narrative responses, 33 year draft action...

City of Los Angeles, California

City of Los Angeles, California Fifth Year Action Plan (PY 2007-2008) CPMP Version 1.3

4

Narrative Responses, 33rd Year Draft Action Plan

GENERAL Executive Summary Although cities and counties have been spared deep national cuts in CDBG and the four other HUD Entitlement grant programs by Congress for the upcoming year, the city of Los Angeles is nevertheless responding to anticipated reductions in federal discretionary programs in coming years by proposing a conservative Fifth Year (Program Year 2007-2008) Action Plan budget that nevertheless:

• Demonstrates a continued commitment to provide critically important “safety net” Public Services;

• Continues use of qualified community-based development organizations (CBDOs) to provide Public Services that emphasize employability and job training skills of residents, and that encourage economic revitalization;

• Provides funding for needed capital improvement and infrastructure project activities;

• Promotes strategic use of CDBG funds for job-generating and financially viable economic development projects;

• Enhances public safety and security, particularly for special needs populations; and

• Reflects a continued commitment to solving the challenge of housing the City’s low-income households in decent, safe, and affordable housing.

The Mayor’s Consolidated Plan funding announcement of September 29, 2006 outlines the priorities of his administration, and objectives for the upcoming Consolidated Plan year:

• Greater alignment of funded projects with the following core priorities: (1) Affordable and Workforce Housing; (2) Youth Development and Education; (3) Job Creation and Securing Our Economic Future; and (4) Public Safety;

• Increased consideration for the implementation of projects that can demonstrate effectiveness using quantifiable and measurable outcomes;

• Consideration for projects previously funded involving substantial investment of City resources and/or that fill gaps in services;

• Greater compliance with the Federally mandated Public Services cap through development of a far stricter approach to qualifying and certifying Public Services under the CDBG regulations for Special Activities by Community-Based Development Organizations;

• A continued emphasis projects that are “ready to go”, and that have other funding fully committed;

• A renewed emphasis on project activities that address public facility, infrastructure, and economic development needs in low-income or blighted areas of the City;

• Selection of projects in compliance with City procurement policies requiring competitive processes to select specific contractors to implement programs;



5

and, • Assisting community-based organizations in identifying potential alternative

funding and enhancing organizational grants skills. The Mayor’s proposed budget of January 9, 2007 for the four Entitlement grants further emphasized the following priorities and strategies:

• Enlist HUD’s support for a permanent change to the CDBG Public Service cap by the 110th Congress, from 15% to 25%;

• Increased funding for the additional homeless shelter beds and supportive services in addition to continued and significant funding for affordable housing construction and rehabilitation;

• A re-evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s Human Services Delivery System; only six months of CDBG funding is provided for this program pending an overall review;

• Re-evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s gang prevention and intervention programs; CDBG funding is provided for only six months pending review;

• Reduction of CDBG funding for the LA’s BEST program to 3 months and limitation of funding for the Youth Recreation and Nutrition program to 75% of Program Year 32 levels, in anticipation of substitute funding;

• Obtain HUD’s authorization to return the City to a July – June program year for Consolidated Plan funding, so that it can be in synchronization with the City’s fiscal year; and

• Program evaluation. These goals build not only upon the City’s priorities and accompanying strategies created through the Consolidated Plan needs assessment conducted in 2002, but also reflects the City’s experience with management of Consolidated Plan funds and changing policy priorities over the last eleven years. New and Continuing Programs (continuing Programs are indicated by a (C); new projects are indicated by an (N) COUNCIL DISTRICT 1

• Casa Alicia Restoration Project (N) • Central City Neighborhood Partners (C) • Code Enforcement – PACE – CD 1 (N/C) • Cypress Park Lighting Improvements (N) • Day Laborer Program (C) • Good Beginnings Child Care Program (C) • Success Now: Paso Unido – Mentoring Our Youth in Pico-Union (C)

COUNCIL DISTRICT 2

• Commerce Avenue Lighting Improvements (N) • Delano and Beck Lighting Improvements (N)

COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 • Reseda Multipurpose Center (N)



6

COUNCIL DISTRICT 6 • Van Nuys Community Court (C)* • Sun Valley Recreation Center – Pool (N)

COUNCIL DISTRICT 7 • Pacoima Business Outreach Program (N) • Pacoima Towne Center Revitalization Project (N) • Valley Chrysalis (N)* • Valley Family Technology Project (C)

COUNCIL DISTRICT 8

• Martin Luther King, Jr. Park – Tennis/Basketball Court • Playa Vista Jobs L.A. (C) • Youth Media Technology Training Program (C)

COUNCIL DISTRICT 9

• Abandoned Bulky Item Pick-Up Program (C) • Alexandria Hotel (N) • Canaan Workforce Development Program (N) • Estelle Van Meter Multipurpose Center (N) • Year-Round Emergency Shelter – Downtown (C)

COUNCIL DISTRICT 10

• A-MAN, Inc. (N) • Community Literacy Program – Project Tech (C) • Gang Prevention and Intervention Program (C) • Pico Boulevard Streetscape (N) • Rancho La Cienega Sports Complex – Improvements (N) • The Jeffrey Foundation – Parent Child Training Center – Phase II (N)

COUNCIL DISTRICT 11

• Venice Community Housing Corporation/Another Chance (N)* COUNCIL DISTRICT 12

• PALS Youth Project (N) COUNCIL DISTRICT 13

• Aztec Rising – Brush Clearance Jobs Program (N) • Aztec Rising Fire Academy (N) • Clinica Oscar Romero (N) • Echo Park Community Transit VillageRockwood Pocket Park (N) • Year-Round Emergency Shelter – Hollywood (C)

COUNCIL DISTRICT 14

• Boyle Heights Green Corridor (N) • Fuego Tech Fire Rangers (C) • Plaza de la Raza (N)

COUNCIL DISTRICT 15

• Bradley-Milken Parking Lot Acquisition (N) • Gang Membership, Vandalism and Illegal Nuisance Dumping Reduction

Program (C) • Youth Opportunities Movement - Watts



7

SHARED COUNCIL DISTRICT PROGRAMS

• Day Laborer (1,3,6,7,8,9,10,15) (C) • Domestic Violence Shelter Operations – CBDOs (3,5,7,8,13,14,15) (C) • Domestic Violence Shelter Operations (3,4,5,7,8,10,13,14,15) (C) • Housing Authority – Employment Technology Centers (7,11,14,15) (C) • LAHSA – Beyond Shelter (9,14) (N)* • LAHSA – Central City East Public Sanitation Project (9,14) (N)** • Youth and Family Centers (1,7,9,10,11,13,14,15) (C) • Youth Opportunities Movement (2,6,7,12,14,15) (C)

Footnotes: * Project has been reclassified as a Public Service activity ** Project last funded in 31st Year (2005-2006) Action Plan CITYWIDE PROGRAMS

• Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Major Projects – New Construction, & Major Projects – Multifamily Rehabilitation (C)

• Aging Department – Administration (C) • Aging Services Delivery System (C) • AIDS Policy Development (C) • AIDS Prevention (C) • Block Grant Investment Fund (C) • Board of Public Works – Office of Community Beautification (C) • Brownfields Development Opportunities (C) • Cash for College (C) • CBDO Unallocated (N) • City Attorney – CDBG Program Administration for CDD (C) • City Attorney – CDBG Program Administration for LAHD (C) • City Trees (N)*** • Code Enforcement – Citywide PACE – City Attorney (C) • Code Enforcement – Citywide PACE (C) • Commercial and Industrial Development Initiative (N) • Community Development Department – Administration (C) • Community Development Department – Capacity Building (N) • Community Development Department – Related Costs (N) • Consolidated Plan Application System (C) • Consolidated Plan Evaluation (N) • Controller (C) • Department on Disability – Computerized Information Center (C) • eCivis Grant Locator Database Services (N) • Fair Housing (C) • Fresh Food Access Program (C)* • Home Ownership Assistance (C) • HOPWA – Administration (C) • HOPWA – Rental Assistance (C) • HOPWA – Support Services (C) • HOPWA – Technical Assistance (C) • Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles – Employment Technology

Centers – Administration (C)



8

• Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) – Development (C) • Human Services Delivery System – CBDO – Unallocated • Human Services Delivery System (C) • Jenesse Center (N) • LA Bridges II Gang Intervention Program (C) • LA’s BEST** (C) • LAHSA – Access Centers (C) • LAHSA – Downtown Drop-in Center (C) • LAHSA – Emergency Response Team (C) • LAHSA – Homeless Emergency Shelter and Services (C) • LAHSA – Job Training and Placement (C) • LAHSA – Rent to Prevent Eviction (Beyond Shelter) (C) • LAHSA – Special Economic Development Opportunities (C)**** • LAHSA – Winter Shelter Program (C) • LAHSA – Workforce Center/Job Training and Placement (N) • LAHSA – Year Round Shelter (C) • Los Angeles Business Assistance Program – Growth Industry (C) • Los Angeles Business Assistance Program – Micro-Enterprise/Entrepreneur (C) • Los Angeles Business Assistance Program – Retail Business Assistance

Centers (C) • Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority – Administration (C) • Los Angeles Housing Department – Administration (C) • Multi-family Rehabilitation – Small Property (C) • Neighborhood Facility Rehabilitation (C) • Nuisance Abatement/CNAP & PPRT/FALCON (C) • Nuisance Property Abatement – Demolition (C) • Planning Department (C) • Section 108 Debt Service • Shelter Partnership (C) • Sidewalk Construction and Tree Planting Program (C)*** • Single Family Rehabilitation – Comprehensive 1-4 Units (C) • Single Family Rehabilitation – Handyworker (C) • Single Family Rehabilitation – Home Secure (C) • Urgent Repair (C)

Footnotes: * Sites to be determined ** Three months of funding provided in the Mayor’s recommendation *** Project activities are limited to low- and moderate-income census tracts and block groups within

Los Angeles **** Special Economic Development Activities has been split into both a Public Services component

and a CBDO component, based upon the requirements of the CDBG regulations and the result of LAHSA certification as a CBDO agency.



9

Action Plan Policy Highlights

• Reductions in Continuing Programs On February 14, 2007, the United States Senate approved the House Joint Resolution 20 (H J Res. 20) including the Transportation Treasury HUD Bill (TTHUD – HR 5576) without amendment, providing appropriations for the four Consolidated Plan grant programs at 2006 levels. The final allocations for the five Consolidated Plan grants, received from HUD the first week of March, 2007 are:

• CDBG: $ 74,142,574 including $555,590 in reallocated funds • HOME: $ 40,113,770 • ADDI: $ 525,947 • HOPWA $ 10,393,000 • ESGP: $ 3,184,418

This represents a total allocation of $128,359,709 to the city of Los Angeles. Details will follow in this section on the planned expenditure of these funds.

• Public Services Expenditure Limitation and Use of CBDOs The demand for Public Services within Los Angeles remains high and sustained. Even though the City economy continues to improve, there are large numbers of working poor that are for the most part employed in low wage service industries. That fact, combined with the high housing costs in Los Angeles, makes health insurance, child care services, family counseling or other critically needed services out of reach for many City residents. Many of them are not aware of the public benefits available to them. Many residents are also hampered in their employment search by language barriers, lack of skills, or transportation challenges. As a consequence, there is sustained demand for Public Services. While Los Angeles County remains the legally mandated provider of social and health services within the state of California, including General Relief and Welfare to Work programs, it cannot begin to provide the full spectrum of services needed by City residents. However, CDBG regulations provide that only 15% of the total CDBG annual Entitlement plus the previous year’s program income may be expended on Public Services. Continued demand has resulted in an increasing allocation of CDBG and other Entitlement funds for this purpose. One of the regulatory exceptions to the restrictions of the Public Service cap is contained within Section 570.204 of the CDBG regulations - Special Activities by Community-Based Development Organizations (CBDOs). Several Public Service activities - that is, those with an economic revitalization or employment and training benefit for participants – and that are carried out by agencies and funded through the CDBG program – will generally be certifiable under the CBDO regulations.



10

For the 30th Program Year, the City was compelled to limit Public Services to 15% of total CDBG expenditures as required by CDBG statute – after having expended up to 25% of the City’s CDBG allocation for Public Services for a number of years because of Congressional waiver of the statutory cap. As a partial solution, the City identified programs that were eligible under CBDO regulations and shifted the programs to the Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO) activity category. In the 33rd Program Year, the City will continue to identify programs which meet strict certification requirements for CBDO activities. CDD during 2006 developed a comprehensive system for review and certification of CBDOs that provides for detailed and orderly review of the organization’s charter; by-laws; board composition; geographic service area; and activities, among other factors, to make a conclusive determination that CDBG regulatory requirements for certification of CBDOs have been met. The certification process adopted by the City has resulted in a stricter adherence to the CBDO regulations. As a result, the 33rd Program Year budget will include a 21% reduction in CDBG dollars allocated to these activities.

CDBG Funding 30th PY 31st PY 32nd PY 33rd PY (Approved)

Change, 32nd Yr. – 33rd Yr.

% Change

Public Services $ 17,419,165 $ 16,269,788 $15,403,740 $16,421,251 $1,017,511 % CBDOs

$ 25,042,202

$ 27,833,873

$22,949,460

$22,120,630

($828,830)

(%)

Economic Development

$ 12,269,914

$ 5,443,693

$10,631,707

$10,556,707

($75,000)

(%)

Housing and Related Programs

$ 28,990,570

$ 28,402,456

$28,700,402

$26,277,383

($2,423,019)

(%)

Public Facilities / Public Improvements

$ 7,153,146

$ 3,435,410

$3,527,000

$8,648,296

$5,121,296

%

Neighborhood Improvements

$ 11,159,246

$ 5,713,407

$7,280,000

$9,254,023

$1,974,023

%

Administration / Planning

$ 21,692,491

$ 21,368,892

$19,196,490

$20,589,359

$1,392,869

%

TOTAL $123,726,734 $108,467,519 $107,688,798 $113,867,649 $6,178,850 %

This chart demonstrates the significant increases in public facility and neighborhood improvement activity categories, and a modest increase in the administration and planning category.

• Limitation on Use of CDBG Funds for Administration and Planning The City is also subject to a statutory limitation that not more than 20% of the combined total of CDBG grant funds plus program income may be used for planning and administration purposes. This year, the Mayor’s office included a directive for the Consolidated Plan funding process that no new administrative and planning projects will be funded in the 33rd Program Year, with two exceptions: an allocation of funds for a Consolidated Plan program evaluation, and capacity building seminars for community based organizations to strengthen their grant seeking skills. CDD is continuing to develop strategies to use CDBG funds more strategically and economically in administration and planning of CDBG programs and project activities.



11

New Initiative – Mayor Villaraigosa’s Housing Coordinating Team The supply and affordability of housing in Los Angeles continues to be one of the most serious issues affecting the future economic strength of the City and the quality of life for our residents. Los Angeles has made tremendous headway in augmenting the local supply of affordable housing and mobilizing resources to address the housing crisis. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we improve the coordination of the City’s resources, programs and decision makers in order to maximize our ability to improve the housing situation in Los Angeles. Therefore, in the summer of 2006, Mayor Villaraigosa established the Housing Coordinating Team, to bring together the leadership of 12 City departments and other agencies that impact housing in order to effectively mobilize resources and coordinate departmental policies. The Housing Coordinating Team will meet monthly and work cooperatively to coordinate citywide housing efforts, map departmental assets, partner on new and existing programs and determine how City resources can be better leveraged to meet our housing needs. The Housing Coordinating Team is charged with making recommendations for steps the City can take to meet the housing needs of Los Angeles residents. At minimum, the Housing Coordinating Team is expected to:

• Develop a draft citywide affordable housing policy, including coordinated department policies and procedures to facilitate housing development, financing, and preservation.

• Develop a set of strategies to facilitate housing development, in particular, smart-growth and transit-oriented development.

• Identify resources each member department can offer to assist in carrying out the City’s housing goals and generate more opportunities for housing development.

Outcome Performance Measurement System HUD, through the 2003 release of CPD Notice 03-09, “Development of State and Local Performance Measurement Systems for Community Planning and Development Formula Grant Programs” and Federal rulemaking in 2005, is firmly moving CDBG grantees into developing program and project activity performance measurement system. HUD’s difficulties in clearly demonstrating CDBG program results at the national level could have important consequences for the future of the program. The City is committed to maintaining the flow of Entitlement funds to Los Angeles, and understands that approved programs and project activities must demonstrate measurable outcomes. CDD will respond to this requirement by providing objectives, outcomes, performance indicators and outcome statements for each program and project activity proposed for Consolidated Plan funding in the 33rd Year (2007-2008) Action Plan. This information will be entered into the IDIS (HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and Information System) database, and outcome progress will be tracked, in addition to any other requirements imposed by HUD’s Performance Management System.



12

Refinements to the Consolidated Plan Application System (CPAS)

CDD will continue to refine its automated Consolidated Plan Application System (CPAS) which is available on-line at the City’s Web Site. The CPAS system enables CDD and Mayoral reviewers quick and easy review and edit access to a large number of funding applications. CPAS also permits a high degree of interactivity in reviewing funding applications for grant eligibility, meeting of HUD national objectives, and in determining the readiness of projects. This has a direct effect on the quality of programs and project activities set forth in the 2007-2008 (and subsequent) Action Plans. The Computer Systems Division of CDD teamed with ASD Grants staff in successfully automating the Project Expenditure Plan (PEP) form, which serves as an eligibility, fiscal, and contract control document for CDBG project expenditure requests and processing of Substantial Amendments. Linking the application data to the PEP cuts down the paperwork involved in PEP preparation. The PEP is used by CDD as a critical second level of review for program and project funding requests and in preparation and review of substantial amendments, or changes to approved Consolidated Plan-funded projects. Identification of New Funding While the City is submitting an Action Plan that is at the same level as last year, a trend of continuing reductions in Consolidated Plan funding nationally will have a direct impact on the City’s ability to provide services to City residents. To mitigate these effects, the Mayor’s office directed CDD to organize and conduct a series of grant workshops for community-based organizations (CBOs) throughout the City to explore other sources of funding for community development programs. With decreasing Federal support for Public Service programs, agencies must reduce their dependence on Federal funding to continue services and develop alternative funding resources. In addition, the General Manager of CDD recently directed formation of a Resource Development Unit within the department to explore other funding opportunities for local nonprofit agencies, and to develop strategies for agencies to build their capacity for obtaining additional federal, state, local, private and foundation funds. These efforts have been successful. The Community Development Department (CDD) has received a $1.2 million grant from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to assist adult ex-offenders reintegrate successfully into their communities through an application prepared by the unit. The grant, which runs for more than two years, will fund programs to reduce the recidivism rate of ex-offenders who have been recently released from incarceration, and provide intensive counseling to identify barriers towards reintegration, and connect clients to services that address these barriers. Services will provide assistance with needs such as housing, substance abuse, and employment and training. The award, which comes from the state’s Intergovernmental Partnership Program (IPG), will go to the Re-Entry Options Demonstration (REEOD) project, a collaborative group made up of CDD and it’s WorkSource System, along with several



13

non-profits and community stakeholders including, Special Services for Groups, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches, Ex-Offender Action Network, and Friends Outside-Watts. This is the first grant awarded to CDD since it formed this unit. The effort to assist ex-offenders coincides with CDD’s overall mission to improve the quality of life in the City of Los Angeles by creating economic, social and employment opportunities for individuals, families and neighborhoods in need. The proposed REEOD project is consistent with CDD’s vision of addressing the needs of the City’s residence with the most barriers to self-sufficiency including, adult ex-offenders, the homeless and individuals with disabilities. The Community Development Department (CDD) of the City of Los Angeles will also be working with faith-based organizations and community-cased organizations during 2007 to identify potential clients residing in South Los Angeles for a construction training program. The City has also recently been awarded $600,000 in Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Governor’s Discretionary 15 Percent Funds from the state of California Employment Development Department, in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board for the Breaking Ground: Los Angeles Construction Training Program. In this endeavor, CDD will partner with Playa Vista Job Opportunities (PVJOBS), the WeBuild Program of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), as well as with the South East Los Angeles and the South Los Angeles WorkSource Centers to assess and place residents into apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships. This partnership will also leverage resources with the Centinela Valley Adult School and the LAUSD to provide construction training opportunities and resources beyond the funding period. Background of the Action Plan The Annual Action Plan details how funds will be spent during Program Year 2007-2008 to address the City's and HUD’s housing, community development, and economic development priorities, and includes information on anticipated resources and expenditures for the CDBG, ESG, HOPWA and HOME programs. It primarily serves as the application for federal funds for the four Consolidated Plan grant programs, but is also a planning tool for elected officials, departments of city government, related City agencies, such as the CRA and HACLA, and the City’s business, research, and non-profit community. The Program Year 2007-2008 Action Plan (33rd CDBG Year) program will continue to build upon the City's past efforts to successfully implement effective housing, economic development and community development programs outlined in the Strategic Plan and the previous four previous Action Plans. The City's Fifth Year Action Plan budgets grant revenues on an interim 15-month program year that begins April 1, 2007 and ends on June 30, 2008, as it returns to a July through June cycle.



14

City priorities and strategies and HUD National Objectives govern the selection of all programs and project activities in the Action Plan. Projects must also be demonstrably “ready to go”; that is, all funds to be used to leverage Consolidated Plan resources must be in place and committed to the activity; and the project must demonstrate that it will begin to expend CDBG funds within one program year. The City has made every effort to allocate funds from its CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA Entitlement grants to meet its most critical needs in housing, infrastructure improvements, community development and economic revitalization, eliminate waste and duplication of services; and to target services to residents with the greatest need or are underserved by existing programs. City priorities, adopted through the Needs Assessment process for the 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan, include:

• Ensure Public Safety; • Expand Access to Quality Housing that is Affordable to Working Los Angeles

Families; • Promote the Development of our Youth; • Secure Our Economic Future; • Protect and Assist the City's Special Needs Populations; and • Provide a Better Living Environment In Our Neighborhoods.

All projects proposed for Consolidated Plan funding must meet one or more of these priorities. Consolidated Plan Strategies In addition, proposed programs and project activities funded through the Action Plan must meet one or more City strategies. These goals were developed through the needs assessment process conducted in 2002. Each is linked to a City priority drawn from the 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan – Strategic Plan Element.

• Provide a Variety of Housing Types and Supportive Services for the City's Special Needs Residents;

• Alleviate Substandard and Overcrowded Housing Conditions through Proactive Code Enforcement and Expansion of Inspections;

• Expand Home Ownership Programs in Low- to Moderate-Income Areas; • Build Upon and Expand Successful Programs for Graffiti Removal, Alley

Closure, and Identification of Nuisance Properties; • Provide At-Risk Youth with Gainful Employment, Educational Enrichment, and

Gang Diversion Activities; • Provide Needed Social, Economic, Educational, and Health Services; • Promote Neighborhood Business Revitalization through Neighborhood

Infrastructure and Business Façade Improvements; • Expand Entrepreneurial Resources, Training, and Small Business

Opportunities for Residents; and • Foster Small Business Formation and Retention and Create New Jobs and

Industries.



15

Mayoral Priorities This year, the Mayor of Los Angeles identified, in his September 29, 2006 Action Plan funding announcement priorities for allocation of Consolidated Plan funding. All parallel and reinforce priorities adopted previously through the Consolidated Planning process. They are:

• Public Safety For the City to prosper, every neighborhood must be safe and secure. Priority is given to projects that increase the safety and security of City residents.

• Youth Development and Education The future health and vitality of Los Angeles is directly tied to child and youth education and development. Priority is given to those programs that foster opportunities for increased youth development, raise student achievement, or promote safe and violence-free learning environments to protect and enrich the lives of children and youth.

• Job Creation and Securing Our Economic Future It is important to generate new opportunities for economic success and stability for families throughout the City, priority is given to those programs that attract new companies to Los Angeles, assist local and emerging businesses grow, or retain and create well-paying jobs to ensure our economic future.

• Affordable and Workforce Housing With the continuing increase in housing prices across the City, creation of decent and affordable housing is a high priority, and preference is given to programs that assist Los Angeles's workforce in finding affordable rental and homeownership opportunities as well as maintain the City's current affordable housing units. All applications for Fifth Year Action Plan funding must also meet one of the Mayor's priorities. Total Projected Consolidated Plan Resources The total amount of projected resources from all grants for the next program year is $183,776,983. This figure includes program income, program and administrative savings, and federal reallocated funds. A further breakdown by grant is shown below. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The City’s 33rd CDBG budget, which includes federal Entitlement, program income, federal reallocated funds, and program and administrative savings, is estimated at $113,867,649, an increase of $6,178,851, or a 5.4% increase from the 32nd Year budget of $107,688,798. The City’s CDBG Entitlement grant allocation is $74,142,574, a $310,917 decrease from the 32nd Program Year adopted budget of $74,453,491.



16

The City’s program income for the 33rd Program Year is projected to be $38,911,927, which represents an increase of $14,641,066 over the 32nd Program Year adopted budget. Program and administrative savings for the 33rd Program Year are estimated to be $502,231. This represents an estimated decrease of $8,462,215, or a 94.4% decrease over the 32nd Program Year adopted budget of $8,964,446. Savings pertain to a shift in CDBG dollars resulting from the City Council’s action to exchange funding for organizations unable to receive CDBG because of their inability to qualify their activities as meeting CDBG CDBO regulations. SOURCES 32nd Year CDBG Estimated 33rd

Year CDBG Allocations

Difference Percent

Entitlement $ 73,835,482.00

$73,586,984.00 ($248,498.00) -

Federal Reallocation* $ 618,009.00 $555,590.00 ($62,419.00) (%) Program Income $ 24,270,861.00 $38,911,927.00 $ 14,641,066.00 % Program/Admin. Savings $ 8,964,446.00 502,231.00 ($ 8,462,215.00) (%) Total $ 107,688,798.00 $113,556,732.00 $ 5,867,934.00 %

USES 32nd Year CDBG Entitlement

Estimated 33rd Year Budget

Difference Percent

Public Services $ 15,403,816.00 $ 16,421,451.00 $1,017,435.00 6.6% Special Activities/CBDOs $ 22,949,460.00 $ 17,882,702.00 ($5,066,758.00) (22.1%) Economic Development $ 10,631,707.00 $ 13,631,707.00 $3,000,000.00 28.2% Public Facilities $ 3,527,000.00 $ 8,187,072.00 $4,660,072.00 132.1% Housing and Related $ 28,700,372.00 $ 28,700,372.00 0.00 - Neighborhood Improvements $ 7,280,000.00 $ 8,455,156.00 $1,175,156.00 16.1% Admin./Planning $ 19,196,490.00 $ 20,589,359.00 1,392,869.00 7.3% Total $107,688,798.00 $113,867,649.00 $6,178,851.00 5.7% The charts below explain the breakdown of projected program income, and provide the financial assumptions and data in explaining how both the Public Service cap (spending limitation) and Administrative/Planning caps were calculated for the upcoming year. Only 15% of the City's Entitlement grant plus the previous year’s program income may be spent on Public Services; and only 20% of the current CDBG Entitlement amount plus program income may be spent for Administration and Planning activities.



17

Projected Program Income Detail - Source: CDD and LAHD Financial Management Divisions 33RD PROGRAM

YEAR RESOURCES

31STH PY PROGRAM INCOME

4/2005 TO 3/2006

32ND PY PROJECTION FOR PROGRAM INCOME 04/2006 - 03/2007

32ND PY PROGRAM

INCOME APRIL 2006-MARCH

2007

Projected Actual Original Projection

Revised Projection

PROJECTED

Prior Year Surplus (Deficit)

(2,182,792) (2,182,792) 2,809,404 7,066,637 10,918,624

LAHD Monitored Loans

7,878,799 7,115,877 7,299,233 8,025,900 7,822,656

Earthquake Supp. A

1,587,322 1,747,020 2,288,975 5,743,668 6,018,038

Earthquake Supp. B/LAHD Section 8/Rental Rehab.

10,994,633 15,009,123 8,033,249 11,613,280

11,902,609 CRA 2,977,854 3,304,973 3,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 EDD Loans 400,000 583,744 300,000 950,000 450,000 Neighborhood Facilities

400,000 324,096 340,000 90,000 100,000

Misc. Program Income

200,000

427,845

200,000

200,000 200,000

Float Loan - St. Vibiana

3,000,000

Applicable Credits 183,174 SUBTOTAL 22,255,826 26,513,060 24,270,861 35,189,485 38,911,927 Less: Amt. Used, Consolidated Plan

(18,793,272)

(24,270,861)

Less: Federal Reallocation Double Counted

Carry forward Surplus/Deficit

7,066,637

10,918,624

Program. Income Avail. for 33rd Program Yr.

38,911,927

Add Projected Entitlement Amt.

74,142,574

TOTAL 33rd PY INCOME

113,566,732



18

Computation of 33rd Program Year Administrative and Public Service Cap - Source: CDD and LAHD Financial Management Divisions

CAP COMPUTATION RESOURCES

PUBLIC SERVICE CAP (15% OF GRANT + PREV. YRS. PROGRAM

INCOME)

ADMINISTRATIVE CAP 20% OF GRANT + PROJ. PROGRAM

INCOME PERIOD 4/2006 – 3/2007 4/2007 – 3/2008

LAHD Monitored Loans 8,025,900 7,822,656 Earthquake Supp. A 5,743,668 6,018,038 Earthquake Supp. B/LAHD Section 108/Rental Rehab.

11,613,280

11,902,609

CRA 1,500,000 1,500,000 EDD Loans 950,000 450,000 Neighborhood Facilities 90,000 100,000 Misc. Program Income 200,000 200,000 Float Loan - NoHo 3,000,000 Section 108 - LAHD Section 108 - CDD 500,000 500,000 Section 108 - LACDB 3,400,000 Total Proj. Program Income Receipts

35,022,848

28,493,303

Add Proj. Entitlement Amount 74,142,574 74,453,491 SUBTOTAL 109,165,422 102,635,877

% Total 32nd Year Public Services Cap Available

16,374,813

% Total 32nd Year Administrative Cap Available

20,527,175

HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME) The HOME Program directly addresses the shortages of affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities in the City by providing funding to support an array of housing-related activities. The Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) administers HOME funds as the local Participating Jurisdiction (PJ) and over fifty Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), which are experienced nonprofit private housing developers and organizations, help to determine local priorities for HOME funding, as well as own, operate, and develop affordable housing. LAHD proposes using the total HOME budget of $55,096,176 for the following programs: Affordable Housing Trust Fund ($22,435,659), Alexandria Hotel ($2,000,000), Major Projects-New Construction ($13,226,464), Major Projects – Multi-Family Rehabilitation ($4,000,000), American Dream Downpayment Initiative ($525,947), Homeownership Assistance ($4,590,270), HOPWA Rental Assistance ($1,362,736), HOPWA Development ($1,593,723) and General Program Administration ($5,361,377). The City’s estimated 33rd Program Year HOME budget is $55,096,176, which represents a 3.2% decrease ($1,843,487) from the 32nd Program Year budget of $56,939,663. The federal HOME Entitlement for the 33rd Program Year is $40,113,770, representing a decrease of $299,946 from the prior year’s allocation. The allocation of American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) funds is the same as the 32nd Program Year, $525,947. Finally, prior year savings of $956,459 will be made available for 33rd Program Year projects. Projected program income for Program Year 2007-2008 is approximately $13.5 million, or a $2.5 million decrease over the 32nd Program Year.



19

Sources: 32nd Program Year Budget

33rd Program Year Proposed

Budget $ Change % Change

Entitlement Amt. $40,413,716 $40,113,770 (299,946.00) <1% American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI)

$525,947

$525,947

0.00

0

Program Income $16,000,000 $13,500,000 ($2,500,000) (16%) Prior Year Savings 0.00 $956,459 $956,459 100% Total HOME Sources

$56,939,663

$55,096,176

($1,843,486)

(2.7%)

Uses: Affordable Housing Trust Fund

$4,500,000 $22,435,659 $17,935,659 400%

Home Ownership Assistance – Regular

$5,527,269

$4,590,270

($936,999)

(17%)

Alexandria Hotel 0.00 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 100% Home Ownership Assistance - ADDI

$525,947 $525,947 $0.00 0%

Multifamily Rehabilitation - Major Projects

$3,972,189

$4,000,000

$27,811

<1%

New Construction - Major Projects

$26,535,369

$13,226,464

($13,038,954)

(49%)

Single Family Rehabilitation – Comprehensive 1-4 Units

$5,630,796

$0.00

($5,630,796)

(100%)

Section 108 Debt Service

$2,615,297 $0.00 ($2,615,297) (100%)

HOPWA Development

0.00

$1,593,723

$1,593,723

100%

HOPWA Rental Assistance

$2,000,000

$1,362,736

($637,264)

(32%)

General Program Administration

$5,632,796 $5,361,377

($241,424) (4%)

Total HOME Uses $56,939,663 $55,096,176 ($1,843,541) (2.7%) *These savings are due in great part to LAHD’s continuing HOME clean-up, where prior year accounts are reviewed to determine ongoing needs and adjustments that can be made.

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) LAHD is the local coordinating agency for HOPWA funding for the entire Los Angeles-Long Beach MSA. Neither the County of Los Angeles nor any other city in the County receives an allocation of HOPWA funding. Los Angeles County and all cities in the County work with the Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC), administered by LAHD, to receive funding. HOPWA funds are used to provide a variety of housing and supportive services for persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. The City's Federal allocation for the City's HOPWA program for Program Year 2007-2008 is $10,393,000, or an increase of $83,000 over the 32nd Program Year funding. The City’s 33rd Program Year HOPWA budget is $11,628,740, an increase of $274,578 (2.4%) from the 32nd year. This includes prior year savings of



20

$1,235,740, about an 18% increase over the previous year. An additional $1,362,736 in HOME funds will be allocated by LAHD to the HOPWA Program for Rental Assistance program, and $1,593,723 for HOPWA Development. HOPWA funds are administered by LAHD for the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area (EMSA) of the City and County of Los Angeles. LAHD is proposing that the estimated total HOPWA budget be used to fund the following programs: Rental Assistance ($3,872,449); Supportive Services ($6,596,991); General Program Administration ($1,087,451); and Technical Assistance ($120,000).

Proposed Program Year 2007-2008 HOPWA Budget

* Proposing $1,593,723 in HOME, not HOPWA, funds ** Also proposing $1,362,736 in HOME funds for this activity Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG) The ESG program is designed as a first step in a continuum of care plan of assistance and programs are tailored to address the immediate needs of persons residing on the street and needing emergency shelter and transitional housing, as well as assisting their movement to independent living. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), a joint powers authority created in 1993, administers (with oversight by the Los Angeles Housing Department) ESG funds received by the City for programs operated by homeless services providers. LAHSA provides oversight, management, monitoring and coordination for ESG program activities. In addition, LAHSA evaluates program effectiveness, conducts strategic planning activities, and ensures geographic coverage of homeless services throughout the City.

Sources: 32nd Program Year Budget

33rd Program Year Proposed

Budget $ Change % Change

Entitlement Amt. $10,310,000 $10,393,000 $83,000 0% Program and Admin. Savings $1,044,162 $1,235,740 $191,578 1.7% Total HOPWA Sources $11,354,162 $11,628,740 $274,578 2.4% Uses: Housing Development $812,790 * ($812,790) (100%) Supportive Services $4,403,513 $6,596,991 $2,062,327 47% Rental Assistance $4,802,763 3,872,449** ($930,314) (19.37%) Technical Assistance $120,000 $120,000 $0.00 0% HOPWA General Program Administration $1,215,096 $1,039,300 ($127,645) 14% Total HOPWA Uses $11,354,162 $11,628,740 $274,578 2.4%



21

ESG funds are used for a wide range of homeless programs. While flexible in terms of serving all homeless subpopulations and preventing persons from becoming homeless, ESG program legislation and implementing regulations limit the types of activities and amounts of funds that can be spent. The five major categories of ESG-eligible activities are: rehabilitation, essential services, operational costs, homeless prevention activities, and administrative costs. USES OF ESG FUNDS The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), a joint powers authority created in 1993, uses ESG funds primarily for essential homeless services, operations and administrative activities.

• Essential Services – this activity funds services such as employment, health, drug abuse, education, medical and psychological counseling and supervision, child care, transportation and assistance in obtaining permanent housing. LAHSA uses essential services to fund emergency shelters, supportive services programs, outreach, and a Drop-In Center.

• Operations Costs – this activity funds costs incurred in the operation of a

facility such as maintenance and operations, insurance, rent, repairs, and security; fuel, equipment, utilities, food and furnishings.

• Administrative Costs – Expenditures for management of the program.

LIMITATIONS ON ESG FUNDING

• Essential Services - Grantees may use only 30 percent of the entire ESG grant for essential services. The 30 percent limitation applies to the grant as a whole. Thus, individual recipients of ESG funds for essential services are each not limited to 30 percent of their grant, just as long as the overall 30 percent limit is not exceeded.

• Operations Costs – Grantees may use only 10 percent of the grant amount

for staff salaries under operating costs. However, maintenance and security salary costs are not subject to the 10 percent standard.

• Administration – Grantees may only use up to 5 percent of the grant

amount for administrative costs.



22

PROPOSED USE OF ESG FUNDS FOR THE 2007-08 PROGRAM YEAR On February 21, 2007, HUD announced a permanent allocation of ESG funds for the city of Los Angeles in the amount of $3,184,418, or $25,394 more than that allocated in the 32nd Program Year. Additional funds will be used to augment the budget for Administration and the Winter Shelter Program.

Program Component 2007-08 Budget

Emergency Shelter and Services $493,942

Emergency Response Team (Outreach) $155,120

Access Centers (Supportive Services) $142,000

Downtown Drop-In Center $470,959

Overnight Emergency Shelter $112,031

Winter Shelter Program $1,521,146

Job Training and Placement $130,000

LAHSA Administration $159,220

Total $3,184,418 FEDERAL MATCH REQUIREMENT FOR ESG LAHSA will meet the federal match requirement for ESG during the 2007-08 Program Year with funds from the following sources. All amounts are estimates.

Source of Funds Amount Uses County General Funds $993,727 • Emergency Shelter Community Development Block Grant

$2,519,580 • Emergency Shelter • Supportive Services

Single Allocation (CalWORKs)

$1,360,664 • Emergency Shelter

City General Funds $5,167,010 • Emergency Shelter • Drop-In Center • Winter Shelter Program

County General Funds $995,000 • Administration Community Development Block Grant

$1,115,500 • Administration

Single Allocation (CalWORKs)

$288,091 • Administration

City General Funds $266,675 • Administration TOTAL $12,706,247

Los Angeles City and County Continuum of Care (LACoC) HUD announced in February 2007 that $52,521,696 of federal financial assistance has been awarded to the Los Angeles Continuum of Care for Supportive Housing Program (SHP) and SHP renewals.



23

OTHER RESOURCES - FEDERAL Examples of Leveraging of Consolidated Plan Funds - Selected Federal and State Grant Funds and Tax-Exempt Finance Programs

• Older Americans Act Title III-E Family Caregiver Support Funds • Older Americans Act Title III-E Family Caregiver Support One Time-Only

Funds • Community Services Block Grant (Public Services) • Economic Development Administration funds (Economic development

projects) • Ryan White Care Act (HOPWA Program) • California Department of Housing & Community Development and Proposition

46 grants including Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), CalHome, Jobs-Housing Balance, Workforce Housing, and BEGIN (Housing development and homebuyer assistance)

• Capital Grant Program (Housing Authority) • Federal and State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (Housing development) • Federal tax-exempt private activity bond resources via multifamily and single

family mortgage revenue bonds and mortgage credit certificates (housing development and homebuyer assistance)

• HUD Section 202 and 811 funds (housing development for seniors and disabled)

• HUD Section 8 SRO Moderate Rehabilitation funds (housing development for the homeless)

• HUD Shelter + Care funds (permanent housing with supportive services for the disabled)

• HUD Lead-based Paint Hazard Control funds, Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration funds and Lead Outreach funds (for Lead hazard control and outreach in privately owned housing)

• HUD Supportive Housing Program (SHP) • Tax Increment Funds (Community Redevelopment Agency project areas) • Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (for housing development utility

infrastructure costs - ‘off-site costs’- water conservation incentives and energy efficiency rebates)

• City of Industry redevelopment tax increment resources (housing development)

• Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) and Community Development Corporations (CDCs), including Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) and Enterprise Foundation (housing development)



24

OTHER RESOURCES - NON FEDERAL

• California Office of Traffic Safety • California Department of Education • Schiff-Cardenas Act (Crime Prevention) • California Highway Maintenance and Improvement Programs • City of Los Angeles Affordable Housing Trust Fund • Proposition 46 (Affordable Housing) • Proposition 12 (Open Space) • Proposition 40 (Urban Park Development) • Los Angeles County Assembly Bill 1913 (for the Youth Opportunities

Movement Program) • City General Funds (General City Purposes) • State of California Housing and Community Development Department • Healthy Alternatives to Smoking Trust Fund (age targeted, poverty based,

park poor) • City Quimby Funds (Recreation and Open Space) • Los Angeles Unified School District (LA's BEST Program) • State of California, Department of Corrections, Ex-Offender Program • State of California, Workforce Investment Act Discretionary Funds

Park Development Bond, Proposition K (LA for Kids) Funding CDBG funds earmarked in the future for improvements to park and recreational facilities in the City will continue to be highly leveraged by proceeds from California State Proposition 40 Bond Act funds. Los Angeles will be receiving approximately $47 million from this issuance alone; funds may be used for capital improvements, such as new park development. LA for Kids Program Approximately $92.5 million dollars (Years 1-9 of the program) and $14.7 million (Current Year 10) was made available during 2006 through proceeds from the City’s Proposition K Recreational and Cultural Facilities/Childcare Design and Construction bond program (LA for Kids Program).



25

CURRENT FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY, LA for Kids, COURTESY OF THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING, CITY OF LOS ANGELES (revised September 30, 2006)

• Prop K (years 1-9) $92,570,857 • Prop K (year 10) 14,755,409 • Prop K (proposed future) 39,285,446 • Prop K Bond Interest Earn. 3,554,817 • Prop 12 34,135,931 • Prop A 23,723,531 • CDBG 7,237,069 • Prop 40 (State) 42,169,419 • Tobacco (State) 450,692 • State Grants 3,703,105 • Recreation and Parks Park Funds (various) 4,805,314 • Federal Funds (FEMA) 282,601 • City Funds (various) 53,361,628 • Other Funds (miscellaneous) 7,104,525 • Private 16,090,000 TOTAL $343,230,344

Passage of this proposition created a citywide real property assessment district which generates about $25 million annually in funds for the acquisition, improvement, construction, and maintenance of City parks, recreation facilities, and other projects through an annual real property tax assessment on City residents over a 30-year period. Proposition K funds have been successfully blended with CDBG funds over the past several years in completion of several critical park and recreational projects, and is an important leveraging tool for extending CDBG resources for this purpose.

narrative responses, 33 year draft action...

Documents