SR-300-002-01 (71)
"
,
3(/CJ-~0:2-0/
I{-A
JAH B 1985
'~
]
C/ED:CD:MK:wp
Counc~l Mtg. 1-8-85
Santa MonIca, CalIfornIa
TO: Mayor and CIty CounCIl
FROM: C~ty Staff
SUBJECT: RecommendatIon to Approve the Funding RatIonale for the
1985-86 CommunIty Development Program.
INTRODUCTION
ThIS report presents a proposed fundIng ratIonale for the CIty'S
1985-86 CommunIty Development Program.
It fIrst summarIzes the
hIstory of the program, outlines the proposed fundIng schedule
and cItIzen participatIon process, and then presents grant
ratIonale and selectIon crIterIa for the two components of the
program: CommunIty Service ProJects (operating grants to SOCIal
serVIce organIzations and neighborhood aSSOCIatIons) and CommunI-
ty and ~elghborhood Improvement Projects (CDBG capItal proJects).
BACKGROUND
I. HIstory of the CommunIty Development Program
The CommunIty Development Program represents an integratIon
of prevIously separate grant programs of the CIty Including the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, General Revenue
SharIng (GRS) program, and mIscellaneous funds from state and
local sources. This IntegratIon was achieved In 1983-84 and has
proven to be an effective "umbrella" for these funds because of
its success in streamlInIng the applIcatIon and grants management
process.
11-4-
J4N 8 1985
- 1 -
!
1 "
DurIng the current year, 33 Community Service ProJects 1n the
amount of $1.99 mIllIon and 10 CommunIty and NeIghborhood Im-
provement ProJects (CDBG capItal proJects benefItIng lower-income
resIdents) In the amount of $1.02 mIllIon were inItIated. In
addItIon, 13 Community and NeIghborhood ProJects approved In
pr10r years and contInUIng Into the present year are In the pro-
cess of beIng completed.
II. Funding Process
The proposed process for developIng the 1985-86 CommunIty
Development Program 15 similar to the current year's and has been
deSIgned to:
o maXImIze CItIzen partICIpation WIth a speCIal emphaSIS on
InVOlVIng lower Income residents, users of community ser-
VIces, and CIty Board and Conmllsslon members;
o utIlize a range of wrItten comments from CommISSIons and
Task Forces;
o integrate applIcatIon and review procedures WIth the
CIty'S general budget process for 1985-86 In order to gIve
the CIty CounCIl the opportunIty to assess the proposed
CommunIty Development Program In the context of all CIty
program and serVIces;
o meet all requirements of Federal fundIng sources and local
ordInances to ensure contInuance of these maJor sources of
funding for the program.
A. Funding Schedule
Workshop on CommunIty Development Needs
Sponsored by the SOCIal SerVIces CommISSIon 11-3-84
CounCIl Approval of CD Program FundIng
RatIonale 1-8-85
"Requests for Proposals" AvaIlable to PublIC 1-10-85
Workshop on Proposal Preparation
1-21-85
- 2 -
1. _,
1;. ~
MaIling of CD Program Information Packet
2-15-85
Deadline for Submittal of FundIng Proposals
2-28-85
Proposed CD Plan Draft AvaIlable to Public
and CIty Commissions (IncludIng fundIng
recommendatIons)
4-22-85
AdmInIstrative Hearing on CD Plan Draft
5-6-85
TransmIttal of Proposed CD Plan to CounCIl
5-8-85
Budget HearIngs and CounCIl Approval of CD
Plan and CDBG Statement of ObjectIves and
Carry-over Session If necessary
5-28-85
5-29-85
B. CItIzen PartIcipatIon Process
The actIvitIes described above prOVIde the framework for an
extenSIve CItIzen partICIpatIon process designed to Involve resi-
dents In the development of the 1985-86 CommunIty Development
Program.
The fIrst step In thIS process was the "CommunIty Development
Needs Workshop" WhICh was sponsored by the CIty'S SOCIal SerVIces
CommISSIon on November 3, 1985 WIth the aSSIstance of other Com-
mISSIons.
During the workshop, resIdents, COITUTlISSIOners and
users of SOCIal serVIces prOVIded Input on a range of community
development and community serVIce needs USIng a small-group for-
mat orIented toward speCIfIC serVIce areas.
The comments from
this workshop have been taken Into conSIderatIon in creatIng thIS
document and WIll be further utIlIzed throughout the proposal-
reVIew process.
In addition, a CommunIty Development Program InformatIon Packet
WIll be made avaIlable to reSIdents and communIty organizations,
notIficatIon of all publIC hearIngs WIll be WIdely advertIsed,
- 3 -
~ .
and CIty CommISSIons will be encouraged to reVIew relevant pro-
posals and the draft CommunIty Development Plan. The SocIal Ser-
VIces CommISSIon is finalIzIng Its plan for revIewIng CommunIty
Service Project proposals and has had Input Into in the develop-
ment of the CommunIty SerVIce ProJect fundIng rationale proposed
In thIS report.
DISCUSSION
In developing the proposed funding rationale for 1985-86 CIty
staff has revIewed a range of documents which will also serve as
the basis for subsequent assessment and review activities. These
documents Include:
o Task Force on LatIno AffaIrs Report, 1984.
to CouncIl in December 1984.)
(TransmItted
o SocIal ServIces CommissIon Report on CommunIty Development
Needs, 1984. (Transmitted to Council concurrently wIth
this report.)
o PublIC Hearing on DIsabIlItIes Issues Report, 1984.
(TransmItted to Council concurrently WIth thIS report.)
o Study on the Needs of the Non-ambulatory Elderly In Santa
MonIca, 1984. (TransmItted to Council concurrently with
this report.)
o Report to the CIty CounCIl of the CIty of Santa
MonIca on the Homeless In Santa MonIca, 1984. (TransmIt-
ted to CounCIl In December 1984.)
o The ShrInkIng SocIal SerVIces Dollar: An AnalYSIS of Re-
cent Trends and Future ProjectIons of SocIal Ser-
VIces Funding In Santa Monica, 1984. (Report prepared
by graduate students from UCLA's Graduate School of
ArchItecture and Urban PlannIng for the Department of Com-
munIty and EconomIC Development. AvaIlable from the De-
partment of Comnlunlty and EconomIC Development.)
o End Results: The Impact of Federal PolICIes Since 1980
on Low Income AmerIcans, 1984. (Report prepared by the
Center on Budget and POlICY PrIorItIes, Washington, D.C.
Available from the Department of community and EconomIC
Development.)
- 4 -
~
o Task Force on Development PermIt Processes and NeIghbor-
hood PlannIng Report, 1982. (TransmItted to CouncIl in
1982 and December 1984 avaIlable from the Department of
CommunIty and EconomIC Development.)
Based on a review of these documents and the Input receIved from
varIOUS CommISSIons, resIdents and City staff, a proposed
ratIonale has been developed that Includes several sImIlarities
as well as several sIgnIficant changes to the 1984-85 process.
RecommendatIons that are simIlar to the current year's program
and are also supported by the SocIal ServIces CommIsSIon Include
the followIng:
o The applIcatIon process WIll be open and competItive and
not restricted to currently-funded programs.
o Proposals for specIfIc CommunIty ServIce Projects and Com-
munIty and NeIghborhood Improvement Projects will be tar-
geted based on informatIon gathered from community needs
assessment documents and workshops to ensure that pro-
posals wIll be receIved in areas of IdentIfIed needs.
The proposed changes, WhICh also have the support of the Social
ServIces CommISSIon, are as follows:
o AssumIng that the City's fiscal position remains constant,
the level of fundIng for Con~unIty ServIce projects is
recommended in the grant ratIonale. In prevIous years,
the amount of fundIng available for CommunIty SerVIce
grants was not addressed untIl the proposed CommunIty
Development Plan was transmItted to the CouncIl In May.
o Instead of across-the-board COLA's for contInUIng grantees
as in previous years, cost-of-lIvIng increases will be
awarded to agenCIes who successfully achIeved and docu-
mented theIr targeted fundraIsIng goal as specified In
theIr 1984-85 contracts WIth the CIty.
o In order to ensure proposals from neIghborhood associa-
tions that respond to selectIon criterIa specIfic to theIr
goals and activItIes, proposals submItted by neIghborhood
assocIations wIll be reviewed and evaluated based on a
separate set of crlterIa from that applied to social ser-
vice agencies.
- 5 -
o SelectIon crIterIa Include a new emphasis on developIng
strong lInkages between socIal serVIce agencies and neigh-
borhood assocIatIons for the purpose of social service
informatIon and referral.
o Selection criterIa for social serVIce agencIes and neigh-
borhood aSSOCIatIons more clearly address the Issues of
duplIcatIon of serVIces and admInIstratIve structures and
cost-effectiveness of programs.
These changes are further detaIled In the following sections.
Because of the dIfferent reqUIrements and functions of the two
program components of the CommunIty Development Program, the Com-
munIty SerVIce Projects and the Con~unIty and NeIghborhood Im-
provement Projects, separate sectIons are devoted to each compo-
nent in thIS report.
- 6 -
FundIng RatIonale
1985-86 CommunIty SerVIce ProJects
- 7 -
~
Proposals from organIzatIons desIrIng to provIde needed socIal or
neighborhood services WIll be ~evlewed uSIng the following fund-
109 rationale and revenue proJectIons.
I. 1985-86 FundIng RatIonale and SelectIon CriterIa
In the fall of 1982 the CIty Council approved a POlICY on
Human Services which was submItted by the CIty'S Social SerVIces
CommIssIon.
The baSIC premise of thIS POlICY was that the CIty,
as the closest unit of government to Santa MonIca resIdents, must
assume responsIbilIty for the delivery of human serVIces to Its
resIdents. The proposed 1985-86 ratIonale for CIty fundIng of
community se~VIces, includIng socIal services and neIghborhood
serVIces, IS predIcated on thIS very broad commitment. The pres-
sure to implement thIS commitment has been IntensIfIed by the
contInUIng decrease In funding from the Federal and County
governmental agencIes tradItIonally responsIble for thIS fundIng.
WhIle large reductIons In current Federal funds WhICh impact the
Community Development Program seem unlIkely for FY 1985-86, it is
hIghly probable that the trend towards reductIon WIll contInue.
In addItIon, the pressure for the CIty to provIde support has
been further IntensifIed by the fact that private funding has not
kept pace wIth dIscontinued or reduced government spending.
In a
study conducted by a team of students from UCLA's Graduate School
of ArchItecture and Urban PlannIng referenced earlier in thIS
report, lIttle eVIdence was found to Indicate that the prIvate
sector IS willIng to provIde a stable and ongoing source of sup-
port for most social serVIce organizatIons; rather, of the 29
- 8 -
~
largest Santa Monica employers contacted, most compan~es and cor-
porat~ons were wIlling to provide small amounts of funds on an
"as-needed" basis, but were reluctant to playa strong role In
socIal serVIce fundIng. WhIle It is dIfficult to predIct the
amount of future pr~vate aId, there is no Indication of a sub-
stantlal Increase in contrIbutIons or commItments from local com-
panles and corporations In spIte of efforts by many local agen-
cies to secure thIS fundIng.
Thus, CIty government faces the
dIffIcult task of meetIng increasIng demands for financIal sup-
port of socIal services WIthin the CIty's own budget constraInts.
Because of the need to balance the City's commItments to fundIng
WIth these stated lImItatIons, City staff, WIth concurrence from
the SocIal SerVIces CommISSIon, proposes that avaIlable CIty
resources be allocated as follows: (1) partIal support to a range
of organIzations to ensure the continuance of a broad-based com-
munlty serVIces network In Santa Monica; (2) targeted support for
speCIal proJects or serVIces approprIate for CIty funding; and
(3) support for stable, representatIve neIghborhood aSsocIatIons.
A descrIptIon of each follows.
A. Support for the CommunIty SerVIces Network
The Santa MonIca communIty benefIts from a very effective
network of communIty serVIce agencIes, serving a wide range of
target groups and provIdIng multI-dImenSIonal serVIces. Because
indiVIduals seekIng socIal serVIces often have an array of needs,
only through an effectIve coordInation of resources from a number
of sources can these needs be met. The marshallIng of resources
- 9 -
frow a number of agencIes creates a synergIstIc e:f2ct t,at 20uls
not be accomplIshed If serVIces were gIve~ by e3C~ program l~
isolatIon from the others.
If a vIable agency IS ell~iDated from
thIS network, the entIre delIvery system suffers -- a referral
source IS lost, staff expertIse IS no longer avaIlable to :)t~er
agencIes and most Importantly a "lInk 1:1 t~e chaIn" of serVIces
is no longer avaIlable to residents In need.
In essence, res:-
dents, agencIes and the community in general suffer.
In assessIng how the CIty should support thIS network, the fol-
lowIng matrIX should be used in order to ensure breadth of ser-
VIce based on geographical and demographIc conSIderatIons.
TF-...PGE-: A.~EAS
T;'~RGET '-_ --os
l'.""c'."T~'-~Y 1 ,,',.._-;"n~~_I;
..... _JUL'o_ _ ..~-,.l..;:!~v:\
I ',:::E .,0:1[: i
I ! ~
~
..J
:;: r.EA:.T~ -::~ 5E..~-';:"':::(:ES
r::::
~ --GO' ~-R'T_""-C
~ I ~ "- ",=.,.. -~~-
i El-IPr,OY'lENT AKe IR;I~::::~~
~::;~CY ;SSISTA..~CE
c<U~ PR3VENT1m'
C!T~ZE:oJ PAR':'ICIPA'I':::CN
l~fC~lA':I -;J~ ;; RE;ER..1>AL
.
j
I
I i
,
I
J
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I I I \.~I:-lO~!~=." ... ~(:'v.
i :.OfJTF E'A:t:i::'I:E:S , ~:TI,;'I'S .::EJ-.:::r.::; ~ DIS;'3~:> j;.;.Jl,.:E'-~ ::~C-:Jl'~
, I I I
I i
I
, I
! I
i j
I I I I
!
I i ,
I 1
I ,
i j ; I
i 1
1
. I '1
,
~ j I
! i ,
j , ,
I 1 ,
1 1 i
, I j ,
,
I
l-~.'n' --~ 1'j- Hj~ '..... --c' ~Y'
'__........:"',::,J:..i..I ..-'.; .r.J.>~ rt.-'...'..... .M.....
,
I TN""'''''''~''D-'- T -"I'-~ -E-"ICE'"
....L ..,_.....:;:..'i J:;...,_ .L.,J...J ..'IOU ;:;....... .....
UJ
t.l
1-1
r::::
~
~
E-t
<:C
:..J
, "
~ t..'
WhIle the scope of serVIces IndIcated In the matrix is broad,
some programs are IT10re critIcal In addreSSIng IdentIfied communI-
ty needs, some target groups are more In need of these serVIces,
and some programs are more approprIate for CIty fundIng than
others.
All these factors must be taken Into conSIderation when
evaluatIng which agenCIes withIn this network are most appropri-
ate for partIal CIty funding.
To gUIde these decIsIons, the fol-
lOWIng mInimum elIgIbIlity reqUIrements and desired selectIon
crIterIa are proposed:
MinImum EligIbIlIty ReqUIrements
o The applIcant has non-profIt, tax-exempt status under Sec-
tIon Sal(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue SerVIce Code or Sec-
tIon 237al (d) of the CalIfornIa State Franchise Tax Code at
the tIme of applIcation.
o The grantee IS In complIance 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
origIn, dIsabIlitIes, 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.
SelectIon CriterIa
Each elIgible project will then be assessed accordIng to the
extent to WhICh:
o The organIzatIon clearly IdentIfIes ItS target population
and documents why thIS populatIon needs thIS serVIce.
o The organIzatIon offers services that are avaIlable and ac-
ceSSIble to all members of the targeted populatIon.
- 11 -
o The organIzation possesses the abIlity to provide outreach
to IndIviduals most In need of these serVIces Including bi-
lIngual and bi-cultural resIdents and low-income resIdents.
o The organIzation has a documented plan to coordInate infor-
mation and referral serVIces Including the strengthening of
linkages with neIghborhood assocIations and other
neIghborhood-based servIces.
o The organizatIon shows strong eVIdence of Interagency
cooperatIon and sharIng of resources wIth other communIty
groups and agencIes In order to maxImize resources.
o The organIzation provIdes eVIdence that the proposed program
does not duplIcate other serVIces in the communIty. If
duplIcation does exist, the proposal presents a long-term
plan for coordInatIon or possIble consolIdatIon.
o The organIzatIon exhIbIts a hIstory of effectiveness and
success In the delIvery of the proposed serVIces to the
communIty.
o The program shows communIty support through its abIlIty to
procure communIty resources (e.g., communIty fundraIsIng,
use of volunteers, donated serVIces).
o Based on the availabilIty of dIfferent sources of funding
for the proposed program, the organIzatIon has maxImIzed
opportunItIes for funding from a range of non-CIty sources
to make up a mInImum of 20% of its projected budget, thus
lendIng to Its financial stabilIty and the abIlIty to sus-
taIn Itself as a part of the conmlunIty services network.
o The organIzatIon proposes a budget WhICh reflects cost-
effectIve admInIstratIve and program activitIes.
- 12 -
B. Support for Targeted ServIces
In addItIon to thIS broad-based support, It IS approprIate
for the CIty to foster specIal programs for one or more of the
fOllOWIng reasons:
o A dramatic and unforeseen decrease or elImInatIon of the
tradItional fundIng source for a partIcular actIvity jeopar-
dIzes the eXIstence of the program; City support would be
used to allow tIme for the agency to develop a long-term
plan for mItIgating the decrease.
o An IdentIfIed gap In service IS well-documented and CIty
support would provide "seed money" for a speCIfIed period of
time, on the condItion that alternative sources of funding
be obtaIned In the long-term.
o An IdentifIed need IS documented and because the proposed
serVIce aSSIsts In the effectIve delIvery of ongOIng CIty
services, targeted CIty funding IS approprIate.
o A SIgnIfIcant envIronmental condItIon (e.g., the recession,
phYSIcal dIsaster) overburdens existIng serVIces. Because
the CIty IS the closest governmental agency to the problem,
It WIll be called upon by the communIty to assist in Its
mItIgatIon.
o The CIty receIves funds from other sources WhICh are ear-
marked for targeted serVIces and therefore must be allocated
in conformance with relevant guidelInes.
GIven the "unpredIctable" nature of some of the above factors, It
IS not always pOSSIble to identIfy these targeted serVIces In
advance of the occurrence creatIng the need.
However, given In-
formation gathered from the reports mentioned prevIously and In-
put from the Community Development Needs Workshop held In Novem-
ber, City staff sees the follOWIng areas of need which proposals
would address:
o SerVIces to Homebound SenIors (Based on dISCUSSIons WIth
serVIce prOVIders, there are two crItIcal gaps In services
to the homebound elderly: In-home services and case manage-
ment. Because of the Important role these serVIces play In
maintaInIng the well-beIng of the senIor population, the
- 13 -
~
need to support addItIonal programs In these areas have been
identIfIed by the Commlsslon on Older AmerIcans as the top
two serVlce prIorIties for thIS group.)
o Homeless and Emergency ServIces (ThIS area was targeted in
1984-85 and programs providIng emergency shelter and food
were funded; however, the problem of the homeless is a
serIOUS and substantial natIonal problem that is disquIeting
to every sector of the communIty. The need for shelter and
food for thIS populatIon has beeen recognIzed throughout the
natIon. In addItIon, many homeless indivIduals have specIal
needs requirIng health, nutrItIonal, counsellng and/or other
socIal serVIces. Based on needs assessments, emergency ser-
VIces to the homeless, as well as to very low Income resI-
dent to prevent further homelessness, were Identified as
serVIces that should be fostered.)
o Youth and FamIly Services (In the fall of 1984, Clty staff
attended a natIonal conference for CIty human serVIce offI-
cIals. Based on dIScussions with participants -- most nota-
bly wIth a representative from the City of Seattle who dIS-
cussed their youth advocacy program, KIdsPlace -- and on
staff research and assessment, it was determined that the
issue of youth and famIlIes needed more attention In our
communIty. WhIle limited funds have been allocated to youth
and famIly services in the past, there has been no long-term
plannIng or investment in services to youth and famIlIes.
Consequently, needs assessment documents and workshops have
pInpoInted the urgency for creatIve programs to offer sup-
port to Santa MonIca famIlIes particularly Latino famIlIes
and youths.)
Proposals for these targeted serVIces WIll also be evaluated
based on the extent to whIch they meet the eligIbIlIty and selec-
tIon crIterIa described on pages 11 and 12.
WhIle proposals for
these serVIces do not necessarIly assume prIority over other pro-
posals submItted, they are IdentIfIed In thIS sectIon to ensure
that proposals are received for consIderatIon.
C. Support for Neighborhood ServIces
In 1982, the Task Force on Development Permit Processes and
NeIghborhood PlannIng unanImously endorsed the concept of grass-
roots neIghborhood organIzations.
In essence, the Task Force
found that the goals of neIghborhood aSSOcIatIons should be:
- 14 -
o to Increase cItizen partIcipation In the decIsIons that
affect their lives and thereby keep government account-
able to the people It serves;
o to provIde a sense of community wIthin the
neIghborhood;
o to Improve the delIvery of serVIces to the neighborhood
resIdents; and
o to develop leadership among residents who otherWIse
mIght not get involved In local government.
In order to ensure the ImplementatIon of these goals, the Task
Force recommended that the CIty provIde assistance to neighbor-
hood assocIatIons that are representatIve, participatory, multi-
Issued and accountable to the neIghborhood.
In the past, neighborhood aSSocIatIons have been evaluated using
the same selectIon crIterIa as that established for socIal ser-
VIce agencies. Because of the SIgnIfIcant differences In the
servIces provIded by the two types of organizations, City staff
15 proposIng a separate set of selectIon criterIa for the evalua-
tlon of neIghborhood aSsOcIatIons.
A framework for standardIzIng neIghborhood association fundIng
was developed In 1984-85.
ThIS standardized staffIng plan In-
eluded one executIve dIrector, two organizers, and one half-tIme
clerIcal staff member.
It was based on the neceSSIty of provid-
ing a certain level of support In order to sustaIn any organiza-
tion, while also takIng Into account the fact that each of the
neighborhoods served by these organizations were comparable in
SIze. AddItionally, an attempt at standardizIng certaIn workplan
obJectIves was made to ensure that each aSSOCIatIon addressed
- 15 -
simIlar program areas and the Issues of membership and the mem-
bershIp's Involvement In program actiVItIes.
In 1985-86, staff is proposing to delIneate the program deSIgn of
the neIghborhood associatIons even further by developIng speCIfIC
crIterIa that address the Issues of accountabIlIty, representa-
tion, acceSSIbIlIty, and the contInuatIon and expanSIon of essen-
tIal serVIces to the neIghborhood.
MInImum EligIbIlity ReqUIrements
These reqUIrements are identical to those for SOCIal service
agenCIes as lIsted on page 11.
SelectIon CrIteria
o The aSSOCIation clearly identifIes the neIghborhood it
serves.
o The associatIon fully documents support of the reSIdents It
IS intended to serve IncludIng substantIation of broad and
representatIve neighborhood membershIp and Involvement of
neIghbors In a range of actiVItIes.
o The aSSOCIatIon 15 governed by a stable, well-representatIve
Board of DIrectors.
o The aSSOCIatIon shows eVIdence of a well-developed network
of block clubs and Issue commIttees.
o The program developed by the aSSOCIation prOVIdes dIrect
services to ItS reSIdents, IncludIng but not lImIted to:
crime preventIon actIVItIes;
safety-related Issues;
leadership traIning and development;
CItIzen partiCIpatIon In CIty polIcy-makIng.
o The program developed by the aSSOCIatIon proposes the prOVI-
SIon of SOCIal service InformatIon and referral serVIces to
the neIghborhood.
o The aSSOCIatIon shows eVIdence of equal avaIlabIlIty and
accessibIlIty to all reSIdents of the community (e.g., hours
of operatIon and coverage by staff) .
- 16 -
o The associatIon possesses the abIlIty to provide outreach to
all neIghbors In the communIty IncludIng bIlIngual, bicul-
tural residents.
o The associatIon shows strong eVIdence of Inter-agency
cooperatIon and sharIng of resources with other communIty
groups and agencies In order to maXImIze resources.
o Based on the availabIlIty of dIfferent sources of funding
for the proposed program, the associatIon has maxImized op-
portunitIes for fundIng from a range of non-CIty sources to
make up a mInImum of 15% of Its proJected budget, thus lend-
Ing to Its fInanCIal stabIlIty and the abIlIty to sustaIn
itself as part of the communIty serVIces network.
o The assocIatIon proposes a budget WhICh reflects cost-
effective admInIstratIve and program actIvItIes (e.g. con-
solIdated serVIces among assocIatIons).
o The associatIon utIlizes CIty funds to enhance fundIng from
other sources.
II.
1985-86 Revenue ProJectIons for CommunIty SerVIce ProJects
A.
1985-86 Program Level of Fundlns
In order to be guided by a set of fiscal constraInts In
evaluatIng the CommunIty Development proposals and makIng recom-
mendations to CounCIl, staff IS propOSIng that for purposes of
asseSSIng proposals and presentIng recommendatIons of proposed
CommunIty Service grants to CounCIl, these recommendatIons be
made on the assumptIon that the current total level of fundIng be
maintaIned In 1985-86.
In addItIon, it IS proposed that a "con-
sumer price Index" (CPl) adJustment, as detaIled below, be In-
cluded. WhIle thIS proposed level of fundIng IS to be used by
staff as a gUIde In makIng fundIng recommendatIons, It 15 under-
stood that the fInal level of funding WIll be determined WIthIn
the context of the Clty'S 1985-86 budget.
- 17 -
1. Consumer PrIce Index AdJustment
Staff IS proposIng a 4% Increase to the 1984-85 Com-
munIty Development Program level of funding as a cost-of-IIving
adJustment. These monIes would then be allocated to contInuing
agencIes as follows.
Because of the Council's expressed desIre to have Community Ser-
vice agenCIes decrease theIr reliance on City funding whIle In-
creaSIng theIr revenues from other sources, 1984-85 grant awards
ensured that CIty funds dId not exceed 80% of the proJected bud-
gets for SOCIal serVIce agencies nor 85% of the proJected budgets
for neIghborhood aSSOCIatIons. It IS proposed that a 4% cost-of-
lIving Increase be gIven to communIty service agenCIes who
achIeve theIr mInImum targets of 20% and 15% respectIvely from
non-CIty sources. AgenCIes would be requIred to submIt an au-
dIted statement or a copy of the flIed IRS form 990 for FY 1984-
85 documenting thIS achievement. This prOVIdes follow-up to a
fundraIslng requirement that has become Increasingly more demand-
Ing over the past three years and allows for an assessment of the
agenCIes' abIlIty In this speCIfIc area. These Increases would
be negotiated on a case-by-case baSIS WIth elIgIble agencies and
would be transmItted to CouncIl for approval.
B. 1985-86 Revenue Sources for CommunIty SerVIce ProJects
In proposals beIng developed by the federal OffIce of Man-
agement and Budget (OMB), both the CommunIty Development Block
Grant and the General Revenue SharIng funds are proposed for
- 18 -
eIther reductIon or elImInatIon. However, these changes would
not Impact the CIty'S CommunIty Development Program until 1986-87
as explained below.
A reductIon of the Community Development Block Grant by 10% has
been proposed. Because thIS program IS funded by a "forward
fundingll mechanIsm, monIes for the CIty'S 1985-86 budget are con-
taIned In the Department of HOUSIng and Urban Development's 1984-
85 budget. Therefore, any reductIons made In the Federal 1985-86
fIscal year, would not affect the CIty'S CommunIty Development
Program untIL the CIty'S 1986-87 fIscal year. A proposal has
also been made to elImInate the General Revenue SharIng programs
at the end of September 1986. Because of the overlap In fIscal
years, If thIS proposal were passed It would mean a 75% decrease
In the City's 1986-87 program but would not affect the CIty'S
1985-86 entitlement. However, In dISCUSSIons with several na-
tIonal aSSOcIatIons and organIzations that monItor the federal
budget, staff has been Informed that It IS unlikely that these
proposals WIll be passed In their entirety but rather will be
altered during the CongressIonal process.
Based on estImates receIved from these washIngton-based adVIsory
serVIces, approXImately $1.24 mIllIon In Federal and special
revenues WIll be avaIlable for the range of SOCIal and neIghbor-
hood serVIce programs In 1985-86.
The follOWIng table indIcates the anlount of contrIbutIon by
revenue source In support of current-year proJects and projected
revenues for FY 1985-86.
- 19 -
Projected
Revenues Revenues
1984-85 1985-86
General Revenue SharIng $ 884,188 $ 867,000
CDBG - CommunIty ServIces 179,443 187,13013 (1 )
PropOSItIon A for
ParatransIt 128,809 128,80'9 (2)
VItale-GIlpIn Settlement 60,00'0 60',0013
General Fund 740,823 830',790
TOTAL 1,993,263 2,073,599 ( 3 )
(1) SlIght Increase due to the change In amount of entItlement
funds WhICh may be used for Community SerVIces. Total
CDBG entitlement IS not proJected to increase.
(2) A mId-year request wIll be presented to Council to In-
crease PropOSItIon A monIes for transportatIon servIces.
ThIS increase would then be annualIzed In 1985-86.
(3) If programs funded mId-year In 1984-85 are awarded full-
year grants In 1985-86, thIS wIll neceSSItate a propor-
tIonate Increase In the funding level based on an annual-
Ized budget for the program
c. ReductIon In AdmInIstrative Costs
Grant Rationale In previous years has always encouraged
agenCIes to develop cost-effective programs and procedures. Ad-
dItlonally, It has become apparent that all the CommunIty SerVice
agenCIes share certaIn SImIlar admIn~stratlve needs.
In an ef-
fort to help these agenCIes streamlIne theIr adminIstratIve costs
and thereby maximIze the funds avaIlable for program actiVItIes,
CIty staff IS currently researchIng possible means of "bulk pur-
chaslog11 of commodItIes that are COmmon to all agencies such as
insurance, office supplIes and bookkeepIng serVIces.
It IS hoped
that such a program could be InItiated In some form In the pro-
gram year 1985-86 and expanded as the capacity to admInIster such
a proJect IS developed. A statewIde movement eXIsts under the
auspices of the CalIfornIa ASSOCIatIon of Non-Profits to develop
- 20 -
such a program mOdeled after the WashIngton CouncIl of SocIal
ServIce Agencies In Washington, D.C. WhICh has conducted a suc-
cessful program for the last four years. If these efforts are
successful and admInIstrative cost-savIngs occur, the funds saved
would be channeled to dIrect serVIce delIvery.
D. Impact of FundIng Level and Targeted ServIces
If the proposed open competItIon of the COll@unlty Develop-
ment Program IS approved, it IS important to note that if new
proposals successfully compete for funds It WIll necessarIly
result in a realIgnment of fundIng for current programs, Includ-
Ing reductIons In those programs determIned not to meet selectIon
crIteria as successfully as others. It is Important to recognIZe
the implIcatIons of these actIons and that to maIntaIn presently-
funded programs, plus adding new programs, would necessitate a
correspondIng increase In the General Fund contributIon.
E. ContIngency for Decrease In Federal FundIng
In the event that the CIty'S Federal revenue sources were
SIgnIfIcantly reduced beyond the means of the City's General Fund
to COmpensate for thIS reduction, the CommunIty Development Pro-
gram would, of neceSSIty, be decreased. Top priorIty would then
be gIven to those programs which serve the largest number of low-
Income reSIdents and/or meet the needs of low-income residents
for food, shelter and emergency serVlces.
- 21 -
Funding RatIonale
1985-86 Community and Neighborhood Improvement ProJects
- 22 -
Proposals from organIzatIons desIrIng to Implement CDBG-elIgible
capI tal proJ ects (i. e., "br icks and mortar II proJ ects) or requests
for elIgIble capItal improvements to be Implemented by CIty for-
ces WIll be reVIewed uSIng the followIng fundIng ratIonale and
revenue projections.
I. 1985-86 Funding RatIonale and SelectIon CrIteria
The baSIS for selectIon of these proJects wIll be the extent
to which these proJects comply WIth the prIoritIes set forth in
the Clty'S CDBG Ordinance, With applIcable federal regulatIons,
and with the followIng selectIon crIterIa. All requests, whether
InitIated by City departments, cItIzens or communIty organIza-
tlons WIll be reViewed utIlIzIng these crIterIa:
MInImum ElIgibilIty RequIrements
o If the proJect is to be Implemented by an outside agency,
the agency meets the baSIC eligIbIlity requIrements for
grantees detaIled on pages 11 and 12 of thIS report.
o The proJect prImarIly benefIts low and moderate Income per-
sons by ensurIng that at least 75 percent of its direct
benefICIarIes are of low or moderate Income; or,
o The project primarIly benefIts low and moderate income per-
sons by ensurIng that at least 51 percent of the populatIon
of the project area benefIted by the proJect are low and
moderate income persons.
o The proJect does not replace actIvIties currently conducted
with support from the General Fund.
SelectIon CriterIa
o The proJect will result in lon9-term benefit to low and
moderate Income reSIdents.
o The proJect proposes a cost-effective program for maIntaIn-
Ing and imprOVIng hOUSIng opportunItIes for low/mOderate
- 23 -
income persons, IncludIng projects that retaIn or expand
housIng opportun1t1es for lower-income fam1l1es.
o The proJect promotes economIC development 1n deter1orat1ng
areas that prov1de serVIces of benef1t to low and moderate
Income res1dents.
o The project stabIlIzes or enhances low/moderate Income
neIghborhoods, consistent wIth the CltylS General Plan.
o The proposal prov1des eV1dence that the proposed program
does not dup11cate other programs 1n the commun1ty. If
duplication does eXIst, proposal presents a long-term plan
for coord1nat1on or poss1ble consolIdation.
o The proposed fundIng structure leverages non-CDBG funds.
o The proJect shows long-term potential for a cash return on
the CDBG 1nvestment and does not requIre ongoing CDBG or
government support for maIntenance.
o If the project 1S to be 1mplemented by an outs1de organ1za-
tlon, the proposal 1ncludes documentat1on of current or
planned adnl1n1strat1ve capacIty to implement communIty
development proJects and exper1ence wIth Federally-ass1sted
programs.
o The 1mplement1ng agency or department presents a program
that 1ncludes both adm1n1strative procedures and a viable
1mplementation plan for t1mely executIon of the proJect.
Because there are several needs not currently beIng addressed by
the ongoIng program or there 1S cont1nu1ng need 1n spec1fic
areas, proposals are encouraged in the followIng areas.
SOllcit-
109 proposals 1n these areas, however, does not represent a
pr1orlt1zat1on of these proJects over other identifIed needs but
is 1ntended to promote Innovat1ve proposals 1n prevIously under-
served areas.
The areas are as follows:
o proJects that leverage low and moderate 1ncome housIng funds
WIth other state, local or federal program monIes and pr1-
vate funds;
o projects that propose the use of underut1llzed school dIS-
trict bUIldings for CDBG-e11g1ble actIvItIes;
o projects that result In the preservation or expanSIon of
needed commercIal, retaIl serVIces In low and moderate In-
come neIghborhoods;
- 24 -
. r
o proJects that promote the removal of barrlers to dlsabled
resldents and visltors and meet crIteria approved In the
City's MultI-Year BarrIer Removal Plan; and
o proJects that ensure adequate and stable facillties for so-
CIal serVIce agencles serv1ng low and moderate 1ncome
res1dents.
II. 1985-86 Revenue PrOJectIons for Community and Neighborhood
Improvement Projects
The sole source of fundIng for thIS component 1S the Com-
munlty Development Block Grant entItlement receIved each year,
any program income generated from that program, and prIor year
CDBG funds unexpended and not conmlltted to a contInUIng proJect.
WhIle It IS dIfficult to proJect the amount avaIlable for new
projects SIX months prIor to the end of the current year before
fInal expendItures of current year proJects are known, It 15 es-
tlmated that approxImately $770,000 in CDBG funds WIll be avaII-
able for new CommunIty and NeIghborhood Improvement Projects. If
consensus cannot be reached regardIng the development of a SIte
for a multI-serVIce center approXImately $508,000 In CDBG funds
from prior years WIll be avaIlable for reprogrammIng. The status
of CDBG fundIng IS further descrIbed on pages 18 and 19.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
RecommendatIons Included In thIS report will have no budget or
fInanCIal impact on the current year's budget. All recommenda-
tlons for speCIfic fundIng approprIatIons and allocations WIll
occur In the context of the 1985-86 budget process.
- 25 -
RECOMMENDATIONS
CIty staff recommends that the CIty CouncIl (1) approve the grant
ratIonale and selection criterIa as specIfied in thIS staff re-
port; and (2) authorize the CIty Manager to Implement the grant
fundIng process wIthIn the tlmelines specIfIed.
Prepared by:
Barbara J. Stlnchfield, CommunIty Development Unlt
Manager
MaggIe Kennedy, Grants AdmInIstrator
Department of CommunIty and EconomIc Development
- 26 -