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