The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0406 CC REG ITEM 09BVON FROM: DATE: MOORPARK, CA Cty Cou II MITE M • of y � 199 ACTION: CITY OF MOORPARK AGENDA REPORT AW The Honorable City Council Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative Services March 29, 1994 (CC. Mtg. 4/6/94) Manager SUBJECT: 1994/95 Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Public Hearing for the Appropriation of Funds, (Estimated to be $228,643) The following will present the recommendations of the Budget and Finance Committee (Mayor Paul Lawrason and Councilmember Montgomery), for the use of the anticipated 1994/95 CDBG funds. This report is intended by staff to accompany a second report before the Council on this agenda which recommends the reappropriation of CDBG funds from program years 1991 and 1992. Background At the March 16, 1994, Council meeting, staff was directed to review the CDBG proposals with the Committee and return to Council on April 6, 1994, with a recommendation for final appropriation. At that meeting, staff summarized the national objectives for the Council stating that the City over the past eight years has used CDBG to address the need of low and moderate income households. Since March 16, 1994, no additional information has been received from HUD regarding the supplemental appropriation needed to replace the $2.8 million dollar CDBG grant used for earthquake response. The City is continuing the appropriation process as advised by the County, as if the funds will be made available. Also addressed in the March 16 report, was the status of the City's appropriations for administrative funds. The remaining balance available from past appropriations is sufficient to pay for administrative costs during fiscal year 1994/95, with the exception of $1,600 needed for the federally mandated Fair Housing program. This makes and additional $26,420 from the 1994/95 CDBG program available for project uses. Staff estimates that $16,000 of the current administration appropriation will be available for reappropriation at a later date. The administrative expense detail is provided in a separate report on this agenda. Assuming that the City receives the anticipated amount of CDBG for 1994/95 of $228,643, the following describes how these funds may be used within the limits described by federal law: Use of Funds HUD Limit Staff Recommendation Administration Public Services Project Funds Total Discussion $ 28,020 $ 34,296 $ 166,327 $ 228,643 $ 1,600 $ 34,296 $ 192,747 $ 228,643 Staff and the Committee met to discuss grant proposals on Monday, March 28. Once again, the decisions that are reflected in the Committee's recommendation are not ideal, as most proposals considered have a strong merit for funding, but there are not enough funds. Attachment "A" is an overview of past and proposed CDBG appropriations and the Committee recommendations for the 1994/95 program. Public Services The criteria applied by staff and the Committee for the review of public service applications includes but is not limited to the following summary: 1) eligibility criteria; 2) number of beneficiaries for the dollar; 3) agency experience with federal funds; 4) other options for funding aside from CDBG; 5) overall impact on the community; 6) duplication of existing services currently in place or available to Moorpark residents; 7) the amount of funds requested relative to the CDBG administrative requirements; 8) prior performance with the administration of CDBG funds; and, 9) the potential impact on the proposed program of providing fewer funds than requested. Of the thirteen programs considered, six are being recommended for funding with CDBG, and two are being recommended for further consideration. The Committee is recommending that the current programs of Senior Nutrition, the Homeless Ombudsman, the Long Term Care Ombudsman, the Catholic Charities program, Legal Services and Literacy all receive funding. The Homeless Ombudsman and Long Term Care Ombudsman programs are eligible for a JPA to be administered by the County. The two programs were identified as being worthy of additional consideration include the Palmer Drug and Alcohol Program (PDAP) and the Senior Advisory Board's request for furniture in the Senior Center. 2 The Committee felt that the Senior Advisory Board's request for chairs for the Senior Center could be addressed in a number of ways, without involving CDBG. In addition to receiving consideration during the budget process, this request may be satisfied with fund raisers, funds from the Older Americans Act, (or "AAA" funding), and donations to the Center. Proiects In conjunction with the reappropriation of CDBG funds from grant years 1991 and 1992, the Committee reviewed three options; 1) streets improvements, 2) housing and/or commercial rehabilitation and 3) new affordable housing. The Committee's recommendation is to fund street improvements, and for staff to begin developing a housing and/or commercial rehabilitation program. The Committee's first recommendation is the use of CDBG for First Street and Bard Street improvements. If HUD determines that funds cannot be used here, or if surplus funds remain, it is recommended that the City use the for street improvements in the residential area north of Charles Street. The housing project at Gisler Field will most likely be ready for consideration of CDBG funding within the next twelve months, but this is uncertain. Retaining the current CDBG funding for this length of time could result in a violation of HUD's expenditure requirement. Housing and/or commercial rehabilitation is a complicated project to design, because the variety of types of rehabilitation that can be funded. It is recommended that a variety of programs be developed in order to serve the most households and businesses possible. It is considered to be a high priority, and staff will be preparing to meet again with the Committee on April 11, to discuss development of this program to be funded with Redevelopment Agency monies. A report addressing this topic is scheduled for Agency consideration on April 20, 1994. Some of the details that need to be discussed with the Committee regarding a rehabilitation program include: in-house administration versus contract administration; bank relationships and loan application processing criteria; and the type of assistance made available. Assistance types may include: commercial rehabilitation to address code violations; commercial rehabilitation for building facades and exterior appearances; residential rehabilitation for health and safety concerns to owner occupied units and rental units; neighborhood improvement loans such as paint and landscaping; and whether or not to provide grants or loans to 3 recipients, at a deferred or low interest payment arrangement. Summary The public service proposals out number the amount of funds available for this use of CDBG funds, and again, this was a difficult decision for the Committee to consider. The proven abilities of past programs and their importance to the community have caused the Committee to believe that these programs should be reconsidered for funding this year. The Committee and staff are optimistic that the First Street and Bard Street project will move quickly compared to other options, has received support from the community, and is recommending that this project receive the balance of project funds. Staff would like to thank all applicants who participated in this year's CDBG hearing process. Recommendation That the City Council appropriate the CDBG funds for 1994/95, estimated to be $228,643, as follows: Administration: 1) Fair Housing $ 1,600 Public Services: 1) Senior Nutrition $ 12,000 2) Catholic Charities $ 8,000 3) Legal Services $ 4,506 4) Literacy $ 5,000 5) Homeless Ombudsman $ 2,000 6) Long Term Care Ombudsman $ 2,790 Projects: $192,747 1) The reconstruction of the street, and development of storm drains, curbs, gutters and sidewalks on First Street and a portion of Bard Street between First Street and Second Street, and/or similar activities to streets located in the residential portion of Census Block Group 5, north of Charles Street. Attachment A- Overview of Past and Proposed Appropriations A:\wp51\CDBGBF 4 ,oposed Appropriations CATEGORICAL Proposed PERCENT DISTRIBUTION Program 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 TOTAL OF FUNDS OF FUNDS Administration 0 0 19070 19810 19010 21620 20700 23760 0 123970 8.00% 8.35% Fair Housing 1890 1980 1600 5470 0.35% Public Improvements 76.39% Virg. Colony 133660 52321 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185981 12.00% Charles Street 0 1795 105266 44734 57358 81773 109094 152792 0 552812 35.68% Handicap Ramps 0 0 0 92266 42790 0 0 0 0 135056 8.72% First St. Proposal 0 0 0 0 0 60000 25000 0 192747 277747 17.93% Food Share 0 0 0 0 5000 2000 0 0 0 7000 0.45 % Club Acq. (Deleted) 0 0.00% Casa Pacifica 0 0 0 0 25000 0 0 0 0 25000 1.61% Affordable Housing 5.161 CEDC (Acq.) 0 75000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75000 4.84% Aquisition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Networking 0 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5000 0.32% Public Services 10.091 Sr. Nutrition 0 0 0 10000 10000 10500 10000 10000 12000 62500 4.03% Sr. Lifeline 0 0 0 5480 0 0 0 0 0 5480 0.35% Vocational Trnq. 0 0 0 6000 0 0 0 0 0 6000 0.39% Adult Literacy 0 0 0 0 8000 5000 5000 5000 5000 28000 1.81% Boneless Omb, 0 0 0 0 500 500 500 2000 2000 5500 0.35% Legal Services 0 0 0 562.57 7000 1200 3650 4506 4506 7562.57 0.49% Senior Equip. 0 0 0 0 0 1987 0 0 0 1987 0.13 % Long Term Care Omb 0 0 0 0 0 2500 1000 2000 2790 8290 0.54% Cath. Charities 0 0 0 0 0 7500 7500 8000 8000 31000 2.00% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals 133660 134116 124336 178852 174658 194580 184334 210038 2286431549355.57 100.00% 100.00%