Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101-Staff Report.pdf Page 1 of 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 20, 2011 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cynthia McCormick, AICP DIRECTOR: Chris Riordan, AICP SUBJECT: Review of DRAFT Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement to undertake CDBG activities. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review DRAFT Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement (JPA) for Community Development Block Grant Program and recommend changes as appropriate. REPORT SUMMARY: The City of Saratoga and Santa Clara County are participants in the CDBG Program, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act. The City of Saratoga is not eligible to apply directly for CDBG funds because the population is under the 50,000 person threshold. In previous years, the City has qualified to receive CDBG funds as an “Urban County” applicant by entering into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement (JPA) with Santa Clara County and other participating cities1. In 2008, the Council approved the current JPA for a 3 year period, which expires on September 30, 2011. The new JPA will be for the period October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2014. In previous years, there was little change to the JPA. However, the County is recommending changes to the CDBG program as discussed at the March 3, 2010 City Council meeting (see attachments 4 and 5). On April 4th, staff received a draft copy of the County’s proposed JPA. On April 8th, City Managers and staff from the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, and Los Altos met to discuss the draft JPA and in particular concerns about the impact on local public services and infrastructure projects. Attendees of the meeting agreed on several points. On April 11th, participating city staff met with County staff to discuss the cities concerns. Later that day, the County revised the draft JPA (Attachment 1) and developed draft “Guiding Principles” (attachment 2) in response to the Cities’ requests. On April 14th, the cities sent a letter to the County Executive summarizing the points that had been agreed upon and acknowledging cooperation from all parties (Attachment 6). 1 Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, unincorporated County Page 2 of 4 The notable changes to the draft JPA from previous years include the following: 􀁸 Urban County Technical Advisory Committee (#2h): Based on feedback from the cities, this committee has been more formalized as an advisory body to the HCD. The role of the TAC is further described in the draft Guiding Principles document. One staff person from each of the participating cities and one staff member from the County (Chair) sit on this committee. 􀁸 HCD Advisory Committee (#2o): The description of the HCDAC was amended to further describe the make-up of the Committee. The 20 member committee includes one (1) County Board of Supervisor member (Chair), five (5) public members from each of the supervisorial districts, and two (2) members from each of the seven participating cities. One City of Saratoga Council Member and one appointed Saratoga citizen serve on this Committee. While it has been difficult to establish a quorum of HCD members at past meetings, it is important that the cities have a presence presence at HCD meetings to ensure their needs are met. 􀁸 Guiding Principles (#7): This document was briefly drafted in response to concerns from the cities that local priorities be honored. The Guiding Principles will further define HCDAC and TAC roles, the local priorities plan (described further below), and funding categories including City set-aside infrastructure funds (described further below). 􀁸 Project Proposals (#8): This change would have the following effect: *The Urban County CDBG Program will switch to an automated Web system. Applicants (including cities) will apply online. The new system will reduce much of the administrative burden of reviewing proposals and monitoring projects. Reimbursement requests will also be incorporated into the web system, requiring applicants to accurately submit project budgets. The RFP typically comes out in November and the deadline for submission is typically the first week of January. Unchanged from previous years, the TAC (which includes one staff member from each of the participating cities) will review all proposals and make recommendations to the HCDAC. The HCDAC will review the proposals at a Public Hearing(s) in February and make a recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors. The County Board of Supervisors will decide which projects get funded and forward the decision to HUD for final approval. * Local service providers (e.g., SASCC) will have to apply directly to the County for funding. Local service providers will compete with other countywide service providers and non-competitive projects may not get funded. The minimum grant amount is $10,000. The Local Priorities Plan is critical in supporting local public services by dictating local needs and desires. The County will be responsible for monitoring public service projects. * The City will have to apply directly to the County for capital project funding (e.g., ADA). Projects must comply with HUD and County CDBG goals (attachment 3). City staff will continue to be responsible for monitoring infrastructure projects. Page 3 of 4 In response to feedback from the cities, County staff has initially agreed to an infrastructure set-aside for each participating city (approximately $100,000 per year dependent on available funding). The set-aside is contingent on final JPA approval by the County Board of Supervisors and HUD. The cities have agreed to a limit of two infrastructure projects per year to help reduce administration of these projects. Furthermore, the cities could pool their infrastructure funds (by mutual agreement) for a larger project in alternating years. It is important to note that Cities will no longer be able to rollover infrastructure funds. Unused funds will be returned to the County pool and made available to eligible RFP applicants. 􀁸 Local Priorities Plan (#9c): The Local Priorities Plan has not yet been drafted, although it is referenced in the JPA. The Local Priorities Plan will include evaluation criteria (yet to be determined) and will be incorporated into the Guiding Principles. Once drafted by the the TAC, the Local Priorities Plan will be reviewed and approved by the HCDAC. The County expects to incorporate the Local Priorities Plan into the annual RFP for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. The Guiding Principles and Local Priorities Plan are critical to offset the elimination of the City’s direct involvement in the allocation of funding. These documents will dictate local funding priorities to the HCDAC and Board of Supervisors. The City Council should identify Saratoga’s local priorities, including infrastructure and community services. These priorities must comply with HUD and Urban County CDBG goals. 􀁸 Revolving Loan Fund /SHARP: While a City may elect to retain their Rehabilitation Program funding, the County is encouraging cities to consolidate their programs with the Urban County Housing Rehabilitation Program. The City of Saratoga approved transfer of its SHARP program to the County on March 16th. Next Steps: The County has requested the participating cities provide recommended changes to the draft draft JPA by April 21st so that the final signed agreements may be forwarded to HUD in a timely manner. County staff will review the recommendations and send the revised draft JPA with all city council recommended revisions to the County Attorney. On May 2nd, the County is scheduled to forward the Final JPA to the City of Saratoga and other participating jurisdictions. By May 13th, the Cities must notify the County and HUD in writing if it elects to be included or excluded from the JPA. On June 7th, the County Board will hold a Hearing to authorize execution of the JPA agreement which must then be signed by the Cities no later than June 17th. The HUD deadline for receipt of the JPA is June 30th. FISCAL IMPACTS: Local Providers and Cities will be required to apply directly to the County for Public Service funding and capital project funding. Non-competitive public service projects may not get funded. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City will not have an opportunity to define local priorities in evaluating CDBG applications for the next three years. Page 4 of 4 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not participate in the new JPA for fiscal years 2012-2015. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Forward the draft JPA recommended changes to the County for review and revision. A final JPA will be brought back to the City Council for approval ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s website in advance of the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each Monday in advance of the Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Joint Powers Agreement, dated April 11, 2011. 2. Draft Guiding Principles, dated April 11, 2011. 3. CDBG Funding Priorities 4. February 17 2010 memo from Marjorie Matthews (Director of the Office of Affordable Housing), summarizing recommendations for streamlining the Urban County CDBG process. 5. March 21 2011 letter from Jeff Smith (County Executive) regarding the proposed restructure of the CDBG Program. 6. April 14, 2011 letter to County Executive, Jeff Smith