HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-02-0227J--02-200
3/7/02
RESOLUTION NO. 02- 227
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
ADOPTING A PLANNING CALENDAR FOR THE
TWENTY-EIGHTH (28TH) YEAR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT.
WHEREAS, the Administration has proposed a planning
calendar for the 28th Year Community Development Block Grant
process;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
CITY CCjM94SION
MAR n 7 2002
02- 227
1 0 0
Section 2. The Planning Calendar for the 28th Community
Development Block Grant Year is adopted as follows:
April 1, 2002
Availability of 28th Year Requests for
Proposal
At least one Public Hearing in each of
April 8, 2002 through
the five Commission Districts, and any
April 20, 2002,
other supplemental hearings required
including Saturdays
(contingent upon the schedules of each
City Commissioner)(Note: There is a
10 -day public notice requirement)
May 7, 2002
Deadline for submission of Requests
for Proposal (Note: Proposals
submitted after the due date will not
be accepted)
Special City Commission Meeting
allocating 28th Year Funds (date to be
Prior to July 12, 2002
set by City Commission, but must be
within the 30 -day public comment
period window to meet the August 16,
2002 submission date to U.S. HUD)
August 16, 2002
Submission of 28th Year Annual Action
Plan to U.S. HUD
October 1, 2002
Commencement of 28th Year Activities
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.'/
1� If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become
effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was
adopted and passed. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it
shall not become effective unless the City Commission overrides
the veto.
Page 2 of 3 02- 227
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA A'. THOMPSO
CITY CLERK
March
. 2002.
��- 16(e Cl `.
MANUEL A. DIAZ, 9MAYO
APPROVED FORM AND CORRECTNESS
P'R(7VIL
TTORNEY
050:tr:LB:BSS
Page 3 of 3
02- 227
0 0
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA 6
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
I . 1
TO: Honorable Mayor and DATE: F� � � Zu�2 FILE
� � �'
Members of the City Commission
SUBJECT: 2$t' Year Planning
Calendar
FROM: l ?arltA. �Gimen� REFERENCES: City Commission Agenda
City Manager ENCLOSURES: March 7, 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution
approving a planning schedule for the 28th Year of the Community Development
Program and other programs funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Community Development has developed a proposed planning
schedule for 28th Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME,
HOPWA and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) activities funded through the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD has advised the City that
the projected entitlements for the 28th Year will be as follows:
CDBG
$12,856,000
HOME
5,409,000
HOPWA
12,482,000
Emergency Shelter Grant
447,000
The planning schedule includes two (2) key dates that must serve as the steering
mechanism to ensure that the City meets federal requirements in the development of its
28th Year Annual Action Plan. The Annual Action Plan must be submitted to U.S. HUD
within forty-five (45) days of the beginning of the new funding year. To meet this
deadline, the Annual Action Plan must be submitted to U.S. HUD by August 16, 2002 for
the October 1, 2002 start date.
The other key date revolves around the requirement that there must be a thirty (30) day
public comment period regarding the Annual Action Plan prior to its submittal to U.S.
HUD. Therefore, to meet this deadline, the City Commission must adopt the Annual
Action Plan by July 12, 2002. The other dates are more flexible and contingent upon
complementary scheduling issues.
02- 227
i 0
Following is the proposed schedule for the 28a` Year planning process:
April 1, 2002 - Availability of 28`h Year Requests for Proposal
Week of April 8, 2002 and April 15, 2002 - District Public Hearings (contingent
on schedules of each City Commissioner; also note that there is a 10 day public
notice requirement)
May 7, 2002 — Deadline for submission of 28`h Year Requests for Proposal (Note:
This is a firm deadline and proposals submitted after the due date will not be
accepted)
Prior to July 12, 2001 - Special City Commission Meeting allocating 28`h Year
Funds (date to be set by City Commission, but must be within the 30 day public
comment period window to meet the August 16, 2002 submission date to U.S.
HUD)
August 16, 2001 - Submission of 28h Year Annual Action Plan to U.S. HUD
October 1, 2001 - Commencement of 28`h Year Activities
It is important to emphasize that the August 16, 2002 deadline is critical to satisfy federal
regulations. However, it should also be noted that the City Commission is able to amend
the Annual Action Plan at a later date providing that it complies with the process outlined
in its Citizen Participation Plan.
It is also important to note that the proposed two-week window between April 8-19 to
hold the District Public Hearings is predicated on the schedule availability of each,
individual City Commissioner. Historically, each City Commissioner has submitted the
request for the Public Hearing to the City Clerk, identifying the date and location of the
meeting. In each of the last two years, there have been occasions when therehave been
multiple meetings held on the same evening. The Administration has received public
input requesting that coincidental meetings not be held on the same night to give the
public an opportunity to attend all the meetings. This will also provide an opportunity for
elected officials to attend meetings in other Districts if so desired. In addition, the
Administration now has the capability to televise the Public Hearings live on the City of
Miami cable network. However, this capability is limited to one site per night.
Therefore, it is recommended that each Commissioner submit the preferred Public
Hearing date to the City Clerk, who will then be responsible for scheduling the Public
Hearing -on a first come, first served basis. If a Commissioner submits a date that has
already been taken, the City Clerk will advise that Commissioner to select an alternative
date.
In addition to the proposed calendar, the Administration is requesting policy direction
regarding several important issues relating directly to the planning activities for 28dh Year
HUD grant activities. These issues include the following topics:
0`'- 22
0
Housing Administration
Historically, the City Commission has awarded CDBG funds to community-based
organizations for Housing Administration activities. Conceptually, funding in this
category has been predicated on a performance basis, with the proposed staff
recommendations supporting those organizations that had demonstrated success in
developing affordable housing units and/or had developments in the pipeline. However,
in evaluating this process, there is an inherent flaw in the system in that agencies that had
been successful in receiving financial support from the City for brick and mortar projects
were being recognized for approved projects that were not completely ready to be built
out. For example, an organization may have received City funding for a 60 -unit project
that may be years away from actual development, yet this Agency would still be credited
for providing 60 units.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission establish a policy that
encourages public/private partnerships through the RFP process by funding brick and
mortar activities of affordable housing projects and, with one notable exception,
eliminating the award of HUD funds for housing administration. Administrative costs
would be provided through development fees generated through the build out of
successful projects. This method of funding will eliminate the system flaw of inflated
housing numbers that currently determine awards for housing administration. The one
notable exception includes programs where administrative fee assessments are prohibited
for an organization to generate administrative funding, such as the development of
elderly housing projects through the Section 202 Housing Program for the Elderly and
similar programs. To provide funding for these organizations, it is recommended that
$440,000 of CDBG funds be set aside for this purpose.
Timely Expenditure of Housing Funds
In assessing the status of previously approved housing projects by either the City
Commission or the Housing and Commercial Loan Committee, it is apparent that there
are significant amounts of CDBG and HOME funds that remain dormant for extensive
periods of time. This dormant period creates two significant problems. First, as funds
remain inactive, this becomes a potential issue for the funding source regarding the
timely expenditure of funds. Secondly, these inactive obligations actually inhibit the
development of affordable housing since available funding is tied to specific projects.
In simple terms, the Administration proposes the utilization of a two-tier process that
basically commits funding for approved housing projects in principle at the first tier and
then funds projects previously approved in principle when they are ready to commence
construction. Funding would then be provided to construction ready projects on a first
come, first served basis from existing, available dollars that had been targeted to housing
construction. The City of Miami would provide commitment letters to projects approved
at the first tier level to enable the developer to solicit additional financial support.
02- 227
When the developer has secured financing, control of the proposed project site and
appropriate insmance/bonding coverage and is ready to commence construction, the
project would then be funded from the existing set aside or from funds available at the
next funding cycle. A similar strategy was successfully implemented to expedite the
expenditure of funds for CDBG Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) when HUD
threatened to recapture unused funds from entitlement recipients that were not in
compliance with the 1.5 spending ratio.
If the City Commission concurs with this policy, the Administration will schedule a
Public Hearing to formally adopt this policy and transfer funding obligations of
previously approved housing projects that have been inactive for at least one year to a
housing funding pool. It must be clearly understood that this de -obligation will not
terminate the City's commitment to eventually fund the project, but will merely free up
funds to meet immediate needs that can be met with existing funds or the next cycle of
funding. Under the proposed policy, the commitment would remain in effect for an
additional twelve months. If construction has still not begun at that point, then the
developer would have to resubmit its proposal for consideration at the Tier I level again.
It must also be understood that under the current guidelines, as a result of the settlement
of the Audit Report issued by the Office of the Inspector General March 27, 1998,
funding approvals at both the Tier I and Tier 2 levels must be approved by the Housing
and Commercial Loan Committee.
For your information, funding for the following housing projects would be transferred to
the new housing pool if the City Commission concurs with this recommendation.
Total $7,810,217
Public Service Cap
As previously advised during the 27th Year CDBG process, Program Year 27 is the third
and final year of the Public Service cap waiver authorized by the U.S. Congress for the
City of Miami. Federal regulations typically limit the amount of CDBG funds that can be
directed to public service activities to 15% of an entitlement recipient's annual CDBG
02- 227
Date Originally
Appropriated:
Housing Project
Allocation
Fiscal Yr
Grant Yr
BAME Dev. Corp. — New Hope Overtown
$ 793,400
1996
22nd.
East Little Havana CDC— Casa Grande Towers Il
$2,023,609
2000
26th
East Little Havana CDC— Latin Quarter
$2,600,000
1997
23rd
Gatehouse — Brisas del Mar
$ 540,000
2001
27th
Jubilee CDC - Pueblo del Sol
$ 500,000
1999
25th
Jubilee CDC — Rio del Sol
$ 593,208
2000
26th
Little Haiti Housing — Scattered Site
$ 360,000
1999
25th
New Century Dev./Carlisle Group — Allapattah Garden 400 000
2000
26`h
Total $7,810,217
Public Service Cap
As previously advised during the 27th Year CDBG process, Program Year 27 is the third
and final year of the Public Service cap waiver authorized by the U.S. Congress for the
City of Miami. Federal regulations typically limit the amount of CDBG funds that can be
directed to public service activities to 15% of an entitlement recipient's annual CDBG
02- 227
allocation. Congress authorized a temporary increase in the City -of Miami's Public
Service cap to 25% for a three (3) year period. Beginning in the 28 CDBG Year, which
will commence October 1, 2002, the City's Public Service cap will revert back to the
15% level, which, in effect, will mean a 10% reduction in funds available for Public
Services in Program Year 28.
In the current year, the City Commission allocated a total of $3,287,000, which
represents 25% of the 27`h Year entitlement grant as authorized by the special federal
legislation. However, in Program Year 28, the return to the 15% cap will limit the
available allocation of CDBG dollars for public services to $1,928,400, a reduction of
$1,358,600 from the current year. Even if the City Commission directs the
Administration to request a continuation of the 25% cap limit and Congress adopts
legislation to restore the 25% cap to the City of Miami, the probability is that this
authorization would not be effective until Program Year 29. As a result, public service
dollars, which are constantly in demand, would be at an even greater premium through
the upcoming allocation process. In the Public Services category during the 27`h Year
RFP process, the response from agencies competing for CDBG funds in this category
included over 80 proposals totaling more than $14 million. It is anticipated that an open,
competitive process would elicit similar results.
Therefore, to eliminate the frustration of potential applicants in a futile and realistically
non-competitive RFP process, it is recommended that the City Commission limit public
service proposals to meet the basic needs in the categories of programs providing services
to the elderly and disabled. Although there is obviously an overwhelming demand for
services in other categories historically funded through the City of Miami CDBG
Program, the Administration believes that the elderly and disabled populations comprise
the most vulnerable groups in need of services with the limited funds available. This
does not minimize the service need in other categories, but the recommendation takes
into consideration other funding sources that may be appropriate to address the needs in
these other categories. For your information, the attachment to this memorandum
includes a funding history of projects funded over the past three (3) years.
In addition, the following information provides a breakdown of the 270' Year allocation
in the Public Service Category by service area:
Service Area Funding Amount
Elderly Programs $1,681,221
Programs for the Disabled $ 311,485
Youth Activities $ 474,750
Childcare $ 515,500
Other $ 304.444
$3,287,000
The policy recommendation would further prioritize existing programs for the elderly and
disabled that have performed satisfactorily. Obviously, this is an unprecedented
recommendation that will undoubtedly meet resistance, but it is a strategy that
0,2- 227
realistically recognizes prioritization of services and limited funding available to meet
public service needs. To minimize the impact on youth activities, the Administration
further recognizes that Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF) could be a viable source to
address the funding needs in this service area. It is also recommended that the City
Commission direct the Administration to work with the Police Chief to coordinate a
consolidated application process that would consider LETF funds to address the needs of
youth that may be eligible through this source.
Use of Funds in Program Year 28
Finally, the Administration seeks City Commission direction relating to the proposed use
of HUD funds in Program Year 28. Through this direction, the Administration will be
able to determine the appropriate funding levels that will be made available through the
28th Year RFP process. The following chart provides an overview of 27th Year funding
and proposed 28th Year funding:
CDBG:
27th Year
Fundine Area Allocation
Grant Administration (20%)
$2,629,000
Public Services
$3,287,000
Economic Development
$2,085,000
Housing Administration
$1,250,000
Section 108 Loan Guarantee
$1,100,000
Historic Preservation
$ 327,100
CRA Baseline Funding
$ 479,900
Little Haiti Job Creation Project
$ 225,000
Lot Clearing
$ 350,000
Code Enforcement
$1,000,000
Demolition
$ 485,000
Historic Preservation Project (City)
$ 225,000
E.L. Havana Homeownership (City)
$ 140,000
Downtown Development Authority
-0-
0 -
Total
Total $13,583,000
Proposed 28th Year
Allocation
$2,517,200
$1,928,400
$2,835,500
$ 440,000
$ i,500,000
$ 330,000
$ 479,900
$ 225,000
$ 350,000
$1,000,000
$ 500,000
$ -0-
-0-
750,000
0-0-
750 000
$12,856,000
02- 227
HOME: -
27" Year Proposed 280' Year
Funding Area Allocation Allocation*
Grant Administration (10%) $ 542,300 $ 540,900
CHDO Set Aside (15%) $ 813,450 $ 811,350
Model City Homeownership Zone $1,500,000 $1,500,000
CRA $ 262,000 $ 262,000
Homeownership Projects $1,728,938 $1,721,062
Rental Projects 576,312 573,688
Total $5,423,000 $5,409,000
*Note — If the City Commission approves the policy recommendation to de -
obligate previously approved projects that have been inactive for one year as
proposed above, then the de -obligated amount of HOME funding resulting from
the de -obligation would also be available for distribution (75% for
homeownership projects and 25% for rental projects in accordance with
previously approved City Commission policy)
HOPWA
270` Year Proposed 280i Year
Funding Area Allocation Allocation*
Grant Administration (3%) $ 308,070 $ 374,460
Long Terra Assistance $7,362,930 $8,622,000
Utilities $1,380,000 $1,290,000
Project Operations $1,218,000 $1,218,000-
Special
1,218,000Special Projects - 0 - 977,540
Total $10,269,000 $12,482,000
It is recommended that the City Commission adopt the proposed Resolution that sets the
Planning Calendar for the 28`h Year HUD grant process. In addition, it is requested that
the City Cornmission provide policy direction regarding the other issues identified in this
memorandum.
M
DB/GCW/DF
02- 227
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RELATING
TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
The Miami City Commission will hold a Public Hearing to discuss issues relating to the Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The Public Hearing will be held:
Thursday, March 7, 2002
City of Miami Commission Chamber
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
The City Commission Meeting Agenda will include the following items relating to the CDBG Program:
1. Discussion and proposed resolution on Planning Calendar for 28`' Year CDBG and other HUD
program activities, including policies relating to the 28`s Year Request for Proposals Process
2. Discussion and proposed resolutions relating to the restructuring of the Single Family
Rehabilitation Program and amended local Housing Assistance Plan, for submission to the State
of Florida, to implement the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program in the City
Interested individuals are encouraged to attend this Public Hearing. The meeting site is accessible to the
handicapped.
(AD NO. 09794)
02- 227
DISTRIC
26%
DISTRICT 4
15%
HUD Formula Allocation by
Commission Districts
DISTRICT 3
23%
•
RICT 1
00/0
DISTRICT 2
16% •
Backup Materials relevant to HUD Allocation by Commission District
Factors in HUD Allocation Formula, by Commission District
arsir`ct 3 District 2 Disf%rcL3 1]rstncf 4 L)isinCt 5
Population
Persons Below Poverty Level
Overcrowded Housing Units
70451 72,894 71,696 70,472 72,785 358,498
20242 18,448 25,348 d— 12,570 32,986 109,594
7643 5,382 1 8,200 5,907 1 7,853 1 34,985
Note: An adjustment was necessary due to the use of US Census population estimate of 365,127 by US HUD
Population
Persons Below Poverty Level
Overcrowded Housing Units
Factors in HUD Allocation Formula AfterAdjustment by Commission District
Disit?ct 4 Dis rct 5 rv. ,4�usfrf�enf 3
_.
20% 71744 20% 74232 20% 73215 20% 1 71765 1 20% 1 74121 1 3650771 1.01834900E
19% 20242 1 17% 18448 23% 25348 11% 1 12570 1 30% 1 32986 1 109594
22% 1 7643 1 15% 1 5382 23% 8200 17% 1 5907 1 22% 1 7853 1 34985
1 - An adjustment was necessary due to the use of US Census population estimate of 365,127 by US HUD
Population
Persons Below Poverty Level
Overcrowded Housing Units
Total
Dollar Weight in HUD Allocation Formula, by Commission District
D7sir ci .. Drsitit2 Dtsci3 iirsin4 _ " iisfrici b
$
219, 536.00
$
227,148.00
$ 224, 039.00
$
219, 601.00
$
226, 809.00
$
1,117,133.00
$
1,063, 515.00
$
969,258.00
$ 1,331, 784.00
$
660,428.00
$
1, 733, 084.00
$
5, 756,069. 00
$
1,262,624.00
$
889,106.00
$ 1,354,640.00
$
975,836.00
$
1,297,316.00
$
5,779,522.00
$
2, 545, 675.00
$
2, 085, 512.00
$ 2, 910, 463.00
$
1, 855, 865.00
$
3, 257, 209.00
$
12, 654, 724.00
20.12%
16.48%
23.00%
14.67%
25.74%
100.00%
Note: The HUD allocation formula used for the City of Miami is composed of three variables: population, number of persons below poverty level, and number of overcrowded
housing units. (1. 0 1 +persons per room). A dollar weighting for each factor is then applied.
Data Source: 1990 Census Data
Report prepared by Robert Schwarzreich, Economist, Department of Real Estate and Economic Development
0
0
City of Miami
Department of Community Development
25th — 27th Years
CDBG Funding Allocations by Commission District
Z ,M�
OR "MMAV
V
WO
Nk
7
MTRICT 1
$ 3,554,933.91
56,82%
$ 831,702.58
13.29%
S 30,896I0 4.94%
S 1,560,61223
24-95% S OM%
$ 6,256,144.92
14.97%
-5.03%
USTRICT2
S 3,554,93391
41,69%
$ 2,191,875.93
25.70%
S 413,086.23 4.84%
$ 2,356,585,71
27,63% S 11,500.00 0,13%
$ 8,527,981.78
20.40%
4.40%
DISTRfCT3
$ 3,554,933.91
37.25%
S 1,566,14217
16.41%
$ 2,139,876.28 2242%
$ 1,783,09277
18-68% $ 500,00000 524%
$ 9,54045.33
2283%
-0,17%
DISTRICT
$ 3,554,933.91
62,54%
S 644,836.54
11.35%
S 139,93259 246%
S 1,344,131.08
23.65% $ - 0.00%
$ 5,683,834.12
1160%
-1,40%
DISMCT 5
S 3,877,983.93
3290%
IS 4,380,302221
37.16%
1 S 1,211,506.111 10.28% 1
S 1,983,297.78
16,83% S 334,1,3U3.OWO 283%
S 11,787,223.04
AM
2,20%
-i
�w
Fit
M
�4��
M,
30.00%
25-00%
20.00%
15-00%
M00%
5.00%
0,00%
-5.00%
-10.00%
z1Z
DISTRICT I DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5
* HUD Formula Allocation by
previous CDBG Target Areas
* Commission Allocated Percentage
El Variance
0
ND
-11
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
25th Year
,11999 - 2000
PROJECTS /ACTIVITIES
- —�
3 . 4
5 - TOTALS -,-
City of MiamiJ— _ --
CDBG Administration
—
City $
-
549,240.00 $
549,24 0.00
$ 549,240.00 $ 549,240.00 $
549,240.00 ' $
371.37 $
2,746,200.00
116,856
- - -I
Capital improvements Projects
Cade Enforcement -Building &Zoning
city $
City �$„-30,582.75
—_
223,371.36 $
$
223, 371.36
30,582.75
$ 223, 371.36 $ 223, 371.37 $
$ 30,582.75 $ 30,582.75 $
$
223,
30,582.75 $
200, 000.00 $
152,913.75
1,000,000-00
— — -
Code Enforcement - NE7
City $
200, 000.00. $
200, 000.00
$ 200, 000.00 , $ 200, 000.00
$
415,209.91
_
Demolition
�Depariment &Rea! Estate
C $
— �
C�,
83,041.98 $
83,041.98
$ 83,041.98 $ 83,041.98 $
$
83,041.99
198, 050.00 $
198, 050.00 ,
of Economic Dvlpmni
C' $
10,000.00 $
10,000.00
$ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $
10,000.00 _$
50,000.00
NOPE
_
City $
65, 000.00 $
65, 000.00
$ 65, 000.00 $ 65, 000.00 , $
65, 000.00 $
325,000.00
25,000.00
Lot Clearance
Total:
Total:: $
—
1,161,236.09 1 $ 1,161,23609
$ 1,161,236.09 $ 1,161,236.10 $ 1,359,286.11 $
- 19.34% 22.64%
6,004,230.48 ;
100.00%'
—
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Debt Service”
Percent.
City
19.34°/a
j
19.34%
19.34%
$
1,817,382.90
.EconomicDevelopment�
Alipattah Business Development Authority
ED
142, 670.71
$ 142,670.71
- -
80,ti00.00 $
Black Archives
CCA -Pierre Toussaint Haitian Center -
—_. ED
- _ ED .
-
$
69912.39 .. $
49,346.76
60, 912.39 $
$
_80,000.00
121,824-78
-
49,346.76
Coconut Grove LDC
Commercial Fagade Program
CRA Cluc 90
ED
- _ ED
ZED
$102,966."S145,496.20
$ 98,489.73 $ 76,105.7(} $
$
24,622.43 $
100,000.00 $
447,680.60
i
100,000.00CRA
-
- Operations
�—
— -
$
`
379,000.00 $
379,000.00
250, 000.00
_ ..
DDA - Flagier Marketplace
'Downtown Miami Partnership
ED4 $
—.
ED $
2SO, 000.00 '
122, 750.00
$
$
122,7K 00
Edgewater Economic Development
ED
�
$
52,169.71
i I $
$
50, OOQ. 00 $
52,169.71
50, 000.00
George Williams Enterprises —
ED
ED
$ 149,152.93—- $ 149,152.93
Latin Chamber of Commerce - CAMACOL � �
Latin Chamber ber of Commerce - Commercial Loan P m _i 1wD� _
$ 150, 000.00
}
I $
$
150, 000.00 $
150, 000.00,
150,OQQ.00�
i Little Haiti Credit Union - Commercial Loan
Program j ED
—7—ED-
125,000.00 $
125,000u�
Little Haiti Job Creation
--
ED -..1
- -
',
-- - _ �_.
$
- _ �_
$ 116; 785.59.
i j_ $
.00
--
116, 785.5
�Ltle Havana Development Aufnority —
& Neighbors Association
E
ED
$
80,000.00 $
80 000.00
, -
Neighbors
— ED-�
50,000-00 $
50,000-00
j Omega Fashions
�ED�R
18-955.86 $
18.955.86 18,955.86 $ 18,955.861$
$
18,955.87 $
94,779.31
Partners for Seff Employment —�--
** No District Aflocation
Page 1 of 4
0
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
25th Year
Et[remanve rf
" No District Aftocation
Page 2 of 4
0
DISTRICT
PROJECTS/ACTfYITIES
1
2 `�
3
4
5
TOTALS
Planning Department - Design District ED
$
80, 000.00
$
80,1}00.00
Rafael Hernandez Housing & Economic Development `$ ED
ED
$ 49,461.99
$
$
5'000.00 $
49,461.99
5'000.00
Recruitment and Training Project
_
$
28,230.00 $
28,230.00
Shakers Conch House _
ED
ED
$
86,508.13 $
86,508.14
$
173,016.27
Sural! Business Opportunity Center
Isf. John CDC
ED
$
6,539.08
$
6,539.08
$
84,000.00
$
84,000.00
Trust for Public land
, ED
Total. $
264,593.11 $
749,092.91
$
619,892.24 $
181,569.70 $
1,322,259.77
$
3,137,407.73
Percent:
8.43%
23.88%
19,76%1
5.79%
42.14%
100.00%
Housing Administration
Allpattah Business Development Authority
!
Housing $
49,916.70
$
49,916.70
tBAM�,E Development Corp.
LHousing.,
42,194.35
$
48,296.82
$
', $
48,296.82
42,194.35
conut Grove LDC
ing$
Hous). 9
$
145,560.87
~
$
145,560.87
CODEC, Inc.
East Little Havana CDC
Housing j
$
422,339.95
�-
$
422,339.95
Edgewater Economic Development
Housing
$
47,208.99
$
49,804.41
$
; $
47,248.99
49,804.41
Florida Housing Cooperative
Greater Miami Neighborhood, Inc
Housing
Housing
Housing
$
28,225.00
$
28,225.00 $
28,225.00 $
$
28,225.00
74,475.91
$ 112,900.00
$ 74,475.91
Habitat for Humanity
Jewish Family Services
Housing $
9,297.71 $
9,297.71
$-91
-
1297.71 $
$
9,297.72
16, 874.09
$
$
46,488.56
50, 622.26
Jubilee Community Development
Housing $
16,874.08
$
16, 874.09
$
49,963.71
$
49,963.71
Little Haiti Housing Association
ousing
$
62,555.64
$
62,555.84
Model Housing Cooperative Housing
Rafael Hemandez Housing & Economic Development Housing
$�48,708.86
I
$
48, 728.86
St. John Development Corporation
Housing
_
$
$
49,142.41
112, 674.15
$
$
49,142.41
192, 674.? 5
Tri -City Community Association
Housing
$
83,495,931
$
83,495.93
Ward of Life CDC
Housing ,
Total. $
76,088.49 1 $
175,654.91
$
734,657.87 S
37,522.71 $
472,445.74
$
1,496,369.72
Percent.
5.0891.7-11.749/2
49.10%
2.51%
31.57%
100.00%
Public Services
PS $ 97,498.08
$
97,498.09 $
97,498.09
$
292,494.26
Action Community Center
PS $
318,349.47
$
318,349.47
Allapattah Community Action
,
pc (-
1
$
38,482.79
$
38,482.79
Et[remanve rf
" No District Aftocation
Page 2 of 4
0
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
25th Year
R
--
PROJECTS /.4CTIVITII S }
T
p
DISTRICT
— 1
a
5
TOTALS
�AspiraofFlorida, Inc. i
Association for the Development of the Except.
_
PS
PS
$ 7,129.60
$
$
19,518.08
7,129.60
$
7,129.60
$
$
7,129.60 $
19,518.09
7,129.60
$
$
39,036.17
35,648.00
Boys and Girls Club of Miami
CCA -Centra Hispano Catolico
CCA -Centro Mater Child Care
CCA -Centro Mater Teen Outreach
PS
PS
$
$ .
19,048.00
23,619.00
$
$
19,048.00
23,619.00
PS $ 88,437.54 $
88,437.54
PS $ 17,221.85 $
17,221.85
CCA -Emergency Services
PS
$
19,832.81
$ -----..-19,-832.81
CCA -La Sagrada Familia
PS
$
60,481.55
$
60,481.55
CCA -Notre Dame Day Can= Services
PS
$
36,291.58
$
36,291.58
Children Psychiatric Center
PS
$ .3,000.001
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00 $
3,000.00
$
15,000.00
FCCity of Miami Parks - Childcare
PS
$
33, 794.27
$
33, 794.27
City of Miami Parks - Disabled
PS
$ 21, 623.47
$
17, 298.78
$
24,866.99
$
16,217.60 $
28,110.51
$
108,117.36
jDeHostosSenior Center (WynwoodEld. Ctr)�
PS_
$
188,501.66
$_
188,501.66
Deaf Services Bureau
PS_
$ 5,550.38
$
4,440.31
$
6,382.94
$
4,162.79 $
7,215.50
�
$
27, 751.92
Dominican American ?National Foundation PS
$ 10,000.00
$
10,000.00
First United Methodist Church
PS
$
7,571.50
$
7,571.50
$
15,143.00
FOCAL
PS
$
49,26717
$
49,267.17
Greater Bethel AME church
PS
_PS
; $ 12,865.99
$
$
26, 668.43
12,865.99
$
$
26, 688.43
25,731.98
Greater Miami Service Corps
Haitian American Community Association
PS
_^
_
$
60,450.17
$
60,450.17
_ _
Haitian American Foundation - Child Abuse
I PS$
61,627.85
$
61,627.85
Haitian American Foundation - Job Placement
j PS
_
$
41,360.39
$
41,360.39
Haitian Community Center
PS
$
23,808.23
$
23,808.23
James E Scott Community Association
j PS
$
91,288.00
$
91,288.00
Kidco Child Care
PS
$
78, 550.45
$
78, 550.45
Liberty City Optimist Club
PS
$
49,999.08
$
49,999.08
Lions Home for the Blind
PS
$
38,432.771
$
38,432.76
$
75,865.53
Little Haiti Housing Association
PS
$
22,167.00
$
22,16700
Little Havana Activities Center- Nutrition
PS
$
78,287.56
$
78,287.57
$
78,287.57
$
234,862.70
Little Havana Activities Center- PmSalud
PS
$
20,002.51
$
20,002.51
$
20,002.521
$
60,007.54
Mental Health Assoc of Dade Cty - A Women's Place
PS
$
47, 646.86
$
47, 646.86
Miami Behavioral Health Center
PS
$
24, 070.61
$
24, 070.61
i Miami Jewish Home for the Aged - Douglas Garde_n_s�—P_S
Rafael Penalver Clinic
I PS
$
31,024.00
_
$
29,373.64
$
$
31,024.00
29,373.64
SER - Jobs for Progress _
PS
is
10, 000.00
_
$
10, 000.00
Southwest Social Services
PS
$
115, 760.67
$
115, 760.67
Spanish American Basic Education & Rehabilitation
PS
I
$
16, 758.43
$
16, 758.43
$
33,51
" No District Allocation
Page 3 of 4
•
0
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
25th Year
- - _ �,— -
-- - � ? 2 3 4 5 rorats
PROJECTS f I
Suited for Success PS $ 7,603.66 $ 7,603.66 $ 7,603.661 $ 7,603.66 $ 7,603.661 $ 38, 018.30
�Y.M.C.A. of Greater Miami -Child Care ----14 _. PS $ 89,999.88 $ 89,999.88
Total: $ 483,620.66 $ 577,312.57 $ 505,477.14 { $ 404,853.69 $ 738,072.50 $ 2,709,336.57
Percent: _ 17.85% 21.31% 18 66% 14.94% i 27.24% -100.00%
Public Facilitylmprovements$ _1$ 500,000.001,500.00
Association for the Dvipmnt of the Exceptional (roof} P! $ 11,500-001 _
� � __
MDN - Robert lGng Nigh Towers � P! $ 500,000.00
Total: $ - $ 11,500.00 $ 500,000.00 $ - $ - $ 5.11,500.00
-- Percent: 0.00% 2.25% 97.75% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
I— ! GRAND TOTAL $ 15,676,227.40
" No District Allocation Page 4 of 4
0
•
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
26th Year
F
12000 - 2001 (26th Year) -�
�— D15TRlC7 _
��5
- TOTALS
PROJECTS/ACTN1T1E5 1 -�2 3 �� 4
i
City of Miami T �- --
AsCDBG AdministrationI City 498,000.00 $ 498,000.00 $ 498,000.00 $ 498,000.00 $ 498,Q00.00 $Capital
Projects ! City 469,585.59 $ 469,585.59 $ 469,585.59 $ 469,585.59 $ 469,585.59 $ 2,347,927.95
Improvements
Code Enforcement amity $ 300, 000.00 $ 300,000-00 $ 300,000-00 $ 300, 000.00 $ 300, 000.00 $
-. .. —�-
Demolition City $�1.2?,173.28 $ 121,173.28 $ 121,173.28 $ 121, ? 73.28 , $ 121,173.28 , $_ 605,866.39
HOPE -. - City I $ ? D, aDQ. oo $ 10, 000.00 $ 3 $ 10, 000.00 , $ 501 000.00
08.95 $
507,
5D7 Q�8.95
Lot Clearance C $ 57,018-95. $ 57, 018.95 $ $ $ 57,018.95 $ 285, 094.73
Total: $_ 1,455,777.82 $ 1,455,777.82 ; $ 1,455,777.82 $ 1,455,777.82 $ 1,455,777.82 $ 7,278,889.09
Percent: 20.00% 20.00% 1 20.00% , 20.00% :
20.00% 100A0%
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Debt Service""
City i i
-- -
i $ 1,184,269.76
- - - -
Economic Development
Allpattah Business Development Authority
1 _
ED $ 149, 998.65
$ 149, 998.65
Black Archives
CCA -Pierre Toussaint Clr
ED;
1.
FD _ ; $ 59,155.82 j -
$ 40, 000.00 , $ 40, 000. DO
$ 59,155.82 ; $ 118,311.64
- _
Coconut Grove LCD-
Coconut Grove Pilot Project
ED j $ 100,000.00
ED $ 50,000.00
$ 100,000.00
$ 50,000.00
��
Commercial Facade
ED $ 15Q 319.96 $ 212, 408.63 $ 143, 784.31 $ 111,106. Q6
.. �$
ED
_35,946.08 $ 653,565.03
-
$ 1, 000, 000.00 ; $ 1, 000, 000.00
' CRA
I -
;C RA-CLUC 90
:Downtown Miami Partnership - _
-
ED -
ED $ 122,618.32 -
- -
$ 100, 000.00 $ 100, 000.00
-
$ 122,618.32
-86,
{Edgewater Economic Development
—�
_-_ ED _ $ 86,501.40 � _
_ 501.40
$ 194,471.71
!Latin Chamber of Commerce - GAMACOL
FD $ 194,471.71
- -
tle Haiti Jtion ED
�Miami-Pfan�ningDepartmentj ED_ $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.D0 $ 5,000.00
ED T I
$ 225,ODDAO $ 225,000.00
$ 5,000 00 $ 25,000.00
$ 79, 968.50 $ 79, 968.50
Neighbors & Neighbors As c
�__.
Partners for Self Employment ED �_ 8,290.87 $ 8,290.87 $ 8,2 0.871 $ 8,290.87
- _
i $ 8,290.87 ; $_ 41,454.34
- $ 94,224.65
$ 259, 739.83
Rafael Hemadez HSG & ED ED $ 94,224.65
Small Business Opportunity Cntr FD I $ 129, 869.92 $ 129, 869.92
_
Q
acolcy Economic Dvlpmn_t ED ; _ _
$ _ 60,0 $ 60,000.00
$ 36, 697.65 ; $ 36, 697.85
i Word of Life CDC ED
Total: $ 313,609.47 $ 738,?99.69 $ 481,416.80 $ 254,266.84
-
$ 1_,650,059.11 $ 3,437,551.92
0001 0/
J
Percent: , 9.12% , 21.47% , 14.00% 7.40%
48.00%0001 i/
No District Allocation
Page 1 of 3
LJ
PROJECTS /ACTIVITIES
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
26th Year
3
TOTALS
U[y Of MIdifu
** No District Ailocation
Page 2 of 3
U
E
�,1
I
--
-
Housing Administration p Y
A!! attah Busyness Develo mentAuthorit
AME Development Corp -- -
..__
Housing i $
-
Housing
49,982.10
$
-
$
50,019.92 $
$ 223,319.52
49, 982.10
50,019.92
CODEC, Inc. -
East Little Havana CDC
Development
Housing
Housing
� g I_
Housing
- $ 223,319.52 ;
�$ 325,000.00
$ 46,463.16 ',
$ 325,000.00
--...
$ 46,463.16
Edgewater Economic ..
--
45,323.29 $ 181,293.13:
jGreater Miami Neighborhoods, Inc
Habitat for Humanity
Housing ;
Housing
$ 45,323.28 $ 45,323.28 $ 45,323.28 $
$
$ 10, 689.94 $ 10, 669.94 $
75,000.00 $
—
10, 669.94 $
75,000.00
_..
53,349.72
, Jewish FamilyServices
Housing $
10, 669.94 $ 10,569.94
Jubilee Community Development
�Housrng j $
28, 743.00 1 $ 28, 743.00 ,
$ 45, 723.32
�$
$.._
28, 743.00 $
45, 723.32
86,229.00
91,446.63
—T�
Little Haiti Housing Association
Housing
'M odel Housing Cooperative _ Housing
& Economic Development Noosing
,
-
$ 49,501.62 50,000.00
j�_
- $
$�
50 000.00
=-- -
49,501.62
Rafael NemandezHousing
Corporation
Housing
f -
�$
i
46, 901.24 ; $
46, 901.24
St John Development
Ward of I ife CDC
Housing !
�-
$
49,421.fifi { $
49,421.66 11
Total.:. � $ 89,395.04 $ 197,681.32 $ 583,055.74 � $
55,993.22 $ .
351,802.37 $ 1,377,92T.7Q
I—
Percent
6.49% 14.35% . 49.57%
4.49.57%25.53%
100.00%
Public Services
Action Community Center
Allapattah Community Action
Alternative Programs
- PS I $
PS $
-
110,279.84 $ 110,279.84 $ 110,279.85 $ 330,839.53
348, 960.01 $ 348, 960.01
$ 9,938.50 ' $ 9,938.50
$ 26, 590.83 $ 26, 590.84 $ 53,181.67
Aspira of Florida, Inc. ; PS
Association for the Development of the Exceptional PS $
_
10, 634.03 $ 10,634.03 ' $ 70, 634.03 $
10, fi34.04 $
1061404 $
53,170.17
Boys & Girls Club of Miami
fCCA-Centro Hispano Catofico
PS i $ 18,500.00
PS $ 28, 613.04
71, 601.96
_..
$
_._ E $
$
18,500.00
28, 613.04
_
71,601.
CCA -Centro Mater Child Care
PS
P5
_ $
' $ 38, 798.89 ,,
_
$
8, 798.89 I
38,798.89S
CCA -Centro Mater Teen Outreach
j
PS
$
28,896.28 $
28,896.28
�CCA-Emergency Services
CCA -Notre Dame Center
Familla
_
PS �
PS ��_� $ 60,427.47
� S
_ 39,439.99 ! $
$
39,439.99
60,427.4_7
CCA-Sagrada
—+
$ 25, 308.59 I
$
25, 308.59
s for Elderly
CCA -Service y _
� Cenfer for Haitian Studies _
PS
_
-
_ _
-
_ $
- -
66,500-00 ' $
66, 500. 00
�
Center of Info & Orientation
Children Psychiatric Center
PS
-
PS ` $
_
3,840.58 $ 3,840.58 ';_$ 3,840Z $
$
3, 840.59 $
61, 342.20 $ _
3,840.59 { $
61, 342.20
19, 202.93
I... — .,_....,.m
P.c
$
33,250.00$
33,250.00
U[y Of MIdifu
** No District Ailocation
Page 2 of 3
U
E
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
26th Year
DISTRICT
•
i
0
i
I I
"
PROJECTS /ACTIVITIES T I 1 2 3 4 S TOTALS
jCity of Miami Parks -Disabled P5 $ 24,400.00..$ 24,400.00 $ 24,400-(}D $ 24,40 00 $ 24,400. 00 I $ 122,O00.00 '
ICiryofMiami Parks/OveriownYouth __ PS - j $ 1,013.001$ 1,013.00
Coconut Grove Cares PS $ 99,996.23 � $ 99,996.23
De Hostos Senior Center PS _ $ 2_5Q, Q43.83 ureau PS
26,553-26
$250,043.83
�' tstUnifedMehod�st Church - - PS _ 5,310.66 $_.__... 5,310.65 � 10,475.5. 5,3106 5 -$_ 5,310.65 $ 5,310,65 � $10,475.55 $ 20,951.10
FOCAL PS $ 15,918.51 $ 16,918.51
I Great reI Mrami Service Corps I PS $ 25, 000.00 $ 25, Q00.00 $ 50, QDO. DO
�Haitian American Foundation PS _ $ 14, 394.74 $ _ 14,394-73 $ 28, 789.47 i
Hispanic Coalition I PS $ 29, 999.45 $ 29 999.45
Kidco Child Care ; $ 99, 556.77 $ 99, 556.77 i
'�berty City Optimist Club PS i $ 47,500.00 $ 47,500.00
',bons Home for the Blind PS J $ 39, 804.77 $ 39,804.77 $ 79, 609.54
Little Havana Activities Center -Nutrition I PS I $ 85,291.66 $ 85,291.66 ' $ 85,291.66 �$ 255, 874.99
Lithe Havana Activities Center- ProSaiud PS $ 20,821.64 $ 20,821.64 $ 20,821 64 $ 62,464.92
' Menta! Health Assoc of Dade Cfy- A Women's PlaceW _ PS $ 62, 095.60 , $ 62, D95.60
Miami Jewish Nome for the Aged -Douglas Gardens PS � $ 34, 924.78 _ $ 34, 924.78
Miami Behavioral Health Center$ 23,262.53 $ 23,262.53 ,
;Rafael Penalver Clinic - PS �r$ 48,376.01 48,376.01
j SER Jobs for Progress PS j $ 10,000,001 � $ 10,000,00
,Southwest Socia! ServicesPS I ; $ 122, 828.26 $ 122, 828.26
Spanish American Basic Education & Rehabilitation — PS I { $ 17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 ! $ 35,OOO.OQ
,Suited for Success PS $ 6, 6$2.8Q ; $_ 6,682.60 I $ 6,682.801 $ 6,692.80 $ 6,682.801 $ 33,414.021
Work
$ 29,313.95MCA-Carver PS$ 56,200,251 .$ _ 56,200.25
YMCA-lnfemational P5 $ 46,878.31 I � I $ 46,878.31
Total: $ 535_,107.91 � $ 880,057.$1 $ 600,648.63 1 $ 477,393.72 $_ _._ 488,327.94 i $ 2,981,536.01
Percent: 17.95Y. I 29.52% 20.15%1 16-01%1 16.38%1 100.00% .
i Nistvric Preservation
Spring Garden AssociationHP I $ 271,133.00 $ 271,133.00
Total: � $ - $ - $ - $ - 1 $ 271,13300 $ 271,133.00
Percent: -� - 0.00% 0.00% � 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%
I
GRAND TOTAL 1 $ 96,531,307.48
No District Allocation Page 3 of 3
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
27th Year
i 2001 2002 (27th Year)
DISTRICT
P ZOJECTSIACTIWTIEs
1
_
2
{
3
__
4 s --
rorAts
City of Miami
i
i
__I
CDBG Administration
City
$ 515, 920.00
1 $
515, 920.00
$
515,920-00
$ 515, 920.00 $
515, 920.00
$ Z579,600-00
Co of Miami Retired Police Office CBA
City
$
125, 000.00
$ 125, 000.00 {
Code Enforcement'
City
$ 200,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
200,000.00 $
200,000.00
$ 1,000,000.00
Di emolrfion
i HOPE
City
City
$ 97, 000.00
$ 10, 000.00
$
$
97, 000.00
10, 000.00
$
$
97, 000.00
10, 000.00
$
$
97, 000.00 $
10, 000.00 $
97, 000.00
10,000.00
$ 485, 000.00
$ 50, 000.00
Lot Clearance
City
$ 70, 000.00
$
70, 000.00
$
70, 000.00
$
70, 000.00 1 $
70, 000.00
$ 350,000-00
Planning Department
City
$ 45,000.00
$
45,000.00
$
45,000.00
$
45,000.00 $
45,000.00
$ 225,000.00 t
Total:
$ 937,920.00
1 $
937,920.00
$
937,920.00
$
937,920.00 $
1,062,920.00
- -
$ 4,814,600.00 k
Percent:
19.48%11
19.48%
19.48%
19.48%
22.08%
100.00%
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Debt Service'
City
{
$
1,100,000.00
$ 1,100,000.00
E
Economic Development
Allpattah Business Development Authority
ED
I$ 15D, 000.00
{
`
$ 150, 000.00
CCA -Pierre Toussaint Center
ED
$
75,000.00
s
$
75,000.00
$ 150,000.00
City of Miami - CRA
_ED
$
379, 900.00
$ 379,900-00
City of Miami - CRA - CLUC 90
$
100, 000.00
$ 100,000.00
Coconut Grove Pilot Project
i ED
$
50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
Commercial Fagade
Downtown Miami Partnership
Edgewater Economic Development
! ED
ED
ED
$ 103, 500.00
$
$
$
146,250-00 $
150,000.00
100,000.00
99,000-00 $
76,500-00 $
24, 750.00
$ 450,000.00
$ 150,000 00
$ 100,000.00
Human Services Coalition of Dade County lnc.
ED
j
$
33,333.33
$
33,333.33
$
33,333.34
$ 100,000.00
;Latin Chamber of Commerce - CAMACOL
ED
I
-
$
200,000.00
-
$ 200,000.00
Little Haiti Job Creation
ED
-
i
$
225, 000.00
$ 225 000.00
Neighbors & Neighbors AssociationED
$
150, 000. oa ;
$ _ 150, 000.00
Overtown Pilot Project
Rafael Hernandez HoAng & Economic Development
l ED
i ED
$
150, 000.00
$
L
50,000.00
$ 50,000.00.
$ 150, 000.00
Small Business Opportunity Center
ED
_
$
132,500.00
$
132,500.00
$ 265,000.00
Women's Business Development Center
ED
_
_ j $
35,000.00
$ 35,000.001
Word of Life, CDC
_
-
ED
ED
'
j
$
-� $
235,000.00
100,000.00
$ 235,000.00
$ 100,000.00
Word of Life, CDC -
Total:
$ 253,500.00
{ $
704,583.33
$
464,833.33
$
209,000.00 $
1,407,983.34
$ 3,039,900.00
Percent:
8.34%1
23.18%
15.29%
6.88%
46.32% ,
100.00%
**No District Allocation
Page 1 of 3
0
r]
N
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
27th Year
PROJECTS/ACTIWTIES
1
2 �[
DISTRICT
3
4
5 k
rorALs
Housing Administration —
Allapaftah Business Dvlpmnt Authority
`
LHousing
$
75,000.00
���
$
75,000.00
GAME Development Corp.
Housing
Housing
$ 140,000.00
$
82, 762.00 $
$
8Z762.00
140, 000.00
City of Miami CD,Planning, & REED Dpts
Codec, Inc.
East Little Havana CDC
_
Housing
Housing
��
$ 225, 000.00
$ 225,000.00
$ 225, 000.00
$_ 225 000 00
Greater Miami Neighborhood, Inc
Habitat for Humanity
,Haven Economic Development, Inc.
Housing
Housing
Housing
$
5,000.00
$ 18, 750.00
$ 10,000-001
$ 18,750.001 $
18, 750.00
$ 18, 750-00 f $ 75,000 00
$_ 117, 000.00 [ $ 117, 000.00 j
$ 35, 000.00 50, 000.00
j Jewish Community Services of S. Florida
Housing
$
11, 000.00
$ 11,000,001
$ 11, 000.00 $
11, 000.00
$
11,000.001 $
55, 000.00
j Jubilee Community Development
Housing
$
35, 746.00
1
$ 35, 746.00
$
35, 746.00 $
107, 238.00
Housing Association
Housing
j
!
$
75,000.00 $
75,000.00
�Lil�fftleHaki
iami Dade Community Development
Housing
$1fi,
666 6 7
$ 16,666.67 $
16,666.66
$
50,000.00
Model Housing Cooperative
N using !
$ 50,000.00 ;
$
50,000.00
Word of Life, CDC -
__-
Housing j
i $
12,000.00 $
12,000.00
Total:
$
143,412.67
$ 39,750.00
$ 722,!62.67 1 $
46,496.66
$
387,258.00 $
1,339,000.00
Percent:
10.71%
2.9756
53.93%
3.47%
28.92%
100.00%
I
_
Public Services
Action Community Center
PS
$
108,333.33 i
$ 10$333.33 $
108,333.34
$
325,000.00
Allapattah Community Action
Alternative Program
PS
PS
$
350,000.00
_
$
$
75, 000.00 j $
350,000.00
75, 000.00
_
Aspira of Florida, Inc.
PS
$ 27, 750.00
$
27, 750.00 $
55, 500.00
Association for the Development of the Except.
PS
$
10,817.00
$ 10,817.00
$ 10,817.00 $
10,817.00
$
10,817.00 $
54,085.00
Boys and Girls Club of Miami
PS
$ 20, 000.00
$
20, 000.00
CCA -Centro Hispano Cafolico
CCA -Centro Mater Child Care
PS
- PS
$ 30, 000.00
$ 74,000.001
$
$
30, 000.00
74, 000.00
CCA -Centro Mater Teen Outreach
PS
$ 42, 750.00
$
42, 750.00
CCA -Emergency Servic&s
PS
$
19,000.001 $
19,000.00
CCA -La Sagrada Familia
PS
$ 75,000.00
$
75,000.00
CCA -Notre Dame Day Care Services
PS
$
45,000.00 $
45,000.00
CCA -Services for the Elderly
PS
$ 14,250.00
$
14,250.00 $
28,500.00
Center for Haitian Studies
PS
j
$
66, 500.00 $
66, 500.00
Cenfej– - r for Info -mutton & Orientation T
Children Psychiatric Center
P5
i PS
j$
4,000.00
$ 4, 000.00
$ 4,000.00 I $
�
4, 000.00 i $
66,500.00 $
4,000.00 $
66, 500.00
20, 000.00
Cify of Miami Parks - DisabilityPS
$
24,400.00
$ 24,400.00
$ 24,400.00 $
24,400.00
, $
24,400.001 $ '
122,000.00
j Coconut Grove Cares _
PS
$ 100;000.00
j
$
100,000.00
**No Disfricf Allocation
Page 2 of 3
0
tz7
2'D
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding History
27th Year
"No District Allocation
Page 3 of 3
PJ
i
I
DISTRICT
PROJECTS /ACTIVITIES
1
2
3
45
TOTALS
Colombian American Service Association PS
$
25,000.00
$
25,000.00
Comm. Committee Dvlpmntl Handicaps, Inc.
PS
$ 5,000.00
t $
5,000.00
$
5,000.00 $
5,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$
W 25, 000.00
_
CRA-Overtown Optimist Club
PS
$ 94, 847.00
$
94, 847.00
Deaf Service Bureau
PS
$ 6,000.00
$
6,000-00
$
6,000-00 $
6,000-00
$ 6,000-00
$
30, 000.00
_
DeHostos Senior Center
PS
$
271,721.00
€
$
271, 721.00
_
Dominican American FoundationPS
$ 25,000.00
$
25,000.00
Fanm Ayisyen Nan Miayami, Inc. —
PS
$ 35,000.00
$
35,000.00
Fifty five years and up, Inc
PS
$
25,000.00$
$
25, 000.00
First United Methodist Church
PS
$
10, 500.00
--$—'-10,500.00
$
21, 000.00
Haitian American Foundation - Senior Services
PS
_
$
37,500.00
$ 37,500,001
$
_
75, 000.00
Hispanic Coalition
PS
$
30, 000.00 j
$_
30, 000.00
James E. ScottPS
Kldco Child Care
Liberty City Optimist Club
PS
PS
_--
-�
$
100, 000.00
Is
100,000.00
$ 40,000.00
$
$
$
__
100,000.00
100, 000.00
40,000.00
Lions Home for the Blind
PS
$
40, 000.00 $
40, 000.00
$
80, 000.00
_
,Little Havana Activities Center - NutritionPS
$
86, 666.67
$
86, 666.67 $
86,666.66
$
260, 000.00
Little Havana Activities Center- ProSalud _
PS
$
21,666.66
$
21,666.671 $
21,666.67
$
65,000.00
Menta! Health Assoc of Dade Cly - A Women's Place
PS
$
63,944.00
$
63,944-00
Miami Behavioral Health Center
PS
$
30, 000.00
$
30, 000.00
Miami Jewish Home & Hospital
PS
$
35,000.00
$
35,000.00
Rafael Penalver Clinic
PS
$
50, 000.00
_
$
50, 000.00
Regis House, Inc. - Riverside Program
PS
$
20,000.00
$
20,000.00
Southwest Social Services -
PS E
$
125,000.00
$
125,000.00
Urgent, Inc.
PS----�
$ 25, 000.00 T
$
25,000.00
alms Services Center
PS
$ 8,333.33
$
8,333.331
$ _ 8,333.34
$
25,000.00
YMCA -Carver
'YMCA-Intemationa! i
PS
PS
$
50,000.001
$ 41,500.00
$
$
41,500.00
50,000.00
Total: E $ 541,883.66
$
899,215.33
$
676,967.00 $
461,883.67 i $
756,897.34 , $
3,336,847.00
Percent: i
16.24%1
26.95%
20.29%1
13.84%1
22.68%1
100.00%
Historic Preservation
Spring Garden Civic Association
City
":,
$ 63,000.00 j $
'
63,000.00
Total:
$ -
$
-
$
- $
-
$ 63,000.00 4 $
63,000.00 1.
Percent:
0.00%1
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%1
100.00%
100.00%
GRAND TOTAL
$
13,693,347.00 I
"No District Allocation
Page 3 of 3
PJ
i
City of Miami
Department of Community Development
Housing Administration
25 - 27 Years
9 _y Project Address Number of Units Number Units
na r S
A!lapattah Business Develop mentAssociation, Inc. �Raloph Plaza! -� - Planned - Completed
�.�
- - -- - 1618 NW 38 Street 21 -- -
Ra! h Plaza 11 - 0
-� - - - - 1518 NW 39 Street -21 - -- - —
0
_ ---
- - - Total: 51
BAME Development �GCPiPCOW�S:ojuth Florida Inc NewNW 5th & 6th Avenue between 6th & 8thStreets40
-
-- - -- -- ---� - 0
CODEC, Inc. - -�-
--- -
- Melrose Townhomes - 27th Street & 12th Avenue
46 ---
- - Victoria Residencia! Apts. _ 3]2 NW 9th Avenue -- - --.
- -
_- - - - __- 100 _ -
Vista Ale re A ts. ` _- _ -
--- - 100
- -- - �_-L_ 2235 SW 8th Street - -- -
-- - -
100
i 100
- - - --- - Total: 246
200 _.
East if le Havana CDC -� - --
- - - Casa Grande Phase I! 901 SW 2nd Street �! _
-- -
-- - --
_� 80 _
- - -
Latin uarler S eclalt Ctr. S W 8th Street & 15th Avenue -- 0
-- SW.8th . � - --- 45 0
- - - - -
- - - - Totat: 125
Edgewater Economic Development Corpi---
5caftered Sites 347th & 401 NE 26th Terrace --�-
--
-- - - 2
Habitat for Humanity of Greater Miami, Inc.
Highland Paris Area _"-
--- - NW 7th Court & 12th Street - ---
_ — _ 10
1a
Libert Cif - -- -
- -- --� ��_ _ _ NW 77th Street & 31st Avenue
- - -- _
10
Total:
20 10
Haven Economic Developments Inc.
- - - - _- -- _- Scattered Sites
_ C
ity of M-iam-10-~� -
`-
0
�ilee CDC
Jubilee Villas
1060 NW 7
1h Street - -
-� -.-. --- - 30
- - Pueblo del Sol Condos 1725-44 NW 15th Street Road j
Rio de! Sol Condos - — 38 0
150]-49 NW 15th Street Road
-- -- --- - 63 l 0 - —
Totat 131
Little Haiti Houslqq Association Inc. -- -
-� _
Biscayne East Townhomes Upper East Side
-- - - - _
- -
Scattered Sites -
- - - - - --- -- Little ka- d -. - _ - 2$
oa; _ 35 _
Miami Dade Community Developrnen� lnc. - ---.- -
0
�;* i
- ... - - -- Scattezd dries
- - - I City of Miami
10
record ire
Connect'10n 6i/t?i1 -- -
item . �(� on�2
7� �
{ z , Page 1 of 2
City of Miami
Department of Community Development
Housing Administration
25 -- 27 Years
Agency Pro
1ect Address
i Mode! Housing Cooperative, Inc. Villas Dr. Godoy f 1455-79 West Fl ler Street
Rafael Hernandez Housing &Economic Dvlpmnt Corp.- Scattered Sites — 11�nwaod
SL Jahn CDC
-_
=Lyn- -� Scattered Sites in Qvertown
Word of Life CDC - Scattered Sites peri -
e
Number of Un
Planned
32
5
15
Number of units
Completed
Cq
- -0 _— C\2
o 1
0
5
First Year receiving funding -
- 72T 214
Page 2 of 2
SDbm],Ied into the public
reconi cc a ecNen with
it°�:�
VLli:cr FCetnan
C� Clerk
0
•
Brick & Mortar Affordable Housing -- February 2002 Status
New Hope Overtown
Agency: BAIVIE Development Corporation of South Florida, Inc.
Project Type: Homeownership / New Construction
Location: Overtown: 620 NW 8th Street
Total Project Cost: $ 3,945,680 (revised to $4,997,560)
Total City Funding: $ 1,463,040
Funds Drawn: $ 669,746
Open Balance (2/21/02): $ 793,293
Affordable Units: 40 of 40
Original Funding: 511195 via Resolution No. 95-303
Status
1) Financing - Financing & budget revised (short evidence on $500,000, revised cost)
2) Construction - Awaiting additional City funds (already approved) to proceed, per BAME
3) Site Control - Special Warranty Deed & Title Insurance on file
4) Contractor - Selected Cazo Construction / Performance & Payment Bond "Rollover"
5) Status of Plans - Plans cleared, Impact fees need to be paid to begin of construction
Project Narrative:
This project consists of the construction of forty (40) new affordable, single family detached
homeownership opportunities for Iow-income and very low-income families in the Overtown
neighborhood. There will be thirty (30) 3 -bedroom and 2 -bathroom homes and ten (10) 4 -
bedroom and 2 -bathroom homes on scattered lots within a two -block area between NW 6th and
8`h Streets and NW 5th and 6th Avenues, a total of approximately 3.2 acres. These lots are
formerly vacant, city -owned parcels. The density of this development is much less than is
allowed by the current zoning in the neighborhood. Upon completion of construction, the
HOME funds will be converted into junior mortgages of approximately twenty thousand dollars
($20,000) each for the individual homebuyers. City HOME funds of $125,000, $800,000 and
$538,040 have been awarded to this project.
Project History:
• 05101195: Resolution No. 95-303 approved $125,000 pre development costs
• 05126196: Resolution No. 96-320 approved $800,000 in HOME funds for project
construction
• 06126101: Loan Committee approved an additional $538,040 in HOME funds.
• Construction delays, are primarily due to difficulties with Miami -Dade Water and Sewer
02-- 227
Submitted Into the pl.1bllc
record in connection wilh
item —[gL _ � 2—
err
City Cleric
•
SAME: New Hope Overtown
Based on Fax received 3/1/02
Original Total I for Revised
cost I Sources Variance
FSte Development 875,010 894,543 19,533
act & Other fees 43,360 - 43,360te Dev, Impact & Other aia 17.
Building Permits
20,000
(20,000)
Construction
2,164,000 3,6
1,533,560
Bonds
3,200
(3,200)
Construction Contingency
40,000
(10,000)
Landscaping, Site Improvements
24,000
24,000
Total construction
292519200 ----3—,7J27,
t.478.36n
Sources of Funds er BAME
Bond
Bond
Cazo Construction - 10/31/00
$ 808,468 $ 808,468
Phase II - no Bond
981,427
Phase III - No Bond
1,296,745
Phase IV - No Bond
711,351
Phase V - No Bond
973,420
Total
$ 4,771,412 $ 808.468
Sources of Funds er BAME
Revised Budget I
Evidenced
Over! short
1a, City of Miami - HOME
1b. City of Miami HOME
800,000
800,000
1. City of Miami - HOME
537,000
538,040
1,040
2. County HOME (revised)
500,000
-
(500,000)
3. County Surtax
400,000
400,000
4. Lenders (revised)
2,760,560
(2,760,560)
- City National Bank (approx)
2,873,597
2,873,597
Total
4,997,560
4,611,637
385,923
0
No evidence, requested again 3/2/02
1a. Agency Cost Allocation report did not include City Funds or Project cost related to $125,000 award
1 b. Resolution No. 96-320
ic. Agency Cost Allocation report misstated City Funds approved (should have been $538,040)
2. No evidence, requested again, via fax on 3102/02 and phone 03/05/02
3. County Surtax 2001 funds: signed by County & BAME, missing even numbered pages, $400,000
4. Private Lenders
Cily National Bank: 5120/99 letter of commitment for construction cost of up to 23 units
Contingent on valid binding contract with purchaser for no less than construction loan amount
No set amount in commitment - need to see proposal to know what the stated cost per unit was
t l'.➢rtl 'a d.; � ii�lfo €1lo public
rocord in ccraPicr..iion with
itern .�cil
Walter Foeman
02— 227 cit► cleric
C�
Brick & Mortar Affordable Housing -- February 2002 Status
Latin Quarter Specialty Center
Agency: East Little Havana Community Development Corporation
Project Type: Homeownership /New Construction
Location: Little Havana: 1475 SW 81h Street
Total Project Cost:
Total City Funding:
Funds Drawn:
Open Balance (3/06/02)
Affordable Units:
Original Funding:
Status:
1) Financing -
2) Construction -
3) Site Control -
4) Contractor -
5) Status of Plans -
$ 7,388,915 (Revisions expected to be forthcoming)
$ 2,600,000 (SHIP & CDBG funds plus City -owned parcels)
$ 435,206
$ 2,164,794 ($1,164,794 CDBG & $1,000,000 SHIP funds)
45 of 45
7/1195 via Resolution No. 95-560 (land parcels)
Full financing evidence on file
Construction has recently begun on the project
Special Warranty Deed
Selected Cazo Construction / Performance & Payment Bond on file
Foundation permit issued
Project Narrative:
The residential component of this project will consist of forty-five (45) new, affordable, two and
three-bedroom condominiums located across from the Tower Theater in Little Havana. The
Commercial / Retail component will be a showcase of the Hispanic Culture, consisting of at least
15,000 square feet available for restaurants, outside cafes, souvenirs and specialty shops
featuring arts & crafts. The complex will consist of four residential stories, ground floor
Commercial / Retail, two elevators, laundry facilities, recreational area and playground, plazas
and parking garage.
Upon completion of construction and sale of all units, if all obligations are met, the CDBG funds
will be considered a grant. City CDBG funds of $1,600,000 and SHIP funds of $1,000,000 have
been awarded to the project.
Project History:
• 07/01/95: Resolution No. 95-560 approved 50-75 unit project on 6 City -owned parcels
• 12/09/97: Resolution No. 97-864 approved $1,000,000 SHIP funding
• 03/24/98: ReCftiiion No. 98-297 approved $1,600,000 CDBG funding for 45 units
• 01/26/99: Resolution No. 99-83 approved a six-month extension for construction
• 03/28/00: Resolution No. 00-257 extended construction commencement to 1212000.
• 12129/00: Demolition permit issued, site preparation begins
• 02/19102: Sufficient Documentation received to support first Draw Request, upward
construction not yet begun. Project Funding should be reconfirmed.
:�ttb 'tfi �l talo the ptiblic
rocord its U),'INection with
• irofa� On
02- 2 2, Walter I=oLman
t;ibl Geri(
ELH: Latin Quarter Specialty Center
Status as of 311/02
Funding
City CDBG
City SHIP
Surtax Loan
LISC Loan
Pacific National Bank
Total Funding
Budgeted
1,600,000
1,000,000
1,650,000
1,200,000
1,938, 915
7
Evidenced Over 1 short Evidence
1,600,000 - Reso. No. 98-297 approved 3/24/98
11000,000 - Reso. No. 97-864 adopted 12/9/97
1,650,000 - FY 2001 County Afford. Housing contract
1,200,000 - 9/16/98 letter from LISC (1) (4) •
2,271,521 332,606 6/2/00 commitment letter
('} Referenced in ELH letter to Ms. Warren dated 6/23/99, in CDBG file
121 FY 2001 Affordable Housing Contract: $1,650,000 Incentive Pool Surtax 2000 funds, signed
also on file: 1997 consolidated RFA: Metropolitan Dade County, $400,000, signed by ELH & Dade County (SHIP file)
(3) 1998 consolidated RFA: Miami Dade County, $400,000, signed by East Little Havana & Dade County (SHIP file)
c4f 9/16/98 letter from LISC confirming 9/9198 approval of $1,200,000 loan, signed and in SHIP file (SHIP & CDBG section)
(s) 6/2/00 commitment letter from Pacific National Bank, signed by Bank but NOT by ELH $2,271,521 (CDBG file - rec'd 3/1)
also 6/17/99 commitment letter from Pacific National Bank, signed by Bank $1938,915 (CDBG file)
cs� Amendment to transfer $400,000 from Casa Grande II to Latin Quarter, to be expended by 12/31/99 (CDBG file)
•
C
i ZY
CJ
FJ
r
•
• 0
Brick & Mortar Affordable Homing -- February 2002 Status
Casa Grande Townhomes - Phase II
Agency: East Little Havana Community Development Corporation
Project Type: Homeownership /New Construction
Location: Little Havana: SE corner SW 10 St and 1st Ave
Total Project Cost: $ 9,606,950
Total City Funding: $ 2,023,609
Funds Drawn: $
Open Balance (2121/02): $ 2,023,609
Affordable Units: 36 of 80
Original Funding: 2121101 via Loan Committee meeting
Status:
1) Financing - Short $1 million project financing, Iack evidence for $3.6 million
2) Construction - Unlikely to begin within the next 6 months
3) Site Control - Warranty Deed and Property Appraiser records
4) Contractor - (status requested)
5) Status of Plans - (status requested)
Project Narrative:
Large scale mixed use development centrally located within the East Little Havana
neighborhood, located within walking distance of the Miami -Dade County Metro Rail, Metro
Mover and S.W. 81h Street, which is one of the city's major commercial corridors. This 13 -story
complex will contain 80 condominium units plus 5000 square feet of commercial retail space and
a 4 -level parking garage to be shared equally by the two Casa Grande buildings.
Project History:
• Loan Committee approval was contingent upon all necessary funding being in place.
- January 22, 2001: Agency indicated that funding is short $1 million
+ Agency has been unable to produce a Phase I Environmental Assessment Update for the
project despite repeated requests.
Subm',tted into the public
record in connection with
iters _-La.— on .3 --7-- 4a-
6 uh,Aktnr I oernan
02- 227 ,,i„rk
Developer: East Little Havana Community Development Corporation
Project: Casa Grande Tower Condominiums Phase 11
Proof of Outside Fund
Sources & Uses
presented to Loan Committee)
Total Amount
_
City of Miami HOME
2,401,738
Commercial Lender (1)
4,850,578
LISC 12)
1,200,000
State of Florida e3)
273,000
M -D County Surtax
500,000
M -D County HOME
150,000
City & Coun Impact Fee Waiver
231.634
Evidence.* Over/ Short)ISpecific Source
2,023,609 (378,129)
2/21/01: Loan Committee minutes
3,728,138 (1,122,440)
7/15//99: Pacific National Bank(')
(1,200,000)
7/13/99: LISC proposed terms, not signed cZt
250,000 (23,000)
12/7/98: Promissory Note, signed (3)
(500,000)
(150,000)
231,634
6,001,747 (3_sns_gn�ti
Note: Total Project Cost & Proposed Financing from the Recommendation to the Loan Committee
Evidence shown here is from the RI=P
Loan Closing Date "Not Later than June 2001." Document signed by Pacific National, but not by East Little Havana
Per Alfredo Duran, they will sign when they need to begin using the moneys
{2� Per
letter does not clanstitute a commitment for financing of the Project.
{3� Florida Department of Community Affairs
i
•
•
Brick & Mortar Affordable Housing -- February 2002 Status
Pueblo del Sol
Agency:
Project Type:
,Jubilee Community Development Corporation
Homeownership / New Construction
Location:
Allapattah: 1700-1744 NW 15"' Street Road
Total Project Cost:
$ 5,495,934
Total City Funding:
$ 500,000
Funds Drawn:
$
Open Balance (2/21102): $ 500,000
Affordable Units:
44 of 44
Original Funding:
6129/00 via Resolution No. 00-532
Status
1) Financing -
2) Construction -
Full financing not on file (short evidence on $3.7 million)
Possible:
3) Site Control -
City funds to pay land & closing of $276,485
Site owned by related party
4) Contractor -
Bid out, General Contractor not yet selected
5) Status of Plans -
Architect working final drawings mid -1/2002, zoning variance approved
Project Narrative:
This project consists of the construction of forty-four (44) new affordable homeownership
opportunities for low-income families. There will be (VERIFY) thirty-four (34) 2 -bedroom and
evolved from a cost of $3,702,442 as proposed in June 2000, to
eight (8) 3 -bedroom condominiums plus two (2) 2 -story 3 -bedroom townhomes. The project has
$5,495,934 current estimated
project cost with reduced parking and increased unit count from 38 to 44.
Project History:
• 6/29/00: Resolution No. 00-532 approved $500,000 in HOME funds
• Zoning variance for reduced parking space count approved in February 2002
Subs ilf.eld into the public
ilei"ri oil .oa-
0 2- 227 City Gierk
Pueblo del Sol
Jubilee CDC
City HOME Loan
Continental Bank Loan�
MD County Surtax (2)
FHFC HOME Loan ray
Deferred Marketing Fees
Deferred Profit (4)
Fannie Mae loan (5)
(increased to 44 Units)
Updated per 2/22/02 Package with revised Sources & Uses
Proof of funding sources
and eted
EvidencedOver/
sh
500,000
500,000
2,359,272
-
2,359,,'
11000,000
1,000,000
9/18/00 letter with check and Promissory Note
1,097,662
34
44,000
-
44,(
495,000
-
495,(
-
250,OOfl
250.[
1,750.000
�!Ux
=viuence source & Description
Uty Resolution 00-532
72
62
1015101 letter with MDCED recommendation
00
00100%
Develo per Profit deferred, not Overhead
00
9/18/00 letter with check and Promissory Note
34
Per PaCkaga received 2/22/02
(1) No documentation on base or increase amount (requested again 2/25/02); as of 316/02, still no documentation received
(2) Miami -Dade Surtax letter dated 1015101: "Agency has been recommended for funding through the CDBG,
HOME and ESG programs, you must submit to this office a revised scope of services and budget that are commensurate
with the funding recommendation, no later than Friday October 19, 2002 at 5:00pm. Jubilee letter of 12/18/01 references
resolution #R-1355-01, no copy enclosed.
® (3) No documentation on file (requested again 2/25/02); as of 316/02, stili no documentation received
(4) "Deferred" items considered unfunded: "Permanent Financing" to cover deferreds from additional $1 Million MD Surtax Loans
i (S) Fannie Mae financing not included in current Cost Allocation plan ... but evidenced as Pueblo del Sal financing with
Promissory Note,
i�
its'
t,
FY
r ieT u t„�
J
•
•
0
Brick & Mortar Affordable Housing -- February 2002 Status
Rio del Sol
Agency: Jubilee Community Development Corporation
Project Type: Homeownership / New Construction
Location: Allapattah: 1501 - 1549 NW 15`h Street Road
Total Project Cost: $ 6,675,153 (revised to $11,000,000)
Total City Funding: $ 593,248
Funds Drawn: $
Open Balance (2/21/02): $ 593,248
Affordable Units: 63 of 63 (revised to 88 of 88)
Original Funding: 2/21/01 via Loan Committee approval
Status
1) Financing - Outside funding shifting (short evidence on $1,206,752, revised cost)
2) Construction - Possible to commence in 6 months: City to pay land & pre -construction
3) Site Control - Owned by related party per Property Appraiser records
4) Contractor - Bid is NOT out. They will use Pueblo bids to pre -qualify for Rio del Sol
5) Status of Plans - Plans not yet submitted, awaiting disposition of parking zoning variance
Project Narrative:
This project will provide new in -fill housing on a 42,400 square foot parcel of land, consisting of
sixty-three (63) affordable homeownership opportunities for low-income families. There will be
thirty-five (35) 2 -bedroom and twenty-eight (28) 3 -bedroom condominiums in an eight story
building. The first level will be for parking only. The project is being revised to expand the
number of housing units.
Project History:
• 2/21/01: Loan Committee approved $593,248 in HOME funds
• Zoning variance for reduced parking space count is being considered in February 2002
• Agency requested SHIP funding due to HOME relocation requirements
• Project is being revised to expand unit count and to include an additional parcel for
parking.
Suboritted' inUoEffhv)),,yypublic
record in 'rrr with
—0.A-
02— 22! Vla'tcv FoefT an
City Clerk
Jubilee CDC: Rio del Sol
Sources & Uses from RPr
Prep: Revised 313/02
— 63 units — -- 88 units —
Ag ustmant vs uver�Snort>
current Revised Vs. Revised
RFP Budget Buduet
Bud et Evidenced Bud et
City of Miami -HOME "�--�� --g—
750,000
f)escriotion
FISC (') 156,752 593,248 593,248
1,270,000 1,270,000
Mtg notes 2/21/01
FHFC WAP Loans "
2 120 000 -
Federal Home Loan Bank (AHP) 5D0,000
Bank Loan - excess of Perm vs Cost 305,967 -
Suntrust Bank - Construction Loan 1,229,186 1,229,186 NA '
Suntrust Bank - Permanent Fin'g _ -
Bank Atlantic (3) NA
- (8,105,252} 8,105,252 8,260,000 94,746
Miami -Dade County- Surtax {4j 500,000 (500,000) 1,000,000
311102 letter from Bank Atlantic
1,000,000
Unidentified or excess precautionary _ 4,698,500 (4,698,500) -
1214101 Resolution #R-1355-01 (not in file)
Dade -County Surtax Loans (term") 4,698,500
6,000,000 (6,000,000)
1
Not evidenced, application to be submitted
Total Pro eat Cost 5,875,153 14,324,847 11,000,000 9,793,248 1,206,752
11,000,000
15,698,500
Notes:
3/3100 Letter of recomendation with terms: LICS / $1,270,000 construction (to be repaid from proceeds of sale)
'this
letter does not constitute a commitment for financing of the Project. Greater Miami LICS must first obtain
approval of your loan request from the Greater Miami LICS Local Credit Committee..
Per Edna Gonzalez email 3/1/02: LISC is no longer associated with this project.
czl ... no comment (2) on this update
(3) Per revised Cost Allocation & Sources and Uses, $8,105,252 of the letter's 18.2Million" will be needed
(4) Resolution referenced in letter from Jubilee dated December 18, 2001. Resolution being sent via US Post,
not arrived as of
3/6/02
Comment•
Technically: there is evidence of financing to cover all except $267k of the project cost.., but this is misleading
The financing structure is changing and I doubt that the financing combination / structure currently evidenced here would
be agreeable to the two private banks currently combined: Bank Atlantic and Suntrust.
til Li3idi�t �a if:�C f P bili
ya-isrfz3C
re r+ dt
wCt`�t in
on
j
Ff C
0
C�
J
Brick & Mortar Affordable Housing -- February 2002 Status
Scattered Site Homeownership
Agency: Scattered Site Home Ownership, LLC
Project Type: Homeownership /New Construction
Location. Little Haiti: multiple parcels provided by the City
Total Project Cost: $ 11,739,950
Total City Funding: $ 360,000 (plus City -owned parcels)
Funds Drawn: $
Open Balance (3/06/02) $ 360,000
Affordable Units: 17 of 17
Original Funding: 12/14/99 via Resolution No. 99-959 (land parcels)
Status:
1) Financing - Short evidence on $1.3 million
2) Construction - Unknown
3) Site Control - Agency working with Law Department on Title Defects on City parcels
4) Contractor - Unknown
5) Status of Plans - Unknown
Project Narrative:
The project will consist of 17 single family homes built on formerly City -owned parcels to
provide homeownership housing opportunities for low-income families in the Little Haiti
neighborhood.
Project History:
• 12/14/99: Resolution No. 99-959 approved the conveyance of 17 City. -owned parcels
• 06/29/00: Resolution No. 00-532 allocated $360,000 to Little Haiti Housing Association
• 07/10/01: Resolution No. 01-692 identified the legal name of the joint venture between
Little Haiti Housing Association, Inc. and Al Townsel, Inc.
Subrn;11ed into thr., public .�
recm-d in connoctk)n wa100
item _L__ on
Walter i=oemaM
Citv Clark
02- 227
Scattered Site Home Ownership, LLC
Financin Confirmation
As of 3/6102; from cost allocation report prepared 2111102
our G,ea Lonnrmea Uverl Short Source
Ci n Plan loan 360,000 360,000 _ Status
Union Planters Bank Resolution No. 00-532 Ok
1,172,775 - 1,172,775 No evidence on file
From Sale Proceeds ���
Other 207,175 - 207,175
Total 1,739,950 360,000 1,379,950 .
Note: This project was added to the list on 316/02 and the agency was not given the same attention and opportunity to respond as the original 6.
(1) Consists of Developer Fees $102,000, Developer Overhead $51,000, Buyer Closing Cost Credit $34,000, Legal fees, appraisals and Real Estate Taxes
s
4
•
0
Brick & Mortar Affordable Housing -- February 2002 Status
Allapattah Garden Apartments
Agency: New Century Development Corporation "' with
The Carlisle Group, Inc. (guarantor)
Project Type: Rental housing / New Construction
Location: Allapattah: Between NW 11th Court & 11th Place and
NW 33rd & 36th Street
Total Project Cost:
Total City Funding:
Funds Drawn:
Open Balance (2121102):
Affordable Units:
Original Funding:
$ 11,707,701
$ 400,000
$ 400,000
128 of 128
2121101 via Loan Committee Meeting
Status:
1) Financing - Outside funding shifting (short evidence on $1.3M `Z')
2) Construction - Guarantor feels construction commencement within 6 months is feasible
3) Site Control - Warranty Deed on file
4) Contractor - To go out to bid for General Contractor during week of 3111102
5) Status of Plans - Plans approved
Project Narrative:
Located in a primarily residential area of the Allapattah neighborhood, Allapattah Garden
Apartments will consist of twenty-eight (28) 2 -bedroom and one hundred (100) 3 -bedroom units
with easy access to government service programs, parks, child care services, and public
educational and medical facilities. This will be a gated community with carded entry and contain
a daycare facility for children on site with daily, supervised and structured after-school programs
and tenant activities to bring residents together and promote community pride.
Project History:
• 2121101: Loan Committee approved $400,000 HOME funding
• City funding commitment was limited to six months, meanwhile:
- Agency applicant has been unresponsive to requests from City
- Guarantor began actively responding to requests in mid-December 2001
• Project cost estimate has increased by $700,000 and financing has shifted between sources
since original RFP: Housing credit eliminated, Bank financing increased, County SHIP loan
has partially replaced County Surtax loan.
as Allapattah Gardens, Ltd.
Per .9uarentor: Housing Credit program requires deferral of payment, to be paid from project
operating income (includes deferred Administrative Overhead)
too pubiic
rocard in c,,)nne,,A10 n with
o3i
On
-- "2 2'7 �'�usl"ma
02 -city cletty
llapattah Garden Apartments
FF
Source
inancia Confirmation
HCLC Februa 21, 2001
Status
Ok
As of 3/5/02
8123/01 commitment letter, sl ned
Ok
Ci HOME loan
Bud eted
Confirmed
Charter Municipal Mortg Acceptance:
400,000
400,000
Construction Loan
Amendment for Revised Scope of Services,
4,850,000
4,850,000
Related Ca ital Com an
3,6511000
3,651,000
County Surtax Loan
500,000
500,000
County SHIP Loan
750,000
750,000
Net Other Income
230,180
230,180
Deferred Profit
960,734
Deferred Admin Overhead
375,787
-
Other
Total
11,717,701
10,381,180
rr 5tlort
Source
-
HCLC Februa 21, 2001
Status
Ok
-
8123/01 commitment letter, sl ned
Ok
2/21/02 letter to be, sent - contingent oa LIHTC
-
be' n a lied for 3/02
Contint
Amendment for Revised Scope of Services,
extending construction commencement &
completion, signed, dated 11127/01; signed (pre -
revision) contract also enclosed
Ok
-
Confirmation letter - no date
-
Interest Income on Funds
Ok
960,734
To be Daid from Operating Income er Sonia
375,787
To be paid from Operating Income Der Sonia
1,336.521)
•f
L
i
r_/15T LITTLE HAVANA
A
C0r1M1JN[Tl' 1EVE1,0r^1r_,^!T
c okror ITIor
BOARD nl Ir1R1.C1'OR5
Nbria FIeIl.i Pr[,
Prew,h u:
Rr . f ii, r.,m: „ ...L
An[.,[i,, r .
EV%Ci'Ti I_i,1RL_�IOk
Main (Wira
16UyCnull\,n. ,oiEL 41C
Miami. H ;
Rl,, ] m.
40. Sti , .,P[: -.._.,,' II,�,,i
NIta[n[. FL ,I ,t
svwu.th�rt�ta��Ir ��rehnrn�herclrlh"1.
March 6, 2002
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
City of Miami
City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
•
Re: Item #6 of City of Miami Commission Meeting Agenda for March 7,
2002. (Resolution Adopting a Planning Calendar for the Twenty -Eighth
(280') Year Community Development Block Grant.)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Commissioners:
At the City of Miami Commission meeting of March 7, 2002, the
Department of Community Development (DCD), will present for your
approval. Item No.6, under the Public Hearing Items of the agenda, entitled
"RESOLUTION- (J-02-200) --- (ADOPTING A PLANNING CALENDAR
FOR THE TWENTY-EIGHTH (28 rfi) YEAR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT)
The need to comply with all Federal regulations with respect to the yearly
CDBG process is well understood and respected by East Little Havana CDC
(ELHCDC). However, as with the required public advertisement published
in our local newspapers announcing this public hearing, the title of this item
also fails to represent the adverse impact of certain recommendations being
made by the DCD, with respect to the development of affordable
homeownership projects in the City of Miami.
It is with great disbelief that we find ourselves with the need to address such
insensitive and obviously unanalyzed recommendations being made by a
department, which represents the City's participation of 28 years with a
program created to improve the economic, social and housing needs of our
City's low income residents.
We would first like to address if not ask why; the DCD is allowed to make
such recommendations without including in its planning process, the
organizations that will be affected most. Including in the planning process,
all of the players involved in the creation of affordable housing, will
generate educated recommendations which 41 benefit the City of Miami,
Submitted into the po)lic
reCond in connection) with
Item on -�Q :7-
02-
02- 227 W&R&r--F �-�
Citta r'�•=�<
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March 6, 2002
Page 2.
the organizations, which provide services. and more importantly the residents of our
communities,
Following are ELHCDC's concerns with the recommendations proposed by the DCD
and some alternative steps or recommendations that may be taken in order to address
some of the issues confronting DCD.
Housing Administration:
DCD Recommendation: Eliminate the award of HUD funds for housing
administration. Administrative costs would be provided through development fees
generated through the build out of successful projects.
ELHCDC Comments: This recommendation fails to take into consideration the many
important and distinct differences in the development of affordable rental as apposed to
affordable homeownership projects.
Developers involved with the development of affordable rental projects do so utilizing
either the State of Florida Tax Credit Program or the HUD Section 202 Housing for the
Elderly Program. Both of these programs which are exclusive for rental projects,
provide said developer with a direct, non -repayable subsidy layer covering 80% and
above of the total cost of development. With such a large portion of the total
development cost covered by these subsidies, the developer's financing package is
virtually complete, with only the need to perhaps seek funding from one public or
private source, usually done within the same year as the subsidies are granted. This
translates into a shorter pre -development time to get a project under construction. In
addition, developers of affordable rental projects do not have to concern themselves
with the low real estate -market values, typical of distressed neighborhoods. Their only
task is to lease the building with low-income renters, usually done in a period of 30
days. With a fully occupied building, generating at or close to market rents, and with
virtually the entire building subsidized at below market interest rates, if not differed
financing, these developments generate a handsome net income each year, in addition to
the development and overhead/administration fees generated during construction of 8 to
15%, as well as the on-going yearly management fees. Clearly, understanding the
tremendous profit potential in a short period of time generated by affordable rental
projects, developers of rental projects will suffer very little when confronted with the
possibility of the City eliminating additional administrative funding. However, the DCD
is recommending the continued administrative support for these types of developments.
.,,.Lilb3s nit!._, il,,o publft,
on
tfV,-.lfcr Poeman
02 227 bity Cleric
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March 6, 2002
Page 3.
On the other hand, developers of affordable homeownership projects such as ELHCDC,
face a completely different list of challenges and obstacles. The primary obstacle is
market values. As we all know, the cost of constructing a building in Coral Gables for
example, is the same as constructing the same building in Little Havana. However, the
market value (appraised value) of the finished units is grossly lower in Little Havana.
That obligates the developer of affordable homeownership units in the Little Havana
neighborhood to sell the units for less than it cost to build them and, to seek subsidized
grants to cover the shortfall between the cost of the construction and the future sell out
value of the units. Typically, this shortfall equates to approximately 30% of the total
cost of development. Having said that, we must also take into consideration, the size of
the proposed homeownership development. The grant subsidy needs of a 10 -unit
development are not as demanding as that of an 80 -unit development.
Since affordable homeownership projects do not have the luxury of programs such as
the State of Florida tax credit or HUD Section 202 programs, a developer of affordable
homeownership units must seek its grant financing from the local government sources.
This brings us to obstacle number two, the availability of funds. Both the City and the
County have limited funds available on a yearly basis and many applicants requesting
funds. The county for example does not provide grant financing to projects located
within incorporated areas, such as the City of Miami. Although their financial
participation is essential to the success of a project, it does not help in covering the
shortfall between the cost and sell-out value of a homeownership project. In addition,
their annual funding limits of $500,000 per Request for Proposal (RFP) creates the need
to apply for funds over a two to three year period in order to arrive at the funding needs
of a project. Only the City can provide the "grant" or "forgivable loan" financing
needed to a project located within the City of Miami. With the lack of available grant
financing, together with the limited sources available, a developer of affordable
homeownership projects such as ELHCDC does not include the cost of Development
fees and/or Overhead/Administration into the cost of the project. This legitimate cost
that equates to approximately 15% to 20% of the total development cost would translate
into the need for additional grant financing which would have to be provided by the
City. In a project such as the Latin Quarter Specialty Center, currently under
construction, the development and overhead administration would have added an
additional $1,500,000 to the already $7.8M cost, an additional $1,5M that would have
had to come from the City in the form of a grant or forgivable loan.
Factoring in the need to secure subsidized financing for the low income homebuyers,
which typically calls for the participation of two, three or four sources, qualifying
buyers, preparing them for homeownership, working with various lenders to secure
commitments for the families, as well as, the aforementioned time needed to secure all
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item L_ on --�-07-v_s
227 Welter i=oeman
®
Cita Clerk
0
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March 6, 2002
Page 4.
of the construction financing, an affordable homeownership developments can take up
to 3 years before construction commences. Clearly, with the time needed to successfullN,
commence with the construction of a project, and the inability to generate a fee to the
developer due to the limited funding sources, it is critical for the City of Miami to
continue to provide administrative support to a developer of affordable homeownership
projects. Even if the City was.to provide the additional $1 -SM of development and
overhead fee as with the Latin Quarter example, how is an agency going to survive
during the three-year development period without any financial assistance? Where is an
organization going to get the pre -development funds needed to pay for architectural,
engineering, housing development staff and other professional services needed to move
a project along? Simply, impossible.
ELHCDC Recommendation: Instead of eliminating administrative assistance as
recommended. DDC should carefully assess the needs of each project individually.
Taking into consideration such factors as: Type of project, in terms of homeownership
versus rental, size of project, financing needs of a project, location, and other critical
characteristics of each project. Work with the developer in creating a sensible time -line
complete with benchmarks and thresholds that identify clearly the on-going progress of
the project from pre -development through completion and sell out of the units. During
this time, provide administrative assistance, through the Federal CDBG funding, to the
developer in line with what a development should generate in development fees and
overhead/administration and pro -rated over the agreed development time -line. If the
development is not meeting its time lines and the developer cannot satisfactorily justify
it, then the City should seize the administrative assistance.
Timely Expenditure of Housing Funds,
DCD Recommendation: Due to funds provided to affordable homeownership projects
that have been dormant for a period of time, DCD is confronted with the possible non-
compliance of expenditure time -lines, as well as inhibiting the development of
affordable housing units which are ready to begin construction by tying up funds
committed to projects with additional financing or pre -development needs.
DCD recommends the utilization of a two-tier process that basically commits funding
for approved housing projects in principal at the first tier and then funds projects
previously approved in principle when they are ready to commence construction.
Funding would then be provided to construction ready projects on a first come first
served basis from existing, available dollars that had been targeted to housing
construction.
Sa, Umift_cd ire'(.) tho Pui)lic
rt :"'orcl hi ccnn c ion tid .h
s3- 7-D3
or
02- 22 '^l'tf:;r1citrtar�
City Glorlk
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March b, 2002
Page 5.
DCD furthers recommends that funding will only be provided to developers which have
secured the site, all project financing, and appropriate insurance and bonds in place.
ELHCDC Comments: As previously mentioned, affordable homeownership
developments need the financial assistance of a wide variety of funding sources, from
private to other public sources that take up to three years to assemble, depending on the
type and size of a project. When a project is located in the City of Miami, it is
reasonable to accept that these other funding sources will look for the City's
participation and commitment prior to considering their own. Private and other public
sources, not to mention the developers themselves cannot feel comfortable providing
financing if there isn't a guarantee that all of the funds needed to complete the project
are in line and available to the project. A fund, located in a pool for the taking, is not a
commitment to a project and will not allow for a developer of affordable
homeownership projects to secure other funding sources.
With respects to the requirements of having secured the site and having all of the
financing and construction bonding in place prior to the City's participation in a project:
It is hard to imagine that such a condition be placed on a project that first and foremost
will be located in the City of Miami and benefit the City's residents and tax base. As
previously mentioned, other private and public funding sources will look for the City to
take care of its own, prior to joining it. It is ludicrous for the City to expect others to
help build it before it helps itself. In addition, the requirement of having a full
construction bond in place (which is generated by the General Contractor but paid by
the developer) indicates that the project, depending on size has expended close to a
million dollars on architectural drawings and has secured a General Contractor, which
now creates a legal obligation to the contractor and sub -contractors. If for any reason,
the project stalls, or fails to be developed due the lack of available funds in the "pool",
the developer faces an array of penalties and/or law suits for breach of contracts,
ELHCDC Recommendation: The staff of DCD needs to better manage its current and
future allocations of HOME, SHIP and CDBG program funds. With careful planning,
financing commitments can be made to projects by DCD, after the aforementioned
development of time -lines have been created, based on the needs of different types of
projects. Commitments can be made identifying the type of subsidy, but not the year.
When a project is ready to commence. Program funds from the current year can be used
for that project. On an on-going basis, DCD can monitor the status of each project's
time -lines and the availability of funds and make sound decisions as to which funds to
spend on what project, as well as the availability of funds for new funding proposals.
�apt3'r.�1,,,M�,..�.R.�C:' !m 15531.1�� !!,
item
3 7 -ns
02- 227 ��vr.,
r
City Clerk
0 i
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March b. 200?
Page G.
The staff of DCD is further recommending that certain projects be de -funded and have
the funds placed in the recommended pool. This recommendation has been made
without DOD's staff understanding the literal reasons why these projects have not
commenced. In the case of Latin Quarter, they are recommending to take funds from a
project that has commenced, has the construction bond, has the General Contractor and
all of the other requirements, plus has a legal obligation to its contractor and other
lenders. How, can anyone in their right minds, with any level of understanding of a
construction project, recommend taking funds from a project under construction that has
already been partially funded by the City and is on pace to expend all of the City funds
within the next 4 to S months. Taking the funds away from the project now, would
basically mean the City cutting its own throat by placing a successfully commenced
construction in danger of not meeting its financial needs.
If any of these issues are not dealt with in the appropriate way, which is, to bring all of
the players involved to a table and develop a policy that will ensure compliance,
production and timely expenditure of funds. Utilize the expertise of those in the
trenches, to develop educated policies that work and will arrive at the goal of provide
safe. decent and affordable homeownership opportunities to our residents. Furthermore.
to rebuild and revitalize the neighborhoods by bringing on line new construction units
to an area forgotten by the private developers for over 30 years,
We respectfully request that before you approve these recommendations that will in
essence destroy the ability of successful not -far -profit affordable homeownership
organization such as ELHCDC to continue developing, you please instruct the DCD to
go back and work with all of the players to produce a policy that will work for all
involved.
Thank: you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely.
Anita Rodriguez-Tejera
Executive Director
c. Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager
ta1�E��iGkim' .i itlto the public
ryy� (.O,r`;9 It3 ia.�E�i� �:1r`E^��i i� with
02- 227
cit, Glom(
• 0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RELATING
TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
r e'
NNI/
The Miami City Commission will hold a Public Hearing to discuss issues relating to the Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The Public Hearing will be held: ---
Thursday, Marcb 7, 2002
City of Miami Comminion Chamber
3500 Pam American Drive
Miami, Florida 33I33
he City Commission Meetin�Agenda will include the foilov�g_ttems-MisUM to the CDR; tk.,�,.,
I. Discussion and proposed resolution on l' + - V
program activities, includingWining Calendar for 28 Year CDBG and other HUD
policies relating to the 2E Year Request for Proposals Process
2. Discussion end proposed -
resolutions relating to the restru
=Lmn Of the SRehabilitation Program and amended Local Housing Assistance Plan,r submissionmttoethe Family
of Florida, to implement the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP)
Program in the City
Interested individuals are encouraged to attend this Public Hearing. The meeting site is accessible to the
handicapped,
(AD NO. 09794) 1
L
N��j c
fiDm ivy(
0- f
MiAI��
C 2s
f �'Fu Kb) t , j
fc) P, cmc Rdm�
h i S�rQrt O)'�
record EeI coitsi"'4 On ttiiei'1
rnU�n'
02- 2 2'7 C!1V Clark
Following is the proposed schedule for the 28t° Year planning process:
April 1, 2002 - Availability of 2e Year Requests for Proposal
Week of April 8, 2002 and April 15, 2002 - District Public Hearings (contingent
on schedules of each City Commissioner; also note that there is a 10 day public
notice requirement)
May 7, 2002 - Deadline for submission of 280h Year Requests for Proposal (Note:
This is a firm deadline and proposals submitted after the due date will not be
accepted)
Prior to July 12, 2001 - Special City Commission Meeting allocating 280' Year
Funds (date to be set by City Commission, but must be within the 30 day public
comment period window to meet the August 16, 2002 submission date to U.S.
HUD)
August 16, 2001 - Submission of 28h Year Annual Action Plan to U.S. HUD
October 1, 2001 - Commencement of.2e.Year Activities
It is important to emphasize that the August 16, 2002 deadline is critical to satisfy federal
regulations. However, it should also be noted that the City Commission is able to amend
the Annual Action Plan at a later date providing that it complies with the process outlined
in its Citizen Participation Plan.
It is also important to note that the proposed two -weep window between April 8-19 to
hold the District Public Hearings is predicated on the schedule availability of each,
individual City Commissioner. Historically, each City Commissioner has submitted the
request for the Public Hearing to the City Clerk, identifying the date and location of the
meeting. In each of the last two years, there have been occasions when thea have been
multiple meetings held on the same evening. The Administration has receivers public
input requesting that coincidental meetings not be held on the same night to give the
Public an opportunity to attend all the meetings. This will also provide an opportunity for
elected officials to attend meetings in other Districts if so desired. In addition,' the
Administration now has the capability to televise the Public Hearings live on the City of
Miami cable network. However, this capability is limited to one site per night.
Therefore, it is recommended that each Commissioner submit the preferred Public
Hearing date to the City Clerk, who will then be responsible for scheduling the Public
Hearing -on a first come, first served basis. If a Commissioner submits a date that has
already been taken, the City Clerk will advise that Commissioner to select an altemative
date.
In addition to the proposed calendar, the Administration is requesting policy direction
regarding several important issues relating directly to the planning activities for 28* Year
HUD grant activities. These issues include the following topics:
S.
l�
! Public I
SUN-.ke'r,.��41 dilii� ttheubi
rocord in car nnc-c lon with
iid
item &. � carr
02 227 Waltor FoE411an
City Cleric
Housing. administration
Historically, the City Commission has awarded CDBG funds to community-based
organizations for Housing Administration activities. Conceptually, funding in this
category has been predicated on a performance basis, with the proposed staff
recommendations supporting those organizations that had demonstrated success in
developing affordable housing units and/or had developments in the pipeline. However,
in evaluating this process, there is an inherent flaw in the system in that agencies that had
been successful in receiving financial support from the City for brick and mortar projects
were being recognized for approved projects that were not completely ready to be built
out. For example, an organization may have received City funding for a 60 -unit project
that may be years away from actual development, yet this Agency would still be credited
� '
for providing 60 units. _ �t 01 1l{�O KP_ OIA) h
enco=gcs public/Vnivate 1!,artnershiE thro Ithe RFP process by funding briar and
mortar activities of a housing. proj and, with one notable exception,
eliminggU the award of HLTD_fWi&-T5-r_Nd_—usmg administration. Administrative costs
would be provided thmu v ccs generated through the build out of
successful projects. This method of fimding will eliminate the system flaw of inflated
housing numbers that currently determine awards for housing administration. The one
notable exception includes programs where administrative fee assessments are prohibited
for an organization to generate administrative funding, such as the development of
elderly housing projects through the Section 202 Housing Program for the Elderly and
similar programs. To provide funding for these organizations, it is recommended that
14.40,000 of CDBG funds be set aside for this purpose.
ITirnely Expenditure of Housing Funds
In assessing the status of previously approved housing projects by either the City
Commission or the Housing and Commercial Loan Committee, it is apparent that there
are significant amounts of.CDBG and HOME funds that remain dormant for extensive
periods of time. This dormant period creates two significant problems. First, as funds
remain inactive, this becomes a ,potential issue for the funding source regarding the
timely expenditure of funds. Secondly, these inactive obligations actually inhibit the
development of affordable housing since available funding is tied to specific projects.
In simple terms, the Administration proposes the u ' ' a two-tier process that
basicallycommits funding for approved housing eq 'n t the first tier and
io
then funds projects prevus y my in principle when they are ready to commence
construction. Funding would then be provided to construction on a fizst
SQmz.hrmsemmd basis from existin , available dollars that had been targeted to housing
construction. The City of Miami would provide commitment letters to projects approved
at the first tier level to enable the developer to solicit additional financial support.
Subrrit"-l into the public
rocord ill cc2G'UOn with
itm -k-. on . L
yf- 22/ Wafter -.�o.®e,mo..�a-
n
City Clerk
••�� it • I •
irr�r 1 e Y �r r r -�ri1H 1 FA, rr a6
r r r ii r itis a 1' _r-quo)Wi • 1/ 1 r r
ne �t funding cycle. lar strategy was successfully implemented to expedite ie
expen 'tore a ds for CDBG Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) when HUD
threatened to recapture unused funds from entitlement recipients that were not in
compliance with the 1.5 spending ratio.
If the City Commission concurs with this policy, the Administration will schedule a
Public Hearing to formally adopt this policy and transfer funding obligations of
previously approved housing projects that have been inactive for at least one year to a
housing funding pool. It must be clearly understood that this de -obligation will not
terminate the City's commitment to eventually fund the project, but will merely free up
funds to meet immediate needs that can be met with existing funds or the next cycle of
funding. Under the proposed policy, the commitment would remain in effect for an
additional twelve months. If construction has still not begun at that point, then the
developer would have to resubmit its proposal for consideration at the Tier 1 level again.
It must also be understood that under the current guidelines, as a result of the settlement
of the Audit Report issued by the Office of the Inspector General March 27, 1998,
funding approvals at both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels must be approved by the Housing
and Commercial Loan Committee,
For aur information, funding for the
the new housing pool if the ity ori
Housing Project
ng housing protects would be transferred to
concurs with this recommendation: N
1.0
Date Originally
Appropriated:
Allocation Fmml Yr rant Yr
BAME Dev. Corp. – New Hope Overtown
$ 793,400
>'-- -,East Little Havana CDC-- Casa Grande Towers 11
$2,023,609
�ast Little Havana CDC– Latin Quarter
$2,600,000
Gatehouse – Brisas del Mar-
$ 5401000
Jubilee CDC - Pueblo del Sol
$' 500,000
Jubilee CDC -- Rio del Sol
$ 593,208
Little Haiti Housing – Scattered Site
S 360,000
New Century DevJCarhsle Group – Allapattah Garden $___400-000
Total $7,810,217
Public Service QR
1996
22nd
2000
26th
1997
23rd
2001
27th
1999
25th
2000
26th
1999
25th
2000
261h
As previously advised during the 27'h Year CDBG process, Program Year 27 is the third
and final year of the Public Service cap waiver authorized by the U.S. Congress for the
City of Miami. Federal regulations typically limit the amount of CDBG funds that can be
directed to public service activities to I517c of an entitlement recipient's annual CDBG
C&Y\-hqI
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
itom � ori
02— 227 Walter Foornai t
• City Cleric
allocation. Congress authorized a temporary increase in the Cit -of Miami's Public
Service cap to 25% for a three (3) year period. Beginning n the 28 CDBG Year, which
will commence October 1, 2002, the City's Public Service cap will revert back to the
15% level, which, in effect, will mean a 10% reduction in funds available for Public
Services in Program Year 28.
In the current year, the City Commission allocated a total of $3,287,000, which
represents 25% of the 27h Year entitlement grant as authorized by the special federal
legislation. However, in Program Year 28, the return to the 15% cap will limit the
available allocation of CDBG dollars for public services to $1,928,400, a reduction of
$1,358,500 from the current year. Even if the City Commission directs the
Administration to request a continuation of the 25% cap limit and Congress adopts
legislation to restore the 25% cap to the City of Miami, the probability is that this
authorization would not be effective until Program Year 29. As a result, public service
dollars, which are constantly in demand, would be at an even gmater premium through
the upcoming allocation process. In the Public Services caiegory during the 27`s Year
RFP process, the response from agencies competing for CDBG funds in this category
included over 80 proposals totaling more than $14 million. It is anticipated that an open,
competitive process would elicit similar results.
Therefore, to eliminate the frustration of potential applicants in a futile and realistically
non-competitive RFP process, it is recommended that the City Commission limit public
service proposals to meet the basic needs in the categories of programs providing services
to the elderly and disabled. Although there is obviously an overwhelming demand for
services in other categories historically funded through the City of Miami CDBG
Program, the Administration believes that the elderly and disabled populations comprise
the most vulnerable groups in need of services with the limited funds available. This
does not minimize the service need in other categories, but the recommendation takes
into consideration other funding sources that may be appropriate to address the needs in
these other categories. For your information, the attachment to this memorandum
includes a funding history of projects funded over the past three (3) years,
In addition, the following information provides a breakdown of the 27`h Year allocation
in the Public Service Category by service area:
Service Area Fundin Amount
Elderly Programs $1,681,221
Programs for the Disabled $ 311,485
Youth Activities $ 474,750
Childcare $ 515,500
Other $ 304.444
$3,287,000
The policy recommendation would further prioritize existing programs for the elderly and
disabled that have performed satisfactorily. Obviously, this is an unprecedented
recommendation that will undoubtedly meet resistance, but it is a strategy that
,�ubr,-�P.tc-d into tho public
record in connection with
itern o...i!2�..;__ On 3 -?
02— 22 rafter Foeman
City Glens
«4
realistically recognizes prioritization of services and limited funding available to mee,
public service need,.- To minimize the impact on youth activities, the Administration
further recognizes that Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF) could be a viable source to
address the funding needs in this service area. It is also recommended that the City
Commission direct the Administration to work with the Police Chief to coordinate a
consolidated application process that would consider LETF funds to address the needs of
youth that may be eligible through this source.
Use of Funds in Program Year 28
Finally, the Administration seeks City Commission direction relating to the proposed use
of HUD funds in Program Year 28. Through this direction, the Administration will be
able to determine the appropriate funding levels that will be made available through the
28m Year RFP process. The following chart provides an overview of 27`4 Year funding
and proposed 28'h Year funding:
CDBG:
27" Year
Funding Area Allocation
Grant Administration (20%)
$2,629,000
Public Services
$3,287,000
Economic Development
$2,085,000
Housing Administration
$1,250,000
Section 108 Loan Guarantee
$1,100,000
Historic Preservation
$ 327,100
CRA Baseline Funding
S 479,900
Little Haiti Job Creation Project
$ 225,000
Lot Clearing
$ 350,000
Code Enforcement
$1,000,000
Demolition
$ 485,000
Historic Preservation Project (City)
$ 225,000
E.L. Havana Homeownership (City)
$ 140,000
Downtown Development Authority
-0-
0 -
Total
Total $13,583,000
Praposed 28`h Year
Allocation
$2,517,200
$1,928,400
$2,835,500
$ 410,000
$1,500,000
$ 330,000
$ 479,900
$ 225,000
$ 350,000
$1,000,000
S 500,000
$ -0-
-0-
$ 750,000
$12,856,000
stsbm!tted into the public
record in connection with
itom _-_ C)r, ...3 ..7 - o )-
�' •. W iter t=oer,nai
02- City CIcr6,
k
HOME:
27" Year Proposed 2R'h Year
Funding Area Allocation Allocation"
Grant Administration (10%)
$ 542,300
$ 540,900
CHDO Set Aside (15%)
$ 813,450
$ 811,350
Model City Homeownership Zone
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
CRA
$ 262,000
$ 262,000
Homeownership Projects
$1,728,938
$1,721,062
Rental Projects
576,312
573 6 8
Total
$5,423,000
$5,409,000
*Note — If the City Commission approves the policy recommendation to de -
obligate previously approved projects that have been inactive for one year as
proposed above, then the de -obligated amount of HOME funding resulting from
the de -obligation would also be available for distribution (75% for
homeownership projects and 25% for rental projects in accordance with
previously approved City Commission policy)
HOPWA
271h Year Proposed 28m Year
Funding_Area Allocation AIlocation*
Grant Administration (370)
$ 308,070
$ 374,460
Long Term Assistance
$7,362,930
$8,622,000
Utilities
$1,380,000
$1,290,000
Project Operations
$1,218,000
$1,218,000
Special Projects
- 0 .
277
Total
$10,269,000
$12,482,000
It is recommended that the City Commission adopt the proposed Resolution that sets the
Planning Calendar for the 28' Year HUD grant process. In addition, it is requested that
the City Commission provide policy direction regarding the other issues identified in this
memorandum.
LM
DB/GCW/DF
'9ubEi'1li sl lns o iho public
rocord in coinnection with
lteM
02— d �`�`''Pal t e- r Foes an
city Geri(
City of Miami
Department of Community Development
Homeownership
Housing Administration 25 - 27 Years
F- - — -
Agency Name
25 Year
26 Year
27 Year
Total Funding
Number of Units
Number of Units
1 Alla attah Business DevelopmentAutho ' Inc.
----- - _
- --
$
---
50,000.00I $
- -- __+-_
50,000.00
- -
, $ 50,000.00
-
$
150,000.00
Planned
51�
'i Completed
_
'___O
p-_-
2 BAME Development Corp_ of South Florida,Inc.
-� . _
} $ _
48,296.00; $
50,019.00
f $ 82,762.00
$
181,077.00
40
-
0
3 Coconut Grove LDC - -
! 4 ;CODEC,Inc.
!
$ __42,194.00
$
145,560.
42,194.00
--
10
---
p —
_
5 East Little Havana CDC
Edgewater Economic Development Corp.
—
$
$
00 i $
—_
422, 340.00 $
47,208.00 $
223,319.00
325, 000.00
4fi 463.00
- —
$ 225,000.00
_ -
$ '000.00
--
$ - _
$593,879.00
--
$
$
9 72, 340.00
93 671.00_-
—
_
246
125
--�--�
_
_
--
---
7Florida Housing
8 Greater Miami Neighborhood
9 Habitat for Human' _ '
_ o of Greater Miami, Inc.
-
—
___-
$
$
$
_ __
4g 804.00
112,900.00 $
74 475-00
- , -�
$
181,293.00
75,000.00
$ _ --
$
-___20__
$ li7,000.00
$-
$
$
49, 804.00
294,193.00
266,475.00
--
�0
0 — --
0 1
32—`
0
i0 , Haven Economic Development; Inc.
-- -
$
$
-
, $ 50, 000.00
_
$ 107, 238.00
—
10
—
0
$ 50, 000.00
- -�
$99,839.00
$ 244, 089.00
11
12
Jewish Famil —
Y $ 46,489.00
Jubilee CDC $— 50,62Z00
--_ — �_
$ 53,350.00
$ 86, 229.00
0
0 ----
-`
13
14
Little Haiti Housing Association, Inc.
Miami -Dade Community Development, Inc.
$
$
49,963.00
-
$
$
91,446.00
-
$ 75,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$
216,409.00
131
35
0
0 -W
15
Mode! Housing Cooperative, Inc.
555.00
__$-50'006.-00
$ 58, 000.00
$
$
_ 50,000.00
170, 555.00
_10
32
—
---
0
Q
16
-
17 ;
, Rafael Hemandez Housing & Economic Development
°St. John CDC_
-- - $—
48, 728.00
' $
-- 49, 501.00
$ -
_$
98,229.00
5
�—
0 ;
$
$
_ 250, 000.00
144, 916.00
15
5
—
_2
0 --
18
_ �- - ; $ 200, 000.00
rd of Life CDC $ 83, 495.00
$ _50, 000.00
$ 49,421.0 0
$ -
$ 12,000-00
Totals: $ 1,534,629.00
$
1,381,041.00
$ 1,052,000.00
$
3,967,670.00
769
214
`* Elderfy Housing
f
71
Elderly Housing
200
—
- -
—
Homeownership 14
Total.
214
E\d
` f,7.nmiffed l Z,c,
rc,,ord 1n Conn eGil."T<;
item �5
oil
L
City
Page 1 of 1
1
>,
r:
a
E16T LITTLE I -vi VAINn
(:oMi' IMITv DEVELor-NEnT
c:orcr-OKITIon
March 6, 2002
0
It is with great disbelief that we find ourselves with the need to address such
insensitive and obviously unanalyzed recommendations being made by a
department, which represents the City's participation of 28 years with a
program created to improve the economic, social and housing needs of our
East Little• ki:r.,;n.i CDC
main orricc City's low income residents.
1609 Gorn114as_ "1w;:30,
I 1 i l ! :
" We would first like to address if not ask why; the DCD is allowed to make
i -,t, - such recommendations without including in its planning process, the
Rio To%kci, organizations that will be affected most. Including in the planning process,
411• S%k ; �E,_ r. _,',,1,,,,,, all of the players involved in the creation of affordable housing, will
Miami. FL.311=0 generate educated recommendations which ill benefit the City of Miami,
Tcl / F:i% 0,05).',_14 17 1c;
E-mail -:ih�'el iihrli> uth.net ubmitis)d into the public
www.tirtrida d(:-r1rehttemhers/eIhcdc record In connection with
item -&- on 3---2--0 a
—
227 Valie;r Foernan
City Clark
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
City of Miami
City Hall
BOARD of NREc roRS
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
Marfa Eleir:i Yr,
Re: Item #6 of City of Miami Commission Meeting Agenda for March 7,
Slrr'-f'+r +iJn::
2002. (Resolution Adopting a Planning Calendar for the Twentv-Eighth
(28h) Year Community Development Block Grant.)
"furl r rr.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Commissioners:
••
.Ser r'ZYr, r
At the City of Miami Commission meeting of March 7, 2002, the
Department of Community Development (DCD), will present for your
approval, Item No.6, under the Public Hearing Items of the agenda, entitled
"RESOLUTION- (1-02-200) — (ADOPTING A PLANNING CALENDAR
FOR THE TWENTY-EIGHTH (28T11)YEAR COMMUNITY
,<. ,,....
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT)
ill. �'i:i', -..,-11hi•.
The need to comply with all Federal regulations with respect to the yearly
CDBG process is well understood and respected by East Little Havana CDC
(ELHCDC). However, as with the required public advertisement published
in our local newspapers announcing this public hearing, the title of this item
LXEC I i I -P, V MRI: TOR
also fails to represent the adverse impact of certain recommendations being
made by the DCD, with respect to the development of affordable
lnitu rei,+i iz,, iri i -I4 e r..
homeownership projects in the City of Miami.
It is with great disbelief that we find ourselves with the need to address such
insensitive and obviously unanalyzed recommendations being made by a
department, which represents the City's participation of 28 years with a
program created to improve the economic, social and housing needs of our
East Little• ki:r.,;n.i CDC
main orricc City's low income residents.
1609 Gorn114as_ "1w;:30,
I 1 i l ! :
" We would first like to address if not ask why; the DCD is allowed to make
i -,t, - such recommendations without including in its planning process, the
Rio To%kci, organizations that will be affected most. Including in the planning process,
411• S%k ; �E,_ r. _,',,1,,,,,, all of the players involved in the creation of affordable housing, will
Miami. FL.311=0 generate educated recommendations which ill benefit the City of Miami,
Tcl / F:i% 0,05).',_14 17 1c;
E-mail -:ih�'el iihrli> uth.net ubmitis)d into the public
www.tirtrida d(:-r1rehttemhers/eIhcdc record In connection with
item -&- on 3---2--0 a
—
227 Valie;r Foernan
City Clark
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March 6, 2002
Page 2.
the organizations, which provide services, and more importantly the residents of our
communities.
Following are EL,HCDC's concerns with the recommendations proposed by the DCD
and some alternative steps or recommendations that may be taken in order to address
some of the issues confronting DCD.
Housinz Administration:
DCD Recommendation: Eliminate the award of HUD funds for housing
administration. Administrative costs would be provided through development fees
generated through the build out of successful projects.
ELHCDC Comments: This recommendation fails to take into consideration the many
important and distinct differences in the development of affordable rental as apposed to
affordable homeownership projects.
Developers involved with the development of affordable rental projects do so utilizing
either the State of Florida Tax Credit Program or the HUD Section 202 Housing for the
Elderly Program. Both of these programs which are exclusive for rental projects,
provide said developer with a direct, non -repayable subsidy layer covering 80% and
above of the total cost of development. With such a large portion of the total
development cost covered by these subsidies, the developer's financing package is
virtually complete, with only the need to perhaps seek funding from one public or
private source, usually done within the same year as the subsidies are granted. This
translates into a shorter pre -development time to get a project under construction. In
addition, developers of affordable rental projects do not have to concern themselves
with the low real estate,market values, typical of distressed neighborhoods. Their only
task is to lease the building with low-income renters, usually done in a period of 30
days. With a fully occupied building, generating at or close to market rents, and with
virtually the entire building subsidized at below market interest rates, if not differed
financing, these developments generate a handsome net income each year, in addition to
the development and overhead/administration fees generated during construction of 8 to
15%, as well as the on-going yearly management fees. Clearly, understanding the
tremendous profit potential in a short period of time generated by affordable rental
projects, developers of rental projects will suffer very little when confronted with the
possibility of the City eliminating additional administrative funding. However, the DCD
is recommending the continued administrative support for these types of developments.
into the public
t boa i o ;5rtrl���tii381 9Idth
itern d. on
• W -Iter l oern n
02— '2 2 �7 - city clerk
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March 6, 2002
Page 3.
On the other hand, developers of affordable homeownership projects such as ELHCDC,
face a completely different list of challenges and obstacles. The primary obstacle is
market values, As we all know, the cost of constructing a building in Coral Gables for
example, is the same as constructing the same building in Little Havana. However, the
market value (appraised value) of the finished units is grossly lower in Little Havana.
That obligates the developer of affordable homeownership units in the Little Havana
neighborhood to sell the units for less than it cost to build them and, to seek subsidized
grants to cover the shortfall between the cost of the construction and the future sell out
value of the units. Typically, this shortfall equates to approximately 30% of the total
cost of development. Having said that, we must also take into consideration, the size of
the proposed homeownership development. The grant subsidy needs of a 10 -unit
development are not as demanding as that of an 80 -unit development.
Since affordable homeownership projects do not have the luxury of programs such as
the State of Florida tax credit or HUD Section 202 programs, a developer of affordable
homeownership units must seek its grant financing from the local government sources.
This brings us to obstacle number two, the availability of funds. Both the City and the
County have limited funds available on a yearly basis and many applicants requesting
funds. The county for example does not provide grant financing to projects located
within incorporated areas, such as the City of Miami. Although their financial
participation is essential to the success of a project, it does not help in covering the
shortfall between the cost and sell-out value of a homeownership project. In addition,
their annual funding limits of $500,000 per Request for Proposal (RFP) creates the need
to apply for funds over a two to three year period in order to arrive at the funding needs
of a project. Only the City can provide the "grant" or "forgivable loan" financing
needed to a project located within the City of Miami. With the lack of available grant
financing, together with the limited sources available, a developer of affordable
homeownership projects such as ELHCDC does not include the cost of Development
fees and/or Overhead/Administration into the cost of the project. This legitimate cost
that equates to approximately 15% to 20% of the total development cost would translate
into the need for additional grant financing which would have to be provided by the
City. In a project such as the Latin Quarter Specialty Center, currently under
construction, the development and overhead administration would have added an
additional $1,500,000 to the already $7.8M cost, an additional $1,5M that would have
had to come from the City in the form of a grant or forgivable loan.
Factoring in the need to secure subsidized financing for the low income homebuyers,
which typically calls for the participation of two, three or four sources, qualifying
buyers, preparing them for homeownership, working with various lenders to secure
commitments for the families, as well as, the aforementioned time needed to secure all
vttbmittod Into the public
record in connocilon with
item _L__ on -_ 3 7-0 z
�� `� Walter Foe��nan
,'� City Clerk
0 .
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March 6, 2002
Page 4.
of the construction financing, an affordable homeownership developments can take up
to 3 years before construction commences. Clearly, with the time needed to successfully
commence with the construction of a project, and the inability to generate a fee to the
developer due to the limited finding sources, it is critical for the City of Miami to
continue to provide administrative support to a developer of affordable homeownership
projects. Even if the City was .to provide the additional $1.5M of development and
overhead fee as with the Latin Quarter example, how is an agency going to survive
during the three-year development period without any financial assistance? Where is an
organization going to get the pre -development funds needed to pay for architectural,
engineering, housing development staff and other professional services needed to move
a project along? Simply, impossible.
ELHCDC Recommendation: Instead of eliminating administrative assistance as
recommended, DDC should carefully assess the needs of each project individually.
Taking into consideration such factors as: Type of project, in terms of homeownership
versus rental, size of project, financing needs of a project, location, and other critical
characteristics of each project. Work with the developer in creating a sensible time -line
complete with benchmarks and thresholds that identify clearly the on-going progress of
the project from pre -development through completion and sell out of the units. During
this time, provide administrative assistance, through the Federal CDBG funding, to the
developer in line with what a development should generate in development fees and
overhead/administration and pro -rated over the agreed development time -line. If the
development is not meeting its time lines and the developer cannot satisfactorily justify
it, then the City should seize the administrative assistance.
Timely Expenditure of Housing Funds:
DCD Recommendation: .Due to funds provided to affordable homeownership projects
that have been dormant for a period of time, DCD is confronted with the possible non-
compliance of expenditure time -lines, as well as inhibiting the development of
affordable housing units which are ready to begin construction by tying up funds
committed to projects with additional financing or pre -development needs.
DCD recommends the utilization of a two-tier process that basically commits funding
for approved housing projects in principal at the first tier and then funds projects
previously approved in principle when they are ready to commence construction.
Funding would then be provided to construction ready projects on a first come first
served basis from existing, available dollars that had been targeted to housing
construction.
ubrn'iUod into t.ho public
regard in corawinion with
item l 011
02-- 227 City Clerk
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March 6, 2002
Page 5.
DCD furthers recommends that funding will only be provided to developers which have
secured the site, all project financing, and appropriate insurance and bonds in place.
ELHCDC Comments: As previously mentioned, affordable homeownership
developments need the financial assistance of a wide variety of funding sources, from
private to other public sources that take up to three years to assemble, depending on the
type and size of a project. When a project is located in the City of Miami, it is
reasonable to accept that these other funding sources will took for the City's
participation and commitment prior to considering their own. Private and other public
sources, not to mention the developers themselves cannot feel comfortable providing
financing if there isn't a guarantee that all of the funds needed to complete the project
are in line and available to the project. A fund, located in a pool for the taking, is not a
commitment to a project and will not allow for a developer of affordable
homeownership projects to secure other funding sources.
With respects to the requirements of having secured the site and having all of the
financing and construction bonding in place prior to the City's participation in a project:
It is hard to imagine that such a condition be placed on a project that first and foremost
will be located in the City of Miami and benefit the City's residents and tax base. As
previously mentioned, other private and public funding sources will look for the City to
take care of its own, prior to joining it. It is ludicrous for the City to expect others to
help build it before it helps itself. In addition, the requirement of having a full
construction bond in place (which is generated by the General Contractor but paid by
the developer) indicates that the project, depending on size has expended close to a
million dollars on architectural drawings and has secured a General Contractor, which
now creates a legal obligation to the contractor and sub -contractors. If for any reason,
the project stalls, or fails to be developed due the lack of available funds in the "pool",
the developer faces an array of penalties and/or law suits for breach of contracts.
ELHCDC Recommendation: The staff of DCD needs to better manage its current and
future allocations of HOME, SHIP and CDBG program funds. With careful planning,
financing commitments can be made to projects by DCD, after the aforementioned
development of time -lines have been created, based on the needs of different types of
projects. Commitments can be made identifying the type of subsidy, but not the year.
When a project is ready to commence. Program funds from the current year can be used
for that project. On an on-going basis, DCD can monitor the status of each project's
time -lines and the availability of funds and make sound decisions as to which funds to
spend on what project, as well as the availability of funds for new funding proposals.
Submiltod Into the public
ret2iov-4
itorn On _,3
2 2 7 allWr Facr;�an
City Clod<
• 0
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and
Honorable City of Miami Commissioners
March 6, 2002
Page 6.
The staff of DCD is further recommending that certain projects be de -funded and have
the funds placed in the recommended pool. This recommendation has been made
without DOD's staff understanding the literal reasons why these projects have not
commenced. In the case of Latin Quarter, they are recommending to take funds from a
project that has commenced, has the construction bond, has the General Contractor and
all of the other requirements, plus has a legal obligation to its contractor and other
lenders. How, can anyone in their right minds, with any level of understanding of a
construction project, recommend taking funds from a project under construction that has
already been ,partially funded by the City and is on pace to expend all of the City funds
within the next d to 5 months. Taking the funds away from the project now, would
basically mean the City cutting its own throat by placing a successfully commenced
construction in danger of not meeting its financial needs.
If any of these issues are not dealt with in the appropriate way, which is, to bring all of
the players involved to a table and develop a policy that will ensure compliance,
production and timely expenditure of funds. Utilize the expertise of those in the
trenches, to develop educated policies that work and will arrive at the goal of provide
safe, decent and affordable homeownership opportunities to our residents. Furthermore,
to rebuild and revitalize the neighborhoods by bringing on line new construction units
to an area forgotten by the private developers for over 30 years.
We respectfully request that before you approve these recommendations that will in
essence destroy the ability of successful not-for-profit affordable homeownership
organization such as ELHCDC to continue developing, you please instruct the DCD to
go back and work with all of the players to produce a policy that will work for all
involved.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely.
40
Anita Rodriguez-Tejera
Executive Director
c. Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager
,, t 1its ; '"� public
roCord to with
Foeman
0 2:- 2 2 7 city-clerP
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RELATING
TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
�, of
~ •5'� j wglr �1
The Miami City Commission will hold a Public Hearing to discuss issues relating to the Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The Public Hearing will be held:
Thursday, March 7, 2002
City of Miami Commission Chamber
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
Agenda will include
to the
1. Discussion and proposed resolution on. Planning Calendar for 2$'a Year CDBG and other HUD
program activities, including policies relating to the 28 Year Request for Proposals Process
2. Discussion and proposed resolutions relating to the restructuring of the Single Family
Rehabilitation Program and amended Local Housing Assistance Plan, for submission to the State
of Florida, to implement the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program in the City
Interested individuals are encouraged to attend this Public Hearing. The meeting site is accessible to the
handicapped.
(AD No. 09794)
i f
IV E l�J
C"
IT
�/
T-\ a--/
fi�� Fu Kb) NG C
fop, cmc 6dyv)i
v�S
nirtrQ�iov�
Sobmittod Into the public
rocovd in connection with
Item* �? � on —a-2 -0 a-
02.- 227 lfl alter Foemae
City Clerk
• CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA •
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM 6
TO: Honorable Mayor and DATE : 7 2;u� Fit
Members of the City Commission
SUBJECT: 28th Year Planning
Calendar
FROM 1 arlos A. Gimenez REFERENCES: City ComrWssion Agenda
City Manager ENCLOSURES: March 7, 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution
approving a planning schedule for the 28`h Year of the Community Development
Program and other programs funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Community Development has developed a proposed plannins
schedule for 28`h Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME,
HOPWA and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) activities funded through the US.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD has advised the City that
the projected entitlements for the 28'b Year will be as follows:
CDBG
$12,856,000
HOME
5,409,000
HOPWA
12,482,000
Emergency Shelter Grant
447,000
The planning schedule includes two (2) key dates that must serve as the steering
mechanism to ensure that the City meets federal requirements in the development of its
28`h Year Annual Action Plan. The Annual Action Plan must be submitted to U.S. HUD
within forty-five (45) days of the beginning of the new funding year. To meet this
deadline, the Annual Action Plan must be submitted to U.S. HUD by August 16, 2002 for
the October 1, 2002 start date.
The other key date revolves around the requirement that there must be a thirty (30) day
public comment period regarding the Annual Action Plan prior to its submittal to U.S.
HUD. Therefore, to meet this deadline, the City Commission must adopt the Annual
Action Plan by July 12, 2002. The other dates are more flexible and contingent upon
complementary scheduling issues.
, t�i31a� if<uC° into the public
record �rj cc), i'doi: on with
it^rn --.( __ ("'rt ,..-�-`1- p Y
Foee3mar)
02— 227 Cit',, Clea
Following is the proposed schedule for the 28ffi Year planning process:
April 1, 2002 - Availability of 28h Year Requests for Proposal
Week of April 8, 2002 and April 15, 2002 - District Public Hearings (contingent
on schedules of each City Commissioner; also note that there is a 10 day public
notice requirement)
May 7, 2002 - Deadline for submission of 28`4 Year Requests for Proposal (Note:
This is a firm deadline and proposals submitted after the due date will not be
accepted-)
Prior to July 12, 2001 - Special City Commission Meeting allocating 281h Year
Funds (date to be set by City Commission, but must be within the 30 day public
comment period window to meet the August 16, 2002 submission date to U.S.
HUD)
August 16, 2001 - Submission of 28h Year Annual Action Plan to U.S. HUD
October 1, 2001 - Commencement of 2e.Year Activities
It is important to emphasize that the August 16, 2002 deadline is critical to satisfy federal
regulations. However, it should also be noted that the City Commission is able to amend
the Annual Action Plan at a later date providing that it complies with the process outlined
in its Citizen Participation Plan.
It is also important to note that the proposed two-week window between April 8-19 to
hold the District Public Hearings is predicated on the schedule availability of each,
individual City Commissioner. Historically, each City Commissioner has submitted the
request for the Public Hearing to the City Clerk, identifying the date and location of the
meeting. In each of the last two years, there have been occasions when there have been
multiple meetings held on the same evening. The Administration has received public
input requesting that coincidental meetings not be held on the same alight to give the
public an opportunity to attend all the meetings. This will also provide an opportunity ;for
elected officials. to attend meetings in other Districts if so. desired. In addition, the
Administration now has the capability to televise the Public Hearings live on the City of
Miarni cable network. However, this capability is limited to one site per night.
Therefore, it is recommended that each Commissioner submit the preferred Public
Hearing date to the City Clerk, who will then be responsible for scheduling the Public
Hearing -on a first come, first served basis. If a Commissioner submits a date that has
already been taken, the City Clerk will advise that Commissioner to select an alternative
date.
In addition to the proposed calendar, the Administration is requesting policy direction
regarding several important issues relating directly to the planning activities for 28th Year
HUD grant activities. These issues include the following topics:
Submittod Tito tF11-1 publir,
t ,0,jrr1 int coni action with
• 0
Housing Administration
Historically, the City Commission has awarded CDBG funds to community-based
organizations for Housing Administration activities. Conceptually, funding in this
category has been predicated on a performance basis, with the proposed staff
recommendations supporting those organizations that had demonstrated success in
developing affordable housing units and/or had developments in the pipeline. However,
in evaluating this process, there is an inherent flaw in the system in that agencies that had
been successful in receiving financial support from the City for brick and mortar projects
were being recognized for approved projects that were not completely ready to be built
out. For example, an organization may have received City funding for a 60 -unit pmject
that may be years away from actual development, yet this Agency would still be credited
for providing 60 units.
-- - - F'--- Fun`1ra# els. 40 Wtie ok1 h
enc ublic/ rivate ers ' 6" the RFP process by funding brick and
mortar activities L
a housing prof and, with. one notable exception,
elimin the awof o Quem administration. Administrative costs
would be provided thmu v ees generated through the build out of
successful projects. This method of funding will eliminate the system flaw of inflated
housing numbers that currently determine awards for housing administration. The one
notable exception includes programs where administrative fee assessments are prohibited
for an organization to generate administrative funding, such as the development of
.- elderly housing projects through the Section 202 Housing Program for the Elderly and
similar programs. To provide funding for these organizations, it is recommended that
1440,000 of CDBG funds be set aside for this purpose.
T
imady Expenditure of Housinz Funds
In assessing the status of previously approved housing projects by either the City
Commission or the Housing and Commercial Loan Committee, it is apparent that them
are significant amounts of -CABG and HOME funds that remain dormant for extensive
periods of time. This dormant period creates two significant problems. First, as funds
remain inactive, this becomes a potential issue for the funding source regarding the
timely expenditure of funds. Secondly, these inactive obligations actually inhibit the
development of affordable housing since available funding is tied to specific projects.
In simple terms, the Administration proposes the�=M
a two-tier process that
basically commits funding for approved housingt the first tier and
then funds projects previ—OUSTY-iffrom in principle when they are ready to commence
construction. Fundin would then be vided to construction s on oma first
ce, f�nf &►a= basis from exist, available dollars at had been targeted to housing
construction. The City of Miami would provide commitment letters to projects approved
at the first tier level to enable the developer to solicit additional financial support.
S, ..- alo-r�r E�"l:t t!"Ip ublic
ilenn
02— 2 2'7
A%V4K,qUf
d fi=ancine. control of t]
then be
fi�P,
net funding cycle. lar strategy was successfully implemented to
expen 'turd o reds for CDBG Capital Improvement Projects (CTP)
threatened to recapture unused funds from entitlement recipients that
compliance with the 1.5 spending ratio.
ailable at the
expedite e
when HUD
were not in
If the City Commission concurs with this policy, the Administration will schedule a
Public Hearing to formally adopt this policy and transfer funding obligations of
previously approved housing projects that have been inactive for at least one year to a
housing funding pool. It must be clearly understood that this de -obligation will not
terminate the City's commitment to eventually fund the project, but will merely free up
funds to meet immediate needs that can be met with existing funds or the next cycle of
funding. Under the proposed policy, the commitment would remain in effect for an
additional twelve months. If construction has still not begun at that point, then the
developer would have to resubmit its proposal for consideration at the Tier 1 level again.
It must also be understood that under the current guidelines, as a result of the settlement
of the Audit Report issued by the Office of the Inspector General March 27, 1998,
funding approvals at both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels must be approved by the Housing
and Commercial Loan Committee.
For our information, funding for the following housing projects would be transferred to
the new housing pool if the Ctty omrmssjon concurs with this recommendation
Date Originally
Appropriated:
Housine Praiect Allocation FisM Y Grant Yr
BAME Dev. Corp. -- New Hope Overtown
$ 793,400
1996
22nd
'--East Tattle Havana CDC- Casa Grande Towers I1
$2,023,609
2000
26th
ast Little Havana CDC— Latin Quarter
$2,600,000
1997
23rd
Gatehouse -- Brisas del Mar-
$ 540,000
2001
27th
Jubilee CDC - Pueblo del Sol
$' 500,000
1999
25th
M Jubilee CDC -- Rio del Sol
$ 593,208
2000
26th
Little Haiti Housing — Scattered Site
$ 360,000
1999
25th
New Century DevJCarlisle Group — Allapattah Garden S 400.000
2000
26`h
—11%, ^ Total
$7,810,217
Public Service Cap
As previously advised during the 27"' Year CDBG process, Program Year 27 is the third
and final year of the Public Service cap waiver authorized by the U.S. Congress for the
City of Miami. Federal regulations typically limit the amount of CDBG funds that can be
directed to public service activities to 15% of an entitlement recipient's annual CDBG
with
Wal"ar FF,'0ZMckr
0, -. 227
allocation. Congress authorized a temporary increase in the Ci -of Miami's public
Service cap to 25% for a three (3) year period. Beginning in the 28 CDBG Year, which
will continence October 1, 2002, the City's Public Service cap will revert back to the
15% level, which, in effect, will mean a 10% reduction in funds available for Public
Services in Program Year 28.
In the current year, the City Commission allocated a total of $3,287,000, which
represents 25% of the 27th Year entitlement grant as authorized by the special federal
legislation. However, in Program Year 28, the return to the 15% cap will limit the
available allocation of CDBG dollars for public services to $1,928,400, a reduction of
$1,358,600 from the current year. Even if the City Commission directs the
Administration to request a continuation of the 25% cap limit and Congress adopts
legislation to restore the 25% cap to the City of Miami, the probability is that this
authorization would not be effective until Program Year 29. As a result, public service
dollars, which are constantly in demand, would be at an even greater premium through
the upcoming allocation process. In the Public Services category during the 27th Year
RFP process, the response from agencies competing for CDBG funds in this category
included over 80 proposals totaling more than $14 million. It is anticipated that an open,
competitive process would elicit similar results.
Therefore, to eliminate the frustration of potential applicants in a futile and realistically
non-competitive RFP process, it is recommended that the City Commission limit public
service proposals to meet the basic needs in the categories of programs providing services
to the elderly and disabled. Although there is obviously an overwhelming demand for
services in other categories historically funded through the City of Miami CDBG
Program, the Administration believes that the elderly and disabled populations comprise
the most vulnerable groups in need of services with the limited funds available. This
does not minimize the service need in other categories, but the recommendation takes
into consideration other funding sources that may be appropriate to address the needs in
these other categories. For your information, the attachment to this memorandum
includes a funding history of projects funded over the past three (3) years.
In addition, the following information provides a breakdown of the 27`h Year allocation
in the Public Service Category by service area:.
Service Area Funding Amount
Elderly Programs $1,681,221
Programs for the Disabled $ 311,485
Youth Activities $ 474,750
Childcare $ 515,500
Other $ 304.444
$3,287,000
The policy recommendation would further prioritize existing programs for the elderly and
disabled that have performed satisfactorily. Obviously, this is an unprecedented
recommendation that will undoubtedly meet resistance, but it is a strategy that
ubmincd Into the publle
recorc.:l in c oinrdlacWn w1th
item W _ orl !-D�
Walter Foeman
02- 227 citi/ clerk
realistically recognizes prioritization of services and limited funding available to meet
public service needs. To minimize the impact on youth activities, the Administration
further recognizes that Law Enforcement Trust Fund aXTF) could be a viable source to
address the funding needs in this service area. It is also recommended that the City
Commission direct the Administration to work with the Police Chief to coordinate a
consolidated application process that would consider LETF funds to address the needs of
youth that may be eligible through this source.
Use of Funds in Program Year 28
Finally, the Administration seeks City Commission direction relating to the proposed use
of HUD funds in Program Year 28. Through this direction, the Administration will be
able to determine the appropriate funding levels that will be made available through the
28'h Year RFP process. The following chart provides an overview of 27th Year funding.
and proposed 28'h Year funding:
CDBG;
27`h Year
Funding Area Allocation
Grant Administration (20%)
$2,629,000
Public Services
$3,287,000
Economic Development
$2,085,000
Housing Administration
$1,250,000
Section 108 Loan Guarantee
$1,100,000
Historic Preservation
$ 327,100
CRA Baseline Funding
$ 479,900
Little Haiti Job Creation Project
$ 225,000
Lot Clearing
$ 350,000
Code Enforcement
$1,000,000
Demolition
$ 485,000
Historic Preservation Project (City)
$ 225,000
E.L. Havana Homeownership (City)
$ 140,000
Downtown Development Authority -0-
0_Total
Total $13,583,000
Proposed 28th Year
Nocella
$2,517,200
$1,928,400
$2,835,500
$ 440,000
$1,500,000
$ 330,000
$ 479,900
$ 225,000
$ 350,000
$1,000,000
$ 500,000
$ -0-
-0-
S L5
0-0-
75
$12,856,000
SubmIl"t-d Into thO, public
r€ oord in
02- 22"7'- Walter Foenniai
City Clerk
HOME:
27' Year Propbsed 2 h Year
FundingArea Allocation Allo
Grant Administration (10%) $ 542,300 $ 540,900
CHDO Set Aside (15%) $ 813,450 $ 811,350
Model City Homeownership Zone $1,500,000 $1,500,000
CRA $ 262,000 $ 262,000
Homeownership Projects $1,728,938 $1,721,062
Rental Projects5� 76,312 S 573-688
Total $5,423,000 $5,409,000
*Note — If the City Commission approves the policy recommendation to de -
obligate previously approved projects that have been inactive for one year as
proposed above, then the de -obligated amount of HOME funding resulting from
the de -obligation would also be available for distribution (75% for
homeownership projects and 25% for rental projects in accordance with
previously approved City Commission policy)
HOPWA
27" Year Proposed 280 Year
Fundine Area Allocation Allocation*
Grant Administration (3%) $ 308,070 $ 374,460
Long Term Assistance $7,362,930 $8,622,000
Utilities $1,380,000 $1,290,000
Project Operations $1,218,000 $1,218,000
Special Projects - 0 - 977 0
Total $10,269,000 $12,482,000
It is recommended that the City Commission adopt the proposed Resolution that sets the
Planning Calendar for the 28`h Year HUD grant process. In addition, it is requested that
the City Commission provide policy direction regarding the other issues identified in this
memorandum.
zz IJ
DB/GCW/DF
into tho public
with
Real
v'Jalt-r Foornan
02— City Clerk