HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - NB-2 - Revisions to Community Development Block - 1/19/2016CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 19, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: IVB -2
SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PUBLIC SERVICE
GRANTS RATING CRITERIA AND RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
DATE: JANUARY 7, 2016
FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTATION BY: WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MIKE LINARES, CDBG/HOME COORDINATOR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MIKE LINARES, 714.754.5678
Mike.Linares@costamesaca.gov
WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, 714.754.5153
Willa.Bouwens-Killeen@costamesaca.gov
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve revised rating criteria and related Policies and Procedures for Community
Development Block Grant public service grant applications as recommended by the
Housing and Public Service Grant Ad-hoc Committee.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Costa Mesa is a recipient of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). CDBG
funds can be used for a variety of activities provided the majority of program/project
beneficiaries are low and moderate -income persons. The City is allowed to allocate up
to 15 percent of its annual CDBG allocation for public services, i.e., social service
programs.
Prior to each fiscal year, Housing and Community Development (HCD) staff solicits
applications for CDBG public service grants from nonprofit organizations and City
departments that provide direct services to Costa Mesa residents. Since 1995, the City
Council has charged a resident advisory committee with the task of rating and ranking
applications and, ultimately, developing funding recommendations for Council
consideration. Prior to 2012, this advisory committee was the Redevelopment and
Residential Rehabilitation (3R) Committee. Since 2012, the Housing and Public Services
Grant (H&PSG) Ad-hoc Committee has served in this advisory role.
To facilitate the grant recommendation process, the City Council has adopted policies
and procedures and grant application rating criteria. In past years, the application rating
criteria and policies/procedures have been modified in response to changing HUD and
City priorities, and at the request of the resident advisory committee. At its September
24, 2015, meeting, members of the H&PSG Ad-hoc Committee discussed the need to
modify the current application rating criteria. Specifically, members of the committee want
1
to ensure that grant funds were making an impact in the community. Committee
members discussed the possibility of increasing the minimum grant amount and
encouraging greater collaboration among grant applicants. On October 29, 2015, the
H&PSG Committee met and voted on several revisions to the existing grant application
rating criteria. HCD staff has modified the existing Policies and Procedures to reflect the
recommended changes to the application rating criteria. In summary these modifications
include the following:
1. A maximum of ten grants may be awarded per year. (Revised from maximum of 20
grants per year.)
2. Minimum grant amount is $15,000. (Revised from $5,000.)
3. Staff will obtain copies of police incident reports for all applicants with Costa Mesa -
based facilities that provide direct services to the public. (Added emphasis in review
process.)
4. A maximum of five points will be awarded to applicants that are based in Costa
Mesa. (Previously no points were provided for Costa Mesa -based programs.)
5. Award rating points for grant applicants that partner with other service providers.
Note: partner does not need to be a grant applicant. (Previously only bonus points
were awarded for collaborative applications.)
A red -line of proposed changes to the public service grant rating criteria and
corresponding modifications to the existing policies and procedures is provided as
Attachment 1.
ANAI YSIS•
As a recipient of CDBG funding, the City of Costa Mesa can allocate up to 15 percent of
its annual allocation from HUD, for public services. The City Council has established
rating criteria and policies/procedures to facilitate the allocation of these funds. The
H&PSG Ad-hoc Committee has been charged with utilizing the criteria and
policies/procedures to develop funding recommendations for Council consideration.
The H&PSG Ad-hoc Committee desires to ensure that CDBG public service grant funds
make a noticeable and positive impact in the City. To this end, application rating criteria
could be modified to encourage more efficient and effective use of grant funds. The
revised rating criteria will allow H&PSG Ad-hoc Committee members to award points to
grant applicants that can demonstrate program efforts will address a community need,
and that can efficiently utilize funds. Increased funding (i.e., minimum grant) will
provide grant recipients with the resources needed to invest in the community and to
better address the needs of Costa Mesa residents.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
Utilizing rating criteria for the allocation of public service grants funding is at the discretion
of the City Council. The City Council could choose to not modify the existing criteria and
policies/procedures, leaving the current process in place. Similarly, the Council could
direct staff to include additional modifications for use by the H&PSG Ad-hoc Committee.
FISCAL REVIEW:
Approval of these changes will not have a fiscal impact on the City's budget.
1►
LEGAL REVIEW:
The recommended action does not require legal review.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the City Council revise the rating criteria and related policies
and procedures for CDBG public service grant applications as recommended by the
H&PSG Ad-hoc Committee.
MIKE LINARES
CDBG/HOME COORDINATOR
GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR / DEPUTY CEO
WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
STEPHEN DUNIVENT
INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR
CC: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO
City Attorney
Public Services Director
Transportation Services Manager
City Clerk (9)
Staff (7)
File (2)
ATTACHMENTS: 1 Draft Revised Community Block Grant
Public Service Grant Policies &
Procedures and Application
Rating Criteria
3
Updated: October 29, 2015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT
POLICIES & PROCEDURES
AND
APPLICATION RATING CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION
Costa Mesa is a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement City and as
such, is automatically eligible to receive Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds. Program regulations (found in 24 Code of Federal Regulations
570) state that up to fifteen percent (15%) of CDBG funds may be used annually
to provide public services (including labor, supplies and materials), provided the
service meets one of the three national objectives established by HUD:
• Services of benefit to low and moderate income persons.
• Services to aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and/or blight.
• Services meeting an urgent need.
Public services may be any of a variety of programs or activities designed to
address the objectives listed above including child care, youth services,
homeless services, drug abuse counseling and treatment, health care, senior
services and many others.
II. PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT DISTRIBUTION
Prior to 1994, grants were awarded to nonprofit organizations without preference
for any specific type of service. In February 1994, the City Council adopted a
funding policy in an effort to streamline the public service grant process. In
January 2004, the City Council amended their original funding policy to the
following:
1. A maximum of twenty (20) grants may be awarded per year.
2. Minimum grant amount $5,000.
3. All applicants must provide most recent copy of 990 Tax Filing.
4. As a general guideline, applicants spending more than 20% of agency
funds for administration and fundraising should not be funded.
5. HCD staff must obtain a copy of police incident reports for all applicants
with Costa Mesa -based facilities that provide direct services to the public
In October 2015, the City Council's advisory committee on matters related to
CDBG public services, the Housing and Public Service Grant Ad-hoc Committee
Attachment 1
F:\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\REDEVELOPMENT\COUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 2016Wttachment 1 -Draft Revised PSG PP 10-29-15.doc
Updated: Septambee'o—R^?lOctober29 2015
(H&PSG Ad-hoc Committee), made recommendations to the existing City
Council funding policies:
1. A maximum of ten (10) grants may be awarded per year
2. Minimum grant amount is $15,000.
3. All applicants must provide most recent copy of 990 Tax Filing.
4. As a general guideline, applicants spending more than 20% of agency
funds for administration and fundraising should not be funded.
5. Staff will obtain copies of police incident reports for all applicants with
Costa Mesa -based facilities that provide direct services to the public.
6. A maximum of five (5) points will be awarded to applicants that are based
in Costa Mesa.
Attachment 1
F:\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\REDEVELOPMENT\COUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 2016VWachmenl 1 - Draft Remed PSG PP 10-29-15.doc
Updated: geptembeF 26201 lOctaber 29. 2015
III. PROCESS
Housing and Community Development (HCD) staff will handle the
; solicitation, distribution and collection of funding requests from local
social service providers. Staff will request volunteers from the SP Committee tee to
serve en the P blip Seng^e GFaRt r hnemmi+te^The Economic and Development
Services Director will convene the H&PSG Ad-hoc Committee for the purpose of
interviewing grant applicants. All 3R—H&PSG Ad-hoc Committee members,
including alternates, are eligible to participate. rhe m mhnr of
eanr_fGipants nn the c h^e waitten is throe (4) and the maximum is twelve (12)
IV. APPLICANT INTERVIEWS
HCD Staff staff will arrange interviews with applicants and inform subcommittee
members of times and locations. Prior to the interviews, subcommittee members
will be provided with a copy of each applicant's complete funding request packet.
Committee members should review these packets prior to the
interviews. On the first evening of interviews, the subcommittee will be asked to
select a spokesperson.
1. Structure of Interviews
Interviews will be set up to allow for a presentation by applicants of no more
than ten -five N -M minutes followed by a brief question and answer period.
Between interviews, time will be allowed for the subcommittee to rate the
applicant prior to proceeding to the next interview. Discussions regarding
funding distribution should not be held at this time.
2. Question and Answer Period
Every attempt will be made to allow ample time for subcommittee members to
ask questions of applicants. However, due to time constraints, the duration of
the question and answer period may be limited. HCD &Staff will be
responsible for limiting questions to ensure interviews proceed in a timely
manner in order to accommodate all scheduled interviews.
In an effort to provide a fair and equal environment to all Public Service Grant
applicants, a list of questions/topics has been compiled and will be provided
to subcommittee members prior to the interviews (Exhibit A). A summary of
the current rating criteria is also included in Exhibit A. SubGGMFnittee
Committee members should focus questions that fall within this list of topics
and make every attempt to tailor questions to the specific area for which
funding is being requested. For example, if an applicant has requested funds
for administrative salaries and benefits then appropriate questions might
revolve around salaries, duties, responsibilities, etc. of positions that fall
within this description. However, if an applicant has requested funds to
Attachment 1
F:\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\REDEVELOPMENTICOUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 201MAItechment 1 -Draft Revised PSG PP 10-29-15.doc
Updated: September 26, 201 $October 29. 2015
purchase equipment, it would be more appropriate to ask questions
specifically pertaining to equipment needs.
HCD staff coordinating the interviews will be responsible for informing
subcommittee members if they stray substantially from the guidelines of
"Topics/Questions" in Exhibit A, and/or into territory not relevant to the
application review process.
V. RATING AND FUNDING DETERMINATIONS
1. Applicant Rating
At the beginning of each round of interviews, HCD staff will distribute rating
sheets for use that evening. One rating sheet per program will be completed
by each subcommittee member. Subsemmf#ee Committee members should
rate each applicant individually on each set of criteria listed on the rating
sheet. A maximum one hundred (100) points is possible for each applicant,
with the eXGGPti0R of aRy GealitiGRG WhiGh are also eligible fGr aR additional
+8^ (0)points Based on current rating criteria, bonus points may also be
available. If interviews are held for more than one day, atk4g- sheets
will be collected by HCD staff —Staff at the end of each eVeRing e
.interview session.
At the conclusion of all interviews, HCD staff will compile the data from all the
rating sheets and provide the subcommittee with a4a4-he average rating
score for each applicant, broken down into categories by type of service
(Youth, Senior, etc.)
2. Funding Determinations
Utilizing the applications packets, the interviews and the ratings as tools, the
subcommittee will formulate a recommendation on how the public service
grant funds should be disseminated.
In order to facilitate comparison, applicants are ranked with like applicants by
category with the higher rated applicants within each category being selected
for funding. However, simply having the highest score within a category does
not guarantee full funding for an applicant. The subcommittee reserves
discretion to determine the amount of funding as well as the number of
applicants funded within each category in order to comply with the City
Council's directive on the maximum number of grants. Other factors to be
considered include the amount requested, the number of applicants in a
category and the type of service. The subcommittee also reserves the
discretion to not fund an entire category if they feel that there is a more
pressing need in other categories so long as this is consistent with City
Council policy and the City's Consolidated Plan.
Attachment 1
FMEVELOPMENT SERVICEMREDEVELOPMENTCOUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 2016Wttachment 1 - Draft ReNsed PSG PP 10-29-15.doc
Updated: September 26, 201�October29. 2015
For applicants applying as a coalition, any -awarded funds will be designated
as one total grant. The distribution of any -awarded funds to the individual
agencies will be at the discretion of the coalition's administrating agency.
However, the subcommittee reserves the option to exclude from funding one
or more individual member agencies of the coalition. If the subcommittee
chooses to exercise this option and excludes one or more individual member
agencies from funding, it will be necessary for the rationale behind this
decision to be included in the Public Service Grant Staff Report presented to
Council for approval.
Once the subcommittee has made their final recommendations, this
information will be presented to the oR Committee and subsequently to thee
City Council for approval of the recommendations. The subcommittee will be
asked to designate a spokesperson to represent them at the City Council
public hearing. Applicants will also be notified of the funding their
recommendations for funding prior to the 3o Gemmittee City Council
Me meeting so that they may provide comment on the subcommittee's
recommendations.
Attachment 1
F \DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\REDEVELOPMEN RCOUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 2016\Attachment 1 - Draft Revised PSG PP 10-29-15.doc
Updated: SeptornbeF24,4444October29,2015
TOPICS/QUESTIONS
EXHIBIT A
The following is a list of topics for questions that may be asked of applicants during
public service grant interviews. All questions should relate directly to one of the topics,
which were taken directly from the rating criteria and.the application.
1. "Demonstrated need for service" —
• Data/evidence of need in the community?
• Costa Mesa vs. regional needs — why higher or lower in CM?
• How differs from other programs that meet this need?
• Why this agency is better than other programs that meet this need?
• Is this a NEW program or an increase in service from prior year?
2. "Capacity to implement program and meet projected service goals'
• Previous year's goals vs. actual assisted — higher or lower than expected?
Why?
• Agency background questions — years in service, staff qualifications, etc.
• Program successes and failures - any changes implemented for this year?
• Other programs implemented by this agency?
• Goal determination — process?
• Input from Staff regarding issues/trends of applicant's prior year activity.
3. "Cost effectiveness of the program"
• Cost vs. number of Costa Mesa residents served?
• Budget variances from previous years?
• Budget determination — process?
4. "Proportion of low-income clients served"
• Statistics — how low-income tracked? How low-income calculated?
• Variances of low-income from previous years?
• Low-income referrals and efforts to recruit — process?
5. "Percentage of program budget requested'
• Costa Mesa funds versus total program budget?
• What would happen if not funded?
• Other cities requesting CDBG funds from — this year? Past years?
• Other funds solicited — process? Successful in solicitation?
Attachment 1
F9DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\REDEVELOPMENT\COUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 2016Machment 1 - Draft ReNsed PSG PP 10-29-15.doc
Updated: September °61^"October29.2015
6. "Financial and client tracking systems"
• Statistics — how clients are tracked through program? How client population
calculated?
• Variances of total clients from previous years?
• Any follow-up provided once client completes program?
7. "Percentage of overall program budget servicing Costa Mesa residents"
• Percentage of budget equal to percentage of residents serviced?
• Percentage variances from previous years?
8. "Number of Costa Mesa residents served by the program"
• Statistics — how residency verified? How residency tracked/calculated?
• Variances from previous years - higher or lower? Why?
• Costa Mesa referrals and efforts to recruit — outreach process?
• How is 'double counting' avoided in service level reporting?
9. "Coalition points"
• How does coalition operate?
• Are funds only for coalition clients or will non -coalition clients also be served?
Attachment 1
FADEVELOPMENT SERVICES\REDEVELOPMEN IGOUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 2016V\ttachment 1 -Draft R.ised PSG PP 10-29-15Aoc
Updated:October 29. 2015
COSTA MESA CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT
APPLICATION RATING CRITERIA SUMMARY
• CRITERIA 1 —DOES THE PROPOSED PROGRAM ADDRESS A COMMUNITY NEED?
Costa Mesa) and how the proposed program will reduce or eliminate the need
Maximum Points: 15 Pts
DOES THE PROPOSED PROGRAM MEET A CONSOLIDATED PLAN PRIORITY NEED?
The Consolidated Plan process has identified the priority needs for programs and services in the
community. Applications will be scored on the "relative priority' of the "Consolidated Plan Priority
Need" the proposed program, that is does the proposed program address a high, medium or low
priority need. Points are weighed toward an application that addresses a high priority.
Staff will screen all applications and will enter the corresponding score on the respective rating sheet.
Maximum Points: High Need = 54-0 Pts
Med'um Low Need = 26 Pts
IA,., NO Need = 02 Pts
CRITERIA 2 -THE CAPACITY OF THE APPLICANT TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED PROGRAM TO MEET
PROJECTED SERVICE GOALS.
"Capacity" evaluation should be based on objective data such as the percentage of a stated goal has
the applicant has met on a consistent basis.
Staff will prepare a three-year funding/accomplishment history report for all applicants that have
previously received CDBG funding from the City. For new applicants, program staff will make an effort
to contact prior funders and ascertain a history of meeting stated goals.
Maximum Points: 2-0-15 Pts
CRITERIA 3 - COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM.
Application evaluation should focus on program cost factors such as:
• Percent of overhead, i.e., agency administration and fundraising
• Dollars per unit of service
• Comparison of proposed program per unit cost to other like programs
• Evaluation of the accomplishment rate of the proposed program
Staff will provide a summary of the percentage of program funds spent on program overhead as
reported in an agency's most recent 990 IRS filing. Existing policy states that agencies recommended
for funding should not expend more the 20% of program funds for agency administration and
fundraising.
Maximum Points: 2-0-15 Pts
Attachment 1
F:\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\REDEVELOPMENT\COUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 201SWttachment 1 -Draft Revised PSG PP 10-29-15.dac
Updated:SepternbeF- �,October29.2015
CRITERIA 4 - LEVERAGING OF COSTA MESA CDBG FUNDS.
Evaluation of leveraging should focus, but not limited to:
• The amount of additional funds the program will bring to the table
• Evaluate if the City's CDBG funds will be matched by other applicant resources
• Evaluate if the City's CDBG funds will be used as seed money designed to create additional
funding opportunities
• Evaluate if the City's CDBG funds will be used to initiate a new program
Maximum Points: 4&10 Pts
CRITERIA 5 - FINANCIAL AND CLIENT TRACKING SYSTEMS.
The application review should focus on objective information such as:
• Timeliness of the applicants' reports
• Are funds being spent in a timely manner
• Is sufficient documentation to back up payment provided
• Are performance results measured against established goals
Staff will provide a three-year funding history and accomplishment report prior to deliberations
Maximum Points: 2&10 Pts
• CRITERIA 6 -PERCENT OF OVERALL PROGRAM BUDGET BENEFITING COSTA MESA RESIDENTS.
Staff will evaluate applications and provide a summary of the percentage of the overall program budget
that will serve Costa Mesa residents. To encourage the support of programs that predominately serve
Costa Mesa, a sliding scale of points should be used:
Staff will screen all applications and will enter the corresponding score on the respective rating sheet.
Maximum Points: 100% - 70% if program budget benefits CM residents= 10 Pts
69% - 30% if program budget benefits CM residents = 6 Pts
29% - or less if program budget benefits CM residents = 0 Pts
• CRITERIA 7 —APPLICATION SUBMITTED ASA COALITION OR COLLABORATIVE
The City encourages innovative partnerships among applicants in an effort to efficiently and effectively
etc. to substantiate the relationship(s) and role(s) of the partnership agencies.)
Maximum Points: 10 Pts
be given to those agencies that are not based in the City but that provide services in the City.
Maximum Points: Agency headquartered in Costa Mesa = 5 Pts
Agency not headquartered in Costa Mesa but provide services in the City = 2 Pts
• CRITERIA 7-9 - EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVIEW
There should be an incentive for applicants to be well prepared to answer questions from the
Application Review H&PS Gamn ;ttee-Committee so the latter can best evaluate the application as
Attachment 1
F1DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\REDEVELOPMENnCOUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 201MUachment i -Draft ReNsed PSG PP 10-29-15.doc
Updated: geptwvopvnbe �6,c2arr^""October 29. 2015
objectively as possible. Applicants have been encouraged to send knowledgeable program
representatives to make concise presentations to the subcommittee and that can respond to questions
regarding the application.
Maximum Points: 5 Pts
• CRITERIA 9-10 —VETERANS PREFERENCE POINTS (UP TO 10 POSSIBLE POINTS)
The City Council has authorized the allocation of extra rating points for agencies that provide a
preference to Veterans and their families. Extra points will be awarded based on the percentage of
veterans served by an applicant. Rating points will be awarded based on the following scale:
0 % of clients are veterans =
0 Pts
0.1 to 10% of clients are veterans =
1 Pt
10.1 % to 20% of clients are veterans =
2 Pts
20.1 % to 30% of clients are veterans =
3 Pts
30.1 % to 40% of clients are veterans =
4 Pts
40.1 % to 50% of clients are veterans =
5 Pts
50.1 % to 60% of clients are veterans =
6 Pts
60/1 % to 70% of clients are veterans =
7 Pts
70.1 % to 80% of clients are veterans =
8 Pts
80.1 % to 90% of clients are veterans =
9 Pts
90.1% to 100% of clients are veterans =
10 Pts
Maximum Points: 10 Pts
• Other evaluation factors
Police Service call information will be provided. No rating score is directly attributable to this
information; however raters may consider the information as it deliberates. HCD staff will provide
the information.
Attachment 1
F:\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\REDEVELOPMENT\COUNCIL REPORTS\COUNCIL 2016Wt.chment 1 - Dratl Revised PSG PP 10-29-15.doc