SR 06:233 - Laserfiche WebLink

DISCUSSION The agencies which received funds in FY 2005 are listed in the attached Table P-l. Table P-2 provides a summary of the following statistics for each of the agencies which received CDBG funds in FY 2005: I) use of funds (budgeted vs. spent); 2) subrecipient accomplishments 1 project status; 3) performance measures (a new requirement that was recently introduced by HUD); and 4) statistics on households and/or persons assisted (e.g., number of beneficiaries, income level, ethnicity, family status, etc.). As shown in Table P-2, CDBG and City funds allocated in FY 2005 benefited more than 14,000 primarily low-income individuals through various projects, programs, and services coordinated through subrecipients. The information contained in Table P-2 was submitted by subrecipient agencies and is consistent with staff's evaluation of agency activity. In addition to this statistical information, an important element of the CAPER process is the opportunity for presentations by each of the subrecipient agencies. At a meeting ofthe Human Services Commission held on September 6, a schedule was established to enable presentations by each agency which received FY 2005 CDBG funds. The minutes of this meeting were not yet available to include with this report. However, in addition to a discussion of statistical information for each CDBG project, most agencies elaborated on "human interest" and other aspects which were not apparent in project statistics. Agencies also expressed their thanks to the Commission and to the City Council for the support offered through the CDBG funding. Formal agency presentations have not been scheduled for the City Council meeting of September 19 due to the length of the Council agenda and the fact that agencies had the opportunity to make detailed presentations at the September 6 Human Services Commission meeting. However, agency representatives or other interested members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments concerning the CAPER. Similarly, the Council may raise issues for discussion. Fiscal Impact There is no direct fiscal impact to the City relative to approving and submitting the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION ACTION As discussed above, the Human Services Commission met on September 6 to review the CAPER, at which time the Commission heard formal presentations from each of the agencies which received FY 2005 CDBG funds. After closing the public hearing, the Commission recommended approval of the CAPER and directed staff to submit the formal CAPER document to HUD following a second public hearing before the City Council. SR:06:233 Page 2 of3