HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Strategies AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/8/2016
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Erin Fifield/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-2302
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Encourage Economic Development and
Revitalization through Community Partnerships
ITEM TITLE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) STRATEGIES
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the proposed options for the FY 2016/17 CDBG One Year Action Plan
funding allocation and provide staff with input.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The purpose of this annual action plan is to indicate how the City intends to use
federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to fulfill the goals
established in the Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan. Identifying strategies is one of the first steps to creating the One Year Action Plan.
ATTACHMENTS: ATT1: Council Briefing Memorandum - CDBG Strategies
ATT2: Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan Strategies ATT3: MEMO CDBG and HOME project updates
ATT4: FY2015/16 CDBG Funding Allocation Summary
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Each spring, the City Council approves funding allocations for use of CDBG funds for the next fiscal year. The proposed uses of funds are described and submitted to
HUD each year in a document called the One-Year Action Plan. The Action Plan must be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2016. The proposed uses of funding must
align with allowed uses of funds and with the local community needs and strategic
plan identified in the 2015 Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan.
The City’s CDBG program currently is undergoing transition, and has many
pending past projects. HUD is concerned that the City is not drawing down funds and completing projects in a timely manner. The Council Briefing Memo (ATT1)
includes a draft proposal for CDBG funding strategies which holds the Council’s current CDBG priorities constant, while providing options which address HUD’s concerns.
The Draft Springfield CDBG One Year Action Plan section will be published for public comment in March 2016 and the Community Development Advisory
Committee (CDAC) will hold a public hearing on the Draft. Following the public hearing, the CDAC will recommend to Council 2016/17 CDBG funding
allocations. Council’s approval for funding allocations for the CDBG One Year
Action Plan section is planned for May 2, 2016.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 2/8/2016
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard
Tom Boyatt
Erin Fifield
BRIEFING
Subject: CDBG Priorities MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: The purpose of this annual action plan is to indicate how the City intends to use federal
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to fulfill the goals established in the Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan. Identifying strategies is one of the first steps to creating
the One Year Action Plan.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships
BACKGROUND:
For the 2016/2017 program year, staff is currently estimating the following revenue:
2016/17 Estimated CDBG Funding Revenue:
New Grant Funds $450,000 Prior Year Funds $100,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL AVAILABLE: $550,000
Current City strategies using CDBG funds include the following:
• Springfield’s Emergency Home Repair Program (EHR);
• Springfield’s down-payment assistance program (SHOP);
• Lane County Human Services Commission (HSC)’s distribution to non-profit public services; and
• General Administration.
Additionally, during the October 26, 2015 Council work session, Council identified a priority to
fund the G Street OASIS project.
Between estimated funding revenue for FY2016/17, and estimated expenses for continuing to fund current strategies, there is an additional $160,000 in CDBG funds identified. Considering the current transition with the CDBG program, staff has provided Council with three (3) options
for allocating the remaining $160,000 in CDBG funds, while holding current strategies constant.
City of Springfield
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM 2/2/2016 Page 2
FY 2016/17 CDBG Optional Funding Allocations
Program/Project Beneficiary Strategy Estimated Expenses
City’s Emergency
Home Repair Program (EHR)
Low-income
homeowners
Rehabilitate
existing housing stock for low-
income persons
$110,000
$40,000 – repairs $70,000 – staff costs
City’s Springfield
Home Ownership Program (SHOP)
Low-income
potential homeowners
Provide down-
payment assistance for home ownership
$100,000
$70,000 – loans $30,000 – staff costs
Lane County Human Services Commission (HSC)
contribution for non-profit services
Low-income and special needs population recipients
of services
Support a human services delivery system
$70,000 – to HSC
Catholic
Community Services’ G Street OASIS project
Homeless families
with Children
Support a human
services delivery system
$20,000
$17,600 – G Street $2,400 – staff costs
Program
administration and
management
N/A N/A $90,000 – staff costs
(see options below)
(see options below)
(see options below)
$160,000
$138,000 – TBD
$19,000 – staff costs
ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL $550,000
OPTION 1:
Program/Project Beneficiary Strategy Estimated Expenses
Acquisition of real property Low-income persons,
homeowners or
renters
Increase the supply of affordable housing $160,000 $138,000 – TBD
$19,000 – staff costs
Pro:
• The City could use the funds to buy land, or a building, for the purposes of
affordable housing (e.g. Buying land to build new affordable housing, buying an apartment building to provide affordable housing, buying a building to be
converted into a shelter to house the homeless)
• Funds go toward one project
Con:
• The City has not recently done an acquisition project, and would need to do
further research to ensure it complies with federal requirements
• This would not be a quick project. The City would most likely need to commit
the funds (or offer them as a donation through an RFP) within two years, AND
finish the ultimate project within 5-6 years.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3
MEMORANDUM 2/2/2016 Page 3
OPTION 2:
Program/Project Beneficiary Strategy Estimated expenses
Improve City streets, sidewalks;
add ADA curb cuts,
crosswalk signals, etc.
Low-income persons Make strategic investments to
improve low-income
neighborhoods
$160,000 $138,000 – TBD
$19,000 – staff costs
Pro:
• The City could use the funds to pave gravel streets, repair sidewalks, install
ADA curb cuts in predominantly low-income neighborhoods, and/or
install RRFB cross walk beacons in predominantly low-income neighborhoods
• The Department of Public Works (DPW) has experience managing federal
projects, and there is a documented need
• Funds go toward one sub-recipient
Con:
• The project is estimated to take 2 years.
OPTION 3:
The City waits to allocate the estimated $160,000 in next year’s One Year Action Plan, and
continues to fund and provide the programs above.
Pro:
• The City would have time to be more thoughtful in its priorities for these funds
• Allows staff to consider the conclusions of the Oregon Solutions Mobile Home Park Strategies project in its strategy for these funds
• Allows the City to explore other options for staff costs for this program
• Allows staff to focus on closing out pending projects
Con:
• Funds would not be available until 2017/18.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City needs to draft its CDBG funding strategies for the
year, and publish those strategies for public comment. Staff recommends Council fund current strategies at a similar level for 2016/17, and wait to allocate the estimated $160,000 in next
year’s Action Plan (Option 3).
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 3
EU
G
E
N
E
–
S
P
R
I
N
G
F
I
E
L
D
C
O
N
S
O
L
I
D
A
T
E
D
P
L
A
N
2
0
1
5
Ap
r
i
l
6
,
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
1
6
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
t
o
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
N
e
e
d
s
–
T
a
b
l
e
20
1
5
E
u
g
e
n
e
/
S
p
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
P
l
a
n
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
N
e
e
d
s
Ad
d
r es
s
e
d
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Eu
g
e
n
e
/
Sp
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
HO
M
E
Co
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
Eugene CDBG Springfield CDBG
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
y
o
f
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
(C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
H
O
M
E
a
n
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Blo
c
k
G
r
a
n
t
)
Re
n
t
e
r
s
,
H
o
m
e
Ow
n
e
r
s
,
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
,
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
N
e
e
d
s
La
n
d
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
n
e
w
r
e
n
t
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
.
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
fo
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
,
re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
,
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
d
o
r
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
60
0
5
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
H
D
O
’
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
4
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
a
d
d
e
d
20
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
s
i
t
e
s
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
d
2 1
Ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
d
d
e
d
10 5
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
to
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
(C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
l
o
c
k
Gr
a
n
t
)
Re
n
t
e
r
s
,
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
,
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
N
e
e
d
s
,
L
o
w
-
In
c
o
m
e
A
r
e
a
s
,
H
o
m
e
Ow
n
e
r
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
350 5
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
u
n
i
t
s
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
150 200
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
w
n
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
as
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
h
o
m
e
ow
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
(
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
l
o
c
k
Gr
a
n
t
)
Ho
m
e
O
w
n
e
r
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
wi
t
h
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
t
i
m
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
a
h
o
m
e
.
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
a
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
ho
m
e
b
u
y
e
r
s
10 50
Re
m
o
v
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
t
o
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
(
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
l
o
c
k
Gr
a
n
t
)
Re
n
t
e
r
s
,
H
o
m
e
Ow
n
e
r
s
,
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
,
Lo
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
A
r
e
a
No
n
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
N
e
e
d
s
Su
p
p
o
r
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
h
a
t
a
s
s
u
r
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
di
s
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
P
o
l
i
c
y
B
o
a
r
d
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
Fa
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
.
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
o
l
i
c
y
b
o
a
r
d
Yes Yes
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
e
v
e
n
t
s
20 5
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Yes Yes
Up
d
a
t
e
F
a
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
Yes Yes
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2,
Pa
g
e
1
of
2
EU
G
E
N
E
–
S
P
R
I
N
G
F
I
E
L
D
C
O
N
S
O
L
I
D
A
T
E
D
P
L
A
N
2
0
1
5
Ap
r
i
l
6
,
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
1
7
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
N
e
e
d
s
Ad
d
r es
s
e
d
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Eu
g
e
n
e
/
Sp
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
HO
M
E
Co
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
Eugene CDBG Springfield CDBG
Su
p
p
o
r
t
a
h
u
m
a
n
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
to
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
a
n
d
sp
e
c
i
a
l
n
e
e
d
s
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
l
o
c
k
Gr
a
n
t
)
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
,
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
Fu
n
d
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
w
n
e
d
b
y
n
o
n
-
p
r
o
f
i
t
s
.
Fu
n
d
n
o
n
-
p
r
o
f
i
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
H
u
m
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
a
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
u
b
l
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
25,000 5,000
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
a
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
110,000 65,000
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
15 4
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
r
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
b
e
d
s
ad
d
e
d
20 5
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
j
o
b
s
a
n
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
l
o
c
k
Gr
a
n
t
)
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
b
e
l
o
w
m
a
r
k
e
t
fin
a
n
c
i
n
g
t
o
l
o
c
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
o
r
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
j
o
b
s
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
m
i
c
r
o
-
e
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
Jo
b
s
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
o
r
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
200 5
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
50 1
Mi
c
r
o
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
e
s
300 55
Ma
k
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
lo
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
ar
e
a
s
o
f
s
l
u
m
s
a
n
d
b
l
i
g
h
t
(C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
l
o
c
k
Gr
a
n
t
)
Re
n
t
e
r
s
,
O
w
n
e
r
s
,
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
,
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
,
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
Ar
e
a
s
a
n
d
S
l
u
m
s
&
Bl
i
g
h
t
,
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
wh
i
c
h
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
s
l
u
m
s
a
n
d
bl
i
g
h
t
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
,
cl
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
,
r
e
h
a
b
a
n
d
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
f
a
ç
a
d
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
r
e
h
a
b
2
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
2 2
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
a
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
u
b
l
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
5,000 6,000
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2,
Pa
g
e
2
of
2
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 1/11/2016
To: Gino Grimaldi COMMUNICATION
From: Anette Spickard
Tom Boyatt
Erin Fifield
PACKET
Subject: CDBG and HOME project updates MEMORANDUM
INFORMATION SHARE:
This memo is in response to the questions at the October 26, 2015 Council work session regarding CDBG and HOME projects that are currently pending. The following is a list of 14 projects which have not been completed (or were pending until recently) for a variety of reasons, and details
regarding their status. Projects are listed by program year funded, started with the oldest funds.
In addition to this list, HUD has identified a number of concerns with the City’s administration and
management of the CDBG program. Primarily, HUD is requesting the City create formal policies and procedures for the allocation, management, and monitoring of program funds and outcomes in order
to be in compliance with HUD requirements.
Since the work session, information on projects has been updated, and any changes on status are
reflected below:
1.
Year funded Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2004 St. Vincent de
Paul
Royal Building $133,141.80 grant
(CDBG)
Completed.
Details: During the 2015 HUD monitoring of the CDBG program, HUD identified a number of projects – the Royal Building being one of them – from which the City drew down funds that
exceeded the awarded contract amounts. City staff spent hours going through past financial data to
identify how the funds were expended, with the risk that inadequate documentation could result in repaying funds to HUD. Staff concluded and documented that the incremental amount was incurred
for staff delivery costs of the project, and have since changed how they allocate, track, and document all funds associated with all projects. HUD cleared this finding in November 2015. Expected completion: Done.
2.
Program Year Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2007
2008
2009
Habitat for Humanity Meyer Estates: 10 new single-family homes for
ownership, available to low-income families
$60,000 grant
$100,000 grant
$40,000 grant
(HOME)
8.5 of 10 houses are
complete; further
construction is pending environmental review
waiver. $70,000 unused.
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM 2/2/2016 Page 2
Details: HUD’s 2014 HOME Consortium monitoring found an incorrect level of environmental
review was completed for Meyer Estates. All construction was ordered to stop until the HOME
Consortium completed a retroactive environmental review for the project, and received an environmental review waiver from HUD given the statutory violation, with a risk that HOME funds
would need to be paid back to HUD. City of Eugene staff have completed the environmental review,
and sent it on to HUD for their review on October 14, 2015. HUD’s waiver review process can take 4-6 months. At that point, if the waiver is received, no funds would need to be repaid, and Habitat for
Humanity can complete the project on their own. However, no more federal HOME funds can be
reimbursed or invested in this project. Expected completion: July 2016.
3.
Year
funded
Recipient Project Award
Amount / Source
Status
2010
Brethren
Community
Services
Afiya Apartments: 10
affordable housing rental
units for low-income persons with psychiatric disabilities
$200,000 grant
(HOME)
10 of 10 units are
complete; risk of
repayment of funds pending environmental review
waiver
Details: HUD’s 2014 HOME Consortium monitoring found that the required environmental review was not completed for Afiya Apartments. The HUD Consortium is currently completing a retroactive
environmental review for the project, and will request an environmental review waiver from HUD given the statutory violation, with a risk that HOME funds would need to be paid back to HUD. City of Eugene staff is leading this environmental review, with help from Springfield staff. Once we
submit the waiver request, HUD’s waiver review process can take 4-6 months. If the waiver is received, no funds would need to be repaid. However, no more HOME funds can be invested in this
particular phase of the project. Expected completion: August 2016.
4.
Year funded Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2010
2013
2014
NEDCO Hatch Business Incubator
Program
$15,000 grant
$30,000 grant
$66,879 grant
(CDBG)
No funds have
been drawn yet for 2013 or 2014.
Details: In the 2015 HUD monitoring of the CDBG program, HUD had three findings related to
this program. Of note, HUD requires that NEDCO better document the amount of staff time spent toward delivering this program and that the City/NEDCO more accurately account for the number of
individuals served by the program. Staff is currently in discussion with NEDCO about creating a rate
model to better reflect staff time spent delivering this program. NEDCO has yet to submit invoices for services for the 2013 or 2014 HATCH awards. Since the monitoring finding, NEDCO and City staff
will first need to agree on the rate model, and amend the contract, before invoices can be charged
against the 2013 or 2014 grant awards. Expected completion: March 2016.
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 6
MEMORANDUM 2/2/2016 Page 3
5.
Year
funded
Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2011
2012
Lock Out Crime (LOC) Provide emergency home security measures to low-
income households
$28,000 grant
$15,000 grant
(CDBG)
About $11,000 left to draw
from 2012.
Details: The LOC project has received funding over multiple years, as early as 2004, to operate their program. Funds are used by LOC when the need arises. Often, funds allocated in a certain year have been used over multiple years. In this case, the LOC program received funds from the City in
2012, but has been drawing down funds from previous awards. Given staff turnover at the City, and at LOC, the financial accounting of the LOC project by both entities over the past 11 years has been
difficult to reconcile. As of now, there is certainty over what the LOC project has remaining in its
2012 grant award to draw from, and the City will draw from that amount as requests come in. The City is still trying to reconcile the 2011 grant award with what it has previously reported to
HUD. Expected completion: unknown.
6.
Year funded Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2012
2013
2014
Housing and
Community Services Agency of
Lane County (HACSA)
Glenwood
Place
$96,500 grant for
predevelopment (HOME)
$396,476 grant for development (HOME)
$81,500 grant for acquisition (CDBG)
Contract signed only
for pre-development award. About $74,000 has been invoiced and
paid. HACSA aims for 2017 start.
Details: See 1/7/16 Communication Packet Memo: Glenwood Place Update
7.
Year funded Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2012 Relief Nursery Purchase of therapeutic playground equipment $38,000 grant
(CDBG)
Playground equipment has
been installed. Retroactive environmental
review has not yet been started.
Details: During the 2015 HUD monitoring of the City’s CDBG program, HUD identified that the
City did not have the documentation required for an Environmental Review of this project, which HUD identified as a statutory violation. HUD requires that the City conduct a retroactive environmental review of the project to determine whether there were any adverse environmental
impacts incurred as a result of the project, and to request a waiver of the violation from HUD. There is a risk that CDBG funds would need to be paid back to HUD if the waiver is not granted. Expected completion: Spring 2016.
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 6
MEMORANDUM 2/2/2016 Page 4
8.
Year
funded
Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2012 BRING Planet Improvement Center $30,000 grant,
$20,000 loan
(CDBG)
Completed. BRING only used about
$10,000 of the loan.
Contract amendment and additional job
creation data needed
to close out project.
Details: BRING completed this project in 2014, but had not yet provided data concerning the jobs
created as a condition of the grant. Given staff turnover at the City, we did not follow up with BRING
until recently to gather this data, per HUD’s requirements. We are currently working with BRING staff to submit this data, and to amend the contract to reflect the new loan amount based on invoices,
as opposed to the original allocation. Expected completion: January 2016.
9.
Year funded Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2012 ARC of Lane
County
Purchase drop boxes to
create jobs benefiting disabled persons
$12,000 grant
(CDBG)
After 3 years
without a signed contract, ARC
declined the grant in Dec. 2015.
Details: ARC of Lane County was allocated funds during 2012, and subsequently had a turnover in
staff. No environmental review has been done for this project, nor has a contract been signed. Following the City of Springfield’s recent staff turnover, city staff reached out to ARC of Lane
County in April and November 2015 to determine the status of this grant, and set a timeline for
updating the original application. On Dec 30, 2015, ARC called and decided they would not pursue this grant because they are too busy with other projects. Expected completion: January 2016.
10.
Year funded Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2012
NEDCO Hatch program with Food Cart component $23,033 grant
(CDBG)
Completed. HUD requires
additional documentation.
Details: In the 2015 HUD monitoring of the CDBG program, HUD found that City staff did not
sufficiently set up this project or identify the outcomes of this project. City staff need to work with NEDCO to identify and document clients served by this program, and to amend the contract if needed. Expected completion: Spring 2016.
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 6
MEMORANDUM 2/2/2016 Page 5
11.
Year
funded
Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2012 NEDCO Façade Improvement Program $25,000 grant
(CDBG)
$12,500 remaining to be
drawn down.
Details: The grant to NEDCO for this project stipulated that half of the award ($12,500) would be put toward offering grants to businesses downtown for façade improvement, as well as administration of the program. The remaining $12,500 was to be offered as loans, while NEDCO would manage the
repayment and the administration of a revolving loan fund, such that repaid loans would then be used for future façade improvement loans. As of now, NEDCO has not been able to find any businesses
willing to take on a loan. City staff is in discussion with NEDCO concerning possible solutions in
order to draw down the remaining amount. Expected completion: Spring 2016.
12.
Year
funded
Recipient Project Award
Amount
Status
2013
City of Springfield Housing
program
Emergency Home Repair, SHIP, and CHORE programs
$ 100,000
(CDBG)
About $70,000 has been drawn down, with about $30,000
available.
Details: Actual expenditures have fallen short of allocation for the past few years. City staff determined on average about $35,000 has been spent on EHR projects each year in recent years,
contrasted with allocations of $100,000. For the 2013 award, about $30,000 remains to be drawn. An
additional $141,000 was allocated to EHR projects in 2014 and 2015, which will be drawn down after the 2013 amount is expended. Staff is in touch with HUD to explain why the 2014 award has not yet
been drawn down. Staff will continue to draw down funds before new funds are awarded, and will
communicate the actual staff costs with the CDAC and council. Expected completion: Fall 2016.
13.
Year
funded
Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2013 NEDCO Sprout! Community Food Hub Exterior Improvements
$20,353 grant
(CDBG)
Completed.
Details: Due to City staff turnover, the contract was not signed until 2015. Once NEDCO identified appropriate contractors for the work, City staff worked with NEDCO to ensure they were following federal labor standards and Davis-Bacon laws, which can be complicated and time-
intensive. The project was completed in Fall 2015 and has since been closed out. Expected
completion: Done.
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 6
MEMORANDUM 2/2/2016 Page 6
14.
Year
funded
Recipient Project Award Amount Status
2014 Springfield Renaissance
Development
Corporation (SRDC)
Downtown Demonstration Project $35,000 grant
(CDBG)
Completed. $6,700
remaining to be
drawn
Details: SRDC completed the project in 2015. However, during the transition with City staff, the
contractor did not supply adequate documentation for compliance with federal Davis-Bacon labor laws. City staff is working with the contractor to ensure all workers employed were paid federal
Davis Bacon wages on the project, and to provide sufficient documentation to show that this was met.
SRDC has invoiced the City for the remaining funds, but staff are working with the contractor to finalize the documentation before proceeding with the invoice. Expected completion: Spring 2016.
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 6
Eugene-Springfield 2015/16 One Year Action Plan
Springfield CDBG 2015/16 Funding Allocation Summary
Sources of Funding
Entitlement Grant $ 466,694
Reprogrammed Funds from Prior Years
Funds to Reprogram $ 80,000
Total Sources $ 546,694
Uses of Funding
Housing Rehabilitation
Emergency Home Repair Program (EHR) $ 71,604
EHR Program Delivery $ 70,000
$ 141,604
Downpayment Assistance for Low-Income Homebuyers
Springfield Home Ownership Program (SHOP) $ 70,000
SHOP Program Delivery $ 30,000
$ 100,000
Public Services Operations (Human Services Commission) $ 70,004
Non-profit Capital Improvement
NEDCO Sprout! Code Improvements $ 100,000
Project Delivery $ 17,010
$ 117,010
Administration $ 93,339
Unallocated Funds $ 24,737
Total Uses $ 546,694
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1