The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-009-01/20/2015-ADOPTING A REVISED COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF CITY FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO AFFORDABLE RESOLUTION 2015-009 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING A REVISED COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF CITY FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS/PROJECTS AND OTHER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, on January 18, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 2000-013, establishing a competitive process for allocating funds from the federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs, as well as City Affordable Housing funds (the "Competitive Process"); and WHEREAS, the Competitive Process established two funding cycles, with CDBG funds allocated in the spring and HOME and Affordable Housing funds allocated in the fall; and WHEREAS, having two funding cycles is not consistent with current program requirements of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and WHEREAS, splitting.the two sources of funding into two application cycles has also made it difficult for eligible recipients to align their projects with the most appropriate funding sources; and WHEREAS, City staff has therefore recommended that the Competitive Process be changed to include only one funding cycle in the spring, with the fall funding cycle being optional and used only when funds are available that were not allocated in the spring or were returned to the City; and WHEREAS, the Competitive Process also included application forms that agencies use to apply for funding and ranking criteria used to score funding applications; and WHEREAS, over time the application forms and criteria have been updated, and applications are now made online; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to authorize the City Manager to approve future changes to the application forms or method and ranking criteria; and WHEREAS, both the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission recommend that the Council adopt a revised funding process that would move all available funding into a spring funding cycle while retaining an optional fall cycle; and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed revised and updated Competitive Process is attached as Exhibit '`A" and incorporated herein by reference (the 'Revised Process"); and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Revised Process should be adopted. . I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the revised competitive process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and other community development activities, including, without limitation, the competitive process, funding cycles, funding cycle schedules and funding review criteria, all as shown in Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to administratively approve future changes to the application forms or method of application and funding review criteria as necessary or appropriate to comply with regulatory changes or improve the funding process. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th day of January, A.D. 2015. M• yor ATTEST: pF F�RT A, C�! :cn City Clerk OWAD - 2 - Exhibit "A" Competitive Process Presented below is a description of the Competitive Process for making allocations of funding from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Programs, and the City's Human Service Program (HSP), Keeping Fort Collins Great (KFCG) and Affordable Housing Fund. The description discusses the roles of the Affordable Housing Board and CDBG Commission. The Competitive Process also includes the following: 1. There will be two separate application forms: one for Human Service applications and one for Housing/Public Facility applications. 2: Applications are currently submitted on-line through ZoomGrants. 3. There will be a single set of Review Criteria used to evaluate human service applications. 4. There will be a single set of criteria used to evaluate Housing/Public Facility applications. 5. Housing Review criteria incorporate current City policies, guidelines and priorities outlined in the following documents: a. Consolidated Housing & Community Development Plan b. Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Role of the Affordable Housing Board The Affordable Housing Board reviews all affordable housing applications and provides a priority ranking of all proposals to the CDBG Commission. Role of the CDBG Commission The CDBG Commission makes the final recommendations for funding for all funds, including CDBG, HOME, Human Services Program, and the Affordable Housing Fund. HOME funds (by federal regulations) and Affordable Housing Fund dollars are restricted to affordable housing projects and programs. The majority, (65%) of CDBG funds are earmarked to support affordable housing, but also offer wider potentials for usage including: public facilities, and economic development. Up to 15% can be allocated to public service projects and programs. Funding Cycles There will be a minimum of one funding cycle. All available funds, CDBG, HOME, AHF, HSP and KFCG will be available for allocation in a spring cycle. An optional fall cycle will be implemented when there is approximately $500,000 or more in funds available for allocation and/or there is a critical timeliness need on the part of the City or a housing provider. Competitive Process Calendar Month Event January Applications available on ZoomGrants February Applicant Training - Optional February Technical Assistance - Optional February Applications due March Applications available to AHB/CDBG Commission March Presentations by Applicants Presentations by Applicants / Priority Rankings presented by March AHB April - May Deliberations May - June City Council Votes on Recommendations Optional Fall Process June Determine need for a Fall Process July Applications available on ZoomGrants August Technical Assistance - Optional August Applications due September Applications available to AHB/CDBG Commission Presentations by Applicants and Priority Rankings presented September by AHB October Deliberations November City Council Votes on Recommendations Review Criteria for Non-Housing Projects The rankingeriteria 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. Impact/Benefit(maximum 30 points) 1. Primarily targets low income persons? (0-10) (all persons 0-30%of AMI= 10 pts;at least half of the persons at or below 30%of AMI and the remaining persons at 31-50%of AMI=8 pis:at least half of the persons at 31-500/.of AMI and at least half of the persons at 51-60%of AMI=6 pis:all persons between 61-80%of AMI =4 pis) 2. Project produces adequate community benefit related to cost? (0-5) Does the project provide assistance for persons to gain self-sufficiency or maintain independence. 3. or serve a special population? (0-3) 4. Does the project provide long-term benefit or affordability? (0-10) (I-10 yrs=3 pis. I I-19 yrs=6 pis,20-30 yrs=8 pis,permanent=10 pis) Sulrlolal 0 Necd/11rfority(ma ximum 15 points) 1. Meets a Consolidated Plan priordy? (0-10) r2. I las the applicant documented a need for this project? (0-5) - Sub-lolal 0 Feasibilitv(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 are not available.) (0-4) '4. 1las the applicant documented efforts to secure other funding? (0-4) Sub-total 0 Leveraging Resources (maximum 20 points) 1. Does the project allow the reuse of our funding? (0-10) A. Principal and interest(30-year amortization or less) 10 points B. Principal and no interest or principal and balloon payment(repayment) 6 points C. Due-on-sale loan 4 points D. Grant(no repayment) 2 points 2. Project leverages other financial resources?(Including in-kind) (0-10) A. Less than I:1 0 points B. I:1 to 1:3 4 points C. 1:4 to 1:6 7 points D. More than 1:7 10 points Sub-total 0 Capacity and I istory(maximum 20 points) 1. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project? (0-10) 2. If previously funded,has the applicant completed prior projects and maintained regulatory compliance? (0-10) 3. 1 f new,applicant has capacity to maintain regulatory compliance? (0-20) Sub-lalal 0 GRAND TOTAL 0 COMPETITIVE PROCESS SELECTION CRITERIA GUIDANCE CHART -Housing Prole Primary Applicant Secondary Applicant Progra mlProject Funding Request: Fiscal Yesr POLICIES AND STRATEGIES ALIGNMENT Affordable Housing Srtrategic/Consolidated Plan Priority Yes B?or No: Targets Low Income Persons Number f units senln households 30-4 of AM]or lower 31.50%of AMI: 5160%at AMI: 61-80%of AMI: 81%of AMI or higher. Total Units Percentage of units serm 50%ofAMI or lower: Long Term/BenegUAffordabllity Number o1 years of affordability: Serves Special Population Yes(?)or No: PLANNING FRAMEWORK ALIGNMENT Location According to City Plan IMled vd bih - ..1/4 IT*of a transit lute(Yes or No): 114 mile of an ern Ioyment district(Yes or No): 1/4 mile ofa ocirminnity commercial district(Yes or Not located in... ...the downtown(Yes or Noy ...a targeted redevelopment area(Yes or No): Distribution Policies of City Plan distance to nearest AH pro ect. nearest Affordable Housing Project name' FINANCIAL HEALTH ALIGNMENT Justified Budget all at.documented: more then 1/2 costs documented'. less than 1/2 costs documented'. no casts documented: ' Attempt to Secure Other Funding Yes or No: Returns Funds to City principle and interest. pnobiltle,no interest,balloon: due-on-sale: ant' un nown' Leverage other Financial Resources Leteradino ratio(City lands vs other funds)1/?: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ALIGNMENT "Ready to Go"Status "final"gap financin some fondin but not all: "conceptual"project, Capacity to Undertake me Project Proven track record some concems win the capabilities, serious concerns W1th the capabilities Previously Funded,Regulatory Compliance successfully adminstere0 premous Lndin some administrative issues. smells adminlslrai Issues: New Applicant,Demonstrated Capacity rmen administrative track record no concerns'. some administrative concerns: serious adminislratiw concerns: