Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/20/2003 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE COMPLETION OF THE SPRING CYC AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-F FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 20, 2003FROM: Ken Waido SUBJECT : Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and Community Development Activities: the City's Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG),Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and Affordable Housing Funds. 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 2003-069 Adopting the FY 2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant Program. B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2003-070 Adopting the FY 2003-2004 Home Investment Partnerships Program. C. Resolution 2003-071 Approving the Funding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. D. Resolution 2003-072 Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development the 2003 Fort Collins Consolidated Action Plan. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years 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 related to funding under the CDBG and HOME Programs. The first resolution (Resolution 2003- 069) establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG funds for the FY 2003-2004 Program year, which starts on October 1,2003. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The second resolution (Resolution 2003-070) establishes the major funding categories within the HOME DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Program for the FY 2003-2004 Program year and establishes allocations which will use HOME Program unprogrammed funds and program income. 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 third resolution (Resolution 2003-071) establishes allocations of unprogrammed funding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. BACKGROUND: At the May 20, 2003, 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 with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, HOME funds and Affordable Housing Funds for the FY 2003-2004 Program year, which starts on October 1, 2003. The resolution establishing which programs and projects will receive funds represents the culmination of the spring cycle of the competitive process approved in January 2000 by the Council for the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. Additional background material about the competitive process is included in Attachment A. Since early January of this year,the CDBG Commission and members of the City staff's Affordable Housing Team have conductedpublic hearings to assess community development and housing needs in Fort Collins, conducted technical assistance training workshops for applicants, and solicited applications for CDBG,HOME and Affordable Housing 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 B 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/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups. The Need/Priority criteria help assure that 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. 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 DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 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: • 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; • 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 $5,000 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. In 1975 and FY 1976-1977 the City received HUD CDBG discretionary grants. Since FY 1977-1978, 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. The City has been a participating jurisdiction in the HOME Investment Partnership Program since 1994. AVAILABLE FUNDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS. The amount of the City's CDBG Entitlement Grant for FY 2003-2004 is $1,243,000. The Entitlement Grant will be combined with $162,736 of CDBG Program Income and $19,950 of Reprogrammed funds to create a total of $1,425,686 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 and homebuyer downpayment assistance loans. CDBG Reprogrammed funds include funds not expended in previously approved projects. The relatively large amount of reprogrammed funds available this year comes from CDBG funds previously allocated to projects for the payment of the City's Development Impact Fees. HUD has ruled that CDBG fund can not be used to pay the City's fees. DATE: ITEM NUMBER: The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds: CDBG Program AMOUNT SOURCE ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- $1,243,000 FY 2003 CDBG Entitlement Grant 162,736 CDBG Program Income 19,950 CDBG Reprogrammed Funds ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $1,425,686 CDBG Total 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 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- -- 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 2000 1,175,000 34,358 93.544 1,302,902 2001 1,227,000 403,151 89,651 1,719,802 2002 1,209,000 767,262 87,712 2,063,974 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP FUNDS The amount of the City's HOME grant for FY 2003-2004 is $726,510. This Participating Jurisdiction grant will be combined with $100,000 of HOME Program Income and $269,826 of reprogrammed funds for a total of$1,096,336. HOME Program Income includes repayments from loans made through the Home Buyer Assistance Program and affordable housing loans such as The Woodlands. The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds: HOME Program AMOUNT SOURCE $732,259 FY03 Grant and Program Income available Fall Cycle $ 94,251 Program Income available for projects immediately $269,826 Reprogrammed Funds available for projects immediately -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $1,096,336 Total HOME funding DATE: y ITEM NUMBER: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS The City's Affordable Housing Funds were not completely allocated in the Fall Cycle 2002. Therefore, $593,962 in reprogrammed funds are available in the Spring Cycle. The following summarizes the amount and source of available funds. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS AMOUNT SOURCE $593,962 Reprogrammed funds available for projects immediately ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $593,962 Total Affordable Housing Funds SELECTION PROCESS The selection process for the City's FY 2003-2004 Competitive Process Program began on January 11, 2003,when the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on community development and affordable housing needs. Legal advertisements were placed in local and regional newspapers starting in January to solicit requests for eligible projects for FY 2003-2004. The application deadline was Thursday February 22. At the close of the deadline the City received 26 applications requesting a total of approximately$2.3 million. Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on March 6 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on March 6, 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 27 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 2 and Thursday April 3, the Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on Thursday April 10 for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded for the FY 2003-2004 program year. At this meeting the Commission reviewed the written applications, the applicant's verbal presentation, the information provided during the j question and answer session,and reviewed the performance of agencies who received FY 2002-2003 funds or funding in other previous years. The Commission then worked on the formulation of its list of recommendations. CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS I 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 Program Income. This means the 20% limitation for Planning and Administrative purposes is $281,147. CDBG funds for Public Services are limited to 15% of the total of the Entitlement Grant and Program Income, making the amount$210,860. May 20, 2003 DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 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. In addition, HOME and Affordable Housing Funds are reserved for housing projects only. Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's list of recommendations. ----------------------------------------------------- Planning and Administration -------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration Proposal covers the administrative costs of the FY 2003-2004 CDBG Program Administration including salary, benefits and operating expenses for 2 staff positions. Request: $158,392 CDBG Recommendation: $158,392 CDBG City of Fort Collins HOME Administration and project budget for Fall 2003 Proposal covers the administrative budget for salary and operating expenses of 1 staff position and project funding to be allocated in the Fall of 2003. Request: $732,249 ($78,400 adm) HOME Recommendation: $732,249 HOME -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Acquisition/Construction of Affordable Housing -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Fort Collins Land Bank Request: $400,000 AHF Recommendation: $400,000 (due on sale loan) AHF Community Corrections Request: $200,000 AHF Recommendation: -0- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Homeownership Assistance -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Fort Collins - Home Buyer Assistance This program is administered by the Advance Planning Department and provides zero-percent interest loans to eligible first-time homebuyers. The assistance covers down payment and closing costs to a maximum of$9,000 for households at 51% to 80% of Area Median Income DATE: ITEM NUMBER: (AM )and$18,000 for buyers at or below 50% of AMI. Approximately 34 households will be assisted in the next year with this program.Matching HOME funds will be requested in the fall cycle. Request: $300,000 (Loan) CDBG Recommendation: $300,000 (Loan) HOME --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rehabilitation --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sleepy Willow Deck Replacement The project consists of the replacement of 48 of the decks at the Sleepy Willow Apartments which have found to be deteriorated to the point of being a safety hazard. Request: $82,430 (Grant) HOME Recommendation: $82,430 (grant) HOME/CDBG --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Facilities --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Respite Care Playground Respite Care is building a new facility and is in need of a playground that is specially designed for children who have developmental disabilities. Request: $50,000 CDBG Recommendation: $25,000 (grant) CDBG Housing Services Center Neighbor to Neighbor proposes to construct or acquire a 13,000 square foot Housing Services Center to provide services for area homeless and to provide a larger facility for Neighbor to Neighbor activities. Request: $750,000 (Grant or loan) CDBG/AHF Recommendation: $200,000 (due on sale) CDBG Northern Colorado AIDS Project, Building Acquisition NCAP proposes to purchase the facility it has been renting for several years. Poudre Valley Health System has provided a gift of$170,000 to cover the bulk of the acquisition. Request: $50,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $50,000 (Due on sale loan) CDBG DATE: ITEM NUMBER: --------- - Public Services --------------------------------------------------------------------- Child Care Collaborative Child Care Collaborative is seeking support for its Sliding Scale Tuition for child care for low/moderate income families of children 0-21 years of age. Request: $66,519 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $66,519 (grant) CDBG Consumer Credit Counseling Financial Counseling Service This program is new to CDBG. CCCS proposes to use CDBG funding to support staff salaries to provide financial counseling to reduce financial stress and learn money management skills. Request: $15,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $ -0- Ensight Skills Center Ensight proposes to use CDBG funding to provide functional low-vision assessment, training and presentations for people experiencing vision loss. They also provide training with low vision aids, use of loaner equipment and training in the activities of daily living. Request: $10,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $ -0- Elderhaus Multi-Cultural Group and Community Group Elderhaus proposes to use CDBG funds to support staff salaries to provide a group designed to cross cultural barriers and a group to keep adults with special needs active in the community. Request: $7,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $5,000 (Grant) CDBG Springfield Court Scholarship Program Springfield Court Early Learning Center proposes to use CDBG funds to support its scholarship program for families whose income does not met the guidelines of a full pay client and those who cannot receive any other assistance. Request: $20,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $15,000 (grant) CDBG . .:o ,N, r...: , DATE: ITEM NUMBER: First Call's Enhanced Information and Referral Service First Call proposes to use CDBG to support staff salaries in the provision of information and referral services. First Call is a pilot site for the new 2-1-1 system of easy access to I/R community services. Request: $25,989 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $ -0- Project Self-Sufficiency Project Self-sufficiency proposes to use CDBG funds to support staff salaries to assist low- income single parents in becoming financially independent and free from government assistance Request: $22,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $20,000 (grant) CDBG Literacy and Employment Skills Training ELTC proposes to use CDBG funds to supplement staff salaries to provide services such as preparation for immediate entry into the labor market, GED examination or postsecondary education, and provide literacy and technological life skills. Request: $18,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $12,000 (Grant) CDBG DRS Access to Independence Program DRS proposes to use CDBG funds to supplement staff salaries for the provision of the following services: Access to Independence, Case Management and Community Assistance. Request: $25,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $9,015 (Grant) CDBG Fostering Family Strengths: Prevention of Child Abuse Fostering Family Strengths prevents child abuse and neglect by helping families learn to interact in healthy, nonviolent ways. It is proposed that CDBG funding support staff salaries Request: $10,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $ -0- VOA Handyman Program VOA Handyman proposes to use CDBG funds to support staff salaries and expenses for their service which provides volunteers to perform minor home safety repairs in order to keep seniors living independently Request: $19,716 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $ -0- IU DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Comprehensive Housing Counseling—N2N Neighbor to Neighbor proposes to use CDBG funds to support their comprehensive housing counseling service. Request: $35,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $20,000 (Grant) CDBG Senior Services Senior Services proposes to use CDBG funding to support staff salaries to provide at-risk seniors the services which will help them to remain independent. Request: $15,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $15,000 (Grant) CDBG Shelter and Supportive Services for the Homeless CDBG funds are proposed to support staff salaries in provision of a continuum of service for the homeless including shelter, food, case management and transitional housing for families. Request: $30,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $25,000 (Grant) CDBG Court Appointed Special Advocates Program CASA proposes to use CDBG funding to support three staff salaries to provide volunteers to work in the juvenile justice system as advocates for abused and neglected children. Request: $ 11,222 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $ 8,326 (Grant) CDBG Health Care Prevention and Case Management The Women's Center proposes to use CDBG funds to support staff salaries in the provision of Dental Assistance,Early Detention of Breast and Cervical Cancer,HIV Prevention and Patient Navigation. Request: $10,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $ 7,000 (Grant) CDBG Career Quest The Women's Center proposes to use CDBG funds to support staff salaries for their Career Quest services to include the female inmates of Larimer County Detention Center and clients at Crossroads Safehouse. Request: $6,651 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $ -0- DATE: y ITEM NUMBER: NCAP Homeless Prevention Program NCAP proposes to use CDBG funds to support staff salaries and direct aid for emergency assistance. Request: $18,000 (Grant) CDBG Recommendation: $8,000 (Grant) CDBG Total amount of funding requested = $3,083,429 A summary of the Commission's funding recommendations by category for the total amount of funds available is as follows: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS RECOMMENDED % of FUNDING TOTAL CATEGORY --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 158,392 11.5 PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION (Maximum$281,147 based on 20% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income) 19,353 1.3 HOUSING 275,000 19.1 PUBLIC FACILITIES 210,860 14.7 PUBLIC SERVICES (Maximum$210,860 based on 15% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income) 762,081 53.4 Unprogrammed available in the Fall cycle ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ $1,425,686 100.0 TOTAL The total amount of CDBG funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately $3.0 million with 2.3 million available. Due to HUD funding limitations, some Public Service applications received no funds or fewer funds than requested in order to keep the generic category within program maximums. HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP The amount of the City's HOME Grant for FY 2003-2004 is $726,510 available for projects and administrative purposes in the Fall Competitive Process Cycle.Subtracting$72,651 (10%maximum allowed by HOME regulations)for administrative purposes, leaves$544,883 available for projects and programs and$108,976 reserved for special CHDO projects. The HOME budget also includes $5,749 in Program Income to be used to support administrative costs in the Fall. Council is required to allocate the HOME budget in the Spring Cycle so that the appropriate applications may be made for HUD funding in the Fall cycle. In addition, $269,826 in reprogrammed HOME funds and $94,251 in Program Income will be available in the Spring Cycle for a total of$364,077. DATE: y 2v, ITEM NUMBER: Applications for HOME funds in the Spring Cycle are summarized as follows: $82,430 Rehab Recommendations for HOME funds are as follows: $64,077 Rehab (Grant) $300,000 Home Buyer's Assistance (Due on sale loan) AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS City Affordable Housing Funds reprogrammed from the Fall Cycle are in the amount of$593,962 and are available for eligible projects in the Spring Cycle. Applications for Affordable Housing Funds are summarized as follows: $600,000 Acquisition/Construction of Affordable Housing Recommendations for AHF are as follows: $400,000 Land Bank(due on sale loan) AVAILABLE FUNDING IN THE SPRING CYCLE 2003—SUMMARY The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds: AMOUNT SOURCE ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- $ 364,077 Reprogrammed HOME funds and Program Income 593,962 City's Affordable Housing Fund reprogrammed funds 1,425,686 FY2003 CDBG Grant and Program Income including reprogrammed funds ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $2,393,725 Total The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for six proposals and partial funding for 11 proposals. In the Commission's opinion,these applications recommended for full or partial funding best fit CDBG Program national objectives, the selection criteria, and the funding guidelines. 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 7 proposals. The Commission's reasons for either full funding, partial funding, or no funding are presented in Attachment D. DATE: ITEM NUMBER: CARRY-OVER FUNDING FOR THE FALL COMPETITIVE PROCESS CYCLE 2003 In the current Spring Cycle,the CDBG Commission recognizes its recommendations for funding do not fully allocate all of the available dollars. There will be a carry over of$956,043 in allocated funds of which $762,081 will be CDBG dollars and $193,962 will be Affordable Housing funds. These funds will be made available in the Fall funding cycle and targeted to organizations that have well-defined projects. The CDBG Commission would like to see organizations have well-defined applications in the Fall cycle and would feel uncomfortable in fully supporting any projects with numerous unanswered questions at this time. However, the Commission believes the CDBG dollars can be targeted to a good project like Neighbor to Neighbor's Housing Services Center in the next funding cycle should it have a well-defined scope of services and implementation plan. In addition, staff also believes several non-profits will be requesting Affordable Housing Fund dollars in the next cycle,which will absorb the existing carry-over and the new affordable housing funding available in the Fall Cycle. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Background Information on the Competitive Process Attachment B: Affordable Housing Board Recommendations Attachment C: Additional Background Information on CDBG and HOME Attachment D: Additional information on Commission 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. iRanking 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. ImpactBenefit(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) (I-10 M=3 pts, I 1-19 yrs=6 pts,20 to 30 yrs=8 pts,and Permanent= 10 pts) Sub-total Need/Priority(maximum 15 points) 1. Meets a Consolidated Plan priority? (0-5) 2. Project meets goals or objectives of City Plan and Priority Needs and Strategies study (0-5) 3. Has the applicant documented a need for this project? (0-5) Sub-total Feasibility(maximum 15 points) 1. The project will be completed within the required time period? (0-3) 2. Project budget is justified?(Costs are documented and reasonable)? (0-4) 3. The level of public subsidy is needed?(Private funds not available)? (0-4) • 4. Has the applicant documented efforts to secure other funding? (0-4) Sub-total Leveraging Resources(maximum 25 points) 1. Does the project allow the reuse of our funding? (0-8) A. Principal and interest(30 year Amortization or less) 8 points B. Principal and no interest or Principal and balloon payment 4 points C. Declining balance lien(amount forgiven over time) I 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. I: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 0 Attachment B March 27, 2003 Spring 2003 Competitive Process The Affordable Housing Board's priority listing of the affordable housing applications is as follows: 1. Land Bank (LB-1) 2. Fort Collins Home Buyer Assistance (HO-1) 3. FCHC Rehabilitation (RE-1) The Board recommends all three projects be funded as they are appropriate for the use of City money. The Board believes the Larimer County (HOT-ABCs) HO-2 should not be funded. While it is a worthwhile project, it is a County project and City funds were not established to funding institutional "housing." ATTACHMENT C ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION on the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG PROGRAM NATIONAL OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the CDBG Program is 0the 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.0 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: 2002 100% 0% 0% 2001 100% 0% 0% 2000 100% 0% 0% 1999 100% 0% 0% 1998 100% 0% 0% 1997 100% 0% 0% 1996 100% 0% 0% 1995 100% 0% 0% 1994 90% 10% 0% 1993 100% 0% 0% 1992 100% 0% 0% 1991 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 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 Housing 43% 80% 72% 64% 73% 73% 63% 61% 74% Public Facilities 21% 3% 2% 5% 2% 2% 13% 15% 7% Planning/Admin. (20%) 14% 7% 11% 17% 10% 10% 9% 9% 5% Economic Development 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Public Services (15%) 9% 10% 15% 14% 15% 15% 15% 15% 14% 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 2003 Administrative percentage was 11%. . 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$9,000 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 $36,300 2 persons $41,450 3 persons $46,650 4 persons $51,850 5 persons $56,000 6 persons $60,150 7 persons $64,300 8 persons $68,450 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 $201,000. PROGRAM ACTIVITY BY YEAR(includes Program Income) Home Buyer HOME Year Administration Assistance Projects Total 1994-95 50,000 50,000 400,000 500,000 1995-96 45,500 165,700 243,800 455,000 1996-97 53,900 269,500 215,600 539,000 1997-98 53,300 319,800 159,900 533,000 1998-99 56,900 319,750 192,350 569,000 1999-00 61,500 253,309 342,250 657,059 2000-01 70,000 75,000 630,000 775,000 2001-02 78,300 251,000 433,500 762,800 2002-03 78,400 423,174 372,426 874,000 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 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 Commission members present: Phil Majerus, President Terri Bryant, Vice President Robert Browning Bruce Croissant Michael Kulischeck Billie Rosen Shelley Steele Dennis Vanderheiden . Cheryl Zimlich Staff: Ken Waido Heidi Phelps Maurice Head Julie Smith Melissa Visnic Produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.482.1506 . 970.482.1230 fax meadors@reporterworks.com e-mail 1 MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Majerus announced that he will not be present for the Council work session on Tuesday, April 225, 2003, at City Council Chambers. Ms. Bryant will chair for the Commission's presentation, with assistance from Ms. Rosen and Mr. Browning. Ms. Phelps displayed the tally sheet for projects. Staff believes this is one of the most difficult funding nights ever, particularly for public service projects. Public service requests exceed funding supply by $77,000. She reviewed the criteria and focus questions. The most critical items will ultimately receive the most focus for funding. CDBG funding tends to be either seed money, or desperation funding when little else is available. Ms. Phelps urged the Commission to be as objective as possible. She asked the Commission to be very clear on their pros and cons for its decision and to be orderly to keep a good record. Mr. Waido suggested starting with housing and going to public service, since the public service will present the most arduous decisions. On the housing tally sheet, the figure for CDBG Housing and Public Facilities includes funding for administration. The total available for non-administration funding is $893,748. Numbers have been entered in boxes, not as a suggestion for funding total, but to show eligible categories for the funding. Mr. Majerus noted the amount of money being left behind in this cycle for housing funding. This is in the face of City Council not funding the Affordable Housing Fund. Mr. Majerus noted the high vacancy rates in the city and the sharper competition between housing suppliers. Mr. Waido noted that no profound competition was present between housing suppliers in this cycle. Ms. Rios of the Affordable Housing Board will send that Board's recommendation to Mr. Waido concerning the replenishment of the Affordable Housing Fund. Mr. Waido will disseminate the letter by e-mail and gain consensus from the Commission on whether to endorse the letter. General discussion included sentiments of feeling rushed in the evaluation of housing applicants; and the priority of housing and the other mission goals and accomplishments of the CDBG program. Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend full funding of HOME and CDBG Administration requests. It was noted that the program needs funded administration in order to exist. Much of the administration costs are absorbed in the City budget. Staff performs in an exemplary fashion. Motion approved unanimously. 2 HOUSING PROJECTS 9O-1 — Homebuyer Assistance Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend funding of $300,000, to be taken from HOME unprogrammed funds. Motion approved unanimously. Mr. Browning asked if interest could be charged on this award. It was noted that the program eventually regenerates its award through the due-on-sale clause. Total recommended funding level - $300,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Successful program. High need is demonstrated by its popularity and success. The loan program is the most immediately available source for funding. The dollar amount is such that the program has become very meaningful to the community. The funding is always used. HO-2 - Hot ABCs Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend no funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application The project may fail without matching This funding would be drawn from funds. It presents a valid community need. affordable housing funds, which are designed to be used to stimulate housing for families. As such, it is not an appropriate target for those funds. The jail is not in the needs and strategies evaluation. It is curious that the County is approaching the City for funding. An award may create an unwanted precedent for institutional housing funding. 3 RE-1 —Sleepy Willow Deck Replacement Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $64,077 from HOME unprogrammed funds, and funding of $19,353 from CDBG unprogrammed funds. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $83,430 Pros of Application Cons of Application With vacancies, there is a problem with Maintenance should not be funded ad cash flow, creating this unforeseeable and infinitum. emergent situation. The project has already used reserves for some repairs. This is a safety issue, and no other funding appears to be available. This project represents the highest number of vacancies for this program, and it is necessary to be presentable in order to fill vacancies. 4 . PF-1 — Respite Care - Playground Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $50,000. Motion failed 4-5. Moved by Mr. Majerus, seconded by Mr. Croissant: to recommend funding of $10,000. Motion failed 3-5, with one abstention. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend no funding. Motion failed 4-5. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: To recommend funding of $25,000. Motion passed 6-3. In technical assistance, the funding gap was presented as $273,000. Staffs advice to applicant was to present a unique, self-contained piece. The application, as drafted to include the playground, was due to advice of Staff. Total recommended fundina level - $25,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This presents a unique program devoted Further development of alternative funding to unique needs, with its higher price due sources is a real possibility. The project is to the uniqueness of the service rendered. not specifically targeted to lower-income Good effort in raising alternative funding. levels. CDBG funding may not be an The project provides a valuable and immediate necessity for the success of the needed service and is impressive in its project. Needier projects exist. Future scope. Lack of funding would deny an CDBG funding remains viable if other integral and important part of the project. A funding falls short. lower level of funding would provide useful seed money for the project. The applicant should not be penalized for successful fundraising. This is targeted for a community need as opposed to a low- income need. 5 PF-2 Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Services Center Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of $750,000, comprised of $647,954 from CDBG funds and $102,036 from the Affordable Housing Fund. Motion ultimately withdrawn with consent of the second. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of $200,000 from CDBG funds for land acquisition and related eligible development costs of the Phase I facility. Friendly amendment accepted by Ms. Zimlich and Mr. Croissant: That any development of the land be used for public facility or affordable housing-related purposes. Motion passed 5-3. In response to questions, Staff explained that a grant will not exceed appraised price. Total recommended funding level - $200,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program appears well thought out and Project options seem to be changing daily, is the product of a good collaborative including other space, funding, and timing effort. Funding applications will persist possibilities. CDBG money is best served through all phases. The proposal is flexible as seed money, and this project lacks solid to address the highest needs that are commitment for any particular phase. This presented. Neighbor to Neighbor will not does not provide units for families as an be conducting the homeless program but optimal use for affordable housing fund will collaborate with experienced agencies. dollars. More collaboration should be done The applicant has an excellent track with other agencies. Feasibility studies record, and has definite increased space should be more solid and defined and need to continue to provide optimal other funding sources identified. Funding community services. A high need exists applications will undoubtedly be repeated for a possible day shelter phase. through all phases of the project. The request has an element of uncomfortable vagueness as to the specific use of the proposed future facility phases. The applicant could easily have the attitude of having an entitlement status for CDBG funding. 6 PF-3— Northern Colorado AIDS Project Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $50,000. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $50,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The proposal and negotiation was well thought out and well researched. Applicant was very impressive in pursuit of this arrangement. This project serves a needy segment of the population. It is in a good location for the services. This presents the best deal imaginable in view of the circumstances. With the building being condominiumized and comprised of a clearly separated unit, funding will only go specifically to the subject unit. There will be a due-on-sale loan with deed restriction for use by NCAP or a similar public service facility. LB-1 - Land Bank Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of $400,000 from the Affordable Housing Funds. Motion passed 5-4. Moved by Mr. Browning: That the contract be modified to include a due-on-sale, with funds realized from an early sale to be returned to the Affordable Housing Fund. Mr. Browning expressed a concern that funding would be tied up for 15 years, even if the property were to sell earlier than that time frame. Motion approved 7-0, with one abstention. Total recommended funding level - $400,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This has been a good program. Purchases so far are impressive. Developer came with an opportunity that the Commission does not want to miss in order to preserve this site for affordable housing. 7 At the end of the funding discussions regarding housing proposals, moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Browning: To accept and advance the recommended funding levels in toto. Motion approved 8-1. 8 Public Service Discussion Staff briefed the Commission regarding questions on residency status. Some programs serve, as an example, foreign students. While it is acceptable to serve families of those holding green cards, no CDBG money is to go to temporary visitors of the U.S. Staff has asked HUD to highlight this issue as a subject for future discussions. It was generally agreed that decisions tonight should not be subject to having a new policy. It can be difficult for applicants to monitor this process and likewise difficult for agencies to monitor the applicants. Many of the applicants will have an element of this issue in their programs. There should be a reasonable effort on the part of applicants to be mindful of these issues. Program funds are directed to programming rather than monitoring. In the future, the contracts may encourage monitoring and self-policing. The total level of available funding is $210,860. Even at stated minimum requests, funding requests total $287,607. Some applicants will need to receive lower than requested, or none. The Commission was reminded that on occasion, awarding lower than minimum can be a handicap to a particular program. The history of the Commission has been to favor higher-priority applications with substantive levels of funding rather than to handicap every application. 9 PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS PS-1, Child Care Collaborative Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $66,519, with stipulations as mentioned regarding residency status. Motion passed unanimously. Moved by Ms. Steele: To recommend funding of $6,000 to Ensight Skills Center, PS-3, to be subtracted from Child Care Collaborative, PS-1, funding. Motion died for lack of second. Total recommended funding level - $66,519 Pros of Application Cons of Application Not funding this program will result in people not working for lack of affordable child care. This program is enabling to the working population in the community. With a lower cap of funding, scholarship money becomes critical. This helps the lowest AMI elements. Cost per child is impressive. This application represents a very good collaboration. PS-2 Consumer Credit Counseling Services Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 6-2. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good program, providing a mediator for The problems and needs addressed are people who are needy. The program widespread across the population, at all benefits all parties at the table. It income levels. This does not target low addresses a growing problem and growing income. The bulk of people served are demand in the community. Funding is higher income. The applicant should be falling short from usual sources. encouraged to work more with banking institutions to help people with funding to provide for refinancing and better creditworthiness. The application does not show a critical health or safety need. There should be a level of quantifiable success of the program. 10 PS-3— Ensight Skills Center Moved by Ms. Steele, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of$10,000. Motion failed 1-7. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Kulisheck: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 7-1. Moved by Ms. Steele: To recommend funding of $6,000 to Ensight Skills Center, PS-3, to be subtracted from Child Care Collaborative, PS-1, funding. Motion died for lack of second. Total recommended fundino level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Tremendous need in the community for The request places "the cart before the services for low-visioned. Present funding horse." There are not enough clients and sources are drained. The program has not enough outreach has taken place yet effective education and provision of to build a client base. This program seeks services. There was a very positive infrastructure before clients are garnered. presentation by applicant. The program The request does not address a pressing makes a cross-generational effort. Well- need for infrastructure. The program does i written grant. not specifically serve a low-income 7� population. In the hierarchy of the present funding cycle and competing higher needs, this application is a lower priority. The program will provide services at the resent level regardless of CDBG funding. PS-4 Elderhaus Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of $5,000. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended fundino level - $5,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Respite services provide health and welfare benefits. The program provides services in a multicultural community setting. High value is seen for the funding provided. The program addresses a high- level community need. �t PS-5 Springfield Court Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend funding of $15,000; to encourage this applicant to integrate into the Child Care Collaborative; and to restrict CDBG funding to families under 50% AMI levels. Motion passed unanimously. This recommendation is lowered from the total level requested in order to help meet service to equivalent low AMI levels of the other applicants. Total recommended fundina level - $15,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This program presents similar advantages as the Child Care Collaborative. This applicant should not be penalized for not being part of the collaborative. They do present the same need for a different part of the population. They are effectively part of the entire child care coalition effort. There is no apparent redundancy, due to the geographic area that it serves and the needs that it meets. The service supplements rather than duplicates existing services. PS-6 - FirstCall Enhanced Information & Referral Program Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 7-0, with one abstention.. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application This concept meets needs assessments in This ranks lower on the "hierarchy of the area of public service. The program needs" than more basic services. 211 may has been improved and made very useful well provide other public funding. There is in terms of database access. duplication of services by other agencies. With too many applicants for too little funding, this need falls short compared to more urgent needs. This is not critical funding for the program and represents a small portion of its budget. 12 PS-7— Project Self-Sufficiency Moved by Ms. Bryant, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $20,000. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $20,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This is a needed and valuable service. The program puts people to work rather than simply providing subsistence. Career counseling helps single parents to have and meet realistic goals. Impressive leveraging. This is an empowering program with long-range effort and long- term results. PS-8 - Education and Life Training Center Moved by Mr. Browning: To recommend no funding. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Mr. Kulischeck, seconded by Ms. Steele: To recommend funding of $12,000. Motion passed 5-4. Total recommended fundino level - $12,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program empowers people to obtain skills for self-sufficiency. It addresses a segment of the population that has a high need for this program. The services provided are unique, providing a safety net for people in need of these skills to obtain employment. Unemployment is going up as funding for employment programs is being cut. The grant itself is well-written. The program provides courses that are relevant and show potential for advancement. 13 PS-9 - Disabled Resource Services Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $14,015, with $5,000 to be subtracted from the Catholic Services Northern, PS-14, recommendation. Motion failed 3-4, with two abstentions. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of$9,015. Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $9,015 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program provides for financial The targeted population is well- independence through case management. represented and receives services from It services a very low income segment of the municipal to Federal level. The the population and addresses a high need program does not address as high level a not served elsewhere in the community. A need as other worthy programs in a tight commendable, high level of volunteerism. budget. There is a lack of specificity concerning the success of the program; the stated results sound more like referral services statistics. 14 PS-10 Lutheran Family Services Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of $9,015. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of$9,015, with $5,000 to be subtracted from the Catholic Services Northern, PS-14, recommendation. Motion failed 2-6. Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend no funding: Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program presents a worthy cause There is possible duplication of services caught in a tight funding cycle. It targets a with other programs offering. parenting low-income population. The program classes. The grant would not comprise gap addresses a health and safety issue. or seed money. High reserves level may There is a high need for the goals of the allow interim funding, and the level of program. leveraging to be obtained is questionable. The Commission was unsure of the effectiveness of class-based programs. This does not present a critical need compared to other programs. A low number of persons are served through a high budget. Clients have a fee associated with services. The program serves a broad spectrum of income levels. 15 PS-11 —VOA Handyman Program Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Kulischeck: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application This is relevant to housing issues to keep Person receiving services pays for the low-income people in their homes, and product at cost; labor is supplied by meets a safety need for seniors. volunteers. CDBG funds would pay for the administrative service. This is not a critical need in the present funding cycle. The program is working towards full funding; it does not demonstrably need CDBG help. This funding would go only to overhead. Some of the funding would be for projects other than in Fort Collins. 16 • PS-12— Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding of $30,000. Motion failed 1-7. Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $15,000. Motion passed 5-3. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of Northern Colorado AIDS Project, PS-18, of $8,000, with Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling, PS-12, to receive the $5,000 reduction; total funding of Neighbor to Neighbor, $20,000. Motion passed 7-1. Discussion was held over the differences between this program and Consumer Credit Counseling. This program is broader in scope than simple counseling and addresses housing concerns over a spectrum of needs. If this program were not funded, HOME would, if need be, find other classes to provide housing counseling for recipients of the home buyer assistance program. Total recommended funding level - $20,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application • This provides a unique service. The The program has a stated goal of self- program targets a needy portion of the funding but has not seen a falling off of population. It encourages self-sufficiency CDBG funding. The applicant could and promotes effective housing tailored to perhaps use encouragement to achieve the client. The need for this service is self-sufficiency. Despite the stated critical and ever-rising. The program minimum request, the applicant could use scores high. in its targets and goals. It the money that is made available in this addresses the housing continuum from environment of tightly limited funding. homelessness to home ownership. The applicant has a proven track record and encompasses high-priority services. PS-13 Catholic Charities Senior Services Moved by Mr. Kulisheck, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 6-2. Total recommended funding level - $15,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Reaches out to needy frail population. Helps to keep people in their homes. Companionship and counseling provides a valuable service to this fragile group. 17 PS-14 Catholic Charities Shelter Services Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of $25,000. Motion passed unanimously. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of$9,015 to Lutheran Family Services, PS-10, with $5,000 to be subtracted from the Catholic Services Northern recommendation. Motion failed, 2-6. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $14,015 to Disabled Resource Services, PS-9, with $5,000 to be subtracted from the Catholic Services Northern recommendation. Motion failed 3-4, with two abstentions. Total recommended funding level - $25,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This is the only provider for this type of Concern was expressed with leveraging needed service for the homeless. The with the absence of United Way funding. program serves the very lowest level of income. The applicant has a good track record. The program serves a high number of people. A high level of benefit is seen for the funding. 18 PS-15 CASA Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $8,326. Motion passed 6-1, with one abstention. Discussion for clarification. Volunteers are swom in as quasi-officers of the court to provide one-on-one casework as part of an evaluation team to help judge view cases for individual children. Total recommended funding level - $8,326 Pros of Application Cons of Application Extremely intensive training for the With many volunteers in the system, the participants and intense commitment for potential liability levels are suspect. the children. This represents a last safety Perceived high level of power with the net available for this population and individual participants. provides a highly valuable service. The program protects community health. Participation as part of an overall team helps to reduce liability concerns. The nature of participation helps to glean information that is not so readily available to social services workers. PS- 16 Women's Center Health Care Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding $7,000. Motion passed unanimously. Discussion was held concerning compliance. Conditions of compliance can be in the contract; the inherent problem is enforcement. There is no evidence of behavior that would raise a red flag for resolution on a policy issue. The onus of compliance should be on the applicant. Staff will discuss this issue with HUD and the City Attorney's Office and bring their guidance to the Commission. Total recommended funding level - $7,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program serves and has found ways to reach a unique population. There has been demonstrated success in helping participants. The dental program is a safety net. The program addresses a high need. Compliance with Federal regulations is assumed by the applicant's signing of the contract, agreeing to that compliance. 19 PS-17 -Women's Center Career Quest Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Shelley: To recommend no funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Valuable program, serving some unique No effort at collaboration with other population niches, such as women at the effective services. Because of the program Larimer County Detention Center. stopping and starting, it presents a lower level of efficiencies for the cost involved. A grant will not have a great deal of effectiveness for the funding level of the program. PS-18 Northern Colorado AIDS project Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Kulischeck: To recommend funding of $13,000. Motion passed 7-1. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of Northern Colorado AIDS Project, PS-18, of $8,000, with Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling, PS-12, to receive the $5,000 reduction. Motion passed 7-1. Total recommended funding level - $8,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application This is an important community health The program draws from areas other than program. It deserves higher funding level Fort Collins. Some emergency housing but has high-need competing applicants. funding may be duplication of other The program is impressive in its scope and available services. services. The non-Fort Collins population is carefully segregated for the CDBG application. Leveraging is impressive. The program encourages self-sufficiency and serves a particularly fragile segment of the community. The need for these services is rising. The education segment is impressive. 20 • In discussion following distribution of available funding, moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To accept the recommended funding levels in toto. Motion failed 4-4, with one abstention. Moved by Ms. Steele: To recommend funding of $6,000 to Ensight Skills Center, PS-3, to be subtracted from Child Care Collaborative, PS-1, funding. Motion died for lack of second. In discussion, it was noted with some irony that the biggest funding cut to this point had occurred in housing funding within the Neighbor to Neighbor application. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of Northern Colorado AIDS Project, PS-18, of $8,000, with Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling, PS-12, to receive the $5,000 reduction. Motion passed 7-1. Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Croissant: To accept and advance the recommended funding levels in toto. Motion passed unanimously. 21 RESOLUTION 2003-069 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE FY 2003-2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program is an ongoing grant administration program 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 WHEREAS,on January 18,2000,the City Council approved Resolution 2000-13,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 of this year the CDBG Commission has held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on community development and affordable housing needs,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 for the FY 2003-2004 program year. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit the FY 2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant Program application as follows: PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration $158,392 REHABILITATION Sleepy Willow Deck Replacement $ 19,353 (Grant) PUBLIC FACILITIES Respite Care Playground $ 25,000 (Grant) Neighbor to Neighbor Facility-acquisition of land $200,000 (Due on sale) Northern Colorado Aids Facility Acquisition $ 50,000 (Due on sale) PUBLIC SERVICES Child Care Collaborative $66,519 (Grant) Elderhaus Multi-Cultural Group $ 5,000 (Grant) Springfield Court Day Care $ 15,000 (Grant) Project Self-Sufficiency $ 20,000 (Grant) Literacy and Employment Skills Training $ 12,000 (Grant) Disabled Resource Services Access to Independence $ 9,015 (Grant) Comprehensive Housing Counseling $ 20,000(Grant) Catholic Charities Northern Senior Services $ 15,000 (Grant) Catholic Charities Northern Shelter and Services $ 25,000 (Grant) Court Appointed Special Advocates $ 8,326 (Grant) Women' Center Health Care $ 7,000 (Grant) Northern Colorado AIDS Project $ 8,000 (Grant) Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 20th day of May A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • RESOLUTION 2003-070 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE FY 2003-2004 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, The City's Consolidated Plan identifies the following priorities for housing related needs: (1) stimulating housing production for very low, low and moderate income households, (2) increasing home ownership opportunities for very low, low and moderate income households, and (3) increasing the supply of public housing for families and those with special needs; 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 unprogrammed funds and program income; and WHEREAS, specific projects for the use of new 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. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit the FY 2003-2004 Home Investment Partnerships Program application as follows: ADMINISTRATION Administration $ 78,400 Projects $ 639,134 CHDO Reserve $ 108,651 HOME OWNERSHIP Home Buyer's Assistance $ 300,000 REHABILITATION Fort Collins Housing Corp $ 64,077 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 20th day of May A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION 2003-071 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE FUNDING FROM THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND WHEREAS, the City has established an Affordable Housing Fund to provide support to affordable housing related programs and projects; and WHEREAS, the City's Community Development Block Grant Commission ("CDBG Commission"),in cooperation with the City's Affordable Housing Board,has conducted an extensive public process, including conducting public hearings to review housing proposals; and WHEREAS, the CDBG Commission has submitted to the City Council a list of recommendations forprograms and projects which should receive funding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommendations of the CDBG Commission are in the best interests of the City and should be approved for funding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the following project is approved for funding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund: City of Fort Collins—Land Bank/Acquisition $400,000 (Due on Sale) Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 20th day of May, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION 2003-072 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT THE 2003 FORT COLLINS CONSOLIDATED ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, the National Affordable Housing Act requires that, in order to apply for certain Department of Housing and Urban Development("HUD")programs,local governments must have an approved Consolidated Plan; and WHEREAS, after substantial analysis and public process, the Council approved the Fort Collins 2000-2004 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan(the"Plan")on June 20, 2000 in Resolution 2000-84; and WHEREAS, the Plan contains a detailed discussion of the housing and community development needs of low and moderate income people of the community and presents a listing of priority housing programs and support services that will attempt to address those needs during the five years; and WHEREAS,the Plan requires the City to develop a one-year action plan each year to identify and implement the specific projects that will help implement the priorities in the Plan; and • WHEREAS,staff has prepared a 2003-2004 Action Plan,and Council has conducted a public hearing on May 20,2003,in order solicit citizen comments on the 2001-2002 Action Plan, and has requested and received written comments through May 20, 2003; and WHEREAS,staff has considered all comments received and presents for Council approval its final version of that Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the 2003-2004 Action Plan reflects the community development and affordable housing priorities the Council has identified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit for approval the 2003 Fort Collins Consolidated Annual Action Plan, which Plan is on file and available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 20th day of May, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 081, 2003 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, does 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 project 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 2003-2004 unanticipated revenue in the form of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds totaling $1,243,000, constituting a new revenue source; and WHEREAS, the City expects to receive CDBG Program income in the 2003-2004 federal fiscal year in the amount of$162,736; and WHEREAS, unexpended funds are also available from the CDBG program for the federal 2002-2003 fiscal year in the amount of$19,950; 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, as described herein,will not result in total appropriations in excess of the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2003; and WHEREAS,by adoption of Resolution 2003-069 the City Council approved the 2003-2004 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 2003-2004 into the Community Development Block Grant Fund,the sum of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED FORTY-THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS($1,243,000),upon receipt thereof from federal fiscal year 2003-2004 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 ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX DOLLARS ($162,736) for approved Community Development Block Grant projects. Section 3. That the unexpended and unencumbered amount of NINETEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($19,950) is hereby authorized for transfer from the 2002- 2003 Community Development Block Grant Program to the 2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant Program and appropriated therein. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of May, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of June A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk . Passed and adopted on final reading this 3rd day of June A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 082, 2003 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN PROGRAM YEARS 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 2003-2004 is $726,510, constituting a new revenue source; and WHEREAS, the City expects to receive HOME Program income in the 2003-2004 federal fiscal year in the amount of$100,000; and WHEREAS, unexpended funds are also available from the HOME Program for the federal 2002-2003 fiscal year in the amount of$269,826; and WHEREAS,Article V,Section 9,of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins 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, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the HOME Program funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the HOME Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the 2003 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 project to another • 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. 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 2003-2004 into the HOME Program Fund the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TEN DOLLARS ($726,510), upon receipt from federal fiscal year 2003-2004 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant Funds. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated program income revenue for approved HOME Program projects,upon receipt into the HOME Program Fund,the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000) for approved HOME Program projects. Section 3. That the unexpended and unencumbered amount of TWO HUNDRED SIXTY- NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX DOLLARS ($269,826) is hereby authorized for transfer from 2002-2003 HOME Program projects to the 2003-2004 HOME Program. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of May, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of June, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 3rd day of June, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk