Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/01/2001 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE COMPLETION OF THE SPRING CYC AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D DATE: May 1, 2001 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: 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 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs. i RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions and 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 2001-68 Approving the FY 2001-2002 Community j Development Block Grant Program for the City of Fort Collins. B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2001-69 Approving the FY 2001-2002 Home Investment i Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 87, 2001, 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. 88, 2001, 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 relating to funding under the CDBG and HOME Programs. The first resolution (Resolution 2001-68 establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG funds for the FY 2001-2002 Program year, which starts on October I, 2001. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The second resolution (Resolution 2001-69) establishes only the major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2001-2002 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 1, 2001 2 ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D BACKGROUND: The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two resolutions relating to funding under the CDBG and HOME Programs. The first resolution (Resolution 2001-68) establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG funds for the FY 2001-2002 Program year, which starts on October 1, 2001. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The second resolution (Resolution 2001-69) establishes only the major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2001-2002 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 2001-68 establishes which programs and projects will receive CDBG funds and 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 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 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") -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 its ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History criteria help gauge 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 and the Affordable Housing Board is presented in Attachment "A". Di y 1, 2001 3 ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D e Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable using Needs and Strategies report adopted by the Council on February 2, 1999. These delines 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 2001-2002 is $1,227,000. The Entitlement Grant will be combined with $89,651 of CDBG Program Income and $403,151 of Reprogrammed funds to create a total of$1,719,802 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. CDBG Reprogrammed funds include funds not expended in previously approved projects. i The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds: DATE: May 1, 2001 4 ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D CDBG Program AMOUNT SOURCE ------------------------------------------------------- $1,227,000 FY 2001 CDBG Entitlement Grant 89,651 CDBG Program Income 403,151 CDBG Reprogrammed Funds ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $1,719,802 CDBG Total Below is a summary of recent CDBG funding levels allocated from HUD to the City of Fort Collins: Entitlement Reprogrammed Program Year Grant Funds Income Total Funds -------------------------------------- 1991 728,000 160,000 30,000 918,000 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 SELECTION PROCESS The selection process for the City's FY 2000-2001 CDBG Program began on January 11, 2001, when the CDBG Commission held a public 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 2001-2002. The application deadline was Thursday February 22. At the close of the deadline the City received 24 applications requesting a total of approximately $3.4 million. Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on March 1 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on March 1, 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 22, 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 4 and Thursday, April 5, the Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on Thursday, April 12 for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded for the FY 2001-2002 program year. At this meeting the Commission DATE: May 1, 2001 5 ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D 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 2000-2001 CDBG funds or funding in other previous years. The Commission then worked on the formulation of its list of recommendations. CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS 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 $263,330. CDBG funds for Public Services are limited to 15% of the total of the Entitlement Grant and Program Income, making the amount $197,498. 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 - Maximum 20% of CDBG (Grant & Program Income) Funds - $263,330 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration Proposal covers the administrative costs of the FY 2001-2002 CDBG Program Administration including salary, benefits and operating expenses for 2 staff positions. Request: $149,307 Recommendation: $149,307 Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------------------- CARE Housing—Land Acquisition CARE plans to use CDBG funds for land acquisition and building permit fees. The project will be a 36 unit multi-family rental development, which will consist of two- bedroom units. The site is located at 1827 Somerville Drive, which is east of the intersection of Somerville Drive and Langshire Drive. Request: $300,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $300,000 (Loan) i DATE: May 1, 2001 6 ITEM NUMBER. 27 A-D Neighbor to Neighbor —Acquisition of Existing Structure Neighbor to Neighbor is requesting CDBG funds to purchase an existing structure. The initial proposal of$175,000 was for a six-plex located just west of King Soopers on Taft Hill and south of Elizabeth Street. The revised request ($100,000) is for a four-plex on Conifer Street. Units in the project will have rents below 50% of AMI, with half of the units at or below 30% of AMI. Request: $100,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $100,000 (Grant) Fort Collins Housing Authority—Rigden Farm Land Acquisition The Fort Collins Housing Authority and Sierra Land Corporation are forming a joint venture to develop affordable housing at Rigden Farm located at Timberline and Drake. CDBG funds will be used to acquire land for 34 for-sale units at 40- 60% of AMI and 33 rental units at 50% of AMI. The remainder of the project consists of 56 single family detached units at 75-95% of AMI, 32 single-family units at 60-80% of AMI and 10 carriage houses whose rents are estimated at 60-80% of AMI. Request: $554,132 (Grant) Recommendation: $277,066 (Grant) Habitat for Humanity—"Cattail Commons" Land Acquisition Habitat is requesting CDBG funds to acquire a 7.5-acre site located in North Fort Collins, one block east of College Avenue on Wilcox Lane. The project will be a 50-60 unit single-family development. Habitat plans to joint venture with a for-profit developer, Premier Custom Builders. Habitat will built approximately 25% of the affordable units for families at 50% of AMI and the for-profit developer will built the remaining affordable units at 80% of AMI. Request: $500,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $ 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Housing ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ---- ------------------------------- Volunteers of America—Elderly Housing Volunteers of America is proposing a 60-unit independent living apartment complex reserved for very low-income elderly located at 1401 Horsetooth Road. This project is a HUD 202 project, with commitments of $4,156,400 for construction-related activities and $800,500 for a five-year rental subsidy contract to support the project. The project received $250,000 of HOME funds from the City in the last funding cycle. Request: $290,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $290,000 (Grant) DATE: May 1, 2001 7 ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D Fort Collins Housing Corporation—Rehabilitation of Existing Units The Fort Collins Housing Corporation (FCHC) was awarded $215,000 of HOME funding for rehabilitation of affordable housing units in the last funding cycle (Phase I or 40 units). FCHC is now requesting additional CDBG funds for this project (Phases 2 and 3 or 140 units). These units primarily target families at 30% of AMI. Items to be repaired or replaced include roofs, furnaces, windows, plumbing and other structural elements of the properties. Request: $327,750 (Grant) Recommendation: $174,931 (Grant) -------------------------------------------------------------- Homeownership Assistance ------------------------------------------------ City of Fort Collins CDBG Program- Homebuyer Assistance This program is administered by the City and provides financial assistance to eligible first-time homebuyers to cover down payment and closing costs. Request: $200,000 (Loan) Recommendation: $200,000 (Loan) — ------------------------------------------------- Public Facilities -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Boys and Girls Club of Larimer County The Fort Collins branch of the Boys and Girls Club is seeking a permanent facility on the Lincoln Junior High School grounds. CDBG assistance is requested for flooring and equipment for the gymnasium, arts and craft room equipment, and/or landscaping and irrigation work. Request: $133,362 (Grant) Recommendation: $ 31,000 (Grant) Northern Colorado AIDS Project The Northern Colorado AIDS project provides a broad spectrum of services for people living with HIV/AIDS, their families and friends and others to the community in general. CDBG funds are being requested to help purchase a structure for their offices. Request: $171,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $ 0 City of Fort Collins—BAVA SID CDBG funds would be used for engineering design to bring the BAVA neighborhood street network up to current City standards. DATE: May 1, 2001 8 ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D Request: $100,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $ 0 Open Door Mission Request: $60,000(Grant) Recommendation: $ x Application is ineligible for CDBG assistance since it is owned by a religious organization and religious services are conducted on the premises. Buarcaire Youth Services Buarcaire is interested in providing a youth services halfway house in Fort Collins for ages 16 to 21 years. Funds are being requested to purchase a building for transitional housing for 15 male and/or female adolescents needing extra assistance to achieve independent living status in their home community. The proposed facility is located at 1102 Laporte Avenue. Request: $200,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $ 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Service Maximum 15% of CDBG (Entitlement Grant & Program Income) Funds - $197,498 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Adult Literacy Services -Education and Life Training Center Adult Literacy Services mission is to help low income households achieve increased education and economic skills with the end results of employment or enrollment in post secondary institutions. Request: $9,500 (Grant) Recommendation: $9,500 (Grant) Disabled Resource Services - Supported Youth Employment Program Disabled Resource Center provides help to disabled youths, ages 14 through 21, to learn job skills while working part-time and using the support of job coaches. Disabled Resources Center recruits, trains and supervises job coaches to assist disabled students. Request: $15,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $15,000 (Grant) DATE: May 1, 2001 9 ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D Project Self-Sufficiency of Loveland/Fort Collins Project Self-Sufficiency assists low-income single parents in becoming financial independent and free from government assistance by working with an advisor to develop and implement a self-sufficiency action plan. Request: $25,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $20,000 (Grant) Food Bank for Larimer County The Food Bank is requesting CDBG funds to purchase a truck to improve operations and food distribution. Request: $20,775 (Grant) Recommendation: $ 0 Neighbor to Neighbor,Inc. —Comprehensive Housing Counseling Neighbor to Neighbor is requesting CDBG funds to continue its Comprehensive Housing Counseling program that provides training, education, and connection to community resources for first-time homebuyers. Request: $25,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $25,000 (Grant) Child Care Collaborative Project CDBG funds are used to provide childcare services to low and moderate income families through a sliding scale tuition program. Request: $63,352 (Grant) Recommendation: $63,352 (Grant) Northern Colorado AIDS Project The Northern Colorado AIDS project provides a broad spectrum of services for people living with HIV/AIDS, their families and friends and others to the community in general. Request: $18,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $12,000 (Grant) DATE: May 1, 2001 10 ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D Elderhaus Adult Day Program—Caregiver Advocate A Caregiver Advocacy position is being created by Elderhaus to give the elderly information about Long Term Care and Medicaid eligibility options. Request: $13,108 (Grant) Recommendation: $ 0 Catholic Charities Northern - Shelter and Supportive Services for the Homeless The project provides a variety of emergency shelter services for the homeless. CDBG funds are requested to support the operations of this program. Request: $30,000(Grant) Recommendation: $30,000 (Grant) First Call Service Net—Enhanced Information and Referral First Call provides comprehensive information to connect the public to non-profit services, agencies, and programs in Fort Collins. Request: $22,090 (Grant) Recommendation: $ 7,646 (Grant) Health and Dental Care Program The Health and Dental Care Program addresses the need for preventive, acute and extended dental care, including dentures. CDBG funding is requested for operational support of the program. Request: $7,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $7,000 (Grant) The Woman's Center of Larimer County—Child Care Resource and Referral The Child Care Resource and Referral Program supports families by providing referrals that assist parents in locating and accessing appropriate child care, by educating parents in how to identify quality care, and by addressing the shortage of quality child care available in Larimer County. Request: $8,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $8,000 (Grant) DATE: May 1, 2001 11 ITEM NUMBER: 27 A-D The Woman's Center of Larimer County—Resources, Referral, and Advocacy The Resources, Referral, and Advocacy Program addresses the need for emergency assistance and advocacy for women and families in crisis. The program works with clients to access all available community resources and provide appropriate referral. Request: $40,000 (Grant) Recommendation: $ 0 Total amount of CDBG funding requested=$3,461,377 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 149,307 8.7 PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION (Maximum $260,580 based on 20% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income) 1,341,997 78.0 HOUSING 31,000 1.8 PUBLIC FACILITIES 197,498 11.5 PUBLIC SERVICES (Maximum $197,498 based on 15% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ $1,719,802 100.0 TOTAL The total amount of CDBG funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately $3.4 million, however, only $1.7 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 twelve proposals. In the Commission's opinion, the twelve applications recommended for full funding best fit CDBG Program national objectives, the selection criteria, and the funding guidelines. Proposals which did not receive full funding were deemed of a lower priority and, in some cases, a lack of funds, program category limitations (especially in the Public Services category), or funding guidelines prohibited their full funding. The Commission has recommended no funding for seven proposals. The Commission's reasons for either full funding, partial funding, or no funding are presented in Attachment "D". RESOLUTION 2001-68 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE FY 2001-2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the FY 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant Program application as follows: PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration $149,307 ACQUISITION CARE Housing—Land Acquisition Brisben Companies Park South Apartments $300,000 (Loan) Neighbor to Neighbor —Acquisition of Existing Structure Brisben Companies Park South Apartments $100,000 (Grant) Fort Collins Housing Authority—Rigden Farm Land Acquisition $277,066 (Grant) HOUSING Volunteers of America—Elderly Housing Elizabeth Street Senior Apartments $290,000 (Grant) Fort Collins Housing Corporation Rehabilitation of Existing Units CSU Habitat for Humanity CSU House Project $174,931 (Grant) HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE City of Fort Collins CDBG Program—Homebuyer Assistance $200,000 (Loan) PUBLIC FACILITIES Boys and Girls Club of Larimer County Respite Care Remodel Project $ 31,000 (Grant) PUBLIC SERVICES Adult Literacy Services -Education and Life Training Center $ 9,500 (Grant) Disabled Resource Services - Supported Youth Employment Program $ 15,000(Grant) Project Self-sufficiency of Loveland/Fort Collins Project Self-sufficiency $ 20,000(Grant) Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. —Comprehensive Housing Counseling $ 25,000 (Grant) Child Care Collaborative Project $ 63,352 (Grant) Northern Colorado AIDS Project $ 12,000 (Grant) Catholic Charities Northern Shelter and Supportive Services for the Homeless Catholic Charities Northern The Mission $ 30,000 (Grant) First Call Service Net—Enhanced Information and Referral Catholic Charities Northern The Mission $ 7,646 (Grant) Health and Dental Care Program Catholic Charities Northern The Mission $ 7,000 (Grant) The Woman's Center of Larimer County—Child Care Resource and Referral Catholic Charities Northern The Mission $ 8,000 (Grant) Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 1st day of May, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION 2001-69 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE FY 2001-2002 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the FY 2001-2002 Home Investment Partnerships Program application as follows: Administration $ 78,300 Rental Projects $377,135 Ownership Projects $201,165 CHDO Reserve $ 92,250 CHDO Operations $ 34,150 Total $783,000 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 1 st day of May, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 87, 2001 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,do not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS,Article V,Section 10,of the Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project,provided that the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; and WHEREAS,Article V,Section 11,of the Charter provides that federal grant appropriations shall not lapse if unexpended at the end of the budget year until the expiration of the federal grant; and WHEREAS,the City will receive in federal fiscal year 2001-2002 unanticipated revenue in the form of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds totaling $1,227,000, constituting a new revenue source; and WHEREAS, the City expects to receive CDBG Program income in the 2001-2002 federal fiscal year in the amount of$89,651; and WHEREAS, unexpended funds are also available from the CDBG program for the federal 2001-2002 fiscal year in the amount of$403,151; 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 in the amount of$89,651, will not result in total appropriations in excess of the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2001; and WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution 2001-68 the City Council approved the 2001-2002 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 2001-2002 into the Community Development Block Grant Fund, the sum of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,227,000), upon receipt thereof from federal fiscal year 2001-2002 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-NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-ONE DOLLARS ($89,651) for approved Community Development Block Grant projects. Section 3. That the unexpended and unencumbered amount of FOUR HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-ONE DOLLARS ($403,151) is hereby authorized for transfer from the 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant Program to the 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant Program and appropriated therein. Introduced,considered favorably on first reading,and ordered published this 1 st day of May, A.D. 2001, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of May, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 88, 2001 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 2001-2002 is $683,000, constituting a new revenue source; and WHEREAS, the City expects to receive HOME Program income in the 2001-2002 federal fiscal year in the amount of$100,000; and 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,do not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the 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 2001-69, City Council approved the 2001-2002 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 2001-2002 into the HOME Program Fund the sum of SIX HUNDRED i EIGHTY-THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($683,000), upon receipt thereof from federal fiscal year 2001-2002 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 ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000)for approved HOME Program projects. Introduced,considered favorably on first reading,and ordered published this 1st day of May, A.D. 2001, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of May, A.D. 2001. 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/Benelit(maximum 30 points) 1. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10) (0-30%of AMI= 10 pts,31-50%=8 pts,51-80%=4 pts) 2. Project produces adequate community benefit related to cost? (0-5) 3. Does the project provide direct assistance for persons to gain self-sufficiency? (0-5) 4. Does the project provide long-term benefit or affordability? (0-10) (I-10 yrs=3 pts, I I-19 yrs=6 pts,20 to 30 yrs=8 pis,and Permanent= 10 pis) Sub-total Need/Priority(maximum 15 points) 1. Meets a Consolidated Plan priority? (0-5) 2. Project meets goals or objectives of City Plan and Priority Needs and Strategies study (0-5) 3. Has the applicant documented a need for this project? (0-5) Sub-total Feasibility(maximum 15 points) 1. The project will be completed within the required time period? (0-3) 2. Project budget is justified?(Costs are documented and reasonable)? (0-4) 3. The level of public subsidy is needed?(Private funds not available)? (0-4) 4. Has the applicant documented efforts to secure other funding? (0-4) Sub-total Leverattinn Resources(maximum 25 points) 1. Does the project allow the reuse of our funding? (0-8) A. Principal and interest(30 year Amortization or less) - 8 points B. Principal and no interest or Principal and balloon payment 4 points C. Declining balance lien(amount forgiven over time) 1 points D. Grant(no repayment) 0 points 2. Project or agency leverages human resources(Volunteers) (0-7) 3. Project leverages financial resources?(Including in-kind) (0-10) A. Less than I:1 0 points B. 1:1 to 1:3 4 points C. 1:4 to 1:6 7 points D. More than 1:7 10 points Capacity and History(maximum 15 points) Sub-total 1. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project? (0-10) 2. If previously funded,has the applicant completed prior project and maintain regulatory compliance? (0-5) 3. If new,applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-15) Sub-total GRAND TOTAL Attachment`B" Affordable Housing Board's Priority Ranking CDBG Applications Competitive Process - Spring Cycle 2001 Funding Priorities and Recommendations: 1. $290,000 Grant Volunteers of America—Elderly Housing 2. $300,000 Grant CARE Housing, Inc.—Land Acquisition 3. $200,000 Loan City of Fort Collins - Home Ownership Program 4. $327,750 Grant Ft. Collins Housing Corporation —Rehabilitation Program $1,117,750 Total Not recommended for funding. 1. Neighbor to Neighbor—Acquisition of Existing Structure 2. Habitat for Humanity—Land Acquisition 3. Ft. Collins Housing Authority—Rigdon Farm Affordable Housing Board's Comments, Questions and Concerns Volunteers of America—Elderly Housing Request: $290,000 (Grant) Recommendation: Full Funding Comments: None. Questions and Concerns: 1. HAMPI—What is this? 2. Regarding project rental assistance, it is not Section 8 Program, but a Section 202 Program (like DMA or the Oakbrooke Apartments). Is the affordability for a 5-year period or guaranteed for a 20-year period? What is the length of first renewal? If the affordability is for 40 years, is the subsidy guaranteed? 3. How will the project be marketed to seniors? 4. There needs to be a Resident's Association. 5. What is the role of the Manager? 6. Page 7: On-site Manager cost is put at $22,000 for a Manager's fee (salary and apartment). What does the $40,000 maintenance cost cover? Why is there a separate line item for grounds maintenance? Developer's fee— who gets it? 7. How can fixed income seniors pay a 5% higher rent increase throughout the years? Does the HUD subsidy go up at a corresponding rate? Are the rents market driven or fixed? What happens to the frail at the beginning? Will there be a mobility or activity level 8. A Service Coordinator does not show up in the budget until year 6. P elderly if they start applying requirement for residents? CARE Housing -Land Acquisition Request: $300,000 (Grant) Recommendation: Full Funding Comments: and purpose of the housing (450% AMI),the Board recommends full Based on past performance funding of the proposal as a grant. Questions and Concerns: is it on the 1, Page 6—item 18 confused by p rivate/public funds; is this a mistake,wherwhat is the total? opinions, financial, and attorney fees.These seem high,what is CARE 2, Page 10 - $338,901 Developer fee and$231,915 deferred Developer �, 4. Clarification of tax op receiving for these expenditures? for. $450K HOMFJCDBG 5. The applicant should $4 OK on Page they l lazare asking ($300K+$150K) 5. Does CARE have volunteers? 6. Are all the fees going to outside sources? City of Fort Collins Home Buyer Assistance Program Request: $200,000 (Loan) Recommendation: Full Funding Comments: The Board concurs with staff s suggestion for higher assistance maximums. Full funding this program is via a loan to the eventual home buyers. Questions and Concerns: aggressively. 1. The Board believes the program needs to be marketed more ago 2. Is the number of applications decreasing? 3 Is HUD going to raise the price limit for available housing? on—Rehabilitation of Existing Units Fort Collins Housing Corporati Request: $300,000 (Grant) Recommendation: Full Funding Comments: Resources are not available from other sources. Past projects may have been a mistake. The applicant did not put funds into a reserve in order to keep rents low. The Board never seems to know how much money the FCHA has available. The funding should be a loan, not a grant,but its difficult to assess the impacts on rents. The City needs to ask for a long-term management plan. Questions and Concerns: I. Why is maintenance not planned? Should the City encourage this kind of management practice? 2. What is the big picture? Where is the money? 3. What is the status of debt service to the City (re: lawsuit)? 4. Is the FCHC currently building up reserves?Is there a potential for that? 5. Can the City fund the proposal with stipulations? 5. What is their long-term financial plan? Neighbor to Neighbor Request: $175,000 (Grant) Recommendation: No Funding Comments: 1. The Board did not have the time or opportunity to review the amended application. 2. The Board disagrees with staff and believes the applicant should not be able to put in this application because the deadline had passed. 3. The applicant could make another request in the next funding cycle. 5. The application has reasonable numbers for 2 units <50% AMI and 2 units <30% AMI. Questions and Concerns: 1. A $10,000 Developer's Fee? This should be explained, especially if the money is going to be circulated in-house. Neighbor to Neighbor should not need it. What will it be used it for? 2. What is the duration of the bridge loan? Habitat for Humanity Request: $500,000 Recommendation: No Funding Comments: . Non-profit/for profit partnership is good. For profit developer benefits from the grant. This project is not researched very well. It appears that Habitat would be trading land for roads. Habitat needs to review and resubmit a better thought-out proposal. Habitat should find other funding. Questions and Concerns: 1. The Board believes the site is more suitable for the Land Banking Program. 2. The private developer seems to benefit more from the majority of the grant. 3. The proposal does not line up with priorities, or how it will maintain restricted AMI levels? Fort Collins Housing Authority - Rigdon Farm Affordable Housing Request: $554,312 (Grant) Recommendation: No Funding Comments: The Board believes this project will already receive a$1 million benefit from the City through the reduction in Impact fees. The Board has a problem with the FCHA doing "For Sale"units vs. leasehold units. Bottom line: the project is only conceptual and not well formed. The project is expensive and will be planning to ask for more ($400,000) funding in the future. Confusing and complicated application, it needs to be broken out into separate projects. Questions and Concerns: 1. $1 million in financial help already, due to FCHA categorization being exempt from some Impact fee payments. 2. The proposal needs to break out the 33 rental units vs. everything else. 3. Page 7 —Replacement reserve, is that $600/unit? Is this per year figure enough? 4. The Management fee at$2,200/unit, is this yearly figure? Very confusing. 5. Page 10— It appears the applicant is requesting money now and will ask for more money in the fall ATTACHMENT"C" ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION on the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG PROGRAM NATIONAL OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the CDBG Program is "the development of viable urban communities,by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income." Programs and projects funded with CDBG funds must address at least one of the following three broad National Objectives: (1) provide a benefit to low or moderate income households or persons, (2) eliminate or prevent slum and blight conditions, or (3) meet urgent community development needs which pose an immediate and serious threat to the health and welfare of the community. Presented below is a comparison of City CDBG expenditures for programs and projects categorized according to the National Objectives: National Objectives Low/Moderate Slum/Blight Urgent Income Benefit Elimination Need National Average 90% 10% 0% City Expenditures for: 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 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 Housing 43% 64% 73% 73% 63% 61% 74% 62% 45% Public Facilities 21% 5% 2% 2% 13% 15% 7% 15% 33% Planning/Admin. (20%) 14% 17% 10% 10% 9% 9% 5% 9% 8% Economic Development 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Public Services (15%) 9% 14% 15% 15% 15% 15% 14% 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 2000 Administrative percentage was I I%. Attachment v +" IX 4 . -e APR1 L 2000 1I 3 G # ECO JII IE VD.piT OM'� A COMMUNITY G RANT �a;p 4 3. � 37R7k�' '� '�:'1 U 3J✓ �ry" , �-! a t f § � A�.� a 281 '�oTTn uoiie A sue Port C6111nS, Colorado Commission members present: Phil Majerus, Chair Terri Bryant Linda Coxen Vi Guthrie Brett Hill Tia Molander Jennifer Molock Bill Steffes Dennis Vanderheiden Cheryl Zimlich Staff: Ken Waido Maurice Head Heidi Phelps Julie Smith Stacy Kelly Produced by Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.482.1506 1 MEETING HIGHLIGHTS The study session with Council for review of these recommendations will be held on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 (see Appendix 1). Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To approve the recommendation to increase home buyer assistance to 4.5 and 9 percent rather than the present fixed dollar amount. The actual resulting numbers are $8,000 and $16,000, respectively. While this would theoretically deplete allocated funds more quickly, the base of potential applicants is widened. The program is experiencing fewer applicants. A higher level of assistance is appropriate due to the high housing costs in the area. Motion carried unanimously. At the end of discussion on Public Service items, moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To lock in Public Service recommendations as they presently exist. Mr. Hill pointed out the stalemate status that existed with regard to funding levels of some programs. Motion passed 6-4. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To forward the package of recommended funding to City Council in full. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Molock commented for the record that she was extremely offended during the April 5 question-and-answer session by the continued discussion among the representatives of the Affordable Housing Board. Those discussions precluded her, and perhaps others, from being able to hear much of the presentations. Upon motion, second, and unanimous approval, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 3 ADMINISTRATION AD1. HOME Investment Partnership (for next funding cycle). Request: $783,000 Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molock: To accept the proposed budget, to be allocated in the fall competitive process. It was noted that the Consolidated Plan must be submitted to HUD in July in order to have funding available. Approval of this budget does not affect the allocations to be made in the fall cycle. Motion passed 8-1, with one abstention. AD2. CDBG Administration. Request: $149,307. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend full funding, with the caveat that Council consider using the general fund for payment of administration. It was noted that the City general fund is finite. Motion failed 2-8. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend full funding. Motion carried unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $149 307 Pros of Application Cons of Application Programs should pay for their own administration. General fund contribution is dollar for dollar. Federal funding for administration offers much higher leverage then local funding. More administration is required due to Federal requirements. The actual staff expenses are higher than the grant allocated amount. The history of the City has been to support this funding with the entitlement grant. 4 HOUSING APPLICATIONS A01. Habitat for Humanity of Fort Collins. Request: $500,000 Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 7-3. Moved by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding of $50,000. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Molock: To reduce recommended funding of Housing Authority rehab by $25,000; to recommend funding of Habitat of $25,000. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Molock, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce recommended funding of Housing Authority rehab by $50,000; to recommend funding of Habitat of $50,000. Motion failed 2-8. Total recommended funding level - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Addresses home ownership, which is key Unsatisfied with the developer and to building to self-sufficiency. Seed money partnership presentation. Lack of approval could be appropriate for this effort. from the Affordable Housing Board. Lack of funding and participation from the for- profit developer. Presentation is short on detail. Numbers do not add up. Best use of funds in this instance would be seed or startup money. Not a sterling track record; to jump to a yet higher level of development is risky. 5 A02. Fort Collins Housing Corp. Request: $554,132 Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 6-4. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend funding of $277,066 for acquisition pertaining to the 34 for-sale units. In support of his motion, Mr. Hill stated that this award would capture the property for affordable housing, whether or not the developer was successful with the project. Motion failed 4-5. Moved by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $421,997. Mr. Hill offered a friendly amendment of $277,066 for acquisition pertaining to the 34 for-sale units; friendly amendment accepted by Ms. Coxen. Motion seconded by Mr. Hill. Motion passed 7-3. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To reduce the recommended funding level of the Rigden project to $5,000 per unit; to recommend funding of $144,931 for Housing Authority rehab, with total funding for Fort Collins Housing Authority projects of $251,997. Motion failed 1-8, with one abstention. Total recommended funding level - $277,066 Pros of Application Cons of Application Fills a community need for affordable Program package does not appear solid housing. Good neighborhood for the and presents some risk. The filing has not planned housing. The integration is good been approved. The affordable housing to defray NIMBY attitudes. Healthy component is clustered in a "back of the replacement reserve. Reasonable level of bus" manner. The development role is not per-unity subsidy, although future as appropriate for the Housing Authority as applications are anticipated. The a rental role. The program is likely to developer can improve the presentation return in future funding rounds. The and numbers for the next funding round. proposal addresses the higher end of the The applicant may not be able .to make AMI spectrum. Listing of fees lacks detail. units affordable without a high level of No track record, although the effort subsidy. appears competent. 6 A03. Neighbor to Neighbor. Request: $100,000. Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full funding. The Commission noted that the circumstances of the application amendment have precedents in other applications that have been approved in the past. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $100,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The project is highly worthy and addresses a community need. The applicant has an excellent history. There is proximity to existing affordable housing, thereby aiding the program's efficiency. Not acquiring this property could return it to for-profit stock. Desirable location. Cooperative seller. Units are available quickly. This effort aids the applicant further in its quest for self- sufficiency. The applicant's collaboration with other programs is excellent. Not funding this proposal would create a missed opportunity to provide a new stock of affordable housing. r..> A04. CARE Housing, Inc. Request: $300,000 Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden,seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend full funding in the form of a loan. Motion passed, 6-4. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To decrease the recommended home buyer assistance award by $50,000; to decrease the recommended CARE funding by $50,000; to recommend funding of the Housing Authority rehab by $100,000. Motion failed 2-8. Total recommended funding level - $300,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Excellent history. Well-run efforts. High High developer fee. Startup appears to be level of expertise. Presentation was open premature for this type of project and to loan possibilities. Applicant tends to considering the project is in process. achieve what it targets. The nature of the Program will proceed without this funding. property allows for quick startup. New level If the applicant feels that a proposed level of collaboration with a for-profit group. of funding cannot allow for targeted AMI Reduced funding would necessarily result levels, it can refuse the contract. in raising the AM[ level reached. AQ5. Volunteers of America. Request: $290,000 Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend full funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding level - $290,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Fills a community need. Meeting a good target for AM[ levels. Affordable units provided to the elderly. 8 H01. Home buyer assistance. Request: $200,000 Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 9-1. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To decrease the recommended home buyer assistance award by $50,000; to decrease the recommended CARE funding by $50,000; to recommend funding of the Housing Authority rehab of $100,000. Motion failed 2-8. Total recommended funding level - $200,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application At present levels, the program will With a present high balance, available experience problems in the near future funds may be better suited for pressing finding buyers due to the cost of housing. needs, with the ability to revisit this The velocity and availability of money will program in the fall cycle, be increased with the higher percentage allowed. The present fund balance is available for 23 families; 30 are in process. Home ownership is key for creating economic stability. 9 RE1. Fort Collins Housing Corp. Request: $327,750. Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend funding in the form of a loan, with interest to be applied to reserves. Following discussion with Staff, the motion was withdrawn. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To decrease the recommended home buyer assistance award by $50,000; to decrease the recommended CARE funding by $50,000; to recommend funding of the Housing Authority rehab of $100,000. Motion failed 2-8. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $144,931. Motion carried unanimously. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of $174,931. Motion passed 5-4, with one abstention. Moved by Ms. Molock: To reduce recommended funding of Housing Authority rehab by $25,000; to recommend funding of Habitat of $25,000. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Molock, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce recommended funding of Housing Authority rehab by $50,000; to recommend funding of Habitat of $50,000. Motion failed 2-8. Total recommended funding - $174,931 Pros of Application Cons of Application Program serves a very low AM[, with Listed items are suspect in some areas, funding for such items as rehab and proper priorities should be given. necessarily very low. Despite the unease with the listing of priorities and the lack of funding for maintenance, the items still need to be addressed. 10 r , PUBLIC FACILITIES PF1. Boys & Girls Club. Request: $133,362. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding for any public facilities project. Motion failed 3-7. Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $31,000 for Boys & Girls Club, specifically for flooring; and to recommend no funding for all remaining public facilities projects. Motion passed 8-2. Moved by Ms. Molock, seconded by Mr. Steffes: To recommend funding of $94,350, to be applied to gymnasium expenses. Motion failed 4-5, with one abstention. Moved by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding of $44,500, to be applied to flooring, bleachers, and scoreboard. Motion died for lack of a second. Total recommended funding - $31,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Has good outreach to high-risk kids. Much community support available for Services provided are very valuable to the funding or in-kind contributions. target population. Highly valuable services. Questionable in its addressing of Addresses a pressing community need. racial/ethnic issues. Funding this project also constitutes a grant to Poudre School District in its use of the facilities. PF2. Northern Colorado AIDS Project. Request: $175,000. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding for any public facilities project. Motion failed 3-7. Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $31,000 for Boys & Girls Club, specifically for flooring; and to recommend no funding for all remaining public facilities projects. Motion passed 8-2. Total recommended funding - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application The Commission had already enabled the purchase of the building for others and is unwilling to do so again. II PF3. Beaucaire Youth Services. Request: $200,000. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding for any public facilities project. Motion failed 3-7. Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $31,000 for Boys & Girls Club, specifically for flooring; and to recommend no funding for all remaining public facilities projects. Motion passed 8-2. Total recommended funding - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application This item is not appropriate for CDBG funds. This is a project better assisted through State funding. The method of acquiring the building is suspect. The Commission noted that this building was apparently being negotiated while the applicant appeared before the Commission last year in support of the Remington property . PF4. BAVA SID. Request: $100,000. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding in full. Motion failed, 2-7, with one abstention. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding for any public facilities project. Motion failed 3-7. Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Coxen: To recommend funding of $31,000 for Boys & Girls Club, specifically for flooring; and to recommend no funding for all remaining public facilities projects. Motion passed 8-2. Total recommended funding - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application This proposal helps to eliminate slum and Cannot support a subsidy of government urban blight. The amount of assessment funding for a clear governmental ($24,000) per unit is reprehensible, given responsibility. The funding is better used the area history, contribution, and abilities for capital improvements as opposed to to pay. engineering. 12 PUBLIC SERVICE PS1. Education & Life Training Center — Adult Literacy Services. Request: $9,500. Moved by Mr. Vandenheiden, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Motion passes, 7-2. Total recommended funding - $ 9500 Pros of Application Cons of Application Highly valuable program. Very few dollars Mild concern on high turnover rate and spent for numbers of people reached. cost of training due to that turnover. Education helps self-sufficiency. Request Measure of success is problematic. amount seems to decrease from last year, a rarity. 13 PS2. Project Self-Sufficiency. Request: $25,000 Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend funding of $25,000. Motion failed 3-6. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend funding of $20,000. Motion approved unanimously. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce Women's Center Health/Dental to $2,500, to be applied for educational purposes only; to apply $4,500 to Project Self-Sufficiency. Resulting recommendation: $24,500 to Project Self-Sufficiency; $2,500 to Women's Center Health/Dental. Motion failed 3-6, with one abstention. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce recommended funding of NCAP to $10,000; to expand recommended funding of Project Self-Sufficiency to $22,000. Motion failed 5-5. Moved by Ms. Coxen: To reduce recommended funding of First Call by $5,000, and to increase recommended funding of Project Self-Sufficiency by that amount. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Coxen: To reduce recommended funding of First Call by $4,000, and to increase recommended funding of Project Self-Sufficiency by that amount. Motion died for lack of a second. Total recommended funding - $20,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good success with a group that has a high Program does not have a good handle on level of need. Information is always number of volunteers, although it is forthcoming and plentiful. Program is commendable that they have such a high critical in light of welfare reform. Job level. Request level is high in relation to coaching is highly effective and helps to available funding. produce focused, motivated clients. 14 PS3 Child Care Collaborative. Request: $63,352. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend full funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding: $63,352 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program addresses a community need. Amount requested is reasonable. It provides a necessary ingredient to maintaining affordability. Funding goes directly to the family. Report is highly impressive. 15 PS4. Northern Colorado AIDS Project. $18,000. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $12,000. Motion failed 4-5. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of $8,000. Motion failed, 3-6. Moved by Mr. Steffes, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $12,000. Motion passed 5-4. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce recommended funding of NCAP to $10,000; to expand recommended funding of Project Self-Sufficiency to $22,000. Motion failed 5-5. Total recommended funding - $12,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good program addressing a community Need has not been shown for a full grant. need. The educational component is highly Questions were raised whether the important. Victims of the disease are program does outreach properly to lower- generally taken out of the job force and income target groups. Program stability need help. Few alternatives exist to fill a and leadership may be uncertain. Concern funding gap. The program has a more was expressed about the level of hospital focused priority than the hospital may participation, particularly when a small provide. This is the only agency providing group tries to educate a large population. for an infectious disease clinic. Hospital assistance would give an educational effort more credibility. Educational venues were questioned. The program goals may be more regional than community. There is a shotgun approach to the funding request. Literature that this program is the only educational source for this issue is in contradiction to literature from other ro rams. 16 PS5. First Call Service Net. Request: $22,090. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend funding of $11,000. Motion failed, 5-5. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Molander: To recommend funding of $7,646. Motion passed, 5-4. Moved by Ms. Coxen: To reduce recommended funding of First Call by $5,000, and to increase recommended funding of Project Self-Sufficiency by that amount. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Ms. Coxen: To reduce recommended funding of First Call by $4,000, and to increase recommended funding of Project Self-Sufficiency by that amount. Motion died for lack of a second. Total recommended funding - $7,646 Pros of Application Cons of Application Centralized service is valuable for a Duplication of services is troubling. A community of this size. The after-hours major effort for a comprehensive referral component is highly important. Actual would be preferable to low-scale funding community service exceeds the material year by year. Proposal was poorly written. presented in the proposal. Good presence Electronic aspect doesn't reach much of electronically. A contract would mandate the target group. No indication of how monitoring to ensure compliance in much of the service hits the target reaching the targeted economic levels. population for CDBG efforts. PS6. Supported Youth Employment Program . Request: $15,000. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Bryant: To recommend full funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding: $15,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Important for the clients of this program to obtain job skills for their long-term success. The program helps parents in their efforts. Good history, good results. Addresses a community need. 17 PS7. Catholic Charities Northern. Request: $30,000. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend full funding. Motion passed, 6-2. Total recommended funding - $30,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good track record, high value of services, Receives major funding from other particularly in light of the vacancy of available sources. service provisions caused by the withdrawal of New Bridges. PS8. Food Bank. Request: $35,000. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Ms. Zimlich: To recommend no funding. Motion passed unanimously. Total recommended funding - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Good organization with good track record Not an urgent request. Questionable of community work. whether the truck selected actually meets the stated needs. Capital campaign underway that will garner support. Prior contributions by CDBG have been generous. 18 PS9. Women's Center— Health/Dental. Request: $7,000. Moved by Ms. Molander, seconded by Ms. Molock: To recommend funding in full. The Commission noted the discount offered by participating dentists. Motion passed, 6-3. Moved by Ms. Coxen, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To reduce Women's Center Health/Dental to $2,500, to be applied for educational purposes only; to apply $4,500 to Project Self-Sufficiency. Resulting recommendation: $24,500 to Project Self-Sufficiency; $2,500 to Women's Center Health/Dental. Motion failed 3-6, with one abstention. Total recommended funding: $7,000 ' Pros of Application Cons of Application Program effectively reaches the Hispanic Individualized services may be overdone community, with a demonstration of in the amount of attention to individual tangible results. Individualized services clients. Doctors have a certain level of pro may be needed for effective outreach and bono requirements to meet during the year aid in evaluation. Program provides a in any event. The Health District has a tangible, high value to society using responsibility to meet community health comprehensive resources. Reducing the needs absent outside subsidies. The award does not ensure that the Health Health District should maintain higher District will adopt increased funding for the control of this program. program. PS10. Women's Center Child Care referral. Request: $8,000. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend full funding. Motion failed 4-4. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Hill: To recommend full funding. Motion passed 7-2. Total recommended funding - $8,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application The program serves a high community Questions were raised if the service need. It reaches areas not reached by duplicates other efforts. A plethora of other agencies. Existing referral services referrals are springing into existence, do not reach the population needing child appearing to be self-feeding and self- care and cannot refer out as effectively in serving to the creating agency. Outreach the specialized and knowledgeable way should be more targeted to specific that this service provides. programs rather than a spectrum of referral agencies. The requested amount appears to be a very high cost per referral. 19 PS11. Women, s Center— Resource, Referral, Advocacy. Request: $4,000. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Mr. Majerus: To recommend no funding. Motion passed 8-1. Total recommended funding - $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application The emergency funding portion of the Need for this service is questionable given program is commendable. the similar efforts of other agencies. The background of the split with First Call is unclear, as is the impetus . for a replacement effort. The service appears to be redundant, without explanation of how it provides a special, unique need. PS12 . Elderhaus — Caregiver advocacy. Request: $13,108. Moved by Ms. Guthrie, seconded by Mr. Vandenheiden: To recommend no funding . Motion passed 8-2. Total recommended funding: $0 Pros of Application Cons of Application Program provides intensives efforts and Duplicates existing services. This program alleviates the need for home health care. is cumulative with other Elderhaus Families need resources to help the aging services. It is unclear whether care is population. Bureaucracies have complex directly provided through this program. requirements for which assistance is needed. 20 PS13. Neighbor to Neighbor. Request: $25,000. Moved by Ms. Zimlich, seconded by Ms. Guthrie: To recommend full funding. Motion approved unanimously. Total recommended funding - $25,000 Pros of Application Cons of Application Excellent track record. High value received for the dollars spent. Request is in line with prior awards. Only comprehensive housing referral. 21 Appendix 1 Commission representatives, by issue, for the Tuesday, April 24, 2000 study session with City Council: Habitat for Humanity Brett Hill CARE Housing ChervI Zimlich Home buyer assistance Bill Steffes Neighbor to Neighbor, acquisition Dennis Vandenheiden Fort Collins Housing Authority, Ri den Bill Steffes Volunteers of America Cheryl Zimlich Fort Collins Housing Authority, rehab Tia Molander CDBG Administration Brett Hill Boys and Girls Club Jennifer Molock Beaucaire Youth Services Dennis Vandenheiden BAVA SID Phil Ma'erus NCAP, public facility Tia Molander Neighbor to Neighbor, public service Vi Guthrie Food Bank Dennis Vandenheiden Child Care Collaborative Cheryl Zimlich Education and Life, Adult Literacy Phil Ma'erus Project Self-Suff iciency Vi Guthrie NCAP, public service Bill Steffes Women's Center, child care Jennifer Molock Women's Center, resource referral Chervl Zimlich Women's Center, health/dental Tia Molander First Call -Vi Guthrie Elderhaus Bill Steffes Supported Youth Employment Vi Guthrie 22 Appendix 2 - Programs, Requests, and Commission Recommendations Acquisition/Facilities/Rehabilitation/Administration No. Program Requested Recommended AQ1 Habitat for Humanity $500,000 $0 AQ2 FC Housing Authority-Acquisition $554,132 $174,931 AQ3 Neighbor to Neighbor-Acquisition $100,000 $100,000 AQ4 CARE Housing, Inc. $300,000 $300,000 AQ5 Volunteers of America $290,000 $290,000 PF1 Boys and Girls Club $133,362 $31,000 PF2 Northern Colorado AIDS Project $175,000 $0 PF3 Beaucaire Youth Services $200,000 $0 PF4 BAVA SID $100,000 $0 RE1 FC Housing Authority- Rehabilitation $327,000 $174,931 HO1 Home Buyer Assistance $200,000 $200,000 AD1 HOME Investment Partnership $783,000 N/A AD2 I CDBG Administration 1 $149,307 $149,307 Public Service (not to exceed 15% of program funds) No. Program Requested Recommended PS1 Education & Life Training -Adult Literacy $9,500 $9,500 PS2 Project Self-Sufficiency $25,000 $20,000 PS3 Child Care Collaborative $63,352 $63,352 PS4 Northern Colorado AIDS project $18,000 $12,000 PS5 First Call Service Net $22,090 $7,646 PS6 I Supported Youth Employment $15,000 $15,000 PS7 Catholic Charities Northern $30,000 $30,000 PS8 Food Bank $20,775 $0 PS9 Women's Center- Health/Dental $7,000 $7,000 PS10 Women's Center- Child Care $8,000 $8,000 PS11 Women's Center- Resource/Referral $4,000 $0 PS12 Elderhaus $13,108 1 $0 PS13 Neighbor to Neighbor $25,000 $25,000 23