HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/05/2002 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE COMPLETION OF THE FALL CYCLE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-C
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 5, 2002
lip . STAFF: Ken Waido
SUBJECT: items Relating to the Completion of the Fall 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 Home Investment Partnerships(HOME)
Program,the City's Affordable Housing Fund,and Reprogrammed Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program Funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions. The CDBG Commission presents a list of
recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Home Investment Partnerships(HOME)Program and the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)
Program provide funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)to the City of Fort
Collins that can be allocated to affordable housing 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 three Resolutions. The first Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive
lipfunding with HOME funds for the FY 2002-2003 Program year,which started October 1, 2002. The second
Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding from the City's Affordable Housing
Fund. And, the third Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding from
reprogrammed CDBG Program funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2002-104 Approving the FY 2002-2003 Home Investment
Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins.
B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2002-105 Allocating Funding from the City's Affordable
Housing Fund.
C. Public Hearing and Resolution 2002-106 Approving the Allocation of Reprogrammed
Community Development Block Grant Funds.
The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of three Resolutions that represent the
culmination of the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources to
affordable housing and community development activities. The first Resolution establishes which
programs and projects will receive funding with HOME funds for the FY 2002-2003 Program year,
which started October 1,2002. The second Resolution establishes which programs and projects will
receive funding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. The third Resolution establishes which
programs and projects will receive funding from reprogrammed CDBG Program funds. Additional
background material about the competitive process is included in Attachment A.
DATE: ovem er ITEM NUMBER: 7 A
BACKGROUND:
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 funding. The Affordable Housing Board has been involved in the process and has
reviewed all of the affordable housing proposals. The CDBG Commission reviewed written
applications,personally interviewed each applicant,analyzed the applications,and formulated a list
of recommendations to the City Council as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
The competitive process established refined criteria to determine priorities between proposals
received by the City. The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category is
given a total number of points that has been weighed according to their importance with respect to
local and federal priorities. The five major categories are:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups.
The Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted City goals and priorities. The
Feasibility criteria reward projects for timelines and documented additional funding. The Leveraging
Resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds to the City (via loans).and for their
ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History criteria help gage an applicant's
ability to do the project and reward applicants that have completed successful projects in the past
(have good track records). The ranking sheet used to assist the CDBG Commission is presented in
Attachment A.
The Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable
Housing Needs and Strategies report adopted by the Council on February 2, 1999. These
guidelines include:
• HOME funds should generally be allocated as follows: 90% for Housing
projects and 10% for Program Administration. HUD HOME Program
regulations also require the City to set aside 15% for Community Housing
Development Organization(CHDO)projects and allow an allocation of 5%for
CHDO operations;
• CDBG funds should generally be allocated as follows: 65% for Housing
projects; 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.
November 27 A-C
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
The CDBG and HOME Programs are ongoing grant administration programs funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received
CDBG Program funds since 1975 and HOME Program funds since 1994. The City is an Entitlement
recipient of CDBG funds and a Participating Jurisdiction recipient of HOME funds, meaning the
City is guaranteed a certain level of funding each year. The level of funding is dependent on the total
amount of funds allocated to the programs by Congress and on a formula developed by HUD, which
includes data on total population, minorities as a percentage of population, income levels, housing
stock conditions,etc. Additional background information on the City's HOME and CDBG Programs
are presented in Attachment C and D respectively.
AVAILABLE FUNDS
The amount of the City's HOME Grant for FY 2002-2003 is $684,000. Added to the HOME grant
will be$200,000 of HOME Program Income to make a combined amount of$884,000 available for
projects and administrative purposes. Subtracting $88,400 (10% maximum allowed by HOME
regulations)for administrative purposes,leaves$795,600 available for projects and programs. The
HOME funds will be combined with $893,962 from the City's Affordable Housing Fund and
$484,826 of reprogrammed CDBG funds to create a potential pool of$2,174,338 of funds available
for programs from the Fall cycle of the competitive process.
CDBG funds are typically allocated in the spring and are,thus,not available for use in the fall cycle
of the competitive process. However, of some projects previously allocated CDBG funds, one has
been canceled. The $484,826 of reprogrammed CDBG funds comes from the following source:
$484,826 FCHA Rigden Farm Project
The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT SOURCE
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
$ 795,600 FY 2002 HOME Grant and Program Income
893,962 City's Affordable Housing Fund
484,826 Reprogrammed CDBG Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2,174,338 Total
SELECTION PROCESS
On January 10, 2002, the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on
community development and affordable housing needs. The HOME Program office placed legal
advertisements in local and regional newspapers starting in July to solicit requests for HOME funded
programs and projects and for proposals for the use of funding from the City's Affordable Housing
Fund. The application deadline was Thursday, August 22. At the close of the deadline the City
received nine (9) applications requesting a total of approximately $2.3 million.
Copies of all applications were forwarded to the City Council on September 12,2002 and placed in
the Council Office for review. Also on September 12, 2002 copies of the applications were
distributed to the CDBG Commission.
27
DATE: November ITEM NUMBER: A
On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting
to review the affordable housing proposals and formulate a list of priority projects which was
forwarded to the CDBG Commission (see Attachment B). On Thursday, September 26, 2002, the
CDBG Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant.
The Commission then met on Thursday, October 3 for the purpose of preparing a recommendation
to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded within funds available from
the fall cycle of the competitive process. At this meeting the Commission reviewed the written
applications, the applicant's verbal presentation, the information provided during the question and
answer session, and reviewed the performance of agencies who received HOME funds or other
funding in previous years. The Commission then worked on the formulation of its list of
recommendations.
CDBG COMMISSION'S COMMENDATIONS
HUD HOME regulations limit the amount of available funds that can be allocated to various
categories. Funds for Administrative purposes are limited to 10%of the HOME Grant which means
90%of the Grant must be used for housing projects. Within the 90%required for projects,the City
is required to set aside 15%for Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) projects
and allow an allocation of 5% for CHDO operations.
The Commission, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects
which best fit into the City's HOME and CDBG Programs,but also had to insure funding allocations
were kept within HUD regulations and follow the funding guidelines contained in the Priority
Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies report.
Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's
recommendations.
City of Fort Collins - Home Buyer Assistance
Request: $600,000 (3 applications)
Recommendation: $600,000: $76,826 CDBG, $423,174 HOME, $100,000 AFH
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 (AMI) and $18,000 for buyers at or below 50% of AMI. The $100,000 requested
from the AHF will be used in those cases where properties are currently rented and subjected
to Federal relocation requirements and to supplement the regular HBA program.
Approximately 90 households will be assisted in the next year with this program.
Habitat for Humanity
Request: $150,000
Recommendation: $150,000 CDBG
Habitat is requesting CDBG funds to acquire three new lots for Habitat families.
27
DATE: ITEM NUMBER: A
Care Housing—Fairbrooke Heights Development
Request: $200,000
Recommendation: $200,000 AHF
CARE has requested assistance with debt reduction on its Fairbrooke Heights development
that previously received HOME and Affordable Housing funds.
Fort Collins Housing Corporation—Rehabilitation Project, Phase III
Request: $258,000
Recommendation: $258,000 CDBG
The Fort Collins Housing Corporation is doing a major rehabilitation of existing permanently
affordable rental properties. This allocation will rehab 18 units.
i
Neighbor to Neighbor—Clearview acquisition and rehabilitation
Request: $102,600
Recommendation: $102,600HOME-CHDO
Neighbor to Neighbor is requesting funding to replace decreased funding from the Colorado
Division of Housing for the acquisition of the Clearview property which previously was
granted CDBG funding. In addition, Neighbor to Neighbor is also requesting $20,000 in
CHDO operating expenses to assist in the management of the acquisition and funding for the
rehabilitation of the units.
Beaucaire—Phase II Rehabilitation
Request: $391,000
Recommendation: No funding
Beaucaire is requesting funds to complete the purchase of property and the construction of
additional office space and two bedrooms for its facility at 302 Cherry Street.
Community Housing and Independent Reintegration (CHIRP)— Construction of facility
Request: $650,000
Recommendation: No funding
Larimer County's Community Housing service is requesting City funds to help build a
transitional housing facility for adults-transitioning from the Detention Center to independent
living. This facility will increase the Fort Collins capacity from 94 beds to 176 beds.
Total amount of funding requested = $2,351,250
Total amount of funding available = $2,174,388
Total amount of funding allocated = $1,310,600
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
The total amount of funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately$2.3
million; however, only about$2.1 million of funds are available.With the amount of total requests
far exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be funded. Also, some
applicants requested funds for projects that are ineligible for the use of funds for that particular
funding source.
The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for seven(7)proposals and no funding for
two(2)projects. The two projects not recommended for funding were the Beaucaire and the CHIRP
requests.
The Commission believes the Beaucaire project is premature and has many neighborhood issues to
resolve through the development review process. The funding is more for administrative space than
"housing"since only two(2)beds would be added. The Commission also had problems with some
of the financial figures contained in the application finding some inconsistencies.
The Commission struggled with the CHIRP application because it was well presented. The bottom
line turned out to be a determination that the requested funding source, the City's Affordable
Housing Fund, was not established to subsidize this type of project. The Commission, and the
Affordable Housing Board,believes the Council's direction for use of the City's Affordable Housing
Fund was for the production of units for lower income families, not for "public facility" types of
projects and, thus, has recommended the project not be funded.
The Commission's reasons for either full funding, or no funding, for all projects are presented in
Attachment E.
1. The Commission has recommended allocating all (100%) of the available
$484,826 of reprogrammed.CDBG funds.
2. The Commission has recommended allocating$423,174(61%)of the$693,000
available HOME funds, leaving $269,826 available for the 2003 spring cycle.
3. The Commission has recommended allocating $102,600 (100%) of the
$102,600 available from the HOME-CHDO set-aside.
4. The Commission has recommended allocating$300,000(33%)of the$893,962
available from the Affordable Housing Fund,leaving$593,962 available for the
2003 Spring cycle or future competitive process cycles.
RESOLUTION 2002-104
• 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 Partnerships (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,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,specific proposals for the use of HOME funds have been reviewed by the City's
Affordable Housing Board and Community Development Block Grant Commission which have
forwarded recommendations to the City Council.
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 (HOME) Program application as follows:
Amount Applicant - Project
$423,174 City of Fort Collins - Homebuyer Assistance
Community Housing Development Organization Funds
Amount Applicant - Project
$102,600 Neighbor to Neighbor
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
5th day of November A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
. RESOLUTION 2002-105
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ALLOCATING FUNDING FROM THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
WHEREAS, the City Council has identified affordable housing as a primary need in the
community; and
WHEREAS,the Council has established an Affordable Housing Fund consisting of General
Fund revenues from the City's Annual Budget; 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,specific proposals for the use of Affordable Housing funds have been reviewed
by the City's Affordable Housing Board and Community Development Block Grant Commission
which have forwarded recommendations to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000) from the City's
Affordable Housing Fund be allocated as follows:
. Amount Applicant - Project
$200,000 CARE Housing, Inc. —Fairbrooke Debt Reduction
$100,000 City of Fort Collins - Homebuyer Assistance
(for previously rented property)
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
5th day of November A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
. RESOLUTION 2002-106
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF REPROGRAMMED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 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
CDBG funding; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Commission met in a special meeting for the purpose of preparing
a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded with
• CDBG funds.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY-
SIX DOLLARS ($484,826) of reprogrammed Community Development Block Grant funds be
allocated as follows:
Amount Applicant- Project
$150,000 Habitat for Humanity—Land Acquisition
$258,000 Fort Collins Housing Corporation—Housing Rehabilitation
$ 76,826 City of Fort Collins - Homebuyer Assistance
0
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
5th day of November A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
• Attachment A
Background Information on the Competitive Process
for the Allocation of City Financial Resources
to Affordable Housing Programs/Projects
and Other Community Development Activities
In February of 1999, the City Council approved the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and
Strategies report, which contained the following strategy:
Change from an administrative funding mechanism...to a competitive application process
for the Affordable Housing Fund.
Between September and November of 1999, a subcommittee consisting of members from the
Affordable Housing Board and the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Commission
met with staff to review issues and develop options for establishment of a competitive process.
In addition, the staff solicited ideas from existing affordable housing providers. The
subcommittee established the following Mission Statement for their work:
Develop a competitive application process and establish a set of shared criteria for the
allocation of the City's financial assistance resources to affordable housing
projects/programs that address the City's priority affordable housing needs.
Competitive Process
Five options for a competitive process were reviewed and discussed by the subcommittee. The
subcommittee reached a general consensus to support a competitive process that involved both
the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission. The option selected would have the
Affordable Housing Board providing recommendations to the City Council in regards to
affordable housing policy. In addition,the option would have the Affordable Housing Board
reviewing all affordable housing applications for CDBG,HOME and Affordable Housing funds.
The Board would then provide a priority listing of proposals to the CDBG Commission. The
CDBG Commission would then make the final recommendations to the City Council for funding.
Funding Cycles
The subcommittee also agreed that there should be two funding cycles per year, one in the spring
and the other in the fall. CDBG Program funds would be allocated in the spring to affordable
housing programs/projects and other community development activities (public services,public
facilities, etc.). HOME Program and Affordable Housing funds would be allocated in the fall
primarily to affordable housing programs/projects.
The staff and subcommittee agreed that overlaying the new process and cycles would be
heightened staff technical assistance to applicants. Both the subcommittee and staff recognize
that a bi-annual process will require additional meetings by both the CDBG Commission and
Affordable Housing Board, and will require more time from current City staff, and increase the
City Council's involvement.
Schedule
The subcommittee also discussed two alternative schedules for the funding cycles. The option
selected incorporates a spring cycle that starts in January and ends in May, and a fall cycle that
starts in July and end in November.
Review Criteria
The subcommittee also discussed and agreed to a new set of review criteria to be used to rank
proposals. The criteria are divided into the following five major categories:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups
and provide longer benefits. The Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted
City goals and priorities. The Feasibility criteria reward projects for timeliness and documented
additional funding. The Leveraging Resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds
to the City(loans) and for their ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History
criteria help gage an applicant's ability to do the project and reward applicants that have
completed successful projects in the past(have good track records).
See next page for a detailed criteria scoring sheet.
Application Forms
Two new application forms have also been developed. One form would be used for Housing
proposals while to other form would be used for Non-Housing Proposals (public services,public
facilities, etc.).
City Council Adoption
On January 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 2000-13, formally adopting the
competitive process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities and the component parts discussed
above.
• Ranking Criteria for CDBG, HOME and Affordable Housing Funding
The ranking criterion is divided into five major categories. Each category is given a total number of points that has been weighed
according to their importance with respect to local and federal priorities.This ranking sheet will be used to assist the Community
Development Block Grant Commission(CDBGC)and the Affordable Housing Board(AHB)in the FY01 Competitive Funding
Process.CDBG and AHB members will rank projects according to the questions and criteria shown below.
Impact/Benefit(maximum 30 oointsl
I. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10)
(0-30%of AMI= 10 pts,31-50%=8 pts,51-80%=4 pts)
2. Project produces adequate community benefit related to cost? (0-5)
3. Does the project provide direct assistance for persons to gain self-sufficiency? (0-5)
4. Does the project provide long-term benefit or affordability? (0-10)
(1-10 yrs=3 pts, 1 I-19 yrs=6 pts,20 to 30 yrs=8 pts,and Permanent= 10 pts)
Sub-total
Need/Priority(maximum 15 ooints)
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 ooints)
I. The project will be completed within the required time period? (0-3)
2. Project budget is justified?(Costs are documented and reasonable)? (04)
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)
I. 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. 1:1 to 1:3 4 point
C. 1:4 to t:6 7 point
D. More than 1:7 10 poit
Caoacity and History(maximum 15 points) Sub-total
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
September 18, 2002
Fall 2002 Competitive Process
The Affordable Housing Board's priority listing of the affordable housing
applications is as follows:
1. Homebuyer Assistance Programs (HO-1, HO-2, and HO-3)
2. CARE Housing — Fairbrooke Heights Debt Reduction (DR-1)
3. Neighbor-to-Neighbor— Acquisition and Rehab (CHDO-1)
4. Ft. Collins Housing Corporation — Rehab Phase III (RE-1)
5. Habit for Humanity— Land Acquisition (AQ-1)
The Board believes the above proposals all should be funded. The Board
also believes that the following two proposals should not be funded:
6. Beaucaire Expansion (NC-1)
7. CHIRP Transitional Housing Construction (NC-2)
•
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$5,000 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 $34,050
2 persons $38,900
3 persons $43,800
4 persons $48,650
5 persons $52,550
6 persons $56,400
7 persons $60,300
8 persons $64,200
2. For new construction of units for homeownership as well as rental occupancy targeted for
low-income individuals and families which are developed, sponsored, or owned by
• 1
community housing development organizations (CHDOs), non-profit agencies, and for-
profit developers.
3. For acquisition of undeveloped, or developed, land resulting in the development or
purchase of units for homeownership as well as rental occupancy. All regulations
regarding income guidelines, purchase price limitations, resale limitations, rental rates,
etc., will apply to acquisition projects.
ELIGIBLE PROPERTY TYPES:
Eligible property types for purchase include both existing property or newly constructed homes.
Eligible property includes a single-family property, a condominium unit, a manufactured home
(including mobile homes on a permanent foundation), or a cooperative unit. For purposes of the
HOME program,homeownership means:
(1) ownership in fee simple title, or
(2) a 99 year leasehold interest, or
(3) ownership or membership in a cooperative, or
(4) an equivalent form of ownership which has been approved by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
The value and purchase price of the HOME assisted property to be acquired must not exceed
95%of the area median purchase price for that type of housing as established by HUD.
RECAPTURE RESTRICTIONS WILL APPLY. (The value must be verified by a qualified
appraiser or current tax assessment.) Initial purchase price limit established by HUD is currently
$201,000.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY BY YEAR
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
2
HOME PROGRAM PRIORITIES
The 1995-99 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
ATTACHMENT D
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
on the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
CDBG PROGRAM NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the CDBG Program is Athe development of viable urban communities,by
providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities,
principally for persons of low and moderate income.=_ Programs and projects funded with CDBG
funds must address at least one of the following three broad National Objectives:
(1) provide a benefit to low or moderate income households or persons,
(2) eliminate or prevent slum and blight conditions, or
(3) meet urgent community development needs which pose an immediate and serious
threat to the health and welfare of the community.
Presented below is a comparison of City CDBG expenditures for programs and projects categorized
• according to the National Objectives:
National Objectives
Low/Moderate Slum/Blight Urgent
Income Benefit Elimination Need
National Average 90% 10% 0%
City Expenditures
for: 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%.
• 4x.CY..""- r "' x
Y
�4 w:
k `
... ... .. ..i x..ram:.5 ..�.. . :.
OCTOBER 2002ftINEVONG 'RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
y x rx
s ^r
x e va: •n` v
Commission members present:
Phil Majerus
Terri Bryant
Robert Browning
Linda Coxen
Vi Guthrie
Brett Hill
Tia Molander
. Billie Rosen
Dennis Vanderheiden
Cheryl Zimlich
Staff:
Ken Waido
Heidi Phelps
Maurice Head
Julie Smith
Stacy Kelley
Produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 West Oak Street, Suite 266
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
• 970.482.1506
1
970.482.1230 fax
meadors@reporterworks.com e-mail
2
MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
Ms. Phelps noted the importance of detailing pros and cons with specificity.
Mr. Waido gave an overview of the process and recommendations. He reviewed the
schedule of the October 22nd Council work session and the November 5th Council
meeting for final resolution. He then explained the matrix, its organization, and the
categories of allocable funding.
Recommendations by Affordable Housing Board:
The Board did not review the CHRP,(Larimer County Community Corrections), or
Beaucaire proposals.
Priorities recommended by the Board, by order of preference:
1. Home Buyer Assistance
2. CARE debt reduction
3. Neighbor to Neighbor
4. Fort Collins Housing Corporation Rehab
5. Habitat for Humanity.
• The Board recommended full funding for all these applicants.
In response to questions and from discussion by the Commission and Staff, the
following salient points emerged:
Home buyer assistance is a likely and desirable target for surplus allocations. Whether
a surplus can be carried to another funding cycle is dependent on the category. CDBG
can assist up to 50% of the moneys allocated to home buyer assistance from the
Affordable Housing Fund; HOME can match it.
Staff noted that it was making no recommendations, due to the City's status as an
applicant.
Following voting on funding recommendations:
The Commission noted the surplus left from this cycle. This is a deliberate strategy to
address larger-scale projects that may be on the horizon for the spring cycle.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To adopt the final recommendations
in toto, to be forwarded to City Council for its determination. Motion passed
unanimously.
. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
3
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Home buyers assistance. Request $300,000, from HOME funds.
Moved by Ms. Bryant seconded by Ms. Rosen.: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved unanimously.
Total recommended funding level - $300,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Excellent program. Excellent goals.
Excellent track record and success history.
Many families successfully served. The
waiting list proves the need. The program
is timely due to availability of product and
interest rates.
Home buyers assistance. Request $100,000, from the Affordable Housing Fund
(rentals).
Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved 9-1.
This funding source is applicable to families buying former investment housing.
In the present market, landlords may be looking to sell their units, and assistance
for buying such units can only be achieved without funding that does not have
Federal restrictions.
Total recommended funding level - $100,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Excellent program. Excellent . goals. Brings rental units off the market.
Excellent track record and success history.
Many families successfully served. The
waiting list proves the need. The program
is timely due to availability of product and
interest rates. This particular category
makes housing available that would not be
under present regulations. This program
helps bring rental units into affordable
ownership
4
Home buyers assistance. Request $200,000, from Affordable Housing Fund.
Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding of
$200,000, comprised of $123,174 from HOME, 76,826 from CDBG funds. Motion
approved 7-3.
Commission comments: Leaving money in HOME leaves it flexible, with potential future
applications potentially needing the funding. Money left in the Affordable Housing Fund
has the greatest flexibility; in the Federal program, HOME has more flexibility than
CDBG, which is the most highly restricted.
The Commission debated at length on ways to manipulate the funding among the
various categories to maximize expenditures within the applicable restrictions.
Total recommended funding level - $200,000 ($123.714 HOME: $76,826, CDBG)
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Excellent program. Excellent goals.
Excellent track record and success history.
Many families successfully served. The
. waiting list proves the need. The program
is timely due to availability of product and
interest rates. This particular allocation to
the various categories maximizes funding
within the applicable restrictions.
5
Habitat. Request $150,000, from CDBG funds.
Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full funding.
Friendly amendment proposed by Mr. Browning, but not accepted: To defer the
standard two-year window on "substantial progress" to three years. Motion passed 9-1.
Discussion concerning the proposed friendly amendment dealt with the
precedent that would be seen by other applicants who seek property acquisition.
Progress should be reported.
Total recommended funding level -$150,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Many families are served. The program Funding still remains from last cycle. The
seems to be hitting its stride and has program could inadvertently enter a land
improved its ability to resolve its projects. banking situation, which is not allowable
The program is showing good direction. It under CDBG rules. Progress needs to be
encourages home ownership. The recent proved with the funding it has received and
history is favorable. This program provides will receive. The completion of project will
a valuable service within the housing be two years from acquisition; the
spectrum. Should the program not meet its Commission needs to feel comfortable
goals, unused funding would be with the two-year limit of CDBG funds. By
reprogrammed. Federal regulation, the applicant has until
September 2003 to acquire property. No
contingencies presently exist to have a
structure in place within a given time.
Fort Collins Housing Corporation. Request$258,000, from HOME funds.
Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vanderheiden: To recommend full
funding from CDBG funds. Motion approved 9-1. This funding is recommended to be
taken from CDBG because those more restrictive funds need to be expended.
Total recommended funding level - $258 000 (from CDBG funds)
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Rehab needs to move ahead. Accessibility Level of discomfort about how the
and safety problems are untenable. applicant is providing for reserves and
Applicant has hit its targets timely. The future maintenance needs. Reserves need
program addresses a very low AMI level, to be built up to ensure maintenance self-
which reduces opportunity for reserve sufficiency.
building. Rehab would help reduce the
appearance of urban blight.
6
• Beaucaire. Request $391,000, from CDBG funds.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Rosen: To recommend no funding.
Unanimous.
Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Reduces recidivism. Program has worthy The application is premature, with many
goals. possible changes on the horizon. The
program can continue with its current
situation. Program numbers are not solid.
The request is not timely when considering
status of the project. The neighborhood
situation needs to be clarified; funding may
show disregard for neighbor concerns. The
funding applied more to administration and
less applied to benefit of youth. With two
beds added, there is a high subsidy level
. per unit. The program received funding in
the last cycle and needs to establish a
track record for future funding possibilities.
Community Housing. Request $650,000, from Affordable Housing Fund.
Moved by Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend no funding. Motion
failed 3-5, with two abstentions.
Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of
$450,000. Motion failed 1-7, with two abstentions.
Moved by Ms. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend no funding.
Motion passed 7-1, with two abstentions.
Some commission members wished to see funding at some level. Staff noted that the
application in form was one of the best ever seen. The program is only eligible for
funding from the Affordable Housing Fund; that fund's stated purpose is housing for low-
income families. This is a very worthy cause seek funding from an inappropriate source.
• Total recommended funding level - $0
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Worthy project. May be able to leverage Community corrections issue is the
State funding. High number of units for the responsibility of the County. Example:
level of subsidy. Present facility is not Broomfield became _a county unto Itself
adequate. City realizes a benefit from the trying to build jails and take on ccur.ry.
program; its participation is valid. The responsibility. It is not an appropriate
population is demonstrably from Fort target of the Affordable Housing Fund; the
Collins, even before incarceration. The more appropriate target of that fund is
program provides transitional housing and housing and families. Fort Collins
life skills that are needed for this residency is not clear, in that it is defined
population. The existing structure can by the fact of the residents' incarceration.
leverage resources. The view that this is a It does not fit within the priority needs and
"County-only" function is not correct, the definition of transitional housing as
because local law enforcement agencies those priorities and definitions presently
share these responsibilities by agreement. exist. The Affordable Housing Board
The program serves a needy population recommended no funding.
which the community does not care to
serve. It leverages tax dollars by taking
inmates into community-based and more
productive housing.
Neighbor to Neighbor. Request $102,600 from CHDO funds.
Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full .funding of
$102,600. Motion approved unanimously.
Growth of this program is a concern, and the program structure needs to match its
growth. The organization is being responsible with its resources and trying to target self-
sufficiency. The applicant has always worked cooperatively with other programs. The
program is run like a business, with planned reserves. It has a good board of directors
and dynamic executive director.
Total recommended funding level -$102,600
Pros of Application Cons of Application
Impressive organization. This rehab
project is more impressive than that
proposed by other applicants. The
organization has an exemplary history.
Serves an important community need.
Addresses an important AMI level. The
Commission has a high comfort level with
the organization and its goals. Excellent
location.
8
CARE. Request $200,000, from Affordable Housing Fund.
Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Browning: To recommend full funding.
Motion approved 8-2.
This program is seeing trouble due to past mistakes. This particular project was
structured differently than past projects. Painful lessons have been learned. Staff will be
continually monitoring the numbers. The Commission has concern that the program
advertising itself as low-income stigmatizes the development and reduces the level of
community pride.
Total recommended funding level - $200,000
Pros of Application Cons of Application
This project is illustrative of the targets of The Commission is not fully comfortable
this type of funding. A low AM[ is served with subsidizing debt. The numbers and
by this project. The applicant serves the chance for success is somewhat
community well and builds quality units. problematic.
The units would be lost to market rate
units without this funding. The applicant is
one of the few viable affordable
developers. This project received a high
ranking by the Affordable Housing Board.
Attachment 1
Ms. Rosen Home Buyer Assistance
Ms. Bryant Habitat for Humanity
Mr. Vanderheiden Fort Collins Housing Cor oration
Ms. Molander Beaucaire
Ms. Coxen Community Housing
Mr. Hill Neighbor to Neighbor
Ms. Molander CARE
9