Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07131993 - 1.136 ' 'P�MEN7 0 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development h�a1211 i�l��if yo"= San Francisco Regional Office, Region IX sW� I ` III*0 450 Golden Gate Avenue IIIISan Francisco, California 94102.3448 a N�0ll . JUN_ 1 6 19991- RECEIVE Mr. Tom Torlakson , Chairperson, Board of Supervisors I $ 19 Contra Costa County I 93 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94554 CLERKBOARDOFSUPER-J!" . CONTRA COSTA CO. Dear Mr. Torlakson: Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Program No. B-91-UC-06-0002 Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program Program No. 5-91-UC-06-0002 Contra Costa County Monitoring Visit This letter is to provide you with the results of the CDBG and ESG monitoring review that was conducted during the period May 11 - 13, 1993, by Gerald Burke, HUD Community Planning and Development Representative. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were conducted in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations. During the monitoring visit, Mr. Burke reviewed the files of various CDBG funded organizations for information pertaining to the CDBG program and related activities. He also visited some of the organizations. His primary County contact was with Susan Griffin, Chief of the Community Development and Housing Division, in the County Community Development Department, and Larry Jones, Administrative Services Assistant in the same office. An exit interview was held with Mr. James Kennedy, Deputy Director of Redevelopment, .on May 13, 1993 . The main focus of Mr. Burke's review was to determine the eligibility of the activities funded from CDBG and compliance with one of the national objectives including the primary objective of providing maximum feasible benefit to person from low and moderate income households. We are pleased to report that in those areas which he reviewed, Mr. Burke made no findings and had no concerns. 2 It was apparent that all activities reviewed were providing benefit to persons from low and moderate income households. The direct benefit activities reviewed all had information on family size and verification of household income. The incomes indicated that the beneficiaries met the low and moderate income guidelines. The enclosed information provides details on the CDBG recipients which Mr. Burke visited and on the results of those visits. Please extend my thanks to Ms. Griffin and Mr. Jones for the courtesy and cooperation provided to Mr. Burke during his visit. If you have any questions regarding the issues discussed in this letter, please contact Mr. Burke or me at (415) 556-8214 . Very sincerely yours, s P Jimmy L. Prater Program Manager, Team A Office of Community Planning and Development cc: Phillip Batchelor County Administrator Susan Griffin Chief, Community Development ATTACHMENT Housing Rehabilitation On May 12, 1993, Mr. Burke visited the City of Pittsburg to review the City's rehabilitation loan files. He met with Mr. Oscar Coffey, Rehabilitation Loan Supervisor. Pittsburg operates its own rehabilitation program with County CDBG funds. Eight loan files were selected at random. The files were reviewed to determine if the information on family size and household income provided evidence of compliance with HUD low and moderate income guidelines. Each file contained all of the necessary information, including income verification, to satisfy the HUD requirements regarding benefit to low and moderate income households. In fact, four of the eight applicants had incomes below the "very low" income limit. Public Services In order to determine eligibility and compliance with national objectives, Mr. Burke visited several nonprofit service providers, as discussed below. Food Coalition This organization, located at 5121 Port Chicago Highway, operates out of a large warehouse in an industrial park. Mr. Burke met with John Bateson, Assistant Director, who described the functions of the Coalition . The principal functions are providing brown bag lunches for elderly, providing food for children of families on public assistance, operating soup kitchens, and maintaining homeless shelters. The food is obtained through donations from large market chains and distributors, USDA commodities, corporate cafeterias, and holiday food drives. Although the coalition does not obtain income verification, it is apparent that the beneficiaries are predominantly low and moderate income persons. Woodbridge Day Care Center (Acquisition) This modular center provides day care for 25 children from low income households. A review of eight application files were made. Each file contained information on family size and verification of income. We noted that most of the beneficiaries were in the very low income category. 2 El Pueblo Child Care (Expansion of existing facility) This day care center is adjacent to the El Publo public housing complex in Pittsburg. The expanded facility serves families residing in El Pueblo and other families in the vicinity. A review of 10 files chosen at random indicated that all of the families had incomes well below the HUD low and moderate guidelines. River House SRO (Acquisition and Rehabilitation) This project, operated by Housing for Independent People (HIP) , provides housing for 70 elderly and/or disabled single persons in a hotel in downtown Martinez. On May 13, 1993, Mr. Burke met with Sunshyne Crocher, HIP Regional Manager, to tour the facility and review the files of five residents. Each of the files contained verification of income. Each file indicated that the resident was receiving Social Security, based on age or disability. Ms. Crocher explained that most of the residents were on Social Security. 3 Emergency Shelter Grant Program 1992 Mr. Burke met with Kathleen Hamm, who described the uses of the 1992 ESG. The total grant was $72 , 000. One half, $36,000, was allocated to the Brookside homeless shelter; the remainder was allocated to the Shell Avenue family shelter. The Brookside funds have been drawn down and expended. The Shell Avenue site funds have not yet been expended, pending the completion of construction. All previous ESG funds have been drawn down and expended for eligible activities.