Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 2 HCDA APPROP'S 05-01-89AGENDA s TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTOll, CITY MANAGER COt)~NIll DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 15TH YEAR HOUSXIIG AMD COIqI~IIITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (HCDA) APPROPRIATZONS RECOMMENDATXON Recel ve and fi 1 e. BACKGROUND At a regular meeting on December 19, 1988, the City Council approved certain staff recommended 15th Year Housing and Community Development Block Grant (HCDA) projects and authorized transmittal of the City's 15th year application to the Housing and Community Development Division of the Oran. ge County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). Unfortunately, EMA staff have not recommended full appropriations for certain HCDA projects and have completely rejected the City's funding request for storm drain improvements.at Columbus-Tustin. The following is a breakdown of projects, HCDA funding originally requested by City and the EMA recommended funding levels. Ori gi nal ~ Tusttn_Project Proposed EMA Funding Leve) Orange Street Residential Rehab. Storm Drain Improvements Commercial Rehab. 100,000 45,000 100,000 50,000 115,000 0 25,000 __20,000 When reviewing proposed appropriations countywide, particularly in light of the City of Tustin's high percentage of low and moderate households, Tustin staff have communicated to EMA staff on numerous occasions in the past that significantly higher HCDA appropriations in Tustin were justified. In response to 15th £MA recommended funding levels, staff again unofficially voiced this concern with no positive response other than being invited to attend a public workshop hearing on the matter. Ctty Counctl Report HCDA May 1, 1989 Page. two . o On March 28, 1989 the Board of Supervisors as requested by the Houslng a~d Community Oevelopment Dtvtslon of the EMA Agency held a public workshop hearing to revlew EMA recommended appropriations for the 15th HCDA program. Attached Is a memorandum which Tustln staff personally delivered to Dhougchat Pusavat and each member of.the County Board of Supervisors at the publlc hearlng. While staff would like to work out the problems and have attempted to clear up these issues through the system, we feel that HCD staff at the County have been continually unresponsive to our unofficial communications. I will continue to work at setting up a meeting with County staff to try and work out the problems we've identified in our correspondence. Unfortunately, our silence in the past has not resulted in any program modifications and staff believes that the City should expect the best and that we have a responsibility to identify any program inequities. City staff are also aware of concerns that other cities in similar status as Tustin have with the HCDA program. We'll appropriately be coordinating with these communities to mount a concerted effort to encourage more responsiveness by the County in addressing current inequities. Director A.~S~i~~_of Community Development CAS:ts Attachment: Letter dated March 29, 1989 Corn munity Developmen~ Depanmen~ City of Tustin March 29. 1989 .Community Development Department Mr. Ohougchat Pusavat, Program Manager Houstng and Commufitty Development EMA Program Office P.O. Box 4048 Santa Aha, California 92702-4048 SUBJECT: HCD BLOCK GRANT FUNDING FOR YEAR 15 Dear Mr. Pusavat: Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Year 15 Houstng and Community Block Grant Fundtng. We've reviewed the proposed appropriations for the non-profit organizations and the unincorporated communities and agree that these projects would provide worth while , - county-wide benefit for everyone. 'However, we are concerned with the projected distribution of city funding. Staff has performed an analysis of figures based on Department of Flnance..populatlon figures, projected funding amounts and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) very low and low-income households as shown on the attached Exhibit "A". Your correspondence stated that the projects selected would benefit a high level of low and moderate-income households as well as past performance. Based on the success of our present and recent programs (especially the rehabilitation programs), the statistics as presented show that certain cities (i.e., Cypress, La Palina, and Los Alamitos) are receiving a considerable amount of funding when compared to the number of low-income households in these communities. While Tustin agrees that non-profit and county-wide projects benefit larger areas the proposed distribution of HCD funds to cities may not. ' Specifically, Tustln is concerned as to the equitable distribution of the funds to all cities in the program. Since the goal is to provide services to low-income households, this distribution should, if averages were applied, work out to about $23.70 per low-income household. As shown on the attached exhibit,, there are many cities above and below this figure, and although Tust~n has requested in the past criteria and justification for the actual EMA determined proposed funding distributions, no justification as to the method of appropriation and the reason for the discrepancies has been provided. The distribution of the Block Grant Funds, by using some sort of weighing system _Could ensure each jurisdiction that the funds are distr, ibuted equitably. Counties 'ke Los Angeles County utilize such a system and the program has been well -.ceived by recipients. · 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 Mr. Pusavat March 29. 1989 Page two Since such large discrepancies occur from city to city, the Department should provtde justification for the proposed .appropriations and a set of crlterla to be utlltzed tn reviewing Ctty re~luests. Clttes tn Orange County now are only asked to provide a wish list and EMA does not generally even contact us In reallocatlng requested project funds to determine how projects are prioritized by a City or to request any additional Information to clarify project requests. Certaln projects In Tustln have not recelved full appropriations and no other sources of fundlng for these, identified projects exist. The following Is a break down of the projects, the proposed funding and the requested appropriations. Proposed HCD Appropriation Orlgtnal .P, ro~ect Recommended by E,MA Tust!.n Request Orange Street Residential Rehab. Storm Dratn Imp. Commercial Rehab. $ 45,000 $100,000 50,000 100,000 0 115,000 20.000 25,000 $1-'~,000 -~34b,000 Tusttn believes that we should receive close to another $100,000 based on information attached and We believe that the storm drain improvement project should be funded since it will provide area benefit to persons of low-moderate income and is an authorized project pursuant to Federal HCD Block Grant Program regulations. We appreciate your consideration and would also respectfully request the Housing and Community Development Department to reconsider its distribution formula and appropriate the Block Grant Funds more equitably based on need, especially since the projects funded in other cities such as Cypress, Los Alamitos and La Palma are essentially the same as the projects in Tustin. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Si ncere ly, Christine A. Shlngleton Olrector of Community Development CAS:MAC :ts Attachment: Exhibit "A" Wtlqlam Huston, City Manager Orange County Board of Supervisors U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0