Loading...
NSP3 Closeout Attachment CNeighborhood Stabilization Program 3 Closeout Checklist Attachment C For the purposes of expediting the grant closeout process, Commerce has attached NSP tracking information from Commerce files and asks that the grantees compare their internal records to the attached for confirmation of activities undertaken, funds spent, properties impacted and individuals benefitted with NSP funding. Please review the attached against your records and then submit the following checklist with applicable responses and answers: Jurisdiction Name: City of Kalispell Grant Number: MT-NSP-12-007-01-001 Official Contact Name: Katharine King Telephone Number: 406-758-7713 Email Address: kking@kalispell.corn Fax Number: 406-758-7758 I . NSP Activities (i) Describe all activities completed under the HERA, Recovery Act or Dodd -Frank Act (s) or published Federal Register Notices? CAP acquires vacant properties and endeavors to engage Contractors to perform certain work including: rehabilitation, renovation, and the improvement of the premises in accordance with Standards set out by the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. List addresses and type of activity undertaken for each address benefitted by NSP funds.: Property Address NSP Activity 2194 S Woodland Dr. NSP3 Rehab 725 Ashley Dr. NSP3 Rehab 242 Buttercup Loop NSP3 Rehab 726 Ashley Dr. NSP3 Rehab 18 Salem Dr. NSP3 Rehab 1957 Greatview NSP3 Rehab 107 Mallard Dr. NSP3 Rehab 1924 S Meadows Dr. NSP3 Rehab 2218 S Woodland Dr. NSP3&1Prog Inc Rehab 2. Expenditures (i) How much of the total 1) grant amount and 2) program income (to date) has been expended on administration? Was more than 5 percent of the grant amount and program income earned spent on administration and planning? According to NSP 3 regulations 10%. Yes 0 No If no, explain: (ii) How much of the total grant award benefitted individuals earning less than 50% area median income to meet the 25% set aside requirement? 3 1 % Is there evidence that 25 percent set aside requirement has been met? Yes 0 No ❑ If no, explain: 1 of 5 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Closeout Certification Montana Department of Commerce 2016 3. 1)$71,400.00 Activities eligible and meet a national objective (xi) (xii) Is there evidence that 100 percent of the grant amount principally benefitted persons of low, moderate and middle income (individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed 120 Went of AMI)? YesNo ❑ List each address and associated income group served: 2194 S Woodland Dr. 30% 725 Ashley Dr. 55% 242 Buttercup Loop 72% 726 Ashley Dr. 49% 18 Salem Dr. 108% 1957 Greatview 89% 107 Mallard Dr. 70% 1924 S Meadows Dr. 41% 2218 S Woodland Dr. 62% Did rtee use more than 10 percent of its NSP3 grant for demolition activities? YesNo ❑ N/A .If yes, date(s) of waiver: Are all NSP-assisted homes occupied by income -eligible residents? Yes ■ No ❑ If no, explain: Did all NSP-assisted rental units meet the "affordable rents" standards? Yes ❑ No 0 N/A ■ If no, explain: Do all NSP-assisted units have appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with the required minimum affordability period? Yes ■ No ❑ Do all rental projects meet the NSP proportional requirements of units occupied by income -eligible households or the CDBG criteria in 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3)? Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ■ If no, explain: Does the grantee still have unused funds held in a Loan Loss Reserve? Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ■ If yes, explain: NSP3 only — Did all gut rehabilitation or new construction of residential buildings up to threeesories meet or exceed the Energy Star Qualified New Homes Standard? 2 of 5 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Closeout Certification Montana Department of Commerce 2016 Activities eligible and meet a national objective (xi) (xii) Is there evidence that 100 percent of the grant amount principally benefitted persons of low, moderate and middle income (individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed 120 percent of AMI)? Yes No ❑ L ist each address and associated income group served: 2194 S Woodland Dr. 30% 72S Ashley Dr. SS% 242 Buttercup Loop 72% 7M Ashle Dr__, 49% 18 Salern Dr. 108% 1957 Greatvlew 89% 107 Mallard Dr. 70% 1924 S Meadows Dr. 41% 2218 S Woodland Dr. 62% Did grantee use more than 10 percent of its NSP3 grant for demolition activities? Yes No ❑ NIA ■ If yes, date(s) of waiver: Are all NSP-assisted homes occupied by income -eligible residents? Yes ■ No ❑ If no, explain: Did all NSP-assisted rental units meet the "affordable rents" standards? Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA. if no, explain! Do all NSP-assisted units have appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure compliance wick the required minimum affordability period? Yes ■ No ❑ Do all rental projects meet the NSP proportional requirements of units occupied by income -eligible households or the CDBG criteria in 24 CFR 57O.2O8(a)(3)? Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ■ If no, explain: Does the grantee still have unused funds held in a Loan Loss Reserve? Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ■ If yes, explain: NSP3 only -- Did all gut rehabilitation or new construction of residential buildings up to threories Meet or exc�gd the Energy Star Qualified New Homes Standard? u u 2of5 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Closeout Certification Montana Department of Commerce 2O16 Yes No N/A If no, explain: (v) No rental units (vii) No rental units (xi) No Loan Loss Reserve 4. Program Income (i) Is there any pro ram income on hand at the time the close out agreement is signed? Yes ❑ No (ii) If yes, does the grantee understand that all rules and regulations that currently govern NSP Program Income will continue to apply to the funds on hand at the time of closeout? Yes ■ No (iii) Is the program income plan executed and being carried out per NSP guidelines to further activities in the grantees area? Yes ■ No 5. Monitoring and Audits (i) Does the grantee currently have an audit being performed on its grant funds? Yes ■ No If yes, explain: (ii) Are there any o en Audit Findings? Yes 0 No jj If yes, explain: (iii) Did Commerce monitor, review and or audit the grant sub recipient? Yes ■ No If yes, list date: Per MDOC If no, explain: (iv) Are there any o en Commerce monitoring findings? Yes No If no, explain: 6. Reporting (i) Was the final a final quarterly performance report (QPR) submitted to Commerce current and accurate for overall activity of the grant? Yes . No n If no, explain: 3of5 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Closeout Certification Montana Department of Commerce 2016 (ii) Did the grantee report on the name, location, and contact information for each property that an activity was carried out? Yes ■ No ❑ If no, explain: (iii) Does the grantee files, as a licable, indicate that the environmental review is complete? Yes ■ No ❑ N/A If no, explain: (iv) Did the grantee maintain sufficient documentation about the purchase and sale amounts of each propert to ensure compliance with applicable NSP regulations? Yes ■ No If no, explain: (v) Does the grantee agree to comply with program income reporting on a bi-annual basis to the Department of Commerce, per the approved program income plan? Yes E No ❑ Certifications (i) Did the grantee adhere to all of the following certifications included in their NSP application and contract? Yes ■ No ❑ If no, explain: 4of5 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Closeout Certification Montana Department of Commerce 2016 Local Governments or Nonprofit, Consortium (please check boxes) Affirmative Furthering Fair Housing Anti -Displacement and Relocation Plan Anti -Lobbying Authority of Jurisdiction Consistency with Plan Acquisition and Relocation Section 3 Citizen Participation Following a Plan Use of Funds Excessive Force Compliance with Anti -Discrimination Laws Compliance with Lead -Based Paint Procedures Compliance with Laws Continued Affordability Grantee By: Doug sse , Manager '/ - L'f"/I Date 5of5 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Closeout Certification Montana Department of Commerce 2016