SR 06:095 - Laserfiche WebLink

The deadline for receipt of Pleasant on CDBG applications was Friday, February 3. A total of 19 applications for FY 2006 federal CDBG and HOME funding were received from 14 separate agencies by the deadline. The individual applications are listed in Attachment 4. Review Process As part of the review process established several years ago, the Human Services Commission (HSC) and Housing Commission (HC) mutually determined that new CDBG applications would be reviewed separately by each commission according to the type of application. Specifically, the HSC would review non-housing and/or service-related applications, while the HC would review applications that are specifically related to housing or housing projects. As shown in Attachment 4, twelve (12) of the 19 applications received were reviewed by the HSC on Wednesday, March I, while the remaining seven (7) were reviewed by the HC on Thursday, March 16. As the citizen advisory bodies for the City's CDBG and HOME programs, the two commissions are forwarding their respective funding recommendations to the City Council for final approval. The final action taken by the Council will be sent to HUD in the form ofa statement of the City's CDBG and HOME activities for FY 2006 as part of the annual "Action Plan" for Pleasanton. The FY 2006 Action Plan is scheduled for review and approval by the Council at the meeting of April 18. At the recent HSC and HC meetings, applicant agencies gave individual short presentations to the commissions and answered questions as appropriate. Due to the large number of applications, formal presentations are not scheduled for the City Council meeting. However, applicant agencies have been sent copies of the agenda and staff report and will have the opportunity to address the Council under the public hearing portion ofthe meeting if desired. Multi-Year Funding While it is not mandatory, HUD encourages jurisdictions to plan for use of CDBG funds in more than one-year increments. Jurisdictions may address planning for CDBG funding in cycles of up to three years. Multi-year planning is generally beneficial in that it helps cities to more efficiently target CDBG funds. In addition, a multi-year funding plan assists subrecipient agencies in budgeting and in planning for larger projects. As discussed earlier, the two commissions agreed to consider two-year applications for capital and rehabilitation projects and one-year applications for public services funding. Two ofthe applicants for capital funds (Axis Community Health and Pleasanton Gardens) have requested a tentative allocation of funds for FY 2007 (as shown in the attached Table A). SR:06:095 Page 3