Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-06; Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee Committee Ad Hoc; ; Report to Committee on Grant Solicitation Process and StrategySubject: Meeting Date: January 12, 2009 Agenda Item #6a CITY OF CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL COVNERSION MITIGATION FEE AD HOC CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report to Committee on Grant Solicitation Process and Strategy: Unencumbered/Available Funding January 12, 2009 At the November 17, 2008 meeting, staff reported on the balance and availability of Agricultural Conversion Mitigation funds. Since that date, interest income deposited into the account has resulted in increases to the available balance for which grant awards may be funded from. Staff assesses the current available/unencumbered balance that may be awarded to grant projects to be $773,028.53. This amount does not include an additional $10,645.33 which may be utilized for the Committee's operating costs and an additional $6,908.83 which the Committee may utilize for proposal solicitation activities. In the event the Committee does not utilize the full operating balance and proposal solicitation balance, the money would then be eligible for award to other grant projects. Although $773,028.53 is available as of the date of preparation of this report, the fund has potential to increase due to the following: • Accrual of Interest Income-Although approximately $5.9 million exists within the fund, the majority of that (approximately $5.1 million) is encumbered and available for disbursement to grantees of previously awarded projects. The City, however, is accruing interest income on the total balance within the fund. • Potential Conversion of Agricultural Land to Urban Uses-As coastal agricultural land is developed and converted to urban uses, mitigation requires developers to deposit into the fund at a ratio of $10,000 per acre of converted land. At the lime grant applications are received and forwarded to the Committee for evaluation, staff will update the Committee on available funds that may be awarded to Agricultural Conversion Mitigation projects. Given that City Council is responsible for reviewing the Committee's recommendations and ultimately awarding Agricultural Conversion grants, staff will be returning to Council to obtain consent to solicit a second round of grant applications for the Committee's review and consideration. Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Subject: Meeting Date: January 12, 2009 Agenda Item #6b CITY OF CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL COVNERSION MITIGATION FEE AD HOC CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report to Committee on Grant Solicitation Process and Strategy: Evaluation of Initial Grant Solicitation Process January 12, 2009 In August 2005, the City Council formed the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee Citizens' Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee. Subsequently in May 2006 the Committee reported to Council with its proposed methods to operate and carry out its mandate. At that time the City Council approved the mandate and authorized the Committee to solicit grant proposals. In July 2006, the Committee proceeded to advertise the availability of grant funding for Agricultural Conversion Mitigation projects. During the established grant application submittal period, the Committee received a number of project applications, which the Committee then proceeded to review and consider. After formulating recommendations on the grant applications, the Committee forwarded their recommendations to the City Council, who took formal action to award grants for Agricultural Conversion Mitigation projects. Given the benefit the Committee has had in participating in the initial grant solicitation and review, it is recommended that the Committee reevaluate the process and discuss potential modifications that may facilitate the Committee in soliciting and reviewing grant applications during its second round of grant solicitation/review. In particular, staff notes that during the initial grant solicitation/review process, two areas of concern were identified. The Committee may therefore choose to recommend that Council modify the approved methods authorizing the Committee to carry out its mandate. The two operational methods/issues the Committee may wish· 16 consider recommending be modified are as follows: 1) The Requirement for Agencies/Organizations to Submit an Audited Financial Statement: Al the most recent November 17, 2008 Committee meeting, a member of the public addressed the Committee to express concern that during the 2006 grant solicitation process, staff took action to administratively waive the requirement that agencies/organizations provide an Audited Financial Statement to be considered for a grant award. Whereas, agencies/organizations submitting applications for grant awards would have been required to submit an Audited Financial Statement, individuals were exempt from the requirement. Staff acknowledges that as a result, it is possible that agencies/organizations that would have submitted grant applications may not have done so due to the high costs associated with preparation of an Audited Financial Statement. The original requirement to provide an Audited Financial Statement was established to assess the applicant's financial state and thereby evaluate the applicant's capabilities to successfully implement the proposed project. It is estimated that the preparation of an audited financial statement may cost an agency/organization anywhere between $7,000 to $15,000 depending on variables such as the type of agency/organization and quantity/type of financial transactions processed by the agency/organization. One alternative to an Audited Financial Statement would be to require that the applicant submit a Reviewed Financial Statement which depending on variables may cost between $5,000 to $7,000 to have prepared. A comparison of alternatives staff has identified that would serve to accomplish similar objectives as the requirement to provide an audited financial statement includes the following: Comparison of Alternatives to Assess Financial Status/Ca abilitv Req11iremeiif . -~,-_-, :" >' oescHi>tion: < . ",;' , ....... ,.·1z "' .. Cons ·>'-<'-,·'•,; A comprehensive document prepared High confidence Audited and certified by a Certified Public in the integrity of High cost to Financial Accountant (CPA). CPA certifies the applicant's applicant Statement accuracy and completeness of the financial document. capabilities . ... A financial statement evaluated by a City receives limited confidence in the Reviewed CPA for completeness and integrity of the integrity of applicant's Financial transparent inaccuracies. CPA does financial capabilities. Statement not certify the accuracy of information provided. Some degree of cost to applicant The Committee may wish to consider not requiring a Financial Statement No assurances and otherwise require applicants to regarding the No Financial verify financial status and capabilities No cost to financial Statement through requiring the submittal of tax applicant capabilities of the returns or other legally required applicant documentation submitted to the federal government. Staff encourages the Committee to discuss the potential to recommend that the requirement to submit a financial statement be modified. More specifically, the Committee may wish to consider requirements to provide financial statements based on the amount of funds the applicant is requesting. Accordingly, the larger sum of funding the applicant is requesting, the higher the risk that the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation fund would become compromised if an applicant lacked the means to demonstrate fiscal capability to implement the project. An example of such a sliding scale is provided as follows: • $2,500 to $9,999-Any grant application submitted for funding within this range would require an applicant to submit either an Audited Financial Statement or a Reviewed Financial Statement. • $10,000 and Above-Any grant application submitted for funding within this range would require applicant submittal of a Audited Financial Statement. • Individuals-Any individual submitting an application for a grant award would be exempt from any requirement to submit a financial statement. Although some agencies/organizations may be requesting grant funding below a threshold that would require the submittal of an Audited Financial Statement, staff would encourage the submittal of an Audited Financial Statement from all applicants given that some agencies/organizations may be required to prepare an Audited Financial Statement in accordance with other legal requirements beyond those required by the City of Carlsbad. 2) Committee's Use of the Proposal Evaluation Form: As part of the approved method authorizing the Committee to carry out its mandate, a Proposal Evaluation Form was approved and intended to be utilized to evaluate the criteria that would assist the Committee in formulating recommendations to fund any of the grant applications (See Exhibit 1 }. The Proposal Evaluation Form included a quantitative rating scale for which each of the criteria would be evaluated. During the 2006 solicitation and subsequent review process, the Committee determined that use of the Proposal Evaluation Form would be used as a tool to assist the Committee in formulating is recommendations, and that a more qualitative rating assessment for each of the proposal evaluation criteria would allow the Committee more subjectivity in balancing the merits of the grant applications on a comparative basis. Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Exhibits: 1. Approved Proposal Evaluation Criteria/Form CITY OF CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION MmGATION FEE AD HOC cmZENS ADVISORY COMltttl 11 EE PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA Project Criteria • Extent to which proposal fulfills eligibility category • Line-of-sight relationship with concrete outcome(s} • Benefit to Carlsbad residents • Honors the history of Carlsbad • Employs creativity (of project or process) • Multiple or long-lasting or wide-spread benefits Project Feasibility and Planning Criteria • Feasibility of project achievement (i.e., Can project be accomplished?) o Can permits/approvals be obtained? • Implementation plan o Measurable milestones/Identification of tracking measures o Reasonable time frame o Responsible parties identified Applicant Criteria • Ability of project applicant to do what is proposed o Applicant's experience implementing other projects o Applicant's previous experience obtaining and using funding (for other projects) Financial Resources/Budget Criteria • Fiscal resources to do what is proposed o Project budget o How requested funding will be used o Other/Additional funding already secured for project (if any) o Other potential funding sources for project (potential matching funds) o Applicant's experience obtaining and using funding (for this project) o Financial condition oforganimtion (if applicable) Exhibit 1 AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION MITIGATION FEE GRANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM PROJECT NO: ______________ _ PROJECT NAME: _____________ _ Rating Scale: Not Applicable= 0 Poor= 1 Acceptable= 2 Good = 3 Strong= 4 Exceptional= S Is proposed project eligible for funding? Yes ___ No ___ _ Eliglbllity Category: ____________________ _ Profect Score Project/Program Criteria: Implementation of eligibility category Concrete outcome( s) Benefit to Carlsbad residents Honor history of Carlsbad Creativity (of project or process) Multiple, or long-lasting, or wide-spread benefits Feasability/Planning Criteria: Feasibility of project achievement: Permits/ Approvals obtainable? Implementation Plan: Measurable Milestones? Tracking Measures? Implementation Plan: Time Frame? Responsible parties identified? Applicant Criteria: .. Ability to do project? Experience with other projects? Ability to do project? Experience with using funding for other projects? Fiscal/Budget Criteria: Project budget Use ofrequested funds Other funding? (if any) Other potential funding? Fiscal stability of org'n (if applicable) TOTALSCORE Subject: Meeting Date: January 12, 2009 Agenda Item #6c CITY OF CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL COVNERSION MITIGATION FEE AD HOC CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report to Committee on Grant Solicitation Process and Strategy: Outreach, Advertising and Marketing Program January 12, 2009 In May 2006 the Committee was authorized by City Council to allocate up to $10,000 from the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation fund for project solicitation purposes. The Committee then designed an outreach, advertising and marketing program to solicit grant applications for consideration as Agricultural Conversion Mitigation projects. As part of the 2006 solicitation process, the Committee utilized a variety of funded, low-cost and no-cost media types to advertise the availability of grant funding. At the November 17, 2008 Committee meeting, the Committee directed staff to return with an outreach, advertising and marketing program similar to the program utilized in 2006, in order to advertise the availability of grant funding for the upcoming 2009 solicitation process. During the 2006 process, staff notes that funded advertisement took place through the publication of advertisements/notices in the Union Tribune and North County Times, in addition other unfunded media types-both of which are discussed in detail below. 2006 OUTREACH ADVERTISING AND MARKETING PROGRAM Newspaper Advertisements- 2006 N ewspaper u 1cat1on p bl" ve 1sements Ad rt· . . Publication , [ .. ;>·. ······ .. · .. > ,; ' · '"" Distribution . ·· ·.·.· · · · , ,·. ····· . Cost .. · . Sunday, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, North County Thursday, Solana Beach, Del Mar, Rancho $751.21 Times Sunday Santa Fe, Leucadia; Carmel Valley Sunday, Full North County (Sundays), Union Tribune Thursday, North County Coastal $2,339.96 Sundav /Thursdav\ Total: $3,091.17 Given distribution and cost-of-advertisement adjustments made by the above newspaper organizations, the City would not be able to utilize the same distribution days utilized in 2006 because the North County Times now only separately distributes to the above- listed zones on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Therefore, the Committee may choose to advertise in the North County Times on two consecutive Sundays, as well as a Friday or Saturday. Staff has obtained revised updated cost estimates from the Union Tribune and North County Times and estimates the cost to advertise the above- referenced manner at $2,786.86. In addition to the use of newspaper advertisements the Committee also utilized the following low-cost and no-cost media types as part of the 2006 outreach, advertising and marketing program. Website Advertisement-An event notice was posted to the City's homepage, which directed internet users to a separate webpage established for the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation program. This webpage included links to informational flyers, a press release and detailed additional information regarding the grant solicitation/review process. An email was also distributed to all persons signed up to, receive event notification through the City's electronic subscription service. Recipients of this email were provided with information and directed to the City's established webpage through an electronic link. Informational Handouts-Informational handouts were created and distributed at City facilities including City Hall, Faraday Center, Cole Library and Dove Library. The informational handout advertised the availability of grant funds, invited application and directed interested parties to the Committee's staff liaison for additional information. Additional informational flyers were provided at these facilities for distribution to the public. Direct Mailings-As part of the 2006 outreach, advertisement and marketing program, staff and the Committee identified stakeholders with potential interest in the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Program. Subsequently, an informational flyer was distributed via US Mail to all identified stakeholders to advertise of grant funding available. Press Release-A press release was created and distributed to local publications which advertising the availability of funding and invited the submittal of grant applications Given the successful solicitation of grant applications received during the 2006 solicitation process, staff recommends that the Committee utilize a similar program to advertise the upcoming 2009 grant solicitation/review process. In order to improve outreach, however, the Committee may wish to consider expanding on the above-listed media types and discuss the potential to include the following, advertising methods. POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF THE OUTREACH, ADVERTISING AND MARKETING PROGRAM FOR 2009 GRANT SOLICITATION/REVIEW Expanded Direct Mailings-As part of the City's Envision Carlsbad General Plan Update program which began in 2008, the City initiated a task to identify stakeholders with interest in Carlsbad. As a result, stakeholders were identified and sorted into categories based on interest type. Accordingly, a list of stakeholder groups with environmental interest was identified. As such, staff recommends reconciling the stakeholder list created for the 2006 grant solicitation/review process and the Envision Carlsbad program so as to notify additional parties with potential interest in the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation program. "On-Hold" Message-When telephone callers calling into the City are placed on hold, audio recordings are played to provide information on current events and news within the City. The Committee may wish to consider directing staff to create an audio recording for playback on the City's "on-hold' broadcast to advertise of the 2009 grant availability. E-News Newsletter-The City's E-News newsletter is an electronic document distributed to approximately 1,000 Carlsbad residents. An informational advertisement may be included in the E-News Newsletter to inform potential interested parties in the availability of grant funding and the 2009 grant solicitation/review process. Staff recommends that the Committee design and direct staff to implement an outreach, advertising and marketing program for the upcoming 2009 grant solicitation/review process and to consider expansion of the program to ensure that potential applicants have a fair and equal opportunity to apply for the funds. Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADDENDUM ITEM #6C CITY OF CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL COVNERSION MITIGATION FEE AD HOC CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE Subject: Stakeholders/Interested Parties List to Advertise Grant Availability of Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Projects Meeting Date: January 12, 2009 The following information is a list of agencies and organizations that have been identified as potential stakeholders having interest in Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee grant availability. Stakeholder/Interested Parties Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation Farmworker Housing Committee Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Hofman Planning Associates Buena Vista Audubon Society Leslie Farms, Inc. Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation Preserve Calavera* Building Industry Association of San Diego San Diego Conservation Network* California Coastal Conservancy San Diego County Bicycle Coalition* California Native Plant Society San Diego County Farm Bureau Caring Residents of Carlsbad Seasons Financial, LLC Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Sierra Club—San Diego Chapter* Carlsbad Village Business Association Surfrider Foundation—San Diego Chapter* Carltas Development Company U.S. Green Building Council—San Diego Chapter* Catholic Charities Diocese of San Diego Vanderhawk Consulting* Conservation Biology Institute—San Diego Chapter* Walk San Diego* Endangered Habitats League* Wilkinson Design Group Note: An asterisk (*) indicates an agency/organization that may be added to the mailing list to advertise of grant availability during the second round of grant solicitation for the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation projects. Such agencies/organizations may not have received notice of grant funding availability during the original grant solicitation process advertised in 2006. Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT I-I January 12, 2009 Agenda Item #6d CITY OF CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL COVNERSION MITIGATION FEE AD HOC CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE Subject: Report to Committee on Grant Solicitation Process and Strategy: Tentative Calendar for the 2009 Grant Solicitation/Review Process Meeting Date: January 12, 2009 Given the Committee's intent to solicit and review grant applications to recommend award of funding for Agricultural Conversion Mitigation projects, staff provides the following timeline which may be applied to the 2009 grant solicitation/review process. l;C:; >;t'};i;/1 >:·· """' .... -;·<c· , · ;, ,:/;Schedule·, .. :·:" '.·: >'-,·, '"'" ''>· /,,,,,,"' Return To Council with Potential Recommendations to Revise the Committee's Operating Procedures and Early February 2009 Obtain Consent to Solicit Grant Annlications Initiate Grant Application Submittal Time Period (60 Day Submittal Period Late February 2009 Established) Optional Application Preparation March 2009 Assistance Workshop Closure of Application Submittal Period Late April 2009 Committee Review of Grant Applications May/ June 2009 Submitted Committee Recommendations Formulated .· Early July 2009 Preparation of Agenda Bill Summarizing July 2009 Committee's Recommendations Presentation of Committee's August 2009 Recommendations to City Council Staff recommends the Committee consider and discuss potential modifications to the tentative calendar and direct staff to initiate the grant solicitation/review process. Staff also notes that at the September 2, 2008 Committee meeting, the Committee indicated that they would not like to utilize the services of a facilitator for regular meetings but that they would like to reserve the ability to utilize a facilitator at subsequent meetings if they deemed necessary. As part of operating procedures approved for the Committee to carry out its mandate, it was intended that the function of the Committee Chairperson would be to lead meetings while the function of a facilitator would be to lead discussion. It is therefore staffs recommendation that the Committee utilize a facilitator for future discussions to evaluate grant applications. Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT