. Any effort for It is difficult to quantify success by this cause is worthwhile for human and numbers. The applicant stated that they health reasons. The program beneficiaries could accept less than full funding; less present a marginalized and shunned than full funding is justifiable. The program portion of the community. received a very high level of support last ear from the Commission. PS8. New Bridges — Daytime shelter & services referral for the homeless. Request: $35,000. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Provides valuable community service. Funding subsidizes rent and administration Funding could be granted at a reduced at an exorbitant and unjustifiable rate. rate. Applicant needs to explore alternate space. Efforts to seek out other facilities are suspect. 18 • PSg. Mercy Housing — Community & resident initiatives — Springfield Court apartments. Request: $44,550. Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding: $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application There is a clear benefit to residents. The Duplicates other available programs. The application presented better on paper than application seems to be inflated for the in discussion. need. The program is very specialized to one project and not targeted for a broad- based community benefit. PS10. Elderhaus Adult Day Programs — Elderhaus multi-cultural day and community group. Request: $16,640. • Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding to Elderhaus, PS10; to recommend full funding of the Child Care Collaborative, PS6; to recommend funding of Catholic Charities Northern, Senior Services, PS12, of $3,568. Motion failed 3-5. Moved by Mr. Flores, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To reduce the Northern Catholic Charities, PS13, recommendation to $18,000; to reduce the Neighbor to Neighbor, PS5, recommendation to $22,000; to recommend funding of $8,568 to Elderhaus, PS10. Motion passed 5-3. Total recommended funding - $8,568 Pros of Application Cons of Application The goals of the program are worthy. Scored low in Commission rankings. Leveraging has been effective. Addresses Outreach to Hispanic community without a traditionally marginalized segment of the commensurate staffing is not likely to community. succeed. • 19 PS11. Lutheran Family Services — Fostering family strengths: prevention of child abuse. Request: $8,000. Moved by Ms. Cozen, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend funding of $7,500. Moved by Mr. Hill: To amend the motion to recommend a $4,000 level. Motion to amend failed for lack of a second. Original motion passed 5-3. Total recommended funding - $7,500 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program addresses a very important A strong religious element may be and less visible community need and involved in the program; others who have scored high on Commission members' personal experience saw no religious rankings. A program of prevention is element presented. Many other funding especially important. A $7,500 level sources exist. provides for an equitable level of funding compared to other worthwhile programs. The original request is modest. PS12. Catholic Charities Northern — Senior services for frail and homebound elderly. Request: $6,500. Moved by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $5,800. Motion failed for lack of a second. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding to Elderhaus, PS10; to recommend full funding of the Child Care Collaborative, PS6; to recommend funding of Catholic Charities Northern, Senior Services, PS12, of $3,568. Motion failed 3-5. Moved by Mr. Flores, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 6-0. Total recommended funding - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Provides important community need. No tangible evidence of success. Did not rank high in comparison to other programs in funding disfavor. Limited CDBG funding was exhausted by other deserving but higher-ran in ro rams. 20 PS13. Catholic Charities Northern — Shelter and supportive services for the homeless. Request: $25,000. Moved by Ms. Sample, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $20,000. Motion passed 6-2. Moved by Mr. Flores, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To reduce the Northern Catholic Charities, PS13, recommendation to $18,000; to reduce the Neighbor to Neighbor, PS5, recommendation to $22,000; to recommend funding of $8,568 to Elderhaus, PS10. Motion passed 5-3. Total recommended funding - $18,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This achieved high ranking, particularly in Reduced funding levels may be light of variations of leveraging. Addresses appropriate in light of limited program a critical community need for both funds.. provision of resources and support toward self-sufficiency. 21 CONCLUSION Mr. Waido noted that a study session will be held with Council on Tuesday, April 26, 2000, to discuss the funding recommendations. The Commission may at that time advise the Council on the reasons for the funding recommendations. Assignments were made for individual Commission members to focus on various applicants. 22