04 - Laserfiche WebLink

o The recommended minimum funding for projects has historically been $5,000. This year, one application (NAMI Tri-Valley's $4,000) is recommended for award for less than $5,000. • All of the applications have indicated that they address one or more of the priority needs and/or service delivery criteria identified in the Tri-Valley Human Services Needs Assessment. The degree to which each project meets these priorities varies and is subjective. Staff's Funding Recommendation Staff has attempted to provide an overall funding recommendation that incorporates commission priorities and rankings but also attempts to provide some level of funding to all projects. Given that the aggregate amount of funds requested this year is roughly double the amount of funding available, staff has taken a different approach. In general, staff's recommendation, as summarized in Attachment 1, is targeted toward addressing service gaps, particularly around critical safety net services. Staff also attempted to address a variety of activity categories (food, medical, mental health, legal, homelessness, prevention, etc.) to provide some level of funding to most, with the goal of achieving a balanced distribution that will hopefully maximize the efficiency of City funding to address gaps in safety net service areas. Staff's funding recommendation is a composite of multiple staff reviews from the Housing Division and Library and Recreation Department. Staff considered many factors in developing a recommendation, including: an evaluation of applications against the commission's criteria; composite commission application scores; past year program performance and funding levels; whether the program/project addresses a core safety net service or an identified services gap; whether duplicative services were requested; and, distribution of funding across a variety of community needs. While the recommendation attempts to provide an emphasis on the commission priorities and other factors addressed, it is important to note that other criteria also influence and sometimes override the allocation of funds to projects that meet designated priorities. In general, the most common factors are the restrictions within each funding source and the demand versus the availability of funds such as CDBG Capital funds and Public Services funds. For example, it may be possible to fund a project that does not necessarily score highly under the commission criteria simply because funds are more available in the funding source for that particular type of activity. Attachment 1 results in the recommended allocation of some level of funding to all 27 projects that applied (not including the Section 108 Loan Repayment). Staff believes that this alternative will serve as a good starting point for commission discussions at the March 6 meeting. Page 6 of 10