Presented by Medius, Inc. New Mexico Colonias Initiative & Trust Fund 2012
Definition of a Colonia • Unites State Department of Housing and Urban Development • “... a rural community located within 150 miles of the US-Mexican Border. They often lack the basic necessities most Americans take for granted – running water, electricity, and paved roads. These mostly unincorporated communities began to be developed in the 1950s and continue to exist for a variety of reasons, such as poor land use regulations. Without safe, sanitary and affordable housing, drinkable water, sewer and drainage systems, colonias struggle with issues often associated with Third World countries.”
Background of the Colonias Initiative (CI) • In New Mexico, there are 150 designated colonias. • The combined population in this area represents 24.97% of the entire state’s population with an average poverty rate higher than the state average of 18%. • These communities are eligible for reserved federal funding under the 1990 Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.
Background of the Colonias Initiative (CI) • Began in 2005, as a financial collaboration among local, state, and federal governments, in cooperation with community partners. • To date, CI has leverages over $129 million to transform New Mexico's colonias into economically and socially viable communities.
Purpose of CI • The Initiative was a vital resource for Southern New Mexico colonias for improving rural economic development, safety, health, and quality of life for rural colonias and community residents. • The Trust Fund will provide a permanent fund for the transformation process for colonias communities in the 11 southermost counties of NM.
Elements of Focus for CI • Identified Critical Elements of a Strong Community • Long-term land use planning and zoning • Flood control and drainage • Property platting and rectifying encroachment issues • Water and wastewater infrastructure • Roads • Housing
SB 279—The Creation of the Colonias Trust Fund • A permanent source of funding program and to establish a fair and equitable mechanism through which colonias designated communities will have access to state funds. • The Trust Fund will be administered by NMFA commencing in 2012. The Fund’s elements:
Colonias Trust Fund • Allocates Severance Tax bonding capacity authorizing 5% of the Senior Severance Tax Bonds to fund the Trust (Approx. $10 million in 2012); • A funding structure that will provide funding availability to disadvantaged communities in the 11 Southernmost NM Counties; • Establish a revolving fund mechanism through a loan component which will allow the Trust to fund itself. • In addition to helping bridge the funding gap, the Trust Fund will also provide a matching fund opportunity and a source of state leverage funding source to continue to attract federal funds to colonias designated areas.
Colonias Trust Fund Board • The board of a 12 member board is made up of two groups, the voting board includes 7 members: NMFA chief executive officert or designee, DFA Secretary or designee, NMED Secretary or designee, 2 members each from House & Senate representing both parties and representing colonias communities. The second group is composed by 6 non-voting advisory members representing—3 Council of Governments Directors representing the 11 Southern Counties where colonias exist, one member from MFA and one member from the NM Association of Counties.
Critical Elements of Success • The selection criterion for Colonias Initiative grants is based on the following: • Fund/Source Leverage • Technical Readiness • Long Term Economic Impact • Population Impact • Long Term Regional Infrastructure Impact • Project Urgency • Success of previous Colonias Initiative monies received.
Scoring Elements • Scoring Scale • In general, all criteria will be graded using the same measure 5: Significantly exceeds criterion identified (high score) 4: Exceeds criterion identified 3: Meets basic criterion identified 2: Falls below meeting criterion identified 1: Does not meet criterion identified (low score)
Criteria Explained • Funding/ Source Leverage: Have other avenues of funding been secured? • Grading Scale: • 5: Project has leveraged more than a 1:1 match • 4: Project has leveraged a 1:1 match • 3: Project has leveraged at least 75% fund match • 2: Project has leveraged at least 50% fund match • 1: Project has leveraged less than 25% fund match
Criteria Explained • Technical Readiness: How quickly can the project/phase get started • Grading Scale: • 5: The project is technically researched and prepared to be completed in less than 6 months • 4: The project is technically researched and prepared to be completed in 6-12 months • 3: The project is technically researched and prepared to be completed in 12-18 months • 2: The project is technically researched and may be completed in 18-24 months • 1: The project is technically feasible and may be completed in more than 24 months
Criteria Explained • Long Term Economic Impact: How will this positively influence the future development of the community? • Grading Scale: • 5: The project will provide significant economic improvement to region/area • 4: The project will provide substantial economic improvement to region/area • 3: The project will provide some economic improvement to region/area • 2: The project will provide little economic improvement to region/area • 1: The project will provide no economic improvement to region/area
Criteria Explained • Population Impact: What is the size of the population this project is expected to affect? • Grading Scale: • 5: This project will impact greater than 1000 people • 4: This project will impact between 500-1000 people • 3: This project will impact 100-500 people • 2: This project will impact 50-100 people • 1: This project will impact less than 50 people
Criteria Explained • Long Term Regional Infrastructure: How well does this project work toward an all-encompassing approach to future planning? • Grading Scale: • 5: The project significantly lends itself to a regionalized approach to resolving problem • 4: The project substantially lends itself to a regionalized approach to resolving problem • 3: The project somewhat lends itself to a regionalized approach to resolving problem • 2: The project may lend itself to a regionalized approach to resolving problem • 1: The project does not lend itself to a regionalized approach to resolving problem
Criteria Explained • Project Urgency: In terms of community health and safety, how big of a problem is presented, and how well does the project address it • Grading Scale: 5: The project resolves an acute health and safety concern for the community and is needed immediately 4: The project resolves a health and safety issue for the community and is need soon 3: The project improves a health and safety issue for the community 2: The project improves community infrastructure and health and safety could improve over time 1: The project improves community infrastructure
The Good, The Okay, and The Ugly • The Good: • Contains full description and is realistic in nature • Attached graphics, maps, etc. are beneficial to discussion • Example
The Good, The Okay, and The Ugly • The Okay: • Typically are lacking in information on a few points • Overly vague to ensure a quick decision • Lacks numbers to illustrate preparedness • Example
The Good, The Okay, and The Ugly • The Ugly: • Have a lack of detail – missing or skipping all aspects of questions • Exhibit a lack of preparedness for projects or a demonstrate a problem bigger than the one addressed • Example
Budgets: What's Expected • Project budget totals will match totals in matching funds section • Estimates for work will be accompanied with documentation • Budgets should be detailed and thorough • Note: Previous Colonias Initiative funding use will be factored into the decision to award