Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 111428

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 111428

File Type: Resolution

Status: Before the Board

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: FY 2012 CONSOLIDATED PLANNING PROCESS POLICIES

Introduced: 6/27/2011

Requester: Department of Housing and Community Development

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date: 7/7/2011

Agenda Item Number: 8K1B

Notes:

SEE 111516 FOR FINAL VERSION AS ADOPTED. TLL- 6/27/2011

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 [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 111194]

Indexes:

NONE

Sponsors:

Rebeca Sosa, Prime Sponsor

Sunset Provision: No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History
Acting Body	Date	Agenda Item	Action	Sent To	Due Date	Returned	Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners	7/7/2011	8K1B	Amended
REPORT:	(See Agenda Item 8K1B Amended; Legislative File No. 111516 for the amended version.)

County Manager	7/6/2011		Time Sensitive		7/7/2011
REPORT:	This item must be approved for staff to commence the request for application process. Upon the completion of the competitive process, staff will propose federal funding recommendations that must come back to the Board for approval as part of the FY 2012 Action Plan. The FY 2012 Action Plan must be submitted to US HUD by November 15, 2011.

Commission Auditor1	6/28/2011		Legislative notes attached

County Manager	6/27/2011		Assigned	Howard Piper	6/24/2011	6/24/2011

County Manager	6/27/2011		Assigned	County Attorney	7/7/2011
REPORT:	DHCD (AMENDMENT TO LEG# 111194) (SPONSOR FOR ORIGINAL ITEM- LEG# 111194: COMMISSIONER SOSA) (Amendments are only in the Manager's Memo and the attachment- FY 2012 Consolidated Planning Process Policies)

County Attorney	6/27/2011		Assigned	Brenda Kuhns Neuman

Economic Development & Social Services Committee	6/15/2011	1F1 Amended	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation with committee amendment(s)				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Cynthia Johnson-Stacks read the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. Chairwoman Sosa opened the public hearing and the following persons appeared in response to Chairwoman Sosa’s call for persons wishing to be heard in connection with this proposed resolution: 1. Mr. Ken Forbes, 25121 SW 120 Place, Princeton, requested that the Committee defer the proposed resolution until the Community Advisory Committees (CACs) received information regarding the guaranteed loan funds. He cited the Code of Federal Regulations 570.704(2)(i), particularly paragraphs A through C. He said that this portion of the CFR stated that citizens should be informed of the amount of guaranteed loan funds expected to be made available for the coming year, including program income anticipated to be generated by the activities carried out with the funds; the range of activities that may be undertaken with the funds; and the estimated amount of funds proposed to be used for activities to benefit low and moderate income persons. Mr. Forbes noted the CACs had not received the foregoing information as required, and therefore had not been able to comment on issues concerning this resolution. He said a discussion occurred at the May 11, 2011 meeting of this Committee, regarding Resolution No. R-137-10, requesting a report be made available that identified activities in the NRSAs; but, the report had not been made available. 2. Mr. Roy Hardeman, 1700 NW 63 Street, Model City CAC, concurred that the CACs had not received the proper information. He expressed concern that although the Model City Area currently had a crime problem, only a minimal amount of the federal funding that could be used to abate crime in low to moderate income communities had been spent in that manner. He noted that staff’s failure to incorporate the CACs’ recommendations into the recommendations they submitted to the County Commission was inconsistent with the mandate of the United States Housing and Urban Development (US HUD) and the US Congress. Mr. Hardeman indicated that the monies being channeled into urban communities were not being used for the highest priority needs, like summer programs for children and business development. 3. Mr. Al Hardeman, 655 NW 48 Street, Miami, agreed that implementation of the citizen participation process established by the County Commission was problematic. He noted the County Commission could direct staff to address it; however, he did not believe this Committee should defer the foregoing resolution in order to address it because groups were waiting for the FY 2012 Consolidated Request for Applications (RFA) process to be completed, in order to receive some needed funding. Hearing no other persons wishing to be heard in connection with this resolution, Chairwoman Sosa closed the public hearing. Chairwoman Sosa explained that this proposal to adopt the Consolidated Planning Process Policies (Policy Paper) would be used to complete the FY 2012 Consolidated Request for Applications (RFA) process, in order to address the needs of the County’s low to moderate income communities. Chairwoman Sosa noted that if the County Commission did not adopt this resolution, the County would be precluded from requesting the Federal and State governments for funding. Chairwoman Sosa noted the Policy Paper was intended to address the projected 16% reduction in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and in the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding this fiscal year. She noted 14 recommendations were proposed for adoption as part of this Policy Paper, and she outlined four of them under the headings “Economic Development” and “Housing.” It was moved by Commissioner Bovo that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted. This motion was seconded by Chairwoman Sosa. In response to Commissioner Moss’ inquiry regarding the status of the report on NRSAs, which he noted should have been provided to Mr. Forbes and the CACs as requested by the Committee, Special Assistant to the County Manager Howard Piper noted he was previously unaware of the resolution referred to by Mr. Forbes, and apologized that the report, was therefore not completed by the deadline. Mr. Piper advised that staff was currently preparing the report, as directed by the Committee at its May 11, 2011 meeting. He noted he did not believe that the foregoing resolution should be delayed so that the report could be completed, because staff had to meet the November 15th deadline for submitting an Action Plan to US HUD to guide the implementation of the FY 2008-2012 Consolidated Plan. In response to Commissioner Moss’ question as to when Mr. Piper expected the report to be complete, Mr. Piper noted “in three to four weeks.” Assistant County Attorney Cynthia Johnson-Stacks added that this proposed resolution was scheduled for County Commission consideration on July 7, 2011. Chairwoman Sosa asked Mr. Piper to ensure that the report was completed and submitted to all members of the Committee within two weeks. She added that she wanted the County to provide answers to members of the community and incorporate community input and feedback into the decision-making process. In response to Commissioner Moss’ inquiry regarding how much additional HOME funding would be allocated for the Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program, Mr. Piper noted possibly $250,000. Commissioner Moss referenced Recommendation #3 and noted that $750,000 in Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding had been allocated to the Beckham Hall Emergency Shelter annually throughout his tenure as County Commissioner. He asked whether, should ESG funding be allocated in excess of that amount, it would be allocated to the Shelter. Assistant Director Rowena Crawford, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), noted Commissioner Moss was correct. Mr. Piper responded to Commissioner Moss’ inquiry regarding Recommendation #6, specifically, how the County Administration determined whether organizations receiving CDBG, HOME and ESG monies were providing services in the NRSAs and entitlement areas, and whether their services were of “Metropolitan Significance.” Mr. Piper noted that the US HUD required that the County establish objectives in accordance with US HUD guidelines, and that the County monitor organizations funded from the programs, to ensure they met those objectives. Mr. Piper explained that in order to receive funding, representatives from organizations must sign off on agreements stating they would demonstrate to HCD on an on-going basis that they were meeting those objectives. He further explained that as part of the County’s monitoring process, the conditions that Commissioner Moss mentioned were tracked, and so were the salaries of the members of the community who received the funding. Mr. Piper responded to Commissioner Moss’ inquiry concerning Recommendation #8, specifically, on what grounds an organization could appeal staff’s recommendation. He noted the intent of this recommendation was to ensure that this proposed process was consistent with the process used for regular procurement issues; and more specifically, to allow members of an organization to cure errors shortly after the County issued their scores, or to dispute their scores and provide the County with the information required to revisit them. Mr. Piper responded to Commissioner Moss’ comment, noting in many appeals processes, the grounds on which an organization could appeal a decision was limited; yet, the proposed grounds for appeal seemed to be broader than normal. Mr. Piper noted the County Administration had not yet written the policies to govern this recommendation, but when the FY 2012 Consolidated Request for Applications (RFA) was submitted, it would contain those policies. Ms. Crawford responded to Commissioner Moss’ inquiry concerning Recommendation #10, specifically, who was currently conducting environmental reviews, how long it took to conduct a normal review, and who paid for the reviews. She noted that reviews were currently conducted by HCD; it could take up to between 30 days and six months to conduct a review, depending on the required level; and the costs were absorbed by HCD. She explained that the purpose of this recommendation was to ensure that organizations submitted the necessary environmental information, timely. Commissioner Moss inquired regarding Recommendation # 11, specifically, how many bonus points would be awarded to organizations whose activities directly responded to NRSA charrettes and community plans, and whether the awards would significantly encourage organizations to focus on NRSAs. Ms. Crawford noted that up to five bonus points would be awarded to each organization. She noted although these points were awarded for activities that directly respond to NRSA charrettes and communities plans in this case, they were awarded for various other reasons. Commissioner Moss asked Mr. Piper to ensure that policies governing the appeals process, including limitations on grounds for filing appeals, be submitted by the County Administration to the County Commission for consideration. He also asked that the Administration submit policies governing the award of bonus points to organizations for the efforts of their leaders to implement projects stemming from NRSA charrettes and community plans. Commissioner Moss asked members of the Committee to consider amending Miami-Dade County’s FY 2008 through FY 2012 Consolidated Plan (Five Year Plan) to no longer allocate public service dollars to County Departmental programs, but instead, to allow each CAC and the respective District Commissioner to allocate up to $50,000 in public service dollars to public service organizations. Commissioner Moss explained that many members of the CACs and the public had expressed a desire to provide public services in the NRSAs through public service organizations; however, they sometimes could not because due to eligibility requirements, those organizations were unqualified to receive funds allocated for public service. He said that therefore, CACs had been recommending that the funds be allocated to organizations outside of their NRSAs. Commissioner Moss pointed out that in some NRSAs, no economic development groups existed; only public service organizations. Continuing, Commissioner Moss noted he believed that ultimately, the County should remove the 15% cap on public service funding and resume the practice of allocating the funding to community-based organizations through an RFA process. He clarified that his suggestion that CACs and the respective District Commissioners be allowed to allocate up to $50,000 would be a first step in addressing the community’s concerns. Commissioner Moss also asked the Committee to consider amending the Five Year Plan to provide that recommendations for recaptured dollars be submitted to the CACs in the applicable NRSAs, in order to address the community’s desire to be allowed to provide input on the recommendations. Chairwoman Sosa informed Commissioner Moss that proposed legislation governing the reallocation of dollars was in the pipeline, and she would like to keep this process open to suggestions. She noted that after receiving suggestions she wanted research to be conducted on those suggestions. Chairwoman Sosa asked how Commissioner Moss’ first suggested amendment would impact the proposed Consolidated Planning Process Policies. Mr. Piper noted that as he understood it, Commissioner Moss was requesting that approximately $1.05 million be shifted from County departmental programs to CACs and their respective Commissioners, which Commissioner Moss noted was correct. In response to Mr. Piper’s inquiry regarding how this amendment would impact the 15% cap on public service funding, Ms. Crawford noted the HCD currently allocated its public service dollars to the County’s Juvenile Services Department, Department of Human Services, and Community Action Agency, as well as its State Department of Health. She advised that HCD would have to work with the Office of Strategic Business Management to determine how the Departments would be impacted if the funding was removed. Chairwoman Sosa suggested the amendment be accepted and that staff submit the necessary adjustments for implementing the amendment so that the Commission could make a final decision. She remarked that many organizations would be unable to provide beneficial services to the community unless the County continued supporting them; yet Commission members had no choice but to allocate CDBG funds to lower priority services. She noted she believed Commissioner Moss’ suggestion to redirect the funding would help remedy this problem, and added that commissioners had the right to allocate monies to activities outside of their respective Districts because they understood the needs of their constituencies. Commissioner Bovo accepted Commissioner Moss’ requested amendments. In response to Commissioner Barreiro’s request for clarification of the amendment, Commissioner Moss noted that currently, each Commissioner was responsible for distributing the CDBG funding that was allocated to their respective Commission District. He said that public service dollars could only be allocated to eligible public service activities, because the CDBG program was targeted towards deprived areas, not towards Commission Districts. Commissioner Moss noted he was hopeful members of the County Administration would not come back with a report suggesting that the redirection of Public Service Dollars pursuant to his proposed amendment would cause major problems. He emphasized that the amount of public service dollars he was recommending for redirection was approximately $1.05 million, while the total amount of public service dollars was approximately $2 million. Commissioner Moss noted his proposed amendment would provide flexibility by allowing those redirected dollars to be allocated in other ways in the event a CAC or a commissioner was unable to allocate those dollars. In response to Commissioner Bell’s question regarding what controls were put in place to ensure that organizations were using their allocated funding for the right purposes, Mr. Piper noted the County assigned project managers to monitor the use of funding received by each organization, and based on the restructure of HCD last year, a lot more emphasis was placed on the oversight of those funds. Commissioner Bell referenced Recommendation # 3, stating that short and medium-term tenant-based or project-based rental housing assistance should be provided. She questioned whether the County could create a program to provide assistance to people facing eviction. Mr. Piper noted that current funding rules did not allow the County to intervene in foreclosure evictions proceedings; however, the County could assist homeowners by paying their utility bills upon receiving written notice that their service(s) had been interrupted. He noted the County Administration had not yet identified the appropriate funding source for assisting homeowners faced with foreclosure, and that such assistance would require establishing a detailed process to definitively determine that a person was in imminent danger of being foreclosed upon. Chairwoman Sosa noted she was sure that the HCD would draft a resolution to further define the proposed process to allow an organization to appeal staff’s recommendation. In response to Mr. Piper’s inquiry regarding whether Commissioner Moss wanted the public service organizations to participate in a competitive process for receiving public service dollars, Commissioner Moss noted that was correct. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution as amended.

Legislative Text

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.

HEADER
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

This item was amended at the June 15, 2011 meeting of the Economic Development and Social Services Committee to include Recommendation #15, which reduces CDBG funding for the public service programs administered by County departments by $1.05 million. This allows each Commissioner to allocate $50,000 from their respective Commission District Fund to fund public service activities that competed through the annual RFA process and also allows each of the eight NRSA CACs to allocate $50,000 to public service activities that competed through the RFA.

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

Leveraging Demonstrate Demonstrate Demonstrate No requirement. No requirement,
leveraging of non- leveraging of leveraging of Strongly Strongly
federal funds non-federal funds non-federal funds recommended recommended

CHDO Set-Aside* N/A 15%* N/A N/A N/A

Commitment Deadline Reserves cannot 2 years None None 2 years
be established
or 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 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 Persons 7 Persons 8 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. The agency must make a formal written request to the DHCD within three business days of the publication of the agency�s scores, ranking, and funding recommendation. 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 three-day appeal period. Additionally, the appeals process shall not apply to subsequent recapture/reallocation activities.

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.

General Policy Guidelines:

Consistent with the policy established in prior years regarding applications through the RFA, the County will only consider activities that score 45 percent and above for funding. This policy was established based on the historical performance of agencies that were funded through the RFA. Typically, agencies that do not score above 45 percent are not capable of completing their projects. Funding to these agencies would often have to be recaptured and reprogrammed to other activities.

The 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.

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