TITLE
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE POLICIES GOVERNING THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2008-2012 CONSOLIDATED PLAN THROUGH THE PREPARATION OF THE FY 2012 ACTION PLAN; APPROVING THE USE OF A REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS PROCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME), STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP), DOCUMENTARY STAMP SURTAX (SURTAX) AND THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT) (ESG) TO SOLICIT AGENCIES TO APPLY FOR FUNDING TO ADDRESS NEEDS ALREADY IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN OR TO MEET NEEDS RESULTING FROM THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS

BODY
WHEREAS, this Board desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board approves the policies governing amendments to the FY 2008-2012 Consolidated Plan including the FY 2012 Action Plan Planning Process for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), and Emergency Solutions Grant programs (ESG); and approves the use of a Request for Application process to include the CDBG, HOME, SHIP, SURTAX and ESG Programs to solicit agencies to apply for funding to address needs to be identified in the Plan or to meet additional needs resulting from the Citizen Participation Process in substantially the form attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Date:

To: Honorable Chairman Joe A. Martinez
and Members, Board of County Commissioners

From: Alina T. Hudak
County Manager

Subject: Proposed FY 2012 Consolidated Planning Process Policies

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopt the attached FY 2012 Consolidated Planning Process Policies (Policy Paper) which will govern the implementation of Miami-Dade County�s FY 2008 through FY 2012 Consolidated Plan. This Policy Paper outlines the utilization of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME), and State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program income, and Documentary Stamp Surtax (Surtax) funding. Once adopted, these policies will be used to complete the FY 2012 Consolidated Request for Applications (RFA) process, which will be used to develop the FY 2012 Action Plan for BCC consideration and approval.

SCOPE
The attached FY 2012 Policy Paper addresses the needs of low to moderate income communities within the Miami-Dade County entitlement jurisdiction. The Miami-Dade County entitlement jurisdiction excludes six municipalities that receive their own federal entitlements directly from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (US HUD). These are Miami Gardens, Miami, Hialeah, Miami Beach, North Miami and Homestead. In addition, one municipality (Florida City) participates in the State�s Small Cities Program for CDBG and HOME funds.

The County�s CDBG entitlement funds are utilized to meet the needs of residents in the unincorporated municipal service area (UMSA) and municipalities that do not receive their own entitlement. Often referred to as the �participating municipalities�, these cities have decided to participate in the County�s CDBG program instead of the State�s Small Cities Program. Participating municipalities include Sweetwater, North Miami Beach, South Miami, Opa-Locka, Hialeah Gardens and the Village of El Portal.

FISCAL IMPACT
The FY 2012 Policy Paper contemplates the funds anticipated from federal, state, and local sources in FY 2012 as shown in the Table 1 below. As part of the Action Plan that will be developed using this Policy Paper, these revenues will be recommended for allocation to developers, municipalities, not-for-profit organizations and for projects benefiting the entitlement jurisdiction that will be managed by County departments. Emphasis will be placed on addressing high priority needs in low to moderate income communities.

Table 1. Projected Funds Available for FY 2012

FY 2011 FY 2012
Funding Source Type Anticipated Estimated
Funding Funding
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)* Federal $14,330,400 $13,613,880
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Federal 750,000 750,000
Home Investment Partnerships (HOME)* Federal 6,679,000 6,345,050
State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program Income (SHIP) State 500,000 500,000
Documentary Surtax Local Not included 11,900,000
TOTAL ALL SOURCES $22,259,400 $33,108,930
* Excludes program income

Surtax and SHIP funds are included in this Policy Paper, as this approach offers an opportunity to conduct a single RFA for projects to be funded from all federal, state, and local funds.

EXPENDITURE LIMITS AND REQUIREMENTS
In developing the Policy Paper and Action Plan, the programs will adhere to the expenditure limits imposed by funding agencies. US HUD has established requirements for the commitment, expenditure and allocation of federal awards to its grantees. Failure to manage program awards within these guidelines may result in forfeiture of funds, cancellation of some activities and assessment of penalties. For example, one of US HUD�s primary requirements regarding CDBG is that on November 1 of each year, the County may not have more than 1.5 times its annual allocation in its line of credit with US HUD. Failure to meet this spending ratio will result in the County forfeiting the difference between the balance in the line of credit and the value of the spending ratio. Also, regarding HOME funds, US HUD will cancel funding for HOME activities that have no disbursed funds within a 12-month period.

Table 2 shows the expenditure limits and funding requirements for the federal, state, and local funding sources.

Requirement CDBG (federal) HOME (federal) ESG (federal) Surtax (Local) SHIP (State)
Administrative Cap 20% 10% None 10% 10%
Public Service 15% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Required Local Match NONE 25% 100% N/A N/A


Demonstrate Demonstrate Demonstrate No requirement. No requirement,
Leveraging
leveraging of non- leveraging of non- leveraging of non- Strongly Strongly
federal funds federal funds federal funds recommended recommended
CHDO Set-Aside* N/A 15%* N/A N/A N/A


Reserves cannot
Commitment Deadline be established or 2 years None None 2 years
maintained
Expenditure Deadline 8 years 5 years None N/A 3 years
Rental N/A N/A N/A Minimum of 35% N/A
Homeownership N/A N/A N/A Minimum of 35% N/A
Note: *15 percent of HOME funds must be set-aside for a HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). A CHDO is a private non-profit organization that provides decent housing that is affordable to low and moderate income persons as evidenced in the CHDO�s charter, articles of incorporation, resolutions, or by-laws. A CHDO may apply for funding as a Developer, Owner, or Sponsor, but only CHDOs may apply for a HUD mandated set-aside percentage of local HOME funds.

Below is a brief description of the funding sources in this Policy Paper:

* CDBG: Funds are distributed by a federal formula based on a community's population, poverty, the age of its housing stock, and extent of overcrowded housing. The CDBG program is authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended and enables local governments to undertake a wide range of activities intended to create suitable living environments, provide decent affordable housing and expanded economic opportunities, primarily for persons of low- and moderate-income.

* HOME: Federal funds are allocated to units of general local government on the basis of a formula that considers the relative inadequacy of each jurisdiction's housing supply, its incidence of poverty, its fiscal distress, and other factors. HOME is authorized under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, as amended and enables states and local governments to implement local housing strategies designed to increase homeownership and affordable housing opportunities for low and very low-income residents.

* ESG: The federal government distributes a share of US HUD's Homeless Assistance Grants as ESG funding, which is distributed by formula to cities, counties, and states. Funding that is not allocated for the ESG formula is made available through a nationwide Continuum of Care competition. ESG provides homeless persons with basic shelter and essential supportive services. ESG also provides short-term homeless prevention assistance to persons at imminent risk of losing their housing due to eviction, foreclosure, or utility shutoffs.

* Surtax: A state authorized local program that imposes the collection of a $0.45 tax on every $100 worth of commercial real estate transactions. Surtax funds are used to assist in the financing of construction, rehabilitation, or purchase of housing for low-income and moderate-income families.

* SHIP: A State program established by the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act. Funds are allocated on a population-based formula. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation administers the SHIP, which provides funds to local governments as an incentive to create partnerships that produce and preserve affordable homeownership and multifamily housing. The program was designed to serve very low, low and moderate-income families.

MANAGER'S BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
US HUD requires that the County submit a Consolidated Plan every five years and an annual Action Plan to guide that respective year�s implementation of the Consolidated Plan. The Action Plan must be filed with US HUD by November 15 of each year. The most recent Consolidated Plan was submitted to US HUD in November 2007.

In developing the annual Action Plan, the County develops the Policy Paper which serves as a blueprint for the Action Plan funding recommendations to the BCC. The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is the lead agency responsible for development of the Policy Paper and Action Plan. DHCD Staff continues to consult with municipalities, community development corporations (CDCs), community-based organizations (CBOs), neighborhood based citizen groups and other stakeholders as part of its continuing effort to meet the goals of the FY 2008 � 2012 Consolidated Plan and to finalize the Policy Paper being recommended for BCC approval. These stakeholder inputs have resulted in several new policy recommendations and changes to existing policies for FY 2012. The new or revised policies are being proposed based on feedback from the community and the latest US HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD) guidelines that strongly encourage the: 1) use of a local performance measurement system; 2) development of new management strategies, and 3) implementation of management by objectives.

As the BCC is aware, US HUD expects that Community Development supported by federal funding should include citizen and community participation. Within the County�s entitlement jurisdiction, there are several CDBG eligible block groups (EBGs) otherwise known as census tracts, a significant number of which are geographically contiguous. In order to better focus attention on these clusters, the BCC established several Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas (NRSAs), which are contiguous EBGs. The Chairpersons of the County�s eight NRSAs have actively participated in the planning process and together made a total of 23 recommendations for consideration in the FY 2012 Policy Paper. The group subsequently agreed to only proffer 20 recommendations, of which eight have been incorporated into this Policy Paper, four will be implemented when the Action Plan is being developed, and three are currently part of normal County operations and program requirements. Attachment E to the Policy Paper is a list of all the final recommendations made by the NRSA Chairpersons presented for consideration.

The following new policies are proposed for FY 2012:

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Recommendation #1: Small businesses receiving CDBG assistance from Business Incubators will be encouraged to apply to become certified as a Miami-Dade County Green business.�


This policy seeks to amend a previous policy approved under the FY 2010 Policy Paper regarding standard procedures for Business Incubators to include BCC-approved sustainability initiatives into all County activities.� By amending the existing policy, all businesses receiving CDBG assistance from any County funded Business Incubator are now encouraged to apply to become certified as a Miami-Dade County Green business.� However, failure to meet the criteria for certification as a Green business shall not disqualify the business from receiving CDBG support. This strategy will allow small businesses to learn about and implement sustainable business practices in their day-to-day operations.

HOUSING

Recommendation #2:� Increase the allocation of HOME funding for Tenant Based Rental Assistance

It is recommended that the County increase the set-aside of HOME funding for Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) in order to meet the increasing demand for rental assistance from households being negatively impacted by the current economic conditions. The County has, in the past, awarded HOME funds to local agencies to administer TBRA programs, primarily for the benefit of persons or families with incomes well below 50 percent of the area media income (AMI). While these agencies have worked diligently to serve special needs populations, including the homeless, senior citizens, and youth aging out of foster care, more needs to be done to address the problems currently faced by the County�s families earning between 50 percent and 80 percent of the AMI. Below is a table showing Miami-Dade County�s AMI thresholds by household size.

Miami-Dade County: U.S. HUD AMI Thresholds by Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Person Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons
30% of AMI 14,800 16,900 19,000 21,100 22,800 24,500 26,200 27,900
50% of AMI 24,650 28,150 31,650 35,150 38,000 40,800 43,600 46,400
80% of AMI 39,400 45,000 50,650 56,250 60,750 65,250 69,750 74,250

The current economic environment has contributed to a significant increase in the number of households in Miami-Dade County having to spend in excess of 50 percent of their household income towards rent. This policy would increase the availability of TBRA to special needs populations with incomes at or below 50 percent of AMI and expands TBRA eligibility to households with incomes up to 80 percent of AMI, as permitted by the federal HOME regulations. TBRA reduces a household�s out-of-pocket monthly rent burden to only 30 percent of the household�s income.

TBRA funds will be used to provide short and medium-term tenant-based rental housing assistance to individuals and families who are homeless, at risk of becoming homeless, or threatened with economic displacement.� The amount, level, and term of such assistance shall be based on a sliding scale determined by household income.

Recommendation #3:� Provide short and medium-term tenant-based or project-based rental housing assistance under the ESG Program.

The Miami-Dade Homeless Trust (Trust), which oversees the continuum of supportive services to the County�s homeless families, reports a dramatic increase in demand for short and medium term rental assistance. According to the Trust, during the past year demand for rental housing assistance has increased exponentially from an average of 100 calls per month to well over 1,000 monthly calls from either homeless families or households threatened with homelessness.

DHCD has typically received approximately $750,000 annually in ESG funding, which it has earmarked for the continued operation of the Beckham Hall Emergency Shelter. However, given the increase in demand for short and medium term rental assistance, it is recommended that any ESG funding in excess of $750,000 be set-aside to expand TBRA.

Recommendation #4: When applicable, based on the type of award, each activity recommended for funding must undergo and be contingent upon a feasibility determination and subsidy layering review/underwriting analysis to determine the final level of award, terms, and structure.

Prior to contract execution, the County, in determining whether and how much funding to award/allocate to a project and to evaluate whether the project can be successful, will require each activity recommended for funding be subject to a feasibility determination and underwriting analysis or other assessment. Given the limitations in funding and the need to meet US HUD�s national or other local performance objectives, the County cannot invest more dollars than necessary in any project or program. A feasibility determination will identify the appropriate level of County funding and the appropriate funding structure. Additionally, all awards must be evidenced by a contract, memorandum of understanding, or inter-local/inter-department agreement, as well as any appropriate security instrument(s). This requirement may be waived upon review and determination by the Mayor or the Mayor�s designee.

Recommendation #5:� Funding to agencies which provide Homebuyer Counseling and Education services shall be limited to a geographic distribution.

It is recommended that the County limit funding to three Homebuyer Counseling agencies. The County will endeavor to select agencies to ensure geographic equity such that residents in the North, Central, and South shall have reasonable access to such services. This policy seeks to achieve greater efficiencies in the provision of these services and the expenditure of funds by eliminating the funding of multiple agencies that provide duplicative services in the same market areas.

OTHER PROPOSED POLICIES

Recommendation #6: The award of CDBG, HOME and ESG funding to activities located in other entitlement jurisdictions will be limited to projects and activities that have the demonstrated capacity to provide benefits to residents and communities within the boundaries of Miami-Dade County�s entitlement jurisdiction.

As explained earlier, six municipalities within Miami-Dade County have their own federal entitlements from US HUD. US HUD regulations require that funding awards made by the County to activities conducted within the boundaries of another entitlement jurisdiction, must demonstrate �Metropolitan Significance�. Examples of measures which are applied to assess �Metropolitan Significance� are: a) is the activity necessary to further the purposes of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; b) is the activity necessary to further the purposes of Miami-Dade County�s community development objectives and c) will there be a reasonable benefit from the activity that will accrue to residents within Miami-Dade County�s entitlement jurisdiction�s boundaries.

Recommendation #7:� All projects or activities identified as �countywide� must demonstrate measurable impact in all NRSAs and EBGs.�

The County continues to promote funding of programs, projects, and activities that are intended to serve low and moderate income clientele (LMC) on a �countywide basis�. However, in many cases CDBG funds are awarded to support countywide activities, but the impact and benefits of such activities are often not clearly evident in the County�s NRSAs, EBGs and participating municipalities. To address this concern, each applicant wishing to undertake �countywide� activities must clearly develop an acceptable plan and performance measures outlining how the program will benefit residents within Miami-Dade County entitlement jurisdiction. That plan must identify the resources and capacity within the applicant�s organization that are available to satisfy the stated objective of countywide performance.

Recommendation #8: Applicants shall be entitled to an appeal process to dispute their scores, application rankings, and final recommendations for funding.

DHCD will implement a formal RFA appeals procedure, to be completed prior to submission of the funding recommendations to the BCC. All applicants shall be entitled to a review of their score received as a result of the RFA process. A protest may not challenge the relative weight of the evaluation criteria or the formula specified for assigning points in the RFA specifications. To the extent issues are identified in the scoring of the application, where appropriate adjustments to the applicant�s score and resultant ranking may be made. The County shall not address any request that has not been submitted in writing and received by the County within the appeal period. Additionally, the appeals process shall not apply to subsequent recapture/reallocation activities. The appeals will be governed by the following procedures:

1. Once the Evaluation and Selection Committee (the Committee) complete the evaluation of the applications, the Committee will report applicants� scores and rankings to the DHCD management.
2. DHCD will publish the score and ranking on the DHCD website and each applicant will be advised of their scores via email or facsimile on the same day that the scores are posted online.
3. Applicants will have three (3) working days from the date the results are posted on the County�s website to formally advise DHCD of their intent to appeal the results of the RFA.
4. Applicants will have five (5) working days from the date the results are posted on the County�s website to formally submit their appeal with any supporting documentation to DHCD. Only the information and data presented in the formal appeal to DHCD within this stipulated 5-day period will be considered during the appeal hearing.
5. DHCD will convene an Ad Hoc Appeals Committee comprising professional County staff to hear each appeal. DHCD and the Appeals Committee will receive guidance from the County Attorney as needed. For any questions of responsiveness, a request to the County Attorney shall be made to certify whether the application in question is responsive. Upon receiving such request, the County Attorney shall, in consultation with the County Mayor or Mayor�s designee if necessary, determine whether the application is responsive. The Appeals Committee and DHCD shall be bound by the determination of the County Attorney with regard to the issue of responsiveness.
6. All Appeals Committee decisions and recommendations are final.
7. The appeals hearing process must be completed within 20 working days following the posting of the RFA results on the County�s website unless extended by the DHCD Director.
8. Changes in scores, rankings etc. resulting from the appeals process will be incorporated in the final RFA results as required.

Recommendation #9: All applicants that are in non-compliance with the requirements and conditions of their existing CDBG, HOME, NSP, SHIP, or Surtax contracts with Miami-Dade County shall be ineligible for funding.�

All applicants with an existing DHCD contract that have either, 1) failed to demonstrate achievement of the National Objective, or appropriate performance measure under their existing CDBG, HOME, NSP and/or Section 108 loan agreements as well as SHIP and Surtax contractual requirements, or 2) are currently in a delinquent payment status with their existing County contracts/agreements shall be ineligible for funding under the FY 2012 RFA. Entities that are delinquent with their payments will be evaluated and assessed for new or continuing contracts as provided under Section 2-8.1(h)(ii) of the County Code. Future funding will require that the agency, in coordination with County staff, develop a successful work-out plan to address all issues for which the agency is non-compliant.

Recommendation #10:� Environmental Review applications must be completed in their entirety and received within 30 days of contract award, or funding will be reassessed for recapture.

The purpose of an environmental review process is to foster implementation of environmentally compatible activities. In accordance with Federal regulations, Miami-Dade County cannot fund projects that will negatively impact communities or the environment. The environmental review process is initiated prior to, or during the contract development process. In accordance with 24 CFR Part 58: Miami-Dade County as a CDBG entitlement jurisdiction is responsible for environmental reviews, decision-making, and actions that would otherwise apply under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

All awardees must ensure completion of an environmental review prior to commencing project-related work. By undertaking the environmental review early in the process, recipients can avoid further delays in meeting project commencement timelines.

Recommendation #11: The County shall award bonus points for funding requests under the FY 2012 RFA that directly respond to, or seek to implement, projects, programs, and activities that directly respond to existing NRSA charrettes and community plans.

In recent years, several of the County�s communities have created or are created charrettes and other community redevelopment plans that set forth specific projects, goals, and objectives for these target areas. The County shall award bonus points under the FY 2012 RFA to qualifying projects that directly respond to, or seek to implement, the development goals and objectives as identified and prioritized in such existing NRSA charrettes and/or community plans.

Recommendation #12:� County Departments that will manage a project/program shall be required to make a presentation before the respective NRSA being impacted by the proposed County project/activity.�

County departments receiving CDBG funds to implement projects, programs, and services in the NRSA shall be required to make a presentation to the respective NRSA being impacted by the proposed activity. This will enable local community residents to understand the proposed activity and to become familiar and more informed of the improvements or services being provided. This approach will also afford County departments the opportunity to obtain valuable, direct feedback from local residents regarding these activities.

All County departments awarded CDBG funding to implement such NRSA-related projects, programs, or activities shall also be required to provide semi-annual status reports and updates at subsequent NRSA CAC meetings.

Recommendation #13:� All projects or activities awarded CDBG or HOME funds that have failed to complete the activity in a timely manner, shall be subject to recapture. This policy may be waived at the discretion of the administration.


US HUD has established commitment timelines, expenditure ratios and allocation percentages for CDBG and HOME funds. Failure to manage program awards within these guidelines may result in forfeiture of the funds, cancellation of some activities and the assessment of penalties, depending on which requirements were not met.

The County routinely reviews the status and progress of CDBG and HOME funded activities and reallocates funding from completed or stalled projects to projects that can comply with US HUD-mandated expenditure requirements and performance objectives. Projects will be prioritized for funding reallocations under the County�s Finish What We Started policy previously adopted by the BCC.

This policy will also assist the County in meeting federal commitments and expenditure requirements in a more timely manner.

Recommendation #14: A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) may elect to prioritize single-family housing rehabilitation as one of its NRSA high priorities.

Prior year policies limited CAC allocations to economic development, capital improvements and infrastructure activities. This policy is being recommended in response to a request from the CACs, which will give the CACs increased flexibility in identifying the high priorities within the NRSA.




Recommendation #15:� Reduce the Public Service allocation to County departments by $1.05 million.

Based on the CDBG guidelines and as outlined in the proposed policy paper, CDBG spending on public services is capped at 15 percent of the total grant funding. EDSS Committee amended the item to reduce the CDBG funding for the public service programs administered by the County by $1.05 million and allow each Commissioner to allocate $50,000 from their respective Commissioner District Fund to fund public service activities that competed through the annual RFA process. Additionally, the amendment allows each of the eight NRSA CACs to allocate $50,000 to public service activities that competed through the RFA.

Recommendation #16: Rescind the Policy of scoring in the top 45 percent to be eligible for funding.

As part of the FY 2010 Policy Paper, the Board adopted policies to ensure CDBG funds are allocated to projects that are adequately leveraged and can be completed in a timely manner. As such, one of the steps was to allocate funds to applicants that received a score in the top 45 percent of viable applications for their respective funding category. In order for a project to score in the top 45 percent, the project must have received points for providing proof of leverage, since leveraged projects have a greater chance of success. This policy is eliminated and funding can now be allocated to any entity that competed through the RFA process, as long as the proposed activity is eligible, financially viable, and meets all the federal requirements.

General Policy Guidelines:

CDBG funds can be used to fund administrative, economic development, public infrastructure/capital improvements, housing, and historic preservation activities. Consistent with the federal rules and regulations, 20 percent and up to 15 percent of the CDBG funds will be used for administrative and public service activities, respectively. Additionally, up to ten percent will be used to fund economic development activities. The remaining funds will be used fund public infrastructure, capital improvements and housing-related activities within EBGs and NRSAs. As approved by the BCC in 2011, it is recommended that a minimum of 20 percent of the CDBG funds be allocated to projects that will benefit the NRSAs. It is also recommended that the County Commissioners allocate their respective funds to any eligible activity that benefits residents of EBGs, inclusive of NRSAs.

In order to continue to expedite infrastructure and capital improvements and to effectively serve EBGs countywide, it is further recommended that a total of 40 percent of all the projects funded in the FY 2012 Action Plan, including the portion of public services activities not funded by Commissioners and NRSA CACs, be allocated to projects managed and implemented by the County, exclusive of the 20 percent for administration.

The Board directed that staff determine its funding recommendations prior to Commissioners allocating their respective Commission District Funds. This will allow Commissioners to use their allocations as gap funding for entities that were not able to receive full funding.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

2010 Census Data
US HUD recently released data extracted from the 2010 Census to be used for establishing the census tracts that may be designated EBGs and where applicable, designated as Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas. However, this data requires extensive analysis before the any geographical designations may be finalized. DHCD and Department of Planning and Zoning are analyzing the US HUD data. Once the analysis is complete, the information will be used to develop the 2012 RFA and subsequent allocations of CDBG, HOME and ESG funds.



FY 2013 through FY 2017 Consolidated Five-Year Plan
The proposed FY 2012 Policy Paper and Action Plan is the fifth year submission under the County�s 2008 � 2012 Consolidated Plan. DHCD is procuring a consultant to prepare the new five-year Consolidated Plan which will guide the County�s strategy for its community development and housing activities from 2013 through 2017. Staff intends to simplify the planning and decision-making process and to seek alternatives to maximize community impact by leveraging ongoing and planned community development activities within census tracts and surrounding areas, and to only fund activities that will have significant community impacts. Additionally, because community needs far outweigh the available funds, efforts will also be made to allocate fund to achieve broader community development goals, which will necessitate changes in funding strategies.

Attachment


______________________
Assistant County Manager
Honorable Chairman Joe A. Martinez
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 7