The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 10272014 - Finance Cte Agenda Pkt FINANCE COMMITTEE October 27, 2014 10:30 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee 1.Introductions 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). 3. CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the July 28, 2014 Finance Committee meeting (Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director) 4. CONSIDER accepting the Quarterly Capital Projects Report (Brian Balbas, Deputy Public Works Director) 5. CONSIDER accepting Department of Conservation and Development's recommendations regarding 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Priorities and Revision of CDBG Funding Allocation Policy (Gabriel Lemus, CDBG Program Planner) 6. CONSIDER accepting Department of Conservation and Development's attached recommendations regarding a request for additional CDBG Funds for Infrastructure/Public Facility Projects (Gabriel Lemus, CDBG Program Planner) 7. CONSIDER accepting the review of Special Revenues Administered by the Board of Supervisors – Keller Canyon Landfill Surcharge and Mitigation Fees (Lisa Driscoll, County Administrator’s Office) 8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for November 24, 2014. 9.Adjourn The Finance Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Finance Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Finance Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Lisa Driscoll, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1023, Fax (925) 646-1353 lisa.driscoll@cao.cccounty.us FINANCE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:10/27/2014 Subject:Record of Action for July 28, 2014 Finance Committe Meeting Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: Record of Action Presenter: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 Referral History: County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the discussions made in the meeting. Referral Update: Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its July 28, 2014 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Staff recommends approval of the Record of Action for the July 28, 2014 meeting. Attachments Finance Committee Record of Action July 28, 2014 FINANCE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:10/27/2014 Subject:QUARTERLY CAPITAL PROJECTS REPORT Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Department:Public Works Referral No.: 1/6/2009 SD.2 Referral Name: Quarterly Capital Projects Presenter: Brian Balbas, Deputy Public Works Director Contact: Brian Balbas (925) 313-2284 Referral History: On January 6, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved recommendations for Board Member appointments to local, regional and statewide boards, committees and commissions for the 2009 calendar year. One of the adopted recommendations was to combine the Capital Facilities Committee with the Finance Committee. On February 2, 2009, the Finance Committee met and planned committee meetings and schedules for the coming year. One of the recommendations was for the Finance Committee to receive regular capital facility update reports. The first report was presented to Finance on March 4, 2009 by the Director of General Services, Mike Lango. The Committee reviewed the initial report and requested that additional financing and appropriation information be added to make the report more meaningful. The final report format was accepted at the April 6, 2009 meeting and staff was directed to include on future Finance Committee agendas. Reports were submitted at each Finance Committee meeting through December 2010. Beginning in 2011, the Finance Committee requested that Capital Facility Reports be reviewed quarterly. Quarterly review of Capital Facility Reports is the current practice. Referral Update: Quarterly update. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Accept attached Capital Projects Report. Attachments Quarterly Capital Projects Report - August 2014 FINANCE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:10/27/2014 Subject:2015-2020 Consolidation Plan Priorities and Revision of CDBG Funding Allocation Policy Submitted For: John Kopchik, Interim Director, Conservation & Development Department Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: CDBG Policy Referral Name: CDBG Funding Presenter: Gabriel Lemus, CDBG Program Planner Contact: Gabriel Lemus (925) 674-7882 Referral History: It is standard policy that CDBG funding decisions/policies be reviewed by the Finance Committee prior to scheduling for the full Board of Supervisors. Referral Update: The Family & Human Services Committee recently met on October 13, 2014 and approved staff’s recommendations for the four 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan priorities and to revise the Board’s CDBG allocation policy as indicated in the attached report. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER accepting Department of Conservation and Development's attached recommendations regarding 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Priorities and Revision of CDBG Funding Allocation Policy. Attachments CDBG Funding Allocation Policy 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 674-7882 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 27, 2014 TO: Finance Committee Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair FROM: John Kopchik, Interim Director – Department of Conservation and Development By: Gabriel Lemus, CDBG Program Planner SUBJECT: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Priorities and Revision of CDBG Funding Allocation Policy RECOMMENDATIONS 1. APPROVE recommendations for the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan priorities as recommended by staff or amended by the Committee. 2. APPROVE recommendation for revising the Board of Supervisors’ policy for allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds as recommended by staff or amended by the Committee. 3. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to prepare a staff report on the Committee’s recommendations. The staff report will be submitted and considered by the Board of Supervisors on November 4, 2014 as a “Consent” item. BACKGROUND 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Priorities: The Contra Costa County Consortium, a partnership of four cities (Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek) and Contra Costa County, receives funds each year 2 from the federal government for housing and community development activities1. To receive federal funds, the Consortium must submit a strategic plan – the Consolidated Plan – every five years to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that identifies local needs and how these needs will be addressed. The Consolidated Plan must also demonstrate how the Consortium will meet national goals set by the U.S. Congress to develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a su itable living environment, and economic opportunities, principally for person of extremely-low, very-low, and low income. The preparation of the FY 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan began with holding four focus group meetings and one service provider group meeting during the months of April, May, and June 2014. Individuals and representatives of various public agencies, community organizations, and service providers throughout the County were invited to attend these meetings. These focus group meetings covered various topics, including but not limited to: • Persons with disabilities; • Single parents/female-headed households; • Homeless; • Economic Development (business assistance and job creation/retention); • Seniors; and • Youth and Families The Consortium also solicited input from community organizations, public agencies, and the general public through an on-line survey that was accessible beginning in the month of April through the end of July 2014. A hard copy of the survey is attached (Attachment A). CDBG staff has been able to compile and analyze the survey data to come to the following conclusions: 1. Services to low-income individuals and families are high in demand, with support to “Special Needs Populations” (i.e. Victims of Domestic Violence, Persons with Disabilities, Seniors/Elderly) ranking the highest. 2. Services to the Homeless population or to those at Imminent Risk of Homelessness also ranked high for continued support. 3. Affordable Housing activities are viewed as very much in need. Of the four different eligible activities of affordable housing (preservation, special needs housing, rental and homeownership), code enforcement in lower income areas, housing for “Special Needs Populations” (especially seniors/elderly), preservation of existing affordable housing, rehabilitation assistance to existing housing, and housing counseling rank the highest. 4. Job Training/Placement and Support to Small Businesses ranked the highest in regards to Economic Development services. 1 The Federal Programs are the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) Program, the Emergency Solutions Gr ant (ESG) Program; and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program. 3 5. General Infrastructure and Public Facilities Improvements are high in demand, with improvements and/or construction of streets and sidewalks, senior centers, youth/neighborhood centers, park and recreational centers, and childcare centers ranking the highest. Although the Consolidated Plan is currently still underway, County CDBG staff has been able to substantially complete the “Needs Assessment” section of the Consolidated Plan. With the “Needs Assessment” information and the survey information, County CDBG staff has identified four main priorities for the next five-year period. County CDBG staff proposes the use of federal funds for the next five-year period to the following priorities: 1) Affordable Housing (New unit Development and Rehabilitation of existing units), 2) Homelessness (Providing Housing and Services), 3) Non-Housing Community Development (Public Services, Infrastructure/Public Facilities, Economic Development), and 4) Administration (Administration of the various Federal Programs). Board of Supervisors’ CDBG Allocation Policy: Currently, the Board of Supervisors’ policy for the allocation of CDBG funds to housing and non-housing community development activities is broken down in the following: Housing: 45.1% Public Services: 15% Economic Development: 14% Infrastructure/Public Facilities: 3.9% Contingency: 2% Program Administration: 20% This breakdown in the distribution of CDBG funds has been the funding policy for the last five years. It has been suggested to revise the allocation percentages by various agencies and cities. The County’s Affordable Housing Finance Committee (AHFC) met on September 25, 2014, to approve the “Affordable Housing” priority for the new five-year Consolidated Plan. In addition to approving the “Affordable Housing” priority, the AHFC recommended revising the Board’s CDBG allocation policy to increase Housing to 50 percent, reduce Economic Development to 9 percent, and to reduce Contingency to 1 percent. CDBG staff does recommend revising the Board’s policy to reduce the distribution currently allotted to Economic Development and Contingency; however it differs from the AHFC’s recommendation. CDBG staff recommends revising the Board’s CDBG funding allocation policy to the following: Housing: 45% Public Services: 17% Economic Development: 10% Infrastructure/Public Facilities: 8% Public Administration: 20% 4 CDBG staff recommends this new breakdown for the following reasons: 1. The Housing category currently has the largest share of CDBG funds due to Housing activities being larger and more construction related; therefore more costly to undertake. However, in addition to the CDBG Program, Housing activities can apply to the HOME Program (approximately $2 million dollars a year is available) that the County also administers, which none of the other activities in the other CDBG categories can take advantage of. 2. The Public Services category is the most competitive category of all the CDBG categories. It typically gets the most applications and public service activities tend to benefit those that are most in need. Therefore, staff recommends eliminating the 2 percent Contingency category and adding the 2 percent to the Public Services Category, as long as the additional 2 percent does not exceed the statuary cap for Public Services. Allocating the 2 percent Contingency amount to Public Services has been the practice by the Committee and the Board of Supervisors for the last twelve years. 3. Although Economic Development activities, such as microenterprise/small business technical assistance and job training/placement, are still needed, the amount allocated over the last three years has exceeded the amount requested. 4. Infrastructure/Public Facilities: In addition to the survey information indicating infrastructure/public facilities as high in demand, various cities and non-profit agencies throughout the County have expressed the need to increase the amount within the Infrastructure/Public Facilities category. Many of the infrastructure needs of various communities within the County are due to the age of the infrastructure and are typically within lower-income communities. With the demise of Redevelopment, the opportunities for cities to rehabilitate and improve their infrastructure and public facilities are much more limited. In addition, many non-profit agencies that serve low-income residents are in need to rehabilitate their facilities to provide much more efficient and effective services. The Family & Human Services Committee recently met on October 13, 2014 and approved staff’s recommendations for the four 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan priorities and to revise the Board’s CDBG allocation policy as indicated above. Public Hearing and Transmittal of Recommendations: The Committee’s recommendations on the Consolidated Plan priorities and CDBG funding allocation policy will be forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors prior to the public hearing that is scheduled for November 4, 2014. The Final Consolidated Plan will be brought to the Committee in April 2015 along with the CDBG funding recommendations for FY 2015/16. Attachment: Community Needs Survey Page 1 of 8 - 4/28/2014 Survey of Needs for Development of the 2015-20 Contra Costa Consortium Consolidated Plan Help create the future of YOUR community! The Cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Walnut Creek, and the County of Contra Costa (on behalf of all the other towns and cities in Contra Costa, excluding Richmond) receive an annual allocation of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds. Additionally, the County receives Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and Homeless Continuum of Care (CoC) funding every year. Over a five year period, these funds will total over $90 million!! These federal funds, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) can be used to build new affordable housing, rehabilitate homes for lower income and senior homeowners, provide rental assistance to homeless individuals and families, improve or construct public facilities including community centers and parks, improve infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, etc.) in lower income neighborhoods, provide employment training and training to small business owners, and provide a wide variety of services for lower income families and individuals, and homeless persons, and SO MUCH MORE! Every five years, YOU, your friends, your neighbors, and your community have the opportunity to help identify your community’s greatest needs, and determine how these funds are spent to help address those needs. THANK YOU for caring about your community by providing feedback to help direct the funding of federal programs over the next five years. This survey will take approximately 15 minutes, so please be prepared to give it your thoughtful consideration. Let’s get started with some basic questions: 1.How did you hear about this workshop? Check all that apply  Newspaper  Website  Email  Word of mouth  Other_______________________________ 2.Have you ever heard of CDBG, HOME, ESG or Homeless Assistance funding before? Check one □Yes □ No 3.Who do you represent? Check all that apply  Interested resident  Advocate  Business  Real Estate/Property Management  Service Provider(what role?) Affordable Housing Provider (what role?) □Program line staff □Program line staff □Manager □Manager □Executive, Leadership □Executive, Leadership  Public Agency or Department  Public Official □Program line staff  Consumer of homeless services □Manager  Family member/caregiver of homeless consumer □Executive, Leadership  Other:___________________________________________________ Attachment A Page 2 of 8 - 4/28/2014 4. Where do you live? Check 1 only  I do NOT live in Contra Costa County, OR I live in: □ Antioch □ Alamo □ Bay Point □ Bethel Island □ Brentwood □ Byron □ Clayton □ Concord □ Crockett □ Danville □ Discovery Bay □ El Cerrito □ El Sobrante □ Hercules □ Knightsen □ Lafayette □ Martinez □ Moraga □ North Richmond □ Oakley □ Orinda □ Pacheco □ Pinole □ Pittsburg □ Port Costa □ Pleasant Hill □ Richmond □ Rodeo □ San Pablo □ San Ramon □ Walnut Creek □ Other __________________ 5. What city(s) or town(s) are you going to be making comments on today? Check all that apply  My comments will apply to the County in general, OR My comments will be specific to: □ Antioch □ Alamo □ Bay Point □ Bethel Island □ Brentwood □ Byron □ Clayton □ Concord □ Crockett □ Danville □ Discovery Bay □ El Cerrito □ El Sobrante □ Hercules □ Knightsen □ Lafayette □ Martinez □ Moraga □ North Richmond □ Oakley □ Orinda □ Pacheco □ Pinole □ Pittsburg □ Port Costa □ Pleasant Hill □ Richmond □ Rodeo □ San Pablo □ San Ramon □ Walnut Creek □ Other _______________________ 6. What type of household are you? Check 1only □ Single person household □ Single parent household □ Couple □ Family with minor children □ Unaccompanied youth (14-24) □ Related adults living together □ Unrelated adults living together □ Disabled household □ Senior (age 62+) household □ Other ________________________ 7. Which age group are you? Check 1only □ Under 18 □ 18-24 □ 25-61 □ 62+ Thank you for that introduction – this information will help us ensure that the data you provide helps to improve YOUR city or area of concern. Page 3 of 8 - 4/28/2014 As we said in the introduction, CDBG or Community Development Block Grant funds, HOME funds, Emergency Solutions Grant and Continuum of Care funds can be used to help address MANY different kinds of needs. In the next few pages, we are going to walk through some of them together. You will be given some examples of items in different categories, and then also have an opportunity to add your own comments and items as well. Let’s start with the BIG picture, then zoom in for a closer look. We’re going to begin by considering the needs your community may have for services that help lower income residents. First, let’s look at different GROUPS of people who may be lower income and in need. 8. Who do you feel is most in need in your community? Please rank from 1-5, 1=most need ____ Lower income individuals ____ Lower income families ____ Children from lower income families ____ Abused and neglected children ____ Elderly ____ Frail or disabled elderly ____ Homeless persons ____ Persons at imminent risk of homelessness ____ Veterans ____ Physically disabled persons ____ Developmentally disabled persons ____ Persons with mental illness ____ Victims of domestic violence ____ Persons living with HIV/AIDS ____ Persons with alcohol or other drug addictions ____ Persons re-entering the community from jail/prison ____ Illiterate adults ____ Migrant farmworkers ____ Other:_________________________________________ ____ Other:_________________________________________ Thank you. We know that it is difficult to choose just five groups when there are so many different people in need right now. Now we are going to talk about some of those groups of people, and the types of services that they may need. Let’s begin with services for people who are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness. Who is in need?? Page 4 of 8 - 4/28/2014 Contra Costa County receives nearly $10 million annually in federal funding through HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs, including Emergency Solutions Grant and Homeless Continuum of Care programs. These funds support local interventions and solutions to homelessness such as emergency shelter, transitional, and permanent supportive housing. 9. Do you see a significant need for housing and services for homeless individuals in your community? Check 1  Yes  No Comments:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10. What kind of housing do you think would be helpful to address the needs of homeless persons? Please choose five (5) and rank from 1-5, 1=most need ____ More emergency shelters for men ____ More emergency shelters for women ____ More emergency shelters for families ____ More emergency shelters for unaccompanied youth ____ More transitional housing for victims of domestic violence ____ More transitional housing for transition age youth ____ More transitional housing for persons re- entering the community from institutions ____ More transitional housing for persons completing drug treatment programs ____ More permanent supportive housing for homeless persons ____ Housing that is affordable for homeless persons ____ Board and Care facilities ____ Other________________________________________________ 11. What kind of services do you think would be helpful to address the needs of homeless persons? Please choose five (5) and rank from 1-5, 1=most need ____ More outreach for people living on the streets and in encampments ____ More multi-service drop-in day facilities and programs ____ Life skills training for homeless persons ____ Job training for homeless persons ____ Alcohol and drug addiction treatment ____ Mental health care for homeless persons ____ Physical health care for homeless persons ____ Prevention services (e.g. rental assistance & services for persons needing short-term support) ____ Education services ____ Childcare services ____ Legal services ____ Hunger-related services ____ Landlord/Tenant counseling ____ Money Management ____ Other: _______________________________________________ 12. What do you think are three (3) most significant barriers to homeless persons accessing housing and services? Please choose three (3) and rank from 1-3, 1=most need ____ Transportation ____ Don’t know who to call ____ Eligibility for program is too narrow ____ Capacity/lack of resources ____ No services in my community ____ Other________________________________________________ ____ Other________________________________________________ ____ Other________________________________________________ Thank you for your comments about homeless services. If you would like to know more about efforts in Contra Costa County to serve homeless persons, please visit the County Homeless Program’s website at http://cchealth.org/homeless Homelessness in Contra Costa Page 5 of 8 - 4/28/2014 The next three categories we are going to discuss are Economic Development, Public Facilities and Improvements and Housing. But before we leave Services for Lower Income Populations, do you have any further input or comments? Comments:______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______ Next let’s talk about other groups of people in your community mentioned in Question 8 and the SERVICES they may need. Here we will NOT be talking about homeless persons, homeless housing, or homeless services (discussed in the previous section). We will also NOT discuss Economic Development efforts and Housing, which will be examined separately after this section. 13. Below are seven (7) groups of people who may need services. Who do you believe MOST need services that can be provided by CDBG, HOME, ESG, and other federal funds described here? Please rank the groups in order of importance from 1-9 , then check the services most needed. ____ LOWER INCOME PERSONS AND FAMILIES, General Public Services □ Information and referral to services □ Crisis intervention services □ Food & Hunger related services □ Fair Housing counseling, advocacy, legal representation □ Landlord and tenant counseling □ Credit Counseling □ Foreclosure counseling □ Crime awareness/prevention □ Mental Health services □ Alcohol addiction services □ Drug abuse services □ Healthy homes testing & remediation □ Other:______________________________________ ____ YOUTH from lowerincome families □ Child Care Services □ Recreation, sports, classes, camps, arts □ After School Programs - Recreation □ After School Programs – Educational □ Mental health and support services □ Alcohol abuse services □ Drug abuse services □ Other:___________________________________ ____ ABUSED AND NEGLECTED YOUTH □ Services for sexually assaulted children □ Services for child victims of domestic violence □ Services for foster youth/wards of the court □ Services for at-risk youth/gang prevention □ Other:_________________________________________ ____ SENIORS □ Legal services □ Senior Center-based programs/services □ Adult Day health care (disabled seniors) □ Advocacy/investigation for persons in nursing homes and care facilities □ Senior lunch and food □ Care management and assessment □ Transportation □ Vision screening □ Wellness calls/home visits/rides □ Other:___________________________________ ____ PERSONS WITH DISABILITIESinc. AIDS □ Advocacy/investigation for persons in nursing homes and care facilities □ Independent living skills training/aids □ Outreach/information & referral/socialization □ Adult day health care for disabled adults □ HIV/AIDs services □ Other:_________________________________________ ____ VICTIMS OF DOMESTICVIOLENCE □ Emergency shelter □ Transitional housing □ Counseling and other services for victims and their children □ Other:_________________________________________ ____MIGRANT FARM WORKERS& ILLITERATE ADULTS □ Literacy training □ Job training and support services □ Other: _________________________________________ Services for Lower Income Persons Page 6 of 8 - 4/28/2014 Economic Development Now let’s discuss ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT in your community. 14. Here is a list of common types of Economic Development activities that may be needed in your community. Please rank from 1-5, 1=most needed ____Job training with placement services ____Small business loans ____Training/technical assistance to small business ____Pollution/Property Cleanup owners/start-ups ____Banking/Lending for commercial redevelopment ____Job development and creation ____Other economic development needs: ____Retail development ______________________________________________________________ ____Storefront improvements in low income areas ______________________________________________________________ 15. Moving on to PUBLIC FACILITIES, what needs does your community have for the following? Check all that apply, and add comments as needed: □ Senior Center (new, renovations or improvements). ___________________________________________________ □ Youth Center (new, renovations or improvements)____________________________________________________ □ Neighborhood/Community Facilities (new, renovations, improvements)____________________________ □ Parks and Recreation Facilities (new, renovations, improvements)___________________________________ □ Nonprofit facilities (new, renovations or improvements)______________________________________________ □ Child Care Centers. Comments:___________________________________________________________________________ □ Improving the accessibility to public facilities___________________________________________________________ □ Library_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ □ Other Public Facility Improvements______________________________________________________________________ 16. Now let’s talk briefly about the PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, which is so often overlooked but is an important part of what makes a community feel safe, secure, and an attractive place to visit. In your community, what needs do you have for the following: Check all that apply, and add comments as needed: □ Street improvements________________________________________________________________________________________ □ Street Lighting________________________________________________________________________________________________ □ Sidewalk improvements_____________________________________________________________________________________ □ Flood control/drainage/etc. ________________________________________________________________________________ □ Curb cuts for disabled, strollers, etc. _______________________________________________________________________ □ Beautification/enhanced public space_____________________________________________________________________ □ Historic preservation________________________________________________________________________________________ □ Attractive downtown business district_____________________________________________________________________ □ Accessibility/Safety for disabled_______________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 8 - 4/28/2014 Thank you for your feedback so far – it is VERY helpful. You are almost finished! Our final category centers around the needs in your community for various types of Housing and Housing Preservation. We’ll be talking about Housing for Persons with Special Needs, Affordable Rental Housing, and Homeownership Needs of lower income people. 17. Preservation Activities: Here are some common types of preservation efforts. Please rank from 1-3, 1=most needed ____ Energy & water efficiency improvements ____ Code Enforcement in lower income areas ____ Historic Preservation ____ Lead-based paint remediation activities ____ Renovation of closed buildings 18. Housing for Persons with Special Needs: Here are some common types of housing for persons with special needs. Please rank from 1-5, 1=most needed ____ Housing for Seniors/Elderly ____ Housing for Frail Elderly ____ Housing for persons with HIV/AIDS ____ Housing for persons with alcohol or other drug addictions ____ Housing for large households (5 +) ____ Housing for single parent households ____ Housing for persons with mental illness ____Housing for persons with developmental disabilities ____ Housing for persons with significant physical disabilities ____ Housing for victims of domestic violence ____ Supportive permanent housing for homeless ____ Other types of special needs housing: ________________________________________________________ 19. Affordable Rental Housing: Here are some common types of rental housing that is made affordable to lower income persons because of some type of subsidies using these federal funds. Please rank from 1-5, 1=most needed ____ Rehabilitation assistance to existing housing developments ____ Affordable new construction ____ Rental assistance to persons who need one-time assistance ____ Preservation of existing affordable rental housing ____ Energy efficiency improvements to affordable housing developments ____ Lead-based paint screening and abatement in rental housing ____ Transit-oriented development ____ Work force housing (for teachers, police, fire) ____ Other affordable rental housing needs: ________________________________________________________ 20. Homeownership needs of lower income persons and homeowners. Here are some common needs in this category. Please rank from 1-5, 1=most needed ____ Foreclosure Counseling ____ Home purchase counseling ____ First time homebuyer financial assistance ____ Modifications for persons with disabilities ____ Emergency repairs, low/mod homeowners ____ New construction of below market rate homes ____ Rehabilitation assistance, low/mod homeowners ____ Energy efficiency for low/mod homeowners ____ Lead-based paint screening and abatement ____ Other homeownership needs:__________________ _________________________________________________________ Housing Page 8 of 8 - 4/3/2014 21. Now that you have thought about ALL the possible needs that your community may have, which stand out TO YOU as being the three most important unmet needs in your community? 1. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Any final thoughts or comments you would like to offer us?________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you SO MUCH for the time you have spent in completing this survey. If you would like to be included in future notices regarding the development of the 2015-20 Consolidated Plan, and/or receive a copy of the completed Plan, please PRINT your email address in this box: Now that you have finished this survey, please make sure we RECEIVE your comments by taking one of these actions:  Return the survey to the agency that originally gave it to you.  PLACE IN AN ENVELOPE WITH 49 CENTS POSTAGE and mail to the address below.  Hand deliver to the address below  Hand deliver to the City offices of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, or Walnut Creek, care of the CDBG Program Manager. This survey can also be taken online at: www.cccounty.us/conplan so TELL YOUR FRIENDS!! MAIL OR HAND DELIVER TO: Kristin Sherk Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 We have covered a LOT of different types of possible needs that you may see in your community. Are there any needs you see that you would like to tell us about? Please do! _____________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FINANCE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:10/27/2014 Subject:Request for Additional CDBG Funds – Infrastructure/Public Facility Projects Submitted For: John Kopchik, Interim Director, Conservation & Development Department Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: CDBG Policy Referral Name: CDBG Funding Presenter: Gabriel Lemus, CDBG Program Planner Contact: Gabriel Lemus (925) 674-7882 Referral History: It is standard policy that CDBG funding decisions/policies be reviewed by the Finance Committee prior to scheduling for the full Board of Supervisors. Referral Update: See attached funding request. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER accepting Department of Conservation and Development's attached recommendations regarding a request for additional CDBG Funds for Infrastructure/Public Facility Projects. Attachments Request for Additional CDBG Funds CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELPOMENT 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 DATE: October 27, 2014 TO: Finance Committee Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Federal Glover, Vice-Chair FROM: John Kopchik, Interim Director, Department of Conservation and Development By: Gabriel Lemus, CDBG Planner SUBJECT: Request for Additional CDBG Funds – Infrastructure/Public Facility Projects RECOMMENDATIONS 1. APPROVE a substantial amendment to the County’s FY 2014/15 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Action Plan by allocating $50,000 in recaptured CDBG funds to the following two projects:  Ambrose Recreation and Park District ($35,000) – new flooring in the Community Center’s auditorium.  Community Housing and Development Corporation of North Richmond ($15,000) – North Richmond Senior/Community Center. 2. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to prepare a Board Order on the Committee’s recommendations for the November 4, 2014 Board of Supervisors meeting BACKGROUND On May 6, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved the Contra Costa County Action Plan for FY2014/15 CDBG funds. Originally, Ambrose Recreation and Park District (Ambrose) requested and was awarded $19,000 in CDBG funds, under the Infrastructure and Public Facility (IPF) category, to remove and install new flooring in its auditorium that is used for a wide variety of recreational, cultural, and social activities benefiting families living in Bay Point. The award of funds was based on a cost estimate provided by Ambrose that turned out to be based on incorrect information - the actual square footage of the area needing new flooring is more than two times the area quoted in the original estimate. Ambrose has received another cost estimate based on the correct square footage. Consequently, Ambrose is requesting an additional $35,000 in CDBG funds for a total allocation of $54,000 – the total project cost is estimated at $60,000. In addition, Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond (CHDC) was awarded $46,782 in CDBG funds, under the IPF category, to improve the Neighborhood House Multi- cultural/Senior Center (Center) in North Richmond which includes roof repair, bathroom(s) repairs/improvements, interior painting, façade repairs, interior and exterior wall repairs, interior/exterior lighting improvements, and landscaping/tree removal. The original estimate provided in CHDC’s application did not include all of the desired components of the proposed project. Therefore; the original award amount is not sufficient to complete the project. CHDC is requesting, and CDBG staff is recommending, up to $15,000 in additional CDBG funds to CHDC to complete the full scope of the intended improvements to the Center. The $50,000 in CDBG funds that was recaptured and recommended to be allocated to Ambrose ($35,000) and to CHDC (up to $15,000) came from a FY 2013/14 CDBG award to Urban Tilth to assist in the construction of their “Roots and Restoration Farm”, a future urban agricultural education center in North Richmond (13-46-IPF). On September 16, 2014, Urban Tilth informed CDBG staff that they have decided to forfeit the FY 2013/14 CDBG funds that were awarded to help construct their “Roots and Restoration” farm in order to proceed with the project without the federal restrictions that the CDBG funds come with. Therefore, the $50,000 in CDBG funds was recaptured and made available to be used on other eligible CDBG activities/projects. The Committee’s recommendations will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on November 4, 2014. cc: Bob Calkins, CDBG Program Manager FINANCE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:10/27/2014 Subject:Review of Keller Canyon Landfill Surcharge and Mitigation Fees Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 9/17/2013 C.49 Referral Name: Special Revenues Administered by the Board of Supervisors Presenter: Lisa Driscoll Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 Referral History: On September 17, 2003, the County Administrator requested that the Board of Supervisors refer to the Finance Committee a review of special revenues administered by the Board of Supervisors and a review of the current policy governing the use of special revenues. On December 15, 2009, the Board of Supervisors acknowledged that special revenue funds have been established to mitigate the impact of projects approved in certain areas of the County and that they have been tended for uses that will benefit the quality of life for the communities in which the project is approved and special revenue funds originated. The Board affirmed that existing special revenues funds are to be administered by the Supervisors serving in the district for which a special revenue fund was created. It has been almost four years since the Board formally reviewed these funds. The County Administrator requested a Finance Committee review of special revenues administered by the Board of Supervisors including review of the current policy governing the use of special revenues. This report provides updated information on Keller Canyon Landfill Surcharge and Mitigation Fees. Referral Update: See attached summary materials to update tab 9 of Contra Costa County Board-Administered Special Revenue Reference Book. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Consider updated materials and direct staff to update binder. Attachments Tab 9 Information of Keller Canyon Landfill Surcharge & Mitigation Fees Red-Lined Proposed Changes to Tab 9 Proposed changes to Tab 9 Special Revenue: Keller Canyon Landfill Surcharge and Mitigation Fees Authority to Collect: 1992 Board Order and Franchise Agreement; 1994 amended Land Use Permit Source of Funds: Keller Canyon Landfill Company. Monthly revenue received and allocated on a fiscal year basis. 25% surcharge on the Contra Costa Transfer Station Proprietary Rate; 25% surcharge on base gate rate for Keller Canyon Landfill (of the 25% surcharge for Keller Canyon Landfill, $1.75 is for the Landfill Mitigation Fund and $1.25 is for City of Pittsburg Mitigation fund; balance is deposited in the County General Fund and allocated to various County Departments) In 1992, the County adopted a $0.33 per ton as an interim base rate and a surcharge of 10% of the base rate. Note: Community Mitigation Fee was not originally required by the conditions of approval of the land use permit. Purpose of Funds at Genesis: The surcharge was general purpose revenue and has been allocated for County department operations. The original 1992 Board Order specified that the mitigation funds can be used for a list of items; item #5 broadly specified 'Other program and services to the citizens of Contra Costa County'. The Board later designated that the funds should be used to mitigate effects of landfill site by funding community- based organizations for programs in the following areas: a. Youth Services b. Code Enforcement c. Community Beautification d. Public Safety e. Community Services The 1994 amendment to the Land Use Permit specified that "the fee shall be used as directed by the Board in its sole discretion: 1) to mitigate general impacts of the Landfill- generated traffic on the County's road system, 2) to mitigate the general impacts of the Landfill on open space, existing and proposed recreational facilities, and agriculture, or 3) to mitigate any general impacts of the Landfill upon the surrounding community. Level of Board Discretion Over Use of Funds: The Board has complete discretion over the surcharge funds and broad discretion over use of the mitigation funds within or to benefit the community surrounding the landfill. Method of Disbursement: The County Administrator's Office makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors through the annual budget process. Current Estimated Balance: $ 0 surcharge $ (227,740) mitigation Annual Estimated Revenue: $ 1,830,280 (surcharge) $ 1,700,000 (mitigation) Special Revenue: Keller Canyon Landfill Surcharge and Mitigation Fees Authority to Collect: 1992 Board Order and 1994 Franchise Agreement, as amended; 1994 amended Land Use Permit amendment Source of Funds: Keller Canyon Landfill Company (Republic Services). Monthly revenue Revenue received monthly and allocated on a fiscal year basis. Current surcharge amount established by the County in 1994. 25% surcharge on the Contra Costa Transfer Station Proprietary Rate; This 25% surcharge is calculated based on base gate rate revenue received by for Keller Canyon Landfill. (of the 25% sSurcharge payments include the $3 per ton Mitigation Fee, for Keller Canyon Landfill, $1.75 per ton is for the District V administered Landfill Mitigation Fund and $1.25 per ton is for City of Pittsburg Mitigation fund (1996 Board Order). B; balance of 25% Surcharge is deposited in the County General Fund and allocated to various County Departments. See binder tab # 3x for 25% Surcharge applied to waste transferred through the Contra Costa Transfer & Recovery Station.) In 1992, the County adopted a $43.050.33 per ton as an interim gatebase rate for the Keller Canyon Landfill and a surcharge of 10% of the base rate. Note: Host Community Mitigation Fee was not originally required by the conditions of approval of the land use permit. Purpose of Funds at Genesis: The surcharge was general purpose revenue and has been allocated for County department operations. The original 1992 Board Order specified that the mitigation funds can be used for a list of items; item #5 broadly specified 'Other program and services to the citizens of Contra Costa County'. The Board later designated that the funds should be used to mitigate effects of landfill site by funding community- based organizations and County Departments for programs in the following areas: a. Youth Services b. Code Enforcement c. Community Beautification d. Public Safety e. Community Services The 1994 amendment to the Land Use Permit specified that "the fee shall be used as directed by the Board in its sole discretion: 1) to mitigate general impacts of the Landfill- generated traffic on the County's road system, 2) to mitigate the general impacts of the Landfill on open space, existing and proposed recreational facilities, and agriculture, or 3) to mitigate any general impacts of the Landfill upon the surrounding community.” Level of Board Discretion Over Use of Funds: The Board has complete discretion over the surcharge funds and broad discretion over use of the mitigation funds within or to benefit the community surrounding the landfill. Method of Disbursement: In May 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved new policies governing the administration of the Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund (KCMF) including requiring the establishment of the KCMF Review Committee who makes funding recommendations for the use of the mitigation funds. The Committee’s recommendations are considered by the Board of Supervisors on a yearly basis (typically in August). The Department of Conservation and Development provides staff support to the KCMF Review Committee. The County Administrator's Office makes recommendations for the use of the surcharge funds to the Board of Supervisors through the annual budget process for the use of the surcharge funds. Current Estimated Balance: $ 0 surcharge (these are General Fund dollars any excess falls into 0005 balance at year end) $ 450,600 mitigation Annual Estimated Revenue: $ 1,915,000 (surcharge) $ 1,233,0001,700,000 (mitigation fee $1.75/ton) $ 1,456,000 (General purpose revenue: 0005:9122) Special Revenue: Keller Canyon Landfill Surcharge and Mitigation Fees Authority to Collect: 1992 Board Order and 1994 Franchise Agreement, as amended; 1994 Land Use Permit amendment Source of Funds: Keller Canyon Landfill Company (Republic Services). Revenue received monthly and allocated on a fiscal year basis. Current surcharge amount established by the County in 1994. This 25% surcharge is calculated based on base rate revenue received by Keller Canyon Landfill. Surcharge payments include the $3 per ton Mitigation Fee, $1.75 per ton is for the District V administered Landfill Mitigation Fund and $1.25 per ton is for City of Pittsburg Mitigation fund (1996 Board Order). Balance of 25% Surcharge is deposited in the County General Fund and allocated to various County Departments. See binder tab # 3 for 25% Surcharge applied to waste transferred through the Contra Costa Transfer & Recovery Station. In 1992, the County adopted a $43.05 interim gate rate for the Keller Canyon Landfill. Note: Host Community Mitigation Fee was not originally required by the conditions of approval of the land use permit. Purpose of Funds at Genesis: The surcharge was general purpose revenue and has been allocated for County department operations. The original 1992 Board Order specified that the mitigation funds can be used for a list of items; item #5 broadly specified 'Other program and services to the citizens of Contra Costa County'. The Board later designated that the funds should be used to mitigate effects of landfill site by funding community- based organizations and County Departments for programs in the following areas: a. Youth Services b. Code Enforcement c. Community Beautification d. Public Safety e. Community Services The 1994 amendment to the Land Use Permit specified that "the fee shall be used as directed by the Board in its sole discretion: 1) to mitigate general impacts of the Landfill- generated traffic on the County's road system, 2) to mitigate the general impacts of the Landfill on open space, existing and proposed recreational facilities, and agriculture, or 3) to mitigate any general impacts of the Landfill upon the surrounding community.” Level of Board Discretion Over Use of Funds: The Board has complete discretion over the surcharge funds and broad discretion over use of the mitigation funds within or to benefit the community surrounding the landfill. Method of Disbursement: In May 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved new policies governing the administration of the Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund (KCMF) including requiring the establishment of the KCMF Review Committee who makes funding recommendations for the use of the mitigation funds. The Committee’s recommendations are considered by the Board of Supervisors on a yearly basis (typically in August). The Department of Conservation and Development provides staff support to the KCMF Review Committee. The County Administrator's Office makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors through the annual budget process for the use of the surcharge funds. Current Estimated Balance: $ 0 surcharge (these are General Fund dollars any excess falls into 0005 balance at year end) $ 450,600 mitigation Annual Estimated Revenue: $ 1,915,000 (surcharge) $ 1,233,000(mitigation fee $1.75/ton) $ 1,456,000 (General purpose revenue: 0005:9122)