15B - Laserfiche WebLink

A summary of the three policy items and related recommendations are detailed below. DISCUSSION 1. Explore the potential for implementing an annual formula adjustment to the total amount of funding allocated to the City Grant program, using rollovers to assure that unused funds remain in the program As part of the Working Group's review, staff surveyed 15 cities with similar city- funded grant programs and determined that the overall adjusted average for the surveyed cities was $2.16 per capita. Pleasanton's amount is currently $2.87 per capita. The Working Group also looked at funding uses and the allocation process. While the Working Group determined that the City's annual allocation is consistent with surveyed cities, it was concerned with the impact of inflation on programs. It was recommended that the allocation process be amended to include an inflation formula. Specifically, the Working Group is recommending that the City Council consider implementation of an annual adjustment based on the increase in City General Fund revenue for the preceding fiscal year. As an example, if General Fund revenue in FY 2009/10 increases by 5% over FY 2008/09, funding for the City Grant program in FY 2010/11 would be increased by 5 Under this formula, funding would not be reduced automatically if the City experiences a reduction in General Fund revenues. However, the City Manager and City Council could develop a budget that includes reductions, or additional increases, to reflect current budgeting issues. This formula would not impact CDBG, LIHF and /or HOME funding, since these amounts are not tied to the General Fund. Because General Fund revenue for FY 2008/09 has decreased, the 2009/10 Budget includes retention of $190,000. In addition to the annual adjustment formula, the Working Group also discussed the potential of "rollingover" funding to a subsequent year if allocated funding to grant recipients was less than the total amount available. Because the Working Group recognized that retaining a rollover process for an extended length of time could create a misrepresentation of the actual amount of money available to the program on an annual basis, it recommended implementing rollover on a one -year basis only. As an example, if the City Council approves a general allocation of $190,000 for FY 2010/11, and the total approved allocation to grant recipients is $180,000, the 2011/12 program funding amount would be $200,000 ($190,000 base plus $10,000 rollover from 2010/11). 2. Review the current outreach process As part of its review, staff detailed the significant effort taken to adequately inform interested groups regarding the City's grant programs. As an example, information is included on the City's website, and interested agencies or individuals that inquire at the City offices are added to an on -going "interest list" to receive direct mailings of grant information when it becomes available each year. Currently, there are over 130 Page 3 of 5