HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2006, BUS 2 - 2005-06 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW council MdqDw 2.21.06
j agenda RepoRt U-S
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officerq
Bill Statler, Director of Finance &Information Technology
Carolyn Dominguez,Finance Manager
Debbie Malicoat, Accounting Supervisor
SUBJECT: 2005-06 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the City's financial condition and status of City goals at the mid-point of 2005-
06; and approve revenue and expenditures changes presented in the accompanying Mid-Year
Budget Review document.
DISCUSSION
The accompanying Mid-Year Budget Review for 2005-06 provides a comprehensive overview of
the City's fiscal condition at the mid-point of the fiscal year. The Transmittal Memorandum
(starting on page A-1) sets forth a concise summary of key General Fund revenue and expenditure
trends since adoption of the 2005-06 budget in June 2005. The report also includes supporting
documentation for the recommended mid-year budget adjustments.
Overview: How Are We Doing?
Revenues are generally consistent with the projections in the 2005-07 Financial Plan, with
downward revisions in specific revenue sources offset by upward revisions in others. One bright
spot: as reported in our monthly transient occupancy tax
(TOT) newsletters, TOT revenues are performing much —-
better than initially projected in the 2005-07 Financial
Plan, and we have revised our projections for this key At the end of the Transmittal
revenue source accordingly. Memorandum is a one-page
overview of our projected ending
Future Outlook: Better, But We're not Out of the financial condition for the
Woods Yet. As previously discussed with the Council in General Fund at June 30, 2007
January 2006 when we presented the Comprehensive that summarizes where we re
up' and where we're down"l
Annual Financial Report for 2004-05, we enter 2005-07 from our initial estimates in the
in a stronger General Fund position than initially 2005-07 Financial Plan.
projected. However, it is important to stress that while
this stronger ending position improves our ability to
weather future fiscal storms, it does not change the underlying, long term gap between projected
General Fund revenues and the community's needs and hopes for the future. In short, our ability to
deal with future downturns has certainly improved; however, our ability to deliver needed services
in the long-term has not.
X'I
2005-06 Mid-Year Budget Review Page 2
Background: Purpose of the Mid-Year Budget Review
The City's two-year Financial Plan provides for the submittal of a report on our financial status to
the Council every six months. For fiscal monitoring purposes, on-line access to up-to-date
information is available to all departments, financial reports are issued monthly to key staff
members and quarterly financial reports are distributed to the Council and staff on an ongoing basis.
Additionally, we issue focused reports to the Council and staff on key revenues such as sales tax,
transient occupancy tax and investments, as well as ad hoc reports as needed.
However, the formal submittal of a review at the mid-point of the fiscal year provides an
opportunity to take a broader look at the City's financial picture, including:
1. Updating beginning fund balance projections based on actual results for the prior fiscal year.
2. Analyzing revenue trends since adoption of the Financial Plan, and revising revenues and
ending fund balance projections accordingly.
3. Identifying and presenting any fiscal problem areas to the Council, and recommending
corrective action or additional funding if required.
4. Presenting the status of major City goals, capital improvement plan projects and other important
objectives.
Report Organization
The accompanying Mid-Year Budget Review is organized into five main sections:
Section A: Transmittal Memorandum, which provides a concise review and analysis of the
City's financial position and summarizes requested mid-year budget adjustments.
Section B: Comprehensive presentations of projected revenues, expenditures and changes in
fund balance/working capital for each of the City's funds for 2005-06 compared
with original budget estimates and actual results from 2004-05.
Section C. Detailed supporting documentation for the requested mid-year budget adjustments.
Section D. Recent financial and revenue reports: Quarterly Financial Newsletter, Sales Tax
Newsletter and Monthly TOT Report.
Section E. Status reports on major City goals, other Council objectives and major CIP projects.
This includes recommended"Action Plan"revisions as discussed in the report.
ENCLOSURE
Mid-Year Budget Review for 2005-06
G:Budget Folders/Mid-Year Budget Reviews/Mid-Year Budget Review,2005-06/Council Agenda Report
o2 —
RECEIVED
FEB 171006 RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
�. SLO CITY'r,11110�'I ITEM #JIL�
ouncit mcmoRAn6ufff--:Ai�Ic)
city—orsan Luis baiipo, xoministkiation 6F_P_,%1ZtM,ent
DATE: February 16, 2006 ;R COUNCIL
;8 CAO
0 ACAO
TO: City Council
EATTORNW
9 CLERK/
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO 2 DEP►
SUBJECT- Mid-Year Budget Review: Homeless Shelter Issue
CAO Recommendation
Receive this memorandum and the attached report from the Economic Opportunity Commission
(EOC) and appoint the Council's EOC liaison, Councilmember Brown, to work with City staff,
County officials, and EOC leaders to develop a recommended strategy for addressing the
immediate problem of the 2005-06 Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter funding shortfall.
Background and Discussion
Attached is a correspondence that I received yesterday from EOC Chief Executive Officer, Biz
Steinberg, regarding the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter on Orcutt Road and the financial
difficulties that the shelter is experiencing. As Council knows (and especially the Council's
EOC representative, Paul Brown), Ms. Steinberg has been alerting the community to this issue
for some months, and the situation has now reached a critical stage. Councilmember Brown,
Chief Linden and I met with Ms. Steinberg and her staff this morning, and agreed to pass her
letter on to Council for discussion during the Mid-Year Budget Review.
As you will see in reviewing the EOC report, this will not be an easy problem for the Shelter and
its partners to fix, particularly the longer term problem. And this is certainly not an easy matter
for the Council to consider at this time, given our own financial challenges. Once again,
however, Federal and State governments retreat from their traditional responsibilities has
resulted in a huge social problem landing at the doorstep of local government — a problem that
we cannot ignore.
By way of background, the traditional governmental lines of responsibility were drawn to assign
social program responsibility to higher levels of government — federal, state, and county — that
were created and better equipped (and funded) to handle such broad societal problems.
Municipal governments, on the other hand, were created and funded to meet the day-to-day
service needs of citizens —road, water, sewer, police and fire services, to name a few. However,
because of the withering of federal and state roles in these areas, over the years many cities (San
Luis Obispo is an excellent example) have progressively filled social program voids by
redirecting funds traditionally used to support our basic service mission. The Federal
government continues to cut the CDBG program, and the President's current budget proposal is
to cut yet another 25% from the program. The State of California, in addition to a reduced role,
has also taken away our local money—a proverbial double whammy.
In the face of these pressures, the City of San Luis Obispo has stepped up to provide an
extraordinary level of General Fund support for social service programs — well beyond what any
city in the County is providing; in fact, well beyond what any city our size typically provides.
For example, in the current fiscal year, we are providing general funds in the amounts of$37,800
to the Maxine Lewis Shelter (plus $100,200 in CDBG funds), $50,000 to the Prado Day Center,
and $120,500 toward Human Relations Commission Grants in Aid. We are committed to this
level of support, even though we are also struggling to meet our basic service requirements.
The Maxine Lewis Shelter provides an extraordinarily important human service to the entire
County, and the clients served by the shelter come from all over the County. But because the
Shelter is located in San Luis Obispo, there is a tendency to view its services as a function and
responsibility of the City. This, as we know, is not an entirely accurate picture. On the other
hand, if the shelter closes (even temporarily) it will create real human problems, law enforcement
issues and other service impacts (e.g. paramedic services) that will directly and adversely affect
our community. Therefore, the City has a large stake in the viability of the Shelter and should
participate in efforts to solve the problem.
Recommendation
I am therefore recommending that the Council appoint its EOC liaison, Councilmember Brown,
to work with City staff, County officials, and EOC leaders to develop a recommended strategy
for addressing the immediate problem of the 2005-06 funding shortfall. The recommended
strategy should be developed in time for action by both the Board of Supervisors and City
Council on March 21, 2006, since the EOC needs to resolve this situation — one way or the other
— by April 1, 2006. Once the immediate crisis is addressed, then it would be appropriate to
tackle the long term problem with an even larger group of stakeholders.
GACouncil Support&Coaesp\CAO Memos\Maxine Lewis Crisis.DOC
L OC ,
1030 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
am SAN LUIS OBISPO
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CALIFORNIA 93401
COMMISSION!•SINCE 1965 •
(805) >44-43ii
FAX(805) 549-8388
February 15, 2006 R e ' /t
FEB 14 2006
Ken Hampian, CAO CltY Of S.L.O.
City of San Luis Obispo Administration
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr 'an•
Enclosed or your review is an overview of the funding challenges faced by the Maxine
Lewis Memorial Shelter. We look forward to meeting with you tomorrow to continue
our discussion about how we may work together to address this community issue.
Cordially,
Elizabeth`Biz" Ste' rg
Chief Executive O cer
Enclosure as indicated
• Child Care Resource Connection •Emergency Services •Energy Conservation • Weatherization Services • Thrift Store
•Family Planning Services•Head,Start•Homeless Shelter•Aligrant Child Care•Senior Health Screening • Teen Parenting Program
L au
February 15, 2006
TO: Ken Hampian, CAO
City of San Luis Obispo
FROM: Elizabeth"Biz" Steinberg, CEO
Economic Opportunity Commission of San Luis Obispo County
RE: EOC HOMELESS SHELTER FUNDING CHALLENGES
When our CAO/Deputy Director Mel Rosenblat and I met with you in October, we reviewed the
FY05-06 budget shortfall of$146,293 faced by the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter(MLM Shelter).
Prior to that meeting, we met with David Edge and then shared your collective response and guidance
with our Board. At our December meeting, the Board rc-affirmed that EOC cannot operate the MLM
Shelter program at a loss, and must close the current budget gap or close the shelter for part of the year.
The Board considered two options for addressing the FY05-06 budget shortfall:
1) beginning immediately, close the MLM Shelter on weekends;
2) beginning in April, close the MLM Shelter for the remaining three months of FY05-06.
The Board also determined that, if the MLM Shelter closes during FY05-06, it will not reopen until the
FY06-07 shelter budget is also balanced; this may require extending the shelter closure through
approximately September 2006. (Please see attached overview of Community Impacts of Closing
MLM Shelter for 3-6 Months,page 3.)
For FY05-06, the Board decided to keep the MLM Shelter open on weekends for the sake of those
needing critical services, while using the time to develop additional resources to cover the budget
shortfall..
REVENUE AUGMENTATIONS NEEDED FOR MLM SHELTER
EOC is hopeful that the City, County,and others will share our commitment to raising the
FY05-06 revenue shortfall, to sustain MLM Shelter services through June 30, 2006.
■ As of 7/1/05, $146,293 was needed to balance the FY05-06 operations budget. As of 1/31/06,
EOC has raised $53,602.
■ EOC will continue to fundraise and is hopeful that the City, County, and others will assist us in
raising the remaining $92,691.
Longi:
EOC is hopeful that, the City,County, and others will share our commitment to raising the
FY06-07 revenue shortfall, to ensure year-round MLM Shelter services in FY06-07.
■ EOC will continue to fundraise and is hopeful that the City, County, and others will assist us in
raising $212,000 and will join EOC in developing a long-term funding strategy to support annual
operation of MLM Shelter, and strategies to address other Homeless Services funding challenges.
(Please see attached overview of Future Funding Issues to be Addressed by Long-Term Strategy,
page 8.)
The MLMShelter budget crisis is not a cost overrun; it is a funding shortfall. Primary funding of the
MLM Shelter comes from CDBG Public Services. Because of the 15% cap on CDBG Public Services
funding,this resource has not kept pace with the cost of providing services. The cap has created a
chronic gap in the MLM Shelter operating budget, forcing EOC to keep CDBG funding requests
modest even as shelter costs escalated, and forcing EOC to consider cutting back on MLM Shelter
services.
Before considering cutting back on client services, EOC looked at every possible place to cut the
MLM Shelter budget. The staffing pattern was reconfigured and every budget line item was analyzed
for potential savings. The MLM Shelter operating budget already depends on significant contributions
of In-Kind goods and services from the community, which results in substantial savings to the
program. In-Kind contributions run the gamut from food to supplies to labor; for example, toiletries,
sheets, towels, blankets, and pillows are donated by motels and department stores;dinner for 100-125
persons/nightly is prepared and served by community groups on all weekends and holidays (minimum
of 104 nights/year); diapers, clothing and jacket solicitations are ongoing;coffee, cereal, creamer, and
sugar are donated by community members; baked goods are donated by bakeries and grocery stores.
Volunteers are used extensively to serve meals, interact with clients, provide clerical support, and for
cleanup and maintenance projects. The"overflow" church shelter is staffed by two volunteers, each
contributing 12 hours per night, year-round. In 2005, 4945 volunteer hours were contributed to the
MLM Shelter. If valued at state minimum wage, this represents $33,378 in support to the program.
The 15% cap on CDBG Public Services funding means the City and County can't just reshuffle CDBG
Public Services funds to provide additional funding to the MLM Shelter. Non-CDBG resources are
needed to address the chronic MLM Shelter funding shortfall. If EOC was to relinquish the role of
shelter operator to the County, it might cost the County twice as much to deliver these services.
The EOC Board of Commissioners appreciates its long partnership with the City and County of San
Luis Obispo to develop, implement, maintain, and expand services for the county's homeless
individuals and families. We look forward to continuing our partnership and to resolving these critical
issues to our mutual satisfaction.
2
COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF CLOSING MLM SHELTER FOR 3-6 MONTHS
EOC has operated the 49 bed MLM Shelter since 1989. Over the years several local churches began
sheltering homeless women and families during the winter months. Currently, 12 local churches --
collaborating as the Interfaith Coalition for the Homeless-- rotate year-round "overflow" services
between churches to expand bed capacity by 20-35 beds, for an average of 80 beds available nightly.
During the period April 1-September 30, 2005, the MLM Shelter and"overflow"church shelter
provided a total of 13,393 nights of shelter, and 30,166 meals through the MLM Shelter's community
meal program, including 3,380 meals for"diner/dashers" (20-30 low-income persons each night who
eat and shower but do not sleep at the MLM Shelter or"overflow" shelter).
Closing the MLM Shelter and"overflow" shelter April 1-September 30,2006 would impact a
minimum of 80 shelter clients each night, 25 "diner/dashers" each night, all volunteers from the
MLM Shelter and overflow shelter, all volunteers of the community meal program,all staff of the
MLM Shelter, and EOC's case management services. The MLM Shelter is often used by residents
from other areas of the county. It is a point of contact for those seeking case management in San Luis
Obispo. Each case managed client is guaranteed a bed to stabilize them while they work on achieving
permanent housing and economic self-sufficiency. If a shelter bed is not available, the client may have
great difficulty keeping appointments with the case manager and other service providers, and following
through to achieve personal financial and housing goals.
Shelter:
80 people per night would not receive a bed from the MLM Shelter or"overflow" shelter.
Meals:
80 people per night would not receive dinner or breakfast from the MLM Shelter or overflow shelter,
nor would the 25 "diner/dashers" per night that come to the MLM Shelter every night and morning
for the community dinner and breakfast. Without the community meal program, persons who are
homeless or living in their cars or outdoors would not have the benefit of a hot dinner to help them
sleep or a breakfast to help them start their day.
Showers:
80 people per night would not receive a shower from the MLM Shelter, nor would 25
"diner/dashers" per night that come to the MLM Shelter every night for a shower.
Interagency support:
EOC works closely with the ECHO church-based volunteer shelter in Atascadero. The ECHO Shelter
is staffed by volunteers who are uncomfortable working with difficult clients and refer them for
various reasons to the MLM Shelter. North County homeless clients are served at the MLM Shelter
because EOC staff are more experienced dealing with mental illness and other behavioral issues, and
clients can benefit from the 24 hour/day services provided by the MLM Shelter and Prado Day Center.
This interagency support would not be available if the MLM Shelter is closed; this would negatively
impact the Atascadero community.
Working poor/job trainees:
If the MLM Shelter closes for 3-6 months, homeless persons who are able to work or attend job
training would not have a place to eat, rest, shower, receive phone/mail messages, prepare for work or
classes, keep their work clothing clean and work ready, and store their belongings during the
day. Because of their daytime work/class schedules, they are not able to meet these needs at Prado
3
Day Center. Hygiene is a big issue because you can't go to work or to a job interview without a
shower, shave and clean, ironed clothes. These unmet needs could undermine the productivity of
workers/trainees and jeopardize their wages and/or job security.
Access to case mann ement:
Since EOC is not able to case manage every person off the streets, the MLM Shelter is the gateway to
case management for Central and South County residents. Case management clients are given a
priority bed at the MLM Shelter while they are assisted into housing. Without the MLM Shelter
program to stabilize homeless case management clients, they would lose assistance and support needed
to access all the resources and linkages associated with intensive case management services. This
would impact all persons who are active in the Central and South County case management
programs in the April-September 2006 period.
In the period April-September 2005, 68 persons were active in Central County case management and
140 were active in the South County. During that same period 29 persons were housed in Central
County and 88 persons were housed in South County. A guaranteed shelter bed is essential to
achieving these outcomes.
Medical screening and TB testine:
80 people per night would not receive basic health screening and TB testing at the MLM Shelter.
Health screening and TB testing are available at Prado but not required. Also, not all MLM Shelter
clients use Prado during the day.
This means that transients and local homeless may be in the community being exposed to and exposing
others to communicable diseases. It also means that persons not being screened may have undiagnosed
conditions that are exacerbated by their marginal living conditions. This results in premature death or
disability for the person, and/or more costly therapies and treatments for health care providers.
When persons are living outside --especially vulnerable persons such as children, seniors, and those in
poor health --their health conditions are exacerbated. Local health care providers report these medical
conditions are prevalent in the homeless population: sunburn and exposure, insect bites, ingrown
toenails and foot blisters, rashes, allergies, colds, flu, bronchitis, chronic respiratory conditions, lice,
serious dental problems, vitamin deficiencies, anemia, diabetes, open sores, wounds, and bruises. A
number of homeless clients have various types of cancer; some have gone untreated resulting in death
of the client; other clients undergo chemotherapy and radiation while homeless. Without a place to
rest and recover from the treatment regime, prognosis for most homeless cancer victims is grim. Only
when these populations are sheltered or housed are they able to focus attention on their most basic
health needs including decent nutrition, basic hygiene, making and keeping health appointments, and
maintaining treatment plans such as taking medications or keeping a wound clean.
Law enforcement:
Homeless persons without access to shelter would disperse throughout San Luis Obispo's residential
and commercial neighborhoods. Regardless of whether the homeless persons are causing trouble or
behaving inappropriately,their mere presence and visibility would increase the number of calls to law
enforcement made by neighbors/businesses.
This would have a ripple effect on both the neighbors/businesses and the homeless. If neighbors and
businesses fear the nighttime presence of the homeless,tensions between the housed and the homeless
are likely to increase, further jeopardizing neighborhood safety and community relations. The reality
4
1
is that police response would be required to address homeless issues of loitering, panhandling, and
being in the downtown and commercial areas.
Child welfare:
More than 35%of the MLM Shelter clients in 2005 were women and children. If the MLM Shelter
closes for 3-6 months, putting families on the streets, these homeless women would be at greater risk
for harassment, victimization and rape, and their children would be at greater risk for child abuse or
neglect. Many families being served by the MLM Shelter are high-risk. Eliminating shelter services
increases the struggle to provide a safe environment for children.
Mental Health issues:
The mental health of homeless persons would be negatively impacted if the MLM Shelter closes for 3-
6 months because:
■ even the most basic night shelter services would not be available to provide comfort and respite
from the streets;
• homeless persons may feel further isolated from what would be perceived as the "uncaring"public;
■ homeless persons would lose their nightly access to information/referral and support services;
therefore, the momentum of connecting to services that improve their lives would be lost.
Impacts on EOC:
If the MLM Shelter closes for 3-6 months, EOC would have difficulty retaining experienced staff.
Costs to recruit, hire and train new staff would have significant impacts on the MLM Shelter budget.
Individual and group volunteers would also be lost and would need to be recruited to return.
It is already very challenging to fully staff the MLM Shelter. The pay scale is low and the work can be
emotionally draining. The nightly staff-client ratio at the MLM Shelter is 2:49 and drops to 1:49 if a
staff person must go to the"overflow" shelter or provide emergency transportation to the hospital. We
do not have a large enough pool of shelter workers to cover two 15 hour shifts (5:OOpm-8:OOam) each
night without incurring overtime.
5
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter history:
In 1989 the City and County of San Luis Obispo issued an RFP for agencies to operate a shelter
serving the homeless. EOC became the contractor in December 1989, providing services in modular
buildings outside the City of San Luis Obispo. Services were limited to overnight shelter and a hot
evening meal, including van transportation to the shelter.
In 1990 services were moved to the current shelter site at 736 Orcutt Road in San Luis Obispo, and the
first case manager was hired to provide information and referral and limited case management. Since
then, the shelter has not only provided emergency services but has expanded to assist homeless men,
women and children to stabilize their income and find housing as the first steps in attaining and
regaining self-sufficient lives.
In 1991 it became obvious that the site at Orcutt was not large enough to shelter all those in need
during the winter months and, in January 1992, local churches began sheltering homeless women and
families in order to expand the overall bed capacity. This Winter Shelter partnership between EOC
Homeless Services and local churches collaborating as the Interfaith Coalition for the Homeless (ICH)
continues to the present. In response to the growing number of women and children needing
emergency shelter, the program was expanded in 1999 from seven different churches offering their
services between October and April, to year-round "overflow" services.
EOC Homeless Services also collaborates with ICH, the City and County of San Luis Obispo and the
business community to operate Prado Day Center which opened in September 1997.
Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter partnership:
When the shelter opened in December 1989, EOC agreed to be the operator based on the three partners
(EOC, the City and County) sharing responsibility for shelter funding. At the beginning each partner
contributed $120,000; EOC's share came from private(United Way), non-local public resources
(FEMA and state FESG), and community fundraising; the City and County each contributed from their
General Fund.
In 1994, the City and County became part of the CDBG Urban County; they were now able to fund the
shelter with CDBG Public Services funding rather than their General Funds. They each continued to
fund at the same level until 1997 when the County contribution increased to $130,000 to fund part-
time homeless outreach services in North County; $35,000 of the $130,000 allocation was dedicated to
a North County presence.
In Action Year 2001, EOC increased its CDBG request to $138,000 from the City and $149,500 from
the County. Those amounts were fully funded in 2001 but, beginning in 2002, EOC has not received
full funding of the County CDBG requests.
Shrinking resources:
Year Jurisdiction Amt requested Amt funded
CDBG 2002 City $138,000 $138,000
County $149,500 $147,373
CDBG 2003 City $138,000 $138,000
County $149,500 $140;317
6
CDBG 2004 City $138,000 $114,118 + $23,882 General Fund
County $149,500 $123,966
CDBG 2005 City $138,000 $107,824+$30,176 General Fund
County $149,500 $120,265 +$11,815 DSS contract
CDBG 2006 City $138,000 $100,200 + $37,800 General Fund
(preliminary) County $149,500 $100,737
Small cities are not asked for CDBG funding because the MLM Shelter receives its CDBG allocation
from the Special Urban Projects Fund, as a project that benefits.more than one Urban County
jurisdiction. Since Morro Bay and Pismo Beach are not part of the Urban County, the MLM Shelter
submits applications annually to their"Grants in Aid"programs. In FY05-06 Morro Bay contributed
$810 and Pismo Beach contributed$1500.
In addition to the constraints on CDBG funding, local, state and federal resources have decreased
dramatically in the past decade including:
■ in recent years local United Way funding decreased from $15,000 annually to $5,000;
■ in 1998 state FESG was lost as a.resource; since the County started accepting federal ESG funds,
local agencies receiving a share of ESG funds are no longer eligible to apply for state FESG funds;
ESG funding is approximately one half of what local agencies used to receive in competitive FESG
funds; in 1998 the County created the Shelter Coalition funding to help compensate for the lost
FESG funding; the MLM Shelter used to receive approximately $100,000 in FESG funds and now
receives $68,000 from the Shelter Coalition fund;
■ state EHAP funding has never funded our county at a significant level; nine of the past 14
allocations for our county have been under$20,000 annually and only 3 have been above $25,000;
the MLM Shelter's share of this resource is approximately$6,500 annually;
■ federal FEMA/EFSP funding (administered by the local EFSP Board)has decreased almost every
year since 1995; the MLM Shelter's share of this resource for FY05-06 is $15,000.
These decreases reflect both reductions in available sources and the growing number of applicant
programs sharing resources; i.e., addition of Prado Day Center and ECHO Shelter.
EOC has increased our annual community fundraising from $10,000 in 1996 to $62,506 projected for
FY05-06. We have also expanded our grantwriting to generate out-of-county foundation funding.
Despite our increased efforts, the MLM Shelter still faces a net FY05-06 budget shortfall of$92,691.
EOC is now at a crossroads and needs to develop a collaborative long-term solution to fund shelter
operations and mitigate this annual funding crisis.
7
FUTURE FUNDING ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED BY LONG-TERM STRATEGY
replace existing San Luis Obispo shelter:
The MLM Shelter consists of five modular buildings that were used when purchased and are now more
than 20 years old. They have been rehabbed several times but certainly show the wear and tear of
providing 27,000 shelter nights per year. At some point in the not too distant future we must either
replace the existing shelter with new modulars or a permanent structure.
North County shelter:
Since 2001, EOC has worked to develop the resources needed to construct and operate a permanent
North County Shelter. Thus far we have leveraged the site, $999,318 in construction funds, and
$65,000 in pro bono architectural/engineering services. We still need to secure another$600,000 in
construction funding and develop solid commitments of resources for annual shelter operations.
We cannot simply re-shuffle existing CDBG funding because they are inadequate and re-shuffling
would de-stabilize existing services. ECHO has already pledged In-Kind contributions of volunteer
time and services valued at more than $125,000, or 32% of the first year operations budget. We need
to develop a partnership agreement for North County similar to the San Luis Obispo agreement; i.e.,
Paso Robles, Atascadero, the County, ECHO, and EOC must agree on how to share the cost of
operating the shelter.
cash flow issues for case management ment program:
Case management services are provided with Supportive Housing Program (SHP) funds from HUD.
The County is the HUD grantee and subcontracts with EOC to provide services in three regions of the
county. These SHP contracts are back-to-back but the current year contracts are never in place when
the new contract year starts on June 1. Because of the labor-intensive Technical Submittal process for
SHP contracts, EOC does not get reimbursed for services for 4-6 months. EOC cannot continue to
provide services without addressing this cash flow problem. An advance from the County may be
needed until the SHP contract is executed each year.
8
w i
d m
m L r �- N -0 CO N O O 00
M L y L
V U '0 i7
y V
M m CO M N m o Cl) N � N O
c A m
w � �
CD
C
E
4) d � N co N M E
C_ t U N Lo ' O� c 2
M r N CO co M (D C r
r r cV r CO C m m N
W y
0) .ql. Q O_ (D co co y
C y
N y CO �. O O N m 0 O cM CO r O m o CO LO co
m
jq t M N v N N O E2 N N N I- O d r m O- CO M
N U r r r r CO
cm
M C14 CO
y y
? .0. f-- S IT U' IT N O ti O M m m o � r I� O t0 r
C M CO M 00 C # c r N c N r r N co
CO
Q C
W
«
r y v ¢ m r m CO m
Q O r N M 'a' EO y V 1\ r N I\ N 0 r 0 COO M co
l/J E ► E U
OT G
j, JO m CD N r CO H E O N r I-- m
O [n w r N M N N N
L C
Q
m C C y y
CL
cc (:o COO CO N N N •C O� ' N r r `O O O
O c r N O >1O y # E r # E N r r N CO
CY
G cO C_ to
N 10Z m N 0 CO LO co N O OL d
Z F ya -c CO M O O t •y H .v r r v R r to
c O O I� O N O=
W
U C L
yO .@ m � 0 N M f� O .0 m m N 0 co
lD w L y L. h r r r r O
0 v
--
Q
0 L y
cO 000 � v O N v N O 'c M N r CO CO M r m
C N t Z C y N
w
•(7 •� E cu f11 y
LL W N lD O V �O y N L m o O c0 r� i0 y m CO N 00 �
SCJ U N r r �' O N L `O M �- M N r o LO Ln; M Co r
wa v E wcc
3
ao L. O 0 E � y y -
Z Lu rU O C Z N N m m n M R t0 m O n co
" O V # c # c
y y
Lu
Y
C
P- v t00 M Or, Q ?. N m v O m n N c0 y r CO N t0
Q N d V C N r r CO a L M M r r m
O cCi m y U
LU n rn V c E E
0) co M O O L E L 2� : L a. y
W c r r r N W O t' •E N a r O f� 'E r CO N co
J N r r (O O m
G m y Z r r r co `p N r m r O
W O
(n 3 « W O CQ C y C y
N V W N � W Q Q� U to E 0 o O. m `o CO r M
OQ Z M r r CD .= O O = # W m M m m N ) # m
O Cc = Q] w
WO CO Z 07 N
CL c r o L Q N O H r v t o
3 N C M N O N fCi C « m:9 N rn c rn«
Z " (� N E.. w O t N M '�! Qm, o r N M am, o
« 6. Z h