HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2015
B A K E R S F I E L D
Staff: Committee members:
Chris Huot, Assistant City Manager Willie Rivera, Chair Ken Weir Chris Parlier SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Thursday, March 19, 2015
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
First Floor, Conference Room A
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADOPT NOVEMBER 24, 2014 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding FY 2015-16 CDBG, HOME,
and ESG Action Plan – McIssac
B. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding Annual Audit Reports
ending FY 2014 - Smith
5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
B A K E R S F I E L D
/s/ Steven Teglia Committee Members:
Staff: Chris Huot Willie Rivera, Chair
Assistant to the City Manager Ken Weir
Terry Maxwell
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Monday, November 24, 2014
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North – Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
Committee members:
Councilmember Willie Rivera, Chair arrived at 12:39 p.m.
Vice Mayor Ken Weir
Councilmember Terry Maxwell
City Staff:
Alan Tandy, City Manager
Steven Teglia, Assistant to the City Manager
Chris Huot, Assistant to the City Manager
Christopher Gerry, Administrative Analyst
Caleb Blaschke, Management Assistant
Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney
Josh Rudnick, Deputy City Attorney
Andy Heglund, Deputy City Attorney
Nelson Smith, Finance Director
Randy McKeegan, Finance Accounting Supervisor
Don Anderson, Property Management Manager
Nick Fidler, Public Works Director
Ted Wright, Assistant Public Work Director
Kristina Budak, Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP) Engineer
William Knoetgen, Thomas Roads Improvement Program Parsons Manager
Greg Gharib, Thomas Roads Improvement Program Parsons Senior Contracts Officer
Janet Wheeler, Thomas Roads Improvement Program Parsons Community Outreach
Others present:
Theo Douglas, The Bakersfield Californian
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, November 24, 2014
Page 2
2. ADOPT AUGUST 25, 2014 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
The Report was unanimously adopted as submitted.
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Continued Discussion regarding Funding for TRIP Projects – Fidler/Gennaro/Smith
The following responses where provided to Committee member Maxwell’s
questions regarding the costs associated with the 24th Street widening project,
recapture of federal funds for terminated TRIP projects, the current spending on
non-TRIP related road improvements, and current resources available after
revenue sources were committed during the August 25, 2014 Budget and Finance
Committee meeting.
Public Works Director Fidler stated the cost estimate to widen the one way streets
between F and M Streets is $2.4 million. The estimate includes cost estimates to
install necessary drainage improvements, resurfacing and reconstruction of the
roadway, and restriping of the pavement to accommodate the 4th lane in each
direction between M Street and F Street. The design is in the initial phase of the
Final Design and a revised cost estimate will be available at a later date.
City Attorney Gennaro stated that there are no documents which clearly
articulate what federal money the City would be responsible to repay if any TRIP
projects were terminated. In reviewing several documents, the City may be
responsible to repay “preliminary engineering” work, although what costs that
would include is uncertain.
Finance Director Smith stated the five year average of approximately $12.3 million
has been used for non-TRIP road maintenance and road construction projects.
The current fiscal year budget includes approximately $21 million for non-TRIP road
maintenance projects. A combination of General Fund and Capital Outlay fund
revenues which are not being pledged for the TRIP borrowing will remain available
for such projects. In addition, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
are also used for a variety of road improvements in specific qualified areas.
Committee member Maxwell asked if it was possible to move forward with
resurfacing 23rd and 24th street between M and F Streets with only three lanes.
Public Works Director Fidler stated the resurface entails a significant amount of
design work including traffic flow adjustments, curb height adjustments to comply
with the Americans Disability Act (ADA), and drainage issues.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, November 24, 2014
Page 3
City Manager Tandy also stated the design for the section mentioned has not
been completed. In order to comply with the ADA curb requirements, several
slivers of property acquisition will be required as well. Moving forward with the
project before design completion would only add more costs to the overall
project.
Committee member Maxwell asked the City Attorney if any examples exist in
which someone has been required to repay monies to the Federal Government
on projects that were not completed.
City Attorney Gennaro stated her office was unable to find any such cases.
Committee member Maxwell asked if the City would lose the pledged Gas Tax,
Transportation Development Fees, and Utility Surcharge Fees funds if the City did
not proceed with borrowing money for the Centennial Corridor.
Finance Director Smith stated those funds would not be lost. The funds would
need to be used on road maintenance projects; there a specific list of projects
that Transportation Development Fees can be used for. City Manager Tandy
stated Gas Tax funds can only be used on street projects as well.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion regarding the Thomas Roads Improvement Program Name – Tandy
City Manager Tandy stated there are several complexities associated with
changing the Thomas Roads Improvements Program acronym TRIP. It is highly
recognized by several agencies including but not limited to the California
Transportation Commission, Caltrans, the Federal Highway Administration, and the
US Environmental Protection Agency. The majority of projects are all under
construction under the TRIP name which would cause marketing and continuity
difficulties for the remaining projects. The three other members of the partnership
also do not wish to change the name. After the completion of the final TRIP
project, the name TRIP will no longer be utilized.
B. Discussion regarding TRIP Right-of-Way – Smith
Finance Director Smith stated a status report on property acquisition for the TRIP
program will be updated quarterly. He provided a summarization of the
September 2014 report.
Committee member Maxwell asked if there were any demolition costs with the
Rosedale Highway Widening Project.
Property Management Manager Anderson stated there were none because there
was no acquisition of any complete structures.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, November 24, 2014
Page 4
Committee member Maxwell also asked were the legal costs estimates were
being budgeted.
City Attorney Gennaro stated that those costs would be identified under support
costs within the provided report. Finance Director Smith stated that the costs
could also be found in Administrative Settlements and Damages/Goodwill costs.
Committee member Maxwell requested the City Attorney and the Finance
Director work together to define the legal costs and identify them in a separate
line item.
Committee member Maxwell asked if businesses located in commercial
developments would be relocated.
Property Management Manager Anderson stated all occupants, including
businesses, will be relocated in the acquisition of a full property, whether residential
or commercial.
C. Discussion regarding the General Fund Balance Policy – Smith
Finance Director Smith stated that in a recent review by the Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA), they emphasized the City establish a written policy to
comply with the Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) statement
establishing fund balance classifications creating a hierarchy based primarily on
the extent to which a government is bound to observe limitations imposed upon
the use of the resources reported in governmental funds. These limitations are
generated from either formal action by the City Council, decisions by
management or external funding entities. The GASB recommends that a formal
written policy be established by a government to properly determine the
composition of its ending fund balance. The City would be in compliance with
the GASB statement and qualify for the annual certificate for financial reporting
that the GFOA awards by adopting such a policy.
Vice-Mayor Weir made a motion to approve the policy and present the Resolution
to the full City Council for approval. The motion was unanimously approved.
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:54 p.m.
B A K E R S F I E L D
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
March 10, 2015
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice, Citizen Participation Plan, and First Year Action Plan for FY 2015-16
As an Entitlement City under the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the City receives annual grant funding in order to improve the quality of life for low-
and moderate-income or disadvantaged persons in our community. Specifically, the
grants received by the City of Bakersfield are Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
programs.
In order to be eligible for funds as an Entitlement City, every five years the City of
Bakersfield is required by HUD to develop a new Consolidated Plan (ConPlan), Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), and a Citizen Participation Plan. Staff is currently
in the process of obtaining public input and drafting these documents for a time period
covering 2015-2020. Through a public input process, these documents establish the goals
and objectives of the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs over the next five years.
In preparing the ConPlan and AI, the City is required to gather input from residents and
community stakeholders (particularly from low- and moderate-income and/or
disadvantaged communities) on community needs. The City has hosted three community
meetings, and attended one neighborhood festival to gather community input on the
Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments.
The City also conducted a city-wide opinion survey which allows residents to express their
concerns, and an additional survey that specifically addresses concerns regarding
impediments to fair housing. In addition, a public hearing was held at the December 10,
2014 City Council meeting, and a final public hearing will be held prior to final
consideration of the aforementioned documents by the City Council (anticipated to be
April 22, 2015). Top community needs identified thus far include (in no particular order):
youth centers,
parks and recreation facilities,
street improvements,
street lighting,
mental health services,
Budget and Finance Committee
HUD FY 15-16
March 10, 2015
Page 2
S:\Council Committees\2015\Budget and Finance\March\1 HUD 15-16BF Memo.doc
crime prevention,
substance abuse services,
job training and creation,
site clean-up,
energy efficiency improvements, and
homeless facilities and services.
For each year covered under the Consolidated Plan, the City also prepares an Annual
Action Plan that describes the projects and activities funded during that fiscal year to meet
needs identified in the ConPlan. For the First Year Action Plan, covering FY2015-16, the
anticipated Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership
(HOME) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) entitlements total $4,488,328. Staff is
projecting $7,000 in program income for CDBG and $30,000 for HOME. Thus, the total
proposed budget for CDBG, HOME, and ESG for FY15-16 is $4,525,328.
The City’s deadline for the submission of CDBG, HOME, and ESG applications for FY 2015-16
funding was October 31, 2014. This year we received 11 proposals for assistance from non-
profit and for-profit organizations totaling $1,111,967, and 7 intra-city proposals totaling
$2,538,343 for projects to improve the quality of lives for low-income neighborhoods,
improve infrastructure in those low-income neighborhoods, and promote job opportunities
to low-income persons. Attached is a list of all the proposals and projects submitted for this
year’s CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds.
After reviewing the requests for funding, staff has prepared a proposed budget for the
FY2015-16 Action Plan. Attached is a summary of the proposed budget for consideration
by the Budget and Finance Committee and recommendation to the City Council.
B A K E R S F I E L D
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
March 10, 2015
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Non-Profit & For-Profit Applications for HUD FY 2015-16 Funding
The deadline for the submission of CDBG, HOME, and ESG applications for FY 2015-
16 funding was October 31, 2014. This year 11 applications were submitted from
non-profit and private entities totaling $1,111,967.
Below are summaries and staff’s comments of the applications received from
applicants requesting assistance from the various HUD programs for FY 15-16.
Community Development Block Grant
Applications – FY 2014-15
Applicant
Proposal Name
Description
Location
Estimated Cost
City Funds Requested
Other Sources
HUD
Eligible/Qualified
Community Action
Partnership of Kern
Food Bank solar
energy
improvements
Installation of solar
equipment to increase
energy efficiency at
the CAPK Food Bank
at 1807 Feliz Drive
Ward 1
$285,000 Total Project Cost
$132,000* City
*additional funding
requested from County of
Kern
Yes
Bakersfield Senior
Center Public
Services
Operations and
Maintenance
Operations and
maintenance to
benefit seniors at
Bakersfield Senior
Center at 530 4th Street
Ward 1
$150,000 Total Project Cost
$150,000* City
Yes
Budget and Finance Committee
HUD FY 15-16 Non Profit & For Profit
March 10, 2015
Page 2
2
Bakersfield Senior
Center
Facilities
Improvements
Purchase and
installation of an
industrial freezer at
Bakersfield Senior
Center at 530 4th Street
Ward 1
$40,000 Total Project Cost
$40,000 City
Yes
Boys and Girls Clubs
of Kern County
Facilities
Improvements
Renovation of roof,
resource center, and
restrooms
Ward 2
$542,407 Total Project Cost
$75,000 City
Yes
Kern Adult Literacy
Council
Public Service
Adult literacy program
Various locations
$50,000 Total Project Cost
$50,000 City
Yes
Total Eligible Non-Profit CDBG Request: $447,000
HOME Applications – FY 2014-15
Self-Help Enterprises
New Housing
Construction
Secondary (gap)
financing for 10
affordable single-
family homes in the
Chardonnay Tract
Ward 6
$1,735,000 Total Project Cost
$300,000 City
Yes
Total Eligible Non-Profit HOME Request: $300,000
Emergency Shelter Grant
Applications – FY 2014-15
Bethany Services,
(BHC)
Bakersfield
Homeless Center
Operations
Operational cost of
the Homeless Center
including cost of
security maintenance
and utilities at 1600 E.
Truxtun Avenue.
City Wide
$2.6 million total project
budget (combined with
rapid-rehousing budget)
$120,000 City ESG
$120,000 Match
Yes
Budget and Finance Committee
HUD FY 15-16 Non Profit & For Profit
March 10, 2015
Page 3
3
Bethany Services,
(BHC)
Rapid Re-Housing
Program Services
Rapid Re-Housing of
individuals and families
recently being
displaced from
housing.
City Wide
$2.6 million total project
budget (combined with
homeless operations)
$85,000 City ESG
$85,000 Match
Yes
Alliance Against
Family Violence
(AAFV)
Shelter for Battered
Women and their
Children
Operating cost of the
Battered Women’s
Shelter including
utilities, insurance,
maintenance and
wages for a counselor
at 1921 19th Street
City Wide
$293,326 total project
budget
$ 32,000 City ESG
$ 32,000 Match
Yes
The Mission at Kern
County
Homeless
Intervention
Services
Operational cost of
the Bakersfield Rescue
Mission including
maintenance, utilities,
and personnel at 816
East 21st Street, 810.812
E. 21st Street, 800 E. 21st
Street, 724 E. 21st Street
City Wide
$2.1 million annual
operating budget
$ 107,500 City ESG
$ 107,500 Match
Yes
Flood Bakersfield
Ministries
Street Outreach
and Engagement
Cost of expansion of
the street outreach
and engagement
program
City Wide
$425,836 annual operating
budget
$ 20,467 City ESG
$ 40,467 Match
Yes
Total Eligible Emergency Shelter Grant Request: $364,967
B A K E R S F I E L D
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
March 10, 2015
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Intra City Proposals Received for FY 2015-16 CDBG Assistance
The deadline for submission of proposals for FY 2015-16 was October 31, 2014. We
received 8 proposals totaling $2,638,343. Below are project descriptions, location,
cost estimates, and eligibility/qualification summaries.
Project Description City Department,
Ward, and Priority
HUD
Eligible/Qualified
PUBLIC WORKS TOTAL: $2,608,342
Madison Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk and
Reconstruction
Improve drainage currently causing street
failures. Install curb, gutter and sidewalk as
needed prior to street reconstruction. Project
area generally bounded by Madison Ave, Casa
Loma, Cottonwood Rd, and Brook St.
CDBG – $400,000
Public Works
Ward 1
Priority 1
Yes
Martin Luther King Jr. Park Lighting Improvements
Replacement of park lighting fixtures to LED to
improve safety and energy efficiency. Generally
bounded by S Owens St., Potomac St., S King St.
and E. California Avenue
CDBG - $270,782
Public Works
Ward 1
Priority 2
Yes
East Truxtun Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk and
Reconstruction
Improve drainage currently causing street failures.
Install curb, gutter & sidewalk as needed prior to
street reconstruction. Generally bounded by E.
Truxtun Ave., Williams St., E. California Ave., and
Baker St.
CDBG - $500,000
Public Works
Ward 2
Priority 3
Yes
Budget and Finance Committee
HUD FY 15-16 Intra City Proposals
March 10, 2015
Page 2
2
Project Description City Department,
Ward, and Priority
HUD
Eligible/Qualified
Brundage/Union Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk and
Reconstruction
Improve drainage currently causing street failures.
Install curb, gutter & sidewalk as needed prior to
street reconstruction. Generally bounded by 4th St.
Union Ave., Brundage Ln, and P St.
CDBG - $605,860
Public Works
Ward 1
Priority 4
Yes
Neighborhood Clean-Up Program
Neighborhood clean-up in targeted HUD-eligible
areas, focusing on remediation of illegal dumping
and litter/debris removal
CDBG - $321,700
Public Works
All Wards
Priority 5
No
East California Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, and
Reconstruction
Improve drainage currently causing street failures.
Install curb, gutter & sidewalk as needed prior to
street reconstruction. East California to Brundage
Lane and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to
Union Avenue
CDBG - $500,000
Public Works
Ward 1
Priority 6
Yes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: $130,000
Home Access Grant Program
Grants up to $3,500 for accessibility
improvements to private residences – scattered
site.
CDBG - $30,000
CD
City-Wide
Yes
Fair Housing Program Services
Public services to affirmatively further fair housing
choice, including education, intake, screening,
counseling, testing and mediation.
CDBG - $100,000
CD
City-Wide
Yes
*Note: CDBG funded public services cannot exceed 15% of CDBG entitlement.
Description Projected
Projected FY14-15 CDBG Entitlement 3,198,138$
Projected Program Income 7,000$
Total Available Resources 3,205,138$
Administration (20%)641,028$
Section 108 Loan Payment on $4.1M 341,269$
Section 108 Loan Payment on $800K 64,709$
Total Admin and Debt Payment 1,047,006$
Total Resources minus Admin and Debt Payments 2,158,132$
Fair Housing Program Services 100,000$
Bakersfield Senior Center 85,000$
Total Public Service Projects 185,000$
Home Access Rehabilitation 30,000$
Bakersfield Senior Center Facilities Improvement 40,000$
CAP-K Solar Improvements*132,000$
Madison Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, Recon.300,000$
Oleander Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, Recon.500,000$
Union/Brundage Area Phase II 605,860$
E California Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, Recon.365,272$
Total Public Services 1,973,132$
Total Available Resources Remaining -$
Prior Year Allocation 3,201,247.00$
* Total estimated project cost is $285,000. Approval of this project is contingent on
obtaining funding from the County of Kern and other sources.
RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION AND DEBT SERVICE
PROPOSED CDBG BUDGET FY 2015-16
PUBLIC SERVICES (MAX. $457,227)
PROJECTS
Description Actual
Projected FY14-15 CDBG Entitlement1,004,842$
Projected Program Income 30,000$
Total Available Resources 1,034,842$
Administration (10%)103,484$
Total Resources minus Admin 931,358$
CHDO Set Aside (15%)155,226$
New Construction Assistance 776,132$
Projects Total 931,358$
TOTAL AVAILABLE RESOURCES REMAINING -$
Prior Year Allocation 1,080,525$
Description Actual
Projected FY14-15 CDBG Entitlement285,348$
Administration (7.5%)21,401$
Total Resources minus Admin 263,947$
Flood Ministries - Street Outreach22,257$
Bakersfield Homeless Center - Shelter63,347$
Bakersfield Rescue Mission - Shelter63,347$
Alliance Against Family Violence - Shelter22,257$
Projects Total 171,208$
Bakersfield Homeless Center - ReHousing92,739$
Projects Total 92,739$
TOTAL AVAILABLE RESOURCES REMAINING -$
Prior Year Allocation 260,531$
ADMINISTRATION
SHELTER & OUTREACH PROJECTS (MAX. $171,208)
HOMELESS PREVENTION & REHOUSING PROJECTS
PROPOSED HOME BUDGET FY 2015-16
RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION
PROJECTS
PROPOSED ESG BUDGET FY 2015-16
RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/7/2015 CONSENT - Miscellaneous aj.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nelson K. Smith, Finance Director
DATE: 12/19/2014
WARD:
SUBJECT: Audit Reports to be referred to Budget and Finance Committee:
1.Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2014.
2.Agreed Upon Conditions Report for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2014.
3.Post (SAS 114) Audit Findings and Compliance Report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.
4.Independent Auditors Report – Compliance with Contractual
Requirements relative to the Bakersfield Subregional Wastewater
Management Plan for the year ended June 30, 2014.
5.Independent Auditors Report on Appropriations Limit Worksheet
(GANN Limit) of the City of Bakersfield for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2014.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends referral to the Budget and Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND:
1. The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), commonly referred to as the
Annual Audit Report, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 will be provided to the City Council
as a separate document prior to the council meeting. A copy of the report will also be on file in
the City Clerk’s office for public review. The CAFR represents the City’s financial statements as
of June 30, 2014, which are audited by the accounting firm of Brown Armstrong Accountancy
Corporation. The current year audit opinion issued by the outside auditors indicates that the City
complied, in all material respects, with accounting principals generally accepted in the United
States of America.
2. The Agreed Upon Conditions Report is designed to increase efficiency, internal controls and/or
financial reporting and includes any reportable conditions noted during the Audit. The current
report, issued by the outside auditors, is attached for your review and indicates there were no
reportable conditions identified during the current audit period.
3. The Post SAS 114 Audit Findings and Compliance Report is a required disclosure report in
accordance with auditing standards. This report identifies any issues or problems the auditors
encountered during their audit work. The report also highlights any accounting adjustments
made during the audit period. The current report, issued by the outside auditors, is attached for
your review and indicates that all significant transactions have been recognized in the financial
statements in the proper period.
4. Contract requirements contained in City of Bakersfield Agreement 76-153 as amended by
Agreements 76-153(5), 76-153(4), 77-44, 85-197 and 92-106 apply to operations of the
Bakersfield Sub-regional Wastewater management Plan. The City’s compliance with contract
requirements is audited on an annual basis. The current Compliance Report, issued by the
outside auditors, is attached for your review and indicates that there were no audit findings.
5. Attached is a letter from the City’s independent auditors Brown Armstrong Accountancy
Corporation indicating they have completed their annual review of the Appropriations Limit
Worksheet prepared by the City in accordance with Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution (GANN Limit). This annual review is performed by the auditors as part of their
contract to provide auditing services to the City of Bakersfield. The agreed upon review
procedures are substantially less in scope than an audit and therefore no audit opinion is
expressed regarding the calculation.
Staff is recommending that these documents be referred to the Budget and Finance committee
for further review and discussion, to be returned to the full Council for acceptance at a future
Council meeting date.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Independent Auditors Opinion Letter for CAFR Backup Material
Agreed Upon Conditions Report Backup Material
Post SAS 114 Letter Backup Material
Wastewater Agreed Upon Procedures Backup Material
GANN Appropriations Limit Backup Material
1
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Bakersfield, California
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the
business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the
City of Bakersfield, California, (the City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the
related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial
statements as listed in the table of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial
statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant
to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material
misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We
conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s
judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial
statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor
considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the
financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the
City’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of
significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a
basis for our audit opinions.
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects,
the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities,
each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City, as of June 30,
2014, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows for
the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.
2
Emphasis of Matter
As disclosed in the Note 1 to the financial statements, the City of Bakersfield implemented GASB Statement No. 66,
Technical Corrections - 2012 – an amendment of GASB Statements No. 10 and No 62, GASB Statement No. 67,
Financial Reporting for Pension Plans – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 25, and No. 70, Accounting and
Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Financial Guarantees, during the fiscal year 2014. There was no significant
impact over the City of Bakersfield’s financial statements.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion
and analysis and budgetary comparison information on pages 3 through 17 and 96 through 97 as well as schedules
of funding progress on pages 98 through 99 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such
information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB), who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial
statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures
to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and
comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial
statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express
an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with
sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise
the City’s basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining and individual major and nonmajor fund
financial statements and schedules as well as schedules of long-term debt recorded in private purpose trust fund on
pages 104 through 135, and statistical section, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a
required part of the basic financial statements.
The combining and individual major and nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules as well as schedules of
long-term debt recorded in private purpose trust fund on pages 104 through 135 are the responsibility of management
and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic
financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic
financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly
to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial
statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in
the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and individual major and nonmajor fund financial
statements and schedules as well as schedules of long-term debt recorded in private purpose trust fund on pages
104 through 135 are fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
The introductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the
basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 15, 2014, on
our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain
provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to
describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that
testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an
integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering City’s internal
control over financial reporting and compliance.
BROWN ARMSTRONG
ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
Bakersfield, California
December 15, 2014
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
REPORT TO MANAGEMENT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014
AGREED-UPON CONDITIONS REPORT DESIGNED TO INCREASE
EFFICIENCY, INTERNAL CONTROLS AND/OR FINANCIAL REPORTING
To the Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Bakersfield, California
We have audited the basic financial statements of the City of Bakersfield, California,
(the City) for the year ended June 30, 2014, and have issued our report thereon
dated December 15, 2014. In planning and performing our audit of the financial
statements of the City, we considered its internal control structure in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure.
As a result of our audit, we noted no agreed-upon condition involving the internal
control structure and its operation. Please see attached for status of prior year
agreed-upon-conditions and recommendations.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Budget and Finance
Committee, Mayor, City Council, management of the City, others within the City, and
the regulatory agencies, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by
anyone other than these specified parties.
BROWN ARMSTRONG
ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
Bakersfield, California
December 15, 2014
Current Year Agreed-Upon Conditions and Recommendations
None.
Status of Prior Year Agreed-Upon Conditions and Recommendations
Agreed-Upon Condition 2013-1
Condition
During our audit, we noted that the finance department does not send out a list of assets to other
departments asking them to verify whether or not capital assets are still there, are in working condition or
obsolete, etc. As a result, the capital assets listing might not be up-to-date. Other departments might
have disposed of capital assets but the finance department was not informed.
Recommendation
We recommend that management send asset certification lists to the departments on an annual basis.
Management Response
The City agreed and management will send annual asset certification letters to departments.
Current Year Status
Implemented.
Agreed-Upon Condition 2013-2 – IT User Access Control
Condition
During our IT general computing controls testing on the terminated employees’ IT user access control, we
noted that 4 out of 5 selected terminated employees’ access to the City’s IT network was not disabled
within a timely manner. There was a lag of five business days or more between the employee’s
termination date and the access cancellation date.
Recommendation
We recommend that a formal policy and procedure be established to ensure that terminated employees'
user accounts to access City's information assets to be disabled or deleted from the systems within a
reasonable timeframe. The terminated employees' IT user accounts should be reviewed to ensure the
proper user access control to the critical financial data and other information assets.
Management Response
Due to an oversight in this current year budgeting, we were not able to procure the HR Module for our
SunGard system. IT believes with the module and a formal policy and procedure, that the proper
timeliness can be achieved. Currently, when IT receives a termination request we disable the employee’s
account on the date designated. As of that date, the individual employee no longer has access to City
systems. This system ensures the departing employee cannot access anything nor sign on to the network.
This also ensures that City data is secure.
With the purchase of the HR Module, Finance, HR and IT will be able to create a written set of Policies
and Procedures which details procedures, timelines and most importantly, how these should be
documented for both the iSeries and Active Directory environments.
Current Year Status
Implemented.
To the Budget and Finance Committee
City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the
business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund
information of the City of Bakersfield, California (the City), for the year ended June 30,
2014. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our
responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, Government Auditing Standards, and OMB Circular A-133, as well as
certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have
communicated such information in our letter to you dated May 12, 2014. Professional
standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related
to our audit.
Significant Audit Findings
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting
policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1
to the financial statements. The City adopted Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) Statements No. 66, Technical Corrections – 2012 – an amendment of
GASB Statements No. 10 and No. 62; GASB Statement No. 67, Financial Reporting
for Pension Plans – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 25; and GASB
Statement No. 70, Accounting and Financial Reporting for nonexchange Financial
Guarantees during fiscal year 2014. We noted no transactions entered into by the
City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.
All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the
proper period.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by
management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about
past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting
estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial
statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ
significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City’s
financial statements were:
Management’s estimate of the net Other Post-Employment Benefits
(OPEB) obligation and management’s estimate over self-insurance
claims liabilities. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used
to develop these estimates in determining that it is reasonable in
relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial
statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements were:
Note 12 – Pledged Revenue
Note 13 – Deferred Inflow of Resources
Note 16 – Employee Retirement Benefits
Note 17 – Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB)
Note 19 – Risk Assessment
Note 20 – Commitments and Contingencies
Note 23 – Prior Period Adjustments
Note 24 – Extraordinary Items
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our
audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the
audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of
management. Management has corrected all such misstatements. The attached schedule summarizes
the corrected and uncorrected adjustments of the financial statements. Management has determined that
their effects are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a
whole.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or
auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial
statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the
course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management
representation letter dated December 15, 2014.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting
matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application
of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s
opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting
accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge,
there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing
standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these
discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a
condition to our retention.
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to Management’s Discussions and Analysis and Budgetary
Comparison Schedules, which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic
financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of
preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to
our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the
basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on the RSI.
We were engaged to report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and Combining Statement
and Schedules and other supplementary information, which accompany the financial statements but are
not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and
evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information
complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of
preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in
relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary
information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the
financial statements themselves.
We were not engaged to report on Introductory Section and Statistical Section, which accompany the
financial statements but are not RSI. We did not audit or perform other procedures on this other
information and we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the use of Budget and Finance Committee, Mayor, City Council,
and management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than
these specified parties.
BROWN ARMSTRONG
ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
Bakersfield, California
December 15, 2014
Client:City of Bakersfield
Engagement:07934
Period Ending:6/30/2014
Workpaper:Summary of Adjustments
AccountDescriptionW/P RefDebitCredit
Corrected
Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 1
BB-02-3
335-4031-822.80-41Building Improvements466,902.00
335-0000-201.10-00Accounts Payable / General Payables466,902.00
Total 466,902.00466,902.00
Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 2
BB-02-4
521-0000-201.10-00Accounts Payable590,110.00
521-1361-401.50-21Purchase Services / Insurance and Bonds590,110.00
Total 590,110.00590,110.00
Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 3
PSR-24-5
Governmental ActivitesEquipment1,322,208.33
Governmental ActivitesAccumulated Depreciation1,322,208.33
Total 1,322,208.331,322,208.33
Uncorrected/Passed
Passed Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 1
DD-03
116-0000-210.00-00Deferred Inflows of Resources- Unearned Revenue614,701.97
116-0000-123.98-00Accounts Receivable, net 614,701.97
Total 614,701.97614,701.97
To accrue transactions which were improperly excluded from the accounts
payable listing as of year-end.
To reduce accounts payable for a transaction that was incorrectly accrued as
of year-end.
To remove equipment no longer in use.
To accrue transactions were improperly excluded from the accounts payable
litifd
DOCUMENTS HANDED
OUT AT THE
COMMITTEE MEETING
Ma
r
c
h
19
,
20
1
5
Bu
d
g
e
t
an
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Bu
d
g
e
t
an
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
Committee
Ma
r
c
h
19, 2015
Ci
t
y
of
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
Fi
v
e
‐Ye
a
r
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
Pl
a
n
,
An
n
u
a
l
Ac
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
an
d
th
e
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
of
Im
p
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
to
Fa
i
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ch
o
i
c
e
Fi
v
e
‐Ye
a
r
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
Pl
a
n
HU
D
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
to
re
c
e
i
v
e
fe
d
e
r
a
l
fu
n
d
s
CD
B
G
–
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Gr
a
n
t
HO
M
E
–H
O
M
E
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
ES
G
–E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Gr
a
n
t
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ne
e
d
s
an
d
se
t
s
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
an
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
Ke
y
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Is
s
u
e
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ov
e
r
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
‐
‐
28
%
of
al
l
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
sp
e
n
d
more
th
a
n
30
%
of
in
c
o
m
e
on
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
i
n
g
‐
‐
5%
of
al
l
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
li
v
e
in
ov
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
e
d
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
40
%
oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
un
i
t
s
bu
i
l
t
be
f
o
r
e
19
8
0
19
%
of
un
i
t
s
in
su
b
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Ne
e
d
fo
r
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Re
n
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
2
Ne
e
d
fo
r
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
RH
N
A
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
20
1
3
‐20
2
3
= 36,290 units
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
by
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
In
c
o
m
e
:
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
In
c
o
m
e
U
n
i
t
s
%
Ve
r
y
Lo
w
(<
50
%
MF
I
)
9,
7
0
6
2
7
%
Lo
w
(5
1
%
to
80
%
MF
I
)
5,
8
0
0
1
6
%
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
(8
1
%
to
12
0
%
MF
I
)
6,
4
5
3
1
8
%
Ab
o
v
e
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
(>
12
0
%
MF
I
)
14
,
3
3
1
3
9
%
To
t
a
l
3
6
,
2
9
0
1
0
0
%
Very Low 27%Low 16%
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
18
%
Ab
o
v
e
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
39
%
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ke
r
n
COG 2014 RTP/SCS
3
Ke
y
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
Is
s
u
e
s
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
(p
o
i
n
t
‐in
‐ti
m
e
re
p
o
r
t
)
99
2
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
pe
r
s
o
n
s
in
20
1
4
,
do
w
n
fr
o
m
1,
1
5
8
homeless
pe
r
s
o
n
s
in
20
1
3
42
%
un
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
e
d
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
pe
r
s
o
n
s
an
d
17
%
ch
r
o
n
i
c
a
l
l
y
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Yo
u
t
h
an
d
se
n
i
o
r
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
ne
e
d
s
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
(p
e
r
s
o
n
s
wi
t
h
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
dr
u
g
ab
u
s
e
,
HI
V
/
A
I
D
,
do
m
e
s
t
i
c
vi
o
l
e
n
c
e
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pa
r
k
s
an
d
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
s
an
d
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
4
In
p
u
t
Fr
o
m
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
Ju
l
y
24
,
20
1
4
―
Dr
.
Ma
r
Ɵn Lu
t
h
e
r
Ki
n
g
Jr
.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
Oc
t
.
23
,
20
1
4
―
Ha
l
l
Am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
Fe
b
.
26
,
20
1
5
―
Ba
k
e
r
St
r
e
e
t
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Room
Fo
c
u
s
Gr
o
u
p
s
Oc
t
.
11
,
20
1
4
―
Go
o
d
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
Fe
s
t
i
v
a
l
,
Dr.
Ma
r
t
i
n
Lu
t
h
e
r
Ki
n
g
Jr
.
Pa
r
k
Oc
t
.
17
,
20
1
4
―
Ke
r
n
Co
.
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Co
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
No
v
.
6,
20
1
4
―
Ba
k
e
r
s
fiel
d
Se
n
i
o
r
Ce
n
t
e
r
5
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Su
r
v
e
y
Re
s
u
l
t
s
Ov
e
r
16
0
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
to
Su
r
v
e
y
To
p
2 in
ea
c
h
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ne
e
d
s
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
1.
Yo
u
t
h
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
2.
Pa
r
k
s
an
d
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
1.
St
r
e
e
t
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
2.
St
r
e
e
t
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
6
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Su
r
v
e
y
Re
s
u
l
t
s
So
c
i
a
l
an
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
1.
Me
n
t
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
2.
Cr
i
m
e
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
an
d
Su
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
Abuse
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
1.
Jo
b
Cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Jo
b
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
2.
Co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
Si
t
e
Cl
e
a
n
‐up
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
y
/
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1.
En
e
r
g
y
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
2.
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
7
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Su
r
v
e
y
Re
s
u
l
t
s
To
p
5 of
al
l
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ne
e
d
s
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
1.
Jo
b
Cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
/
J
o
b
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
2.
Me
n
t
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
3.
En
e
r
g
y
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
4.
Su
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
Ab
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
an
d
Cr
i
m
e
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
5.
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
of
Im
p
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
Fa
i
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ch
o
i
c
e
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
eq
u
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
Mo
r
t
g
a
g
e
le
n
d
i
n
g
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
by
ra
c
e
/
e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
and
in
c
o
m
e
Ci
t
y
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
an
d
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
af
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Fa
i
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
in
ow
n
e
r
an
d
re
n
t
e
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ma
r
k
e
t
Ac
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
ad
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
to
fa
i
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
9
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
10
1st
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
Ne
e
d
s
Su
r
v
e
y
an
d
Co
n
s
u
l
t
wi
t
h
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
2nd
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
Dr
a
f
t
Co
n
P
l
a
n
&
AI
3rd
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
Bu
d
g
e
t
&
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Co
n
P
l
a
n
&
AI
Ad
o
p
t
i
o
n
Fi
n
a
l
Co
n
P
l
a
n
&
AI
HUD Submittal
Ju
l
y
20
1
4
–
No
v
.
No
v
.
No
v
.
20
1
4
‐
Fe
b
.
2
0
1
5
Ma
r
.
‐
Ap
r
i
l
Ap
r
i
l
May 2015
An
n
u
a
l
Ac
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
Fi
r
s
t
‐ye
a
r
(F
Y
2
0
1
5
/
1
6
)
ac
t
i
o
n
s
of
th
e
Fi
v
e
‐Ye
a
r
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
Pl
a
n
Fi
r
s
t
‐ye
a
r
fu
n
d
i
n
g
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
to
t
a
l
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$4.49
mi
l
l
i
o
n
CD
B
G
:
$
3
,
1
9
8
,
0
0
0
HO
M
E
:
$
1
,
0
0
5
,
0
0
0
ES
G
:
$
2
8
5
,
0
0
0
TO
T
A
L
:
$
4
,
4
8
8
,
0
0
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
g
$7
,
0
0
0
CD
B
G
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
In
c
o
m
e
an
d
$3
0
,
0
0
0
HOME
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
In
c
o
m
e
La
s
t
ye
a
r
(F
Y
2
0
1
4
/
1
5
)
fu
n
d
i
n
g
of
$4
.
5
4
mi
l
l
i
o
n
11
12
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Grant
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
F
Y
1
4
‐
1
5
C
D
B
G
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
$
3
,
1
9
8
,
1
3
8
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
I
n
c
o
m
e
$
7
,
0
0
0
TO
T
A
L
AV
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
$
3,
2
0
5
,
1
3
8
AD
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
AN
D
DE
B
T
SE
R
V
I
C
E
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
2
0
%
m
a
x
i
m
i
m
)
$
6
4
1
,
0
2
8
Se
c
t
i
o
n
1
0
8
L
o
a
n
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
n
$
4
.
1
M
$
3
4
1
,
2
6
9
Se
c
t
i
o
n
1
0
8
L
o
a
n
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
n
$
8
0
0
K
$
6
4
,
7
0
9
Su
b
‐To
t
a
l
Ad
m
i
n
an
d
De
b
t
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
$
1,
0
4
7
,
0
0
6
PU
B
L
I
C
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
(M
A
X
.
$
4
5
7
,
2
2
7
)
Fa
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
$
8
5
,
0
0
0
Su
b
‐To
t
a
l
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
$
18
5
,
0
0
0
IN
F
R
A
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
A
N
D
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
Ho
m
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
F
a
c
i
li
t
i
e
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
CA
P
‐
K
S
o
l
a
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
*
$
1
3
2
,
0
0
0
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
A
r
e
a
C
u
r
b
,
G
u
t
t
e
r
,
S
id
e
w
a
l
k
,
R
e
c
o
n
.
$
30
0
,
0
0
0
Ol
e
a
n
d
e
r
A
r
e
a
C
u
r
b
,
G
u
t
t
e
r
,
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
R
e
c
o
n
.
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Un
i
o
n
/
B
r
u
n
d
a
g
e
A
r
e
a
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
$
6
0
5
,
8
6
0
E
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
r
e
a
C
u
r
b
,
G
u
t
t
e
r
,
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
R
e
c
o
n
.
$
3
6
5
,
2
7
2
Su
b
‐To
t
a
l
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
$
1,
9
7
3
,
1
3
2
TO
T
A
L
F
U
N
D
S
A
L
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
$
3
,
2
0
5
,
1
3
8
•
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
O
v
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
(
2
0
%
)
‐
$6
4
1
,
0
2
8
•
Fa
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
‐
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
•
Se
c
t
i
o
n
1
0
8
L
o
a
n
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
:
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
‐
$3
4
1
,
2
6
9
•
Se
c
t
i
o
n
1
0
8
L
o
a
n
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
:
S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
‐
$
6
4
,
7
0
9
•
Ho
m
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
G
r
a
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
‐
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
13
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Grant
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
•
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
‐
$
8
5
,
0
0
0
•
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
‐
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Grant
14
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
K
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
•
So
l
a
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
‐
$
1
3
2
,
0
0
0
•
To
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
i
s
$
2
8
5
,
0
0
,
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
o
n
m
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
K
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Grant
15
Cu
r
b
,
G
u
t
t
e
r
,
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Grant
Im
p
r
o
p
e
r
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
No
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
16
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
A
r
e
a
‐
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Grant
17
Ol
e
a
n
d
e
r
A
r
e
a
‐
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Grant
18
Un
i
o
n
/
B
r
u
n
d
a
g
e
A
r
e
a
‐
$
6
0
5
,
8
6
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Grant
19
Ea
s
t
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
r
e
a
‐
$
3
6
5
,
2
7
2
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
Grant
20
HO
M
E
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
:
P
a
r
k
2
0
th
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
21
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
F
Y
1
4
‐
1
5
C
D
B
G
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
$
1
,
0
0
4
,
8
4
2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
I
n
c
o
m
e
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
$
1,
0
3
4
,
8
4
2
AD
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
0
%
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
)
$
1
0
3
,
4
8
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
CH
D
O
S
e
t
A
s
i
d
e
(
1
5
%
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
)
$
1
5
5
,
2
2
6
Ne
w
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
$
7
7
6
,
1
3
2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Su
b
‐To
t
a
l
$
93
1
,
3
5
8
To
t
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
$1
,
0
3
4
,
8
4
2
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Gr
a
n
t
22
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
F
Y
1
4
‐
1
5
C
D
B
G
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
$
2
8
5
,
3
4
8
AD
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
7
.
5
%
m
a
x
i
m
i
m
)
$
2
1
,
4
0
1
SH
E
L
T
E
R
& OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
(M
A
X
.
$
1
7
1
,
2
0
8
)
Fl
o
o
d
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
i
e
s
‐
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
$
2
2
,
2
5
7
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
‐
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
$
6
3
,
3
4
7
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
R
e
s
c
u
e
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
‐
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
$
6
3
,
3
4
7
Al
l
i
a
n
c
e
A
g
a
i
n
s
t
F
a
m
i
l
y
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
‐
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
$
2
2
,
2
5
7
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
a
n
d
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
Su
b
‐To
t
a
l
$
17
1
,
2
0
8
HO
M
E
L
E
S
S
PR
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
& RE
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
‐
R
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
$
9
2
,
7
3
9
TO
T
A
L
F
U
N
D
S
A
L
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
$
2
8
5
,
3
4
8
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Gr
a
n
t
23