The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About790552 RESOLUTION RE: AUTHORIZATION FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO SIGN PRE-APPLICATION FORM SIGNIFYING WELD COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN APPLYING FOR HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR DRAINAGE PROJECT IN THE TRI-AREA. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, a pre-application form has been presented to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, the pur- pose of which is to apply for Housing and Urban Development funds for the continuation and completion of the storm drainage pro- ject for the towns of Frederick, Firestone and Evanston, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado deems it advisable and in the best interests of Weld County to authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign said pre- application for signifying Weld County' s participation in applying for HUD funds for said drainage project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com- missioners of Weld County, Colorado that the Chairman of the Board be, and hereby is, authorized to sign the pre-application form signifying Weld County 's participation in applying for Housing and Urban Development funds for the purpose of the continuation and completion of the drainage project in the Tri= Area with the following stipulations : 1. Weld County is not responsible for any aspect of administration of the grant. The Town of Frederick has sole responsibility for grant administration. 2 . Weld County authorizes the Town of Frederick to administer the grant within the unincorporated area of the County known as Evanston. 3. The Town of Frederick, as grant administrator, will coordinate closely with the people in Evanston on all aspects of the design and implementation of the project. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made a' ( ,11;,/J 790552 and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 15th day of October, A.D. , 1979, nunc pro tunc, October 12, 1979 . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ELD COUNTY, COLORADO (Aye) Norman Carlson, Chairman (Aye) Lydi unbar , , XA41 r/ (Aye) C. W. Kirby/7 // h�u wN�C 1 4£ (Aye) Le and L. Roe G GfAye) K. St inmark ATTEST: ‘-7711.1,,„,4 Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the B9ard rrk: ounty Attorney DATE PRESENTED: OCTOBER 17 , 1979 OMB Approval No.29—R021B s. NUMBER 3. STATE a. NUMBER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2 " T8 APPUCA. CANTION 1. TYPE )j (PREAPPLICATION APPLI. S DATE IDENTI• b. DATE Year month day OF ACTION APPLICATION CATION 19 Item wowtA day PIER ASSIGNED 19 (Maark' O NOTIFICATION OF INTENT (Opt) 1,,„,,,,rzO REPORT OF FEDERAL ACTION Blank 4, LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT 5. FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO. a. Applicant Name : Town of Frederick 84-6000-668W b. Orpnlndon Unit : same 6. c. Street/P.O. Ba : Town Hall, P.O. Box 435 PRO. a. NUMBER 1 1i 41. 1 21 11 91 GRAM b. TITLEd. City : Frederick a Cauab : Weld r. StateColorado g, zlPfad.: 80530 (Prom Community Development Fe deral) Block Grant; Small Cities b• Contact Peron (Name Program - tgae a telephn . Nam : Holly W. Hall Mayor 833-2)8a 6 7. TITLE AND DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT B. TYPE OF APPLICANT/RECIPIENT Small Cities Program consisting of acquisition of 99-Inttaiabta I-�w F uc�ional Higher d envy an real property and water and sewer facilities and C-Subwb .1-IfaTribe District K-Othm (Srm'dfy): addressing the problem area of "deficiencies in DE_Caounb ty Town public facilities which affect the public health F-School Purpose and safety. " D of Nla Enter appropriate letter 0 — 9. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE Adesie Great 13-Insurance B SupplemrW Gant F-Other Sorter appro. ''^^ { C-Loan prima leeter(s) ' i 1F 10. AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT (Names of cities.oonatam. 11. ESTIMATED NUM- 12. TYPE OF APPLICATION — Stater, eta.) BENEFITING OF PERSONS A—N"C—Ralsloa E4Mgma a BER OF PERSONS pry" tati Frederick Firestone 858 B-Renewal D-antinuetlaa e ounty Ester appropriate letter El 13. PROPOSED FUNDING 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: 15. TYPE OF CHANGE (For the or In) — 73'),000 00 a. APPLICANT b. PROJECT B- suai Dolll a F-Other (Specify): a. FEDERAL i 4th 4th C•Intro.se Duration b. APPLICANT .00 D-Decrease(hustles 16. PROJECT START 17. PROJECT E•CanallNlan a. STATE .00 DATE m day DURATION Enter ammo- - d. LOCAL .00 1980.80- 6 1 Fi Months yriase letter(s) .. OTHER ,00 18. ESTIMATED DATE TO Year month day 19. EXISTING FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER t TKm $730,000 TO FEDERAL SUBMITTED AGENCY► 19 79 10 15 20. FEDERAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE REQUEST (Name,City.State.SIP code) 21. REMARKS ADDED Department of Housing & Urban Development, Denver, CO 80202 p Yea h No 22. a. To 1k' best of my knowledge and belief. b. If required by OMB Circular A-95 this application was submitted, pursuant to In. No re- Response cgs data in this prmpdic.tion/eppllatian are 'tractions therein, to appropriate clearinghouses and all responses ea attached: spouse attached THE true and correct, the document has been APPLICANT duly sthodad by the gowning body of C CERTIFIES the applicant and the applicant will comply (I) Larimer/Weld County Council of Governmentna' Qpl 0 THAT D. with ISettech.d sUuanca N 91. waist- (2)Colorado Division of Planning lxq O a In Is approved. (3I (J - 23. e. TYPED NAME AND TITLE b. SIGNATURE c. DATE SIGNED CERTIFYING Year month day REPRE \LIU- SENTATIVE Holly W. Hall, Mayor P.." t?aki\IA/144, 19 79 10 12 25. APPUCA• Year month day — 24. AGENCY NAME TION RECEIVED 19 26. ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT 27. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 28. EDE P CAP APPLICATION IDION — I 29. ADDRESS 30. FEDERAL GRANT IGy IDENTIFICATION 91. ACTION TAKEN 32. FUNDING Year month day 34ARTING Year month day - g ❑ e. AWARDED a. FEDERAL $ .00 33. ACTION DATE). 19 DATE 19 p, b REJECTED - b. APPLICANT ,00 36. CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA- 36. Year month day q TION (Name and alephone number) ENDING ii O e. RETURNED FOR c. STATE .00 DATE 19 AMENDMENT d. LOCAL .00 97. REMARKS ADDED O. DEFERRED e. OTHER .00 — ❑ e. WITHDRAWN I. TOTAL 1 $ .00 C] Yes CNo 38. a. In taking above action, any commenb received from clearinghouses were con- b. FEDERAL AGENCY A-95 OFFICIAL sidered. If agency response I.due under provisions at Pert 1, OMB Circular A-95, (Nome and teaphon.no.) — FEDERAL AGENCY It has been or Is being made. A-95 ACTION STANDARD FORM 424 PAGE 1 (10-75) ,. Preserfbed by GSA,Federal Xwep.meat Cirot P4-P GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS This is a multi-purpose standard form. First, it will be used by applicants as a required facesheet for pre. applications and applications submitted in accordance with Federal Management Circular 74-7. Second, it will be used by Federal agencies to report to Clearinghouses on major actions taken on applications reviewed by — clearinghouses in accordance with OMB Circular A-95. Third, It will be used by Federal agencies to notify States of grants-in-aid awarded in accordance with Treasury Circular 1082. Fourth, it may be used, on an optional basis, as a notification of intent from applicants to clearinghouses, as an early initial notice that Federal assistance is to be applied for (clearinghouse procedures will govern). APPLICANT PROCEDURES FOR SECTION I Applicant will complete all items in Section I. If an item is not applicable,write"NA". If additional space Is needed,insert _ an asterisk "•", and use the remarks section on the back of the form.An explanation follows for each item: Item Item 1. Mark appropriate box. Pre-application and applica- D. Insurance. Self explanatory. tion guidance is in FMC 74-7 and Federal agency E. Other. Explain on remarks page. program instructions. Notification of intent guid- ance 10. Governmental unit where significant and meaning. is Ine. Circular A-95 and use "Reportedures from derrl ful impact could be observed. List only largest unit— Action" o " box.Applicant will not use of Federal or units affected, such as State, county, or city. If Action" entire unit affected,list It rather than subunits. 2a. Applicant's own control number, if desired. 11. Estimated number of persons directly benefiting — 2b. Date Section I is prepared. from project. 3a. Number assigned by State clearinghouse, or if dale- 12. Use appropriate code letter. Definitions are: gated by State, by areawide clearinghouse. All re- quests to Federal agencies must contain this identi- New. A — tier if the program is covered by Circular A-95 and project. required by applicable State/areawide clearing- B. Renewal.An extension for an additional funding/ house procedures. If in doubt, consult your clear- budget period for a project having no projected inghouse. completion data, but for which Federal support — 3b. Date applicant notified of clearinghouse Identifier. must be renewed each year. C. Revision. A modification to project nature or 4a-4h.- Legal name of unit which ichreci will an name theof primary r scope which may result In funding change (In- ance activity, unit le a address undertake c assist- crease or decrease). — shoe activity, complete of applicant, end name and telephone number of person who can pro- D. Continuation. An extension for an additional vide further information about this request. funding/budget period for a project the agency initially agreed to fund for a definite number of 5. Employer identification number of applicant as as- yeas. _ signed by Internal Revenue Service. E. Augmentation. A requirement for additional 6a. Use Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance nurn- funds for a project previously awarded funds In ber assigned to program under which assistance is the same funding/budget period. Project nature requested. If more than ono program (e.g., joint- and scope unchanged. — funding) write "multiple" and explain in remarks. If unknown, cite Public Law or U.S. Code. 13. Amo during the fistufunding/bu get period bynt requested or to be rt achdcontributor. Lb. Program title from Federal Catalog. Abbreviate If Value of in-kind contributions will be included. If necessary. the action is a change in dollar amount of an exist- — ing grant (a revision or augmentation), Indicate T. or ntotification and appropriate f Intnt, continue dt in scription of spro sec- only the amount of the change. For decreases en- tionFor if necesia r of Iconv oera . sec- close the amount in parentheses. If both basic and if necessary to convey proper description. supplemental amounts are included, breakout In 8. Mostly self-explanatory. "City" Includes town,town- remarks. For multiple program funding, use totals ship or other municipality. and show program breakouts in remarks. Item defi- nitions: 13a, amount requested from Federal Gov. 9. Check the type(s) of assistance requested. The ernment; 13h, amount applicant will contribute; definitions of the terms are: 13c, amount from State, if applicant is not a State, A. Basic Grant. An original request for Federal 13d, amount from local government, if applicant is funds. This would not include any contribution not a local explain in remarks, amount from any other provided under a supplemental grant, sources, — B. Supplemental Grant. A request to Increase a 14a- Self explanatory. basic grant In certain cases where the eligible 14b The district(s) where most of actual work will be applicant he basisFed r the required ., grants as accomplished. If city-wide or State-wide, covering share df the the basic Appalachian ac program (a C several districts, write "city-wide" or "State-wide." awarded by Regional Commis- — elan to provide the applicant a matching share). 15. Complete only for revisions (item 12c), or eugmen- C. Loan. Self explanatory. tations (item 12e). — STANDARD FORM 424 PAGE 3 (10-75) - Item Item 16. Approximate date project expected to begin (usually 19. Existing Federal identification number if this Is not associated with estimated date of availability of a new request and directly relates to a previous _ funding). Federal action.Otherwise write "NA". 17. Estimated number of months to complete project 20. Indicate Federal agency to which this request is after Federal funds are available. addressed. Street address not required, but do use ZIP. 18. Estimated date preapplication/application will be submitted to Federal agency if this project requires 21. Check appropriate box as to whether Section IV of clearinghouse review. If review not required, this form contains remarks and/or additional remarks date would usually be same as date in Item 2b. are attached. APPLICANT PROCEDURES FOR SECTION II Applicants will always complete items 23a, 23b, and 23c. If clearinghouse review is required, item 22b must be fully com- pleted.An explanation follows for each item: Item Item 22b. List clearinghouses to which submitted end show 23b. Self explanatory. In appropriate blocks the status of their responses. For more than three clearinghouses, continue In remarks section. All written comments submitted ' 23c. Self explanatory. by or through clearinghouses must be attached. _ 23a. Name and title of authorized representative of legal Note: Applicant completes only Sections I and II. Section applicant. III is completed by Federal agencies. FEDERAL AGENCY PROCEDURES FOR SECTION III If applicant-supplied information in Sections I and II needs no updating or adjustment to fit the final Federal action, the Federal agency will complete Section III only. An explanation for each Item follows: Item Item 24. Executive department or Independent agency having 35. Name and telephone no. of agency person who can program administration responsibility. provide more information regarding this assistance. — 25. Self explanatory. 36. Date after which funds will no longer be available. 26. Primary organizational unit below department level 37. Check appropriate box as to whether Section IV of having direct program management responsibility. form contains Federal remarks and/or attachment of additional remarks. 27. Office directly monitoring the program.— 28. Use to identify non-award actions where Federal 38. For use with A-95 action notices only. Name and grant identifier ei in item 30 r is not applicable le or l telephone of person who can assure that appropri• not tuidn. ate A-95 action has been taken—If same as person shown in item 35, write "same". If not applicable, — 29. Complete address of administering office shown in write "NA". Item 26. 30. Use to Identify award actions where different from Federal Agency Procedures—special considerations Federal application identifier in item 28. A. Treasury Circular 1082 compliance. Federal agency will — 31. Self explanatory. Use remarks section to amplify assure proper completion of Sections I and III. If Section I whore appropriate. Is being completed by Federal agency,all applicable items 32. Amount to be contributed during the first funding/ must be filled in. Addresses of State Information Recep- _ by each contributor. Value of in-kind tion Agencies (SCIRA's) are provided by Treasury Depart- budget c periodtions will be Included. If the action is a ment to each agency. This form replaces SF 240, which change in dollar amount of an existing grant(a revi- sion will no longer be used. or augmentation), indicate only the amount of B. OMB Circular A-95 compliance. Federal agency will as- change. For decreases, enclose the amount in pa- sure proper completion of Sections I, II,and 111.This form — rentheses. If both basic and supplemental amounts is required for notifying all reviewing clearinghouses of are Included, breakout in remarks. For multiple pro- major actions on all programs reviewed under A-95. gram funding, use totals and show program break- Addresses of State and areawide clearinghouses are pro- outs in remarks. Item definitions: 32a, amount vided by OMB to each agency. Substantive differences awarded by Federal Government; 32b, amount ap- between applicant's request and/or clearinghouse recom- - plicant will contribute; 32c, amount from State, if rnendations, and the project as finally awarded will be applicant is not a State; 32d, amount from local explained in A-95 notifications to clearinghouses. government if applicant is not a local government; C. Special note. In most, but not all States, the A-95 State 32e, amount from any other sources, explain In clearinghouse and the (TC 1082) SCIRA are the same remarks. office. In such cases, the A-95 award notice to the State 33. Date action was taken on this request. clearinghouse will fulfill the TC 1082 award notice re- quirement to the State SCIRA. Duplicate notification 34. Date funds will become available. should be avoided. STANDARD FORM 424 PAGE 4 (10-75) no—re-•st.re—r we. This cooperation agreement certifies that the Towns of Frederick and Firestone plus the County of Weld are submitting a joint application for a Community Development _ Block Grant for storm drainage. The Town of Frederick will be the lead unit of government and responsible for adm' nis- tration of the grant. 67-rvl, )41-ff- Holly Hal , Mayor of Frederick Al Becker , Mayor of Firestone Norman Carlson, Ciairman County Commissioners Weld County signs this agreement with the following stipulations : 1 . Weld County is not responsible for any aspect of administration of the grant . TTie Town of Frederick has sole responsibility for grant administration . 2. Weld County authorizes the Town of Frederick to administer _ the grant within the unincorporated area of the County known as Evanston. 3. The Town of Frederick as grant administrator will coordinate closely with the people in Evanston on all aspects of the design and implementation of the- project. ATTACHMENT A Small Cities Single Purpose Program Preapplication Guide This suggested format is intended for use in conjunction with the Area Office Review Process Statement and the Federal Regula— tions for Small Cities ( 24 CFR 570. Subpart F ) Suggested Format Only -- use as many pages as necessary to provide adequate information. Pr edppl scant -Town -o-f- Frederick-,-Colorado Total Amount Requested $ -738-.000.00- - Problem Area : - - /7 Housing t357 Public Facilities J7 Economic Conditions I . Community Development Needs Using the attached form, briefly describe the community development needs which will be addressed by the proposed project . The description should be specific and in quantifiable terms . II . Description of Activities Using the attached form, briefly describe the activities to be undertaken with Small Cities funds . Include the general location ( by Census Tract or Enumeration District ) . Further guidance is provided on pages 5 and 6 of the Review Process Statement . Activities within each project should be numbered sequen- tially . The number used on this form will also be used in listing costs and benefit to low- and moderate-income persons . III . Impact of Activities Using the attached form, briefly describe how the proposed activities will impact on the community develop- ment needs identified. Further guidance is provided on pages 16 through 18 of the Review Process Statement. Z 0 H U 0 N 1 2 v ci Z V O yj L H U N 7.4to S v V1 H F r. F U C Ct. cu b — O C Z t0 O u r•A a.j F N G ra a v U in ameleseb :n Z 0 O m b 0 N � u m H w 4.1 Z Z E O Et) • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Not unlike other similar communities, Firestone, Frederick and the unincorporated area of Weld County referred to as Evanston have been unable to adequately resolve needs associated with changing times and growth. However, unlike other communities, the problems caused by the "energy crisis" only render these communities' task more difficult. Consider the following quote from a recent publication of the U.S. Department of Energy: "Weld County could face environmental, social and economic impacts, i.e. boomtown growth."1 Weld County is one of only three Colorado counties identified in the previously cited document as faced with this potential dilemma. The Governor of the State of Colorado, the Honorable Richard Lamm, has long maintained development of Colorado's energy resources and must be paced with affected areas' capacities to absorb and provide for associated impacts. In order for the applicants to implement this resource coordination policy, it is imperative assistance be provided which will allow development of public facilities adequate to accommodate both the short-term and long-term impacts they can expect. Given the requirement, Small Cities applicants identify which community development problem area a proposed program will address. The decision was made to select "deficiencies in public facilities which affect the public health and safety. " However, not only would the activities proposed in this application resolve the dangerous flood and drainage problem from which these communities suffer, but go far in helping provide the infrastructure necessary to mitigate other community development needs as well. For example, reduction of the area designated as 100 year flood plain by the Flood Insurance Administration will assist in the development of affordable and safe housing in previously undevel- opable areas. Additionally, rehabilitation and modernization of the existing. 1 "Environmental Analysis of Synthetic Liquid Fuels", United States Department of Energy. August, 1979. housing stock will be rendered practical. Economic conditions will also be addressed insofar as affected land will become a reasonable investment for entrepreneurs wishing to locate in the program area. In light of the preceding, it can be seen the activities proposed herein will transcend resolution or mitigation of a singular problem. However, program proponents are firm in their belief alleviation of deficiencies in public fac- ilities will serve as the catalyst toward sound community development. In light of President Carter's recent policy statement regarding expedient development of America's energy resources, we believe our request will, if funded, serve the goals and needs of local, regional, state and federal governments. Those who suffer most from natural disasters and/or "boomtown growth"--those of low- and moderate-income--will derive the greatest benefit. There are, then, the community development needs of housing and public facilities this program will address. A description of the specifics of the problem area of "public facilities . . . ." follows. History has shown lack of adequate storm drainage and flood control poses a significant threat to the well-being of the applicants' residents. This need has in the past been studied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and by the engineering firms of Gingery Associates, Inc. , E.S. Kelley, Inc. , and Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. The communities have tried in the past to resolve their individual needs but the nature of the necessary actions requires mutual action. The costs of rectifying Vile problem would have been less than proposed had the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers been able to continue its assistance. However, a significant change in Agency guidelines prevented such. (A documentation is provided in the appendix. ) The severity of the applicants' needs was not recently discovered. Although comprehensive data is only available for the last two decades, even yet the evidence is clear and convincing. In 1957 flooding destroyed Frederick' s water system, washed out major streets thus cutting off access, and rendered sanitary sewers useless. In addition, more than forty (40) private residences suffered damage from flooding. Estimates of total damage ranged as high as $300,000. (Based on conservative estimates, the same flood today would produce damages in excess of $1,000,000. ) In 1961, the applicants again were exposed to the health, safety and economic hazards of flooding. Seventy-five homes were damaged and the potential danger so significant twenty-five (25) families had to be evacuated. Moreover, fifteen (15) businesses were affected and again streets suffered extensive damage. In 1961 values, an estimated $250,000 was lost. Unfortunately, the preceding examples were not due to freak or unusual storms. As frequent as a 20 year storm would result in extensive damage to the jurisdictions and their citizens. It is expected such an occurance would result in significant damage to approximately 40% of the Town of Frederick, most of Evanston, and over 1/3 of the residences in Firestone. It will not require a 20 year flood to make HUD funding of this project cost-effective. Losses from even mean annual participation are estimated at over $80,000, not including damage to other public facilities such as streets and utility lines. Photographs illustrating the existing situation are pro- - vided in the appendix. In addition, maps showing as-is (and as-if) flood plain boundaries are included. It was stated at the onset this preapplication, although it will totally resolve the problem area of public facilities, will also have substantial impact on the areas of housing and economic development as well. However, the appli- - cants recognize without additional construction of safe, sanitary and affordable housing for low- and moderate-income persons the public facilities problem resolution will not in itself alleviate housing needs. In addition to making rehabilitation of the existing housing supply possible, the applicants propose to acquire approximately one acre of land for eventual development of assisted housing. To this end, please note the letter in the appendix from Mr. Van F. Crichfield, a successful developer of HUD assisted housing, containing a committment to respond to the next NOFA for approximately 18 units on the pro- - perty to be acquired. It should also be noted Mr. Crichfield already has con- trol of approximately 34 lots located within the current flood plain. (Copy of plat in appendix. ) Should the activities contained herein be funded, Mr. Crichfield intends to develop said property with lower-cost single family housing. Sources: Weld County Discharges Study FIA Flood Plains Maps U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS Description of Activities The activities to be carried out should this request be funded, consist, by HUD definition, of water and sewer facilities and acquisition of real property. Specifically, improvements to the existing storm drainage channel (water and sewer facilities) which borders the applicants' jurisdictions on the east will require 80% of the total funds requested. Acquisition of real property (#2) will require an additional $105,000 (14%) of the total.2 The balance of the $730,000 will be split between administration and contingencies (0i3 and #4 respectively) . All of these activities will take place in Census Tract Enumeration District #20. A more detailed budget is provided in Table I. Impact on Needs As can be seen in the "as-is" and "as-if" maps cited earlier, the storm drainage/flood controls proposed herein would eliminate the serious problems which plague the applicants. Although primary benefit will be derived by those of low- and moderate-income, it should be recognized the total community will benefit (i.e. all applicants residents) . Of this amount, $80,000 is directed toward the problem area of public facilities. . . , and $25,000 toward the problem area of housing. Funding will proffer the community the opportunity to enhance their status as desirable and viable places to live. (See excerpt from Tri—Area Comprehensive Plan: 1977 in appendix. ) With respect to that portion of the program which addresses the problem area of housing, it is impossible to state the activities herein will in full resolve the existing need. However, it is important to note none of the participating jurisdictions have any assisted housing so any introductory efforts will be of great significance. Considering the applicants have an 2 Included in the $105,000 is acquisition of right of way for storm drainage/ flood control purposes. estimated vacancy rate of less than 1% and less than 10% of the housing stock is available to renters, program impact cannot be underestimated. 3 It is also important to emphasize resolution of housing needs in full cannot be accomplished until the hazards and costs of extensive flood plain are resolved. 3 Tri-Area Comprehensive Plan: 1977 TABLE I Water and Sewer Facilities Excavation $130,625.00 Concrete (Materials and installation) $143,000.00 Bridge Improvements $ 66,000.00 Balance of other improvements $179,375.00 Engineering Design $ 66,000.00 Total $585,000.00 Acquisition of Real Property Right of Way $ 80,000.00 Housing Site $ 25 000.00 Administration $ 20,000.00 Contingencies $ 20,000.00 Total $145,000.00 IV. Cost Information A. Using the following format , ( 1 ) list costs by activity, and ( 2 ) indicate whether Small Cities or other funds will be used : Activity Number Small Cities Cost Other Funds #1 Water & Sewer Facilities $585,000 #2 Acquisition of $105,000 Real Property #3 Administration $ 20,000 #4 Contingencies $ 20,000 Total Costs : $ 730,000 $ B. If other funds will be used, describe them and their source . Explain how they will be combined with the grant . ( If none anticipated , put NA. ) NA • V. Benefit to Low- and Moderate-Income Persons Determination of the amount of funds that will be used to benefit low- and moderate-income persons involves a two-step procedure. First, the benefit for each activity must be calculated . Then the amounts are totaled to derive overall project benefit. The attached format should be used to calculate benefit, as follows : 1 . List the activity, by number , as listed in III A( 1 ) . Costs of planning , management and administration are not to be included. 2. Provide the total number of persons who will be served by the activity in column b, and the number low/ moderate in column c. _ 3 . Provide percent low/moderate in column d (column c . b) . _ O u u 1.1 •••I O C W O O O O •O 0 ' ^ in O O aJ C S y" r O E m 41 "*...v en •C C) m ..d co In NI — OT N In O No O O C O O • O r, O O O - E .-: on In 0 d `O N 00 y J 6 C C f..♦ CO a \ O u n O F i A L r. r O 3 on O a/ v C .] O of al T 0 Z > 0 3 L m w ol O v — .O L O NC. RI al 1 _ vl a • L = 6 in .O C E C Ca Ir, E O O E •r. -O V 01 0.1 ..I O 1+ ^_ C C C u LI t r O a1 V C ♦•--I- .LL1 C C LI • L O •a O C1 O .JJ v y I 14 Y. VI •C C u :J u O Is v •-4 X C A O ♦.., 'J a 1.. •'1 is U 0 — C O W so C V - -O 'O E 2 O a1 v •.O O O < 7 L C 3 at • < E O ea .O LLI C a •L a° o a O -O w e — C E al V U Z C LO bD C C y 3 z E d = w O .+ ,a u a� en F .♦a to T' In .O dE-I 3 .O u O W •r. . . Va O O F C Li.. C u At COO 54 O < u v w M a so so la aw J L J {s1 O ' .-1 T al L N V V A u O E o telU C) 1.C 0 N O 1 a z u+ -O C w O C.+ O ..r ♦r. KO La — N N In <+1 u O u L T '0 ..1 ^ O r-1 O a) r- w •r1 al Es O. m •u1 41 N C 4) al _ .O w O O O. A II u O u N O %. O .rI a! L u CO Y .O ... O O W 'r1 E 1... y 0 0 'O w z a: .C .-.4 C u O 0 LI O Cr • - m m ^ O rCi6 u Li .r1 -Xr 0 to O I I N o it .r1 N N U in 1/4O4C 'k 1O U TM H O vs > d DOCUMENTATION OF BENEFIT TO LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME PERSONS Due to the fact the applicants have not previously participated in the C-D-B-G Program and do not have income data of the nature requested, it is difficult to apply specifics to the question of program benefit. However, by updating data from a survey conducted in 1976, it is estimated approximately 60% of all residents meet the HUD definition of low- and moderate-income. Those households that will directly benefit from the proposed activities, however, are without doubt at the lower end of the income distribution for the area as a whole. Of the residences located in the affected area, a significant number are older mobile homes and most of the traditional housing is substandard and in need of rehabilitation. It should be noted the project area has a substantial concentration of minority households who are disproportionately of lower income. By looking at the data available and through both visual inspection and awareness of the area, it was estimated 75% of the direct beneficiaries qualify as low- and moderate-income. In order to support this assertion, the applicant will if requested conduct a sample survey of those who would benefit and provide results to HUD. 4 . Provide the amount of the activity in column e . 5 . Provide the amount used to benefit low/moderate income persons in column f . That amount is determined by multiplying percent low/moderate , by the amount of the activity (column d x column e ) . 6 . To determine overall benefit , take the total of column ( f ) , amount used to benefit low/moderate , and divide by the total of column (e ) , total net cost. The result is the total program benefit to low- and moderate-income persons . VI . Performance- in- Mousing • and - Equal •Opportonitp. The Project Selection System provides points to a preapplicant which can demonstrate outstanding per- formance as defined in the Review Process Statement for the categories listed below. Preapplicants must claim and support claims tO be considered for points . Describe the specific basis for claiming points . For example , if enforcement of a Fair Housing Ordinance is claimed , provide the date it was enacted and the authorizing body . State the specific enforcement actions which have been taken. Preapplicants which have never participated in CDBG previously may still obtain points for all categories except (d ) carrying out previous HAP goals . 1 ) Hoosing • Efforts . Twenty points are awarded for each criterion in which outstanding performance is demonstrated . _ ( a) Providing housing for low- and moderate- income families located in a manner which provides housing choices oustide of minority and low-income concentrations . (b) Dispersal , by race, in occupancy, of existing assisted housing . ( c ) Meeting large family housing assistance needs in relation to that proportion of need . (d ) Carrying out housing assistance goals from previous HAPS. ( e ) Enforcement of a fair housing ordinance , or approval by HUD a New Horizons Fair Housing Assistance Project . 2 ) Local Equal - Employment- and Entrepreneurial - Efforts ; Twenty-five points are awarded for each category. _ ( 1 ) Percent of contracts , based on dollar value, awarded within the past two years to minority owned , controlled , or managed businesses; or the percentage of funds deposited in minority owned , controlled , or managed banks , is greater than the percentage of minorities residing in the county for nonmetropolitan preapplicants , or the SMSA for metropolitan preapplicants . Circle the appropriate word to designate whether the information applies to contracts or funds . ( a) $ minority contracts/funds deposited awarded from to . . . . . . . . . . . . . month year month year (b) $ all contracts awarded/funds deposited (during the same time period ) ( c ) % minority contracts/funds deposited ( a . b) (d ) minority county or SMSA population ( e ) total county or SMSA population ( f ) % minority population (d : e) ( 2 ) Percentage of minority employees is greater than the percentage of minorities residing within the county for nonmetropolitan preapplicants , or the SMSA for metropolitan preapplicants . Information should be provided for minority persons employed directly by the preapplicant . 6 Number minority employees 11 Number total employees 55% % minority employees — VII . Other - points . Twenty-five points will be awarded for each of the following criteria addressed by the pro- posed program. Specific reasons why/how the program supports the claims must be provided . A. Enhances community' s position as a regional center , economic development center or growth center : _ B. Is consistent with and implements a State growth or resource coordination plan. SEE ATTACHED VII. E. Is consistent with and implements a State growth or resource coordination plan. This preapplication addresses both of the areas cited above. First, provision of the infrastructure necessary to provide for growth will further the State goal of dispersal of growth throughout the State, and particurlarly along the Eastern slope. This is asserted due to the fact both residential and necessary commercial/ services growth cannot occur without adequate public facilities and housing oppor— tunities. Second, the State has consistently maintained development of its vast energy resources. This cannot be accomplished without regard for the affected communities' ability to accommodate resultant impacts. History has shown, and current trends indicate as well, adequate public facilities are the key to sound growth and community development. C . Deals with the impact of other Federal programs or policies on the community and/or supports another Federal program being undertaken in the community. _ SEE ATTACHED - VIII . Hoasing -Opportunity- Plan; Fifty points will be awarded if the preapplicant is a participating jurisdiction in a HUD approved HOP. Preapplicant /7 is participating in a / is not HUD approved HOP . Date of HUD approval : IX . The following additional information must be attached in order for the preapplication to be considered complete . A . Standard Form 424 _ B. Citizen participation certification , as described in 570 . 431 . C . Maps , as described in 570 . 429 ( a ) . D. Status Report or Grantee Performance report for communities which received previous Community Development Block Grant assistance ( see attachment B for sample format for Status Report. ) _ E . Copies of State and Areawide Clearinghouse comments or the date the preapplication was sent to the clearinghouses for A-95 review. VII. C. Deals with the impact of other Federal programs or policies on the community and/or supports another Federal program being undertaken in the community. The Town of Frederick believes it is entitled to these points for four reasons. First is the fact $1. 6 million has been awarded Frederick to assist in development of an adequate water system and improvement of the Town's main street. Second, a large number of residences have been constructed with assistance from the Farmer' s Home Administration. Third, as previously noted changes in Federal flood control project policies have resulted in C.D. block grant funds being the only source of solution. Fourth, and perhaps most important, is the Federal policy toward development of energy resources. In order to cope with the increasing emphasis on energy production and accompanying growth, it is vital the applicants resolve their deficiencies in public facilities. CERTIFICATION This is to certify the Town of Frederick has met the requirements of 24 CFR 570.431(d)(iv) with respect to this preapplication. Holly Wm. all, Mayor Town of Frederick APPENDIX QQ �gggy4O DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY r , 2. OMAHA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS riliO N 6014 U.S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE •• OMAHA. NEBRASKA 66102 MROPD-P 11 December 1978 Honorable Al Becker Mayor of Firestone Firestone, Colorado 80520 Dear Mayor Becker: The purpose of this letter is to reiterate some points brought out in your meeting with Dick Buse and Paul Ziemba on 14 November 1978. As discussed on 14 November, the Corps of Engineers has had recurring problems in providing a consistent interface between our activities and those of other Federal programs in urban areas. The HUD program for _ funding urban drainage projects has been incorporated into the Block Grant Program which does not specifically identify urban drainage projects. There has been growing concern by the Office of Management and Budget that small flood control projects were supplementing Block Grant funds to construct urban drainage facilities. This caused considerable delay in processing some reports as well as frustrations when a review entity, such as the Office of Management and Budget, concluded that the proposed work should not be recommended as part of the flood control program. The Corps of Engineers, therefore, worked with the Office of the Secretary of the Army and the Office of Management and Budget to develop explicit jurisdictional guidelines to define the interface between the existing Corps flood control program and the urban programs of Department of Housing and Urban Development. As a result of the developed jurisdictional guidelines, we are no longer able to continue our flood control study in the Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono area. However, now you are able to apply to HUD for Block Grant funds. • I have sent the information that re bad completed during our study to Mayor Hall of Frederick and a similar letter to Mayor Garding of Dacono. J.. V;1 • MROPD-P 11 December 1978 Honorable Al Becker Members of my staff have expressed their appreciation of the cordial • relationship they have experienced in working with the officials and citizens of your community. We particularly appreciate the understanding with which you have received notice of the change in policy which has required us to discontinue further studies. Sincerely yours , nett I � OHN E. VELEHRADSKY, P.E. Chief,, Planning Division • • v,r•'""'" , DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY zit T 2' OMAHA DISTRICT. CORPS Of EN^.SINEENS • N, ^ 6014 U.S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE +.� nMA,^A NEBRASKA 661O1 MROPD-P 28 September 1979 Honorable Holle William Hall Mayor of Frederick Post Office Box 238 Frederick, Colorado 80530 Dear Mayor Hall: The purpose of this letter is to eliminate any misconceptions of the reasons for our termination of flood control studies in the Firestone, Frederick, and Evanston area. _ As explained by my previous letter of 29 November 1978, extensive coordination and negotiations between e Corps of of II , the Office of the Secretary of the Army, and the Office Management and Budget led to the development of explicit jurisdictional guidelines to define the interface between the Corps flood control program and the urban programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The hydrologic criterion was selected after exhaustive consideration of various other alternatives. The fact that the Omaha District terminated further flood control studies should not be interpreted to mean that we feel that the Firestone, Frederick, and Evanston area does not have a serious urban drainage problem. The flood history of your area indicates that a drainage problem does exist, and if future growth is anticipated, the drainage problem could become worse. The drainage flows are not large enough to qualify under the Corps of Engineers flood control program; however, this should not preclude you from receiving help from another Federal agency such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development as part of their block grant funds. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact us. Sincerely, 2/.42 7/JO E. VEIEHRADSICY Chief, Planning Division `NI U, o is I. "81 DEPARTMENT OF THE:, ARMY 1a N, OMAHA DISTRICT CORPS Of ENGINEF.H$ 6014 U.S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE 0 � OMAHA NEBRASKA 661O2 dr-1I.11\.1.'Y. MROPD-P 29 November 1978 Honorable Rolle Hall Mayor of Frederick Post Office Box 238 Frederick, Colorado 80530 Dear Mayor Hall: The purpose of this letter is to reiterate some points brought out in your meeting with Dick Buse and Paul 'liemba on 14 November 1978 and also to forward to you the work that we have completed. As discussed on 14 November, the Corps of Engineers has had recurring problems in providing a consistent interface between our activities and those of other Federal programs in urban areas. The HUD program for funding urban drainage projects has been incorporated into the Block Grant Program which does not specifically identify urban drainage projects. There has been growing concern by the Office of Management and Budget that small flood control projects were supplementing Block Grant funds to construct urban drainage facilities. This caused considerable delay in processing some reports as well as frustrations when a review entity, such as the Office of Management and Budget, concluded that the proposed work should not be recommended as part of the flood control program. The Corps of Engineers, therefore, worked with the Office of the Secretary of the Army and the Office of Management and Budget to develop explicit jurisdictional guidelines to define the interface between the existing Corps flood control program and the urban programs of Department of Housing and Urban Development. As a result of the developed jurisdic- tional guidelines, we are no longer able to continue our flood control study in the Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono area. However, now you are able to apply to HUD for Block Grant Funds. I am inclosing the following information that we have completed: a. Flood outline map b. Water surface profiles c. Hydrologic analysis d. 3 copies of reconnaissance report MROPD-P 29 November 1978 Honorable Holle Hall Members of my staff have expressed their appreciation of the cordial relationship they have experienced in working with the officials and citizens of your community. We particularly appreciate the under- standing with which you have received notice of the change in policy which has required us to discontinue further studies. Sincerely yours, /� - Z ( . �__f-o— Inclosures JOHN E. VELEHRADSKY, P.E. As Stated /Chief, Planning Division 2 _ II October 3, 1979 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed please find a plat of Blocks 5 and 6 of the Town of Frederick, Colorado. It is suitable for lower cost single family housing and I hope to provide this much needed housing in a growing and energy impacted area . This parcel lies in the extreme northwest corner of the Town at the confluence of the Town ' s surface drainage system, and in the past the entire Town has been subject to flooding. It is our hope that the Towns of Dacono, Frederick and Fire- stone as well as the Weld County area lying between Frederick and Firestone will be benefited by the improvement of the main drainageway which borders this property on the west. In order to provide much needed low and moderate income multi- family housing, the undersigned, or the Town will acquire the necessary site so that we can submit a proposal for the next available NOFI(Section 8) .We can work through the State Housing Finance Agency. In the past 15 years, the undersigned has developed over $200,000,000. of multi-family projects under various sections of the National Housing Act, and would be interested in a small multi-family project in this area. { ,'fr!J. .4+ Van F. Crichffeld • I ., ) I / EXHIBIT ] --.y 1 I kr 1 • • l . . .P„IM l4 ISM .�. - I � I , 4ti --\_______/ 1 ' _ I' '... n, 1 I•'' I:.•.:.. . EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL FOR • _ 1. 100 YEAR FREQUENCY STORM {:ry F:enn•Ilun I \ \ ti `:'r" H. EX I ST11 NG STREAM CHANNEL FOR .."' : 10 YEAR FREQUENCY. STORM ;;< �::: . :4• 1'rclll rick ' / •I ..r I 1 Ha '• 1 rebndo um Mine— h(y.ny, • 5We 1 j— CAA Radio Beam.ii• • .5017 N . , ( \ I "1)AI'nll0 1 I I 1. I,.o..It.Valley Mine• • . 11 ' I r9 V I , , _ / , 1 r - ---- - --r I . 1 .•.yy:... / soraI / n,,.,. I . 1 1 , / I 1 1 . / I 1`„ o SCALE 1" = 2000' e` 1 - I, 2 II 1 \��y�1, ).....:.... , • . \— J 'i / / 1 EXHIBIT 2 �n :11-ii }•i n•afunrl,dkr f ai M e • ..• l • -• 1 Ii 11•.1 ♦ 1. ♦L I T- _ _1M I qqtt ' X / �— \ :• ,/' 11'If1•alulll I I ) l' . I ?°' ' Kvusion LIMIT OF STREAM CHANNEL \ 1 _ FOUR 100 YEAR FREQUENCY y'1= I STORM AFTER CHANNEL II i° � IMPROVEMENTS s ,; LOW AN.D MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES • 0 '34• POCKET OF POVERTY j Although the Towns of Frederick and .I;. Firestone are predominately low and 1' re'1''rl''k moderate income, the area described ••^' • �••�• •• In red delineates a pocket of pov- ' '. •.'7 " erty of which 75% are low and moderate income and 25% are • •. ',!• c •w-..ae•° of minority origin. Baum Mine .1U ° F» I / I,/ N /, I I i / , RCA A adio Radio Bu• :i '' Neer.n . . s01) - �1t-i•�••1iT'r T'T' i $uu� •/— ' •:� II �� V 1 II i.1 f 1 /' I Lloulder Valley MIM•__,,ee IL I. /Y / .— ...___ _iCl ..s • 'hr•.>. ♦ / :. so rll II M;n. / f /I I I 's. - • 1 Ii ' .. y /SCALE II' 20001 �) • i i R I Croon M nr l I 1 111 ` Y I EXHIBIT 3 r PROPOSED NEW( a•4 (''irrxlo,u• CULVERTS f -�.� Luke ,, r ROP SED .— ngr . DE't S ION POND I' II a / / IrM - _ I l r PRO OSED BRIDGE IM— ix PRO EMENT I PROPOSED BRID E- -> . I I ' CULVERTS / ••I' ii PROPOSED BRIDG' ` ( LIMIT OF — IMPROVEMENT t, . ! DRAINAGE 11 / BASIN . r „ X• 0 PROPOSE NEW BRIDGE�� ' , . I, •:I•... . . 1 1 II •••• • • I I' 1I.Iii( 1'k•IL ...�.'.. .... . t PROPOSED CHANNEL • • • c PROPOSED NEW, CULVERTS IMPROVEMENT 1 • r A. it ,:. •laneA urn — Mrne 4 5 41 PROPO It.) BRIDGE IM-� PROPOSED PROVEME T 1 TRAINING DIKE I / 1 I un aaro Beam. / — 411.1.tril ifi /SOS' ' . 5th7 ( �, ) • A I 'I ' � „ _ II '. I ..ICI 4 / N : �, ! I VIII t8cono'I / : 1 I P II • I I I ;.. n •:l ''! t '� '' — Illl / u.WCer Valley Mme• % / I II r�a,•r lrr, I:" — Mme I I . I .. I 1 us O , U ax a W ril 5/00 Graydon Mrne^ A - 2000 I I '1/4�y� a SCALE I" `.J h ,t ' 1 ‘, r '� 4 t it o-.14 4 -. ♦ .. P`7```,.` . • 11 r IL'fr t' . io- Yk� 4<f • yytr iwy�.. • xV+r4,�. !7 �... yxp } r ' L� r . y \M . . r '-> •�: • • 4th & Oak, Frederick 5/9/57 1st & Elm, Frederick 5/9/57 ,per, ler cro , ••"^..Y"• • •'I . ..'.•. '„ ?, Cc 6th & Locust, Frederick 6/3/61 ).r ff I. _ '��,, k1Xa"'d iE 'fry 1 Yr S , - • 5th Street, Frederick 6/3/61 y' yr.Y.i t. is�' it t., �,,..�,,, _ r .]er n 9•ry . NI r 4 r 5th Street, Frederick 6/3/61 ”e;1% ' R '14,..0 .. .•ir r Ifra ♦ 'Y tv {J y R t • .q-100.• Tt M '� � \�.... � � +N � J'1•`r a wi1 r u r+ r l t .I' . rr Y , ijr 0 mr 4r=ilt yp s= ..., Oak Street , Frederick 6/3/61 yf . f• — / /c/ • - • Vi sew.c,• Xi.°"e 7'. i, — kz ., .. . a. • m ii . � Elm Street , Frederick 9/1/66 VA"' — '9" � '..4 4;4'. a *rs't {yk ' t-'3/4•P'• k. n .Ilii�.� ► i li '1 ,f 4,.w "-, `l a P .r}, J 1r. r — !•''— #.4 -- • '' • . "4,p .,fir...- ;Xn,. r i .,,,,r-It's It L'.4. ti � ay — 1st & Oak , Frederick 7/6/78 — W, 11 ,�I�'• 1 •• aA r1 ., .r I. ��, �I ,d;a ye FYI i ^. ,y�`r'k1. J Y• i* +[/ r ..f. y .... J'.•YTS" it 4 , a'. :•,...4N-O4-* l'ilvij i ik1• q 'r a. • - >•i'! -• r4� ,1 i+y .. , 1 4410*••fie• r Yr r, •fit' ' " r *i+' sh""-- '_'1 *� w�,'""0�"j'p �y",f1 a t* w ?� r 0.1 f r t rIG. '. i . 1. 1st Street, Frederick 7/6/78 i,. N ( {n rnr fit : 9-4,',118.;.'' a �� YV. 'S �y 1i �+ M t ft I + 4 r er .�' ire i ! .. P' IK , nyy 1st St . , Oak St. , and Johnson St. , Frederick 7/6/78 1(7400 JO • I ,. t t. ..4- n alas Eri �t 0 sty_ r K !pj t ' '• . . „A , 'e n.a..i.- Aer' z@^'++an 'x"A gam. . i "'. +, �"+Mi✓ti'^.3{S: 'a' _4WfM•+:ry$?S).. ......, ei, a.;yt . . Northwest part of Frederick 5/17/78 w. Ce "1j 4 •; 4 — tg, r '�1' t.' r + r . rti.; r A,.,. y :L..; ,„„ r ., st",. z ' {fie•t ,', ! ;,,,,,,-4, F - T— Firestone , 5/17/78 - A t TRI-AREA PLANNING COMMISSION ZOGINIXXXXEMACCEZZUWASINXX BOX 363 FREDERICK, COLORADO 80530 October 9, 1979 Housing and Urban Development Mrs. Betty Miller Executive Tower 1405 Curtis Street Denver, CO 80202 Dear Mrs. Miller: The Tri - Area Planning Commission supports the funding for the Drainage Project for the Tri - Area. We would hope that the project will be totally funded. Thank you. Sincerely, / QGC /7 < t' ,< Allan D. -WI son Chairman Tri - Area Planning Commission ADW/das J-ci- 1•v roost)l•T'7 -roll OWN EXCERPT FROM TRI -AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 1977 1[ r--- O) .. 0 1 C E T C ._ L 3 v 41 4. v L T w u 0 0 > - W N 4-, — L U 41 C 0 - .+ V 0 4- L 0 ra - 0 E O O1 LL v Cv 4411 - a.- .• .. u UI O V w u 4.4 44 V 7 - n1 LA N C > C C C L N L. 0 L f-- Jf O 4) O v c C c.C o+ EOE w — m o. E v v 0 4-6 Q. C N C O L 4! •L 41 L u C C W a1 •- _C u - u L .• a rO C •_ [ 0 — O v t u > O •0 > O — C 13 u C Ni E O. Ca -0 •- vim .. U. - •- L a 10 0 L C M 41• O L C U -0 '0 .- r0 J a 0 O C4 L L (0 C 4) C 0j J 41 O 8 0 v u .- — a•- 1- N L p a ._ O > u u 4) .. 4- 0L al L u --- 4) > Q c •u N .D O C L > > u a) 0 r0 4- v ✓ m � ._ I C u — 0 CL uC N w ) 3 O y 0i O. p u u C N E ro C v O u C u L 41 a N J u 10 0 u _0 Y 41 C ✓ O 01 X J L u C •- ^ N r0 • - C L 444- u C — ^ Y O • C S .- _ p C N u •_ 4) 41 ^1 n u 1n N 0 u u u — O V 4) L a fa - 41 .. v .c O C • N u E v u L O L 8 Cp 4- N rO CO. U 41 u I- 4-4 ._ 4 Q N w •_ O L .L. E - n1 v ¢ c - m " C E VN .J v 7 14 0 > L O 0 - •. v v ., L OD M •- L V1 V1 > DID G L V U C 41 41 N >v L Cr 13 3 _ J w O ff Y u C •u L 1n C L v1 N O N N C L I, a t XI g U u V In En 41 T > N • • —WI Q 0 •- 1 Q N 01 u •4 L Y LL ( If N - ^o + a, C c C 9 _>'�> 3 C o 4)L m � o o v •I 8 5 a1 11 .• in— •- - 7 u •m to ¢ .,.... v 0 o L v1 0 c — .o -t d ... C •— L •L .C 0 L L O C 'O — — N C Z • - C yy O 41 7 0] u 4) u V — A •- LO 0 8 N E •- W ,�' 0_ C u L 0 4) 4) UI .' O 3 Y L u C 7 " 1. O L C) w' E c T ).- L v Q .' tJ v in C an V F- V C O N C t0 u • 7 T i Cl u m N o CU T T •- . •-• C (0 0 — t 4 0 u al • L u d 3 Y d CI i •0 •— >Q C C •- y L 4V 7 V L rn T C d ''AiL C u C N — O v > O 0 .- L L i �qy 1 v r.0 10 L N 'K •— •ry� L.• 44- D L v L L 7 a n d o 6 5 1 S f9 4. O L.V C) v 3 E 0 O O V1 L V- .• U N Ya. Y. '7', i a. 8 i m 4 � d 8 ' to i Si w _ w — .1/4, ., cc — \. t1 RIM a. a CZ 1 ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS •INC • October 15, 1979 Mr. Jonathan M. Rutstein Larimer/Weld Regional _ Council of Governments 201 East 4th Street, Room 201 Loveland, Colorado 80537 SUBJECT MATTER: Application for Federal Funding: Small Cities - Single Purpose Dear Mr. Rutstein: On October 15, 1979 , the Towns of Frederick and Firestone _ in cooperation with Weld County have submitted an Application for Funding to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Pursuant to the regulations regarding the A-95 criteria, enclosed please find a copy of the application which has been submitted to HUD. The Towns would greatly appreciate a favorable review and look forward to your comments as soon as possible. Very truly yours , _ ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOOU CONSULTANTS, INC. I�✓/G%G�-ts,-r William A. Schuler, P .E. Engineer, Town of Frederick WAS:mew Encl. File 7-1953 cc: Mayor Hall, Frederick Mayor Becker, Firestone Longmont Office: Denver Office: Estes Park Office: 647 17tn Avenue 4260 East Evans Avenue, Suite 7 P. O. Box 1649 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Denver, Colorado 80222 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 - ---- •---• --- -_,._ ... innn% ,CO Arno (2n2t FPR9dSP ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS *INC * October 15, 1979 Mr. Stephen O. Ellis Chief Planner Department of Local Affairs Colorado Division of Planning 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 SUBJECT MATTER: Application for Federal Funding: Small Cities - Single Purpose Dear Mr. Ellis : On October 15, 1979, the Towns of Frederick and Firestone in cooperation with Weld County have submitted an Application for Funding to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Pursuant to the regulations regarding the A-95 criteria, enclosed please find a copy of the application which has been submitted to HUD. The Towns would greatly appreciate a favorable review and look forward to your comments as soon as possible. Very truly yours, ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. 6.--1"-daZdif William A. Schuler, P .E. Engineer, Town of Frederick WAS:mew Encl. File 7-1953 cc: Mayor Hall, Frederick Mayor Becker, Firestone Longmont Office: Denver Office: Estes Park Office: 647 17tn Avenue 4260 East Evans Avenue, Suite 7 P. O. Box 1649 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Denver, Colorado 80222 Estes Park, Colorado 8051: izmi 7FR 4F37 13031 586-2458 Hello