The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03231993 - 1.78 1INK-113-di lut I ( ;Zj mlflr INN MN NU, ZJIU411 1. 70 JI RECEIVED 161993 CLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATAP IWERNAI IONAL,INC. CONTRA COSTA CO. FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE- 2A 3 TIME:— PLEASE DELIVER MESSAGE TO:lali_'�l 10_51i MESSAGE, SENT BY-- Le� �= TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES SENT (INCLUDING COVER SIIEET)----Y— COMMENTS-0 3m.1 Jbo__, LA I AltA I CO RECT NUMPER OF PACES_ .. _ PLEASE CALL L1115) 231-0471 ASAP FAX NUMBER (AI-U 231-0608 P.O. Box 663, Station A, Richmond, CA 948078 (415) 231-0471 MAR-1'6-93 TUE 17:23 ATAP INC FAX N0, 2310471 P. 02 RECEIVED MAR 16 1993 I ! ER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CT P Aq CO Tr1 CJ. 1 DATE. �' �rt' ^A) ftQUFST To SPEAK Fort THREE (3) MINU'T'E UMrr) Complete this form,and place it_ in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME• r�_1�� '�•_ i PHONE: 21k-CsWl I ADDRESS: RJI). %ny �ofin ' CrrY: Y am speaking formyself OR organization:. S N? ILL, Check one, (NAME OF OROANVATION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: ,general for against I wish to speak on the sub ect of..nm�l1y„ - �fw V�Dotcn)°' I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. . ..,.. rnn iru, c�►u�r 1 r, uj Ll RECEIVED1 a/-N114 . 0 CUP INTERNAPONAL,1N0. EMAR199 INVOICE FOR SERVICES RENDERED CLERK BOARD- -v,G�SUFEAV�s JhS COr�TRa Jung 11, 1992 Mr. Jim Kennedy Contra costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94353 SEYETI UNIT SE'M ORr 0I000 Attorney Feas 15,000.00 Architect 30,000.00 General Contractor 60,000,00 ATAP Planning$ Developing a Building 196,oD4.00 TOTAL ANDUNT DUE: 1340 OQ 00 P.O. Sox 64 Station A, Richmond, CA 94800 (415) 231.0471 FAX (415) 231.0608 MAR-16-93.TUE 17:24 ATAP INR E C O, 2310471 P. 04 E I MAR 16 1993 # CA "P � CLERK BOARD 0 SUPERVISORS LK CONTRA COSTA Co. TVA vL- -bolvb, t)c- Los\ N t) P,9:(�NYE-2- , A 'S P�v tL a:;l f lm im h vaWSIMA- WN4 Iry(ov'cm f L i � Ncu �L b%I a L, d N 4iLR-U Dpi yelt4 �vd 40 Cha4v , 0-mA L to Nei pul,5�- Ibi6& 12--afw N zcj 0 G c L/\- tlj,� 0 -V L Nc aq --- RECEIVED.,., �l9AQ- c -BOARD-OF-SUPERVISOR-S, ___ CONTRA COSTA CO. TOPS 7524-CANARY.7525-WHITE DATE. l REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: 1_ \�\ �` .� PHONE: lel ` A-ULi I ADDRESS. V P)� ID(tos CIY. 9,A �kLoc 4gnz I am speaking formyself OR organization: Check one: (NAME OF ORGAN IJ-Xl-IOti) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general r for against I wish to speak on the subject of d\��tai I S �Dv � �DQL�° I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit-length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) ATAP INTERNATIONAL,INC, INVOICE FOR SERVICES RENDERED June 17, 1892 Mr. Jim Kennedy Contra Costa County 661 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94563 SEVEN UNIT SFH - NORTH RICHMONL) Attorney Fees $ 16,000.00 Architect 30,000.00 General Contractor 60,004.00 ATAP Planning, Developing & Building 196,000.00 TOTAL. AMOUNT DUE: $300.000.00 P.O. Box 663, Station A, Richmond, CA 94808 (415) 231-0471 FAX (415) 231-0608 r 67 - 3 �-L3 Redevelopment Agency Contra Commissioners Tom Powers County Administration Building Costa tst District 651 Pine St.4th Flr.,North Wing J Nancy C.Fander� Martinez,California 94553 Count` , 2nd District Y Phil Batchelor Robert 1.Schroder Executive Director 3rd District`t r.t-.r Harvey E.Bragdon �_' Sunne Wright McPeak Assistant Executive Director / 41h District James Kennedy 7. !'I Tom Torlakson 5th District Deputy Director-Redevelopment (510)646-4076 `�- `� >° AMgy April 21, 1993 8p,4 C�NtROS 1993 A RV UPE Larry Greer _ Tq CQ ORS A.T.A.P. International, Inc. P.O. Box 663 '_ � - Station A Richmond. CA 94808 L Dear Mr. Greer: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated March 16, 1993,to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors that requested payment on an outstanding invoice totaling$300,000. You requested payment for past attorney.architect. general contractor,and developer fees relative to the seven unit infill affordable housing project in the North Richmond Redevelopment Project Area. In addition.your letter made several allegations relative to the Redevelopment Agency's and the County's responsibilities in this project that I would like to address. Specifically,the allegations raised were: (1) the invoice was submitted to Jim Kennedy,Deputy Director,for payment;and(2)the County both delayed the completion of the project and were ultimately responsible for A.T.A.P. losing the contract to complete the homes. 1. Invoice of June 17, 1992. An invoice dated June 17. 1992,was received by the Community Development Department on August 20, 1992,which totaled$300,000 for predevelopment related line items. Your communication of March 16, 1993.was the first formal indication of who submitted the June 17, 1992,invoice. The June 17, 1992, invoice was not signed and did not contain the name or address of the submitter. Further,the invoice contained no documentation substantiating the expenses. This office does not respond to invoices that are not properly prepared, nor do we have the time to trace anonymous letters. We also note that A.T.A.P. entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement(DDA)with the Agency to complete the development of the seven single family homes. Pursuant to the DDA, A.T.A.P. secured a$577.000 construction loan which was sufficient to construct the homes. Subsequently,the Agency covered the cost overruns by increasing the selling prices by approximately$14,000 per home(for a total of$98,000). Not only did A.T.A.P. exhaust the construction and Redevelopment Agency funds, but the homes were only roughly 40-60%complete upon A.T.A.P.'s departure from the project, The amount of money spent by A.T.A.P. ,given the relative incompleteness of the homes,raises many questions about the disposition of construction funds.and the location of the materials,tools and equipment that A.T.A.P. purchased for the project. The construction lender foreclosed on the A.T.A.P. project on February 27, 1991. Neither A.T.A.P. nor any of the subcontractors worked on the project since October 1990. While the Agency and A.T.A.P. maintained constant communication throughout the foreclosure process,at no point did A.T.A.P. either state or request payment for any past services rendered, nor were the companies providing these services among the lien holders on the property at the time of foreclosure. In conclusion. there is no justification for the Agency making any additional payments to A.T.A.P. for work previously performed on the seven units housing project located in the North Richmond Redevelopment Project Area. 2. County Delays and Responsibility for A.T.A.P. Losing the Housing Project A.T.A.P. has leveled these same allegations previously to the Board of Supervisors as well as to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,to which the Agency responded(attachments). In closing,despite your continued attempts to discredit the County Redevelopment Agency,it continues to be apparent that only A.T.A.P. was responsible for the problems experienced on the housing project. A.T.A.P. appeared to operate under the premise,that because this was a government sponsored project, the developer bore no responsibility and the County would invest unlimited funds to complete the project. The developer is responsible for ensuring that construction meets all applicable building standards, including flood plain requirements, and for curing any problems that arise. Even with increased financial participation by the Redevelopment Agency,A.T.A.P. was unable to secure the additional funds necessary to complete the project. For this reason,and this reason only,A.T.A.P.was foreclosed upon and ultimately removed as developer for this housing project. I frankly hope this is the last time that AT.A.P. will assert that the County was accountable for A.T.A.P.'s failure to complete the seven unit infill housing project in North Richmond. A.T.A.P.'s failure to perform has cost the Agency hundreds of thousands of dollars and threatens to undermine the North Richmond community's confidence in improving their neighborhood. Sin rely, Jim Kennedy / Deputy Director-.Redevelopment , i c Board of Supervisors North Richmond MAC County Administrator County Counsel Goldfarb&Lipman File 135.3(c)(3)