Presentation on theme: "LOUISIANA’S Re-evaluation of its CDBG Program. Admin Financing for 2011 Year FEDERAL FUNDS $ 100,000 – 100% no match $ 561,638 – In-kind services match."— Presentation transcript:
LOUISIANA’S Re-evaluation of its CDBG Program
Admin Financing for 2011 Year FEDERAL FUNDS $ 100,000 – 100% no match $ 561,638 – In-kind services match $ 349,399 – 50/50 match $ 154,533 – TA STATE FUNDS $ 349,399 – 50/50 match $ 18,820 – retirement pay outs OTHER FUNDS $ 1,940 – 2% of program income $1,535,729 – Total expenditures $1,165,570 – Federal funds drawn $ 870,105 – Federal funds allocated $ (295,465) – Federal funds drawn from surplus
Source for $295,465 Difference During the 1980’s, state funds were abundant due to oil revenues. Federal funds were saved and state funds spent where possible. State received significant additional 2006 admin dollars from HUD following hurricanes to assist with recovery. Problem: At the current rate of overspending, surplus federal funds will be depleted in approximately 7 to 8 years. TIME FOR SOME CHANGES!!!
Planned Changes CUTSSAVINGS 1 staff position$ 70,000 1 desktop computer$ 2, services$ 2,760 1 student worker$ 8,000 Monitor grants by risk analysis$ 4,000 Reduce out of state meetings $ 4,000 1 vehicle$ 7,000 $ 98,232 Plus previously implemented savings$120,496 Total savings$218,728 Funds to be drawn from federal surplus after changes$( 76,737)
Program Activity Allocations Admin/TA$ 870,105$ 624,518 Public Facilities( water/fire/streets/sewer ) $12,700,075 $14,692,732 Community Centers set-aside$ 1,600,000$ 0 Housing/Physical Accessibility$ 5,000,000$ 0 Economic Development$ 4,000,000$ 4,000,000 Demonstrated Needs$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000 LaSTEP$ 500,000$ 500,000 TOTAL ALLOCATION$25,670,180$20,817,250
Reasons for Eliminating Housing Programs Housing Rehabilitation and Reconstruction For the 2010/2011 funding cycle, 8 applications were received, 7 were funded, 1 not eligible due to not meeting past performance thresholds. Physical Accessibility For the 2010/2011 funding cycle, 19 applications were received, 15 funded, 4 not eligible due to not meeting past performance thresholds. We were not using all of the set-aside, and were funding all applications submitted, regardless of project quality. Housing/Physical Accessibility grants are very admin intensive, 3 staff members were spending 60% to 70% of their time on these activities. State is consolidating all housing programs into one new agency, and program income from disaster recovery housing programs will be used to fund the above housing programs.
Reasons for Eliminating Community Centers Previous cycles’ set-aside would fund 2 grants for each program year. For 2010/2011, four applications were received. Two were funded, two were disqualified for not meeting funding criteria. Quality of all applications was low. Budget cuts furthered the decision that the continuation of this activity was not feasible.
Other Changes and Future Results The State is planning to simplify its rating system for public facilities, in order to reduce staff time spent rating and funding applications, and the possibility for errors. With the above change and the previously discussed programmatic changes, the State is anticipating that the program can be administered within future allocations and possible budget reductions.