Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0419 CC REG ITEM 11I . � STEM MOORPARK ELOISE BROWN vPPK � STEVEN KUENY Mayor oo° 09 City Manager BERNARDO M. PEREZ f 9 CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern City Attorney CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. i O PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember o9 0 Director of PAUL LAWRASON °04 1 Community Development Councilmember gTEO �'` R. DENNIS DELZEIT SCOTT MONTGOMERY City Engineer Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE RICHARD T. HARE Chief of Police City Treasurer MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council P=ROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: April 14, 1989 (CC Meeting 4/19/39) SUBJECT: PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CDBG PROPOSALS Staff has developed procedures in order to organize the process of administering CDBG proposals for the annual funding cycle. This report will review the City' s requirements, and briefly review the items in the schedule. In conclusion, the City will have a formal procedure that will greatly enhance the use of CDBG funds in our community by allowing the Council to review each proposal before the public hearing takes place. Background The Urban Counties/Entitlement CDBG program has been with Moorpark since 1986. In the first .year, the City received one proposal . The procedure was simple. The Council funded two City projects (Senior Center, and Street Improvements), and the one proposal CEDC. In subsequent years, the City has received an increasing amount of proposals making the process more complicated. This year, staff received eight proposals in addition to those created by staff. These proposals arrived at Ci-ty Hall up until 7:00 p.m. the night of the public hearing and included requests at the hearing for which written proposals had not been submit:.ted to City staff. As a result, the City struggled to digest this information prior to the City Council meeting. The actual hearing became a lengthy and confusing event. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 April 14, 1989 page 2 The City acts as the sub-grantee for the CDBG program and is subject to deadlines established by the County, (the grantee). Part of the problem the City had at the last public hearing is relative to staff' s attempt to meet these deadlines. The funding cycle occurs annually beginning in January with notice from the County stating what dollar amount the City has been allocated. This year, the County notified the City on January 31st, and asked the City to: advertise for proposals; conduct two public meetings; and formulate final proposals by March 31, 1989. This gave staff limited time to achieve these goals. As the sub-grantee, it is the City' s responsibility to meet the County' s requirements whenever possible. Discussion If the City is better organized, then we should easily meet the County time requirements. Staff has developed a formal schedule to organize the City' s progress during the month of January, February and March. This schedule meets all Federal regulations, and is similar to the schedule currently implemented by the County. Item 1 on Attachment "A" will provide the City Council an opportunity by which any general priorities or interest can be given to Staff and those of the public who may be seeking funds. Item 2 will seek invitations for proposals. A list of those agencies which previously applied will be mailed proposals, be informed of the deadline, and invited to meet with staff for guidance in completing the proposal . The format is similar to the County' s, thus facilitating turnaround time for submittal of County proposals in March. Secondly, an eighth of a page advertisement will be published in the local paper. The advertisement will clearly state when the City will stop receiving proposals for that fiscal year. Item 3 is a part of the schedule where interested community groups can meet with staff to review the proposal procedures. The format for the proposal addresses project design, beneficiaries, past funding to the group and budget details. This event will only take place if the need is evident. Item 4 is a HUD requirement where community groups are invited to share their proposals at the Public Staff Meeting and the City Council public hearing. This notice will be announce for a third time, that the deadline is approaching. Item 5 is the backbone of the entire schedule. The deadline, if well publicized, should eliminate most of the problems the City faced this year. It will also allow for a methodical review of proposals long before the hearing. April 14, 1989 page 3 Item 6 is a HUD requirement where all community groups are welcome to share their proposals with the Community Development staff. This is a good opportunity for staff to advise representatives about revising and improving their proposals before they become part of the staff report. Item 7 will allow Council representatives to meet in a sub-committee with staff to discuss the objectives of the City. This meeting will greatly facilitate the development of recommendations for the staff report. Additionally, it will provide for an efficient public hearing process with concise direction for staff. Items 8 and 9 are procedures that are currently in place. These steps are separated, providing staff adequate time to meet County deadlines. Conclusion Staff has presented Council with a procedure for receiving proposals for funding from the CDBG program. As time passes, staff will be receiving more and more requests for funds. The increased number of proposals has created the need for established administrative procedures of these proposals. By adopting these procedures, the City can implement a methodical process for the consideration of proposals for the annual funding cycle of the CDBG program. Recommendation Adopt these procedures for future CDBG proposal development reviews. Attachment A - Schedule for CDBG Proposal Process MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting DR/ls of 198 Z ACTION: "or 01 By ATTACHMENT "A" Schedule for the CDBG Proposal Process 1) City Council determines general First City Council meeting priorities and guidelines for of January. allocation use of current year's. 2) Invite proposals Second week of .January. 1) Advertisements 2) Flyers 3) Proposal Completion Guidance Third week of January 4) Public Notice of Staff meeting. Third week of January 5) Deadline to receive written January 31 proposals. 6) Public Staff Meeting First or second week of February 7) Council/Budget/Fin.ance Committee Second and third week of and City Staff review of Proposals February. 8) City Council Public Hearing First Meeting in March 9) Submit Proposals to County End of March DR/ls ATCHMENT.CHRONI