Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THREE-YEAR PLAN <br />March 5, 1985 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />City-wide capital improvement project priorities. The City Council goals <br />include as a priority the implementation of the Downtown Plan. The Downtown <br />Plan includes' capital improvement program projects which are CDBG-e1igible. <br />The I-CDC recommends that capital projects be identified and prioritized <br />through the City.s CIP planning process in order to receive Community Develop- <br />ment Block Grant funding. Examples of projects which could be included are: <br />the removal of architectural barriers in City-owned facilities, park develop- <br />ment, neighborhood improvement, pedestrian improvements, and neighborhood <br />facilities. One facility which has been identified by neighborhoods is an <br />indoor swimming pool in an inner-city neighborhood. The I-CDC recommends that <br />approximately $500,000 be kept in reserve from unexpended funds available for <br />reprogramming from previous years to assist in funding the swimming pool or <br />another yet-to-be-identified priority capital project in the future. <br /> <br />Goal 5: Administration <br /> <br />Plan, administer, and implement Community Development Block Grant programs. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />FundinH stratety: Allocate 20 percent of the block grant in year <br />one, 1 percen in year two, and 16 percent in year three for planning, <br />implementation, and administration. Total three-year funding is <br />proposed to be $975,000. <br /> <br />The successful administration of Community Development Block Grant projects <br />includes assistance from the Planning Department, Finance Division, Public <br />Works Department, and legal counsel, in addition to EOD staff. The COBG <br />regulations allow a maximum of 20 percent of the grant to be spent on admini- <br />strative activities. In previous years, the entire 20 percent has been <br />allocated. The three-year plan proposes a gradual reduction of administrative <br />costs from 20 percent in year one, down to 18 percent in year two, and 16 <br />percent in year three. An assumption is made that as the Community Development <br />Block Grant shifts its focus from many small projects with intense need for <br />administrative service toward a fewer number of larger projects, there will be <br />a greater ability to shift funds to programs due to reduced administration. <br /> <br />Ac ti on <br /> <br />Approval of the Community Development Block Grant Three-Year Plan for submis- <br />sion to the US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). <br /> <br />HC59a28 <br /> <br />e <br />