Laserfiche WebLink
civic arts activities received 12 applications from 10 agencies, for a total request.of $85,000 against a <br /> $40,000 allocation. Eleven applications totaling $75,000 against a little over$40,000 in allocations were <br /> received for youth programs.. <br /> Mr. Erickson reviewed HHSG project categories, the largest of which is capital rehabilitation and relates <br /> primarily to an application from MidPen Housing for the Kottinger Gardens project. The Human <br /> Services and Housing Commissions each reviewed applications for the respective areas of interest and <br /> provided recommendations based on priorities related to the Human Services Needs Assessment that <br /> was completed a little over one year ago: Their recommendations allocate the highest level of funding <br /> to those programs that meet the highest priorities established by each, while others are recommended <br /> for funding at a lower level than was requested. He noted that only one agency, whose project met <br /> none of the established priorities, received no recommendation for funding. He also called the Council's <br /> attention to the staff report, which calls out an amount to be set aside for the Senior Center's aggregate <br /> meal service contract,which was awarded to Open Heart Kitchen last week. The staff recommendation <br /> therefore includes the recommendation that this funding be allocated to Open Heart.Kitchen. <br /> He reviewed Community Grant Program recommendations, as noted in Table B of the staff report. The <br /> Civic Arts Commission identified three project applications as being among their highest priorities and <br /> recommended full funding, while others were allocated amounts ranging from 7% to 57% of the <br /> requested funding. The Civic Arts Commission also recommended.no funding for three projects which it <br /> felt did not meet any of their specified priorities.. The Youth Commission recommended some level of <br /> funding, ranging from 21% to,92% of the requested amount, for all applications. Neither Commission <br /> recommended carrying over funds to the next year. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked and confirmed that the each program allocated the full amount of <br /> funding that was available. <br /> Mr. Erickson detailed some of the funding requests, which include a new clinic facility for Axis <br /> Community Health, the Kottinger Gardens project, the city's housing rehabilitation program, Open Heart <br /> Kitchen, Tri-Valley Haven's youth program, and Livermore. Valley Opera's school programs. He <br /> summarized the staff recommendation,which is that the Council considers the recommendations of the <br /> four Commission as listed hi Tables A and B and authorize that any funds received from the payoff of <br /> rehabilitation loans get funneled back into that same program. <br /> (b) Approve the Annual Action Plan (FY 2014-15) for the Use of Federal Community <br /> Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds <br /> Mr. Erickson explained that as part of the federal funding for these programs, the Department of <br /> Housing and Community Development (HCD) requires the city to file an Annual Action Plan stating how <br /> the funds will be used. He referred to the staff report for a full copy of the plan, noting the projects that <br /> will be funded through CDBG funds specifically. He recommended that the Council approve and direct <br /> staff to submit the Annual Action Plan by the deadline stated. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio thanked each Commission for their work and said she was particularly <br /> pleased with the work that came out of the subcommittee. She asked staff to speak to page 2 of the <br /> staff report, which references an additional $350,000 in Home funding for 2014-15 with commentary <br /> that these funds must be committed to projects or they will revert to the county, and why some funds <br /> have not been allocated for use. <br /> Mr. Erickson clarified that the first column references the 2013-14 grant cycle and a statement of what <br /> was allocated in Home funds that year, which primarily relate to the city's housing rehabilitation <br /> program, whereas the rest is a function of accumulated Home funds that need to be spent. He <br /> explained that while the emphasis of the Home program is to create new housing, the annual allocation <br /> is so small that it can be difficult to accumulate enough to put towards a project in a meaningful way. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 16 cif 20 May 6,2014 <br />