HomeMy WebLinkAbout780706.tiff co � �� j . DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT�
_ * i ••
° REGIONAL OFFICE `.) pt,
st, I � °o EXECUTIVE TOWER . 1405 CURTIS STREET y
°j3nw,t DENVER, COLORADO 80202 CO, �r 1,9 2
crr 78
April 14, 1978
REGION VIII IN REPLY REFER To:
8DF
Mr. Edward Dunbar
Chairman, Weld County Board
of County Commissioners
P. 0. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Dunbar:
On September 2, 1977, and January 31, 1978, we made monitoring visits to
Weld County to review their performance on their Fiscal Year 1976 and 1977
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) . Subsequently, we wrote two letters
making note of concerns raised during these visits. This response represents
our review of your letter dated March 13, 1978, which addressed these concerns:
1. Burger-Fry Subdivision Relocation Project
The letter indicated that HUD funds had been expended by December 31, 1976,
although an incomplete Grantee Performance Report (GPR) to officially close-
out the project was not received until March 3, 1978. You note that this
project should "help reflect our interest in insuring that housing programs
will continue in Weld County." Having relocated 18 families, it is unclear
how the cleared land will facilitate meeting the county's Housing Assistance
Plan (HAP) goals.
The letter refers to "the county's understanding that work on the project
could not proceed until the release of funds had been secured." The release
of funds applies to program activities, not planning or administration.
This incorrect reading of the regulations resulted in unnecessary delays in
each of the three program years.
2. The letter states under (b) Evanston Project, that, "It was the county's
opinion that administrative monies available under the grant should not be
utilized to develop the more basic elements of the program such as program
guidelines and property rehabilitation standards. Rather, it was felt that
administrative monies under the program should be utilized directly for
program implementation after the basic documents and guidelines had been
developed." Yet, according to the next page (p. 3, #6) , the planning staff
780706
C'C', / iep,o44"
1)/'/72
Insuring Offices
Casper, Wyoming•Denver, Colorado.Fargo, North Dakota.Helena, Montana•Salt Lake City, Utah-Sioux Falls, South Dakota
- 2 -
from December 13, 1976, to January 26, 1977, did program development only
to have the entire process repeated (p. 3, #8) from March 1 to September 1977,
after Mr. Rodriguez became Rehabilitation Administrator. This would seem to
be a duplication of effort.
The letter also says that administrative funds will be drawn down monthly.
Have arrangements been made to draw-down program activity funds on a similarly
regular schedule?
3. The first rehabilitation grants (p. 3, #9) were awarded to the homeowners
in Evanston in September 1977, but the three homeowner contracts were not
signed until the end of November 1977. This conflicts with the data given
in Attachment 1.
Based on the narrative (p. 7) , it does not appear that the county will make
it's CDBG goal of 30 houses to be rehabilitated. On the contrary, the county
figures indicate only 18 houses will be completed with CDBG money. Greater
attention should be directed at the setting of realistic goals for housing
rehabilitation relative to housing conditions. You have mentioned (p. 8)
that Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) 504 loan funds are available. We
encourage you to pursue such funds to help meet the 944 elderly households
in need of assistance.
If a recently raised grant ceiling of $7500 (p. 9 & 10) appears too low to
rehabilitate the house presently under consideration, and efforts to leverage
other funds prove too time consuming, perhaps it is time to determine that
these varticular units are dilapidated"anddare unc»,fa1,1a_for_rehabilitation.
4. The communities noted in the letter (b) Housing Assistance for Renters as
having applied for or received rental assistance are all units of general
local government. This assistance cannot be credited towards the goals in
the county's HAP. It is the county's responsibility to seek out developers,
organize a Housing Authority, respond to advertisements, or otherwise attempt
to meet the goals established in their HAP. The fact that the county does
not have a Housing Authority does not preclude their encouraging developers
to apply for FmHA or HUD Section 8 units. We wish to remind the county that
communities which have opportunities to provide housing assistance and do
not take advantage of such opportunities may jeopardize future CDBG funding.
Telephone conversations have indicated that the March 10 deadlines for going
to bid have already been missed for 18 grants that the county suggested to
be included in our February 15, 1978, letter. Ten more have no dates
established for going to bid. Thus, only two grants met the first deadline.
By the county's own estimates, those grants going to bid on March 16 would
not have work underway until May 3 at the earliest. This is three and a
half weeks after the second deadline, for the April 7, 1978, work underway.
- 3 -
We remind the county that their failure to meet those deadlines could be
the basis for a HUD determination of lack of continuing capacity.
This letter is to inform you of our continuing concern on progress on planned
activities, the setting and meeting of goals, and the importance of accuracy
in reporting to the Department.
If you have any questions, please contact your Community Development Repre-
sentative, Ms. Lee-Desta Rhoad, at 837-4666.
Sincerely,
9
Joh S. Beale, Jr.
Dir ctor, Field Operations Division
Co unity Planning and Development
Hello