Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/25/2005 - FALL CYCLE OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR ALLOCATI DATE: October 25, 2005 STUDY SESSION ITEM STAFF: Ken Waido 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. The financial resources available for allocation include funds from the following sources: AMOUNT SOURCE $613,693 HOME FY05-06 $46,265 HOME FY03 Reprogrammed $159,663 HOME FY04 Unprogrammed $23,330 HOME FY04-05 CHDO $200,000 HOME Program Income $22,611 CDBG FY04 Unprogrammed $121,436 CDBG FY05 Carryover $9,582 CDBG FY05 Unprogrammed $31,700 CDBG Program Income $735,898 Affordable Housing Fund $1964178 1 Total Unprogrammed funding is the amount of grant funds available from a fiscal year federal grant that has yet to be allocated to a specific project. Reprogrammed funding is the amount of grant funds that were previously allocated to a project(s) but have been returned to the City due to failure to complete the project(s). Program Income is money returned to the City from previous funding allocations in the form of loan payments. 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 CDBG Program for the FY 2005 Program year,which programs and projects should receive funding from available HOME Program funds. The Commission's recommendations are presented below: October 25, 2005 Page 2 Summary of the Community Development Block Grant Commission's Recommendations for Funding Applicant—Project Funding Request Funding Project Unfunded Recommendation Balance Supportive Housing $500,000 $500,000 $0 Development City of Fort Collins $300,000 $300,000 $0 Home Buyer Assistance Larimer Home $60,000 $60,000 $0 Improvement Program Fort Collins Housing $110,358 $110,358 $0 Corp Village on Cowan Fort Collins Housing $304,296 $304,296 $0 Corp Village on Plum Willox Lane $600,000 $200,000 $400,000 Affordable Housing Neighbor to Neighbor $74,300 $74,300 $0 Crabtree A is Rehab NFC Business $20,000 $19,000 $1,000 Association Action Plan Neighbor to Neighbor $150,000 $0 $150,000 Office Consolidation Totals $2 118 954 $1 567 954 Presented below is a listing of the recommendations by funding source. CDBG FY04 Unprogrammed $22,611 available Recommendation Applicant—Project $3,611 Fort Collins Housing Corp Village on Plum $19,000 NFC Business Association Action Plan $22,611 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance October 25, 2005 Page 3 CDBG FY05 Carryover $121,436 available Recommendation Applicant—Project $121,436 Fort Collins Housing Corp Village on Plum $121,436 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance CDBG FY05 Unprogrammed $9,582 available Recommendation Applicant—Project $9,582 Fort Collins Housing Corp Village on Plum $9,582 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance CDBG Program Income $31,700 available Recommendation Applicant—Project $31,700 Fort Collins Housing Corp Village on Plum $31,700 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance HOME FY03 Reprogrammed $46,265 available Recommendation Applicant—Project $46,265 Fort Collins Housing Corp Village on Cowan $46,265 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance HOME FY04 Unprogrammed $159,663 available Recommendation Applicant— Project $95,570 Supportive Housing Development $64,093 Fort Collins Housing Corp Village on Cowan $159,663 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance HOME FY05-06 $511,411 available Recommendation Applicant— Project $204,430 Supportive Housing Development $204,430 Recommended Funding Total $306 981 Remaining Balance October 25, 2005 Page 4 HOME FY04-05 CHDO $23,330 available Recommendation Applicant—Project $23,330 Neighbor to Neighbor Crabtree A is Rehab $23,330 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance HOME FY05-06 CHDO $102,282 available Recommendation Applicant—Project $50,970 Neighbor to Neighbor Crabtree A is Rehab $50,970 Recommended Funding Total $51312 Remaining Balance HOME Program Income $200,000 available Recommendation Applicant—Project $200,000 City of Fort Collins Home Buyer Assistance $50,970 Recommended Funding Total $51312 Remaining Balance Affordable Housing Fund $735,898 available Recommendation Applicant—Project $200,000 Supportive Housing Development $100,000 City of Fort Collins Home Buyer Assistance $60,000 Larimer Home Improvement Program $137,967 Fort Collins Housing Corp Village on Plum $200,000 Willox Lane Affordable Housing $50,970 1 Recommended Funding Total $51312 1 Remaining Balance At the November 15, 2005, 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 2005 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. October 25, 2005 Page 5 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 October 25, 2005 Page 6 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 2005 HOME Grant available for projects is $613,693. Added to the HOME Grant will be $200,000 of estimated HOME Program Income, a total of $229,258 of Unprogrammed and Reprogrammed HOME funds from previous grants, a total of$185,329 of Unprogrammed and Reprogrammed CDBG funds from previous grants, and $735,898 from the City's Affordable Housing Fund to create a potential pool of $1,964,178 of funds available for programs and projects during the fall cycle of the competitive process. Unprogrammed funds are funds that are available from a previous grant that have not been allocated to any specific program/project. Reprogrammed funds are funds that are available from a previous grant that were allocated to a program/project but have been returned to the City. 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 $613,693 HOME FY05-06 $46,265 HOME FY03 Re ro ammed $159,663 HOME FY04 Unprogrammed $23,330 HOME FY04-05 CHDO $200,000 HOME Program Income $22,611 CDBG FY04 Unprogrammed $121,436 CDBGFY05 Carryover $9,582 CDBG FY05 Unprogrammed $31,700 CDBG Program Income $735,898 Affordable Housing Fund $1964178 1 Total Unprogrammed funding is the amount of grant funds available from a fiscal year federal grant that has yet to be allocated to a specific project. Reprogrammed funding is the amount of grant funds that were previously allocated to a project(s) but have been returned to the City due to failure to complete the project(s). Program Income is money returned to the City from previous funding allocations in the form of loan payments. October 25, 2005 Page 7 SELECTION PROCESS On January 13, 2005, 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 IS. At the close of the deadline the City received nine (9) applications requesting a total of approximately$2.1 million. Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on September 1,2005 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on September 1,2005 copies of the applications were distributed to the CDBG Commission and the Affordable Housing Board. On Thursday September 15, 2005, 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 22, 2005, the CDBG Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on Thursday September 29 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. October 25, 2005 Page 8 Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's list of recommendations. L HOUSINGPROJECTS 1. ACCESSIBLE SPACE — FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Amount of Request: $500,000 ($250,000 HOME/$250,000 Affordable Housing Fund- Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee) Recommendation: $500,000 -Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee ($95,570 from HOME FY 04 Unprogrammed $204,430 from HOME FY05-06 and $200,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund) Accessible Space will develop one newly constructed, barrier free 2 story project with a centrally located elevator for ease of resident access. The building will provide housing for 22 very low income persons with disabilities and will include 18 one bedroom and 5 two bedroom units, including one unit for an on site caretaker. The project will serve adults with a wide range of disabilities levels up to and including those individuals requiring the use of a wheelchair. 2. CITY OF FORT COLLINS—HOME BUYER ASSISTANCE Amount of Request: $200,000 HOME/$100,000 Affordable Housing Fund-Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee Recommendation: $300,000-Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee ($200,000 from HOME Program Income and$100,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund) This program is administered by the Advance Planning Department and provides zero-percent interest loans, to eligible first-time homebuyers. A five percent fee is added to the loan balance at the time of repayment. The assistance covers down payment and closing costs to a maximum of $9,600 for households at 5 1% to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) and $19,200 for buyers at or below 50%of AMI working through Habitat or Section 8 Homeownership projects.Approximately 32 households will be assisted with this funding. CDBG funding of$200,000 has already been allocated and must be matched with other funds. 3. LARIMER COUNTY—HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Amount of Request: $60,000 HOME- GRANT Recommendation: $60,000— Grant from the Affordable Housing Fund This program has two components: The first is the on-going repair and rehab program serving all of Larimer County. The program is designed to assist homeowners who are at or below 80% of AMI. The program serves a high percentage of seniors who are long term homeowners receiving only social security. They generally can not afford to make the necessary repairs to their homes without grant assistance. October 25, 2005 Page 9 The second component is emergency assistance(Emergency Funds Program). The program assists very low income families in need of emergency assistance such as water heaters, furnace replacement or other related repairs, generally these are mobile homes. 4. FORT COLLINS HOUSING CORPORATION — VILLAGE ON COWAN STREET REHABILITATION Amount of Request: $110,358 CDBG Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee Recommendation: $110,358 - Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee ($46,265 from HOME FY03 Unprogrammed and $64,093 from HOME FY04 Unprogrammed) The Village on Cowan Street is owned by the FCHC and consists of 19 total units. There are 16 two bedroom units, one one-bedroom apartment, and additionally two single-family homes on the site. Many items identified as immediate needs relate directly to preserving the integrity of the structures. Repair items include concrete repair, low maintenance exterior siding, energy efficient windows, doors and HVAC system repairs. 5. FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY —VILLAGE ON PLUM FINAL PHASE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SLEEPY WILLOW) Amount of Request: $304,296 CDBG Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee Recommendation: $304,296 - Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee ($3,611 from CDBG FY04 Unprogrammed, $121,436 from CDBG FY05 Carryover, $9,582 from CDBG FY05 Unprogrammed, and$31,700 from CDBG Program Income) The Fort Collins Housing Corporation is requesting funds to increase the curb appeal of Village on Plum with interior and exterior rehabilitation. The funding is for the final phase of rehabilitation of the project. The project is located at Taft Hill Road and West Plum Street. The project is conveniently located near shopping, schools and public transportation. 6. FORT COLLINS PWC—WILLOX LANE AFFORDABLE HOUSING Amount of Request: $600,000 Affordable Housing Funds Due on sale loan/5%simple interestfee Recommendation: $200,000 - Due on sale loan/ 5% simple interest fee from the Affordable Housing Fund The proposed project involves the acquisition of a portion of a 10.3 acre site to construct a 64 unit affordable housing development,including 24 two-bedroom units and 40 three bedroom units,with 100% of the households earning 50% or less of Area Median Income (AMI). The project includes a 2,500 square foot community building with a full kitchen,exercise room,meeting/recreation room, laundry room and leasing office and computer leaming center. October 25, 2005 Page 10 7. NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR—REHABILITATION OF CRABTREE APARTMENTS Amount of Request: $74,300 CDBG Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee Recommendation: $74,300 - Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee ($23,330 from HOME FY04-05 CHDO and$50,970 from HOME FY05-06 CHDO) The proposed project involves the rehabilitation of two side-by-side 4-plexes on Crabtree Drive. CDBG funds are requested to rehabilitate the kitchens and bathrooms,which will include addressing mold and water damages issues. II. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR—FACILITY IMPROVEMENT Amount of Request: $271,500 Due on sale loan/5%simple interest fee Recommendation: $0 Neighbor to Neighbor is requesting funds to support the consolidation of two offices. The main office of Neighbor to Neighbor located at the United Way building will be moved to the Coachlight Plaza Apartment. The Coachlight offices will be remodel and expanded to accommodate 14 total employees.The consolidation will save approximately$25,000 a year to be invested back into client services. III. PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION 1. NORTH FORT COLLINS BUSINESS ASSOCIATION—ACTION PLAN Amount of Request: $20,000 CDBG Grant Recommendation: $19,000 Grant from CDBG FY04 Unprogrammed North Fort Collins Business Association is requesting funds to perform a marketing study in the area with two main components: 1)create a detailed Land Use Inventory of all parcels,ownership,status of uses and status of site improvements, and an inventory of all owners interested in redevelopment and land assemblage, and 2) develop a Land Use Plan that will identify prospective development opportunities and the actions that are required to allow for there active marketing and development. Total amount of funding requested = $2,118,954 Total amount of funding available = $1,964,178 Total amount of funding allocated= $1,567,954 The total amount of funding requests considered bythe CDBG Commission was approximately$2.1 million, however, only about$1.9 million of funds are available. With the amount of total requests far exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be funded. October 25, 2005 Page 11 The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for six(6)proposals,partial funding for two (2), and no funding for one (1) proposal. 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 $185,329 of CDBG funds. • The Commission has recommended allocating $684,658 (66%) of the $1,042,951 available HOME funds. • The Commission has recommended allocating$697,967(95%)ofthe$735,898 available from the Affordable Housing Fund. Unallocated funds will be carried over to the Spring 2006 cycle of the competitive process. A summary of the Commission's CDBG funding recommendations by category is as follows: Recommended Funding % of Total Category $ 19,000 1.2% Planning and Administration $1,548,954 98.8% Affordable Housing $1 567 954 100.0% Total ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment A - Background Information on the Competitive Process. 2. Attachment B - Affordable Housing Board's Listing of Priorities. 3. Attachment C—Background Information on the HOME Program. 4. Attachment D - Background Information on the CDBG Program. 5. Attachment E - CDBG Commission's Comments on the Funding Recommendations. • 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. Imoact/Benefit(maximum 30 points) I. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10) (0-30%of AMI= 10 pts,31-50%=8 pts,51-80%=4 pts) 2. Project produces adequate community benefit related to cost? (0-5) 3. Does the project provide direct assistance for persons to gain self-sufficiency? (0-5) 4. Does the project provide long-term benefit or affordability? (0-10) (1-10 yrs=3 pts, 11-19 yrs=6 pts,20 to 30 yrs=8 pts,and Permanent= 10 pis) Sub-total Need/Priority(maximum 15 points) 1. Meets a Consolidated Plan priority? (0-5) 2. Project meets goals or objectives of City Plan and Priority Needs and Strategies study (0-5) 3. Has the applicant documented a need for this project? (0-5) Sub-total Feasibility(maximum 15 points) I. 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 points) 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 poim C. Declining balance lien(amount forgiven over time) 1 poim 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 poi) Sub-total Capacity and History(maximum 15 points) I. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project? (0-10) 2. If previously funded,has the applicant completed prior project and maintain regulatory compliance? (0-5) 3. If new,applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-15) Sub-total GRAND TOTAL • Attachment B Affordable Housing Board's Priority Ranking of Affordable Housing Proposals Fall 2005 Competitive Process On Thursday September 15, the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to formulate a priority ranking of affordable housing proposals received by the City requesting funding during the fall cycle of the 2005 competitive process. The Board's list of priority projects is as follows along with the CDBG Commission's funding recommendation: AHB Funding CDBG Funding Priority Project/Program Request Recommendation 1 City of Fort Collins Homebu er Assistance $300,000 $300,000 2 Larimer County Home Improvement Program $60,000 $60,000 3 Accessible Space Fort Collins, Colorado Supportive Housing $500,000 $500,000 • Development 4 Fort Collins Housing Corporation Village of Cowan Rehabilitation $110,358 $110,358 5 Neighbor to Neighbor Rehabilitation of Crabtree $74,300 $74,300 Apartment 6 Fort Collins Housing Authority Village on Plum (formerly known as Sleepy $304,296 $304,296 Willow) 7 Fort Collins PWC Willox Lane Affordable Housing $600,000 1 $200,000 • • 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 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 72,651 598,970 250,000 921,621 2004-05 73,300 500,000 350,000 923,300 • 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: 1995 100% 0% 0% 1996 100% 0% 0% 1997 100% 0% 0% 1998 100% 0% 0% 1999 100% 0% 0% 2000 100% 0% 0% 2001 100% 0% 0% 2002 100% 0% 0% 2003 100% 0% 0% 2004 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 compared to the • national average for that category: National Activity Average 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 Housing 43% 44% 54% 73% 72% 64% 73% 73% 63% Public Facilities 21% 26% 18% 11% 2% 5% 2% 2% 13% Planning/Administration 14% 17% 14% 7% 11% 17% 10% 10% 9% Max 20%) Economic Development 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Public Services 9% 13% 14% 9% 15% 14% 15% 15% 15% (Max. 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%. • • d 4 I t I t 5 81 -.-whips �� S 1 f S i# k i 4 n 4 X ,Ue r � .f.a rz '{A •, 'o- Commission members present: Bob Browning, Chair Eric Berglund, Vice-Chair Michael Kulischeck Tia Molander Jeff Taylor Jennifer Wagner Cheryl Zimlich • Staff: Heidi Phelps Maurice Head Julie Smith Melissa Visnic Report produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 171 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.482.1506 • 970.482.1230 fax meadors@reporterworks.com e-mail 1 • MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Browning called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Items of note prior to discussions of applications: The Commission will vote on amounts it feels appropriate; Staff will allocate the funds from the proper categories. The North Fort Collins Business Association has pledged $1,000 to help with the proposed study. A revised budget from Neighbor to Neighbor was received approximately three hours prior to the meeting. The requested amount was reduced to $150,000. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. At the conclusion of voting on proposals, moved by Ms. Wagner, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To accept the recommendations as finalized, with Staff to allocate recommended funding to the appropriate sources. Motion approved unanimously. HO-1 — Colorado Supportive Housing Development - $500,000 request • Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: To recommend full funding in the form of a grant. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $500,000 Reasons for the Recommendation Strong community support exists for this project. The applicants have the experience to make the project a success. The project needs to move forward expeditiously. The target population is not one that ordinarily receives a great deal of attention. This represents a good use of space on Harmony Road and is close to essential services. The project is 100% accessible and barrier-free. The nature of the funding would mandate a grant rather than a loan. Some concern remains over the dependence on Federal funding and transportation. HO-2 — Homebuyer Assistance - $300,000 request Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $300,000 • 2 • Reasons for the Recommendation This is a program with a successful track record, has proven to work, and places people in home ownership. Funding is self-generating as the loaned funds are repaid. HO-3 Larimer Home Improvement Program - $60,000 request Moved by Ms. Wagner, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $60,000 Reasons for the Recommendation This program is revitalized, with a higher level of manpower. The program has zero default rates. Safety needs are being addressed very effectively. A contribution from the City is needed to continue Federal funding. The program is worthy, and is self- generating as recipients pay back the loans. The funding specifically addresses mobile homes, a spectrum of low-income housing. • HO-4— Fort Collins Housing Corporation: Village on Cowan - $110,358 request Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $110,358 Reasons for the Recommendation Immediate needs, including health and safety issues, exist for the funding. In comparison to some other projects, the problems to be solved are more urgent. This funding would aid and help the viability of an existing project. The Commission has a responsibility to help preserve existing stock. The level of income of the residents does not allow for accumulation of a repair/replacement reserve. Renewed marketing efforts are impressive. HO-5 —Village on Plum, Sleepy Willow Preservation Phase III - $304,296 request Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Motion approved 5-0, with Ms. Wagner abstaining. • Total recommended funding level - $304,296 3 Reasons for the Recommendation • This funding would help these units to move forward and bring finality to this project. The units need assistant in order to be marketable; if they are not marketable, this project may not survive for another funding application. This funding may represent a last resort of aid to keep the project viable. HO-6 —Willox Lane Affordable Housing - $600,000 request Moved by Mr. Berglund: To recommend full funding. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Wagner: To recommend no funding. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of $595,000. Upon discussion, with consent of the second, Mr. Berglund amended the recommendation to $437,931, or the level of remaining funds. Motion defeated. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To recommend funding of • $200,000. Motion approved. Total recommended funding level - $200,000 Reasons for the Recommendation The public/private partnership potential is appealing. As a loan, this would generate replacement funds. A new development is attractive to potential residents. Good access exists to primary services. Having a for-profit entity is a hedge against future requests that are generated due to lack of appropriate funding. The applicant is approaching this project creatively. The project is seen as a phased project for funding purposes, i.e., other requests can be anticipated in future funding cycles, following evaluation of tax credits, floodplain, and other issues. This project addresses the 40-50% AMI level, while vacancies at this level still exist in other areas of the city. The affordable housing situation in Fort Collins calls for housing targeted to 30% AMI or lower. Due to the longer-term nature of this funding and inherent uncertainties, partial funding is appropriate. • 4 • HO-7 — Neighbor to Neighbor: Crabtree Apartments - $74,300 request Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Ms. Wagner: To recommend full funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $74,300 Reasons for the Recommendation Obvious environmental concerns presently exist with this project. The funding is necessary to keep this project habitable. The project is moving in the right direction to assess its needs, obtain leveraging, and develop a maintenance plan. Some concern exists over the process of their capital needs evaluation. AD-1 North Fort Collins Business Association - $20,000 request (less $1,000 pledge by applicant) Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Ms. Wagner: To recommend funding of $19,000, subject to the process being administered by City Staff and meeting City Staff approval. Motion approved 4-3. • Total recommended funding level - $19,000 Reasons for the Recommendation This area is a hot button for the City, with demonstrable economic development and community needs. In order to use the funding, the entity must comply with City standards in its RFP and bidding processes. The City would be involved with the entire process. Concerns were expressed as to the exact usage and specific outcome of the funding. The potential benefit of this proposal would be best realized over the next year; circumstances could dilute the benefit after that time. • 5