HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0103 CC REG ITEM 11EMOORPARK
ITEM •
PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tern
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
BERNARDO M. PEREZ
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
The Honorable City Council
Donald P. Reynolds, .Jr., Management
December 28, 1989
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
Analystz)��.
1990/91 Community De'velopment BlocIr. Grant, (("DEG),
Funding Priorities
Pursuant to City Council action on June 21, 1989, staff is
reporting 'to the City Council on the status of current CD.'BG
projects in order to initiate, discussion for development <xi"
f und i ng priorities for the 1990"/,91 fundinqj cycla,
(Attachment A i. s the adcopte(l schedule for_- r e f e r e i i c e, ) .
Typically, the Department of Housing and Urban Developnient.
appropriates CDBG funds to t-he County of Ventura in late
January of each year. The Couuty, as the grantee under the
(jrban County, (Entitlement;), Program, then form-ulcates the
appropriation for each partici, ating City, (sub -grantees),
based on population, and requests grant, propos,-als by March
of the same year. B e c a u, f", C-A of the public h. ea r i n g
requirements and close scheduling between appropriations and
proposal submission, the Cit-y is attempting to start 'eEirli-er
and address the fu.tiding policies in a raore- forma). and
organized manner.
Prior to reporting to the City Counr,.J.1, staft- has been
directee.-I to meet with the Biic1g4'.t and Finance Committee in
order to review the pa:�A, performance of p.rograms which
received funding in previous years during the first week of
January. Due to the scheelaile, it was n.:)t
poss-ible to coordinate such ;a meeting, staff is reporting
directly to the Council in orde�r to stay in line with the
established procedi.ires. St.aff will coritinue to attempt ho
meet with the (7,,ornmittee pi-.-itor. to the Jani.i-ary 3, 1.990, Ci[-I.y
Council meeting.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
Background
The following will briefly touch on the H.U.D. policies and
requirements, and review the progress of programs which have
been funded since the City's involvement with the Urban
County, (Entitlement), CDBG program in 1986.
As funds are appropriated to the County of Ventura, the
Chief Administrative Office divides the appropriation
between the unincorporated areas, and the cities of
Camarillo, Santa Paula, Port Hueneme, Fillmore, Ojai, and
Moorpark. Last year, Moorpark was third in population to
Santa Paula and Camarillo, receiving an appropriation of
$178,290, the largest appropriation since 1986. This year,
staff expects that the appropriation will be at least the
same amount or higher because the City's population now
exceeds Santa Paula, but this is ultimately determined by
the Federal appropriation to the County. At the present
time, this report assumes that the CDBG appropriation will
be the same as last year.
Generally, the City has flexibility in developing proposals
for the use of CDBG funds. The County determines what
portion of the grant can be used for the administration of
the grant, typically 10%, but these funds do not have to be
used for this purpose. If the City decides to use funds for
Public Services, there is a limit of fifteen percent of the
entire City appropriation for this purpose.
Specifically, the City must use CDBG funds to address one or
more of the three national objectives as follows: 1), to
benefit low and moderate income persons; 2), to eliminate
slum and blighted conditions, and: 3), to address health. and
safety needs posed by an urgent situation. The emphasis of
the program is for the benefit of low and moderate income
persons, H.U.D. specifies that grantees/sub-grantees must
use 65% of their funds for this purpose. Under this
requirement, public service programs have been targeted for
special clientele groups such as seniors and low income
persons. Typically, CDBG funds are used for improving the
lives of those persons in the most need of assistance as
determined at the local level.
Over the past four years, the City has chosen to use CDBG
funds primarily for the purpose of developing low income
housing, and improving low income neighborhoods. Last year
was the first year the City Council appropriated funds for
public service needs.
_2
0
Re -Cap of Previous Appropriations
The City has
appropriated
funds for
the following programs
as follows:
Program
1986/87
.1987 88
1988 89
1989 90
Total
Admin.
0
0
19,070
19,810
38,880
Public Imp.
133,660
54,11-6
30,266
20,000
2.38,042
Aff.Housing
CEDC
0
75,000
0
0
Netwrk.
0
5,000
0
0
City
0
0
75,000
117,000
Sub Total
272,000
Public Svc.
Snr.Nutr.
0
0
0
10,000
Snr.Life
Ln. 0
0
0
5,480
Vocation.
Tr. 0
0
0
6,000
Sub Total
21,480
Grand Total
133,660
136,116
124,336
178,290 570,402
A summary of the above table can be presented as the
following percentages; 48% for affordable housing, 42% for
public improvements, 7% for administration and 3% for public
services.
Status of Past Ar>DroDriations
Because the CDBG program underwent major modifications in
deleting the Senior Center appropriations, and also because
the nature of a public service program under CDBG is new to
the City, there is not much progress to report at this time.
Affordable Housing: Three approaches have been
recommended by the Council in an attempt to address the
affordable housing needs of the community. Two
programs, one with Cabrillo Economic Development
Corporation, (CEDC), and a second with Networking have
not progressed due to technical problems in
implementing contract for services.
-3-
The Networking program, (Networking for Housing in
Ventura County), is a County wide pool of funds to be
used with nonprofit and private development firms to
lesson the pre -development costs for site improvements.
The City's funding of this program is on hold until a
proposed joint powers agreement can be arranged between
the County and the City. A draft agreement is
currently being reviewed by staff. The City can then
determine if it wants to participate in this manner in
providing the currently appropriated funds to
Networking.
The CEDC program is intended to fund costs related to
locating and acquiring a new site for affordable units
to be built. Last year, H.U.D. raised concerns
regarding this proposal in relation to the
environmental documentation, whereby it was tentatively
determined that the scope of work under this proposal
is considered to be "administration". In the event
that this determination is final from H.U.D., then the
City does not have adequate administrative funds to
appropriate for it. Recently, the County, (under
contract with CEDC for the same proposal), was able to
resolve this concern, and keep the project outside of
the administrative category. Staff has completed a
draft agreement which was on hold until further notice
from the County, and the County has not yet formally
advised the City of H.U.D.'s determination. Based on
informal communications, staff is forwarding the draft
contract to the County and City Attorney to review. As
a result of these concerns, no funds have been
allocated yet.
City programs are to include a housing rehabilitation
program, an equity share program for first time home
buyers, and funds set aside to assist in land
acquisition. These programs were all approved in 1989,
and will require additional time to initiate. Staff
will be pursuing a general policy for the Council to
consider so that the affordable housing programs can be
implemented in an efficient and effective manner.
Public Improvements: Public improvements consist of
street improvements for the Virginia Colony
neighborhood and possibly on Charles Street. In
Virginia Colony the City will make the necessary
improvements in order to connect Nogales Avenue and
Avenida Colonia, then proceed with curbs, gutters and
side walks. If there are funds available, the curbs,
gutters and sidewalks wil.1 be reconditioned/constructed
along Charles Street.
As of the date of this report, staff has received
confirmation from the County that the eligibility
-4-
survey for Virginia Colony was successful in
documenting the income stratus of the community as low
and moderate, therefore allowing the City to proceed
with the project. The design of the project is
expected to start in February. There are some
environmental concerns relating to archeological
discoveries in the area, but these are expected to be
easily mitigated.
Public Services: The three public services are
proceeding despite the fact that no formal agreements
have been executed.
The Boys and Girls Club Vocational Training program has
been successful in recruiting a coordinator, and is
currently waiting for the draft agreement to be
approved by City Attorney and the County. New public
services require an environmental statement to be
approved by the County, and this was submitted in
November.
The Rotary Senior Lifeline program has proceeded in
planning for disbursement of lifeline devices, and will
be ready to review the draft contract in January. The
environmental statement .is pending approval by the
County.
The Senior Nutrition program received environmental
clearance in July of 1981), and the City has proceeded
in funding this program,, to be reimbursed once the
agreement is complete. As reported by the Ventura
County Public Social Services Agency, the program has
experienced an increase in clientele since moving to
the Senior Center location.
Existing public services funded by CDBG must be able to
show that the CDBG funds :increased the level of service
to community and this criteria is being met by the
Nutrition program. The other programs are new to the
community, and fulfilled the second H.U.D. criteria for
public services because the CDBG funds will be
assisting in the establishment of these new programs.
In summary, the public service appropriations, except
for the Senior Nutrition program, have not had an
opportunity to demonstrate their ability to meet
program objectives. Staff recommends that the 1990/91
public service appropriation be $12,000 for
continuation of the Senior Nutrition program,
(anticipating an increase in cost), and that other
considerations for public service uses be deferred
until -the 1991/92 funding cycle.
Administration: Administration has been focussed
primarily on resolving changes to past appropriations
and playing catch up from past years. Because the
Senior Center project was separately funded by three
different years, each proposal had to be re -written,
and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. Staff
has now completed this process, as well as completing
the agreements that were on hold for each year between
the City and the County. All environmental
documentation has been submitted except for the City's
housing program, because the precise projects have not
been formally established yet.
Discussion
Prior to the public hearing for appropriation of funds in
February or early March, the City Council will need to
consider the future of upcoming programs in order to allow
for an effective and efficient use of the CDBG funds. As
depicted in the re -cap, affordable housing and public
improvements have equally divided most of the funds.
The City Council has determined that these two concerns
receive top priority based on the above mentioned history,
therefore, staff is recommending that the City continue to
provide funds for affordable housing and public improvements
as well the Senior Nutrition Program.
Keeping in mind the fact that Redevelopment projects may be
initiated in the near future, it will be beneficial .for. the
City to use CDBG and Redevelopment funds in a coordinated
fashion. Working together, the funds can help in providing
a better living and business environment by building or
reconstructing public facilities in our older residential
and commercial districts. Eventually, CDBG will supplement
redevelopment projects, and assure that the community
receives the full potential of both funding sources.
The City Council may also consider continuing to fund the
Senior Nutrition program because it has been successful, and
cannot operate without City subsidy. Staff feels confident
that with additional publicity and the new kitchen currently
under construction, that the program will continue to show
an increase in service to the community.
-6•-
Based on the premise that the Urban County Community
Development Block Grant appropriations for the fiscal year
1990/91 will be the same as last year, ($1.78,290), staff is
recommending that the City Council make a preliminary
determination for City appropriations as follows:
1)
$18,290
for Administration;
2)
$12,000
for Senior Nutrition;
3)
$74,000
for Public Improvements;
4)
$74,000
for Affordable Housing
Prior to the required public hearing, the City cannot make a
final determination on funding appropriations. It's
recommended that the Council concur to have the staff's
recommendation for funding included in the request for
proposals material. Before advertising the availability to
submit proposals, the Council should specify criteria for
funding and desired objectives to be met.
Recommendation:
That the City Council direct staff:
1) To publicize the availability of funds , including
staff's funding recommendations, and receive
requests for proposals from qualified eligible
non-profit groups for Affordable Housing and
Public Service consistent with the time frame
contained in Attachment A;
2) To develop possible uses for the staff proposed
$74,000 appropriation for Affordable Housing
Programs.
Attachment A - June 21, 1989 Adopted Procedural Schedule for
CDBG Appropriations
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of r19&,�(J
ACTION: -�-- a
11.E. Consider Report on Community Development Block Grant Funding
for 1990/91. Staff Recommendation: Determine general priorities
for allocation of 1990/91 funding and direct staff to process
requests for proposals.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown seconded a
motion to approve the Staff recommendation to publicize the
availability of funds, including staff's funding recommendations, and
receive requests for proposals from qualified eligible non-profit
groups for Affordable Housing and Public Service consistent with the
time frame contained in Attachment A; and to develop possible uses for
the staff proposed $74,000 appropriation for Affordable Housing
Programs.
After discussion concerning the possible misconception that might
be created by publicizing Staff's funding recommendations, City
Manager suggested that the advertisement reflect the total CDBG
Funds available; the three objectives of the program (to benefit
low and moderate income persons; to eliminate slum and blighted
conditions; and to address health and safety needs posed by an
urgen situation); and that up to 15% of the total funding is
available for public services.
MOTION AMENDMENT: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown
seconded an amendment to the motion to incorporate the City Manager's
recommendation on the publication of available CDBG funds. The voice
vote was unanimous.
� `'? + ,'i: "'{ T". �+_ � ,.;F tiL„c T �' ... - .. '. _ - �..,. >� y .f-"a>a; "1 �. ti,r. -r�-C Z •� � L : '�` »'4'�. � . �",'
ATTACHMENT "A"
Schedule for the CDBG Proposal Process
1) City Council determines general
priorities and guidelines for allocation use of current year'sLG.-u.y('
��t
2) Invite proposals 0
1) Advertisements
2) Flyers
3) Proposal Completion Guidance
4) Public Notice of Staff meeting.
5) Deadline to receive written
proposals.
6) Public Staff Meeting
7) Council/Budget/Finance Committee
and City Staff review of Proposals
8) City Council Public Hearing
9) Submit Proposals to County
DR/ls
ATCHMENT.CHRONI
First City Council meeting
of January.
Second week of January.
Third week of January
Third week of January
January 31
First or second week of
February
Second and third week of
February.
First Meeting in March
End of March