HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0105 CC REG ITEM 11F'
at 75%); 2) to eliminate slum and blighted conditions, and; 3) to meet a particularly urgent health and safety need in the community.
Project funding to the City is based upon a formula included in a three year cooperative agreement ( now entering its third year) between the Entitlement cities and the County. In the past, the formula for the distribution of funds was based on the population of each jurisdiction. The current cooperative agreement however, includes a poverty factor for each jurisdiction based upon 1990 census data, which has resulted in reduced funding to Moorpark (by approximately 8.95%, or $18,798) relative to the amount received by other Entitlement participants.
All of Moorpark's past appropriations have focussed on the "low/mod" benefit criteria through either public services, housing, infrastructure improvements in eligible neighborhoods, and administrative expenses related to the management of these programs. In 1993, a family of four is considered to be a low income family if the total family income is less than $39,700. Although technically, a majority of the funds used under this national objective have to benefit the "low/mod'' income criteria, HUD has established a target of 75% low and moderate income benefit. This application of the national objective allows a CDBG project to benefit a lower majority of low income persons, as long as other CDBG projects are used to benefit a higher majority, to reach an average of 75%.
The grant is limited in its funding of public service activities and administrative funds. Public services are limited by a 15% cap placed on the "project" funding appropriation, ("project'' funding is the City's total grant amount less administration funds). The amount of administration funds are calculated based upon a formula prescribed in the three year cooperative agreement using 10% of the grant amount of the Entitlement appropriation from HUD, regardless of the amount made available for projects in each jurisdiction.
Attachment "A" summarizes the City's past CDBG appropriations since its inception in 1986. The use of funds has varied from one program in 1986, to 11 different programs in 1991/92, to 8 programs currently.
PROGRAM STATUS
Attachment "B" is a summary of the fiscal condition of the City's CDBG programs, as of November 30, 1993. Of the City's appropriations, all projects have been completed (or funds have been obligated) through grant year 1993 except Affordable Housing Land Acquisition, ($85,000), and 4.18% ($23,125) of the street improvement appropriation. All of the past public service programs are completed, and the funding for the 4 local programs for 1993 grant year have been obligated through September, 1994. Attachment "C" is a narrative of program performances over the past five
2
CDBG RFP's 1994/95 December 1993
years.
In 1990, the city took advantage of a new proposal from the County for the administration of jointly funded projects. In the past, the Council approved the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the following projects; 1987-Networking for Housing, 1990-Casa Pacifica public improvement project, Food Share Warehouse Acquisition, the Long Term Care Ombudsman and the Homeless Ombudsman program. In 1993, the Long Term Care Ombudsman and the Homeless Ombudsman programs received joint support. The County plans to hold its CDBG public hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 1994, and based on the Board of Supervisor's decisions at this meeting, the City will know which proposals will be eligible for a joint powers agreement before making its final decisions on March 16, 1994. Only projects which are funded by the County's CDBG funds are eligible for JPA administration by the County.
DISCUSSION
HUD Expenditure Objective
Approximately three years ago, the City ( and the Entitlement program) made a successful attempt at meeting the HUD expenditure criteria (which requires that no more than 1.5 grant years be held in surplus) by reappropriating funds from slower moving projects to projects progressing at a more rapid pace. The combination of the initiation of work related to the Casa Pacifica development project, ($25,000 contribution from the City), and the completion of Phase I of Charles street, (approximately $319,687), improved Moorpark's status.
In the two year period between 1990 and 1992, it was learned by the City that reserving CDBG funds for future uses is in conflict with HUD expenditure requirements. With redevelopment funds now available, the City has a new resources to be combined with CDBG which can help to eliminate this problem.
On June 23, 1993, the City learned that the Entitlement program was again placed on "probation" due to the Entitlement's surplus balance of CDBG funds. Pages two through four of Attachment "B" are copies of the County's communication regarding this concern. At that time, the City was required to explain how Moorpark would use at least $285,080 in CDBG funds before March 30, 1994. The Charles Street Phase II project initiated this month, is the key component to the City's plan to meet the HUD objective, ($209,500 obligated). "Probation" status is only applicable to this fiscal year, if the Entitlement program meets the HUD requirement in April 1994, (the likelihood is good based upon the most recent status report), but if it continues for two years, the Entitlement program
3
CDBG RFP's 1994/95 December 1993
may be penalized by HUD which threatens to recover unused "surplus" funds.
In attachment "B", the expenditure analysis shows that Moorpark will have utilized 85.65% of its current grant funds by June 30, 1994. Therefore, taking into consideration the 1994 grant and assuming that it will be equal to the previous year ($210,038), the City will need to find another fast paced project to use approximately $54,418 by March 30, 1995. Taking into consideration that no previous projects have acquired the necessary federal environmental clearance, which can take between six to eight weeks, (such as the Charles Street Phase II project in 1993), the Council will have to consider a new relatively fast paced project in 1994.
In August, staff learned from HUD that a change was being considered to the expenditure requirement lowering the balance allowed from 1. 5 to 1. o grant year. This change would increase the City's expenditure requirement from $54,000 by March 30, 1995, to approximately $108,000.
New Regulations
There are no new specific CDBG regulations to report this year. Staff continues to work with the County on projects related to the 1991 Cranston-Gonzales Affordable Housing Act which were initiated two years ago, but no formal programs have been developed in Moorpark.
HUD held a special meeting at the County recently to discuss "reinventing HUD." Changes in this regard could include a reduction in staffing at the HUD regional office in Los Angeles, automated reporting systems and consolidated reports. No new information related to this proposal has been received by the City since that time.
CDBG Public Staff Meeting (December 9. 1993)
HUD requires that the public be allowed to share CDBG proposals with agency staff persons prior to the public hearing, and staff was asked to chair the meeting this year as the Entitlement program fulfilled this requirement. At this meeting, 19 agencies made proposals to staff representing the Entitlement program. Of these, two are directly applicable to Moorpark relating to current public services funded by the General Fund, (the Senior Survival Mobile, and teen counseling provided by the Palmer Drug and Alcohol Dependency Program, "PDAAP", which works for El Concillio on Project Pride).
4
CDBG RFP's 1994/95 December 1993
Proposed Funding Priorities
Public Improvements
The City's public improvements have been the most successful use for Entitlement CDBG funds thus far. This is because the City has an adequate resource of funds to match CDBG contributions and therefore, increases the likelihood that the project will be completed quickly. The work on Charles Street and in Virginia Colony have been supported by a variety of non-CDBG monies including Gas Tax, Gann Fund and redevelopment contributions. Phase II is the final phase of the Charles Street project and staff is looking to other eligible neighborhoods for the use of CDBG funds during fiscal year 1994/95.
Attachment "D" is a portion of the census map showing Census Block Group 5, (all numbers beginning with a "5"). This is the only census block group that is close to being a low income neighborhood ( 1990 Census reports 57% low and moderate income residents). Street projects planned at this time within Block 5 could include improvements to Everett Street.
Another consideration for the use of CDBG are improvements to First Street. Census data cannot be used in small neighborhoods, but surveys of the neighborhood can be quickly conducted to evaluate its eligibility for the use of CDBG, (as was the case in Virginia Colony). A quick survey could qualify improvements on First Street, (or other neighborhoods) and this project is already being designed. Staff is proposing to complete a survey on First Street before the March public hearings.
Housing
With the assistance of redevelopment funds, the City's CDBG program can now begin to consider uses for housing, because CDBG funds can be combined with the new resource, rather than having to be placed in reserve. With the recent acquisition of property south of Poindexter Road and north of Los Angeles Avenue, (west of Gisler Road), the City has many new opportunities for the use of CDBG on an affordable housing project.
To consider using CDBG on Poindexter Road, the City has to agree on a use that satisfies a national objective of the· grant. The benefit of Low and moderate income persons for housing is the obvious choice. Commercial development and park land development (when intended for use by all citizens) should not be included in design and plans for infrastructure when CDBG is used.
5
CDBG RFP's 1994/95 December 1993
Administration
Since 1989, the City has approved the expenditure of CDBG for administrative purposes. This amount has ranged from between $19,070 to $25,740, and accounts for approximately half of the salary and benefits of the Administrative Services Manager. For the past two years, the County requested that 1% of these funds ($1,890 in 1992/93 and $1,980 in 1993/94) be contributed to a HUD mandated program to "affirmatively further fair housing." Staff has been informed that this request will be made each year by the County from the administrative set aside until the law changes to allow fair housing to be considered a public service.
The City received reimbursement for administrative expenses from November 1989, to June 30, 1991, in the amount of $31,430, leaving a balance available of $92,360. Fiscal years 1991/92, 1992/93 and the current year, (which have been the City's busiest CDBG years), will be completed before the hearings scheduled in March. These costs are projected to equal an additional $40,000, leaving a balance available June 30, 1994, of $52,360.
Without the indirect and general overhead costs for administration, the City has only been able to request reimbursement for the direct cost which range from between $20 to $30 per hour. To request indirect and general overhead expenses, HUD requires an "approved plan." Staff will be seeking HUD approval using the format presented to Council in the development of the Entitlement Land Use Fees (where administrative expenses are calculated to cost $78 per hour), in the next three months.
The Community Development Department has spent over 100 hours on the CDBG comprehensive housing affordability strategy, ("CHAS") . Currently, this department is not budgeted to be reimbursed by CDBG, but if funds are available, staff will request the Council's consideration for this use as well.
7
ATTACHl!ENT nAn overview of Past Appropriations All funds are obligated by contract or have been spent unless otherwise noted. CATEGORICAL PERCENT DISTRIBUTION Program 1986/87 1987 /88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 'ro'l'AL OF FUNDS OF FUNDS ------Administration 0 0 19070 19810 19010 21620 20700 23760 123970 9.32% 9.61% Fair Housing 1890 1980 3870 0.29% Public Improvements 67. 82%Virginia Colony Streets 133660 52321 0 0 0 0 0 0 185981 13.98% Charles Street 0 1795 105266 44734 57358 81773 109094 152792 552812 41.55% Handicap Ramps 0 0 0 92266 39222 0 0 0 131488 9.88% Food Share 0 0 0 0 5000 2000 0 0 7000 0.53% Club Acq. (progr!lll deleted) 0 0.00% Casa Pacifica 0 0 0 0 25000 0 0 0 25000 1.88% Affordable Housing 12.40% CEDC (Acq.) 0 75000 0 0 0 0 0 0 75000 5.64% Aquisition 0 0 0 0 0 60000 25000 0 85000 6.39%** Networking 0 5000 0 0 0 0 5000 0.38% Public Services 10.17% Sr. Nutrition 0 0 0 10000 10000 10500 10000 10000 50500 3.80% Sr. Lifeline 0 0 0 5480 0 0 0 0 5480 0.41% Vocational Trng. 0 0 0 5437.43 0 0 0 0 5437.43 0.41% Adult Literacy 0 0 0 0 8000 5000 5000 5000 23000 1.73% Homeless Ollb. 0 0 0 0 500 500 500 2000 3500 0.26% Legal Services 0 0 0 562.57 7000 1200 3650 4506 16918.57 1.27% Senior Equip. 0 0 0 0 0 1987 0 0 1987 0.15% Long Tern Care Ollb. 0 0 0 0 0 2500 1000 2000 5500 0.41% Cath. Charities 0 0 0 0 0 7500 7500 8000 23000 1.73% -----------------------------------------------------Totals 133660 134116 124336 178290 171090 194580 184334 210038 1330444 100.00% 100.00% ** These funds are not obligated PAGE 1 of 1