Loading...
SR-300-002-01 (44) I ]tJO--OOZ-O/ 11-8 JAN 1 4 1986 CEjD:CD:BS:wp Councll Meetlng 1-14-86 Santa Monlca, CalIfornIa TO: Mayor and CIty CouncIl FROM: CIty Staff SUBJECT: ReCOIt,Il,enda tl on to Approve the Fundlog Rat 1 onale for the 1986-87 COIT,IT,Unlty DevelopITlent progran, INTRODUCTION ThIS report presents a proposed fundIng ratIonale for the CItylS 1986-87 COIT,IT,un I ty Deve 1 opIT.ent PrograIT,. It SUIT,IT,a r I zes the background of the prograIT" presents key Issues In future Federal fundIng, and proposes a fundIng schedule and grant ratIonale for the two cOfl,ponents of the prograIT.: COIT,IT,Unl ty SerVI ce Projects (operatIng grants to socIal and con,rt,Urll ty serVIce organIzatIons) and COn.IT,Unl ty and NeIghborhood IIT,proveIt,ent Projects (capItal proJects benefIttIng lower InCOIT,e resIdents). BACKGROUND The Con,IT,Unl ty DevelopIT,ent prograIT' represents an IntegratIon of prevIously separate grant progran.s of the CI ty IncludIng the COIT,IT,Unl ty DevelopIT,ent Block Grant (CDBG) prograIT, and socIal serVl ce grant progran, funded fron, General Revenue Shar I ng (GRS) and loca 1 funds. ThIS IntegratIon was achIeved In 1983-84 and has proven to be an effectIve "uIt,brella" for these funds because It strealT,llneS the applIcatIon and grants IT,anageIT,ent process. 11-:8 JAN 1 4 /986 - 1 - Dur Ing the cur rent year, 33 COIl.n,unl ty SerVI ce ProJects ($2.22 n,llllon) and 9 COIl,Il,unI ty and NeIghborhood In.proven,ent ProJects ($1.9 nlIlllon) were InItIated. In addItIon, a nUIT.ber of COfi,n,unlty and NeIghborhood Improve~ent ProJects approved In prIor years and contInuIng Into the present year are In the process of beIng cOIl,pleted. The current COfiLIT,Unlty Developn.ent PrograITI IS supported by ITlaJor federal fundIng sources (CDBG, Rental RehabIlItatIon, and General Revenue SharIng), county transportatIon funds (ProposItIon A), and local funds (General Fund and VItale-GIlpIn funds). The breakdown of support for 1985-86 IS shown In the table below. I Rental I Vitale I General Prop. TOTAL CD8G Rehab G11p1I' GRS Fund A COMMC~:TY & ~EIGHB. Sl.903,9511 IMPRQVEI'..E'ITS 1,575,952 147,000 35.104 -0- 145,B95 -0- CO~YUNITY SE~VICES 2,219,2511 187,000 ~ -0- 64,896 867,201 915.407 184,747 4'12~.2021 ~,762,952 147,000 100,000 867.20111,061,.3021 184,747 In the last several years, CIty support to the program has contrIbuted sIgnIfIcantly to socIal serVIce delIvery to reSIdents in need, to hOUSIng progran.s for lower incorr.e reSIdents, and to neIghborhood reVItalization proJects In the low Income areas. It has added stabIlIty to a broad network of socIal serVice agencIes, fostered InnovatIon In the delIvery of new serVIces and leveraged funds fron, other sources. - 2 - DISCUSSION I. FundIng for the 1986-87 CommunIty Developffient Program The abIlIty of the CIty to contInue $4.1 Iulllon In support dur 1 ng 1986-.87 and subsequent yea rs IS Jeopardl zed by recently approved, proposed and antIcIpated Congressional and PresIdentIal budgetary actIons. These Include: o Passage of the HUD-Independent AgencIes ApproprIatIon BIll WhICh reduces the CItylS 1986-87 CDBG entItlement by 10% and current GRS entltleffient by 8.3% (to occur In the fIrst quarter of the CIty'S 1986-87 fIscal year); o EXpIratIon of General Revenue SharIng legIslatIon on Septenlber 30, 1986; reauthorIzIng legIslatIon wIll have to be passed If GRS fundIng IS to contInue beyond the eXpIratIon date; o Passage of the GranlITL-RudITlan Budget Act WhICh Includes provIsIons for "across the board cuts" to specIfIed dorrlest IC and defense prograrr.s 1 f annua 1 budget def 1 CI t reduc tlon targets are not rr.et each year through 1990; o AntIcIpated PresIdentIal actIons to avoId the above cuts to the defense budget through proposIng deferral of current dOIT.est IC appropr 1 at ions as well as severe reductIons or ellffilnatlon of CIty programs In subsequent years. Due to COIT,pleXl tIes of the current budget process, unsettled constI tu t 1 onalI ty of the GraITllT.-RudIT.an Act and uncerta Inty as to reauthorIzatIon of the General Revenue SharIng Program, It IS dI ff ICU 1 t to proJect the loss of Federal funds to the Cl ty I S 1986-87 COll,n.unl ty DevelopPLent Progran,. The most optIThIStIC scenarIo reduces fundIng levels by $194,000 IncludIng a 8.3% decrease In General Revenue SharIng and a 10% decrease In CDBG. However, If the sequesterIng provIsions of the GraIT,n,-Rudll,an Act are In.pl efl.ented (across the board cuts ITlade equa lly to Iden tl fled dOffiestlc and defense budgets), approxImately $953,000 In Federal - 3 - funds would be elIThlnated; CDBG and Rental RehabIlitatIon funds would be cut by approxlDlately 16% and GRS would probably be elI~lnated after the fIrst quarter. A ~ore peSSIThlstlc predIctIon, based upon current and proJected PresIdent Ia 1 actIons des Igned to Il,eet the goa 1 of a 7 % 1 ncrease 1 n the defense budge t WI thou t a tax 1 ncrease coupled WI th the budget defIcIt reductIon targets In GrarrIIl,-RudIT,an, would result In the vIrtual ellIT,lnatlon of IT,ost dOIt,estIc prograIT,s Including COBG and GRS. Although these actIons have not been fInalIzed, current proposa Is by the Off Ice of "1anageIT,ent and Budget propose a t least an overall 35% decrease In COBG and severe decreases to GRS In the CltylS next fIscal year. Staff of the NatIonal League of CItIes, U.S. Conference of Mayors and the NatIonal CoIt.It,Unl ty DevelopIl,ent ASsOcIatIon predict that a serIes of such proposals wIll be presented by the AdmInIstratIon durIng the remaInder of thIS fIscal year. In th 1 5 env 1 ronn.ent, the deve loprr,ent of a proposed fundI ng ratIonale, WIth an IdentIfIed level of funding, IS dIffIcult. On one hand, It 15 IIl,peratlve that the fundIng ratIonale addresses the ran,Iflcatlons of the Federal budget process and prepares for fundIng cuts. On the other hand, severe budget cuts have not occurred, therefore I t would be lIt,prudent to restr lct fundI ng applIcations and reduce the budget before dollar aIT,ounts are certaIn. Therefore, the proposed fundIng ratIonale for 1986-87 sets forth fundIng prIorItIes WhICh can be applIed dependIng on the fInal - 4 - level of fundIng. Staff WIll contInue to work on refInIng revenue prOJectIons so that later recon.Itlendatlons wIll reflect the CIty'S and the Federal governIt,ent's fIscal pIcture at that t IIl,e . II. FundIng AllocatIon Process In lIght of proJected Federal cuts, the fundIng allocatIon process becon,es even IT,ore cr I tIcal. The proposed process for 1986~.8 7 1 nvol ves C1 ty COmItl1 ss Ions, con.IT,Unl ty res Idents, Cl ty staff and the CIty CouncIl In a series of actIvIties deSIgned to aSSIst In the allocatIon of avaIlable funds to those proJects and progran.s addreSSIng crItIcal cOIt,n,unlty needs. Thl s process IS deSIgned to: o Il.aXln.lze CItIzen partIcipatIon WIth a specIal en,phaSIs on I nvol VI n9 lower I ncon.e res Idents, users of comn,unl ty serVl ces, and CIty Board and COn,IT.I SS 1 on n,en,ber s; o utIlize a range of wrItten con.ments froIT. Con.n.lSSlons and Task Forces; o Integrate applIcatIon and reVIew procedures WIth the Cl ty' S general budget process In order to gl ve the CI ty CouncIl the opportunl ty to assess the proposed Con.ll,unl ty Developn.ent prograrr. In the context of all Cl ty progran,s and serVIces; o meet all requlreIT.ents of Federal fundIng sources and local ordInances for CItIzen partIcipatIon. - 5 - A. FundIng Schedule Workshop on Corr,n,unl ty Developrr,ent Needs Sponsored by the SocIal ServIces COrt,ll,1 55 I on 12-14-85 CouncIl Approval of CD Progra~ FundIng RatIonale 1-14-86 Issuance of "Requests fot' Pt'oposals" to ApplIcant OrganIzatIons 1-16-86 Workshop on Proposal PreparatIon for ApplIcant Ot'gaolzatlons 1-27-86 DeadlIne for Sub~lttal of FundIng Proposals 2-28-86 MailIng of CD prograrr, InformatIon Packet to ResIdents 3-10-86 ApplIcant PresentatIons to CIty Staff and Corr,ll,lssions and SocIal Ser- VIces COrr,rt,ISslon Proposal ReVIew MeetIng 3-10--86 through 4-18-86 Con,n,unl ty Developrrtent Plan Draft AvaIlable to CouncIl, PublIC and CI ty COll,n,l SSlons 4-24-86 Ad~lnIstratlve HearIng on CD Plan Draft 5-8-86 Trans~ltta1 of Proposed CD Plan to CouncIl 5-9-86 Budget HearIngs and CouncIl Approval of CD Plan and CDBG Staten,ent of ObJect I ves Carryover seSSIon If necessary 5-27-86 5-28-86 B. CItIzen Pat'tIclpatlon Process The above actIvItIes provIde the frarnework fat' an extensIve CItIzen partIcIpatIon process InvolvIng resIdents, CIty COIT,rr.lsslons and Interested groups 10 the deve10prr.ent of the 1986-87 COITHt,Unl ty Development Prog ran,. - 6 - The followIng Issues have been addressed In developIng this process: (I) ApplIcant Presenta t Ions: In order for applIcants to have an opportunl ty to address CI ty staff and COlTlIlLISSIons pr lor to fundIng recoIT,IT,endatlons, all applIcant organIzatIons WIll have the opportun I ty to IT,eet I nforIlLally wi th CI ty staff and Il,eIT,ber s of Interested COO~lssIons to dISCUSS theIr proposals and answer any questIons that staff and COP,Il,ISSlon ITLembers !t.ay have. ThIS WIll replace hear 1 ngs held by the Soc lal Servl ces COn-ill,! ssion 1 n previous years and IS designed to be an Inforffiational discussion about proposals as opposed to a foroLal "ratIng sessIon." (2) Role of the SocIal SerVIces COIttffilSslon: Based on an assessn.en t n.ade by the Conln,l 55 1 on of 1 ts role In pr 1 or years' ConLIT,unity SerVIce Grant reVIew processes, the COIlIP,ISSIon agreed upon a procedure wh 1 ch gIves input to sta ff and CouncIl at a nu~ber of dIfferent pOInts In the process. This process Includes (al COIT,n.ents by COIlLO.lSSIOners to CIty staff on speCIfIc proposals prIor to the development of the draft CD Plan; (b) COIltIl,!SSlOn COI'r.n,ents on the draft CD Plan WI th an en,phas i s on eva 1 ua tIng the "overall dell very systeo." pr 1 or to 1 ts fInal SUbO.1 ttal to the CIty CouncIl, and (c) COITLP,ISSIon cOIfLn.ents on the plan dIrectly to the CIty CouncIl prIor to approval of the Plan. WhIle recognIZIng the value of SOCIal SerVIce COffiffilSSIoners' Input on specifIc proposals, the COO,IT,ISSIOn's actIVItIes are also des Igned to enLphasl ze the contr Ibu tl on the Corr,n,l SS Ion can o,ake in respondIng to InItIal staff recommendatIons In the context of the - 7 - overall Corr,Il,unlty DevelopIl,ent Plan -- evaluatIng how well those recoIl,Illendatlons Il.eet crItIcal COIlIIl.unlty needs and identIfYIng remaInIng gaps In the total delIvery system. (3) Request to ElImInate AdmInistratIve HearIng: The SocIal Serv lees ComIl,I SSlon had prev I ously requested that CouncIl ellIl.lnate the AdrrlInlstratlve HearIng where groups and resIdents could Il,eet WI th the CI ty Manager and Ci ty staff and provIde cOIl,rnents on an InItIal draft of the Con,Il,unlty DevelopIllent Plan and ItS fundIng recommendatIons prIor to fInalIzIng the proposed Plan. The ellli,lnatlon of thIS hearIng would allow addItIonal tlIl,e for Corr,Il-.rssIon reVIew of proposals. However, after a serIes of rr,eetlngs WI th the PICO NeIghborhood ASSocIatIon (PNA), staff recoIl.Il.ends that thIS hear ing be retaIned In the process because reSIdents feel that I t represents an In,portant "lilld-polnt" for COli.Il.unl ty Input. In order to IlLeet both the concerns of PNA and the COrr,IT,ISSIOn, the above tIITlelIne allows addItIonal tIn-,e for the Con.IT.IssIon and also retaIns the hearIng. ThIS IS achIeved by ellIl,1 natIng the need for Corr,ITa SS loner S to con,plete "forn,al ratIngs" prIor to the cOIT.pletlon of the draft CD Plan. The above fundIng schedule was approved by the SocIal SerVIces CommISSIon at ItS NoveIl.ber 1985 Il.eetlng. III. FundIng RatIonale Because of the dIfferent requIren.ents and functIons of the two prograITI cOIT,ponents of the COITilT,Unl ty DevelopnLent PrograIlL, (1) COITlfflunIty SerVIce ProJects and (2) Con,Il.unity and NeIghborhood Improvement ProJects, separate sectIons of thIS report are - 8 - devoted to each corr.ponent. GIven the uncertainty of avaIlable fundIng, the follOWIng ratIonale recoIl,n.ends that the n.aIotenance of cur rent ly-funded prog ran.s WhICh can fully docuIT,ent ongo I ng effectIveness be gIven top prIorIty for fundIng In 1986-87. WhIle not lImItIng the applIcatIon process to these progra~s, It is proposed that ~aXI~um conSIderatIon be gIven to currently-funded prograrr.s and that serVIces WI th expanded or new serVIces be added only If re~aInIng funds are avaIlable. ThIS ratIonale IS based on the aSSUThptlon that dIffIcult deCISIons made during the 1985-86 fundIng process resulted In a n fund 1ng IT.l x" Wh1 ch, to the greatest extent feasible, n,eets current corr.ll,un1ty needs. ThIS ratIonale allows for an addItIonal one-year perIod of stabIlIty for effective agenc1es WhICh may be faCIng addItIonal cuts In Federal revenues rece1ved fro~ non-CIty sources. It allows those agenCIes tIll,e to reassess f1nanc1al pOSItIons and long-term fundIng strategIes, whIle contInUIng to prOVIde pr oven, effect! ve serVIces 1 n the con.rl,unI ty. WhIle gIVIng fIrst conSIderation to current prograffis, this rationale does not elllT,lnate the Clty'S COn,[l,Itn,ent to an annual and ongOIng assessment of overall serVIce needs and fundIng prIorItIes. ConSIstent WIth thIS COn,lT,ltn.ent, the proposed Con.Il,uolty Developrr,ent Plan WIll not only recorr.rnend speCIfIC prograIT,s for fundIng but WIll also IdentIfy ren,alnlng gaps In serV1ces and recon.n,end areas for study In the COInIng year. However, Il.a) or changes to the overall systen. funded by the CI ty and ad)ustThent of serVIce priorItIes WIll be deferred to 1987-88 when long-term fundIng capabIlItIes are clearer. - 9 - Fundlng RatIonale 1986-87 COITtIT,Unl ty SerVl ce ProJects - 19 - Proposals fro~l local non-profIt organIzatIons desirIng to provIde needed sac 1 al and COD,n,unl ty serv 1 ces WIll be rev lewed us 1 ng the followIng fundIng ratIonale. As stated In prIor years' fundIng ratIonale and en,phaslzed here because of Its contInuIng relevance, In the fall of 1982 the CIty CouncIl approved a POlICY on HUIl,an Servlces WhICh was SUbIl,ltted by the Cl ty I S Sac lal Servl ces COITUT.l SSlon. The basIc preIl,l se of thIS POlICY was that the CIty, as the closest unIt of governffient to Santa Man lca res ldents, IT.ust assun.e responslb III ty for the delIvery of hUll,an serVIces to 1 ts resIdents. The proposed 1986- 87 ratIonale for CIty fundIng of cOIT~unity serVIces IS predIcated on thIS very broad corr,D,l trrlent. The pressure to IIflplen.ent thIS COITln,l tIllent has been IntensIfIed by decreases In fundIng from the Federal and County governrr,ental agencIes hIstorIcally responsIble for thl s fundI ng. In the past several year s, the Cl ty has re- sponded by IncreasIng CIty support to a number of needed prograIlls. The pressure for the Cl ty to provIde support has been further IntensIfIed by the fact that prIvate fundIng has not kept pace wIth dIscontInued or reduced governnlent spendIng. In a 1984 study conducted by a tean, of students froIt, UCLA I S Graduate School of ArchItecture and Urban PlannIng, lIttle eVIdence was found to IndIcate that the prIvate sector IS WIllIng to provIde a stable and ongoIng source of support for ffiOSt socIal serVIce organIza- tions. Rather, of the 29 largest Santa MonIca en,ployers con-- tacted, IlIOst COIl,pan les and corporatIons were WIllIng to provIde - 11 - sIllall an,ounts of funds on an "as-needed" basIs, but were reluc- tant to play a strong role In socIal serVIce fundIng. Although it 1 S d I ff I cuI t to predI ct the arr,ount of future pr I vate aId, there IS no IndIcatIon of a substantIal Increase In contrIbutions or COItIIttI tn,ents front loca 1 cOIl,pan Ies and corporatIons despI te efforts by Il,any local agencIes to secure this fundIng. Thus, CIty governrr,ent faces the dl ff Icul t task of Il,eet 1 ng I ncreas lng derr,ands for fInanCIal support of socIal serVIces WI thIn the con- straInts of the CIty and Federal budgets. The 1986-87 fund allocatIon process must balance the Cltyls com- mItments to fundIng WIth these stated lImItatIons. After a series of dISCUSSIons With the SOCial SerVIces CommISSIon, CIty staff propo ses that ava lIable Cl ty resources be allocated In 1986-87 as follows: (1) fIrst prIorIty be given to the rr,aIn- tenance of cur rently funded cornn,un 1 ty serVl ce prograIt,s whI ch ful- ly docuIl,ent current effectIveness and abIII ty to It,eet stated needs; (2) second priorIty be gIven to the prOVISIon of addItIon- al support to those current grantees who experIence substantIal Federal fundIng cuts froIt, non-CI ty sources such that the prOVI- SIon of serVIce to Santa Monica reSIdents WIll greatly suffer If these cuts are not ITtltlgated; and (3) If funds rentaln, conSIder- atIon be gIven to serVIce enhancerr,ents to eXIstIng prograIl,s or for new prograIT,s wh1ch can clearly docuIl,ent serVIng a crI tIcal COrt,n,UDI ty need and can rr,a tch CI ty funds f rorr, other sources. - 12 - (1) Support for Cur rently-funded Corr,It,Unl ty SerVl ces Pr09'raIT,s The CIty of Santa MonIca currently provides a hIgh level of sup- port to a very effectIve ne twork of coIt,n,Unl ty serv I ce agenc les, servIng a wIde range of target groups and provIdIng ~ultl- dimenSIonal serVIces. Because IndIvIduals seekIng socIal ser- VIces often have an array of needs, only through an effectIve coordInatIon of resources fron, a nUIl(ber of sources can these needs be met. The ffiarshalling of resources from a number of agen- c les creates a synerg 1St Ie effect that could not be accoIl,pllshed if serVIces were gIven by each progran, In IsolatIon. If a vIable agency IS elImInated from thIS network, the entIre delIvery sys- terr, suffers -- a referral source IS lost, staff expertIse IS no longer avaIlable to other agencIes and most l~portantly a "lInk In the chaIn" of serVIces IS no longer avaIlable to residents In need. In essence, res Iden ts, agenc les and the con,n,unl ty In general suffer. In 1985-86, Cl ty staff, COll,n,1 55 Ions and the CI ty CouncIl assessed the approprIate dIstributIon of support aIT,ong thIS network, to ensure breadth of serVIce based on deIl,ographlc and geographIcal consIderatIons. Some programs were elImInated or reduced, other areas (such as youth serVIces, servIces to fraIl elderly reSI- dents, and hOIl,eless servIces) were SIgnIfIcantly enhanced. The foIl OWl ng Il,a tr 1 x IndIcates the scope of thl s suppor t. - 13 - ~_~1'GE:- ~::2_~S ~rl~GZ:' :;F-OU?5 to:-_......U~;I':Y 1 "E!:;HBO!t-i.1 WIDS , HeeD! Y';:)U'!'H I F'."h.,.'O-~ : .n.&.........J...._..... 1 , ADL::. TS S~I:"RS I . ,; 'l.I'IORI':'Y {I: . :nS1'.ELE:l ~-;Q'l:!;:S I I 1 I I I LOW !}:'CCME I COt..'NSE:.ING AND ADVCCACY ;,.j w .... :> .::: ~ UJ I INOEPEI'C~:':' L!"J:::NG SERVICES f HEJU.'l'H CARE SERVICES LE:G:IL SERIJ:!CES EMPLOYME:-":' Ao'ID TRAIlUNG EMERGENCY ASSIS::'ANCE CRl~ ;RE"~tTICN C:::TIZE:; PAR':I=ZPA":':ON [ :NFC~~T:::O~ & ~FER.~ ! I ,j I ;.. o UJ :.1 ... ~ ::s to: ..... <: :J .:\8 I1"",entloned prevIously, staff recon,iT,ends that, wIthIn realIstIc fIscal constraInts, that support to thls network of currently funded programs be sustaIned for 1986-87. Thls does not, nowever, guarantee fundIng for those organlzatlons currently receIVIng grants fron, the CIty. A detaIled assessrr.ent of all applIcatIons for contInuIng funding will stIlll need to be con- ducted, gUIded by the folloWing rt,lnIIT,UIT, elIgibility requirerrlents and deSIred selectIon crIterIa. MInllT,urr, ElIgIbILIty Requ1renlents o The applicant has non-profit, tax-exempt status under Sec- tIon 50'1 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue SerVIce Code or Sec- tIon 23701 (d) of the CalIfornIa State FranchIse Tax Code at the tIme of applIcatIon. o The grantee 15 In Corr<pllance WIth the CIVIL RIghts Act of 1964 and the RehabILItatIon Act of 1973, as amended, WhICh bars dIscrImInatIon In the hirIng of staff or prOVISIon of serVIces on the basis of race, relIgIon, sex, age, natIonal or Ig In, d i sabi 11 ties, or sexual preference; and prOVIdes assurances that It WIll comply WIth all Federal and local proviSIons regarding polItIcal and lobbying actIVIty. o The grantee IS a prIvate, non-profIt organizatIon located In or serVIng CItIzens of Santa MonIca. o The grantee has formal approval of Its Board of DIrectors to submIt a proposal for CIty support. -14- TAFGET AREAS TARGET GROUPS CO\~UN!~ NLIG~OR- W~D5 HOOD I FAm~IES 1 < MINOR:!:TY LOW yot:''I'l-; .D:Jl'!'S SEXJf'.RS DISABLED fiO~~ INCOME I I I I I - I I I I tIl ;.J .... ~ ~ is tel E-o <: u COf.NSE~I~G lIUD ADVOCACY INDEP~m~n L!V~NG S~RVICES f!EiU,TH CARE seRVICES l.EGAL SERVICES E.'G'LOYMElIT AND 'I'RA.IN:n~G ~v.ERGEK~ ASSISTANCE CRl'IE PR....CVE"ITIO~ CITIZEN PARTrcrPATIOX INFOR."lATION .. Rf:FERRAL ;:.) U H ~ ~ <f} l>> o As ,entloned preVIously, staff recom~ends that, wIthIn realIstIc fIscal constraInts, that support to thIS network of currently funded prograThs be sustaIned for 1986-87. ThIS does not, however, guarantee fundIng for those organIzations currently receIVIng grants froIT. the CIty. A detailed asseSSIT.ent of all applIcatIons for continuIng fundIng WIll stllll need to be con- ducted, gUIded by the fOllOWIng [T,InIIT,UIT1 elIgIbIlIty requlrerr.ents and desired selection crIterIa. MInin.uIT. ElI9IbIlIty Requirelltents o The applIcant has non-profIt, tax-exeffipt status under Sec- tIon 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code or Sec- tIon 23701 (d) of the CalIfornIa State FranchIse Tax Code at the tIThe of applIcatIon. o The grantee is In complIance WIth the CIVIl RIghts Act of 1964 and the RehabllI tatIon Act of 1973, as anlended, WhICh bars dlSCrlThInatlon In the hItlng of staff or proviSIon of services on the baSIS of race, rellglon, sex, age, national orIgIn, dIsabilItIes, or sexual preference; and provIdes assurances that I tWIll cOfilply WI th all Feder al and local prOVIsions regarding politIcal and lObbYIng actIvity. o The grantee IS a prIvate, non-profit organIzatIon located in or servIng citIzens of Santa MonIca. o The grante~ has forffial approval of Its Board of DIrectors to submIt a proposal for CIty support. -14- SelectIon CrIterIa Each contInUIng proJect WIll then be assessed accordIng to the extent to WhICh: o The organIzatIon clearly documents the effectIveness of current serVIces to those In need and Its abIlIty to sus- taIn the level and qualIty of serVIce In the con,Ing year. o The organIzatIon offers serVIces that are avaIlable and acceSSIble to all ~e~bers of the targeted populatIon. o The organIzatIon possesses the abIlIty to prOVIde out- reach to IndIVIduals most In need of these serVIces In- cluding bl-Ilngual and bI-cultural reSIdents and low- InCOIl',e reSIdents. o The organIzatIon shows strong eVIdence of Interagency cooperatIon and sharIng of resources WIth other cOllilliunlty groups and agenCIes 10 order to lliaXIlliIze resources. o The prograIl', shows COn.rr.UOIty support through Its abIlIty to procure coIl',n,unlty resources (e.g., COntll.unIty fundraIs- lng, use of volunteers, donated serVIces). o The organIzatIon prOVIdes serVIce to Santa MonIca reSI- dents proportIonate to the level of fundIng receIved froIl'. the CIty. o The organIzation has n,axlndzed opportunItIes for fundIng fraIT, a range of non-CI ty sources to n.ake up a Il',lnIll,UlTl of 20% of 1 ts prOJected budget, thus lending to Its f lnan- clal stabIlIty and the abIlIty to sustain Itself as a part of the COIl,Il',Unl ty serVIces network. o The budget I s cost effectIve and n,ax In.l zes the use of CIty funds for dIrect serVIce delIvery (2) Support to MItIgate Effects of Decreases In Federal FundIng froIT. Non-CI t.y Sources WhIle the orIgInal Federal approprIatIons process for the current year IndIcated strong suppor t for Ifia I ntenance of se lec ted huIt,an serVIce prograllis at current levels, thIS support has eroded WIth the passage of the GraIT,It,-RudIT,an Budget Act. Funding under the Older An,er Icans Act and the soc Ial serv Ices block grant and COIT,- ITIUnl ty serVIces block grant progran.s (revenue sources for a nU[T,- ber of CIty-funded agenCIes) is now serlously In questIon. It IS - 15 - hIghly lIkely that If the CIty receIves substantIal Federal fund- lng cuts, local agenCIes WIll also receIve cuts from other pre- vIously stable sources of fundIng. To the greatest extent pos- sIble, If funds are avaIlable, consIderatIon should be gIven to short-tern, mItIgatIon through CIty fundIng. Spec Ial en,phas I s should be gIven to any affected prog rail, that pr UTea r Ily serves very low InCOIT.e reSIdents. WhIle thIS support would not be Intended as a long-tern. solutIon, It would be gIven conSIstent WIth the ratIonale that In 1986-87 the CIty should priorItIze the allocatIon of resources to sustaIn current, effectIve serVIces. Requests for fundIng would be evaluated on the extent to WhICh they ffieet elIgIbIlIty and selec- tIOn crIterIa above and also on the extent to WhICh: o the organIzatIon prOVIdes a long-term plan for ffiItIgatIng these cuts fro~ non-City sources. o the organIzatIon fully documents these cuts and the Iffi- pact On Santa MonIca reSIdents, espeCIally those of very low Incon.e; (3) Support for Expanded or New SerVIces The proposed process does not preclude subrr,IssIon of expanded proposals from current grantees or new proposals frOTh local agen- cIes not currently funded by the CIty. However, conSIderatIon of these proposals WIll occur only after the requests In the two categorIes are conSIdered. After meetIng the minlIT,Um elIgibIli- ty criterIa stated above, any new applIcatIons will be evaluated on the extent to WhICh: o the proposed expanded or new serVIce IT,eets a cr I tIcal cOIf,n.unIty need as fully doculI,ented 10 the proposal; - 16 - o the organIzatIon has a proven track record of provIdIng proposed or related services; o the organIzation clearly docun,ents that the proposed ser- VIce IS not a duplIcatIon of eXIstIng serVIces; o the organIzatIon presents an outreach the avaIlabIlIty of serVIces to those eludIng low Iocon,e and bl-llngual resIdents; plan n.ost and that ensures In need, lO- bI-cultural o the organIZatIon shows strong eVIdence of cOffimunity sup- port through 1 ts abll! ty to procure con,Il,unl ty resources (use of volunteers, fundralslng) o the organIzatIon prOVIdes documentatIon of all efforts to SOllC 1 t funds for these serv Ices froIT, non-CI ty sources; o the organIzatIon prOVIdes a hIgh level of ~atching funds for the proposed services fro~ non-CIty sources, exceed- Ing the 20% IlllnlIhUIl,; o the level of serVIce to Santa MonIca reSIdents IS propor- tIonate to the level of CIty fundIng requested; o the pr oposed budget 1 s co st effectIve and IT,ax IIl-.I zes the use of CIty funds for dIrect serVIce delIvery. - 17 - FundIng RatIonale 1986-87 Con,p,un1 ty and NeIghborhood Ill,proven.ent ProJects - 18 - Proposals fran, organIzatIons desIrlng to in-.plenlent CDBG-ellglble capItal proJects (I.e., "brIcks and nlortar" proJects) or requests for e1 iglble capl tal In,proven,ents to be In,plen,ented by Cl ty for- ces WIll be revlewed USIng the fOllOWIng fundlng ratlonale. Slnce the InceptIon of the CoIt,It,Unlty Developn,ent Block Grant Pro- gra~ ten years ago, the Clty has used the maJorIty of these funds for a WIde range of capItal proJects or programs benefItIng lower Incon,e res Idents and nelghborhoods. UntIl several year sago, large annual entl tlep,ents pI us suffIcient unexpended funds fronL prIor years enabled the CIty to fund many proJects determIned to be ellg I ble under Federal CDBG gUldell nes. ProJects 1 ncluded Infrastructure In,proverr.ents In lower Incorr,e aceas, park and p,ural proJects, acqUIsItIon and renovatIon of faCIlItIes for SOCIal serVIce organIzatIons, publIC acceSSIbIlIty and barrIer removal Ip,proven,ents, as well as the InItIatIon of several affordable hOUSIng progran,s. As entl tlenLents have slowly declIned and the an,ount of carryover funds have decreased due to the cOIT,pletlon of an IncreaSIng nun.- ber of approved proJects, the allocation of CDBG resources to Con,It,Unl ty and NeIghborhood In,proven,ent Projects has been I lIT. I ted to a smaller targeted group of proJects. PrImary targetIng over the last several years has been gIven to affordable housing pro- grams, espeCIally those benefIttIng the PI co NeIghborhood. Con- sequently, decreased en,phasIs has been placed on Infrastructure lmprovements or publIC works Improvements. - 19 - Due to thIS targetIng and the fact that CDBG represents one of the few ren.aInIng sources of Federal fundIng for housIng pro- grall,S, the CIty's Affordable HousIng prograrr, has relIed heaVIly on the COIT,IT.unI ty DevelopIT,ent prograIT' for ongOIng support. Con- slstent wIth Federal and local CDBG legIslatIon and the Cityls HOUSIng Elen.ent and HOUSIng ASsIstance Plan, staff therefore pro- poses that ava lIable resources In 1986-87 be a llocated as fol- lows: (1) fIrst prIorIty be gIven to the maIntenance of current- ly-funded affo rdable hous 1 ng pr og ran,s; (2) second pr lor I ty be gIven to any other currently-funded ongOIng Con'IllunIty and NeIgh- borhood In,proven,en t prograIl'. tha t contInue s to Il'leet the needs of lower InCOIl',e reSIdents of Santa MonIca; (3) thIrd prIorIty be gIven to any new affordable hous 1 ng progran,s, espec Ially those that provide opportunItIes for reSIdents who contInue to experl- ence dIffIculty In obtaInIng hOUSIng (low lncon,e, dIsabled and large fan,llles) and (4) If funds ren,aIn, conSIderatIon be gIven to neIghborhood reVItalizatIon proJects that enhance living con- dItIons In lower lnco~e neIghborhoods. Because fundIng for thl s cOIT,ponent COIl'.es aln,ost entI re ly fron. Federal sources, as opposed to ConlIT,Unlty SerVIce ProJects WhICh receIves only 50% of Its support fro~ Federal sources, all fund- lng applIcatIons WIll be carefully evaluated based on the follow- lng n<lnlrr,UIl, elIgIbIlIty requlrerrlents and selectIon crIterIa: MInIIl,urr, ElIgIbIlity RequIrerr,ents o The proJect I1,eets Federal elIgIbIlIty definitIons; o If the proJect IS to be Ifuple~ented by an outSIde agency, the agency Il,eets the baSIC el ig 1 bIll ty requ 1 ren,en ts for grantees detaIled on page 14 of thIS report. 20 - o The proJect prIn.arIly benefIts low and IT,oderate Incon,e per- sons by ensurIng that at least 75 percent of its dIrect benefIcIarIes are of low or moderate Income; or, o The proJect pr In,ar Ily benefl ts low and Illoderate Incon,e per- sons by ensurIng that at least 51 percent of the populatIon of the proJect area benefIted by the proJect are low and rr.oderate Incon,e persons. o The proJect does not replace actIVItIes currently conducted WI th support fron. the General Fund. SelectIon CriterIa o If minImum elIgIbIlIty reqUIrements are met, proposals WIll be evaluated on the extent to WhICh: o The proJect WIll resul tIn long-tern. benefl t to low and It,oderate lncon.e resIdents. o The proposal prOVIdes eVIdence that the proposed prograrr, or proJect does not duplIcate other progran,s or proJects In the con,n,un I ty . o The proposed funding structure leverages non-CDBG funds. o The project shows long-term potentIal for a cash return on the CDBG Investn,ent and does not reqUIre ongoing COBG or governrr,ent support for ll.aIntenance. o If the project IS to be Implemented by an outSIde organIza- tIon, the proposal Includes docun,entatlon of current or planned adnanIstratIve capaCIty to IIT,plen,ent con,n,unity developn.ent proJects and experIence WI th Federally-assIsted progran.s. o The w.plen,entlng agency or departn.ent presents a progran. that Includes both adIT,lnlstratIve procedures and a VIable ImplementatIon plan for tImely executIon of the proJect. In addition, due to the speCIfIC nature of two projects elIgIble for fundIng, addItIonal crIterIa will be applied as follows: (1) Housing RehabIlItatIon Programs o The progran. conforn.s to HUD prograITI perforITlance standards WIth an admInIstratIve cost cap of 15% of the total funds requested. (2) One-tl~e HOUSIng AcqUlsltlonjRehabIlitlatIon ProJects o The to ta 1 proJec t cost 1 s reasonable WI th the SUbSIdy request not exceedIng 33% of the total developrr.ent cost or $20,000 per unIt, whIchever IS less; - 21 - o The proJect locatIon IS located In the CIty of Santa MonIca and I s free froITi adver se env I ronrr,ental IIT.pacts, e.g., nOIse, or the rehabIlItatIon actIVItIes IlIUSt suc- cess fully IT,1 tlga te these lI'r.pac ts; o At least 75% of the eXIstIng tenants In a proposed rehabIlItatIon proJect ~ust affIrfu 10 wrItIng Interest In partIcIpatIng In the prograp., o The proJect benefIts a hIgh percentage of very low and low 1 ncon.e househo Ids. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT ReCOIl,ll.endatlons lncl uded In thl s report WIll have no budget or fInanCIal 1Il.pact on the current year t s budget. All recOIr.IT,enda- tlons for speCIfIc fundIng approprIatIons and allocatIons wIll occur durIng the 1986-87 budget process. RECOMMENDATIONS CIty staff recoITiP.ends that the CIty CouncIl (1) approve the fund- ing ratIonale and selectIon crIterIa as speCIfIed In thIS staff report; and (2) authorIze the CIty Manager to lIT,plerr,ent the grant fundIng process wIthIn the tlffiellnes speCIfIed. Prepared by: Barbara StInchfIeld, Con,If,unlty DevelopIl,ent Mgr. Departp.ent of Con,IT.unl ty and ECOnOITIIC Developu,ent - 22 -