HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2002-10-14 #H AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 14, 2002
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Douglas A. Dancs, P.E., Director of Public Works / City Engineer
SUBJECT: GRANT APPLICATIONS - STATUS REPORT
SUMMARY
The proposed City Council action will receive and file the presented information for the
processing of grant applications.
BACKGROUND:
Grant programs originate from Federal, State, County and local agencies for the competitive
disbursement of funds for a variety of projects. The City of Seal Beach has been a long -time
competitor for these funds and has been successful in securing grants and implementing projects.
Grant funding programs and procedures are specific and are usually geared towards specific
project types. In other words, grant monies usually can not be deposited in or spent as general
fund monies. In addition, grants are usually not provided for operational type projects or
projects which cities are obligated to maintain such as pump stations.
In the recent years, the City has aggressively pursued and been successful with several types of
grants programs for the construction of specific projects. In fact, 89% of the $21 million Capital
Improvement Program is funded by outside funding sources. These include numerous Federal,
State, and County programs for street and bridge projects, County Community Block grants,
State Water Resources Control Board grants, Environmental Protection Agency grants, and the
Department of Forestry grants to name a few. A large portion of these are secured through
competitive grants in which the City of Seal Beach is selected over other agencies. Portions of
the various funding sources are distributed on a per- capita basis.
Most recently, the City has been the recipient of County of Orange grants for water quality
improvement projects ($86k), CA Coastal Conservancy ($300k), CA Dept. of Boating and
Waterways ($800k), and grants from the Orange County Sanitation District ($850k) for sewer
improvement projects. Several others have been secured. However, each one of these projects
requires a City funding match ranging from 20% to 50 %° and extensive Staff time (2 to 3 times
greater than a general fund project) to administer the bureaucratic qualification and
reimbursement process. In some cases, Staff may spend more time than the value of the grant.
Environmental sensitivity has increased in the recent decades which has brought a variety of
programs available to public agencies and non - governmental organizations (NGO). In 2000,
Agenda Item
•
California voters passed Proposition 12, the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air
and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 ($2.1 billion) and Proposition 13, the Safe Drinking
Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act ($1.97 billion). In
2002, California voters passed Proposition 40, the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean
Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2002 ($2.6 billion).
Each of these grants are specifically distributed to a variety of state agencies per the original
language of the proposition such as State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), the State
Department of Parks, and State Coastal Conservancy to name a few. These agencies along with
the State legislature develop the grant applications, award the grant funds, and administer the
grant monies. Regularly, the money is distributed to the local agencies and counties on a per -
capita basis. It should be noted, that the notification of fund programs may take six months to
several years for the state agencies to develop and administer.
As part of the Proposition 12 bond, the City has been allocated $248,000 for City parks under the
Park Per Capita Program and $79,799 under the Roberti - Z'Berg -Harris Block grant program
allocations. These funds have been programmed in the Capital Improvement Program for the
replacement of playground equipment at four parks including Marina Park, the Beach Park,
Heather Park and Edison Park. In addition, they will provide miscellaneous improvements to the
Marina Community Center, McGaugh pool, and irrigation repairs to the parks. (Currently, the
playground replacement project is scheduled for completion in November of 2002). Other
completed Prop. 12 projects include Almond Park playground replacement and trees at various
locations. In addition, the City has formally identified over $4 million in projects to the Rivers
and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) for San Gabriel River trail improvements, beach
improvements and wetland restoration. Formal grant proposals to the RMC will be submitted
when the program guidelines are formalized. The City has applied for over $6 million in Prop. 12
grant projects for trees, parks, recreational trails, and beach projects.
As part of the Proposition 13 bond, the City aggressively applied for over $8 million of grant
funds from the State Water Resources Control Board for debris booms, sewer safety
improvements and rehabilitation, urban run -off diversions, and wetland restoration. Two of
these projects were put on the top -10 priority list for Orange County and most recently when the
list was further reduced, it was reduced to one project. In October, it is anticipated the SWRCB
will approve a $1.1 million grant to the City of Seal Beach for the restoration of wetlands for the
improvement of water quality in the Hellman Property.
Several watershed agencies have or will be receiving funds which will implement projects,
studies, and task forces to improve water quality in the Seal Beach area. Staff will work closely
with those agencies. Phase 2 of the request for grant applications is expected at the beginning of
the year.
The distribution of Proposition 40 bond funds approved in March of 2002 is in the process of
being determined. It is anticipated that the City will receive $220,000 in Parks Per Capita funds
and $79,779 in Roberti - Z'Berg -Harris Block grant program allocations. In addition, the City has
identified several otheA projects which may qualify and these have been submitted to the
SWRCB — Clean Beaches Initiative and to the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. These grant
Agenda Item
requests total more than $10 million in upgrades to the San Gabriel River Trail, the beach
parking lot and facilities, City facilities, urban forests, Hellman wetlands, urban run -off
diversions, debris booms and sewer system upgrades and repairs. In the upcoming months,
additional specific program guidelines will become available for the City to pursue.
New grant programs for a variety of projects become available constantly. The City has secured
millions of dollars in grant funding and continues to pursue millions of dollars of additional
funding. When the guidelines are applicable towards City needs and projects, the City pursues
these grants and submits applications. If the City is a recipient of a grant, the monies become
incorporated in the City's Capital Improvement Program. The City's in -house Geographical
Information System (GIS) has been a crucial component in providing mapping and
documentation for grant applications. At this time, all grant writing and administration is done
by Staff.
A break down of the funding distribution from the each proposition has been attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fund impacts associated with the presented information. However, it should be
noted that several grant programs require up to a 50% match from City funds which will require
City Council approval once the City is notified. It is anticipated that a match of $220,000 in
unbudgeted general fund monies will be required for the wetlands restoration project. In
addition, the Roberti - Z'Berg -Harris Block grant program of 2000 and 2002 will require a
combined total match of $60,000 from unbudgeted general fund monies. Staff time associated
with grants which require 2 to 3 times more time than general fund projects are generally not
reimbursable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed City Council action will receive and file the presented information for the
processing of grant applications.
Prepared By: Reviewed B
0144_fdr-=-=-- _A _„,:_„::_____ _
......__
M K. Vukojevic, P.E. D oug Dancs, P.E., Director,
Deputy City Engineer Public Works Department
• NOT _ D A 4 APPROV 4 : • •
0 ,
r �
�1 r/
Joh Bahor - City Manager
1
/
Agenda Item
Proposition 12
Use of Bond Funds Under Proposition 12 (In Millions)
Grants to Local Governments and Nonprofit Groups
To fund recreational areas, with grant amount based on population of the local area $388.0
(such as a city, county, or park district).
r �
For recreational areas primarily in urban areas, as follows: 200.0
• Urban areas - -$138 million.
• Large urban areas (cities over 300,000 population and county or park districts
over 1,000,000 population) - -$28 million.
• Either urban or rural areas based on need -- $34 million.
` r
To local agencies for various recreational, cultural, and natural areas. 102.5
For recreational areas, youth centers, and environmental improvement projects E 100.0
benefitting youth in areas of significant poverty.
F or recreational and cultural areas (including zoos and aquariums) in urban areas. 71.5
For farmland protection. 25.0
For soccer and baseball facilities to nonprofit groups that serve disadvantaged youth. 15.0
f 3
To San Francisco for improvements at Golden Gate Park. 15.0
I For urban forestry programs. 10.0
For playground accessibility improvements using recycled materials. 7.0
To Alameda County for Camp Arroyo. — — 2.0
For conservation, water recycling, and recreation in Sonoma County. 2.0
I For community centers in Galt, Gilroy, and San Benito County. 1.0
For a wild animal rehabilitation center in the San Bernardino Mountains. 1.0
I Total, Grants to Local Governments and Nonprofit Groups $940.0
I State Projects
To buy, improve, or renovate recreational areas. $525.0
To acquire and preserve natural areas. 355.0
[To acquire and preserve fish and wildlife habitat. J 277.5
To pay the California Conservation Corps for work on projects funded by this 2.5
proposition.
Total, State Projects $1,160.0
1 Total, All Bond Funds - -- $2,100.0
•
•
Proposition 13
Figure 1
Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection,
And Flood Protection Act
Uses of Bond Funds
(In MlWons)
Amount
Safe Drinking Water Facilities $ 70
• Puolic water system capital improvernenls 70
Flood Protection S 292
• Flood control and fish and wildlife
improvements on Yuba and Feather Rsvers 00
• LocaI hood control projects in specitied areas.
including 13 ccouniies, the stele capitol area,
and the Santa Crux region 72
• Land acquisition and rostorauon projects 70
• Delta levee rehabilitation 30
• Urban stream restoration 25
• Mapping 5
Watershed Protection $ 468
• Protection of the Santa An River and the Lake
Elsinore and San Jacinto watersheds 250
• River parkway acquisition and riparian habitat
restoration 95
• Development and implementation of local
watershed management plans 90
• Protection and acquisition of coastal salmon
habitat 25
• Water education institute. science censer, and
science laboratory 8
Clean Water and Water Recycling S 355
• " Nonpoirtt source" pollution control 190
• wastewater treatment 100
• Water recycling 40
• Seawater intrusion control 25
Water Conservation S 155
• Water delivery system rehabilitation in
economically disadvantaged areas 60
• Agricultural vrater conservation 35
• Urban water conservation 30
• Grouncwater recharge 30
Water Supply Reliability S 630
• Various projects in Bay -Delta to improve water
quality, fish migration, and water lemls
(CALFED projects) 250
• Groundwater storage 200
• Projects to improve water quality and supply in
areas receiving delta water 1R0
Total S1,970
Proposition 40
Land, Air, and Water Conservation $1,275.0
• State conservancies acquisition, development, and restoration projects. $445.0
• Wildlife habitat acquisition and restoration projects. 300.0
• Water quality protection and restoration activities, including protection 300.0
of watersheds, coastal waters, beaches, rivers, and lakes.
• Agricultural and grazing lands preservation. 75.0
• Urban river parkways and streams development, restoration, and 75.0
protection projects.
• Grants for reducing air emissions from diesel - fueled equipment 50.0
operating within state and local parks.
• Land and water resource protection and restoration through the 20.0
California Conservation Corps.
• Urban forestry programs. 10.0
Parks and Recreation $1,057.5
• Urban parks and recreational facilities acquisition and development. $460.0
• Regional and local park acquisitions and development (funds 372.5
distributed based on population).
• State park improvements and acquisitions. 225.0
Historical and Cultural Resources Preservation $267.5
• Acquisition, development, and preservation of culturally and/or $267.5
historically significant properties, structures, and artifacts.
Total $2,600.0 ` i