17A - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment 8 HUD Annual Community Assessment Report for Program Year 2011 (1/24/13) ps'"`"��„ U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development w* 14�1r San Francisco Regional Office•Region IX IYI+t7 Harridan Street 6 San Francisco,California 94107-1387 RECEIVED e'%,,t,..^ www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov ,'N N ) u ?r.;. ATTACHMENT 8: JAN 2 4 2013 Honorable Jerry Thome Mayor City of Pleasanton P.O. Box 520 Pleasanton,CA 94566 Dear Mayor Thorne: SUBJECT: City of Pleasanton,California Annual Community Assessment Report Program Year 2011 The Office if Community Planning and Development(CPD)has completed its annual review of the City of Pleasanton's Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for Program Year(PY)2011.The review is done to evaluate the City's management and administration of its Community Development Block Grant(CDBG),Home Investment Partnership Program(HOME),and other Federal program funds. It also allows us an opportunity to observe the City's progress in meeting the goals of its 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan and the extent to which it is preserving and developing decent, safe, affordable housing;creating suitable living environments;and expanding economic opportunities for low and moderate-income people. The City of Pleasanton is a direct CDBG recipient. In PY 2011,the City received a grant of$249,510. This grant was combined with$48,804 in program income for a total of$298,314. During that period,the City spent$296,762 in CDBG funds. This expenditure rate for CDBG was enough for the City of Pleasanton to meet the timeliness requirement as stated at 24 CFR 570.902. Our review of the City's CAPER shows that the City has complied with the eligibility and national objective requirements of the CDBG program. All of Pleasanton's funded activities principally benefitted low and moderate-income residents and its activities were also consistent with its goals and objectives identified in its 2010-2015 Consolidate Plan and PY 2011 Annual Action Plan. As in previous years,the City also used a combination of other federal,State, and local funding sources including,HOME,California Housing Finance Agency funds, the City's Lower-Income Housing Fund,and money from the General Fund to improve the living conditions of its low- and moderate-income residents. According to the Consolidated Plan,there were many obstacles to the City's goal of increasing and/or preserving affordable rental and ownership housing. These included a severe shortage of affordable housing stock for renters and homeowners,the staggering cost of housing, and a decrease in the amount of subsidies for existing rental programs. Additionally, many subsidized housing units were facing conversion to market-rate housing, which explains why 1