HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0706 CC REG ITEM 08QTO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT
The Honorable City Cour::il
Donald P. Reynolds Jr
June 30, 1994
JC ?PAPK, CAUFr,� thh1 , : E1 A --
CityCou d Nee tT V�— •
Df : 4
4CTION;
�)v
Administrative Services Manage /4
SUBJECT: Consider a Three Year Cooperative Agreement Between the
City and the County to Participate in the Urban County
Community Development FEl.ock Grant ( "CDBG") Program
Attached for the Council's consideration is the proposed three year
Cooperative Agreement from the County of Ventura, which if executed
by the City, would allow Moorpark to .ontinue to receive CDBG
monies for the period from 1995 t L997_
Background
The CDBG program is considered for re- authorization by Congress
once every three years (beginning in 1974), and from this
authorization, HUD creates grant agreement with various eligible
local governments for the implementation of the program. Moorpark
has previously executed four Cooperative Agreements for the period
between 1986 and 1994.
The County uses this agreement to present broad policy objectives
as required by HUD, and to establish a funding distribution formula
for the three year period. Although HUD distributes funds to the
County using a formula of factoring population at 50 percent,
poverty level at 25 percent and overcrowded housing at 25 percent,
the County has the flexibility ^o .reate its own distribution
formula.
During the first six years of the program, the County implemented
a simple per- capita distribution formula. In the initial agreement
of 1986 to 1988, the City received 6.9 percent of the funds, and
during the 1989 to 1991 agreement as the population in Moorpark
increased, the City received 10 percent 1,Df the funds.
It was during 1990 that HUD reprimanded the County for not
expending funds in a timely fashi (n, and as a result, the County
looked to its distribution formula .n 1993. to consider changes that
more closely reflect HUD's. Had the County continued to use the
per- capita formula, the City woul(a have r- eceived 11.1 percent of
the funds. By changing the formuy., 1-11 19,).1 to include an average
Of population with poverty and overcrowded housing factors,
Moorpark's share decreased to 8. <. percerr-_.
The County informed the cooperating cities that a full application
of the HUD formula would be applied to the distribution formula for
the Cooperative Agreement effect.i.,e from 1995 to 1997. Staff
presented this matter to the C {)un i in 1991, advising that the
CDBG monies may further decease ia subsequent years.
Discussion
The attached Cooperative Agreement does fully implement HUD's
distribution formula, and therefore, continues to reduce Moorpark's
receipt of CDBG funds. However, another new factor is included
which calculates the formula witho it the cooperation of the City of
Camarillo.
Camarillo, with a population of 5to,000 persons, is eligible to be
a direct grantee of HUD, and opted for this approach rather than
continuing to cooperate with the County. It is not certain if
Camarillo will receive the same amount of funding from HUD or if
the County will receive less. This information will only become
available after the federal government adopts is 1995/96 budget.
As a result of Camarillo dropping .)ff from the program, the City's
portion of funds stays relatively stable at 8.8 percent, rather
than being decreased to 7.6 percent. The County presents a worse
case scenario in their cover letter to the attachment by showing a
$400,000 decrease in funding (Camari lo's portion) during fiscal
1995/96. The net result, as anticipated by the County, is that the
City's project funds will decrease from $201,253 in 1994/95, to
$168,960 in 1995/96. This i:ae.E percent decrease equal to
approximately $32,293.
Therefore, the possible impact of receiving $168,960 in funding,
that the City will only be able to provide is
services, which is almost p $25,344 to public
$10,000 less than provided in 1994/95.
If the full amount of public service monies are used as they have
been in the past, only $143,616 would be available for projects,
(not including any administrative Jollars that may be available).
The administrative allocation is projected to decrease from $28,020
to $24,030 (there is a minor c.al U.Iat:io�i error in the County's
cover letter).
HUD's formula is applied to all national applications received, and
is subject to many more factors than the County can anticipate.
Camarillo, being a fairly affluent community, may suffer a loss
when HUD considers its level of poverty and overcrowded housing,
and therefore provide less than $400,000 in funding. Also
Camarillo's CDBG monies may not be r. ~elevant to the amount of funds
received by the County, where in the worst case scenario,
County shows these funds c the
om nc:x ai�ectly from their HUD
allocation.
Conclusion
The low income service objective of CDBG places Moorpark at a
disadvantage to receiving these monies when competing against other
cities. If Moorpark chose to remove itself from the entitlement
program and enter into the competitive Small Cities CDBG arena
administered by the State, the same obstacles would be present, and
could result in the City not receiving any funds. After inquiring
with State about the Small Cities program, their advice was that
most cities in the competitive program would prefer to be part of
an entitlement. Therefore, staff has concluded that although the
history portray's Moorpark as a declining factor in the County's
program, at least Moorpark receiv,�s <:In annual allocation.
Recommendation
That the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the attached
three year Cooperative Agreement for the period of 1995 through
1997, allowing the City to continue its participation in the Urban
County CDBG program.
Attachment: Proposed Three Year Cooperative Agreement and
Transmittal from tie Country of Ventura
ATTACHMENT
county of ventura
June 28, 1994
Don Reynolds, Admin. Services Mqr
City of Moorpark, L #6050
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Don:
JUN 2 9 1994
CHIEF ADMW11VFGFTM@DRpAfW
Richard Wittenberg
Chief Administrative Officer
Robert C. Hirtensteiner
CF'e' Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: 1995 -1997 COMMUNI'T`Y DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
COOPERATION AGREEMENTS
As you know, the County and the siX cities of Camarillo, Fillmore,
Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme, and Santa Paula together form a CDBG
Urban County entitlement area. Commencing in Program Year 1995,
the City of Camarillo will become a participating city under the
Urban County Program and will no longer be a participant in the
County's program. Therefore, the entitlement area will consist of
the remaining five cities and the county,
The relationship between the CCour,ty and the five cities in the
entitlement area will continue t be governed by a three -year
Cooperation Agreement covering 19cc), 199E and 1997.
Attached is the Cooperation Agreement, along with four signature
sheets, which will continue the City's participation in the
County's CDBG program through 1997 The significant changes, most
of which are HUD - mandated (the inclusion of the HOME Investment
Partnership Program and the provision for automatic renewal of the
agreement, etc.) are highlighte -,J,
In addition, both the distribut.>_on formula for the project and
administrative funds have been modified to accommodate the
departure of Camarillo and to more closely reflect HUD's
allocation /funding- distribution f(..rmula which, in addition to
Population, emphasizes the poverty index ind overcrowded housing.
As you recall, the distribution formula had previously been based
on 50% population and 50% population /overcrowding /poverty (based on
the 1990 Census). As previously Aiscussed with you and /or your
staff, the intent of this 3 -year Cooperation Agreement was to
utilize 100% Population/ overcrowd in ;/ poverty to target those areas
with a greater incidence of povErt: and overcrowding.
--
800 Sou1n -
�tora .t r,tui i
Chart A on the next page, reflects the current CDBG distribution
formula with the participation of Camarillo. As you recall, 20% of
the allocation is utilized for program administration by the County
and the cities; the remaining 80!,, is utilized for projects.
Chart B reflects the revised distribution formula for Program Year
1995 both with and without Camarillo (for comparison purposes).
HUD currently cannot provide information regarding the allocation
which will be received for Program Year 1995. Based on the total
allocation of $2,802,000 (for Program Year 1994), and with an
estimated amount of $400,Ooo which Camarillo could receive
directly, an estimated allocation of $2,403,000 was utilized for
projection purposes. It is important to note that, while the
formula percentages have l_ncreased for all participating
jurisdictions, the total amount to be distributed has decreased.
In addition, due to the additonal focus on poverty and
overcrowding, some jurisdictions will experience increases while
others can anticipate decreases.
With the decrease in the anticipated allocation
$400,000 less), the amount of administrative funds p will aalso
decrease. The revised distribution formula for the administrative
funds will result in an egi.iiable impact on all
participating jurisdictions. of the
County staff is planning to present th.Ls
Supervisors on Jul 12 1994, item to the Board of
four Cooperation Agreement signature sheets. All should the
sign
returned to this office no later that ,:Tuly 7, 1994.
Should you have any questions, p-ease call Susan Van Abel at 654-
2871 or the undersigned at 654- 2�;e:.
Sincerely,
/�U S
Mirt obinson
f
Deputy CAO, Special
Attachment
coop1tr1 /sva /2
Projects and Community Development
�_T
CITY /AREA
CAMAR ILLO
FILLMORE
MOORPARK
OJAI
PORT HUENEME
SANTA PAULA
UNINCORPORATED
TOTAL
CHART A
CURRENT 1994 -95 CDBG DISTRIBUTION
1992 -94
1994 -95
Admin
% of Total
Pro'ect $ a
Percent-n-,
17.85%
$400,126
1 %
6.50%
$145, 704
1 %
8.95%
$200, 623
1 %
3.00%
$67,248
1 %
10.15%
$227,522
1 %
14.25%
$319,428
1 %
39.30%
$880,949
14%
(a) Totals 80% of the total CDBG Allocation
CITY /AREA
CAMAR ILLQ
rILLMORE
MOORPARK
OJAI
PORT HUENEME
SANTA PAULA
UNINCORPORATED
TOTAL
100.00 %1 $2,241,6001 20%
1994 -95
Admin
$28,020
$28,020
$28,020
$28,020
$28,020
$28,020
$392,2801
$560,4001
CHART B
PROJECTED 1995 -96
CDBG DISTRIBUTION
BASED ON HUD'S CURRENT
(b)
FORMULA AND
HUD's j HUD's
ro
DISTRIBUTION
Projected T- -_�__�
� Pro ected
rmula
n Formula 1
w! w/u Camarillo-
1995 -96 1 Admin i
Project Percenta
1995 -96
Admin $
000%,
$O 0%
$0
8.40% 9.70%
7.60% 8.80%
$186,240 1 %
$168,960
$24,150
2.40% 2.80%
1 %
$53,760 1 %
$24,150
$24,150
10.70% 12.40%
$238,080 1 %
$24,150
17.40% 20.20%
39.70%
$387,840 1 %
$24,150
46.10%
$885,120 15%
$362,250
100.00% 100.00%
$1,920, 000 20%
$483,000
19,94-95
Total CDBG
$428,146
$173,724
$228,643
$95,268
$255,542
$347,448
$2,802,000
Projected
19g5-g6
Total CDBG $ 1
$210,390
$193,110
$77,910
$262,230
$411,990
1,247.370
$2
(b) Based on an estimated 1995 -96 CDBG Allocation of $2,403,000 assuming Camarillo
will receive approximately $400,000 of the area's allocation. The total of these two amounts
is approximately equal to the 1994 -95 CDBG Allocation of $2,802,000 for comparison purposes.
co op95f2
L
M