14 - Laserfiche WebLink

DISCUSSION Analysis of Project Applications To assure an adequate review and funding allocations, staff has worked closely with the Human Services Commission and the Housing Commission to develop asix-step review process as follows: 1. Establish the total grant amount ($285, 394) 2. Determine the amounts available for the three main funding categories (capital/rehab ($185,506), public services ($42, 809), administration ($57,079) 3. Allocate 20% of the grant for administration ($57,079) 4. Allocate capital/rehab funding (Housing Commission) 5. Allocate public services funding (Human Services Commission) 6. Recommend funding housing services through the City's Lower Income Housing Fund ($86,181) Commission Recommendations Human Services Commission Recommendation As noted above, the City's Human Services Commission met on Wednesday, March 7, to consider non-housing-related applications for CDBG funds. As shown in Attachment 1/Table A, the HSC recommended allocating $42,809 in funds for public services to seven agencies (including $5,000 as partial funding for ECHO Housing) and $148,315 for non housing capital/rehab projects. In addition to the recommendation outlined above, the HSC acknowledged that there were insufficient funds to fund most new projects. However, the HSC wanted to find a way to allocate more than its recommendation of $25,000 toward the LARPD request of $125,000 to relocate the Friendship Center adult day care program to a new location. As a result, it recommended the City Council try to find additional City sources for this project. The HSC specifically recommended the Council consider using the funds normally reserved for CDBG program administration ($57,079 for FY 2007). If approved, this would require the City to approve funding the current administration of the CDBG program and related activities from an alternative funding source, most likely the General Fund. While staff recognizes there are many community needs that can be filled with funding to competent agencies, historically, there has not been adequate funding for all of these needs. Further, the City has historically used the administrative portion of CDBG to cover staff costs necessary to administer the CDBG program including the administration of the allocation process, contracts, reporting, monitoring, technical support, communications with sub-recipients and with HUD, etc. As the Council is aware, administering the program is time intensive and the City's costs most likely exceed the allotted allocation. However, the CDBG program recognizes the administrative burden and is in fact, one of the few programs that allows for Page 4 of 12