Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07171984 - 2.4 �/M TO: 'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor, Contra County Administrator , Costa DATE: July 10, 1984 County SUBJECT: Request by the Comite Regional Campesino for Community Development Block Grant Funds for Farm Labor Housing SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of report from County Administrator, in response to Board referral of June 12, 1984, providing information relative to the request of the Comite Regional Campesino for Community Development Block Grant Funds for acquisition and rehabilitation of farm labor housing and indicating that said request has been denied by the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND On January 4, 1984 the County Planning Department received a request from the Comite Regional Campesino (Mr. Abraham Q. Amador,. Housing Projects Director) for Community Development Block Grant funds to pay a portion of the cost of purchasing a two acre parcel of property including seven farm labor dwelling units. Planning staff review of the request indicated several concerns which prevented the staff from making a positive recom- mendation to the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee. The Comite was, at the same time, attempting to obtain State Farmworkers Grant Funds to assist in the project funding. The State staff expressed similar concerns about the proposal, i.e. , project feasibility and cost effective- ness. In April, 1984 the Comite submitted a revised funding request. In a May 18, 1984 letter to Mr. Amador, Planning Department staff indicated that they would not recommend the project for funding because the project' s cost effectiveness was questionable,, the dwelling units were not sufficiently large to accommodate the families occupying them and that alternatives were available to address the housing needs both of the existing tenants and farmworkers in general. (See attached June 15,,, 1984 memorandum to Phillip J. Batchelor, County Administrator, from Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning. ) On June 20, 1984 the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee voted unanimously to deny the Comite's funding request. (See attached June 25, 1984 memorandum to Phillip J. Batchelor, County Administrator, from Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning. ) CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: XX RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE 3ex_APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON y APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER The Board heard comments from Jess Melgoza, Fred Franco and Abraham Amador- urging consideration of the Comite Regional Campesino's proposal for farm labor housing. The Board REFERRED the matter back to the County Administrator for further review of alternatives for housing farm laborers aned the specific proposal of the Comite. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: A. A. Dehaesus ATTESTED Abraham Amador J.R. O SS . COUNTY CLERK Comite Regional Campesino AND X OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD 000160 M3e2/7-99 BY DEPUTY Contra Costa Court- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Com ,,_,,,,-•- PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'i``/`' JUN 2 7 1984 CouTO: Phillip J. Batchelor DATE: June 25, 1984 l�ciminisirarUr 1984 County Administrator Housing and Community Development FROM: Anthony A. Dehaes� SUBJECT: Advisory Committee Decision on Director of Plannin Request by Comite Regional Campresinc IAbraham Amador On June 20, 1984 the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) voted unanimously to deny the request for funding from the-Comite Regional Campresino to purchase and rehabilitate a seven unit farm labor camp in the Brentwood area. The HCDAC determined that too many costs were unknown, that the project would not be cost effective and could drain all of its housing funds for 1984-85, and that other more efficient alternatives were and soon would be available. In addition there exists some confusion as to possible involvement of state funds and the appropriate mechanism for timely implementation through the contract bidding process and possible relocation benefit costs. cc: County Counsel Supervisor Torlakson AAD/mblG Contra Cost C unt,- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT AN 15 1984 Office of COunt�• administrator TO: Philip J. Batchelor DATE: June 15, 1984 County Administrator FROM: Anthony A. Dehaes SUBJECT: Abraham Q. Amador Director of Plannin Letter of June 12, 1984 The purpose of this me or dum is to respond to the comments and allegations of Abraham Amador rega ding this departments handling of the Comite Regional Campesino's request for Community Development Block Grant Funds. Background On January 4, 1984 this department received a request for Community Development Block Grant Funds from the Comite Regional Campesino. The request was for $55,000 - a portion of the estimated $95,000 necessary to purchase a two acre property south of Brentwood under provisions of an option agreement secured by the Comite Regional Campesino. The property, referred to as Colonia Guadalupe, contains seven farm labor homes. An abatement notice to the property owner had been mailed by the Building Inspection Department on January 4, 1984. The initial request for Community Development Funds was for acquisition only and did not include rehabilitation. The request further referenced various funding sources which might provide the matching funds necessary to complete the acquisition, including State Farmworker Grant Funds. On January 27, 1984 my staff met with Mr. Amador to discuss the proposal. At that meeting we expressed several concerns: first, the proposal contemplated acquisition only with no indication of potential rehabilitation costs. Obviously since the homes were under abatement they were not 'in very good shape and one could assume that rehabilitation costs would be substantial. At the meeting Mr. Amador provided a rehabilitation estimate of $49,000 or $7,000/unit; two, a cost effectiveness analysis of the total project needed to be completed prior to proceeding with the proposal. The cost effectiveness analysis, which would take into account all project costs, costs of alternatives, and the ultimate value of the property, could properly only be completed with additional information which required time to prepare; third, matching funds were not in place and potential match sources had expressed concerns similar to those of my staff. Based on the foregoing, staff indicated that a positive staff recommendation could not be provided at the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee's meeting in early February. Mr. Amador stated that he did not have time to await the development of further information and said he would pursue funding sources other than Community Development Funds. Over the subsequent month Mr. Amador pursued foundation funds and State Farmworker Grant Funds. The State Farmworker Grant Program staff, in a letter dated March 15, indicated that several concerns would have to be resolved prior to their providing a positive staff recommendation. Those concerns included the absence of a total project cost estimate (acquisition only), and whether the after rehabilitation value would support the kind of investment necessary to bring the homes up to code (cost effectiveness). Philip J. Batchelor Page Two June 15, 1984 On April 4, 1984, a revised proposal for Community Development Funds was submitted for $75,000 - one-half of an estimated $150,000 project cost. At a meeting hosted by this department on this same day - attended by Mr. Amador, Housing Authority staff and staff from Supervisor Torlakson's office - it was agreed that a cost effectiveness analysis would be conducted based on full project cost. My staff agreed to take the lead in developing the necessary information. It was mutually agreed that the homes and the site would have to be brought up to minimum housing code and Section 8 Housing Quality Standards, and that cost estimates would reflect these minimum standards. Further, the Housing Authority agreed to work with Mr. Amador in attempting to secure an extension to the option agreement. In a time period of approximately one month we completed the necessary research and analysis. In a letter dated May 18, 1984 (Attachment 1) we expressed our conclusions to Mr. Amador that the projects cost effectiveness was questionable, that the units were not sufficiently large to accommodate the large families occupying them without additional bedrooms, and that alternatives were available both to address the needs of the existing tenants and for. farmworker housing needs in general. It was indicated that a positive staff recommendation could not be provided, but that the proposal would be scheduled for Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee for consideration at their next meeting on June 20, 1984. The State Farmworker Grant Program staff provided a similar letter to Mr. Amador. Response to Allegations In his letter to the Board of Supervisors Mr. Amador made a number of allegations which we feel are unwarranted, untrue, and must have a response. First, it was stated that the staff intentionally delayed the process, and that this delay caused the loss of state funds. It is our view that we did not delay in responding to the proposal, rather that Mr. Amador, of his own accord, chose initially to pursue other funds rather than await the development of information that could address staff concerns. Only upon hearing similar concerns from other funding sources, including the state funds that were "lost", did Mr. Amador renew his request for Community Development funds and agree that a cost effectiveness analysis was appropriate. Within five weeks the information was developed and analyzed, and a response was made. Second, that the Planning staff "co-acted and conspired" with other county staff to develop a list of unnecessary repairs which drove up rehabilitation costs, which in turn effected cost effectiveness. An examination of the improvements necessary will quickly reveal that only minimal health and safety items were included in the work write-up completed by Housing Rehabilitation staff people (Attachment 1). The site improvements required to meet Section 8 Housing Quality Standards are also minimal and include only the bare essentials necessary to assure the health and safety of the tenants. We reject entirely the allegation that we conspired with others to drive-up costs. Rather, we were very careful to emphasize to those providing input - the Housing Authority, the Building Inspection Department, the Health Department, and the State Housing and Community Development staff that the improvements should be only those necessary to meet minimum costs and standards. We subscribe to the philosophy articulated in the Housing Element that all residents of this County, including farmworkers, deserve the opportunity to reside in decent and safe housing. If Mr. Amador feels that farmworkers should accept less, then he is not fairly evaluating the need. Philip J. Batchelor Page Three June 15, 1984 Third, that the proposal was treated unfairly by being subjected to criteria not required of others. The Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee adopted, in March, 1981, review procedures (Attachment 2) for all projects. All projects which are eligible are "reviewed" based on three basic areas of concern: 1) need, 2) cost effectiveness, and 3) feasibility. It was against these long and well established criteria that staff completed its analysis of this proposal and all others. Four, that the staff is insensitive to the needs of farmworkers, and that we are engaged in discriminatory practices by not fundng farmworker projects. The need for adequate housing for farmworkers is not and was not questioned. The staff concerns were always in the cost effectiveness and feasibility areas. All resource allocation decisions involve choice. The process of review is inherently set up to weigh the relative merits of a particular proposal. If every request for funding could be responded to affirmatively then there would be no need for review and really no need for a decision making process. If Mr. Amador is of the opinion that no discretionary decision making process is required because of unlimited resources then I would submit he is wrong. Resources are limited as we are all well aware and hence difficult decisions must often be made. It is our role to develop good information and recommendations so that .good fair decisions can be made. We reject entirely and, furthermore, strongly resent the charge that we have engaged in discriminatory practices in this or any other case. Five, that our statement that two other agencies are involved in addressing farmworker housing needs in East County is not true. Correctly stated, our statement was that "the County is currently under contract with two organizations in East County who are undertaking farmworker and rural housing." Indeed housing needs are being addressed in East County by virtue of the Community Development programs investment of nearly $1 million in three projects. Two of the projects are being undertaken by United Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations (UCSSO), and are specifically aimed at farmworker needs. Over $250,000 has been provided to UCSSO to acquire and rehabilitate two farm labor camps. At present over $750,000 from various sources have been expended in the two camps, most of it while UCSSO was being directed by Mr. Amador. Work still needs to be done to complete the two projects, a substantial amount of which was done incorrectly. It is from the costly history of these two ventures that some of the staff concerns emanate. The second organization with which we are dealing with - Pacific Community Services, Inc. (PCSI) - is in the process of developing a 130-unit home ownership project, 50% of which will be affordable to low income households including farmworkers. Conclusion In conclusion, I feel that Mr. Amador's comments are primarily a function of not securing a positive staff recommendation. I can sympathize with his dedicated efforts but we stand on our analysis. The decision making process is available to allow Mr. Amador to pursue his proposal. In the event the decision making process provides Mr. Amador with funding we will work with him to assure an efficient and timely completion of the project. Irrespective of the results of this particular proposal we restate what has already been - stated both orally and in writing, i.e., we will work with Mr. Amador and any other " sponsor to develop feasible proposals. AAD/mb1G cc: Supervisor Torlakson Attachments