The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Community Development 1991-08-08' I. I 4 AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, August 8, 1991 2:00 p.m. 1. Conference Center - Report on Grand Opening. 2. Advertising Program, Year-to-date. 3. 1990 Census and Local Review. 4. Art Collection Policy. 5. Conference Center Art Exhibits - Insurance 6. REPORTS a. Town's 75th Anniversary b. Childrens Center c. BOCES/MacGregor Ranch d. Year-to-date (June) Traffic Counts e. Larimer County Housing Authority Application for Section 8 Housing Vouchers 7. Adjournment NOTE:The Community Development Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared Steve Stamey . i Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 8/6/91 From: Peter Marsh Advertising Update - as of 7/31/91 A<Year~)to Date packet requests of 55,306 exceed 1990 year to date by <30.5%, /And are within 350 packet requests of 1990 TOTAL YEAR. 1-7 LB..--#Cost Per Inquiry for the Magazine Program is $2.94, compared to $3.28 at this time last year. C. Telephone calls (as of JUNE 30) are 6,681 (33%) ahead of the same period 1990. 2 I '' COMPARISONS HOUSING AND POPULATION COUNTS 1990 1991 (35.Sll-s~h Local Count TOTAL POPULATION =&19-4 3,758 *4,698 Total Housing Units 2,006 2,404 Occupied Housing Units 1,444 1,731 Vacant Housing Units 562~ 673 (assume census rate) Vacancy Rate 28% 28% Persons Per Household 2.17 2.17 * If assume 10% vacancy rate 1990 Census Â· 18% Undercount in Population 19.8 % Undercount in Housing Units t I 4 SUMMARY OF CENSUS DATA Census Figures: for Estes Park, Colorado 1930 417 people 1940 994 people 1950 1617 people 1960 1175 people 1970 1616 people 1980 2703 people 1990 3184 people THE LAND USE SURVEY : Over the past several months concern has been raised over the validity of the 1990 census figures as applied to Estes Park. This concern created a need for a local land use survey. While population projections rely primarily on housing counts these counts are only one component of the land use survey conducted for Estes Park. The Land Use survey was comprised of 13 land use categories. The categories included: RE: Single Family Units m Multi Family Units iti 0 2 Family Duplex Commercial Churches Open Space Bed and Breakfasts Parking Vacant Public Accommodations Commercial Recreational Industrial To increase the accuracy of the count the residential category was broken into three groups, single family, multi family and 2 family duplex. r (After the categories were established a door to door survey began. Topographic maps were relied upon to determine the location of structures and lot, line divisions. If a discrepancy arose between the observed count and the topography maps then building permits were consulted to determine correct placement and number of units. When the door to door survey, which included all the land area located within the. City limits, was completed the figures were c6mpared with the 1990 Census figures. This process was somewhat 3 arbitrary due to the difficulty in identifying and using the census block divisions. For example, the census map includes streets which do not exist and census block numbers which are written on top of each other. A census block comparison was made but attention should be directed toward the final count. The final step in the process was to graphically locate the information on a map. This map is currently available and depicts the most up to date land usage in Estes Park. POPULATION COUNTS : In order to project the population the Census relies on the number of housing units, the vacancy rate, the number of full time residents, and the number of persons per household. The 1980 figures are listed to provide a comparison with the 1990 figures. 1980 CENSUS POPULATION COUNT 2,703 People ** 1980 ** 1980 CENSUS HOUSING UNIT COUNT 1, 992 Units 1980 VACANCY RATE 28.3% 1980 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 2.20 1990 CENSUS POPULATION COUNT 3,184 People ** 1990 ** 1990 CENSUS HOUSING UNIT COUNT 2,006 Units 1990 VACANCY RATE 28.0% 1990 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 2.17 While using the same mathematical procedure and applying it to the land use survey housing count of 2,404 units the data is considerably different. The Census used 2,006 units as the base for the housing units while the land use survey suggests there are 2,404 total housing units in Estes Park. The difference between the two counts is: 2,006 - 2,404 = -398 (These units were not included (HU) (HU) (HU) in the Census Housing Count) The difference between the census figures and local land use figures coupled with concern over the established vacancy rate suggested generating two housing counts using different vacancy rates. The first projection uses the 28% vacancy rate as established by the Census while the second projection uses a perhaps more realistic vacancy rate of 10%. PROJECTION ONE: VACANCY RATE OF 28% 1991 LOCAL REVIEW COUNT POPULATION .3,758 People 1991 LOCAL REVIEW HOUSING UNIT COUNT 2,404 Units 1991 VACANCY RATE (USED 28.0% AS STATED BY THE CENSUS) 1991 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD (USED 2.17 AS STATED BY THE CENSUS) When calculating the land use survey housing unit figure with a 28% vacancy rate the projected population is 3,758 people. This suggests a possible under count of 574 people: 1990 Census Pop - 1991 Land Use Pop = Possible Under Count 3,184 - 3,758 = -574 people PROJECTION TWO: VACANCY RATE OF 10% 1991 LOCAL REVIEW COUNT POPULATION 4,698 People 1991 LOCAL REVIEW HOUSING UNIT COUNTS 2,404 Units 1991 VACANCY RATE 10% 1991 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD (USED 2.17 AS STATED BY THE CENSUS) Repeating the calculation process using a 10% vacancy rate suggests a possible under count of 1514 people: 1990 Census Pop - 1991 Land Use Pop = Possible Under Count 3,184 - 4,698 = -1514 people While population projections rely on sound mathematical procedures they are also subject to interpretations and observations. The numbers generated by the 1991 land use survey are accurate, but they should be considered estimates and not exact numbers. The United States Bureau of the Census recently determined no further adjustments will be made to the 1990 Census; therefore municipalities are currently receiving the final census data. Though questions may arise concerning the accuracy of this data the information is useful particularly when looking at long range trends within a community. (See Chart 1 for Census Summary Sheet) Census data allows the consumer to depict certain trends and changes particularly in the areas of housing , economics and demographics. For example, the Median Value Owner Occupied Unit rouse from $73,000 in 1980 to $103,000 in 1990. The Vacant Units for Rent is also a category which merits some attention. According to the Census in 1980 there were 135 vacant units for rent while in 1990 there were only 35 units. According to census figures there appears to be a gradual aging of the Estes Park population. In 1970 only 15.5% of the population was 65 and over. This figure increased to 16.2% in 1980, but in 1990 23.0% of the population was 65 and over. The percentage of people 18 and younger has remained somewhat stable throughout the past three decades, 1970 28.5%. 1980 19.1% and 1990 19.1%. Only a limited amount of 1990 Census data has been made available, therefore additional trends will be noticed when all the data is received. Table 1. Selected Population and Housing Characteristics 1990 was recently received from the Department of Local Affairs and represents the largest combination of 1990 Census data received by the. City to date. 5 As concern over the accuracy of the 1990 Census continues to escalate municipalities will be forced to do their own population and housing counts. Estes Park is well ahead of the rest with the information provided from the Land Use survey Estes Park can face the 1990's knowing it has a sound demographic base. 6 TABLE 2 CENSUS DATA SUMMARY SHEET Estes Park City Limits CENSUS CATEGORIES 1970 1980 1990 Total Population 1616 2702 3184 Median Age 40.7 35.8 42.6 65 Years & Over 15.5 16.2 23.0 Households 623 1230 1444 Person per Household Occupied 2.59 2.20 2.17 Total Housing Units 1103 1922 2006 Total Year-round Housing Units 787 1533 --- Total Occupied Housing Units 623 1230 1444 Total Owner Occupied Housing Units 442 723 822 Total Renter Occupied Housing Units 181 507 622 Total Vacant Units 164 303 562 Total Seasonal 316 389 448 Vacant Units for Sale 13 35 --- Vacant Units for Rent 38 135 35 Vacant Units Occasional/Other Use 113 133 --- Total Year-round Single Family 664 1034 --- Total Year-round 2 to 9 Units --- 326 340 Total Year-round 10 or more 27 139 128 Total Year-round Mobile Home --- 34 50 Percent 18 and younger 28.5 19.1 19.1 Number of Families (2 or+) --- 779 --- Med. Rent of Rental Units --- 214 353 Annualized Rate of Growth --- 5.28 --- Vacancy Rate --- 28.3 28.0 Med. Value Owner Occupied Units 1980 = $ 73,000 1990 = $ 103,000 - - UUL , U Ul 1 1\ 1 0,00 LUUML Ill' r It 1 ILD r MA NU, SUJOOD/251 r. uz '9, 11- ,\ . . 1990 Table 1. Selected Population and Housing Characteristics: 1990 Estes Park town, Colorado The population counts set forth herein are subject to pgssible correction for undercount or overcount. The United States Department of Commerce 16 congidering whether to correct these counts and will publish corrected counts, if any, not later than July 15, 1991. The user should note that there are limitations to many of these data. Please refer to the technical documentation provided with Summary Tape File lA for a further explanation on the limitations of the data. -.I---I--'ll.Il----------- --- Total population 3,184 Total housing units ,2,006 SEX OCCUPANCY AND TENURE tia le 1,481 Occupied housing units 1,444 Female 1,703 Owner occupied 822 AGE 56.9 Percent owner occupied Under 5 years 165 Vacant housing units 562 Renter occupied 622 5 to 17 years 443 For seasonal, recreational, 18 to 20 years 87 or occasional use 448 21 to 24 years 95 Homeowner vacancy rate (percent) 2.5 25 to 44 years 902 Rental vacancy rate (percent) 6.3 45 to 54 years 387 55 to 59 years 196 Persons per owner-occupied unit 2.25 60 to 64 years 197 Persons per renter-occupied unit 2.06 65 to 74 years 430 Units with over 1 person per room 25 75 to 84 years 231 85 years anct over 71 UNITS IN STRUCTURE liedian age 42.6 1-unit, detached 1,259 -1-unit, attached 229 Under 18 years 608 2 to 4 units 198 Percent of total population 19.1 5 to 9 units 142 -Â·Â·Â·-*. 65 years and over 732 10 or more units 128 Percent of toilet population 23.0 Mobile home, trailer, other 50 HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE VALUE Total households 1,444 Specitied owner-occupied units 662 Family households (families) 949 Less than $50,000 25 larried-couple families 839 $50,000 to $99,999 .29L Percent of total households 58.1 $100,000 to $149,999 203 Other family, male householder 25 $150,000 to $199,999 85 Other family, female householder 85 $200,000 to $299,999 46 Nonfamily households 495 $300,000 or more 12 Percent of total households 34.3 Median Cdollars) 103,300 Householder living alone 428 Householder 65 years ancl over 184 CONTRACT RENT Specified renter-occupied units Persons living in households 3,135 paying cash rent 580 Persons per household 2.17 Less than $250 72 GROUP QUARTERS 2 . u $500 to $749 69 $250 to $499 433 Persons living in group quarters 49 $750 to $999 5 Institutionalized persons 49 $1,000 or more 1 Other persons in group quarters - Median Cdollars) 353 RACE AND IlISPANIC ORIGIN RACE AND 1IISPANIC ORIGIN White 3,144 OF HOUSEHOLDER Black Percent of total population 0.2 White 1,431 5 Occupied housing units 1,444 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 9 Black 3 Percent of total population 0.3 Percent of occupied units 0.2 Asian or Pacific Islander 19 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 4 Percant of total population 0,6 Percent of occupied units 0.3 Other race Â· 7 Asian or Pacific Istander 5 -. Ilispanic origin (of any race) 33 Percent of occupied units Percent of. total population 1,0 Other race Hispanic origin (of any race) 9 Percent of occupied units 0.6 f hilk UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFCOMMERCE Uil: i . Bureau of the Census 9 [-4-1 0 Washington, DC 20233-0001 Po 41.7 .2 STATES 0' July 22, 1991 Mr. Stephem L. Stamey Director Community Development Dept. P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Stamey: We are writing as a follow-up to your letter regarding your concerns about the 1990 census counts. As you may know, on July 15, 1991, the Secretary of Commerce decided not to adjust the 1990 census to correct for estimated undercounts or overcounts. You may be wondering how this decision affects the specific concerns about the 1990 census counts that you documented in your letter to the Census Bureau. As a result of the adjustment decision the census counts released in January 1991 remain the official 1990 census counts. The Census Bureau plans to continue its work associated with the review of locally identified concerns. If any corrections resulting from our review affect the total population for a governmental unit, the Census Bureau will issue a revised certified census count. This summer we will begin issuing revised certified census counts for those governmental units requiring corrections. We will also incorporate any appropriate corrections into the Population Estimates Program. No further action on your part is required unless the Census Bureau contacts you to obtain additional information. Thank you for your interest in the 1990 census. Sincerely, EDWIN B. WAGNER, JR. Assistant Division Chief for Operations Decennial Planning Division Bureau of the Census 9 -mOn. PU.U.â€ž,NO CO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ': r.; 3.f, - Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority July 18, 1991 Commissioners: J. Donald Pauley, Edward B. Pohl John M. Ericson, Jim Godbolt, Carl Henderson ~ Gary F. Klaphake, Gerald W. Swank Attending: . All Â·it. Also Attending: EPURA Executive Director Anderson E Deputy Clerk Heifner Absent: None 'iÂ·> Chairman Pauley called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. MINUTES: Minutes of the June 20, 1991 regular meeting were approved as prepared. BILLS: It was moved and seconded (Henderson-Godbolt) the bills be paid, and it passed unanimously. TREASURER'S REPORT: 1 It was moved and seconded (rolil-Brier;on) the Treasurer's Report be 4 accepted into the record, and it passed unanimously. f ~ COMMITTEES 4.14 Capital .Improvements/Circulation - It was moved and seconded (Godbolt-Swank) the July 17, 1991 Committee minutes be accepted into the record. Develgnment= - The Development Committee will meet on July 25, 1991 at 9:00 A.M. to review a proposed downtown redevelopment project. LIAIBQH: Commissioner Klaphake noted the Town/EPURA joint meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 8, 1991 at 8:00 A.M. i AUTHORITY BUSINESS: R. C. Heath Construction Company - Change Order Ill - Field order numbers 1-17 for the West Elkhorn parking lot were reviewed by the i , i . Board. Director Anderson noted field order numbers 9 and 14 will be reimbursed to EPURA. Field order numbers 8 and 11 cover work i performed by R. C. Heath with respect to the safety handrail behind Brownfield's and mounting of the Phares memorial plague. 1.5.-- ,4 - It was moved and seconded (Klaphake-Henderson) Change Order #1 to R. C. Heath Construction Company be approved in the amount of , $6,987.00, and it passed unanimously. Big Thompson River Proiect - U.S.A. Construction, Inc. - Director ;J ~~1' ' i ~~t. Anderson stated that EPURA legal counsel has f iled a Summons and Complaint in the Larimer County District Court against U.S.A. Construction, Inc. and its surety, Employer's Mutual Casualty 4., 1:41 Company. ;).:'.1 .1'./hl Â· Resolution No. 166 - Director Anderson read Resolution No. 166 (A 7,1.. Resolution in Support of the Town of Estes Park's Historic District ordinance) whereupon it was moved and seconded (Pohl-Godbolt) Resolution No. 166 be adopted, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting Yes: Commissioners Ericson, Godbolt, 10 . . 11:,1 1, J. . t. 1,1 V::.5 .:-#--. *:.10/4/...7-./2 Â· Zi I-'FO"PUILI'HINIC'. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - July 18, 1991 - Page 2 Henderson, Pohl, Swank. Those voting No: None. Those Abstaining: Commissioner Klaphake. STAKE fi f: ' : ' "' 91 1. An annual comparison of sales tax collections within the Urban Renewal District was presented. I 2. Director Anderson read a letter received from Howard Neville/Sterling, Colorado and addressed to Lynda Vogel/Cultural ''. ~ b j:Â·:Iii f Arts Council Executive Director, which was forwarded to Community Development Director Stamey and on to Director Anderson. The J letter states Mr. Neville is contacting six communities rich in Ute . 4'NUN. heritage to ascertain where his sculpture, depicting a Ute Indian drinking from a pool, would logically fit. 2 , 4 N Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Henderson-Godbolt) EPURA establish a policy of exclusively purchasing/receiving gali . r :1: L traditional wildlife art work indigenous to the Estes Park area. Those voting Yes: Commissioners Godbolt, Henderson, Klaphake,r Pohl, Swank. Those voting No: Commissioner Ericson. ..The motion I passed. Commissioner Klaphake stated he would request the Town endorse this same philosophy. 16*n There being no further business, Chairman Pauley adjourned the meeting at 9:25 A.M. I 719 .................. ; Donna Heifner, Deputy Town Clerk ''.45'M -iff; 1 : :- i 6.7 I . 1 1 4 P 1 - 1, G f! l. ' ' Â·/ Ih / 'All'.s~441Â¢1-Â·1 Â· ; ~ '2,4,~'*.1...6~i~j,i.t =:.j.' e 'AC-lth- - i *-11 P . UNJU'.Gona trb;.. :.: i' 2.:. .21 â€¢/ i 1. 1< . d.1 1- . . 1 , ''rt ' VISUAL ARTS COLLECTION POLICY The following collection policy provides a framework for decisions relating to acceptance and acquisition of public art by the Town Board of Trustees. ARTWORK SELECTION The following criteria may be considered: A. Compatibility of the design with the site. B. Appropriateness of the design to the function space and area of the site. C. Appropriateness of the materials and design. D. Representation of community tastes and interests. E. Permanence of structural and surface components. F. Positive contribution to the cultural fabric of the community and its lifestyle (cultural, educational, historic importance.) SITE SELECTION CRITERIA A. Compatibility with the design of an area, emphasizing gateways or linkages to other parts of the community. B. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns. C. Site design including landscaping, drainage, grading, lighting, seating considerations and accessibility. D. Relationship and proximity to existing artworks. E. Impact on operational functions (snowplowing, etc.) of the Town. F. The potential of vandalism or exploitation. G. The cost of development and maintenance SUBMISSION FOR DIRECT PURCHASE Artists who have finished work available for direct purchase should submit the following: A. A proposal sheet with the artist's name, including the following information: Title of artwork, photo(s), dimensions, medium, date produced, price, location, number of reproductions (if applicable), restrictions on reproduction, and other information the artist deems pertinent. 12 HAMMOND. CLARK AND WHITE a LAW'OFFICES FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, SUITE 418 LYNN A. HAMMOND \ 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET .h''Oi---tr.. ALFRED P. DAVIS ROGER E. CLARK LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 610$*r:VN5!F COUNSEL GREGORY A. WHITE 303-667-1023 ~ /11~ :i.~60~.'~~/:~43~t~4*4 TELEFAX rj 303-669-9380 :453 11 0 r-+411 July 29, 1991 ,4 4 r.ltry-Jr Mr. Steve Stamey Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Steve: Enclosed please find my memorandum pursuant to our telephone conversation of today. Also, I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Loan Agreement based upon Option No. 1. If you need anything further, please do not hesitate to give me a call. U Very ltruly yours, / f Q . L a Gregity A. White GAWÂ·Â·ic 1 Enclosure MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Stamey FROM: Greg White RE: Conference Center Art Work Exhibits DATE: July 29, 1991 Pursuant to a telephone conversation of July 29, 1991 between myself, you and Rich Widmer, I am writing this memo to explain the current situation with regard to insuring art work to be loaned to the Conference Center. 1. The Town, through CIRSA, has fine arts coverage for all art work owned or loaned to the Town. That coverage has the following provisions: A. A $5,000.00 deductible for each loss event. For example, if one painting was stolen or damaged, a $5,000.00 deductible would apply to the loss. I f more than one painting were stolen, lost or destroyed in a loss event, a total of $5,000.00 for the entire loss is the applicable deductible. B. Unless the total value of art work covered under the policy is over $500,000.00, including all art work presently owned or covered by the Town, it is my understanding that there would be no additional premium at this time. It should be noted that CIRSA may re-examine this position in subsequent years if the Town continues to insure a substantial amount of art work that was not insured in the past. C. In order to cover the art work on the policy, the amount of art work to be insured and the period of time for said insurance needs to be transmitted to CIRSA to bind the coverage. D. In the event of a loss, subject to the applicable deductible, CIRSA will pay the appraised value of the work. 2. Based upon the above insurance situation, it is my opinion that the Town has two avenues with regard to this matter. 14 A. The Town can provide in a written agreement with the artist that they will be responsible for any loss suffered by the artist in the loaning of the art work to the Town for use at the Conference Center. The Town would be responsible for any applicable deductible in case of loss and also any difference between the amount paid by CIRSA for the loss (appraised value) and the amount the Town agrees with the artist is the value of the piece. The person administering the program should be able to document the value of the piece, including any appraisal that the artist has, and also place a realistic value on the piece to prevent any wide divergence in the artist's opinion of the value of the work and the actual value that would be paid by CIRSA in the event of a loss. This option places the administration of this matter entirely within the Town. B. The Town could provide that, subject to the deductible, it would only pay the artist what it receives from an insurance claim through CIRSA. The Town would bear no risk with regard to any divergence between the artist's opinion of the value of the piece and CIRSA's payment in the case of a loss. Please let me know how you wish to have me proceed in this matter. 15 John W. Prasuhn 1403 Cedar Lane - LPR . Estes Park, CO 80517 810 South Lincoln Street 303-586-0401 Longmont, CO 80501 loining forces to enrich Denver line: 442-2197 303-772-4420 educational opportunities for Colorado. Fax line: 776-0504 BOCES |'f#~,V~':~:.,7.7 Â·I. Iâ€¢'.'r.Â·:A)'94'' C"w...H.;1!00/ July 8, 1991 NORTHERN HY"'), Kof),1.Al'Vi 11,11(â€¢11â€ž"A, t,*Viâ‚¬,~ F JUL 1 1 1411 &1 Mayor Bernie Dannels, st. vrain valley i'(own of Estes Park Thompson R-21 ~ .O. Box 1200 : Â·Â·>,4-Â·4'Â·t.Â·Â·Â· E.:Â·â€¢ 2Â·'~'.~0~)â€¢" Estes Park R-3 r. V ..... :.... Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mayor Dannels, I am writing to inform you that the Northern Colorado Board of Cooperative Educational Services (NCBOCES) has terminated its license agreement with MacGregor Ranch. Given the recent Trail Gazette article, you may already be aware of this fact. Given the content of the article, it may be unclear why NeBOCES decided to pull out of the ranch. NCBOCES has had a 20-year agreement with the ranch dating from 1978 to 1998. For many years, NCBOCES has been trying to get the ranch trustees to live up to that contract. Pramises have been made by the executive directors of the ranch that have not been kept. For the last several years, the ranch trustees have been unwilling to even meet with NCBOCES. Publicly they have invited NeBOCES to generate their own funds to construct the proposed education center. Privately they have demonstrated that they do not want the education center. Any efforts on NeBOCES part to solicit funds are futile without the support of the trustees. No one will donate funds of this magnitude to a project that is unwanted by the land owners. These types of tactics are cammonplace when dealing with the MacGregor Trustees. Publicly they say one thing, but their actions and cooperation with NCBOCES are quite different. NCBOCES has decided to direct its efforts for environmental education toward finding new resources. An education center at MacGregor Ranch would have been a wonderful facility for the schools and for the Town of Estes Park. The lack of such a facility is not due to NCBOCES giving up, but it is due to the will of the trustees. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 772-4420. Sincerely, ~) 454 4971 61-4-tt-_ John W. Prasuhn 18 i'' DI . TOTAL TRAFFIC: YEAR-TO-DATE (JUNE) 4 4 US 34 0 Mall Rood . ' 600 600 300 200 ---0 6.4% 100 0 11111,1,111'i 19781979 1980 1981 1982198319841985 19861987 19881989 19901991 O JUNE + YEAR-TO-DATE 19 (Thousands> Boatd of County Commissioners . A A Comitm~: L Pro~rejs 498-7010 FAX 498-7985 Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 LARIMER COUNTY COLORADO July 2, 1991 Mr. Gerald Benoit Director of Rental Assistance Division U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Headquarters 451 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20410 Dear Mr. Benoit: The Larimer County Colorado Housing Authority made application in 1990 for Section 8 Housing Certificates and Vouchers. That application was denied due to seeming discrimination against new housing authorities by the current point system. We were unable to receive points under criterion #1 (Public Housing Authority Administrative Capabilities) because we were a new housing authority. We vigorously protest the evaluation system which overlooks the awarding of certificates and vouchers to new housing authorities. Moreover, we feel this process contributes to the growing affordable housing shortage here in Larimer County, Colorado. In view of H.U.D.'s role as a solution to the affordable housing problem, we strongly recommend that H.U.D. review current policies regarding the evaluation of new Housing authorities applications. Yours truly, LARIMER COUNTY . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Un.tÂ»14+Pl V M.J ~ekelburg Chairman RM/ac CC: Senator Brown , Senator' Wirth Representative Allard . 2 0 H.U.D. Region 8 Larimer County Housing Authority Advisory Committee National Realtors Association BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Courtlyn W. Hotchkiss M.J. -Moe- Mekelburg Daryle W. Klassen District I District 11 District 111 498-7C01 498-7C02 498-7003