HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/07/2002 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE COMPLETION OF THE SPRING CYC AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-D
DATE: May 7, 2002
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM:
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 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions and of the Ordinances on First Reading. The CDBG
Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive
funding.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2002-048 Approving the FY 2002-2003 Community
Development Block Grant Program for the City of Fort Collins.
B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2002-049 Approving the FY 2002-2003 Home Investment
Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2002, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community
Development Block Grant Fund.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2002, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
HOME Investment Partnerships Fund.
The Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program and the Home Investment Partnerships
(HOME)Program provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development
related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to
address such needs. The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two resolutions and
two ordinances related to funding under the CDBG and HOME Programs. The first Resolution
(Resolution 2002-048) establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG
funds for the FY 2002-2003 Program year, which starts on October 1, 2002. The CDBG
Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive
funding. The second Resolution (Resolution 2002-049) establishes only the major funding
categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2002-2003 Program year. Specific projects for the
use of HOME funds will be determined in November as a result of the fall funding cycle of the
competitive process for the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities.
DATE: May ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-D
The ordinances appropriate new grant revenues and program income and transfer the remaining prior
year program balance for the CDBG Program and appropriate new grant revenues and program
income for the Home Investment Partnerships program.
BACKGROUND:
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 2002-048) establishes which
programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG funds for the FY 2002-2003 Program Year,
which starts on October 1, 2002. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to
which programs and projects should receive funding. The second resolution(Resolution 2002-049)
establishes only the major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2002-2003
Program year. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds will be determined in November as a
result of the fall funding cycle of the competitive process for the allocation of the City's financial
resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities.
Resolution 2002-048 establishing which programs and projects will receive CDBG 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 conducted public hearings to assess community development and housing needs
in Fort Collins, conducted technical assistance training workshops for applicants, and solicited
applications for CDBG funding. The City's Affordable Housing Board reviewed the written
applications for affordable housing projects and forwarded a priority ranking of proposals, as well
as comments 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 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
DATE: May 7, 2002 3 ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-D
to do the project and reward applicants that have completed successful projects in the past (have
good track records). The ranking sheet used to assist the CDBG Commission and the Affordable
Housing Board is presented in Attachment A.
The Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable
Housing Needs and Strategies report adopted by the Council on February 2, 1999. These
guidelines include:
• 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 Program is an ongoing grant administration program funded by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received CDBG Program
funds since 1975. In 1975 and FY 1976-1977 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.
AVAILABLE FUNDS
The amount of the City's CDBG Entitlement Grant for FY 2002-2003 is $1,209,000. The
Entitlement Grant will be combined with $87,712 of CDBG Program Income and $767,262 of
Reprogrammed funds to create a total of$2,063,974 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.
The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
CDBG Program
AMOUNT SOURCE
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
$1,209,000 FY 2002 CDBG Entitlement Grant
87,712 CDBG Program Income
767,262 CDBG Reprogrammed Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2,063,974 CDBG Total
DATE: May ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-D
Below is a summary of recent CDBG funding levels allocated from HUD to the City of Fort Collins:
Entitlement Reprogrammed Program
Year Grant Funds Income Total Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
SELECTION PROCESS
The selection process for the City's FY 2002-2003 CDBG Program began on January 10,2002,when
the CDBG Commission held apublic hearing to obtain citizen input on community development and
affordable housing needs. The CDBG Program office placed legal advertisements in local and
regional newspapers starting in January to solicit requests for CDBG funded programs and projects
for FY 2002-2003.The application deadline was Thursday February 21. At the close of the deadline
the City received 32 applications requesting a total of approximately$3.6 million.
Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on
March 7 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on March 7, 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 21, 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 3, and Thursday, April 4, the Commission met to hear presentations and ask
clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on Thursday April 11 for the
purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects
should be funded for the FY 2002-2003 program year. At this meeting the Commission reviewed
the written applications, the applicant's verbal presentation, the information provided during the
question and answer session,and reviewed the performance of agencies who received FY 2001-2002
CDBG funds or funding in other previous years. The Commission then worked on the formulation
of their list of recommendations.
CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
HUD CDBG regulations limit the amount of available funds which can be allocated to various
generic categories. Funds for Planning and Administrative purposes are limited to 20% of the total
of the Entitlement Grant and any Program Income. This means the 20%limitation for Planning and
Administrative purposes is $259,342. CDBG funds for Public Services are limited to 15% of the
total of the Entitlement Grant and Program Income, making the amount $194,506.
DATE: May 7, 2002 5 ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-D
The Commission, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects
which best fit into the City's CDBG Program, but also had to insure funding allocations were kept
within HUD regulations and follow the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable
Housing Needs and Strategies report.
Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's list
of recommendations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning and Administration
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration
Proposal covers the administrative costs of the FY 2002-2003 CDBG Program Administration
including salary, benefits and operating expenses for 2 staff positions.
Request: $154,730
Recommendation: $154,730
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Collins Housing Corporation—Acquisition of Apartments
The Fort Collins Housing Corporation(FCHC)proposes to purchase the Sleepy Willow Apartments,
a 95-unit apartment complex located at Taft Road and East Plum.It consists of 70 two-bedroom,20
three-bedroom and 5 one-bedroom apartments.This acquisition will facilitate providing rent levels
at 30% and 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) and keep the apartment complex in the affordable
housing inventory for 30 years. The FCHC will have 85 units affordable at 50% AMI and 10 units
at 30%AMI. FCHC will request a matching grant($650,000)from the Division of Housing.Private
Financing($4,200,000) will be secured through First National Bank at a three year adjusted rate of
4.75, 20-year amortizing loan, and 10-year balloon.
Request: $650,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $650,000 (Due on Sale Loan)
Neighbor to Neighbor—Acquisition of Apartments
Neighbor to Neighbor requests funds to purchase an 8-plex located at 2404 Clearview Lane in Fort
Collins. The project will have eight two-bedroom units,with half the units targeting families at 50%
of AMI and the other four at 30%of AMI. Neighbor to Neighbor will request matching grant funds
($160,000) from the Division of Housing. Private financing will be secured through Community
First National Bank at a rate of 7.28 percent, 15-year amortizing loan, fixed for 10 years.
Request: $160,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $160,000 (Due on Sale Loan)
DATE: May 7, 2002 6 ITEM NUMBER: 3t A-D
CARE Housing—Acquisition of Land
CARE plans to purchase a site that will accommodate 30-60 two- and three-bedroom units and a
community center.The land and subsequent affordable housing development would benefit families
earning between 30% and 50% of Area Median Income. CARE is actively searching for properties
that will meet this development model. However, a definitive site for its sixth affordable
development has not yet been identified.
Request: $300,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Lagunitas— Hilltop Farm
The Lagunitas Company is requesting funding for the acquisition of land to build a 48-unit
condominium development located at 5033 South College Avenue,which is two blocks south of the
planned Mason Street Transportation Corridor and adjacent to the Fossil Creek Office Park. All of
the units will be for purchase and will be affordable to households between 67% and 80% of AMI.
Units in this development will be two,and three bedroom units configured 8 units per building, and
all will include either an attached or detached garage.
Request: $480,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Habitat for Humanity—Land Acquisition
Habitat is requesting CDBG funds to acquire three new lots.The organization is actively searching
for properties that will meet their needs.Habitat provides homeownership opportunities for families
at or below 50% of AMI.
Request: $150,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $150,000 (Due on Sale Loan)
Turning Point - Acquisition of Apartments
The organization proposes to acquire an 8-plex in Fort Collins and requests down payment assistance
from the City. These units will be acquired, improved and preserved as permanent affordable
housing. The units will be rented below 50%of AMI,with half the units targeted to rent below 30%
of AMI.
Request: $132,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $100,000 (Due on Sale Loan)
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
DATE: May 7. 2002 7 ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-D
costs to a maximum of$8,000 for households at 51% to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) and
$16,000 for buyers at or below 50% of AMI. Approximately 37 households will be assisted in the
next year with this program. Matching HOME funds will be requested in the fall cycle.
Request: $250,000 (Loan)
Recommendation: $299,138 (Due on Sale Loan)
Fort Collins Housing Authority —Down Payment Assistance Set-Aside (Rigden Farm)
The Fort Collins Housing Authority is requesting a down payment assistance set-aside for 50
ihouseholds purchasing homes for the first time at Lakeside at Rigden Farm. The request for down
payment assistance is$4,183 per unit.The Housing Authority would eventually like down payment
assistance for 87 qualified households and will be requesting additional funds from future funding
cycles. Assistance will target households at or below 80% of AMI. This set aside will be
administered by the City's existing Home Buyer Assistance Program.
Request: $209,150 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Rehabilitation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neighbor to Neighbor—Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing Units
Neighbor to Neighbor is requesting funds to rehabilitate its existing affordable housing inventory.
j Neighbor to Neighbor has a total of 103 housing units.Many of these units will have some deferred
maintenance issues over the next 10 years. They have identified up to $808,464 of capital
improvements that need to take place in their inventory in Fort Collins. All of these units serve
households below 50% of AMI, with many being special populations like the disabled, seniors and
other needed housing assistance.
Request: $300,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $300,000 (Grant)
Crossroads Safehouse -Rehabilitation
Crossroads Safehouse seeks to renovate its shelter facility in order to provide a cleaner, safer and
more attractive environment for victim of domestic violence and their children. The rehabilitation
will focus primarily on the kitchen and bathroom areas. The project serves 600 persons below 30%
of AMI and 200 persons below 50% of AMI.
Request: $93,367 (Grant)
Recommendation: $20,000 (Grant)
DATE: May ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-D
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Neighbor to Neighbor—Acquisition of Public Facility
Neighbor to Neighbor is requesting funds to purchase a facility to house their existing affordable
housing services and programs. The new facility will allow for expanding the housing counseling
programs, to forge non-profit organization partnerships,and allow the public and agencies meeting
and conference space.
Request: $350,000 (Loan)
Recommendation: $0
Beaucaire—Acquisition for Youth Services
Beaucaire is interested in purchasing a youth services halfway housing in Fort Collins, that now is
being leased by Beaucaire,targeting youth from 16 to 21 years old in the Larimer County area.Funds
are being requested to acquire 302 Cherry Street for transitional housing to serve 6 male adolescents
at a time needing extra assistance to achieve independent living status in their home community.
Request: $178,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $ 35,600 (Due on Sale Loan)
Public Services
Lutheran Family Services - Fostering Family Strengths Program
Lutheran Family Services is seeking support for its Fostering Family Strengths Program,which aims
to prevent child abuse and neglect. They propose to serve 168 Fort Collins residents. The funding
will be used to partially support the salary of the program supervisor.
Request: $10,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $10,000 (Grant)
Alpha Center for Women -Heart Choices Abstinence Education Program
This program is new to CDBG. Alpha Center works with the Poudre School District to present
abstinence education and information on sexually transmitted diseases. Their purpose is to prevent
teen pregnancy and reduce the number of STDs among teenagers.
Request: $15,100 (Grant)—Proposal withdrawn by Applicant
Recommendation: $X
Neighbor to Neighbor— Comprehensive Housing Counseling
Neighbor to Neighbor provides housing counseling and case-management to over 3,000 lower-
income families during the year. Housing counseling is required of all prospective home buyers
DATE: may ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-D
using area down payment assistance programs. In addition, they assist persons along the housing
continuum from homelessness to homeownership.
Request: $30,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $30,000 (Grant)
First Call - 2-1-1 Information and Referral Project
First Call ServiceNet requests salary support for their new 2-1-1 service which will provide
community information and referral service by dialing 2-1-1. CDBG would fund 70% of a staff
position. Fort Collins will be a test site for the 2-1-1 service in the summer of 2002.
Request: $25,090 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Child Care Collaborative—Day Care Services
Child Care Collaborative is made up of United Day Care Center, Sunshine School,B.A.S.E. Camp
and Respite Care which provide day care services to low-income households through a sliding fee
scale. CDBG funds are used to support the sliding fee scale. The funds provide for a sliding scale
subsidy of$446 per family(149 families)which is 49%of the funding provided for the sliding scale.
Percentage of CDBG to total budgets of agencies is less than 10%.
Request: $66,519 (Grant)
Recommendation: $66,519 (Grant)
Elderhaus Adult Day Care Program - Multi-Cultural Group and Community Group
Program
Elderhaus received funding in the previous cycle for these programs. The multi-cultural group
reaches out to Hispanic, Italian and Native American elders and their caregivers. The Community
Group gives participants a sense of ownership in the community and the Life's Transitions group
provides an opportunity to express problems. CDBG funds would be used to support 13% of staff
salaries for these programs.
Request: $6,299 (Grant)
Recommendation: $6,299 (Grant)
Disabled Resource Services—Case Management and Community Assistance
Disabled Resources has in the past applied for funding to support their Supported Youth
Employment Program (SYEP). However, this year in response to growing needs, Disabled
Resources has regrouped their programs and services and is now applying for CDBG funds to
support their Case Management and Community Assistance Programs. CDBG funds would provide
15% of staff salaries for these programs.
lip Request: $25,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $20,000 (Grant)
DATE: May 7, 2002 10 ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-D
The Women's Center of Larimer County—Health and Dental Care
The Women's Center provides a Health and Dental Care Program, which targets low-income,
uninsured individuals. The program provides a dental care program, a breast and cervical cancer
prevention program for Latinas and an HIV prevention program targeted at Latinos. They work in
cooperation with NCAP and the Health Department to coordinate the services. CDBG funds would
provide funding for staff salaries,dental program direct costs,facilities rent and supportive services.
Request: $10,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
The Women's Center of Larimer County—Child Care Resource and Referral
The Women's Center provides the Child Care Resource and Referral Service which locates
appropriate child care and educates parents on how to identify quality care. CDBG funding is used
to support staff salaries, facilities and support services.
Request: $13,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
The Women's Center of Larimer - Career Quest
The Women's Center provides individualized career counseling services for displaced homemakers,
single mothers and other women experiencing difficulty. Many of the clients of the program need
other services besides career counseling. CDBG funding is used to support staff salaries and
supportive services.
Request: $5,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Project Self- Sufficiency
This program provides one-on-one career planning and support to low-income single parents so they
can become financially independent. CDBG funds support staff salaries.
Request: $25,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $20,000 (Grant)
Ensight Skills Center
Ensight is a new service for individuals with low and declining vision. They offer skills training and
provide access to aids and devices through a loaner program. They also provide counseling and
rehabilitation services, life skills training and referral services. CDBG funding would support staff
salaries.
Request: $6,760 (Grant)
Recommendation: $6,760 (Grant)
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Crossroads Safehouse—Crossroads' Specialized Advocacy and Training Project
This program provides shelter and services for women who are victims of domestic violence. CDBG
funds would support salary and operations for the shelter.
Request: $18,225 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Court Community and Resident Initiatives Program
Springfield Court was developed by Mercy Housing SouthWest and provides affordable rental
housing for low-income families. The Community and Resident Initiatives Program provides
activities for residents to improve their economic situation in the areas of Independent Living,Youth
Leadership and Personal Health and Social Responsibility. CDBG funds would support staff
salaries.
Request: $15,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Educo—Fort Collins Team Leadership Program
The organization provides outdoor adventure and experiential leadership for low-income youth. In
the Outdoor Adventure Program and Adventures in Leadership wilderness education is combined
with experiential learning to promote leadership,emotional growth and sense of community. CDBG
funds would be used to support staff salaries and benefits.
Request: $13,214 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Catholic Charities Northern - Senior Services
Catholic Charities Northern assists frail and at-risk elderly to maintain independence through their
Case Management Services. CDBG funding would be used to support staff salaries.
Request: $15,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $ 9,928 (Grant)
Catholic Charities Northern—Shelter and Supportive Services for Homeless
Catholic Charities Northern supports the homeless population of Fort Collins by providing shelter,
food,job bank, case management and transitional housing for homeless families.
Request: $30,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $25,000 (Grant)
10 CRISP (Creative Recreation in Special Populations)
CRISP provides recreational services for the disabled, elderly and economically disadvantaged by
providing free and discounted tickets to activities such as concerts, plays, sporting events, magic
DATE: May
ITEM NUMBER:
shows, circus events, ice shows, etc. CDBG funds would be used for salaries and operations in
support of the service.
Request: $7,000 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Adult Literacy Services—Education and Life Training Program
This organization help low-income,disadvantaged and the culturally diverse population of Latimer
County achieve increased educational and economic skills by increasing literacy. CDBG funds
would be used in support of staff salaries and operations.
Request: $9,300 (Grant)
Recommendation: $0
Total amount of CDBG funding requested= $3,598,924
A summary of the Commission's CDBG funding recommendations by category for the total amount
of funds available is as follows:
RECOMMENDED % of
FUNDING TOTAL CATEGORY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
$ 154,730 7.5 PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION (Maximum $259,342
based on 20% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
1,659,138 80.4 HOUSING
55,600 2.7 PUBLIC FACILITIES
194,506 9.4 PUBLIC SERVICES (Maximum $194,506 based on 15% of
Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2,063,974 100.0 TOTAL
The total amount of CDBG funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was
approximately $3.6 million, however, only $2.0 million of CDBG funds are available. With the
amount of total requests far exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be
funded.Due to HUD funding limitations,some Public Service applications received no funds or less
funds than requested in order to keep the generic category within program maximums.
The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for nine(9)proposals and one (1)proposal
(the Homebuyer Downpayment Assistance Program)for more funding than what was requested. In
the Commission's opinion,these applications recommended for full funding best fit CDBG Program
national objectives, the selection criteria, and the funding guidelines.
.. .a. ... • 5. .-..: .p...
DATE: may 7, 2UM T 13 ITEM NUMBER:
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 thirteen (13) proposals.
The Commission's reasons for either full funding, partial funding, or no funding are presented in
Attachment D.
Attachment A
Background Information on the Competitive Process
for the Allocation of City Financial Resources
to Affordable Housing Programs/Projects
and Other Community Development Activities
In February of 1999, the City Council approved the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and
Strategies report, which contained the following strategy:
Change from an administrative funding mechanism...to a competitive application process
for the Affordable Housing Fund.
Between September and November of 1999, a subcommittee consisting of members from the
Affordable Housing Board and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission
met with staff to review issues and develop options for establishment of a competitive process.
In addition, the staff solicited ideas from existing affordable housing providers. The
subcommittee established the following Mission Statement for their work:
Develop a competitive application process and establish a set of shared criteria for the
allocation of the City's financial assistance resources to affordable housing
projects/programs that address the City's priority affordable housing needs.
Competitive Process
Five options for a competitive process were reviewed and discussed by the subcommittee. The
subcommittee reached a general consensus to support a competitive process that involved both
the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission. The option selected would have the
Affordable Housing Board providing recommendations to the City Council in regards to
affordable housing policy. In addition, the option would have the Affordable Housing Board
reviewing all affordable housing applications for CDBG, HOME and Affordable Housing funds.
The Board would then provide a priority listing of proposals to the CDBG Commission. The
CDBG Commission would then make the final recommendations to the City Council for funding.
Funding Cycles
The subcommittee also agreed that there should be two funding cycles per year, one in the spring
and the other in the fall. CDBG Program funds would be allocated in the spring to affordable
housing programs/projects and other community development activities (public services, public
facilities, etc.). HOME Program and Affordable Housing funds would be allocated in the fall
primarily to affordable housing programs/projects.
The staff and subcommittee agreed that overlaying the new process and cycles would be
heightened staff technical assistance to applicants. Both the subcommittee and staff recognize
that a bi-annual process will require additional meetings by both the CDBG Commission and
Affordable Housing Board, and will require more time from current City staff, and increase the
City Council's involvement.
Schedule
The subcommittee also discussed two alternative schedules for the funding cycles. The option
selected incorporates a spring cycle that starts in January and ends in May, and a fall cycle that
starts in July and end in November.
Review Criteria
The subcommittee also discussed and agreed to a new set of review criteria to be used to rank
proposals. The criteria are divided into the following five major categories:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups
and provide longer benefits. The Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted
City goals and priorities. The Feasibility criteria reward projects for timeliness and documented
additional funding. The Leveraging Resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds
to the City(loans) and for their ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History
criteria help gage an applicant's ability to do the project and reward applicants that have
completed successful projects in the past (have good track records).
See next page for a detailed criteria scoring sheet.
Application Forms
Two new application forms have also been developed. One form would be used for Housing
proposals while to other form would be used for Non-Housing Proposals (public services, public
facilities, etc.).
City Council Adoption
On January 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 2000-13, formally adopting the
competitive process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities and the component parts discussed
above.
Ranking Criteria for CDBG, HOME and Affordable Housing Funding
The ranking criterion is divided into five major categories.Each category is given a total number of points that has been weighed
according to their importance with respect to local and federal priorities.This ranking sheet will be used to assist the Community
Development Block Grant Commission(CDBGC)and the Affordable Housing Board(AHB)in the FY01 Competitive Funding
Process. CDBG and AHB members will rank projects according to the questions and criteria shown below.
Imoact/Benefit(maximum 30 points)
1. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10)
(0-30%of AMI= 10 pts,31-50%=8 pts,51-80%=4 pis)
2. Project produces adequate community benefit related to cost? (0-5)
3. 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 yrs=3 pts, I 1-19 yrs=6 pts,20 to 30 yrs=8 pts,and Permanent= 10 pis)
Sub-total
Need/Priority(maximum 15 points)
I. Meets a Consolidated Plan priority? (0-5)
2. Project meets goals or objectives of City Plan and Priority Needs and Strategies study _ (0-5)
3. Has the applicant documented a need for this project? (0-5)
Sub-total
Feasibility(maximum 15 points)
I. The project will be completed within the required time period? (0-3)
2. Project budget is justified?(Costs are documented and reasonable)? (0-4)
3. The level of public subsidy is needed?(Private funds not available)? (0-4)
4. Has the applicant documented efforts to secure other funding? { (0-4)
Sub-total
Leverasine Resources(maximum 25 points)
1. Does the project allow the reuse of our funding? (0-8)
A. Principal and interest(30 year Amortization or less) 8 point
B. Principal and no interest or Principal and balloon payment 4 point
C. Declining balance lien(amount forgiven over time) I point
D. Grant(no repayment) 0 point
2. Project or agency leverages human resources(Volunteers) (0-7)
3. Project leverages financial resources?(Including in-kind) (0-10)
A. Less than 1:1 0 point
B. I:1 to 1:3 - 4 point
C. 1:4 to 1:6 7 point
D. More than 1:7 10 poit
Sub-total
Capacity and History(maximum 15 points)
I. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project? (0-10)
2. If previously funded,has the applicant completed prior project and maintain regulatory compliance? (0-5)
3. If new,applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-15)
Sub-total
GRAND TOTAL
•
Attachment B
March 27, 2002
TO: CDBG Commission Members
FM: Kay Rios, Chair
Isabel Garity, Vice Chair
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Board
SUBJECT: Spring 2002 Competitive Process
After careful review and discussion of the housing applications, the Fort
Collins Affordable Housing Board established a list of priorities and
accompanying questions as a means for assisting the CDBG Commission as
they prepare for applicant interviews.
The priority listing is as follows:
l. Fort Collins Housing Corporation— Sleepy Willow
2. Habitat for Humanity
3. Homebuyer down payment program
4. Neighbor to Neighbor acquisition
5. Neighbor to Neighbor rehabilitation
6. Turning Point
7. Rigden Farm down payment assistance
8. Care Housing
9. Hilltop
Fort Collins Housing Corporation — Sleepy Willow
The Board felt this was a strong proposal and a good means of preserving
affordable housing. The members also felt that it was a very positive
statement that the request includes maintenance as part of the planning. The
biggest concern was in regard to relocation issues if there were to be current
residents that might be displaced with the acquisition. There was also
concern that students still be allowed to rent apartments in the future if they
meet the income requirements. While that is implied, there are also
statements throughout the document that refer to "family" housing. These
concerns appear to be addressed but it might be wise to have that restated by
the applicant.
Habitat for Humanity
This was also a strong application and, even though the land is not currently
known, members felt it would be much easier to find a location for one
house than for several grouped houses or a development. Habitat has been
successful at locating property in the past and, so, members were
comfortable with that. There weren't any questions to pass on for this
application.
Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance
The group unanimously supported this application without question.
Neighbor to Neighbor Acquisition
While the group also supported this one, questions of relocation surfaced.
What AMI would be forced to leave and what is the plan to assist with this
relocation? Page 3 of the application also states that the project will provide
two units below 50% AMI and two units below 30% AMI while there are
actually eight units in the complex. Later, the document refers to eight units
and so page 3 may be a typo but it might be worth checking. The permanent
affordability is a big plus but there is also concern as to future maintenance
costs that may not be covered. Is there any plan to cover that or will it be on
a future application?
Neighbor to Neighbor Rehabilitation
The biggest question here was whether or not this funding would allow this
complex to move toward controlled maintenance. If so, would there then be
a fund established to handle that? Or is this going to continue on a basis of
delayed maintenance? The units certainly serve a population targeted by
affordable housing goals so support is necessary. But it's important to know
if this will be an ongoing request for funding.
. Turning Point Acquisition
The population served certainly falls in one of the targeted groups in terms
of affordable housing goals but there are some potential problems in this
plan. Members expressed concern that this is a social service agency that is
not only buying the property but running it as well. Property management is
a difficult job requiring special skills, especially with a younger population
such as this one. Questions to be considered revolve around how this would
be handled. Can the organization connect with experienced property
management that would be willing to "mentor" them through the many
layers of property management? Could a partnership be formed (i.e.
Neighbor to Neighbor) with an organization that has the needed expertise?
Rieden Farm Down Payment Assistance
While this does provide home ownership and meets the goals and priorities,
questions of program duplication were raised. Time line was also
questioned. Could this application wait until the fall competitive process?
Other projects were stronger in what would be provided and in terms of
immediate need.
Care Housing Acquisition of Land
While Board members acknowledged the wonderful services and projects
that Care has provided, there was a large concern over allocating money to a
large complex (i.e. five or six acres) that may or may not exist. This differs
from Habitat in that it is extremely difficult to find something this large that
would be affordable. If(big if) the land were located, what future subsidies
would be required to complete the project? The fact that this is a request for
a grant rather than a loan was also a draw back in Board members' minds.
The applicant hasn't even identified an area for the project. What are the
possibilities of finding property large enough to hold this size of complex?
Does the applicant have any leads at all or is this simply a shot in the dark?
Lagunitas Hilltop Farm
This one received lukewarm support for several reasons. What experience
does the developer have in this arena? How would the developer approach
. the potential environmental concerns? What are the legal possibilities for
this type of deed restriction — what would that look like? This is a private
for profit organization and the members felt, if this were to be funded at all,
a loan would be more suitable rather than a grant.
We hope that the CDBG Commission finds this information and
recommendations helpful. We wish you luck as you complete the process
and we look forward to feedback from your group as to the outcome.
ATTACHMENT C
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
on the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
CDBG PROGRAM NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the CDBG Program is Athe development of viable urban communities,by
providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities,
principally for persons of low and moderate income.= Programs and projects funded with CDBG
funds must address at least one of the following three broad National Objectives:
(1) provide a benefit to low or moderate income households or persons,
(2) eliminate or prevent slum and blight conditions, or
(3) meet urgent community development needs which pose an immediate and serious
threat to the health and welfare of the community.
Presented below is a comparison of City CDBG expenditures for programs and projects categorized
according to the National Objectives:
National Objectives
Low/Moderate Slum/Blight Urgent
Income Benefit Elimination Need
National Average 90% 10% 0%
City Expenditures
for: 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 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
Housing 43% 72% 64% 73% 73% 63% 61% 74% 62%
Public Facilities 21% 2% 5% 2% 2% 13% 15% 7% 15%
Planning/Admin. (20%) 14% 11% 17% 10% 10% 9% 9% 5% 9%
Economic Development 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Public Services (15%) 9% 15% 14% 15% 15% 15% 15% 14% 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 2001 Administrative percentage was 12%.
Attacht ierit
APRIL 2002 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Meeting held,Apnl 11, 2002 r
6:66 p.m. Lt0:00 p:m. a
281 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Commission members present:
Phil Majerus, President
Terri Bryant, Vice President
Linda Coxen
Vi Guthrie
Brett Hill
Tia Molander
Billie Rosen
Dennis Vanderheiden
. Cheryl Zimlich
Staff: Ken Waido
Heidi Phelps
Maurice Head
Julie Smith
Stacy Kelly
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
Ms. Phelps informed the Commission that the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless
Statewide Convention is combining with the national association for a convention in
Denver on May 15. Registration is $75. She reviewed the various topics to be discussed
and recommended attendance highly. Staff will pay the registration fee for any CDBG
members who wish to attend. Registration includes lunch. Registrations must be
postmarked by April 26.
Ms. Phelps advanced Staffs view that the Commission does a terrific job. She
reiterated Mayor Martinez' comments from the prior week.
Staff noted that some applicants are appearing to take on an entitlement mentality. In
fact, every applicant comes as a fresh player. No points are received for past
participation in the program. The amount of requests versus funds available is a two-to-
one ratio, and it is important to keep advocacy on the back burner and view all
applications with objectivity.
Staff commented on some the answers furnished by Mr. Prouty in regard to Lagunitas.
Staff has not seen HUD and Current Planning data. HUD environmentals are done after
the grant is awarded. There remains a question of buildings being subject to noise
restriction. There is not a noise impact from the railroad tracks; the noise impact,
however, will come from College Avenue and needs to be mitigated. Mr. Prouty has
always been compliant and cooperative, and this may be a misunderstanding, but Staff
must bring this clarification to the Commission's attention. City development and HUD
requirements have different criteria.
Staff distributed and displayed mini-matrices for the Commission's convenience. Mr.
Waido used a macro-matrix to aid the Commission in its ongoing discussion.
Ms. Phelps and Ms. Kelly distributed several answers from applicants in response to the
Commission's questions of the prior week.
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To begin discussion with
the Public Service portion of the applications. Motion approved unanimously.
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of$154,730 for
CDBG administration. The Commission noted the following: The high level of service
received; the extensive use of Staff funded by the City rather than the CDBG program;
the applicant consistently requests far less than allowed by the program guidelines.
Motion approved unanimously.
Motion by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of
$884,000 for the HOME program. Motion approved unanimously.
2
Following discussion, motions, and voting on all applicants, moved by Ms. Coxen,
seconded by Ms. Rosen: To adopt the final recommendations in toto, to be
forwarded to City Council for its determination. Motion passed unanimously.
Staff advised that the Council study session is scheduled for April 27, 2002. The public
hearing for final allocations will be held on May 7, 2002
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
•
3
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
HOUSING PROJECTS
Fort Collins Housing Corporation — Acquisition of Apartments — Application:
$650,000
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding
through a grant. A friendly amendment was offered by Ms. Zimlich to fund
through the mechanism of a due-on-sale loan. The friendly amendment was
acceptable to Ms. Guthrie and Mr. Browning. Motion passed 7-3.
The question was raised whether tenant ownership is a possibility in this program. The
likelihood is nonexistent, particularly at this AMI level.
Total recommended funding level - $650,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Good project. High number of units. Applicant lacking on maintenance and
Market opportunity to provide affordable replacement reserves, running risk of
housing in very long term or perpetuity. promoting tenement conditions. Probable
The number of units at this AM] level in underestimate of repair costs. High
affordable stock is very attractive and number of dollars coming out of the
highly needed. Good location with easy project. Admin and maintenance exceed
access to major amenities. Good ratio of replacement reserves by a factor of 10.
funding for the number of units received.
Neighbor to Neighbor— Acquisition of Apartments — Application: $160,000
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend full funding
through due-on-sale loan. Motion passed 6-4.
Total recommended funding level - $160,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Good project. Promotes preservation of Lowered priority on the applicant's list.
existing stock. Good location. Applicant can realize this on the next
fundinq cycle.
4
Care Housing —Acquisition of Land — Application: $300,000
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend no
funding. Motion carried 7-2.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Land not shown to be available. Applicant
can provide the needed funding to lock up
land as it may become available.
Lagunitas — Hilltop Farm — Application: $480,000
Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed 5-4, with one abstention.
Discussion was held regarding the need and desirability of encouraging the
private sector to engage in developing affordable housing.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Potential good program. Could be a model Nearly affordable as-is. The proposed
for private developers putting affordable subsidy does not realize a substantial
housing in place. The developer is enough level of affordability from the
energetic in promoting the program. present status. It would be inadvisable for
a buyer to invest money and not receive
equity? The developer could realize the
same results with HOME down payment
assistance and a $2,000 discount on the
sale price? The limited equity possibilities
make the goals unrealistic. Low-income
buyers would be stuck at this level of
housing without building equity to advance
their housing possibilities. The developer
offered to discount the developer fee 50%;
this alone could provide the requested
subsidy.
5
Habitat for Humanity — Land Acquisition — Application: $150,000
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full funding
through a due-on-sale loan. Motion passed unanimously.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant is seeing an opportunity for
receiving six lots for $240,000. This application will be changed beneficially; an
additional lot can be purchased with this funding level. Three of the subject lots are
contiguous, three others scattered. Due to allocation dynamics, $33,000 of the award
will not be available until the next funding cycle.
Total recommended funding level - $150,000
Pros of Application Cons of Ap2lication
Good program, with a good track record. Contiguous lots can constitute an
Program has improved its approach and undesirable situation. Expensive per unit.
analysis. Due-on-sale loan guarantees
return affordability or return of the moneys
expended.
Turning Point - Acquisition of Apartments —Application: $132,000.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend full funding
through a due-on-sale loan.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To table this item. Motion passed
6-4.
Upon reopening of this item, moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Browning: To
recommend funding of$100,000 through a due-on-sale loan. Motion passed 6-4.
Comments by the Commission:
The concern of project being a landlord to a client is mitigated by that factor
being an aspect of the training program.
Total recommended funding level - $100,000
Pros of A lication Cons of Application
Good numbers and ranking from Staff and Slow absorption rate on the units; two
the Affordable Housing Board. Good years on Shields property. Commission
service provider. lacks confidence in the expertise
. demonstrated to manage this project
ro erl .
6
City of Fort Collins - Home Buyer Assistance —Application: $250,000.
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Upon conclusion of all other items, moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen:
To recommend additional funding of $49,138, as constituting the remaining
unapportioned funds. Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $299,138
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Good program. Good track record.
Continues to generate good numbers for
home ownership. The program is highly
successful.
Fort Collins Housing Authority — Down Payment Assistance Set-Aside (Rigden
Farm) — Application: $209,150
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend full funding.
Motion failed 0-10.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion
approved unanimously.
Comments voiced by the Commission and Staff:
Applicants to this program will be lacking resources and will need down payment
assistance. A possibility may exist that the banks will not fund the project without
assistance.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Mirrors a successful program with good Effective double CDBG subsidy between
track record. The HOME program is acquisition and down payment assistance.
moving fast now and may become The Commission is unclear why the level
depleted quickly. contributed to acquisition did not ensure
affordability. Down payment assistance
should not be tied to a specific program
and this funding could become an effective
guaranteed presale and profit for the
developer.
Neighbor to Neighbor— Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing Units — Application:
$300 000
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding as
a grant. Motion carried 8-2.
Total recommended funding level - $241,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Worthy program needing a boost. Good
long-range plan. Preserves and enhances
value of housing stock.
8
. PUBLIC FACILITIES
Crossroads safehouse - Rehabilitation — Application: $93,367
Moved by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding. Motion failed for lack of a
second.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding. Motion
failed 2-8.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To fund bathroom-only
renovation for $31,093. Motion withdrawn with consent of the second.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend no funding. Motion
failed 4-6.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $20,000
for renovation of three bathrooms. Ms. Coxen and Ms. Rosen agreed to a friendly
amendment to recommend funding of $20,000 for use within the total proposal.
Motion passed 9-1.
Total recommended funding level - $20,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Bathroom renovation concentrates on the With repeated requests, the applicant
highest stated need. displays an expectation of entitlement.
Applicant already sees substantial benefit
from previous grants and zero rent. The
estimates are excessively high for the
needed work. The need for renovations
and CDBG funds as opposed to other
funding sources was not demonstrated.
Neighbor to Neighbor— Acquisition of Public Facility - Application: $350,000
Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
In light of funding limitations, the applicant
stated that this application could be
. r)ostiDoned until the next fundinq cycle.
9
Beaucaire —Acquisition for Youth Services —Application: $178,000
Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding.
Following discussion, Ms. Zimlich offered a friendly amendment to recommend
funding of 20% of the amount requested for down payment on the property, as a
due-on-sale loan. Ms. Rosen and Ms. Coxen agreed to the amendment. Motion
passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $35,600
Pros of Application Cons of Application
The testimonial presented by the current Program income would seem to offset
owner was quite compelling. . mortgage and monthly expenses. Down
payment funding seems appropriate as
opposed to a complete purchase. The
Commission speculated that the proposed
expansion would be fodder for future
applications.
10
PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS
Comments by Staff:
Applicants should not receive a message that the minimum on the application is the
only figure looked at by the Commission. If the applicant is worthy, then full funding is
appropriate. Minimums are more appropriately used to equalize the inadequate funding
that must be apportioned out. The process must not result in applicants submitting fake
minimums or declining to enter minimums for fear that is all they would ever receive.
The history of this item: Some applicants who received partial funding in the past
actually preferred zero funding to partial. Partial funding can work against an applicant,
because the reporting requirements are the same whether the funding is for $1 or
$1,000,000. It was that phenomenon that generated the request for a minimum.
Credence should be given to the minimum numbers in these applications.
Following the motion regarding funding of Catholic Charities Senior Services and Adult
Literacy Services, moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To table further
discussion of Public Service applications. Motion failed 3-5.
Following action on all Public Service items, moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by
Mr. Hill: To finalize all Public Service recommendations in their present status.
Motion passed 7-2, with one abstention.
Lutheran Family Services - Fostering Family Strengths Program — Application:
$10,000
Moved by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding.
Motion passed 9-1.
Total recommended funding level - $10,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
High need for the program. The program Other funding may be adequate to fill the
serves a highly eligible population. Good program needs. Staff is underpaid and this
results. Child abuse cases are on the arguably contributes to social services and
increase. Societal funding for prevention is housing programs in the community.
low, and prevention is highly needed.
Noticeable effort spent on tracking results.
Successful anecdotal experiences related.
Neighbor to Neighbor — Comprehensive Housing Counseling — Application:
$30,000
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend funding of
$25,000. Friendly amendment by Mr. Majerus: To recommend full funding. Ms.
Molander and Ms. Guthrie consented. Motion passed 7-3.
In discussion by the Commission and Staff:
Staff noted that its referrals constitute a small portion of the applicant's client
base. The program is open to all applicants, regardless of income.
Total recommended funding level - $30,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Highly worthwhile program. A need exists
to move the targeted group to higher
independence. Good track record. This is
a model nonprofit public service group.
Housing counseling is necessary for low-
income home ownership. The program
directs its clients to appropriate referrals.
The program serves the transitional
housing niche in the community.
First Call - 2-1-1 Information and Referral Project— Application: $25,990
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding. Friendly
amendment offered by Mr. Majerus, affirmed by Ms. Coxen and Ms. Zimlich: To
recommend funding of$0. Motion approved 9-1.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Good project to funnel referrals No good information was gleaned as to the
appropriately. . A level of funding would contribution of agencies that are receiving
help leverage this worthy effort. 2-1-1 is a referrals. If this is a State program, the
great concept. State should contribute. High level of
funding for a test project. Other agencies
have duplicate referrals. The funding is
staffing money rather than seed money.
The Commission did not have high
confidence that a 24/7 operation is feasible
or necessar .
12
. Child Care Collaborative — Day Care Services -Application: $66,519.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding.
Motion carried 9-1.
Total recommended funding level - $66,519
Pros of Application Cons of Application
High need for the program. The projects
are well organized. Collaborative nature is
desirable and appreciated. Successful
track record. Great community effort. Effort
taken to avoid du lication in applications.
Elderhaus Adult Day Care Program- Multi-Cultural Group and Community Group
Program — Application: $6,299.
Moved by Ms. Bryant, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend full funding.
. Motion passed 8-2.
Total recommended funding level - $6,299
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Good program. Good track record. Good Staff and in-kind salaries comparison are
organization and concepts. not comparable nor are they in compliance
with Federal standards.
•
13
Disabled Resource Services—Case Management and Community Assistance —
Application: $25,000
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend funding of
$20,000. Motion passed 7-3.
Total recommended funding level - $20,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
The project is worthy. Good use of funds
to support this population within the
community.
The Women's Center of Larimer County — Health and Dental Care — Application:
$10,000
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed 7-3.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Demand is high and the waiting list Health District provides arguably
extensive. duplicative services. Other resources exist
for this need.
The Women's Center of Larimer County — Child Care Resource and Referral —
Application: $10,000
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding. Motion
carried 9-1.
Total recommended fundina level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Specialized service targeting specific Not sure of the quality of follow-up after
needs within childcare and thereby training. Low-income Fort Collins families
distinguishable from other programs. are a low percentage of clients.
Providing training and targeted referrals.
Training and referrals help women realize
income from day-care.
14
The women's Center of Larimer - Career Quest— Application: $5,000
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding.
Motion carried unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Nonduplicated population served may be Duplication of services by Job Service,
women at the Detention Center, assuming CSU, PSS, Education and Life Training
that this population is not covered by the Center. The program could see income by
Sheriffs Department or other services. charging fees to applicable clients.
Project Self-Sufficiency— Application: $25,000
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend full funding.
Motion failed 4-6.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend funding
of$20,000. Motion passed 9-1.
Ms. Coxen noted the discrepancy in Commission action from the Staff
recommendation.
Total recommended funding level - $20,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
High need. Good track record. Long The $5,000 beyond the minimum need
waiting list. The program needs funding to was not clear. This application does not
go to next level. Good leveraging effort address the need for expansion of the
with fund-raising and volunteers. program to reduce its waiting list but
applies itself only to the status quo.
15
Ensight Skills Center— Application: $6,760
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of
$5,000. Motion carried 10-0, with one abstention.
Moved by Mr. Vanderheiden, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend full funding.
Motion passed 7-3.
Total recommended funding level - $6,760
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Impressive organization and effort. The
program is taking a good direction. It
seems to operate well as a business in a
nonprofit environment. Presenters had
good knowledge of the subject matter.
Crossroads Safehouse — Crossroads' Specialized Advocacy and Training Project
— Application: $18,225
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed 8-2.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Addresses a population with high needs. Many funding sources and large amounts
of funding available for these efforts.
Agency already enjoys ongoing benefit
with zero rent. These efforts are duplicated
with law enforcement agencies.
16
r
ercy Housing — Springfield Coun Community and Resident Initiatives Program —
pplication: $15,000
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Providing services on-site is attractive. Redundant effort in community. Has not
seen as high a transportation need as
presented. The needs addressed in the
application do not have the priority of other
pressing needs before the Commission.
The program enjoys a well-funded national
effort.
Educo — Fort Collins Team Leadership Program — Application: $13,214
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Very good concept. Not a good fit for the intended purpose of
CDBG funding. There is a higher need for
more basic services.
•
17
Catholic Charities Northern - Senior Services — Application: $15,000
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding.
Motion failed 3-6, with one abstention.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend no funding. Motion
failed 5-5.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $9,928 for
Catholic Charities Northern, Senior Services, and no funding for Adult Literacy
Services. Motion passed 8-2.
Total recommended funding level - $9,928
Pros of Application Cons of Application
The aid provided is valuable, particularly in Other efforts duplicate this service, such
paperwork aspects. Provides needed as with churches and RSVP. Higher needs
companionship for this segment of society. seen for the available funds.
Catholic Charities Northern — Shelter and Supportive Services for Homeless —
Application: $30,000
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding.
Motion failed 2-8.
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of
$25,000. Motion failed, 5-5.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of
$25,000. Motion passed 7-3.
Comments by the Commission:
Community needs are increasing across a wide spectrum, spreading out the
available sources. Some applicants, like this, will always receive broad community
support. Some worthwhile projects are helpless without CDBG assistance.
Total recommended funding level - $25,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
High need of this service in the community Other funding is available to this applicant.
particularly with the failure of New Bridges. Other applicants are high need with fewer
The program demands a high level of funding sources. This program should not
participation form its clients. consider CDBG funding as an entitlement.
18
CRISP (Creative Recreation in Special Populations) — Application: $7,000
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend no funding.
Motion carried 9-1.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Very good program. Does not meet with CDBG criteria. More
funding needed for more basic social
functions. Potential abuse factor of
volunteers receiving program benefits.
Adult Literacy Services — Education and Life Training Program — Application:
$9,300
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend full funding.
Motion failed 5-5.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend $5,000. Motion
failed 4-4, with two apparent abstentions. Upon discussion and recount, motion
failed 3-7.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend funding of $9,928 for
Catholic Charities Northern, Senior Services, and no funding for Adult Literacy
Services. Motion passed 8-2.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Steadily decreasing applications year by Applicant demonstrates marked lack of
year. Good track record. organization and specified need for
fundin .
19
Appendix 1
Commission representatives, by issue, for the study session with City Council:
Ms. Rosen:
Lutheran Family Services
Elderhaus
Women's Center - Career Quest
Educo - Team Leadership
CRISP
Beaucaire
Turning Point
Crossroads Rehabilitation
Mr. Browning:
Neighbor to Neighbor— Counseling
Disabled Resource Services
Project Self Sufficiency
Mercy Housing - Springfield Court
Adult Literacy
Fort Collins Housing Corp. — Sleepy Willow
CARE
Homebu ers assistance
Ms. Bryant:
First Call
Women's Center- Health & Dental Care
Ensi ht
Catholic Charities Northern - Senior Services
Neighbor-to-Neighbor— Acquisition of ei ht- lex
Habitat for Humanity
Fort Collins Housing Authority - Ri den Farm
Mr. Vanderheiden:
Child Care Collaborative
Women's Center - Child Care Resource/Referral
Crossroads —Advocacy program
Catholic Charities Northern - Shelter and Supportive Services
Neighbor to Neighbor— Public Facility
La unitas
Neighbor to Neighbor— Rehab
20
• RESOLUTION 2002-048
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE FY 2002-2003
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,2002,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 2002-2003 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 2002-2003 Community
Development Block Grant Program application as follows:
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration $154,730
ACQUISITION
Fort Collins Housing Corporation
Acquisition of Sleepy Willow Apartments $650,000
(Due on Sale Loan)
Neighbor to Neighbor
Acquisition of Existing Housing
for Permanently Affordable Housing $160,000
(Due on Sale Loan)
Habitat for Humanity
Land Acquisition $150,000
(Due on Sale Loan)
Turning Point Independent Living Apartments $100,000
(Due on Sale Loan)
REHABILITATION
Neighbor to Neighbor
Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing $300,000 (Grant)
HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE
City of Fort Collins CDBG Program
Homebuyer Assistance $299,138
(Due on Sale Loan)
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Beaucare Youth Services $35,600
(Due on Sale Loan)
Crossroads Safehouse—Rehabilitation Project $20,000 (Grant)
PUBLIC SERVICES
Lutheran Family Services
Prevention of Child Abuse Program $10,000 (Grant)
Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc.
Comprehensive Housing Counseling $30,000 (Grant)
Child Care Collaborative Project $66,519 (Grant)
Elderhaus Adult Day Programs
Multi-Cultural group and Community Group Programs $6,299 (Grant)
Disabled Resource Services
Case Management and Community Assistance $20,000 (Grant)
Project Self-Sufficiency of Loveland/Fort Collins $20,000 (Grant)
Ensight Skills Center, Inc. $6,760 (Grant)
Catholic Charities Northern
Senior Services $9,928 (Grant)
Catholic Charities Northern
Shelter and Supportive Services for the Homeless $25,000 (Grant)
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
7th day of May A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
RESOLUTION 2002-049
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE FY 2002-2003 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)stimulate housing production for very low,low and moderate income households;
(2) increase home ownership opportunities for very low, low and moderate income households; and
(3) increase the supply of public housing for families and those with special needs; and
WHEREAS, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit the FY 2002-2003 Home Investment
Partnerships Program application as follows:
Administration $ 88,400
Projects $693,000
CHDO Reserve $102,600
Total $884,000
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
7th day of May A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 074, 2002
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 Citv will receive in federal fiscal year 2002-2003 unanticipated revenue in
the form of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds totaling $1,209,000,
constituting a new revenue source; and
WHEREAS, the City expects to receive CDBG Program income in the 2002-2003 federal
fiscal year in the amount of$87,712; and
WHEREAS, unexpended funds are also available from the CDBG program for the federal
2001-2002 fiscal year in the amount of$767,262; 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 2002; and
WHEREAS,by adoption of Resolution 2002-048 the City Council approved the 2002-2003
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 2002-2003 into the Community Development Block Grant Fund, the sum of
ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,209,000), upon receipt
thereof from federal fiscal year 2002-2003 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 EIGHTY-SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWELVE
DOLLARS ($87,712) for approved Community Development Block Grant projects.
Section 3. That the unexpended and unencumbered amount of SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY-
SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS($767,262)is hereby authorized
for transfer from the 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant Program to the 2002-2003
Community Development Block Grant Program and appropriated therein.
Introduced,considered favorably on first reading,and ordered published this 7th day of May,
A.D. 2002, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 21 st day of May, A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 075, 2002 .
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN
THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS FUND
WHEREAS, the HOME Investment Partnership Program (the "HOME Program") was
authorized by the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 to provide funds for a variety of
housing-related activities which would increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable
housing; and
WHEREAS,on March 1, 1994,the City Council adopted Resolution 94-92 authorizing the
Mayor to submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development("HUD") a notification of
intent to participate in the HOME Program; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 1994, HUD designated the City as a Participating Jurisdiction in
the HOME Program, allowing the City to receive an allocation of HOME Program funds as long as
Congress re-authorizes and continues to fund the program; and
WHEREAS, the City has been notified by HUD that the City's HOME Participating
Jurisdiction Grant for the federal fiscal year 2002-2003 is $684,000, constituting a new revenue
source; and
• WHEREAS, the City expects to receive HOME Program income in the 200272003 federal
fiscal year in the amount of$200,000; 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,does 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 relevant funds to exceed the
current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year;
and
WHEREAS, Article V,Section 11,of the Charter provides that federal grant appropriations
shall not lapse if unexpended at the end of the budget year until the expiration of the federal grant;
and
WHEREAS,by adoption of Resolution 2002-049,the City Council approved the 2002-2003
HOME Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in
the federal fiscal year 2002-2003 into the HOME Program Fund the sum of SIX HUNDRED
EIGHTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS($684,000),upon receipt thereof from federal fiscal year
2002-2003 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant Funds.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated program income revenue for
approved HOME Program projects,upon receipt thereof into the HOME Program Fund,the amount
of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000)for approved HOME Program projects.
Introduced,considered favorably on first reading,and ordered published this 7th day of May,
A.D. 2002, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 21 st day of May, A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk