Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/05/24 Item 5COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT • Item 5 Meeting Date 5/24/88 ITEM TITLE: Resolution ~3.~~ Approving the 1988-89 Community Development Block Grant Budget, authorizing transmittal of Community Development Block Grant Application and associated documents and transferring currently budgeted funds to the Park Project at Orange Avenue and Hermosa Avenue SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Direct REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~t~,~i'` (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x ) The proposed 1988-89 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Budget is presented for approval. Project funding applications were solicited from social service agencies, City departments and commissions, and the public at large. Submitted proposals have been reviewed by three advisory bodies, and the recommendations of the bodies, along with the public testimony provided at the April 26, 1988 public hearing, have been taken into consideration in compiling the proposed budget. Following Council approval, the budget and associated application documents will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). With their expeditious review and approval, the 1988-89 CDBG funds would be available for City use beginning • July 1, 1988. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the 1988-89 CDBG budget, authorize transmittal of the CDBG application and associated documents, and transfer currently budgeted funds to the Park Project at Orange Avenue and Hermosa Avenue. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Commission on Aging and the Human Relations Commission reviewed the proposals submitted by social service agencies, and their comparative recommendations are shown in Exhibit B. The Montgomery Planning Committee reviewed proposals for capital projects located in Montgomery, and its prioritized list of projects is provided as Exhibit C. DISCUSSION: The following discussion covers available funds, social service requests, capital project requests, the proposal evaluation process and conclusions. Attached exhibits include the proposed budget, commission and committee recommendations, social service proposals' evaluation matrix, social service proposals' relationship to the Social Services Plan, the City's 1988-89 Statement of Objectives, the funding application to HUD and associated documents to the application. The individual proposals and additional background information are available in the 1988-89 CDBG Budget Document, which was provided to the Council for the April 26 public hearing. • ~,=, :- Page 2, Item Meeting Date 5 2 8 • Available Funds The City has been informed that it will receive $1,157,000 in 1988-89 CDBG Entitlement funds. An additional $1,000 in carryover CDBG funds is available from HUD for City use in the upcoming program year. Although it was reported at the April 26, 1988, public hearing that surplus funds were available for reprogramming from the completed Chula Vista Junior High School Drainage Project, those funds are proposed to be reallocated by the Council to the Lauderbach Community Center Parking Lot and Security Lighting Project and are no longer available for new projects. However, other prior year CDBG funds are now available for reprogramming. Because of advice received as a result of a recent HUD monitoring visit to spend program funds more expeditiously, it is deemed appropriate at this time to reprogram program income received during the current year from the City's Economic Development Revolving Loan Program. Program Income totalling $80,839.14 has been received this year as private developer refunds for the City's upfront financing of underground utilities installation on Maxwell Road and East "H" Street. With reprogramming of those funds, the Economic Development Revolving Loan Program would still have approximately $88,500 in unobligated funds available to make economic development loans as opportunities arise. In addition, the City Engineer has recommended that the drainage project northwest of Broadway and "H" Street, which was funded with $148,200 in 1987-88 CDBG funds, be redesigned to involve less construction cost. With the redesign, $78,200 is • available from this project for reprogramming in FY 1988-89. Therefore, with the entitlement, carryover, transfers and program income funds, a total of $1,328,524.81 is available for the 1988-89 City CDBG program. Social Service Requests Twenty eligible funding proposals have been submitted by social service agencies. Of these proposals, 16 are requests for operating funds, which total $342,154. Because of the CDBG Program 15q limit on allocations to social service operations, a maximum of $173,700 of the total available entitlement funds can be applied to proposals in this category. The four social service funding proposals for capital projects, which total $421,754, are not subject to the 15q allocation cap, but must compete with all other CDBG-eligible capital projects and housing and administration needs identified by the City. The social services portion of the CDBG budget presents the City with particularly difficult choices. Almost all of the applicants operate valuable and viable programs. All of the highest priority needs identified in the Social Services Plan are addressed in the submitted proposals. This year's list of funding proposals demonstrates that local social service agencies are not only looking increasingly to City CDBG funding as a means of financial support, but are also increasingly seeking the money to support ongoing operations as opposed to program start-up costs. The trend should not • be considered surprising because of the shrinking resources available from the County, State, and Federal government for most social service programs. . ~._ ,. • • Capital Project Requests Page 3, Item 5 Meeting Date 5/24/88 Twenty public capital improvement projects requesting a total of $?_,428,800* have been submitted. They include six drainage projects, six street improvement projects, two parking facilities projects, an alley project, three park projects, a citywide wheelchair ramp program and one new library. Thirteen of the proposed projects are located in Montgomery, and three of the remaining seven projects are located partially within and partially outside of Montgomery. Evaluation Process All of the proposals have been evaluated to verify eligibility for CDBG funding. Social Service proposals have been reviewed by both the Commission on Aging and the Human Relations Commission,and the recommendations from those two advisory bodies are given in Exhibit B. Staff recommendations have been derived by using a combination of three evaluation techniques: a) consideration of the commission recommendations, b) scoring all of the proposals on a matrix according to how they relate to the City Social Service Funding Policy (shown in Exhibit D), and c) review of the proposals in terms of how they relate to the findings and recommendations of the City's Social Services Plan (shown in Exhibit E). Capital projects have been reviewed using the City's CIP Budget development process, with the additional input of the Montgomery Planning Committee used as well. Consideration has been given to several factors, including health and safety concerns, neighborhood revitalization goals and the likely availability of alternative funding sources. Although CDBG capital projects are intended to be a significant component of the proposed neighborhood revitalization program, that program is not yet sufficiently developed to be utilized for the 1988-89 CDBG program year. Conclusion The proposed budget is shown as Exhibit A. Description of the projects proposed for funding is provided below. ADMINISTRATIOPJ AND HOUSING: Proposed Funding Administration $70,000 This funding is proposed to cover staff and overhead costs of the overall CDBG program. It is also used for staff time supporting the Human Services Task Force. * not including Montgomery Library Project, which did not specify the amount • of funds requested. .~ -?- . Page 4, Item 5 • Meeting Date 5 2 Fair Housing Program $7,000 This program, which is mandated as part of the overall CDBG program, supports the salary of the City's Fair Housing Officer and covers outreach and overhead costs for the promotion of fair housing in Chula Vista. Shared Housing Recommended $18,000 Requested $18,000 Full funding is proposed for this program, which has a long and successful history of providing low cost and supportive housing opportunities for residents in need. Although the program was proposed for social services funding--and received support from the Commission on Aging and Human Relations Commission--we have recently been informed by HUD that it qualifies as a CDBG housing program and is thus not subject to the 15q cap on social services funding. San Diego Resident Relations Foundation Recommended $6,000 Requested $10,325 Funding in an amount equal to current year CDBG funding for the program is proposed. The organization, although not recommended for funding by either of the commissions, scored relatively well on the social services evaluation matrix (see Exhibit D). The program is seen as providing a valuable service • by mediating tenant/landlord disputes and providing housing information and services which are not as readily available from any other agency in the area. This program also qualifies as a housing program and is thus not subject to the 15q cap on social services funding. SOCIAL SERVICES SUBJECT TO 15% CAP: Chula Vista Senior Services Center Recommended $48,000 Requested $55,793 Funding of 86q of the amount requested is proposed for this program. This amount of funding is considered necessary to sustain the program at its current level of service. Although the program has historically been funded in large part by the Area Agency on Aging, this funding is considerably reduced for FY 1988-89, and a total funding phaseout is proposed by AAA for future years. The Center is owned and operated by the City and is not only the primary senior service resource in Chula Vista but also plays a leading role in representing the City in addressing all human service needs in the local area. Jobs for Youth Recommended $2,800 Requested $2,800 Full funding is recommended for the youth employment counseling and referral service. It has a long and successful history of providing service and is seen as having a positive multiplier impact on the local economy. In addition, the program promotes positive youth development and has received full support from both advisory commissions. _ ~]. Page 5, Item 5 • Meeting Date 5 24 88 Meals on Wheels Recommended $4,000 Requested $4,000 Full funding is recommended for this program, which provides hot meal deliveries at subsidized prices to elderly and disabled clients. The program received the highest ranking on the social service proposal evaluation matrix (see Exhibit D) and received full support from both advisory commissions. South Bay Adult Center (I) Recommended $8,000 Requested $10,800 Proposed funding for the program is $500 above the City CDBG funding amount for the program in the current year. Although funding is specifically requested for transportation assistance to senior clients at the center, it would provide general benefit to the overall operation of the center's programs. The Social Services Plan supports the provision of senior services at existing service centers. The center is viewed a valuable and unique local service and has the full support of both advisory commissions. Less than full funding is proposed because of the relatively low increment in service proposed for next program year and the lack of adequate funds to meet all of the supportable funding requests. South Bay Alcohol Recovery Services Recommended $22,000 Requested $33,600 Funding is proposed to enable the program to establish a combined alcohol and drug abuse recovery center in Montgomery. CDBG funding is requested to cover storefront, staffing and overhead costs of the operation. Although insufficient funds are available to provide full funding for the proposed program, the proposed funding is considered adequate to establish the program at approximately 2/3rd capacity and would induce SBARS to acquire additional resources from other sources to support the program. The proposed program meets a high priority need identified in the Social Services Plan and is also supported by the Plan because the services are to be provided in the underserved area of Montgomery. South Bay Community Services Recommended $23,500 Requested $33,500 The program seeks funding for leasing and utility costs. Since the organization has not been relocated from rent-free Redevelopment Agency property as quickly as was earlier anticipated, the organization has accumulated $10,000 in 1987-88 City CDBG funds, which were budgeted for 1987-88 rent costs but can be carried forward to the next fiscal year. With these funds and the proposed new funding, the program would be fully funded for the upcoming year. The three highest priority social services identified in the Social Services Plan are all provided by South Bay Community Services (see Exhibit E). The agency is considered deserving of greater financial support than the amounts recommended by the advisory commissions because of the importance of the services provided, the comprehensive nature of services provided, the agency's established record of achievement and its high score on the social service proposal evaluation matrix (Exhibit D). • South Bay Family YMCA Page 6, Item 5 Meeting Date-~57'~~$ Recommended $28,400 Requested $44,875 The YMCA seeks to establish a new low cost day care center for latch-key children attending several schools in the Otay/Montgomery/Harborside area. Although the scarcity of available funds argues against fully granting the project request, the proposed funding is considered sufficient for the program to establish itself. The majority of the requested funds would provide subsidies for clients of the day care center. Although the idea of subsidized day care merits support, it is felt that the program could still provide a valuable service while offering smaller subsidies. YMCA reports that, even without its subsidies, it offers virtually the lowest cost day care in the local area. The agency also proposes to provide free transportation of children from other schools to Harborside School, which is also valuable to low income families requiring convenient and low-cost child care. The proposed program is planned to enable low-income parents to seek and attain stable working situations. The proposed funding amount is approximately half way between the recommended amounts of the two advisory commissions. The project was given the highest score in the social service proposals evaluation matrix (Exhibit D) and is strongly supported by the Social Services Plan. Woodlawn Park Community Center Recommended $15,000 Requested $36,564 • The program is deemed worthy of support but does not rank high enough compared to the other proposals to justify it being fully funded. Both advisory commissions recommended approximately half funding of the proposal. For the third consecutive year, the center has requested funding for staffing, program and overhead costs. For the past two years, the center has received partial funding and has used it for overhead and program costs, while forgoing hiring a paid staff. The Social Services Plan supports the operation of multi-service centers, particularly in Montgomery. YMCA Family Stress Center Recommended $22,000 Requested $25,426 The Center has used City CDBG support for several years to finance a staff position to handle child abuse cases. Proposed funding, while less than the amount requested, is $1,000 more than the amount granted for 1987-88. The program is considered a valuable service to the community and one for which the demand far exceeds the resources available to serve it. Child abuse treatment is one of the highest priority needs identified in the Social Services Plan. Both advisory commissions recommended approximately 80~ funding for the program. • ~.. Page 7, Item 5 • Meeting Date 5 24 88 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: • Park Development--Orange Ave. at Hermosa Ave. $640,000 The funding request has increased by $65,000 since the April 26 Public Hearing because of the identified need to budget for a park master plan in the 88-89 program year. The remainder of the funds are proposed for property acquisition. The Montgomery Planning Committee ranked this project as its #?_ priority. The park is called for in the Montgomery Specific Plan and is considered a vital need for an area of the City currently underserved in park facilities. Drainage Improvements--Oxford St., 2nd to Del Mar $157,800 This project is proposed to alleviate serious flooding problems in the Castle Park community. It was rated the #4 priority by the Montgomery Planning Committee. Drainage Design--Tobias Dr., Oxford to Naples $106,900 This project is also proposed to alleviate flooding problems in the Castle Park community. Although the request presented at the April 26 public hearing was for design only ($8,100), construction is also now proposed for funding in FY 88-89. The Montgomery Planning Committee ranked it as its #6 priority. Drainage Improvements--Crested Butte $49,700 This project would relieve flooding problems for several residential properties, the owners of which presented the City with a petition requesting that the project be undertaken by the City. The Montgomery Planning Committee ranked it as its #7 priority. Emergency Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk--Citywide $50,000 This project was originally proposed as two separate projects for the Montgomery and non-Montgomery areas of the city. Less than full funding is proposed because specific sites for the project have not been identified and other projects were regarded as a higher priority. Funding Request--$140,400 Drainage Improvements--Colorado Ave. at Kearney $22,800 This project would raise a depressed section of the street to alleviate existing flooding problems to adjacent properties. It is not located in Montgomery. Fifth Avenue Street Improvements--L to PJaples This project Fifth Avenue • priority of $15,124.81 would extend already budgeted improvements on the east side of from Naples Street to Orange Avenue. The project was the #3 the Montgomery Planning Committee. Only partial funding is Page 8, Item 5 • Meeting Date-~7~j~$ recommended to come from 1988-89 CDBG funds, with the remainder of the project cost proposed to come from anticipated state reimbursements to the City CDBG Program for right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation and private property restoration costs of the Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Project. That reimbursement should occur during the 1988-89 fiscal year. Funding Request $205,000. Otay Community Center (MAAC) $11,500 The MAAC Project, which operates the senior multi-service center, has received a state grant to expand and renovate the facility. However, the renovation plan and the funding provide for no off-street parking, and none currently exists at the center. In order for the conditions of the conditional use permit to be satisfied and the project to advance, additional funding is needed to provide for the needed parking. The County, which owns the building, has tentatively offered to pay the remainder of the funds needed for the parking. Requested amount $25,754. Proposals Not Recommended for Funding The five social service operations proposals not recommended for funding are: a. Info Line ($5,000) • b. Harvest Ministries ($2,400) c. Regional Task Force on the Homeless ($7,500) d. Soroptimist International ($30,000) e. South Bay Adult Center (II) ($21,571) Although considered valuable, they were all found to be relatively less responsive to the City's Social Services Funding Policy and to the Social Services Plan than the proposals recommended. Problems with these proposals variously include duplication of service, lack of any direct social service offered, incomplete proposal and low cost-effectiveness. Further information regarding evaluation of these proposals is provided in Exhibits B, D, and E. There are 15 capital projects not recommended for 1988-89 CDBG funding. Episcopal Community Services 0 Although this organization's proposal to establish a homeless shelter is not proposed for CDBG funding, it ranked high on the social service proposal evaluation matrix (Exhibit D) and is considered to be a valuable project. The proposal is recommended for funding consideration in the regular budget process with Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing funds. Telegraph Canyon Flood Control 0 This project is currently under construction. Because actual bids for the project exceeded earlier cost estimates, the current budget is approximately • $400,000 short of needed funds to complete the project. It is not proposed Page 9, Item 5 • Meeting Date 5 4 that CDBG funds make up this shortfall. The cost of the portion of the project located within the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area is approximately $500,000 more than the amount of redevelopment funds currently allocated. It is considered most appropriate for redevelopment funds to make up the shortfall. The remaining capital projects not proposed for CDBG funding are as follows: American Legion Otay Community Clinic Alley Improvements--Smith to Broadway n/o Roosevelt Drainage--NE of Third Avenue & Orange Handicapped Parking Program Montgomery Library Development Norman Park Center Renovation Otay Park Renovation Master Plan Parking Lot Repaving--Fire Station #5 Street Improvements--Emerson St. east of Fifth Ave. Street Improvements--Montgomery St., Fresno to Hermosa Street Improvements Design--Otay Valley Rd., Main to Rios Wheelchair Ramps $250,000 5,000 40,000 127,300 7,400 TBA 295,000 53,800 25,200 163,500 38,200 29,400 31,000 These projects, although identified as needs, were not rated as highly as the projects proposed for CDBG funding in 1988-89. They may still be considered • for alternative funding in the City's overall capital improvement project budget. FISCAL IMPACT: The City anticipates receiving $1,158,000 in new entitlement and carryover funds. .In addition, the following transfers are proposed. Transfer From Economic Development (630-6300-BG201) Economic Development (630-6310-BG201) Economic Development (630-6330-BG201) Economic Development (630-6350-BG201) Drain--NW Broadway/H (640-6400-DR103) Amount Transfer To $31,741.81 Park Development--Orange Ave/Hermosa Ave $15,915.57 Park Development--Orange Ave/Hermosa Ave $21,897.58 Park Development--Orange Ave/Hermosa Ave $43,694.65 Park Development--Orange Ave/Hermosa Ave $78,200.00 Park Development--Orange Ave/Hermosa Ave In addition, the City anticipates receiving a state reimbursement for City CDBG costs already incurred for the Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Project in the amount of $11,485.67. These funds are also proposed to be allocated to the Park Development Project at Orange Avenue/Hermosa Avenue. ~PC 3593H J~the Ci~y Council of Chula Vista Caiif rnia ~~ • Mayor Cox City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 92010 Dear Mayor Cox & Council members: On May 24, 1988 the Council will be deciding the upcoming years' Community Development Block Grant Program. Included in this is the funding of certain comu-nunity based social service organizations. I am writing this letter to urge full Council support of South Bay_ Community Services' request for funding. South Bay Community Services provides vital youth and family programs with a wide array of services. These programs effect many Chula Vista residents and businesses in a variety of ways. Many of these services, if not provided by South Bay Community Services, would be unavailable, especially at a low or no cost basis. Th gency addresses all three top priority areas ( alcohol and drug abuse, c and spousal abuse/domestic violence, and latch key programs) identified by e City of Chula Vista Social Services Plan, as needing further social service intervention. Additionally, South Bay Community Services addresses other areas in the youth and family service field. Once again I urge your full support of this agency. Sincerely, Name ~l~t~i 1 ~-~-,~,-..,~'e~ Addres s ~ 7G ~ ~~ c'~~ ~'C, c-a c-~ ~ i'n m c7 ~ ~~ ~ ~_ «r-- < ~/ ~_~ ~ m ~~ ~~ ~~ R I