The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0315 CC REG ITEM 09ATO FROM CITY OF MOORPARK CITY ('OUNCIL AGENDA The Honorable City Council ITEM 9. a 11 Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative Services Manager-�`�?+ DATE: March 9., 1995 L ounoll Meetng \-1>�.._ 199 SUBJECT: Consider Final Appropriations for the 1 995/96 Community Development Block Grant ( "CDBG "), Estimated to be S'.71,8321 The following report presents the recommendations made by the Budget and Finance Committee, (Mayor Lawrason and Councilmember Montgomery), after reviewing the 1995/96 CDBG proposals at their Special Meeting held March 8, 1995, as directed by the Council at the March 1. 1995, Council meeting. A spread sheet of past appropriations combined with the recommended appropriations is provided in the attachment. PUTMFIRIVI I Staff presented Council with the status of past CDBG appropriations on January 4, 1995, and was directed to solicit proposals for the use of the 1995/96 CDBG monies. Proposals were received and summarized for the Council in preparation of the public hearing held March 1, 1995. Public discussion of the new proposals occurred, and the Council directed staff to meet with the Budget and Finance Committee and return March 15, 199>., with a final recommendation for funding. This year, the City received 19 proposals, (one is from the City for a public service request). All of the proposals intend to meet the national objective of CDBG pertaining to the needs of low income people, (no proposals were received for the elimination of slum and blighted conditions, or to meet a specific urgent health and safety need) Of the 19 proposals, two apply to the administration category (not including the City's need for staff costs), 12 are for public service uses and 5 are for construction or economic development projects. Of the three categories of programs, requests were considered in relation to available funding as follows: Category Available Fundine _ Lund Requested Administration S 30,890 h ('p00* Public Services S 4o,773 s 21W98 Projects/E.D- $200,167 a oo-59t) Totals ----- ------------- - - - - -- -- $271,832 ------------------------ 8 ?. 288 *Not including City's need for Staff costs estimated to be S21.- ! Two project proposals presented by staff are not part of the table and address improvements to Wicks Road and the removal of architectural barriers at Mountain Meadows Park. Also, staff estimates that $21,000 is needed for City administration costs Budget and Finance Committee (,"Committee") Recommendation The Committee evaluated each proposal placing an emphasis on two major themes: the unmet needs of low income persons in Moorpark that CDBG could be used efficiently to address, and, the number of persons served per dollar requested (the value of each proposal). "Unmet" needs are the primary concern, which can be summarized by various demographics describing the City's population, in combination with recent studies and needs assessments conducted on a County- wide basis. Other considerations include the duplication of existing services, the location of the services, and the City's ability to spread the CDBG funds to a variety of needs in the community. The Committee did not recommend funding programs that appear to be duplicating an existing service. The direct benefit to Moorpark residents is another important consideration. If the Committee recommended funding to address the needs of one sector of the low income population, then it would generally look to other sectors of the population for consideration, in order to spread the benefits to a variety of low income needs, rather than focussing all of the money on one selected group of low income people. Administration Three different funding appropriations are being considered and two are recommended for funding by the Committee. The outside proposal is for the development of a data base for elder care services, and because the Committee is recommending funding for this population in two other appropriations for a total of $15,300 of the public service monies, this proposal is not recommended for funding. The Committee does recommend funding City staff at $21,000, and the fair housing program at $1,600, for a total of $22,600. The balance of $8,290 is being considered as part of the project monies. Public Services This category truly reflects the Committee's attempt to meet the needs of low income persons in the City using CDBG. An effective general service for low income persons in the City are those services performed by Catholic Charities, which is recommended for continued funding. Catholic Charities continues to serve more than 5,000 low income residents per year at a cost of $8,000. Other general needs of low income persons are proposed to be addressed by continuing the legal services program but at a reduced rate ($1,884). The legal services program is not recommended for funding at the same level as in the past ($4,506) so that other needs could be addressed. The level of educational attainment and its direct correlation to personal income is the driving factor behind the Committee's recommendation to continue funding literacy at the same rate ($5,000). The youth in Moorpark are viewed by the Committee to be one of the highest priorities, but using CDBG to address this need can be complicated. Two new programs are recommended for funding to address these needs: Interface Children's Resource and Referral at $4,591, and: a general appropriation of $6,000 for at -risk youth programs. The Interface program was seen to serve a unique aspect of the City's low income youth by coordinating health care services, and proposes to serve 40 Moorpark residents. Two proposals competed for the teen services, and at this time, it is difficult to determine which program will be capable of providing a sufficient match of funds to use with the CDBG portion being requested Both the City's proposal for a collaborative program, and the El Concilio proposal to continue Project Pride are waiting for commitments from other funding sources to balance their revenue needs. Funding sources will be more concrete by June 30, 1995. Therefore, the Committee recommends targeting $6,000 to serve this need, and will conduct follow -up evaluations through the City's budget process, and after other agencies have committed to their funding, The unmet needs of seniors are recommended to be addressed by CDBG via a continuation of the Senior Nutrition program ($1.2,000) and Long Term Care Ombudsman ($3,300) programs. The Committee expressed concerns about the Senior Nutrition program, citing its relatively stagnant service level over the past two years. The Committee encourages both the County and the City to be more assertive in marketing this program with existing staff in order to get more use from the cost. The cost is a stable salary expense, which will not vary as result of having a higher volume of meals served. Projects There are five project proposals from agencies providing services outside of Moorpark which after careful consideration, appear to be very expensive for the number of Moorpark residents that will benefit. For example, one proposal asks for $12,500 to serve eight Moorpark residents. In consideration of the value of each of these proposals, none are being recommended for funding at this time. The sixth proposal is from the Moorpark Boys and Girls Club The Committee agrees that this proposal appears to be worthy of funding, but feels that a more economical and efficient means of funding can be realized though the City's Redevelopment Agency. The CDBG procurement process and labor regulations could increase the cost of this project by as much as 25 percent, eliminate the ability to use in -kind services, and require more time to complete than if a general source of revenue were used. Consideration of Agency funding for this will be scheduled for a future Agency agenda. The Redevelopment Agency's Housing Preservation program was considered, but is not recommended for funding. It is the conclusion of the Committee that if CDBG is targeted for homes outside of the project area, this can help low income persons residing in the home today, but is not a help to preserving low income housing for the community in the long run. CDBG regulations and their complexities can increase the overall cost to administer the program, and this is a second reason the Committee opted to defer a t'DBG recommendation for Housing Preservation at this time. The Committee evaluated the prospect of using CDBG for improvements to Wicks Road and concluded that this appears to be the best use for the project monies at this time. There are a multitude of concerns currently related to Wicks Road that need to be addressed including slope retention and retaining walls, and the intersection with State Highway 23. This street is an eligible use of CDBG because it is located in the one census block of the City which has a majority of low income residents. Other potentially eligible street improvement projects are being addressed using a combination of Redevelopment funds and a State grant as presented by the Department of Public Works at the March 1 Council meeting. The removal of architectural barriers at Mountain Meadows Park has been recommended for funding using the 1994 CDBG surplus funds and will be addressed in a second report on this topic March 15, 1994. Removal of architectural barriers is a benefit to the special clientele of handicap persons with limited mobility. Future Consideration To expand potential the number of potential CDBG eligible projects, staff will explore the creation of a HUJD approved "slum and blighted" neighborhood. This national objective has not previously been considered by the City, but could open many prospective projects to CDBG applications including economic development activities. If the City can qualify a geographic CDBG project area within the redevelopment project area, the issue of small pockets of low income households within otherwise ineligible census blocks can be overcome. The survey data completed by the Redevelopment Agency for the housing preservation program combined with the First Street survey and the adoption of the Redevelopment Project Area can be combined to formulate this sub - project area for future CDBG uses. Additional research may be needed and staff will explore these requirements. As now proposed, the area could include the boundaries of Gabbert Road to Spring Road, spanning from the south at Los Angeles Avenue and north to High Street. <4 Recommendation That the City Council support the recommended funding ieveis presented by the Budget and Finance Committee for the appropriation of 199.5i90 CDBG monies, estimated to be $271,832, as follows: Administration City Staff $ 21,000 Fair Housing $ 1,600 Public Services 5.4t,�eu Catholic Charities $ 8,000 Legal Services $ 1,884 Interface Children's Resource program $ 4,501 Long Term Care Ombudsman $ 3,300 Senior Nutrition $ 12,000 At -Risk Teen Services $ 0,000 Projects Wicks Road Improvements $208,457 Attachment- Past and Proposed Funding Appropriations ATTAC H M ENT PAST APPROPRIATIONS AND PROPOSED APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1995/96 PROPOSED Program 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 TOTAL -- Administration — -- ---- - - - - -- 19070 ---- - - - - - -- 19810 ---- - - - - -- 19010 ---- - - - - -- 21620 ----- - - - - -- 4700 — 18489 0 21000 123699 Fair Housing 1890 1980 1600 1600 7070 Street Improvements Virg Colony Imps. 133660 52321 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185981 Charles Street 0 1795 105266 44734 57358 81773 109094 149739 0 549759 Handicap Ramps 0 0 0 92266 39222 0 0 0 0 131488 First Street 21460 60000 41000 8324 167447 298231 • Wicks Road 208457 208457 • Remo%aI of Arch Barriers 25300 25300 (Mountain Meadows Park) Other Public Improvements Food Share 0 0 0 0 5000 2000 0 0 0 7000 Casa Pacifica 0 0 0 0 25000 0 0 0 0 25000 Affordable Housing CEDC (Acq) 0 53540 n n 0 0 n 0 0 53540 Aquisition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Networking 0 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5000 °ublic Services Sr. Nutrition 0 0 0 10000 10000 10500 10000 10000 12000 12000 74500 Sr Lifeline 0 0 0 5480 0 0 0 0 0 5480 Vocational Trng. 0 0 0 5437 0 0 0 0 0 5437 Adult Literacy 0 0 0 0 8000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 33000 Homeless Omb. 0 0 0 0 500 500 500 2000 2000 5500 Legal Services 0 0 0 563 7000 1200 3650 4506 4506 1884 23309 Senior Equip. 0 0 0 0 0 1987 0 0 0 1987 Long Term Care Om b. 0 0 0 0 0 2500 1000 2000 2790 3300 11590 Cath Charities 0 0 0 0 0 7500 7500 8000 8000 8000 39000 • Interface /Chid Resources 4591 4591 • At —Risk Teen Programs 7000 7000 Totals 133660 134116 - - - - - -- ----- 124336 - - - - -- ---- 178290 - - - - -- ---- 171090 - - - - -- ------ 194580 - - - - -- 184334 --- - - - - -- ----- 210038 - - - - -- 228643 272832 1820328 * New Programs PAGE 1 of 1 VCMH Ventura County Mental Health A Division of the Ventura County Health Care Agency March 2, 1995 Mr. Don Reynolds City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mr. Reynolds, MAR - 31av5 CITY OF MOCRP ARRK Randall Feltman, LCSW Director Pursuant to our telephone conversation on March 1, 1995, I am forwarding a copy of the Fiscal Year 1995/96 Ventura County CDBG proposal for your review. As I stated during our telephone conversation, I was unable to submit a proposal to the City of Moorpark due to my involvement with relocation of flood victims in the City of Ventura. If I may be of further assistance please feel free to call me at (805)648 -9530. Sincerely Vikki Smith Program Administrator Encl. VS:rc EMERGENCY SHELTER PROGRAM 557 East Thompson Boulevard • Ventura CA 93001 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative services Manager DATE: March 3, 1995 SUBJECT: City Receipt of the Ventura County Mental Health ( "VCMH ") Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Proposal At the March 1 Council meeting, during staffs presentation of Item 9B and 9C concerning CDBG, staff mentioned that the VCMH proposal had not been received yet, despite their appearance at two public hearings (attached is a letter from them explaining the circumstances). The VCMH program replaces the Homeless Ombudsman program funded by the City Council for the past four years. The actual proposal is provided to the Council on your desk in City Hall. This proposal is actually a copy of the proposal submitted to the County CAO. There is no specific dollar amount. Staff will ascertain the exact dollar amount before meeting with the Budget and Finance Committee and include this information in the follow -up staff report to Council March 15, 1995, Attachment- Cover Letter from VCMH