HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/07/2006 - PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION 2006-111 APPROVING ITEM NUMBER: 28
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: November7, 2006
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ken Waldo
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and Resolution 2006-111 Approving the Programs and Projects That Will Receive
Funds From the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment
Partnership (HOME) Grants and the City's Affordable Housing Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. The CDBG Commission presents a list of
recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and Home Investment Partnership
(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. City funds for this item have been appropriated as part of the Affordable
Housing Fund in December 2005.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial
resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities.
BACKGROUND
This Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG and
HOME funds for the FY 2006 Program year, which started on October 1, 2006, including the use
of Cary-over CDBG Entitlement Grant funds, funds from the FY 2006 HOME Grant, funds from
the HOME Community Housing Development Organization(CHDO)Set Aside and funds from the
City's Affordable Housing Fund. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as
to which programs and projects should receive funding.
November 7, 2006 -2- Item No. 28
The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT SOURCE
$483,687 FY 2006 HOME Grant
96,813 HOME CHDO Funds
105,787 CDBG Carry-over Funds
133,000 Affordable Housing Fund
$819 287 Total Funding Available
HOME Community Housing Development Organization(CHDO)set aside funds represent a portion
of the HOME grant earmarked for CHDO agencies. CDBG Carry-over Funds represent the portion
of the FY 2006 CDBG Entitlement Grant that were not allocated during the spring cycle of the
competitive process.
The CDBG Commission presents recommendations as to which programs and projects should
receive funding from the available funding sources presented above. The following tables present
the allocations recommended by the Commission to the City Council within each major category:
Affordable Housing
Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded
Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance
HO-1 Neighbor-to-Neighbor $80,080 $80,080 $0
—Rehabilitation of Coachlight
and Conifer Properties
HO-2 Fort Collins Housing $127,952 $0 $127,952
Corporation — Linden House
Rehabilitation
HO-3 Fort Collins Housing $350,000 $163,500 $186,500
Corporation — Stadium
Apartments Acquisition and
Rehabilitation
HO-4 CARE Housing — $300,000 $300,000 $0
Acquisition of Land
HO-5 City of Fort Collins — $250,000 $250,000 $0
Home Buyer Assistance
All funding recommendations in the Affordable Housing category are in the form
of a"Due on Sale Loan + 5% Simple Interest."
Public Facility
Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded
Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance
PF-1 Crossroads Safehouse— $12,475 $12,475 $0
Facility Improvement
All funding recommendations in the Public Facilities category are in the form of a
"Due on Sale Loan + 5% Simple Interest."
November 7, 2006 -3- Item No. 28
A summary ofthe Commission's funding recommendations by category is presented in the following
table:
Recommended Funding % of Total Category
$793,580 98.5% Affordable Housing
12,475 1.5% Public Facilities
$806 055 100.0% Total
The CDBG Commission has recommended that$806,055 (98.4%)of the available funding amount
of$819,287 be allocated leaving a balance of only$13,232. The Commission recommends that all
of the funds from all sources be utilized except for the $13,232 from the FY 2006 CDBG
Entitlement Grant. The$13,232 will be carried over and will be available for allocation in the 2007
spring cycle of the competitive process.
Recommended Funding % of Total Category
$806,505 98.4% Allocated to Programs and Projects
13,232 1.6% Carry-over to 2007 Spring Cycle
$819 287 100.0% Total Funds Available
ATTACHMENTS
1. Background and Summary of the CDBG Commission's Recommendations for Funding.
2. Background Information on the Competitive Process.
3. Affordable Housing Board's List of Priority Projects.
4. Background Information on the CDBG and HOME Federal Programs.
5. CDBG Commission's Comments on Proposal.
6. Formulation of Funding Recommendations Session.
7. PowerPoint Presentation.
ATTACHMENT 1
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF CDBG COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING
At the November 7, 2006, regular City Council meeting, the Council will be conducting a public
hearing and consider the adoption of a resolution establishing which programs and projects will
receive funding with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment
Partnership (HOME), Affordable Housing Program funds for the FY 2006-2007 Program year.
The resolution establishing which programs and projects will receive funds 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 2.
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 City's Affordable Housing Board reviewed the
written applications for affordable housing projects and forwarded a priority ranking of proposals,
as well as comments and questions, to the CDBG Commission. See Attachment 3 for a copy of
the Board's materials sent to the CDBG Commission. The CDBG Commission, in addition to
reviewing the written applications, personally interviewed each applicant, analyzed the
applications, and formulated a list of recommendations to the City Council as to which programs
and projects should receive funding.
The Competitive Process established refined criteria to determine priorities between proposals
received by the City. The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category is
given a total number of points that has been weighed according to its importance with respect to
local and federal priorities. The five major categories are:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The Impact/Benefrt criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups.
The Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted City goals and priorities. The
Feasibility criteria reward projects for timelines and documented additional funding. The
Leveraging Resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds to the City(loans) and for
their ability to leverage other resources; and, the Capacity and History criteria help gage an
applicant's ability to do the project and reward applicants who have completed successful projects
in the past (have good track records). A sample ranking sheet used to assist the CDBG
Commission and the Affordable Housing Board is also presented in Attachment 2.
1
The Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable
Housing Needs and Strategies report adopted by the Council on July 20, 2004. These guidelines
include:
• HOME funds should generally be allocated as follows: 90% for Housing projects
and 10% for Program Administration. HUD HOME Program regulations also
require the City to set aside 15% for Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) projects and allow an allocation of 5% for CHDO
operations;
• CDBG funds should generally be allocated as follows: 65% for Housing projects;
15% for Public Services, and the balance for Public facilities and Program
Administration.
• funds allocated to housing should generally be divided as follows: 70% for rental
projects and 30% for homeownership opportunities; and
• the average subsidy should be $7,400 per unit, with relatively more funding to
projects producing housing for lower income families.
The CDBG and HOME Programs are ongoing grant administration programs funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received
CDBG Program funds since 1975 and HOME Program funds since 1994. The City is an
Entitlement recipient of CDBG funds and a Participating Jurisdiction recipient of HOME funds,
meaning the City is guaranteed a certain level of funding each year. The level of funding is
dependent on the total amount of funds allocated to the programs by Congress and on a formula
developed by HUD, which includes data on total population, minorities as a percentage of
population, income levels, housing stock conditions, etc. Additional background information on
the City's HOME and CDBG Programs are presented in Attachment 4.
AVAILABLE FUNDS
The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT SOURCE
$483,687 FY 2006 HOME Grant
96,813 HOME CHDO Funds
105,787 CDBG Carry-over Funds
133,000 Affordable Housing Fund
$819,287 Total Funding Available
2
SELECTION PROCESS
The selection process for the City's FY 2006-2007 Competitive Process began on January 11,
2006, when the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on community
development and affordable housing needs. The Advance Planning office placed legal
advertisements in local and regional newspapers starting in July to solicit requests for housing and
community development projects for FY 2006-2007. The application deadline was Thursday
August 17, 2006. At the close of the deadline the City received six (6) applications requesting a
total of approximately$1.12 million.
Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council
on September 14, 2006 and placed in the Council Office for review. 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 September 21 the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to review
the housing proposals and prepared a priority listing of applications to the CDBG Commission.
On Thursday September 28 the Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification
questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on Thursday October 5 for the purpose
of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be
funded for the FY 2006-2007 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 funding in
other previous years. The Commission then worked on the formulation of their list of
recommendations.
CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects which best fit
the City's needs, had to insure funding allocations were kept within HUD regulations, and
followed 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.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICATIONS
HO-1: NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR—REHABILITATION OF COACHLIGHT AND
CONIFER PROPERTIES
Request: $80,080
Recommendation: $80,080 (CDBG Funds)
Neighbor to Neighbor is requesting funds to improve and preserve existing affordable
housing in three properties, Coachlight Apartments on Blue Spruce Drive, and two side-
3
by-side 4-plexes on Conifer Street. The improvements will be primarily health and safety
items, such as water heaters, smoke detectors, flooring, sidewalk and asphalt repairs.
HO-2: FORT COLLINS HOUSING CORPORATION—LINDEN HOUSE
REHABILITATION
Request: $127,952
Recommendation: $0
The Fort Collins Housing Corporation(FCHC) proposes to rehabilitate Linden House located
at 252 Linden Street. The FCHC has leased the upper floor of this building since 1986 in
order to provide transitional housing and services for formerly homeless people.
Rehabilitation items include new windows, security items, insulation, fumaces, air
conditioning, repair of bathrooms, etc.
HO-3: FORT COLLINS HOUSING CORPORATION (FCHC)—STADIUM
APARTMENTS ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION
Request: $350,000
Recommendation: $163,500 (FY06 HOME funds)
The FCHC currently owns a 24-unit building located at 2217 West Elizabeth Street.
There is an identical neighboring building that is currently owned by a private entity.
FCHC proposes to purchase the neighboring 24 units and rehabilitation all 48 units as one
project.
HO-4: CARE HOUSING—ACQUISITION OF LAND
Request: $300,000
Recommendation: $300,000 ($127,187 HOME Funds, $96,813 HOME CHDO
Funds, $83,000 City Affordable Housing Funds)
The proposed project will include the development of 80 affordable multi-family housing
units at Provincetown. City funding will be used to help partially pay for the project's
development fees. In partnership with KB Home and the City of Fort Collins, CARE is
purchasing land below market from KB Home and will develop a 13 acre site in two phases
to meet affordable housing requirements.
HO-5: CITY OF FORT COLLINS—HOME BUYER ASSISTANCE
Request: $250,000
Recommendation: $250,000 ($200,000 HOME Funds, $50,000 City Affordable
Housing Funds)
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
4
the time of repayment. The assistance covers down payment and closing costs to a maximum of
$10,000 for households at 51%to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) and $20,000 for buyers at
or below 50% of AMI working through the Habitat or Section 8 Homeownership projects.
Approximately 25 households will be assisted with this funding.
PUBLIC FACILITY APPLICATIONS
PF-1: CROSSROADS SAFEHOUSE—FACILITY IMPROVEMENT
Request: $12,475
Recommendation: $12,475 (CDBG Funds)
This electrical upgrade will bring the entire safehouse up to a reasonable and available
power supply standard that is appropriate for the facility. The upgrade will allow the
safehouse to install air conditioning, which was previously recommended by the CDBG
Commission.
A summary of the Commission's funding recommendations by category for the total amount
of funds available is as follows:
Recommended Funding % of Total Category
$793,580 98.5% Affordable Housing
12,475 1.5% Public Facilities
$806,055 100.0% Total Allocated to Programs and Projects
Recommended Funding % of Total Category
$806,055 98.4% Allocated to Programs and Projects
$13,232 1.6% Carry-over to 2007 Spring CDBG Funds)
$819,287 100.0% Total Funds Available
The CDBG Commission has recommended that $806,055 (98.4%) of the available funding
amount of$819,287 be allocated leaving a balance of$13,232. The Commission recommends
that all of the funds from all sources be utilized except for the $13,232 from the FY 2006 CDBG
Entitlement Grant. The $13,232 will be carried over and will be available for allocation in the fall
cycle of the competitive process.
The total amount of funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately
$1.12 million, however, only $819,287 of funds are available. With the amount of total requests
exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be funded..
The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for four (4) proposals (three housing
proposals and the one public facility proposal). In the Commission's opinion, the applications
recommended for full funding best fit the City's funding objectives, the selection criteria, and the
funding guidelines.
5
Proposals, which did not receive full funding, were deemed of a lower priority and, in some cases,
a lack of funds,program category limitations, or funding guidelines prohibited their full funding.
The Commission has recommended no funding for one (1)proposal.
The Commission's reasons for either full funding, partial funding, or no funding are presented in
Attachment 5.
Attachment 6 contains information on how the Commission's session where they formulate their
funding recommendations was to be conducted.
6
ATTACHMENT 2
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 initial 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 semi-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 ends 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:
I. 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
Three application forms have also been developed. One form for Housing proposals, one form
for Public Facility proposals, and one form for Public Service proposals).
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.
8
RANKING CRITERIA
The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category is given a total number of points that has been weighed
accordin to its importance with respect to local and federal priorities.
Im actBenefit maximum 30points)
1. Primarily targets low incomepersons? 0-10)
(all units 0-30%of AMI= 10 Ins;at least half of the units at or below 30%of AMI and the remaining
units at 31-50%of AMI=8 pts;at least half of the units at 31-50%of AMI and at least half of the units
at 51-60%of AMI=6 pts;at least half of the units at 51-60%of AMI and half the units at 61-80%of
AMI=4pts;all units between 61-80%AMI=2 is
2. Project produces adequate community benefit related to cost? 0-5
Does the project provide assistance for persons to gain self-sufficiency or maintain independence, or
3. serve a special population? (0-5)
4. Does the project provide long-term benefit or affordability? (0-10
(1-10 s=3 pts, 11-19 yrs=6 pts, 20-30 yrs=8 pts,permanent= 10 is
Sub-total
Need/Priori[ maximum 15 oints
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 efforts to secure other funding? (0-5)
Sub-total
Feasibilit maximum 15 oints
L The project will be completed within the required timeperiod? 0-3)
2. Project budget is justified?(Costs are documented and reasonable.) (0-4
3. The level of public subsidy is needed? (Private funds are not available.) (0-4
4. Has the applicant documented efforts to secure other funding? (0-4)
Sub-total
Leveraein2 Resources maximum 20points)
1. Does the project allow the reuse of our funding? 0-10)
A. Principal and interest 30-year amortization or less 10 poini
B. Principal and no interest or principal and balloon payment(repayment) 6 points
C. Due-on-sale loan 4 points
2. Project leverages other financial resources? (Includin 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 oints
D. More than 1:7 10 oint
Sub-total
CaDacity and History maximum 20 pointsl
L Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposedproject? (0-10)
2. If previously funded,has the applicant completed prior projects and maintained regulatory compliance? 0-10)
3. If new,applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-20)
Sub-total
GRAND
TOTAL
9
ATTACHMENT 3
After careful review and discussion of the housing applications, the Fort Collins Affordable
Housing Board established a list of priorities as a means for assisting the CDBG Commission as
they prepare for applicant interviews.
The following table presents the Board's listing of priority projects, the applicant's initial funding
request, and the CDBG Commission's funding recommendation.
AHB's Ranking Applicant's CDBG
of Priority Project Initial Funding Commission's Unfunded
Projects Request Recommendation Balance
1 HO-3 Fort $350,000 $163,500 $186,500
Collins Housing
Corporation—
Stadium
Apartments
Acquisition and
Rehabilitation
2 HO-5 City of $250,000 $250,000 $0
Fort Collins—
Home Buyer
Assistance
3 HO-1 Neighbor- $80,080 $80,080 $0
to-Neighbor—
Rehabilitation of
Coachlight and
Conifer
Properties
4 HO-4 CARE $300,000 $300,000 $0
Housing—
Acquisition of
Land
5 HO-2 Fort $127,952 $0 $127,952
Collins Housing
Corporation—
Linden House
Rehabilitation
10
ATTACHMENT 4
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 90% 10% 0%
City Expenditures
for:
2005 100% 0% 0%
2004 100% 0% 0%
2003 100% 0% 0%
2002 100% 0% 0%
2001 100% 0% 0%
2000 100% 0% 0%
1999 100% 0% 0%
1998 100% 0% 0%
1997 100% 0% 0%
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;
11
(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.
12
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. DIRECT HOUSING ASSISTANCE:
Down payment assistance: To help low-income individuals to purchase housing for their
principal residence. Applicants must meet income guidelines of no more than 80% of the
current 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$10,000 to help cover downpayment and closing cost expenses. The funding
is repaid with a 5% simple interest charge when the property is sold or transferred out of
the buyer's name. Restrictions will apply which will assure the property remains
affordable. This is accomplished by the "recapturing" of the HOME investment.
Tenant based rental assistance: To help low-income households avoid eviction and
homelessness, TBRA provides up to two years of housing subsidy and case management
services to stabilize households and put them on the road to self-sufficiency.
2. 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
community housing development organizations (CHDOs), non-profit agencies, and for-
profit developers.
3. 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.
13
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 $212,015.
HOME PROGRAM PRIORITIES
The 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan identifies the following priorities for housing related needs:
1. Stimulate housing production for very low, low and moderate income 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.
14
ATTACHMENT 5
T DING RE �A=NS
CO THY DEVELOPMW BLOCK GRANT
tll nM Ober 5,
P
g.. z
Commission members present:
Bob Browning, Chair
Eric Berglund, Vice-Chair
Michael Kulischeck
Tom LeSavage
Jeff Taylor
Jennifer Wagner
Cheryl Zimlich
Staff:
Ken Waido
Maurice Head
Melissa Visnic
Report produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
315 West Oak Street, Suite 710
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
970.482.1506
970.482.1230 fax
meadors ccDreuorterworks.com e-mail
15
MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
Mr. Browning called the meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
At the conclusion of voting on proposals, moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Mr. Taylor: To
accept the recommendations as listed on the matrix. Motion approved unanimously.
PF-1 — Crossroads - $12,475 request
Moved by Ms. Wagner, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To recommend full funding. Motion
approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $12,475
Reasons for the Recommendation
A commitment for support has been made to Crossroads. The need for this funding was not the
applicant's doing but was due to an unexpected occurrence. This represents a small expenditure
for a very strong reward.
HO-1 —Neighbor to Neighbor: Coachlight and Crabtree Apartments Rehab - $80,080 request
Moved by Ms. Wagner, seconded by Mr. Berglund: To recommend full funding. Motion
approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $80,080
Reasons for the Recommendation
The Commission has been charged with the mission of maintaining existing housing stock. The
applicant has outlined and is staying with an ongoing capital improvement plan. The funds may
leverage contributions from other funding sources.
HO-2— Linden House Rehab - $127,952 request
Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Ms. Wagner: To recommend no funding. Motion approved
4-2.
Total recommended funding level - $0
16
Reasons for the Recommendation
It is concerning that no lease is in place and that the owner apparently lacks desire to address
existing problems, particularly with a property that is free and clear. Funding of units in this
application in a privately owned building would be better used in other higher-needs areas.
Funding should serve to benefit the residents rather than the property owner. Commission
members voiced their desire to enter into some type of helpful arrangement to encourage a
prudent partnership, including an owner match or contribution, to enable SRO funding.
HO-3 —FCHC, Stadium Apartments - $350,000 request
Moved by Ms. Wagner, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of$163,500. Motion
approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $163,500
Reasons for the Recommendation
The applicant performs well on its projects. This project is a desirable one, located next to an
existing project. The Commission feels, subject to the results of pending applications, that the
applicant is able to secure additional sources of funding.
HO-4 CARE Housing - $300,000 request
Moved by Mr. Berglund, seconded by Ms. Wagner: To recommend full funding. Motion
approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $300,000
Reasons for the Recommendation
This applicant has demonstrated an enviable track record, good stewardship of public funds, and
an impressive ability to leverage further funding. This project would provide housing for an area
which presently has a notable lack of affordable housing.
17
HO-5 —Homebuyer Assistance - $250,000 request
Moved by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Motion approved
6-1.
Total recommended funding level - $250,000
Reasons for the Recommendation
This is a good long-term program that has helped 30-40 families per year. The project has shown
good performance on its portfolio. It is meeting the mission of affordability in providing
expanded opportunity for home ownership.
The next page (not numbered)presents the Funding Matrix for the Fall Cycle 2006 Competitive
Process. The matrix lists the applicants, their projects, and their funding requests, the funding
sources and their available amounts, and the CDBG Commission's recommendations for funding
and the recommended funding amounts from each funding source. The matrix also shows how
much of each applicant's request remains unfunded and the remaining amount of funds for each
funding source, if any.
18
. . . . . . _
I � \ \ & � & §
\ k \ \
{� G w 2
d«^ .
§ & k 3 \ ƒ § S
# CV) k � K
_ �
� § k ® / 2 &
k A \ k
LLD
£ 00 7 S \ S o
a e g e _ !
2 2 | % g \ \ J /
a 2 _ G G � /
2 §
\/ \ R 3 & \ \ \ R
■ g . a K » ° C4
2 2 � G \ k
2 ,
^ \ \ \ \
cr k - \ \ \ G k
W � _ b09-
VM)M \
£ § §
{ §
) ) 0
0 ` ` ) 0 ® -
2 \ ` \ J
` 0 \ } ( ) }
BuIsnoH d
ATTACHMENT 6
City of Fort Collins Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission
Formulation of Funding Recommendations Session
The CDBG Commission has prepared this hand-out to help you to understand how the
Commission's meeting for the purpose of formulating funding recommendations to the City
Council is conducted. It is the Commission's wish that our methodology be understandable to
imagine, the entire process is complex and time-
consuming, might P
al observers. As g g .
even the most casual Y
t requests greatly exceed the amount of available funding.
nsum in especially given that gran q gr Y
co g, p Y g
e requested, and
is matrix showing g re q
City Staff will prepare an electron g each application, the funding
discuss the pros and cons of every application.
le. The Commission will drsc p .
the total funds available. ,
The order which applications are discussed is not important and there is no danger of running
out' of funds before all applications are fully discussed. There will be preliminary funding
throughout the process and these recommendations
tions will
motions made, seconded, and approvedg
be added into the matrix. It must be emphasized that the matrix is a working document, and any
figures used whether they be for full, partial, or zero funding, are for discussion purposes only. It
is also possible that the total funds listed in the matrix might exceed the total of funds available at
this point of the process.
After each application has been discussed, the Commission will start to adjust the matrix to start
producing its recommendation for funding to Council. Funding contained on the matrix may be
drastically changed in either a positive or negative manner during this part of the process. When
it t
the Commission agrees on the matrix as indicated by a motion to accept , a second to the
motion, and a positive majority vote the process is over and the recommendation will be
forwarded to the Cou
ncil.
While the Commission's main purpose is to provide Council with the best funding alternative, the
Commission is also sensitive that the funds being recommended for expenditure are taxpayer-
provided. For this reason, it is entirely possible that not all funds will be recommended for
expenditure, even if there are some applicants recommended for zero, or reduced, funding.
The last point to be made is while this meeting is open to the public, to be fair to applicants who
are not present at the meeting, no public comments will be taken.
19
2006 FALL CYCLE
COMPETITIVE PROCESS
Allocating City Financial Resources to
Affordable Housing Programs
and
Community Development Activities
AVAILABLE FUNDING
AMOUNT SOURCE
$105,787 CDBG Program
483,687 HOME Program
96,813 HOME CHDO
133,000 City's Affordable Housing Fund
$819,287 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE
1
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
CATEGORY NUMBER of REQUESTED
PROPOSALS FUNDING
Affordable 5 $1 ,108,032
Housing
Public Facilities 1 $12,475
TOTALS 6 $1,120,507
REVIEW PROCESS
• Affordable Housing Board
— Reviews Written Affordable Housing Proposals
— Provides Listing of Priority AH Projects
• CDBG Commission
— Reviews All Written Proposals
— Interviews Each Applicant
— Provides Funding Recommendations to the City
Council
• City Council
— Final Decision on Funding Allocations
2
SUMMARY OF THE CDBG COMMISSION'S
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDED %g of
FUNDING TOTAL CATEGORY
$793,580 98.5%D Affordable Housing
12,475 1 .5%D Public Facilities
$806,055 100.0% TOTAL ALLOCATED
$806,055 98.4% Total Allocated
13,232 1 .6% Carry-over to 2007
$819,287 100.0% AVAILABLE FUNDS
HOME
Agency B Funding CDBG HOMEFY06 FY06 CHDO AHF L Project
Protect Request r .<" Unfunded
Balance
$105,787 $483,687 $96,813 $133,000
Neighbor-to.
Neighbor Rehab $80,080 $80,080 $0 $0 $0
Coachiight a
Crabtree
FCHC $127,952 $0 $0 $0 ,. $127.952
Linden Rehab
FCHC $350,000 $0 $163,500 $0 t ;a $186,500
Stadium Apts ,a
CARE Housing $300,000 $0 $120,187 $96,813 $83,000 "F $0
City HBA 5250,000 $200,000 $50,000 . $0
Crossroads $12,475 $12,475 fi. $0
TOTAL $1,120,507 $92,555 $483,687 $96,813 $133,000 & $314,452
ALLOCATED:
FUNDING SOURCE R.malning $13,232 $0 $0 $0
BALANCE: Amount
3
RESOLUTION 2006-111
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS THAT WILL
RECEIVE FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) GRANTS
AND THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the Home
Investments Partnership (HOME) Program are ongoing grant administration programs funded by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD); and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins has received CDBG Program funds since 1975 and
HOME funds since 1993; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has budgeted General Fund dollars into an Affordable Housing
Fund for use in assisting affordable housing programs/projects; and
WHEREAS,on January 18,2000,the City Council approved Resolution 2000-013,formally
adopting a competitive process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities; and
WHEREAS,since January 2006,the CDBG Commission has held a public hearing to obtain
citizen input on community development and affordable housing needs,and has heard presentations
and asked clarification questions from each applicant that submitted a proposal to the City
requesting funding; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Commission met in a special meeting for the purpose of preparing
a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded with the
FY 2006 CDBG Entitlement Grant, FY 06 HOME Grant funds, HOME Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO) Set Aside funds, and the utilization of the City's Affordable
Housing Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit an application to HUD as follows:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FY 06 CDBG Entitlement Grant
$80 080 1 Neighbor-to-Neighbor—Rehabilitation of Coachlight & Crabtree
FY 06 HOME Grant
$163 500 Fort Collins Housing Corporation—Stadium Apartments
120,187 CARE Housing—Acquisition of Land
200,000 City of Fort Collins—Home Buyer Assistance Pro am
HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set Aside
$96 813 1 CARE Housing—Acquisition of Land
Affordable Housing Fund
$83,000 CARE Housing—Acquisition of Land
50,000 City of Fort Collins—Home Buyer Assistance Program
PUBLIC FACILITIES
FY 06 CDBG Entitlement Grant
$12 475I Crossroads Safehouse—Facility Improvement
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th
day of November, A.D. 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk