HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/05/19 Item 13 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item Al
Meeting Date 10
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Block Grant Application for 1987-88 Program
Year
Resolution OW Approving Block Grant Application and
Associated Documents for 1987-88 Program Year
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: City Manager97 (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
Under the Community Development Block Grant Program, the City is entitled to
$865,000 in FY 1987-88. Proposals have been solicited for projects eligible
for funding under the Block Grant regulations, and a 1987-88 Block Grant
program is recommended. Associated documents have been compiled. The public
hearing must now be conducted in order to consider and approve the application
and the Statement of Community Development Objectives for the 1987-88 Block
Grant program year.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt
the resolution approving the 1987-88 Block Grant application and associated
documents and approving their submittal to HUD.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: During the months of March and April ,
the Human Relations Commission met four times to consider and evaluate the
proposals for Block Grant social service funding. Proposers were invited to
make presentations to the Commission. The Commission, at its last meeting in
the process, chose nine social service projects to recommend for funding and
decided on the recommended level of funding for each project. A copy of the
Commission's recommendations appears in the attached report (Section III.D).
The Commission on Aging held four meetings to evaluate all of the Block Grant
social service proposals. A summary of their recommendation appears in the
report (Section III.E) .
Section III.F of the report compares the original funding requests, the
recommendations of Human Relations Commission and the Commission on Aging, and
the staff recommendations.
DISCUSSION:
I. INTRODUCTION
The following documents, which appear in the attached report, are submitted
for approval at this public hearing:
Page 2, Item 14
Meeting Date 5/12/87
1 . 1987-88 Program Year Block Grant Application. (Section IIA)
2. Certifications (Section IIB)
3. Program Year Statement of Community Development Objectives (Section IIC)
4. Program Year Community Plan (Section IID)
5. Program Year Relocation Plan (Section IIE)
6. Project Descriptions (Section IC)
With approval of these documents, the Block Grant application can be submitted
to HUD and be subjected to an evaluation period. If the application is
approved by HUD at the end of that period, the City could be eligible to draw
funds on July 1 , 1987. As a result of the required HUD evaluation period and
the desirability of being able to draw down funds on July 1 , the Block Grant
application is considered at this time, prior to the City budget process.
Appropriations for the approved projects will be made in the City budget
process.
II. COMPILING THE APPLICATION
Potential Block Grant projects were solicited from all City departments, from
numerous social service providers, and from Chula Vista citizens through the
public notices and the public hearing. All social service organizations
having previously received Block Grant or community promotions funding or
having expressed interest in the City CDBG program were sent letters informing
them of the process for applying for Block Grant funding and identifying the
information necessary for application. Those organizations were also apprised
that ongoing funding for their projects was not to be expected just as a
result of having received previous Block Grant funding. The same materials
were provided to any social service organization inquiring as a result of the
public notice.
The public hearing provides citizens with the opportunity to directly voice
their opinions of the proposed spending plan and of program performance for
the two previous program years. On April 30, 1987, a public notice of this
public hearing appeared in the Chula Vista Star-News. The notice included a
proposed Statement of Community Development Objectives for the 1987-88 program
year and a listing and summary of all project proposals received by the
Community Development Department. The notice also listed the categories of
activities pursued in the previous program year (FY 1986-87) and evaluated how
those activities satisfied the Statements of Objectives for that year.
Citizens were encouraged to contact the Community Development Department for
further information.
The overall process has been effective in making the Chula Vista community
aware of Block Grant funding opportunities and activities.
Page 3, Item 14
Meeting Date 5/12/87
III. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES
The purpose of the Block Grant program is the "development of a viable urban
community, including decent housing and a suitable living environment and
expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. " To achieve this purpose, all projects must meet one of the following
three conditions:
1 . The project principally benefits low and moderate income persons. This
can mean that all of the direct beneficiaries are demonstrated to be low
and moderate income or that the activity is in a neighborhood which
contains a majority of low and moderate income residents.
2. The project aids in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight.
3. The project meets "urgent" community development needs. These projects
are of an emergency nature and must have prior specific authority from HUD.
IV. PROGRAM YEAR RECOMMENDATION
A. Budget:
The City anticipates receiving a 1987-88 Entitlement Grant of
approximately the same amount as the grant received in 1986-87. Funds
left over from previous years completed projects and unimplemented
projects are also available to be used in the 1987-88 program year. The
recommendation for the overall program year budget is as follows:
Revenues
1987-88 Entitlement $865,000.00
Available Prior Years' Funds
Harborside School Park Drainage (81-82) $ 668.32
Older Adult Peer Advocacy (85-86) 1 .02
Kinesis South (85-86) 1 ,500.00
Local Option (83-84) 1 ,058.57
Crime Prevention (85-86) 108.34
Salvation Army (86-87) 19,600.00
Local Option (86-87) 5,328.00
SUBTOTAL $28,264.25
TOTAL $893,264.25
Page 4, Item 14
Meeting Date 5/12/87
AVAILABLE
CDBG FUNDS
1987-88 FROM
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES ENTITLEMENT PREVIOUS YRS TOTAL
Administration $70,000 0 $70,000
Fair Housing Program $ 8,000 0 $ 8,000
Social Services:
Emergency Food Project $ 700 0 $ 700
Jobs for Youth 2,500 2,500
MAAC 14,000 14,000
Meals on Wheels 4,000 4,000
Regional Task Force on Homeless 7,000 7,000
SD Resident Relations Foundation 6,000 6,000
Senior Services Center 35,000 35,000
Shared Housing 18,000 18,000
South Bay Adult Center 7,500 7,500
South Bay Community Services 17,000 17,000
Woodlawn Park Community Center 18,000 18,000
YMCA Family Stress Center 0 21 ,000 21 ,000
SUBTOTAL $129,700 0 $150,700
Capital Projects:
Sierra Way Drainage Improvements $220,900 0 $220,900
Drainage Improvements, NW of 148,200 148,200
Broadway/"H" Street
Wheelchair Ramps 29,700 29,700
Pioneers "C" Street Improvements 160,000 160,000
Alley Improvements--s/o "G" St. , 35,000 35,000
Smith to Broadway
Alley Improvements--n/o Roosevelt, 40,000 40,000
Smith to Broadway
Woodlawn Park Community Center Rehab 23,500 7,264.25 30,764.25
SUBTOTAL $657,300 $7,264.25 $664,564.25
TOTAL $865,000 $28,264.25 $893,264.25
B. Analysis:
In analysis, 15% of the 1987-88 entitlement funding would go to social
services, 76% would go to capital improvement projects 8% would go to
program administration, and 1% would go to the fair housing program.
Funds from prior year projects, in the amount of $28,264.25 are available
to be used in program year 1987-88. Included in that total amount are
remaining funds from one completed capital project (Harborside School
Park), four social service programs and three local option accounts. The
entire funding amount allocated in 1986-87 to the Salvation Army
Page 5, Item 14
Meeting Date 5/12/87
($19,600) is available for use in 1978-88 because of the inability of the
Salvation Army to place a case management officer and their decision to
forfeit their grant from the City. Because of lack of office space at
their Chula Vista headquarters, and the organization' s unwillingness to
place any employees outside of Salvation Army facilities, the case
manager will not be hired and the funds will be returned to the City.
These funds can be applied to Social Services separately from the 1987-88
social service allocation of 15%.
Available funds from previous program years are proposed to assist in
paying for the Woodlawn Park Community Center Rehabilitation project and
the YMCA Family Stress Center child abuse program.
C. Social Services:
The selection of social service projects is most difficult, in as much as
such projects are seldom unworthy of consideration. Altruistic pursuit
of public good always deserves support. However, limited resources
demand hard choices. The funding size request of one project may make
two or three smaller but equally admirable projects impossible, and a
difficult choice must be made. Both in social services and capital
projects, many worthwhile proposals are in competition for limited
1987-88 available CDBG funds.
Although it is difficult to make quantitative evaluations of social
service projects, the application of the City's Social Service Funding
Policy to proposals to test their effectiveness in responding to Chula
Vista' s social service needs can yield a quantified ranking.
The recently compiled Social Service Plan contains priorities for social
service funding which have been endorsed by the City Council at the City
Council Workshop of April 30. The priorities are intended to be used for
preannouncement of funding preferences of the City Council and for
guidance in selecting projects for funding or choosing between otherwise
equally desirable projects. As the priorities were not available for the
Fiscal Year 1987-88 budget preparation process, social service
applications could not be influenced by the preannouncement of the
priorities and the advisory commissions could not apply the priorities in
their evaluation of the proposals. Therefore, it is felt that it would
be valuable to treat the priorities this year as a tool to choose between
otherwise equally desired projects, if necessary, and to defer a stronger
application of the CDBG social service funding process to Fiscal Year
1988-89.
Recommended social service projects which directly fit the three priority
areas of the Plan are:
Woodlawn Park Community Center $18,000
YMCA Family Stress Center $21 ,000
14
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 5/12/87
Recommended social service projects which could be viewed as indirectly
serving those three priority areas of the Plan are:
Jobs for Youth $ 2,500
South Bay Community Services $17,000
There were no projects which were submitted for funding but not
recommended that fit the three priorities of the Social Service Plan.
The social service projects recommendation was compiled using the
following process:
1 . Project proposals were solicited as indicated above.
2. Proposals were conveyed to the Human Relations Commission and the
Commission on Aging and presentations made by some of the proponents
to those Commissions.
3. The Commissions recommended projects and funding levels.
4. The Social Services Plan was considered for identified priority
areas and other recommendations.
5. Staff completed a Proposal Benefit Table ( III.B) and a Proposal
Evaluation Matrix ( III.C) for the project proposals and formulated a
staff recommendation based on the Committee recommendations,
recommendations of the Social Services Plan, and the analysis
forms. Where staff recommendations varied from Committee
recommendations, those decisions were based on a more detailed
scrutiny than the commissions could engage in of the project
submittals and financial documents and of past funding and
performance histories, and a consideration of the findings of the
Social Services Plan (not available to the commissions).
The attached report contains the following items from the social service
proposals evaluation process:
1 . The City's Social Service Funding Policy (Section III.A) .
2. A Proposal Benefit Table of comparative benefit data on the various
proposals (Section III.B).
3. The Proposal Evaluation Matrix which ranks all social service
proposals on how they respond to individual policy points, with
overall ranking for each project (Section III.C).
4. An explanation of recommendations made by the Human Relations
Commission and the Commission on Aging (Sections III.D and III.E).
Page 7, Item 14
Meeting Date 5/12/87
5. A comparison of requested amounts and recommendations of the Human
Relations Commission, Commission on Aging, and staff (Section III.F).
6. Stated priorities of the Social Services Plan (Section III.G).
7. In Project Descriptions, summary descriptions of all proposals,
along with a narrative explanation of why each project was or was
not recommended ( I.C). Considerations other than matrix rankings
are explained in those narratives.
7. Copies of the social service funding proposals and agencies'
financial information ( IV.A).
Requests for social service general operating funds totaled $227,172. It
should be noted that HUD regulations restrict program year Block Grant
social service funding to a maximum of 15% of the entitlement amount for
a given program year; in this case, that would be $129,750 for 1987-88.
That the recommended budget includes $150,700 for social services
reflects the redirection of the $21 ,000 previously granted to social
services for the Salvation Army.
V. POTENTIAL REPROGRAMMING
Procedures exist in the CDBG program for making adjustments to the program
after program approval by HUD. If the Council subsequently sees the need to
direct CDBG funding toward another project, say a youth/community facility,
City capital projects, such as the alley improvements, drainage improvements,
and wheelchair ramps, could be deleted all or in part and those funds
reprogrammed to the needed facility. Funding to outside agencies would,
however, be committed through contractual agreements.
VII. CONCLUSION
With the completion of this public hearing and with City Council action, the
Block Grant application process will be complete and all necessary documents
will be submitted to HUD and to clearinghouse agencies for consideration and
approval . Chula Vista citizens will have had the opportunity to evaluate
program performance and to influence the choice of future Block Grant
activities. Amendment procedures exist to create flexibility in the program
year plan, while ensuring public input.
FISCAL IMPACT: Block Grant funds in the amount of $893,264.25 will finance
the approved projects, of which $865,000 is the 1987-88 entitlement amount and
$28,264.25 is excess or reprogrammed funds from previous years. These excess
funds are listed on the following page. No general funds will be involved.
14
Page 8, Item
Meeting Date 5/12/87
YEAR FUND/ACTIVITY/PROJECT # ACTIVITY AMOUNT
81 /82 630-6300-BG110 Harborside School Park $ 668.32
Drainage
82/83 631 -6310-BG216 Local Option 1 ,058.57
86/87 632-6350-BG216 Local Option 5,328.00
85/86 634-6340-BG140 01 der Adul t Peer Advocacy 1 .02
85/86 634-6340-BG56 Crime Prevention 108.34
85/86 634-6340-BG143 Kinesis South 1 ,500.00
86/87 635-6350-BG204 Salvation Army 19,600.00
TOTAL $28,264.25
WPC 2909H
.,ci9 of
C r
Dcted ''� _
Mayor Greg Cox and May 13, 1987
Members, City Council AP/ap
Chula Vista
At its regular meeting on May 13, 1987, the Commission on Aging reviewed
staff recommendations and the action taken by the City Council regarding
social services community development bloc grant funds.
By unanimous vote, the Commission directed the Chair to provide the Mayor
and members of the Council with copies of the Commission's previously-sub-
mitted recommendations, same subject (see attached) ,as reaffirmation of the
position taken by the Commission on each of the applications.
The Commission recognizes the constraints imposed by limited funds. Never-
the-less, it is the Commission's firm conviction that, at a minimum, the
following projects should be approved at the levels indicated:
•Del Rey Nutrition Program ($2,000)
Meals on Wheels ($4,609)
Adult Day Health Care Center ($10,200)
Otay Community Clinic ($5,500)
Chula Vista Senior Services Center ($40,387)
This would represent an increase in CDBG social service allocation of
$10,964 -- a sum that could be easily made up by denial of funding for
the Resident Relations Foundation ($6,000) and the Task Force for the
Homeless ($7,000) as recommended by the Commission.
Sincerely, CC: M r. Paul Derochers
Al Pressutti
Chairman,
Commission on Aging
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Derochers. Community Development Director
_ le Commission on Aging, at its regular meeting of April 8, 1987, re-
viewed applications for Community Development Block Grant funds with
the following results
1. GENERAL
a. It is the Commission's firm conviction that:
(1) The total allowable 15% of CDBG funds should be allocated to
social services.
(2) Where services are needed and CDBG funds are not available,
such services should be provided through general funds.
•
(3) There is a greater need for social services in the newly annex-
ed Montgomery area than in other parts of ;he city.
b. -The Commission realizes that budget balancing efforts! have led to
cuts in Federal CDBG funds and that probably such cuts will be even
deeper in the future, if the program is not terminated entirely.
c. The Commission understands that CDBG monies "ear-marked" for the Mont-
gomery area have been, and are still, under the control of San Diego
County. It is also understood that the County has elected not to use
CDBG funds for social services. The Commission believes that every
effort should be made to have the County change this policy and accept
its obligations by allocating 15% of CDBG monies to provide social
services to the communites for which the County has responsibility.
At the minimum, this would provide for County-City shared support of
social service projects serving Otay, lydood1awn Park, etc.
d. The Commission urges staff to ensure that all funded projects are monitored
closely during the period for which funded and an in-depth evaluation of the
completed project is conducted to determine effectiveness in meeting objectives.
2. SPECIFIC
a. The following proposed projects are considered to fall within the
purview of the Commission on Aging. After study, the Commission
reached the following consensus:
PROJECT RECOr- NDATION
(1) Meals on Wheels Full funding ($4,609)
(2) Chula Vista Senior Full funding (140,387)
Services Center
(3) South County Council Full funding (t18,000)
on Aging
(4) Chula Vista Emergency Full funding ($768)
Food Project
(5) South Bay Adult Health Full funding ($10,200)
Care Center
•
(6) MAC PROJECT (Vehicle) Iu.11 funding, provided is ($25,256)
one-time only, and a log is
established and maintained
and made available upon re-
auest.
(7) _Sweetwater Union High Full funding ($2,000)
School District - Senior
Meals
b. The following projects are not considered senior oriented. However, there
could be some benefit to seniors if approved. Therefore, since the Commission
is social services knowledgeable, the applications were reviewed and the
following consensus reached.
(1) YMCA Family Stress Center DENY. Believe other sources are avail-
able. Even if approved, recommend cut
in allocation because of limited funds.
(2) South Bay Community Services DENY. Same as above.
(3) Jobs for Youth. DENY. Although of value, consider the
project relates to employment rather
than service and probably should and
could be funded from other sources.
(Li) Regional Task Force on DENY. With availability of funds from
the Homeless the Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA), there is no need for allocation
of local monies.
(5) Otay Community Clinic Fund one-half of requested amount. ($5,500)
Effort to be made to provide for
personnel support through senior
aides assignment.
(6) Woodlawn ParkCommunity Full funding if one-half ($16,500) (No more than
Center. is allocated from city CDBG funds 't20,000)
and one-half ($16,500) from San
Diego County funds. If San Diego
County does not participate, re-
commend no more than $20,000.
c. The following are not considered senior oriented and would have
little or no effect on quality of life of seniors. However, after
review of the applications, the Commission makes the following
recommendations:
(1) Slingerland Project DENY. This is a matter for the
school districts. If monies are
not available to meet student needs,
thrust should be on getting allocationr
the State and/or the Federal Govei
ment. Moreover, have reservations
about the value of the project, since
CV City Schools has not formally en-
dorsed it, nor anyone else involved in
education, as far as we know.
(2) San Diego Resident Relations DENY. This should be funded by the
participants -- both landlords and
renters.
d. The following, although probably worthy projects, are not perceived as being
"social service s" and, therefore, should not be funded in full or in part
from limited CDBG social services allocation:
(1) Comprehensive Training System Probably should be funded, if at all,
through Economic Development allocation.
(2) South Bay Pioneers Capital Improvement.
(3) American Legion Hall Capital Improvement.
3. COST TABULATION. Cost of funding applications as recommended by the
Commission on Aging is tabulated below:
Meals on Wheels $ 1 ,809
CV Senior Services Center l.0,387
South County Council on Aging 18,000
Chula Vista Emergency Food 768
Project (Truck)
South Bay Adult Health Care 10,200
Center
• t' C project (Transportation) 25,256
SWUHS District (Senior Meals) 2,000
Otay Community Clinic 5,500
Woodlawn Park Community Center 20,000 (Mad mum)
TOTAL $126,900
1i. In conclusion, the Commission reaffirms concerns and recommendations
contained in the Commissions letter you on the process for block grant
funding dated September 16, 1986. Using criteria suggested in that letter,
the quality of applications for 1987-88 CDBG grants leaves much to be de-
sired.
Respectfully submitted,
Al Pressutti
Chaimman
Chula Vista Commission on Aging
Honorable Mayor & Members of the Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 92010
May 15, 1987
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
RE: Support for CDBG proposal from the Regional Task Force
on the Homeless
The South Bay Homeless Partnership is an ad-hoc group of
service providers, local government representatives,
representatives of local officials, and concerned citizens
who are working to address the plight of the homeless in the
South Bay.
The South Bay region does not have an ongoing homeless
shelther program, even though funds are available on a
federal and state level for shelter programs. We believe
that groups in the South Bay need to organize together to
devise a plan of action so that social service agencies can
secure these funds, and provide emergency shelter in the
region.
Without paid, professional staff, we are unable to
accomplish the tremendous amount of work involved in this
process. We are pleased that the Regional Task Force on the
Homeless has submitted a proposal to the City of Chula Vista
to help fund such a position. We believe that the South
Bay, especially Chula Vista as the largest city in the
region, needs to work to address the issue of homelessness
before it becomes a critical problem. We hope that you
realize the importance of our work, and will vote to fund
this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
1
-r(nJL_ k/4`;- -4-"()jvsl
/4k144#7
laREGIONAL TASK FORCE ON THE HOMELESS
May 14, 1987
Mayor Gregory R. Cox
City of Chula Vista
Mayor Maureen O'Connor 276 Fourth Avenue
City of San Diego Chula Vista, CA 92010
Chairman
Supervisor Leon L.Williams Subject : Further Information on Request for CDBG Funds
County of San Diego
Vice-Chairman Dear Mayor Cox:
Ruth Stewart
BoardofDirectors Your Council made a number of excellent points during
United Way of San Diego your deliberation of our request for $12, 500 to
Planning Committee
develop a program for the homeless population in Chula
Walter A.Turner,Jr. Vista . The purpose of this letter is offer a specific
Executive Vice President
SunroadEnterprises response to some of those points as you prepare for
Fundraising Committee your final conclusions next Tuesday evening .
David Allsbrook
Project Director First, the purpose of these funds would be to build
Centre City Development Corporation the capability to respond to the needs of the local
RinusBaak homeless population for overnight shelter and related
Project&Management Consulting services . With no existing shelters, homeless
Representing Chamber of Commerce families and individuals now look to the streets or,
Randall C.Bacon in some cases, downtown San Diego, for survival . Many
Dire- - Dept-of Social Services of these homeless persons - particularly families with
Co San Diego children still in school - continue to use Chula Vista
Joyce Beers as their base of existence, even though they must
Executive Director reach outside of the City boundaries for some of their
}Merest Association means for survival .
Mary Colacicco,Ph.D.
Executive Director Based on a preliminary assessment, it appears that a
Travelers Aid Society shelter in the range of 15-20 beds would be
TerryHayes sufficient. With limited stay for each person, and a
Vice-President concerted effort to help each person get in touch with
PAR-Community Service
United Way of San Diego some of the resources he or she needs to actually stay
off the street, this shelter could have a significant
Victor Kops,Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist impact on the community over a period of time .
Representing Center City Association
John Lockwood The design and actual operation of a shelter, of
City Manager course, remains to be determined . The South Bay
City of San Diego Homeless Partnership, a coalition of public
F1iiabethMorris administrators, service providers, and representatives
Deputy Executive Director of public officials, is the appropriate group for
Program and Policy Development carrying out this plan of action. We serve as a
San Diego Housing Commission regular participant of this group, and it is
C.Richard Shanor,Ph.D. represented on our board through Sheila Shanahan, who
Executive Director,METRO is from your City' s Department of Housing and
Representing Gaslamp Quarter Council Community Development.
Frank Landerville
Project-Director Our proposal is to staff this coalition as it carries
out its plan of action this year to develop a local
shelter resource . Drawing from our achievements these
past two years, I would propose the following activi-
ties this year to reach our objectives :
4.
655 4th Avenue Suite 361 San Diego,Ca 92101 (619)239-4800
r f
ties this year to reach our objectives :
o Complete appointments to the coalition to assure a
representative membership.
o Perform an assessment of the homeless population and
quantify their need for emergency night shelter and related
assistance .
o Decide on a plan of action to meet the shelter
need, including the use of local social service agencies, state
and federal funding opportunities, and private contributions .
o Secure approval and implement the plan.
Concerning the potential for state and federal funding, the
availability of funds will continue as homelessness remains a
priority. Now in its fifth year, the Federal Emergency Management
Act FEMA continues to fund local emergency shelters . All
indications are that the state also will continue funding the
development of emergency shelters . It is relevant to point out,
incidentally, that these funds cannot be spent on the front-end
planning that is necessary in qualifying for funding .
The potential for funding is mentioned here because it is just
that - only a potential . As you well know from your experience
with other federal and state programs, opportunities for fund
must be matched with a well-thought-out plan of action for
securing and using the funds . I think our Task Force can offer
you reasonable assurance that we will serve you well in reaching
this goal .
Finally, there may be some concern that the City of Chula Vista
is being asked to bear more than its share of financial respon-
sibility in meeting what is considered to be a region-wide need .
As I mentioned during our presentation, our Task Force is
supported with $27, 500 each from the City of San Diego, the
County, and United Way. We recently picked up our fourth funding
source - $25, 000 from Hands Across America - to help build
regional coalitions . Your City's one-time contribution of
$12, 500 toward this effort represents a reasonable share towards
allowing us to effectively addressing an important community
concern. In addition, as an organization with multiple public
funding sources, we possess the necessary policies and procedures
to assure accurate tracking of how these resources are allocated.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer additional comments on our
request .
es ectfully
fank n rville
roject Director
cc: John Goss
2
,_
tE cDmmuni t clinic
1637 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE B
;�� � CHULA VISTA, CA 92011
(619) 425-1780
May 15,1987
Gregory Cox, Mayor
City Council of Chula Vista
276 4th Ave .
Chula Vista, Ca . 92010
I am unable to attend the City COuncil meeting on Tuesday
May 19,1987 because of a prior committment . I would Like to
formally detail why I feel that Otay Community Clinic should
be approved for funding through the Community Development
BLock Grants or General Fund .
As stated in the informal comments passed to you on Tuesday
May 12,1987, Otay Community Clinic would Like to make available
office space, telephones and a part time receptionist . This
space would be used by existing social service agencies located
in central Chula Vista . We propose to have staff from South
Bay Drug Abuse and South Bay Alcohol Recovery Center housed in
the offices four hours per day, one day per week each . These
staff people would provide counseling and information about
their respective programs to people in the Otay/Montgomery area .
The San Diego County Mental Health South Bay Homeless Team would
be available four hours per week to counsel, evaluate and:provide
services/ referrals for food, shelter and clothing for the home-
less and near homeless of South Bay. Two other agencies have
shown an interest in staffing the offices to provide emergency
assistance and counseling . If funded and space is available,
we will proceed with negotiations .
We are located at Third and Main St . in the lower Montgomery
area which has been designated as medically and socially under-
served. The Social Service Plan presented to the City of Chula
Vista has targeted the Montgomery area for needing multi -services .
The facility - Otay Medical and DentaL Center-is an excellent
site for coordinated multi services .
The original request was for $11 ,000 .00 . We have reduced
that request to $5,500 .00 which will pay for rent, telephones,
utilities, and printing costs to update materials detailing
the specific services available in South Bay . A Senior Aid
from the County would be provided as a receptionist -Documenta-
tion of need can be easily accomplished through our computerized
registration system.
We have provided professional medical services at Otay Community
Clinic since 1975 . We would like to expand the possibilities for
added services to take care of people as a total picture .
Thank you for considering our funding proposal . Spreading a
small amount of money among so many worthy organizations is a
difficult k d u ' M . Jean Serafy,
A VGR��I O EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES Director t