Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Cdbg Action Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Simi Valley council adopts draft CDBG action plan for FY 2025–26 and adds $3,000 to a capital request after nonprofit appeals

3195341 · May 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council approved the draft HUD consolidated action plan and amended the advisory committee’s recommendation to add $3,000 to a capital category request after several local nonprofits described program shortfalls.

The Simi Valley City Council on May 5 approved the draft fiscal year 2025–26 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) action plan and amended the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee’s recommendation to add $3,000 to a capital funding request.

Staff said the draft action plan will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and serves to guide the countywide consolidated plan for 2025–29. Staff noted HUD had not yet confirmed the city’s FY25–26 entitlement and that the city used the FY24 allocation ($672,694) as an estimate while final figures are expected in the coming weeks. Staff also described regulatory caps that limit public service expenditures to 15% of the entitlement and administration to 20%.

Nonprofit speakers urged fuller funding. Anika Sambi, executive director of the Samaritan Center, told the council the organization has relied on a $45,000 CDBG case management grant for years and that a recommended cut to $35,000 would “present a significant challenge… forcing us to either seek additional funding to cover the gap or to hire staff for only part of the year, which would result in layoffs and rehiring for year 2.” Tracy Hemeneck, a Samaritan Center board member, and representatives from Senior Concerns, Many Mansions and Upwards also described services the organizations provide and the consequences of reduced funding.

Upwards representative Melanie Ford clarified that her organization’s request for an additional $3,000 related to a capital/economic development category rather than public services; Ford said the extra $3,000 would allow the Upwards program to meet the budget needed for the scope proposed.

After discussion, Council member Litzler moved to modify the advisory committee’s recommendation to add the $3,000 allocation to the capital category; the motion passed with Council member Rhodes voting no.

Council members and staff stressed the two‑year public service application cycle (funds are allocated yearly but programs are approved for a two‑year period provided compliance and continued HUD funding) and cautioned that final award amounts depend on HUD’s upcoming entitlement notice. Staff and council also noted other local grant sources and possible surplus funds as potential supplements for nonprofits.

The council adopted the action plan and the amended citizen participation plan and authorized the city manager to finalize documents for HUD submission.