HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 1, 1985 PH (6)WIN -Is
�I`N URN
$180,000
Shade Structure
25,000
Garfield Street
Storm Drain
PtELIC HEARINGS
Notice thereof having been published in accordance with I aw
and affidavit of publication being on file in the office of
the City Clerk, Mayor ffinchnan called for the Public Hearing
Development
to consider proposed uses of 1985-86 CaTnmity
167,000
Block Grant Funds in the amount of $432,000.
1985-86 CUVUNI'IY
City Manager Peterson introduced the matter advising
DEVELOPMWr BLOCK
Council that Staff had received direction from the City
GRWr R14DS
Council to present a reccffmendation concerning the expend i-
ture of the City's 1985 allocation of Ccmxiity Development
Block Grant Funds. The recon-mendation is as- follows:
Blakely Pool
$180,000
Shade Structure
25,000
Garfield Street
Storm Drain
25,000
Handicap Access
to City Hall
and Carnegie
Library Bldg.
167,000
Administrative Costs
35,000
$432,000
Associate Planner Gaye Papais further viewed the projects,
an and responded to questions as were posed by the Council.
d responded toquest
Mrs. Carol Marvel, 1232 Lakewood Drive, Lodi, addressed the
Council proposing that a portion of the Cammi ty
Development Block Grant Funds be expended on public
transportation and more specifically on a fixed route
system.
There being no other person in the audience wishing to speak
on the matter, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
A lengthy discussion followed with questions being directed
to Staff and to Ws. Marvel.
Ch rmtIon of Cotmell Member Pinkerton, Snider second,
Council approved the expenditure of the City's 1985
allocation of Conni-mity Development Block Grant Funds on the
following projects:
Blakely Pool $180,000
Shade Structure -
Salas Park 25,000
Garfield Street
Storm Drain 25,000
Handicap Access to
City Hall and
Carnegie Library 167,000
Administrative Costs 35,000
$432,000
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: - THE CITY COUNCIL DAT NO.
FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE pril 2�,, 1985
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
That the City Council conduct a public hearing
REC01/1MENDED—ACTION:
on the proposed expenditure of the City's 1985
Community Development Block Grant Funds and
take action as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Staff has received direction from the
I resent at this meeting a recommendation concerning
ounci to p
the expenditure of the City's 1985 allocation o f Community
Development Block Grant Funds. This recommendation is as follows:
Blakely Pool $180,000
Shade Structure
25 000
Garfield Street Storn, Drain 25,000
Handicap Access to City Hall and
Carnegie Library Building 167,000
Administrative Costs 35,000
$432,000
S t a f f will be prepared to discuss the specifics
recommendation at Wednesday night'S meeting.
Resp
I I mi t ted,
Thomas A. Peterson
City Manager
TAP: j j
of thi s
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER PROPOSED USES OF
1985-86 COWJNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
I N THE ANO-UNT OF $ 4 3 2, 0 0 0
The Lodi City Council will hold a public hearing on
Wedncsday, May 1, 1985 in the Lodi City Hall Council Chambers, 221
West Pine Street, Lodi,, to consider the proposed uses of 1985-86
Community Development Block Grant Funds in the amount of $.432,000.
A copy of the eligible and proposed uses of the -Community
Development Block Grant funds is on file in the Community
Development Department at City Hall and can be examined between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Anyone interested in obtaining information regarding the
CDBG program or in providing written or oral comments is invited to
attend.
For more information call Gaye Papais, Lodi Community
Development Department, 333-6.711.
By Order of the Lodi City,Council
Alice M. Rei'mche
City Clerk
Dated: April 17, 1985
0
MEMORANDUM, City of -Lodi, Community Dev2lopment Department
TO:
MAYOR
DAVID HINCHMAN
FRED
REID
EVELYN
OLSON
JAMES
PINKERTON
RANDY
-SNIDER
FROM:
GAYE
PAPAIS, Associate Planner
DATE:
APRIL
22, 1985
SUBJECT:
CDBG
PROGRAM PROJECTS
Included in the attached submittal is a list of possible projects
to be funded by the Community Development Block Grant of $432,000
in fiscal year 1985-86.
.As you know, San Joaquin County is the lead agency in the direct
submittals to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
City of Lodi will submit the final list of projects to the County
to be presented at a public hearing at the May 22nd Board of
Supervisors meeting.
In your evaluation of the proposed projects, it is important to
keep in mind that current budget negotiations in Washington D.C.
indicate that it is highly probable that the FY 86-87 grant amount
will be 24% less than FY 85-86, a reduction of approximately
$104,000.
TARGET DATES:
May 22, 1985 - Public Hearing
San Joaquin County
Board of Supervisors.
June 1, 1985 - San Joaquin County submittal
of Finai Statement to HUD.
July 1, 1985 - Program Year begins.
June 30, 1986 - Program Year ends.
aRespectfu
GA PA
ciae P ner
Attachments
PROPOSED PROJECT
(AND LOCATION)
1. Blakely Park
Swimming Pool'
(Mission St. &
South Stockton St.)
Completion:
June 1986
2. Salas Park
Shade Structure
(South Stockton St.)
Completion:
Oct. 1, 1985
3. Garfield Street
Storm Drain
(Garfield Street
between East Locke -
ford Street and East
Elm Street)
Completion:
Oct. 1, 1985
ESTIMATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
$180,000 Construction of an
additional pool
48'x75'. Depth
would vary from
3.5' to 8'.
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
301 diameter
steel,concrete
slab tile roof.
Installation ol, 1811
storm drain.
PROS
I
- Eligible project located
in low income target area-
- Will alleviate over-
crowding at City's only
publicly -owned and
operated pool-
- Eligible project located
in low income target area.
- Will complete Salas Park
improvements.
- Plans are complete and
project could start
immediately.
- Relief of flooding in
Central Avenue and
Lockeford Street by
- directing water to the
Garfield Street trunk
line.
- Easy project to administer.
- 42% of all
Grant funds
- Summer use
only.
'PROPOSED PROJECT
(AND LOCATION)
4.- Handicapped Access
to City Hall
Completion:
ESTIMATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROS
$165,000 Construction of - Would facilitate
elevator, handicapped handicapped access
restrooms and ramping. to City Hall.
- Would bring City
Hall into compliance
with Federal Standards.
5. Watson Street Water $ 65,000
Main (Stockton
Street to Central
Avenue; Washington
Street, Mission to
Watson St.)
Completion:
July 1, 1986
6. Water tank
replacement
(Locust Street
between Main and
Stockton Street.
Completion:
June 30, 1986.
installation of 6"
watermain and 3 new
fire hydrants.
- Designated priority in
in Master Water Plan.
- Will provide needed fire'
protection in low income
target area.
- Will improve water pressure
in area.
- Easy project to administer.
CONS
rompletion date
may make this
project a higher
priority for
FY 86-87.
Estimate may be
adjusted up or
down dep2nding
on ultimate City
Hall expansion
plans.
$333,000 Replacement of - Elimination of structural - Design must be
70 year old elevated hazard and OSHA maintenance paid by City.
tank with a small requirement violations.
standpipe. - Provide more uniform water
pre5sure and higher pressure
during peak fire demands.
PROPOSED PROJECT
(AND LOCATION)
ESTIMATE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7. Sidevialk/Curb &
$150,000
Following a staff
conducted assessment,
Gutter Replacement
a systematic replace -
Program.
(low income target
rpent of hazardous
sidewalk in the low
area.)
Completion:
'income target arc!a
June 30, 1986.
8. 'Sewer Renovation
$10C,OOO
implementing the
results of HUD funded
and Replacemen�t
televideo analysis, a
Program.
(low income target
comprehensive program
line replace -
area).
of sewer
ment and repair in low
Completion:
June 30, 1986
income target area.
-9. Revolving Loan
$ 50,000
The creation of a
of low interest
Fund for Store
source
funds to be made
Front Rehab in
available to property
Downtown Target
owners in the downtown
Area.
Completion:
target area for store
June 30, 1986
front renovation.
PROS
. _11fn
CONS J.,
Estimate easily adjusted - Once deficiencies
if priority shifts to are assessed, I[he
other projects. city must commit
Eliminates a potential to completing.the
liability for the City. program.
- A continuation of FY
84-85 project.
- Will provide -a needed
improvement*to target
area homes.
Will provide an
incentive for invest-
ment in downtown
buildings.
Could lead to
creation or retention
of jobs for low income
persons.
- May be premature
- Relatively
difficult to
administer
- Only a smail
number of build-
ings would'
benefit.
PROPOSED PROJECT
(AND LOCATION)
10. Acquisition of
Southern Pacific
property to buil(
permanent City
parking lot.
11. Vine Street
Storm Drain
12 Acacia Street
Storm Drain
13. Fl ora Street
Storm Drain
ESTIMATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROS
$300,000± Purchase of SP Will alleviate
property in the low parking con.gestion
income target area in downtown.
(adjacent to May provide incentive
Sacramento Street) for investment in the
for the purpose of downtown area especially
building a City on Sacramento Street.
parking lot.
$ 95,000 Upgrading the Will relieve flooding
existing storm in project area.
drain and replace-
ment of curb &
gutter.
$ 92,000 Installation of Will relieve flooding
211, & 18" storm in project area.
drains to replace
existing undersized
lines.
$ 74,000 Installation of WI -11 relieve flooding
181, storm drain and in project area.
catch basins as
required.
CONS
- Cost dependent on
negotiations with SP.
- Timing of
acquisition
dependent on SP
Cost estimate is
for acquisition
only. Parking
lot construction
is not, included.
- May be premature
until recently
completed'storm
drains can be
thoroughly
evaluated.
V,:iy be premature
until recently
completed storm
drains can be
thoroughly
evaluated.
- May be premature
until recently
completed storm
drains can be
thoroughly
evaluated.
PROPOSED PROJECT
(AND LOCATION)
14. Social Programs
(Child Care,
Counseling Senior
Citizens,
Handicapped
Facilities).
15. Transportation
(Dial -a -Ride,
etc.)
T -ION
ESTIMATE PROJECT DESCRIP"i
UNKNOWN Provision of various
social programs tar-
geted to low and
moderate 'income
recipients.
UNKNOWN Provision of additional
transportation alterna-
tives for persons of
low and moderate income.
16. Residential
UNKNOWN
A city-wide program of
Rehab
grants or low interest
loans to be made avail-
able to low income
households for rehab-
ilitation of existing
residences.
17. Adminstrative
$ 35,000
All Staff work
Costs
(Maximum
associated with
allowed
implementing projects
is $86,000)
includes fees for mail
ings, legal ads and
salaries.
PROS
- May augment or replace
replace services
presently provided
by other agencies.
- May add needed
services not presently
available.
- May provide additional
or more efficient
transportation choices.
- Preserves existing
housing stock.
- San Joaquin County may
administer the program
- May be a cost effective
method of preserving
low and moderate income
housing.
N/A
CONS
- May be difficult
and costly to
administer -
- No proposals have
been submitted to
Staff on potential
projects.
- Compliance with
submittal deadlines
may not be possible
in FY 85-86.
- May be costly and
difficult to
administer.
- May require increases
in City staff.
- Compliance ' with sub-
mittal deadlines may
not be possible in
FY 85-86.
- May be premature
until program
guidelines are
adopted.
N/A
LOW AND K"'-)DERATE INCOME TA'71GET AREA