HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0620 CC REG ITEM 08P )0,1P 4 �:;,I7.=1 •
ITEM
CITY OF ,I4��4 1990
n arc�
June 4, 1990
MOORPARK, CALJFO NJA
City Coun I Meeting
TO: Association of Ventura County Cities (AVCC) °f 199,0
ACTION;
FROM: Nao Takasugi , / _
Sub-Committe on `R1�giora omeless She r �-
91!-E--
SUBJECT: Development of Homeless Shelter � rR7 oe.
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to set forth some recommended options relative
to the development and operation of needed homeless shelters in the county.
The report comes about as a result of direction provided by the AVCC to a
sub-committee formed at the association' s March 6 meeting.
The committee, you may recall , was asked to review and assess Oxnard's
recommended regional homeless shelter and to return to the association with
the results of this review, as well as with recommended options.
The sub-committee met on April 17 to perform the review and assessment. This
report is a result of the committee' s initial work.
Recommended Program
As a result of its review and assessment, the sub-committee recommends that:
1. The cities, and the county, enter into a joint powers agreement (JPA) for
the purpose of developing the structure necessary to address the homeless
needs in the county within the available resources of each unit of
government. In effect, the sub-committee concurs with Oxnard' s proposal
that a JPA format is an appropriate method for proceeding with this
project.
2. The AVCC assess the homeless shelter needs in the county and determine
whether one or two shelters may be necessary in the county. At the
moment it appears to the sub-committee that, given the geographic
dispersion of the county, a minimum of two shelters may be necessary;
one to handle the shelter needs of the east county, the other to address
the needs of the west county.
The committee also feels that the AVCC will need to make some decisions
relative to each agency' s equitable contribution to the capital and
Development of Homeless Shelter
June 4, 1990
Page 2
operational needs of the facilities. Some of the options which the
committee explored include a contribution based upon each governmental
unit's percentage of the total county population, a percentage of the low
income distribution in the county, a percentage of CDBG funds received,
a percentage of welfare clients, housing element requirements, and
possibly, on the the number of homeless persons in each community.
The AVCC will also need to decide what homeless populations are to be
served by the shelter(s). Oxnard's concept is oriented toward families
with children. Does the AVCC feel comfortable with this orientation or
does the AVCC feel that new shelter assistance should also be extended to
homeless single individuals and/or youths?
3. Discussion be initiated with United Way and the Building Industry
Association (BIA), and efforts also initiated with federal and state
legislative resources for the additional funds necessary to support the
capital needs and operations of the shelter facilities.
The BIA has already said that it is willing to provide technical and
financial resources for such an effort. United Way, which in the past
has labeled homelessness as a priority issue in Ventura County, raises
and provides funds for operational costs of service providers.
The development of a shelter, and possibly two, may require United Way to
make some significant funding reallocation decisions.
4. That providers of social and related services be contacted to obtain and
coordinate their participation in providing needed services at the
facilities, e.g., EDD, Welfare, AFDC, PSSA, etc. The committee feels
that if these providers of social services to the homeless can make their
services available at each of the facilities at their costs, the cost
impact upon each unit of government for operational support will be
reduced. In addition, and probably most significantly, such an approach
would provide needed comprehensive case management for homeless clients.
5. Once a decision is made on each agency's participation in this effort, an
RFP be developed to secure providers or operators of the homeless
shelters. The sub—committee considered a couple of options in this
regard. One is the selection of a provider who is responsible not only
for ongoing operations, but also for the construction and development of
a new shelter, including, of course, purchase and acquisition of the site.
And, of course, the other alternative would be a provider who is only
responsible is for operation of the shelter. There are many such
operators in the community.
If an agency is selected only for operational services, then some other
alternative would have to be found for construction management.
Development of Homeless Shelter
June 4, 1990
Page 3
The sub—committee feels that the AVCC needs to work closely with United Way
and BIA, and needs to go beyond words and initiate some actions relative to a
new shelter. There has been a lot of discussion about homeless problems,
issues, and needs in the county but nothing concrete has occurred relative
to shelters for the homeless.
As indicated earlier, if one or two shelters are developed in the county,
there will undoubtly have to be a redistribution of social service monies in
the county. This may require United Way to make a significant shift in its
funding allocations. Because of the potential impact on social service
agencies, there will probably be some concerns expressed over the impacts
associated with developing one or two homeless shelters in the county.
NT:rs