Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071111_ra02 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST FROM: Philip Morley, County Admlnlstra TO: Board of Commissioners DATE: July 11, 2011 RE: Decision Regarding County Administration of Consolidated Homeless Grant, and Housing & Essential Needs Grant on Behalf of Washington Department of Commerce STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) notified Jefferson County of two new grant opportunities that they would like us to take part in as the lead-grantee and administrator: l} the Consolidated Homeless Grant (CHG), and 2) the Housing and Essential Needs Grant. July 11 Is our deadline for notifying the state of our decision to opt In or opt out of both grants. The Board of County Commissioners held a briefing on this Issue July 5 with County Auditor Donna Eldridge, Chief Accountant AImee Campbeli and OlyCAP executive Director Tim Hockett. Based on that briefing, Including OlyCAP's recommendation that the County opt out, and the analysis below, staff recommends that the County Commissioners move to opt out of the County administering these grants and direct the County Administrator to notify the Department of Commerce. ANALYSIS: Jefferson County staff briefed the Board on July 5, 2011 In preparation of bringing an opt-in/out recommendation before the Board on July 11, 2011 for the Board's formal consideration and action. Tim Hockett, OlyCap's Executive Director participated In the July 5 meeting, along with County Auditor Donna Eldridge and Chief Accountant AImee Campbell. The staff analysis Is recapped below: CONSOUDATED HOMELESS GRANT (CHG): . Consolidates the HGAP., THOR., ESHp., and HMIS. grants previously offered by the DOC as separate grants. Jefferson County was formerly Involved In administering the HGAP as lead-grantee. . Intended to get the County more Involved In administering the Implementation of Its la-year plan to end homelessness. . To begin January 1, 2012. Application to be completed and approved prior to September 26, 2011. . Will renew every two years. . State money. . HGAP = Homeless Grant Assistance Program . THOR = Transitional Housing, Operating, & Rent ESHP = Emergency Shelter & Homeless Prevention HMIS = Homeless Management Information System 1 DB HOUSING & ESSENTIAL NEEDS GRANT: . Serves a very specific population = Medical Care Service (MCS) ReCipients of DSHS. . DSHS is no longer providing these services to MCS reCipients - someone locally has to, be It the County or a community action program. . Provides assistance with rent, personal hygiene items, and bus passes only. . Applications to be completed and approved in July. Monies to be distributed to counties by September 1, 2011. Grant to be executed by November 1, 2011. . Will renew every two years. . State money. DIscussion: The winter shelter Is not affected by either of these grants. o If we opt In: o the County would be the lead grantee and would have to establish a "reCipient selection process" by which we choose a sub-grantee (I.e. OlyCap or other community action program); o The County would need to revise Its sub-recipient agreements with OlyCap better outlining of the requirements/duties of each party. o Auditing sub-recipient would become the responsibility of the County. We would be required to go through a risk assessment process to Identify program areas most at rlsk, and formulate a speCific plan for monitoring and auditing the sub-grantee/service provider In those areas. For example, If we establish that we're going to audit 10% of the program client files up to 15 files, then when auditing those files we are told by Commerce that we would need to do an Intense audit looklng at those areas Identified In our rlsk assessment. this means reviewing every single document, poilcy, etc related to that pulled file. this could mean anywhere from a couple days to a couple week's worth, or more, of work every year. The Auditor's Office does not currently have the staff available to accomplish this. DOC will audit the County to look at our auditing/monitoring of the community action program. They will review our findings and processes. They will look at our sub-recipient agreements, risk assessment process, recipient selection process, etc. Any findings they have will be against the County. o The County Auditor has informed us that the Auditor's Office is not adequately staffed to take on this substantial monitorlng/audltlng responsibility. Grant funds for the county overhead would be Inadequate for adding staff to administer this grant and the attendant auditing. o If we opt out of these two grants, o The DOC will convene a "community planning process" by which they will select an alternate lead- grantee (given OlyCAP's strong history as a service provider In Jefferson County, It appears ilkely that OlyCap would be asked by DOC to assume the role of lead-grantee). o $25,838 In CHG Incentive funds for two programs would be lost for the two years ($12,919/year). OlyCAP believes these programs can be funded through other means. o In two years, when the grants come up for renewal, DOC informs us that we could then reconsider our involvement and potentiaily opt In at that time. OlyCAP recommends that the County opt out from administering these two grants and avoid assuming the State's auditing role. Assuming the State would select OlyCAP as lead agency, this would preserve OlyCAP's existing relation with the state, and may also allow OlyCAP to retain 100% of the administrative fees that they would have to spilt with the County, if we opted In. FISCAL IMPACT: . The CHG grant amount Is $121,533 total available = $95,695 base funding; $25,838 Incentive funding (available through County involvement only). The Incentive funds are for two very specific populatlons- homeless people with severe and persistent disabilities ($8,613), and people discharging from systems of care 200 ($17,225). In the event that Jefferson County opts out of this grant, OlyCAP believes there are other sources of funding available to serve these two demographics. These Incentive funds are expected to remain a permanent part of this grant. . The CHG grant has a 15% ($18,230 or $9,115/year) administrative fee built In + an additional 5% ($6,077 or $3,038/year) administrative fee specifically for "planning/evaluation/data collection". These monies must be shared with the sub-grantee and most of this would probably go to the selected service provider to cover their overhead to administer the program. . The Housing and Essential Needs Grant specifics are not yet available from DOC; however, it is expected to be equivalent to 2-3 times the CHG grant amount. . The housing grant has a 7% ($17,500 based on a $250k grant, or $8,750/year) administrative fee built In. These monies must be shared with the sub-grantee and here again, most of this would probably go to the selected service provider to cover their overhead to administer the program. . The County will Incur administrative costs while performing the following required grant management functions: 1) completing the application process, 2) advertising and holding public hearings/board meetings, 3) drafting new sub-grantee contracts and policies, 4) processing and reviewing payments, 5) performing the closeout process, 6) completing periodic reporting, and 7) annually performing an intensive audit with follow- up resolution of findings and reporting. These costs are expected to be higher In the first year because of the extra Initial work that must be done because these are new grants. . In the past, the Auditor's OffIce has managed two grants, the CDBG Public Services Grant and the HGAP Grant which is now being consolidated in the CHG. The majority of the responsibilities listed above, as they've related to these two prior grants, have fallen upon the Chief Accountant In the Auditor's OffIce, though the performance requirements were not as stringent as they have now been revised to be under these new grants. Given the significant, additional workload created by these two new grants and the more complicated, mandatory performance requirements now In place, the Auditor does not feel that there Is staff available In her office to continue to meet these requirements and that should Jefferson County agree to take part In these grants, an alternative should be found. RECOMMENDATION: During the current economic recession, when County government Is faced with revenue shortfalls that require cuts to existing services, and when OlyCAP recommends that they can work directly with the 5tate rather having the County taking on a new partially unfunded mandate, I cannot recommend the County opt In to administering these two grants. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners pass a motion to opt out of becoming lead grantee and administrator of the Consolidated Homeless Grant and the Housing & Essential Needs Grant, and recommends that you direct the County Administrator to notify the Washington State Department of Commerce of the County's decision. 717~ Philip Morley Date 30f3