The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1985 1118 CC REG ITEM 10GALBERT PRIETO Mayor JAMES D. WEAK Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY- SUTTON Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk JOHN C. GEDNEY City Treasurer TO = FROM = DATE = SUB.?- IF, CT BACKGROUND bt'OORPARK MEMORANDUM The Honorable City Council t s Thomas Genovese, Administrative Assistant ,gyp November 13, 1985 Senior Center Bond Act Grant STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney NIALL FRITZ Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police The Ventura County Area Agency on Aging (AAA) informed the City that its "Advisory Council" has recommended a nr-ant award of $150,000.00 for the City of Moorpark. The City had re- guested an allocation of $339,743. The recommendations of the " "Idvisory Counsel" were based upon finding of a Task Force that evaluated each of the grant appl- ications. The "Advisory Council" recommendations for funding Senior Center Bond Act projects were presented to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors for public hearing on October 8. As required by the AAA, the City has responded in writing that the City will accept the recommended grant award. This acceptance was required to be sub- mitted by October 8 public hearing. A second hearing was held on October 15. City staff was in attendance and presented the attached letter to the Board as well as an oral presentation expressing the City's concerns on the recommended allocation awards. Also present were several seniors from Moorpark, three of whom expressed their concerns of the allocation process. Acceptance of the recommended grant award does not preclude the City's right to appeal the "Advisory Council" recommendations. At the October 15 public Supervisors approved the County Area on Aging Adv the recommendations were Aging. 799 Moorpark Avenue hearing, the Ventura County Board of funding recommendations of the Ventura isory Council. Subsequent to this hearing, forwarded to the California Department of Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 Senior Center Bond Act page 2 On October 29 the City of Moorpark filed the attached letter of appeal with the Senior Center Bond Act Appeal Board. The City's appeal was heard on November 6 at which time the City expressed it's concerns with the allocation process. The appeal was denied as were the appeals field by two other agencies. The City may now submit an appeal to the California Department of Aging. This appeal must be submitted by November 21, 1985. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council, based on the recommendation of the ad hoc Senior Citizens Committee, direct staff to proceed with the appeal to the California Department of Aging. ALBERT PRIETO Mayor JAMES D. WEAK Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY- SUTTON Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk JOHN C. GEDNEY City Treasurer ivI00RPARK November 14, 1985 California Department of Aging 1020 19th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Appeal of Senior Bond Act Dear Gentlemen: STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney NIALL FRITZ Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police This appeal is written in regards to the recommended allocation of funds of the Senior Center Bond Act. The City of Moorpark is currently without a Senior Center and is expressly interested in obtaining sufficent funds to construct a center to provide a centralized location of services available for the City's Seniors. As you are aware, the amount of funds available for al- locations is $892,644. To provide the seniors with a center, the City of Moorpark has requested an allocation of $339,743. In the evaluation process the City of Moorpark obtained an evaluation score of 84.16. This score was sufficient enough to rank the City's project second of the 14 applicants. A review of the Task Force evaluation criteria scoring forms indicates Moorpark accumulated the highest score in the "Need for the Project" criteria, consistent with the State evaluation criteria. However, dispite this, the City has received a recommended allocation of only $150,000. This amount repre- sents only 440 of the City's allocation request. In contrast, the City of Oxnard and Help of Ojai, Inc. which ranked third and fourth respectively, received recommended allocations of 1000 of allocations requested. Neither of these projects are for the construction of a Senior Center. The City of Fillmore, which received only one evaluation point higher (85.16) than the City of Moorpark (84.16), received a recommended allocation of 790 of its $350,000 allocation request. In addition to this, the City of Santa Paula which was ranked fifth, received a larger recommendation than the City of Moorpark. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 California Department of Aging pag(- 2 The reason for the City's appeal is the inconsistency between the projects rankings and the recommended allocation amounts. Although the City realizes that the recommended allocations of the Advisory Council were not required to directly reflect the evaluation scores achieved by the applicants, the City did feel that there should be a consistent correlation between the evaluation scores achieved and the allocation amounts awarded. The City was informed that the local criteria was incorporated into the statwide criteria to formulate the evaluation criteria scoring forms. The City has ranked exceptionally well in the evaluation scoring, however, when compared to the other applicants the City has received a disproportionately smaller share of funds in relation to the project rankings. It appears that the $150,000 recommended allocation award by the Advisory Council is a subjective amount and does not accurately reflect the costs for a scaled -down project, as suggested by the Ventura County Area Agency on Aging. As previously mentioned the City of Moorpark is currently without a Senior Center and is expressly interested in obtaining sufficent funds to construct a center to provide a centralized location of the services available for the City's Seniors. In review of the cost allocation plan sub- mitted in the City's application, and the proposed scale - down of service /activities suggested to the City by the Area Agency on Aging, the City still will find it diffi- cult to construct the proposed structure with the recom- mended allocation award. It is for this reason and the concerns relating to the role the rankings have had in the determination of the recommended awards that we ask the California Department of Aging to reconsider the allocation amount recommended to the City of Moorpark. Sincerely, Steven Kueny City Manager SK /r j h ALBERT PRIETO Mayor JAMES D. WEAK Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY- SUTTON Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk JOHN C. GEDNEY City Treasurer MOORPARK October 25, 1985 Area Agency on Aging Appeal Board 800 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA. 93009 Re: Appeal of Senior Bond Act Dear Board Members; This appeal is written Act allocation awarded received an allocation represents only 44% of believed that this amo of, the score achieved STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney NIALL FRITZ Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police in regards to the Senior Center Bond to the City of Moorpark. The City has award of $150,000.00. This amount the City's allocation request. It is unt is not reflective of the evaluation nor the City's need for a Senior Center. In the evaluation process the City of Moorpark has obtained an evaluation score of 84.16. This score has ranked the City's project second of the 14 applicants. A review of the Task Force evaluation criteria scoring forms indicates Moorpark accumulated the highest score in the "Need For the Project" criteria, consistent with the State evaluation criteria. This seems valid, since Moorpark is without a Senior Center. How- ever, dispite this, the City has received a recommended alloca- tion of only 44% of its allocation request. This is in great contrast to the City of Oxnard and Help of Ojai,Inc., which received recommended allocation amounts of 1000 of allocations requested. These agencies were ranked third and fourth, re- spectively, and neither project was for the construction of a Senior Center. The City of Fillmore, which received only one evaluation point higher (85.16) than the City of Moorpark (84.16) received a recommended allocation of $275,000. This amount indicates the City of Fillmore received a recommended allocation of 790 of its $350,000 allocation request. In addition to this, the City of Santa Paula, which was ranked fifth, received a larger recommendated allocation than the City of Moorpark. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 9302 (805) 529-6864 Area Agency on Aging Page 2 The reason for the City's appeal is the inconsistency between the project rankings and the recommended allocation amounts. The City was informed that the local criteria was incorporated into the statewide criteria to formulate the evaluation criteria scoring forms. The City ranked exceptionally well in the eval- uation scoring, however, when compared to the other applicatns the City has received a disporportionately smaller share of funds in relation to the rankings. It appears that the $150,000.00 recommended allocation award by the Advisory Committee is a subjective amount and does not accurately reflect costs for a scaled -down version of the City's proposed project. This is illustrated by the City's request to the Area Agency on Aging as to how the project may be scaled -down to be constructed with the $150,000.00 allocation. It is apparent from the discussion with and enclosed response from Ms. Wilson that the size of the building and kitchen requirements were not taken in to considera- tion by the Task Force in apportioning $150,000.00 for the pro- posed project. The City of Moorpark is currently without a Senior Center and is expressly interested in obtaining sufficent funds to construct a center to provide a centralized location of the services avail- able for the City's Seniors. in review of the cost allocation plan submitted in the City's application, and the proposed scale - down of service /activities suggested to the City by the Area Agency on Aging, the City still will find it difficult to con- struct the proposed structure with the recommended allocation award. It is for this reason and the concerns relating to the role the rankings have had in the determination of the recommended awards that we ask the Appeal Board to reconsider the allocation amount recommended to the City of Moorpark. Sincerely, Steven Kueny City Manager Thomas Genovese Administrative Assistant TG:rjh encl. COUnty. of VEntura Area Agency o Aging Executive Director Colieer) L. House To: Steve Kueny From: Joann W1 lson' {t" . 1 Date: September 9-4, 1985 Subject: MOORPARK REVISION The reduced request may be applied to construction, renovation /alteration and /or equipment purchase with a less well- equipped kitchen which must be re- approved prior to submittal to State, (Example of a scaled - down kitchen is attached.) Match also may be adapted to revised project. The revision should provide same types of service /activities to the degree possible in the facility. Please contact me anytime for additional information. JW: kg 800 South Victoria Avenge, Lower Pfa,,j, Ventura, (.A 93001 (80.5) 654 -3560 MOORPARK KITCHEN EQUIPMENT LIST 1 Countertop freezer - Beverage Air WTK -27 r �f IV1t s 900 1 2 -sec reach -in refrigerator Traulson GHT -2 -32 2300 1 Dish Machine Hobart WN5H -1 2400 1 Convection Oven - Garland TG -4 2500 1 6- burner stove /w, griddle - Wolfe Range CHSS -6/34 2300 1 Cold food table -Duke 333/w tray slide, sneeze guard and serving table 650 1 Hot food table Duke E -303/w tray slide, sneeze guard and serving table 800 1 Dish returnERSCO 700 1 Garbage grinder - Washking 1000 /1 hp 700 1 Pre -Rinse Hobart TR -3F 216 1 3- comet, sink ERSCO w/2 drain boards 2100 1 Push table - Bloomfield 213335 w/3 shelves 260 1 KWork table w /casters - ERSCO 7001: 1 Exhaust fan and hood ERSCO 81x4' 7000 Cab? netry 7000 Installation 4474 35,000 Could Pexll' Under counter at $200 less Get one section Defer Defer Omit griddle Omit. Serve plates f rom kitchen. Scrape garbage into bags