HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/2001, C10 - CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS. council Melvin;Deb _Q
ACEn6A 12EpORt in
C I T Y O F SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo
Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS,
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff to work with the Urban County to revise the annual CDBG review process to
provide early Council and advisory body input on funding priorities and grant applications.
DISCUSSION
Situation. Last March Council approved the City's 2001 CDBG program. As part of that
action, council members asked staff to reassess the CDBG review process and come back with
a new approach. Council members asked to be involved early in the CDBG program cycle to
set funding priorities before the draft Consolidated Plan is published. Attachment A describes
a revised strategy for the annual CDBG review process. Staff believes this strategy would
allow early Council input into the grant award process, help Council prioritize community
needs and help maintain an open, inclusive and fair grant application process.
Background. Since 1994, the City of San Luis Obispo has received and distributed over $7
million dollars in federal CDBG funds to address community needs. During this time, the
City's CDBG review strategy followed Council's funding priorities set in 1994 and the Urban
County's "Community Participation Plan." This HUD-approved plan sets minimum standards
for public participation in the grant process. Under the plan, each city has some latitude in
designing its own internal review and approval procedures. San Luis Obispo's review
procedures, while they meet Urban County and HUD rules, have focused Council and most
public input at the end of the review process. This has raised concerns that the review process
may be less responsive to community needs and.priorities than desired and that staff funding
recommendations need to be balanced with other community input.
The CDBG Program Review Process. Based on the cities' and County's initial grant funding
recommendations, the Urban County prepares and publishes a "Draft Consolidated Plan"
which tentatively lists activities to receive funding and how much. After a 30-day public
review period, the cities and County must hold at least one public hearing to approve the grant
awards and authorize submittal of the Consolidated Plan to HUD. Final grant awards may
differ from the tentative list of grants published in the Draft Consolidated Plan.
� lD �/
Council Agenda Report —Changes to the annual CDBG Program Cycle
Page 2
In the City of San Luis Obispo, a budget review committee, composed of staff from several
City departments, has made preliminary grant funding recommendations. The committee
reviews grant applications for consistency. with Council priorities and HUD rules, and
forwards recommendations to the County for inclusion in the Draft Consolidated Plan. Public
input is provided through a series of workshops and hearings held throughout the County, both
before and after the Draft Consolidated Plan is published. The City of San Luis Obispo has
opted to hold its public hearing after publication of the Draft Consolidated Plan. The City
Council holds the public hearing typically in March and forwards its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, who approve the Consolidated Plan at public hearings in April or early
May.
As the attached process flow chart illustrates, every month in the CDBG program year
involves several activities. Formal hearings that involve agenda reports and agenda
preparation prior to a hearing present a challenge to staying on schedule with the overall
Urban County schedule. Even so; it is possible that some additional review can be included in
the City's process.
Proposed Changes to CDBG Review Procedures. The proposed changes "move up" the grant
review process by at least one month and involve the Human Relations Commission (HRC) as
advisor to the Council on community needs and funding recommendations. As noted in the
attachment, the revised process would involve four key steps:.
1. HRC-hosted "Needs Workshop": The HRC co-hosts a public needs workshop in SLO to
inform the public about upcoming funding amounts and how to apply for grants, and to
solicit community views on grant funding needs. (Since the HRC currently hosts such a
meeting for the Grants-in-Aid (GIA) program, "piggybacking" the CDBG hearing on the
meeting would add value to the both the GIA and CDBG process)
2. Council priority-setting hearing: Council holds a public hearing to set CDBG funding
priorities that would provide staff direction on the types of City projects acceptable for
applications.
3. CDBG applications hearing: HRC holds a public hearing to review CDBG requests and
forwards its funding recommendations for the Draft Consolidated Plan.
4. CDBG Program Hearing: Council holds public hearing on Draft Consolidated Plan,
approves the City's CDBG Program and forwards its recommendations to the Urban
County.
How these changes would affect the current process. These changes would affect not only
the City's review procedures but also the Urban County's review schedule and procedures.
coo^�
Council Agenda Report —Changes to the annual CDBG Program Cycle
Page 3
How these changes would affect the current process. These changes would affect not only
the City's review procedures but also the Urban County's review schedule and procedures.
Since San Luis Obispo is part of the Urban County and has entered into a Cooperative
Agreement, the Citycannot unilaterally change procedures that apply to all participating
jurisdictions. Obviously, the City's ability to implement these changes depends, in part, on
the Urban County's willingness to revise its review procedures — particularly the CDBG
application period starting and ending dates. The primary change for the County would be to
start the grant application process in September or early October, with a late November
deadline. In most other respects, the City's internal review changes would not affect the
Urban County's procedures, but would be tailored to conform to the overall review,
framework. For example, changes 1 and 2 above could be implemented without any affect on
the Urban County; however changes 3 and 4 depend upon the Urban County adopting an
earlier application period.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approving the revised procedures will result in minor administrative cost increases that can be
accommodated within existing staff resources.
CONCURRENCES
According to County staff, the County has considered implementing similar changes
countywide to improve the public review and consolidated plan process and would be receptive
to the City's ideas. However, the Urban County includes the unincorporated County plus four
other cities. Each jurisdiction needs to be consulted before the Urban County procedures are
changed. The next step would be to work with the County on these changes.
The HRC has discussed its role relative to community needs and the CDBG review process.
Commission members and staff feel the HRC could provide valuable assistance to the
Community and Council and support HRC participation in the.CDBG program.
Attachment:
1. Recommended Annual CDBG Program Review Cycle
Jh/CDBG/CDBGcyclechanges.ecreport
ATI Z'�P&HMENT A: Annual )BG
Program Review Cycle
September - October November - December
• CDBG Applications • CDBG Applications
become available submitted to cities and
• Urban County holds needs County
workshops • City staff reviews CDBG
• Human Relations applications for
Commission co-hosts consistency with HUD
"needs workshop" in SLO rules and Council
City priorities
• City Council holds hearing Human Relations
on CDBG funding Commission holds
priorities hearings on CDBG
applications
July gust Janua - ebruary
• HUD approves Urban County publishes
Consolidated Plan and Draft consolidated Plan
• County and cities City Council holds public
complete funding hearing on Draft
agreements Consolidated Plan and
• Grant funding begins CDBG applications.
• Prepare for next grant Board of Supervisors
program year in late holds public hearings on
August Consolidated Plan/adopts
final Plan.
May- une Mar - pril
• HUD approves • Optional "2nd hearings"
Consolidated Plan by cities and Board '
• Urban County and cities Urban County publishes
prepare draft funding Final Consolidated Plan
agreements 0 Consolidated Plan
• Begin environmental submitted to HUD for
review for grant activities approval
jbNcdbg/cdbgprogram review cycle