The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1977-04-19; City Council; 4042-2; Third Year Community Development Block Grant Project SelectionCITY OF CARLSBAD 4042 AGERDA B I L I40 ' Sup 1p sment' 2' _ DATE: Apri'1'��' 1977 DEPARTMENT::_M;S PLANNING7. � ^ L..i Initial: Dept. Hd 3-3 City Atty piny__ City 149r. �\ SUBJECT: Third Year -Community Development Block Grant -- Project Selection. i. StatemenL 'of 'the Matter REQUEST: On December 16, 1976 the Council voted to endorse the County's proposed third year CDBG strategy. The urban county CDBG application approved i by the Board of Supervisors encompassed four programs: 1. Residential rehabilitation 2. Site acquisition for low/moderate j income residential construction. 3. Public Improvements 4. Planning and program development. I The Board of Supervisors has agreed to "set aside" Carlsbad's expected" $103,000 allocation for a period of six months. If the City fails to develop an adequate program for use of those funds within the six month period, the Board may reallocate the funds to another jurisdiction. Staff has analyzed possible third year projects for Carlsbad in the attached memorandum. A rehabilitation program appears 'to be the most fee&ible alternative based on the requirements of the acl:,'the Board of # Supervisor's directive, and local needs. EXHIBITS: Memo to City Manager from Planning Department. Exhibit "A", Census Tracts suitable for new construction. Exhibit "B", Census Tracts suitable for rehabilitation. RECOMMEALDATION : That the Council direct staff to work with _'ounty staff to prepare a specific residential rehabilitation program proposal for utilizing the City's share of third year CDBG funds, subject to future Council and Board of Supervisiors approval. (See Page 2 for Council action) FORM PLANNING J3 Page 2 AGENDA BILL NO. 4042 - Supplement 2 Council action 4-19-77 Council concurred with staff recommendation and the Project Selection on concept. Staff was directed to work with County staff to prepare a specific residential rehabilitation program proposal for utilizing the City's share of third year CDBG funds, subject to future Council and Board of Supervisors approval. MEMORANDUM DATE: MARCH 25, 1977 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: THIRD YEAR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT --PROJECT SELECTION. I. BACKGROUND On December 21, 1976 the City Council agreed to the third year Community Development Block Grant strategy proposed by San Diego County. The Council forwarded a letter to the Board of Supervisors stating that they supported a housing -related third year application providing that: 1) Carlsbad would be assured of receiving benefits equal to or greater than the $103,000 expected to be allocated to the City based on HUD calculations; 2) Carlsbad would be given the flexibility to use those housing monies on any or all of the programs proposed by the County. II. COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION The Board of Supervisors modified the third year application based on comments received from Carlsbad and other non -entitlement cities. The Board agreed to "set -aside" the minimum funding level for eaci+ jur- isdiction ($103,000 for Carlsbad) for a period of six months. if the City does not develop an acceptable program for utilizing those funds within the six months, the Board may reallocate the funds to any jur- isuiction which can best utilize them. (Conversely, the City could conceivably receive greater than a103,000 if it claims funds not ear- marked by other jurisdictions within the six month "set -aside"). The programs approved by the Board of Supervisors are: WIDE COUNPY- CARLSBAD'S AMOUNT PROGRAM ELIGIBLE CENSUS TRACTS ALLOCATED $1,OOlT,DOO -(19$) R.esidentia eiabilitation census a ,1W-& (See Exhibit B) Site Aquisition & Land Census Tracts 178.03, Banking for low/moderate 178.04,178.05 & 200.03 (See Exhibit A) 850,000 (16%) income construction. Public Improvements Census Tracts 179,180, & 178.01 (Tracts 178.03, 178.04,178.05 & 200.03 if accag:)anied by new Constr). 2,500,000 (48%) Planning & Program Dev. N/A 625,000 (12%) program Administration N/A 200,000 (4%) (County Only) TOTAL $5,175,000 III. CITY PROJECT SELECTION The range of fundable projects available to the City is limited by: 1) The third year program established by the County; 2) The constraints within the Housing and Community Development Act; and, 3) The policy directive given by the City Council to pursue a housing strategy for third year funding. The options which staff has considered for third year funding are: Residential Rehabilitation The County Housing] Authority will be drawing up a detailed rehab- ilitation program within the coming month which they propose to administer county -wide. They anticipate that out -right grants would be limited ro only emergency repair projects. Several types of loan programs atQ expected to be developed, with the terms of the loan based on the type of rehabilitation and the ability of the recipient to repay the loan. The City would have the flexibility to request that our local funds be applied to loan programs which best meet Carlsbad's needs. If the City apts for a county -admin- istered rehabilitation program, the county would underwrite the administrative costs and the City's funds could be ._-A entirely f-)r interest write -down on rehabilitation loans. The County has specified that a rehabilitation program in Carlsbad must be limited to the three tracts which show the highest per- centage of low and moderate income households in the city (See Exhibit "B"). Recipient eligibility standards are to be established by the County. Typically, a rehabilitation program is intended to upgrade and improve the liveability and usefulness of existing structures. Eligible improvements include additions and alterations; exterior and interior work to preserve, protect and improve the liveability of a structure;and repairs, restoration or replacement of important structural features. Site Acquisition and Land Banking The county has restricted site acquisition or land banking for new low/moderate income construction to Carlsbad Census Tracts 178.03, 178.04, 178.05 and 200.03 (See Exhibit A). With the exception of Tract 178.03, these areas are largely undeveloped. Land and improve- ment Costs in these Census Tracts are likely to be much higher than in some of the ,older" sections of town. Difficulties with a site acquisition/land banking program are: 1) The City's share of HCD funds is too small to have an appreciable effect on low/moderate income housing availability. 2) The City would have to interest a private developer in building moderately priced units on land which the City subsidized. The City would risk forfeiture of the "set -aside" if such a private/ public venture failed to materialize. .2 Public Improvements Public improvements may be constructed in the areas shown on Exhibit B with or without an accompanying rehabilitation project. Public improvements may be constructed in the areas shown on Exhibit A only in conjunction with new low/moderate income res- idential construction. Public improvements projects suggested for third year funding include improvements to the downtown water main system and up- grading of the Buena Vista sewage pump station. These projects do not benefit primarily low and moderate income families as the act requires, nor do they directly improve the residential environment. Consequently, they may not be viewed as priority projects by the Board of Supervisiors or HUD. Previously CDBG funded public improvement projects that have been completed or have adequate funds for completion. Therefore, staff believes that additional CDBG funding for these projects is unnec- essary. P_lanninn and Program Development Staff has identified two planning efforts which could be funded with third year monies. 1) The requisite studies and program development leading to revision of the City's Housing Element; and 2) Downtown redevelopment (e:specia!lY in conjunction with housing - related objectives). The main drawback with use of the funds in these areas is that the funding may be premature. The State is in the process of amending its Housing Element Guidelines; consequently, it appears desirable to wait until the State's guidelines are revised to update the Housing Element. Likewise, the City's redevelopment program has already been allotted initial funding, with specific program dev- elopment occurring only after initial studies are completes'. IV. RECOWNIENDATI JN We believe that a County -administered residential rehabilitation program is the most appropriate choice for third year funding for the following reasons: 1) The rehabilitation program will reduce the committment of City staff time. (In the past two years, a considerable amount of staff time has been spent in planning, developing and admin- istering the CDBG program. The fact that five separate projects were funded compounded this problem). 2) The City's share of the third year monies when used to write down rehabilitation loans can go a long way in upgrading older or deteriorating neighborhoods. This program will fit in well with the City's redvelopment efforts. .3 3) The rehabilitation program meets the intent of the Housing and Community Development Act and complies with County's third year strategy. 4) The first and second year CDBG projects concentrated on improving recreational facil" es and public improvements in the Inner City area. Third ytar efforts aimed at improving the residential environment will complement previous projects. DHW:ar 3/28/77 .4 0 4 179. 0 v l I'K LE I �8400K/&RAAI CC"*Mm ITY TV L 0 PM E My, DL RA S satrAls 1%0.00 lit M,IL,l- Fla