05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 4 of 7 columns of information for comparative purposes: funding requested; funding allocated last year; estimated Pleasanton residents to be served; and estimated cost per resident. Regarding the “cost per resident” column, this statistic is not meant to provide a direct comparison across projects as data across projects may not be comparable. Nevertheless, it does serve as a useful indicator of the cost of providing service. The following general comments apply to staff’s funding recommendations: • Eight applications are for housing services and programs which are eligible to be funded through a combination of federal HOME and City LIHF funds. These applications will be reviewed by the Housing Commission on March 16, 2023 • The remaining 22 applications are non-housing, public services projects and approximately $277,000 in CDBG funds and $217,000 in City General are available to fund these applications: o Most of the public services projects have applied for and received HHSG funding in the past and provide useful, important on-going services in the community o Two applications (Partners for Change Tri-Valley and Wishing Well Inc.) represent programs that have not applied for funding in the previous Fiscal Year, totaling $65,000 o Axis Community Health applied for triage nurse funds in past years, but not last year o Tri-Valley Haven is requesting CDBG Capital funds for the Shiloh Rebuild Project o Hively applied previously but is requesting funds for a new/different program. Staff’s Funding Recommendation Staff has provided an overall funding recommendation that incorporates commission priorities and rankings. Staff’s recommendation, as summarized in Attachment 1, focuses on 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 maximize the efficiency of City funding to address gaps in safety net service areas. 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 service gap; whether duplicative services were requested; and distribution of funding across a variety of community needs. While the recommendation provides an emphasis on the commission priorities and other factors addressed, it is important to note that other criteria also influence recommendations. In general, the most common factors are funding source restrictions and the demand versus the availability of 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 type of activity. Capital/Rehab Funding Recommendations