Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12201988 - IO.5 TO: ,: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I. 0. 5 FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CJI ra December 12, 1988 CIJJICI DATE Impact of Foster Home Placements SUBJECT: on East County Schools SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECCMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Request the County Administrator to invite Linda Parks of the Brentwood School District and the Superintendents of the five East County school districts to join our Committee on January 9, 1989 at 9 : 00 A.M. to discuss the impact of foster home placements in East County on the school districts in East County, particularly in relation to the cost of transporting these children to and from home. 2. Request the County Administrator to invite Assemblyman Robert Campbell, or a member of his staff, to meet with our Committee on January 9, 1989 at 9 : 00 A.M. to discuss the State ' s role in this problem. 3 . Request County Counsel and the Director of Community Development to review the letter, dated November 28, 1988 from Ms. Parks and the five East County superintendents requesting that the County require a land use permit for foster homes and residential group homes and report their findings and recommendations to our Committee on January 9, 1989 at 9: 00 A.M. 4 . Request the Director of Community Development to include in the forthcoming revisions to the Housing Element of the General Plan more specific language relating to foster homes and residential group homes for children. 5 . Request the Director of Community Development and the Social Services Director to cooperate in publicizing to foster parents the availability of CDBG funds to assist in renovating existing homes where the foster parents meet the eligibility criteria. 6 . Request the Director of Community Development to explore the possibility of using tax exempt bonds to assist foster parents to purchase a home as was outlined in Jim Kennedy' s attached memo dated December 5, 1988 and report his findings and recommendations to the 1989 Internal Operations Committee by March 1, 1989 if at all possible. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR --X_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER ionL SIGNATUREISI: Sunne W. McPeak Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON December 20, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, o County Administrator ATTESTED ,r�►,(gyl, � oP0 �Q�p cc: Social Services Director , Director, Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Agency SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR V. Westman, County Counsel Foster Parents Org. (via Social Svcs. ) BY -�nda Parks (via CAO) DEPUTY M382/7 East County Supts. (via CAO) Assemblyman Robert Campbell (via CAO) is 1 Page 2 7 . Request the Social Services Director to review the findings and recommendations in the report titled: "Foster Home Retention Survey, Findings from Former Foster Parents in 10 Bay Area Counties" to determine the applicability of the findings and recommendations in this County and the need to recruit new foster parents and do more to retain the foster parents we currently have and provide the 1989 Internal Operations Committee with a report and recommendations on what additional steps should be taken in this regard, such report to be filed with 1989 Internal Operations Committee . by March 31, 1989 . 8 . Request the County Administrator and County Counsel to monitor the SB 90 test claim on reimbursement of costs for support of special education and on the progress of the Lucia Mar Unified School District v. Bill Honig case which is before the Commission on State Mandates and provide our Committee with a status report on January 9, 1989 . 9. Request the Social Services Director to furnish this report of the Internal Operations Committee to organizations in the County which represent foster parents and request any comments or recommendations they wish to share with the department or the Board of Supervisors. 10. Remove as a referral to our Committee the June 21, 1988 referral on this subject, leaving on referral to this Committee the issues noted in recommendations 1, 2., 3 and 8 above and referring to the 1989 Internal Operations Committee the reports requested in recommendations 6 and 7 above. BACKGROUND• On October 4, 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from our Committee on this subject and requested that County staff make several more reports to our Committee. We reviewed these reports at our meeting on December 12, 1988 . Attached for the information of the Board Members is Jim Kennedy' s memo of December 5 regarding the housing issues which had been referred to the Community Development Department and the report from the County Administrator' s Office dated December 8, 1988 which deals with the transportation problems faced by the East County school districts because so many foster homes and group homes have recently been located in East County which are taking physically handicapped children. The Social Services Director has shared with our Committee the report cited in recommendation #7 above which concluded that many foster parents are giving up their licenses in the Bay Area "because of their dissatisfaction with the public child welfare system and the lack of supportive public policy and services to aid their endeavor" . To the extent that this statement is true in Contra Costa County, we believe that we need to agree on a strategy to address these problems and resolve them. We believe that there may be some very innovative ways in which the Community Development Department can be of assistance to foster parents, as is outlined .in Jim Kennedy' s memo and our recommendations. We also believe that we can serve a useful purpose as a convener between the school districts and Assemblyman Campbell in an effort to resolve the problems which have been outlined by the school districts and are reflected in the attached memo from the County Administrator' s Office. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T0: Claude Van Marter DATE: December 5, 1988 Assistant AAdm'i ni s�too FROM: Jim Keened Deputy Director Redevelopment SUBJECT: Foster Ho ousing Issues This memorandum responds to the Internal Operations Committee report of October 4, 1988. For ease of presentation I will respond to the six items in the June 21, 1988 board order. 1. Housing Element. The adopted housing element of the general plan currently provides two policies that generally deal with the issues raised. Policy 14 states that the County should provide resources to address special housing needs by, among other things, supporting non-profit groups and housing organizations in implementing programs which create or maintain housing opportunities. The housing element policy is not specific to the issue of foster care housing needs. If this is an issue that- 'the Board would like to have more specificity on, the appropriate time to develop such language would be in the update to the Housing Element of the General Plan that will be initiated in 1989 with the goal of having a revised housing element adopted prior to July 1, 1990. 2. Housing Rehabilitation Assistance. Contra Costa County through its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program currently funds 4 housing rehabilitation programs (County Building Inspection Department, City of San Pablo, City of Pittsburg and the County Housing Authority) . The independent CDBG cities of Richmond, Concord, Walnut Creek, and Antioch have rehabilitation programs as well . Subject to the eligibility guidelines (incomes, assets etc. ) , applications can be made for financial assistance in renovating existing homes. Among the types of improvements that are eligible for financing are improvements which result in improved access for the handicapped and, where overcrowding is occurring, room additions. Policies governing these programs do not specifically denote foster parents as a target group, however they would have equal access to financial assistance subject to their meeting the qualifying criteria. 3. Foster Home Inventory. The proposal was to develop an inventory of two to three houses that would be rented to foster parents. Rental payments from these homes would be used to develop, over time, an additional inventory of ten to twelve houses for foster parents. It is suggested that Community Development Block Grant monies, among others, would be an appropriate source for funding the initial acquisition of the initial houses. This proposal is similar in concept to the model that we see a fair amount in the special needs category, particularly group homes and special residential facilities for special user categories (substance abusers, mentally ill , etc. ) . A common element of special needs housing is ownership by a non-profit organization. This is partly the function of historical precedent, as well as, a provision in state constitution. Article 34 of the California Constitution requires that low and moderate income rental housing developed, constructed, or acquired by state public agencies, be subject to voter approval . Therefore, if the County were to be the acquiring agent it would be necessary that Article 34 Referendum Authority be obtained prior to acquisition of the properties. The need for Article 34 Referendum Authority, particularly for family housing, is extremely high in this County. It would be, however, rather expensive and cumbersome to obtain Article 34 Referendum Authority solely for two to three houses for a particular user group. Further, there are no guarantees of success therefore, it would be my suggestion that an Article 34 Referendum effort on a countywide basis be initiated. In addition, I would submit that the County may be well served by considering the concept of forming a non-profit organization that is a captive of the County. Such a captive non-profit could be the vehicle for the County owning and having control of these properties without being subject for Article 34 Referendum Authority. It should be noted that the County Health Department is also considering non-profit ownership of special user housing for its client groups and could be well served by such a captive non-profit as well . 4. Housing Authority Units. The Housing Authority will' respond to this particular item. 5. HUD Section 202 Fund. The 202 program provides a direct loan and subsidy to the non-profit owners of elderly and handicapped housing. The 202 program has primarily been vehicle for financing elderly housing, although handicapped housing has been financed at a smaller level . The Chilpangcingo Vista Apartments in Pleasant Hill are an example of a 202 financed project for the physically handicapped. HUD has established a policy of committing a proportionably larger share of the total Section 202 funds to sponsors of projects for the handicapped. The Community Development Department is working with a number of sponsors of prospective 202 projects in this County. At this time none of the projects are devoted to the handicapped, however, we know that interest does exist for such projects and perhaps can be brought to fruition with sufficient technical assistance. 6. Redevelopment Agency Housing Activity. The Board of Supervisors recently received a report from this department regarding housing activities of redevelopment agencies. Redevelopment agencies are required to address housing needs, needs to be addressed could include assistance in the foster home area. In addition to the six items in the June 21st Board Order there is one additional area that may warrant further investigation. The County is a frequent issuer of tax exempt bonds that provide below market interest rate -1.1- financing for first time home buyers. As part of our more recent programs the County has secured a portion of mortgage money available for public purpose programs. Conceptually it would be possible to earmark a portion of the mortgage financing available to first time home buyers who would also be, or prospectively be, foster parents. The family would have to qualify for the financing as do all potential home buyers under these programs. If desired, the Community Development Department staff can further develop this concept and report back to the committee. I would like to make one cautionary observation. It seems from the materials provided from Supervisor Torlakson that the underlying issue is impaction of East County school districts because that sector of the county is receiving a proportionally larger share of the foster home activity in the county. To deal with this as the issue would imply that the various assistance efforts reviewed above would be focused in the central and western portions of the county. This is a policy issue that should be examined by the committee and the full Board. JK:cg cc: Janet Anderson ra30a/foster.mmo -2-