Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcover memoCITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM 6uM TO : The Honorable Mayor and Members of The City Commission Joe Arriola v " City Manager DATE: SUBJECT: MAY 25 2004 FILE: Allocation of 30th Year CDBG Funds for Public Services REFERENCES City Commission Meeting ENCLOSURES: June 10, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution, with Attachments, allocating $1,677,768 of 30th Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), $25,000 contribution from Commissioner Regalado's Campaign Account to be distributed $5,000 per District and $300,000 of Transportation and Transit Special Revenue funds for a total amount of $2,002,768 in the category of Public Services to the agencies specified in Attachment A for Public Services Activities in the 30th Program Year beginning October 1, 2004; and further authorizing the City Manager to enter into individual agreements with each agency, for said purposes, substantially in the attached form, subject to applicable City Code provisions. BACKGROUND: In the Public Services category, $1,677,768 was available for allocation through the Request for Proposals (RFP) process. An additional amount of $25,000 from Commissioner Regalado's Campaign Account designated for Public Services is to be distributed at $5,000 per district and was not a part of the original RFP. The RFP produced funding requests totaling just over $8,000,000 from competing organizations in the Public Services category. On February 26, 2004, the City Commission approved priority activities for the RFP as provided in the chart below. District Priority Activities District 1: 1 -- Elderly Services & Activities 2 — Child Care 3 — Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities District 2: 1 — Job Training & Placement 2 — Child Care 3 — Substance Abuse Services 4 — Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities District 3: Open to all facets of Public Services District 4: Open to all facets of Public Services District 5: 1 — After -School Programs 2 — Elderly Services & Activities 3 — Programs for Ex -Offender Re-entry & Persons with Disabilities In addition, the City Commission provided for the division of CDBG Program funds in the category of Public Services among the Districts based on the U.S. HUD formula allocation as provided in the chart below. District 1 - 21.2% District 2 - 15.2% District 3 - 23.9% District 4 - 16.1 District 5 - 23.6% Total 100.0% The Department of Community Development has completed the analysis of proposals submitted by community organizations competing for available 30th Year CDBG funds for public services activities. Minimum Eligibility & Maximum Fundine Criteria The following minimum eligibility and maximum funding criteria must be met for any applicant to be recommended for funding. The City of Miami retains the option to renew or extend the agreement with the subcontractor for an additional year, subject to satisfactory contractor performance, available funding, and ongoing community needs. • All City monitoring and/or audit findings for the applicant and related agencies must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Administration prior to application submission. • The Agency must be current with OMB-A133 (audited financial statements) requirements at the time of application submission. • The Agency's proposal must meet a minimum score requirement on the appropriate RFP rating criteria. • 30t'' Program Year funding recommendation for any previously funded agency will not exceed that agency's 29 Program Year performance (timely eligible expenditures). • 30"' Program Year funding recommendation for any agency not previously funded by the City will not exceed that agency's verifiable performance with another major funding source (specifically, timely eligible expenditures). All proposals received by the City within the stated deadline are identified on the two Attachments. Attachment A includes proposals recommended for funding and Attachment B contains proposals determined to be ineligible based on: insufficient information to determine the legal qualification, incompleteness of proposal. Ineligible proposals were eliminated from further review and the applicant was formally advised, in writing, of the proposal's determination of ineligibility and of the applicant's right to appeal the determination to an independent, impartial three (3) member panel comprised of representatives from the Departments of Parking Authority, Budget and Strategic Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development . Agencies recommended for funding on Attachment A include those that were determined to be eligible for consideration through the original staff review and also those agencies which successfully appealed elimination by staff review and were thus determined to be eligible. Page 1 of 8 The Administration's recommendation is based on a strategy that maintains the following basic norms, in addition to the basic eligibility criteria cited in this memorandum: • Existing projects must attain satisfactory performance measures to be considered for funding. • To be eligible for funding, a proposal must meet a minimum score requirement. • The funding recommendation takes into consideration the aforementioned District Priority Activities. It is recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution, with Attachments, allocating $1,677,768 of 30th Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), $25,000 contribution from Commissioner Regalado's Campaign Account to be distributed $5,000 per District and $300,000 of Transportation and Transit Special Revenue funds for a total amount of $2,002,768 in the category of Public Services to the agencies specified in Attachment A for Public Services Activities in the 30th Program Year beginning October 1, 2004; and further authorizing the City Manager to enter into individual agreements with each agency, for said purposes, substantially in the attached form, subject to applicable City Code provisions. The . proposed Resolution allocates CDBG grant funds and does not have a budget.: impact on the General Fund. LMH`. R Page 2 of 8