HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05091995 - 10.2 1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 .0.-2
5 ` Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE F- �►`` ' Costa
County .
�TJ
DATE: May 1, 1995 Sr+cuVfN
SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF HOUSING-RELATED ADVISORY
BOARDS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . MAKE no change in the role, responsibility, structure or
membership of the Mobile Home Advisory Committee in view of
the ongoing meetings which the Internal Operations Committee
is holding on the subject of a possible mobile home rent
control ordinance or rent accord and the Board of Supervisors '
existing direction to separately consider the role,
responsibilities and structure of the Mobile Home Advisory
Committee.
2 . MAKE no change in the role, responsibility, structure or
membership of the Homeless Advisory Committee in view of the
ongoing meetings which the Family and Human Services Committee
is holding on the subject of a comprehensive plan for
addressing the needs of the homeless in this County and the
meetings which are being held with the ,Homeless Advisory
Committee.
3 . MAKE no change in the role, responsibility, structure or
membership of the Advisory Housing Commission in view of its
relatively unique role with the Housing Authority and the
County' s "landlord" function.
4 . DIRECT staff to determine whether there is an appropriate
existing advisory board, committee or commission which could
absorb the economic development aspects of the existing
Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee rather
than creating a separate advisory committee for this purpose
and report back to the Internal Operations Committee on their
conclusions and recommendations .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): =MARK PnRp=AI I VIER
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 9, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT NnnP ) 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.
ATTESTED May 9, 1995
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 3 ER RS AND COUNTY ADMINISTR R
DEPUTY
I .O.-2
5 . Direct staff to evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness
of assigning the role of the Housing Rehabilitation Loan and
Grant Review Panel to another advisory body and return to the
Internal Operations Committee with their findings and
recommendations .
6 . REFER to the Family and Human Services Committee the question
of where within the family and human services committees,
whose structure that Committee is presently studying, the
recommended allocation of the "Public Service" portion of the
Housing and Community Development Block Grant might most
appropriately be assigned.
7 . AGREE in concept that it is appropriate to restructure the
existing Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
into a new Affordable Housing Finance Advisory Committee, with
the "economic development" and "public service" portions of
the existing CDBG Block Grant being allocated as is provided
for in Recommendations # 4 and # 5 above and with the existing
"open" portion of the CDBG Block Grant being delegated to
staff of the Community Development Department to recommend to
the- Board of Supervisors .
8 . AGREE in concept that it is appropriate to create an
Affordable Housing Finance Advisory Committee which would
assume responsibility for the "housing finance" functions of
the existing Housing and Community Development Advisory
Committee, plus the functions of the HOME Technical Review
Committee and the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee and
request that staff return to our Committee with the details of
the recommended size, composition and method of selecting the
members of the Committee.
9 . DIRECT Community Development Department staff to prepare
recommended implementation steps for the Internal Operations
Committee' s further consideration with the intent to complete
the conversion to a new structure by September 1, 1995 .
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 1994, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution
94/356 which, among other things, referred to the 1994 Internal
Operations Committee a group of six advisory boards, committees and
commissions in the "housing" area for the purpose of reviewing the
"existence, role, responsibilities, composition, and relationship
of each of these advisory boards, committees and commissions , to
each other, with a view to forming a single housing body with the
other groups serving as subcommittees of the overall body. "
The 1994 Internal Operations Committee was unable to address this
issue during 1994 . On December 20, 1994 , this issue was referred
to the 1995 Internal Operations Committee.
On May 1, 1995, our Committee met with staff from the Community
Development Department. The Deputy Redevelopment Director, Jim
Kennedy, shared the attached report with our Committee and reviewed
it with us . We agree with staff ' s recommendations regarding the
Mobile Home Advisory Committee, Homeless Advisory Committee and
Advisory Housing Commission for the reasons stated in the above
recommendations.
Rather than agreeing at this time to create a new Economic
Development Advisory Committee, we would like staff to take another
look at our existing complex of advisory committees to determine
whether an existing advisory committee could assume the "economic
development" functions of the Housing and Community Development
Advisory Committee, as well as the role of the Housing
Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Review Panel . We are asking staff to
review this portion of their recommendations again and return to
our Committee with further information on this subject.
2
r
I .O.-2
We are in agreement in concept with the need to create a new
Affordable Housing Finance Advisory Committee to assume the
"housing finance" responsibilities of the existing Housing and
Community Development Advisory Committee, plus the functions of the
existing HOME Technical Review Committee and Housing Trust Fund
Advisory Committee. We are asking staff to outline a series of
implementation steps which would allow the reorganization of these
housing-related advisory bodies into the new proposed structure
between now and September 1, 1995 . We will return additional
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as we continue to work
through the details of these implementation steps .
cc: County Administrator
Community Development Director
Deputy Redevelopment Director
Director of Building Inspection
County Counsel
Executive Director, Housing Authority
Homeless Advisory Committee (Via Public Health Director)
3
1 T
T i
•
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNTrY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: April 25, 1995
TO: Internal Operations Committee
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Jim Rogers
FROM: Jim K e C/
De ty Direc -Redevelopment
SUBJECT: ou ' elated Advisory Boards
I. BACKGROUND
On July 12, 1994 the Board of Supervisors referred to your Committee the housing-related advisory
committees. The housing committees being reviewed as part of the National Performance Review
Report Committee process include:
Committee Staffing Department
• Homeless Advisory Committee Unstaffed
• Housing& Community Development Community Development Dept.
Advisory Committee
• Advisory Housing Commission Housing Authority
• Housing Trust Fund Interim Advisory . Community Development Dept.
Board
• Housing Rehabilitation Loan& Grant Building Inspection
Review Panel
• Mobile Home Advisory Committee Community Development Dept.
• HOME Technical Review Committee Community Development Dept.
(not included in referral, but related)
The prior review of these committees is included as Appendix A.
On February 15, 1995 the Board of Supervisors requested that the Community Development
Department prepare a report and recommendation on alternative structures to the existing Housing
and Community Development Advisory Committee. This report responds to that referral.
II. FUNCTIONAL DUTIES
In reviewing the functions of the housing committees that are subject to the National Performance
Review process, it became apparent that the function and purpose of these advisory committees were
quite divergent. For example:
t
Internal Operations Committee -2- April 25, 1995
• The Advisory Housing Commission exists to assist the County Housing Authority in
fulfilling its role as a LANDLORD/RENTAL PROGRAMS OPERATOR;
• The Homeless Advisory Committee and the Mobile Home Advisory Committee exist
primarily as a vehicle for POLICY/SERVICE INTEGRATION AND CONFLICT
RESOLUTION in their respective topical areas; and
• The Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee, the HOME
Technical Review Committee, the Housing Trust Fund Interim Advisory Board, and
the Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Review Panel serve primarily in a
RESOURCE ALLOCATION/FINANCE FUNCTION.
Given these divergent functions, it is not apparent that consolidation to one committee for all
purposes makes sense. A combination of committees along functional or topical lines may make
sense in some instances.
III. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES
Major changes in the manner of federal financing of affordable housing are likely to occur in the near
future. The Clinton Administration has proposed a major reorganization of U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development(HUD)programs(Appendix D), which would consolidate existing
programs into three block grants:
1. The Community Opportunity Performance Fund would modify the Community
Development Block Grant(CDBG)program only slightly. HUD wants to encourage
the use of more CDBG funds for economic development;
2. The Affordable Housing Fund would use the framework of the current HOME
Investment Partnerships Program. It would consolidate with HOME other HUD
categorical housing programs that assist the elderly, handicapped, and other groups.
Ultimately the homeless assistance funding programs, and housing for people with
AIDS (HOPWA) program would be merged into this block grant approach; and
3. The Housing Certificate Fund would consolidate existing rent subsidy programs
including Section 8 rental assistance (certificate and vouchers), and public housing
operating subsidies. This consolidation would effect programs currently administered
by the County Housing Authority.
The"reinvention of HUD" is one part of the Administration's five-year cost savings plan designed to
help reduce the federal deficit and pay for proposed tax carts. The proposed changes would transform
HUD into an oversight and technical assistance agency, and return program implementation and
accountability to the local level with the funding. The concept seems to have a high level of bi-
partisan support.
Internal Operations Committee -3- April 25, 1995
IV, RECOMMENDATIONS ON INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEES
A. Advisory Housing Commission
The County in its landlord function' is primarily the duty of the Housing Authority and the Advisory
Housing Commission. The Advisory Housing Commission was created in the early 1980's when the
Board of Supervisors assumed the role of Housing Commission. No significant operational change
would occur as a result of the proposed HUD changes, therefore, no change in the role and structure
of the AdvisoEy Housing Commission is recommended.
B. Mobile Home Advisory Committee/Homeless Advisory Committee
Given their policy/service integration and conflict resolution responsibilities, the Mobile Home
Advisory Committee and the Homeless Advisory Committee share common roles. The unique topical
areas these Committees cover, however, combined with the nature of the issues and populations they
handle, do not seem to provide common ground for integration of committee functions. Furthermore,
the function/purpose/composition/need of the Mobile Home Advisory Committee should be evaluated
in the context of the evolving Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance. No change in the role and
structure of the Mobile Home Advisory Committee and the Homeless Advisory Committee is
recommended.
C. Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Review Board
This panel serves as a "loan committee" to review individual applications for housing rehabilitation
financial assistance. The panel's function is limited and requires no change.
D. Housing Finance (HOME Technical Review Committee, the Housing Trust Fund
Advisory Committee, and the Housing and Community Development Advisory
Committee -Housing Finance Function Only)
The housing finance function of the HOME Technical Review Committee, the Housing Trust Fund
Advisory Committee, and the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee have some
integration possibilities. The financing of affordable housing is a complex field that benefits from
having people with knowledge of real estate development, real estate financing, public finance, and
federal, state and local housing finance programs and regulations. The use of technical people with
expertise in these fields is reflected in the HOME Technical Review Committee(Appendix E), and
the proposed structure for the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board (Appendix F). Housing finance
is one of the primary purposes of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
(50%of the CDBG funds are so directed per Board of Supervisors action), however, it is not its sole
function (Appendices B-1 and B-2).
1 In some respects,the Homeless Advisory Committee and the Mobile Home Advisory Committee functions could be viewed
as landlord related,however,their primary role is that of conflict resolution and policy/service integration.
Internal Operations Committee -4- April 25, 1995
Alternative structures for committees involved in housing finance would be to continue the practice
of having separate committees for each funding source(and relying heavily on the staff to integrate
and coordinate the various forms of financing for affordable housing projects), or combining to
achieve better coordination at the advisory committee and staff level. The latter seems to make the
most sense given the scarcity of funds and the need to optimize staff resources. It is recommended
that the Board of Supervisors initiate a process to establish an Affordable Housing Finance Advisory
Committee that is comprised primarily of persons in the real estate development, finance(public and
pd=r,)_ non-profit housingfields. The HOME Technical Review Committee(six current members)
supplemented by five community representatives would result in an eleven member body with a
reasonable balance of technical expertise and community representation. Existing Housing and
Community Development Advisory Committee members could be considered for appointment as
community representatives. This committee would be charged with reviewing all applications for
HOME, CDBG-Housing, future HUD "Affordable Housing Funds(or its equivalent, as determined
by Congress), and future Housing Trust Fund. It should be noted that the Board of Supervisors has
yet to establish a Housing Trust Fund. Any committee structure related thereto may have to be
revaluated when Trust Fund Sources are determined.
E. Remaining Community Development Block Grant Program Areas (Public Service,
Economic Development, and "Open" Programs See Appendices B-1 and B-2)
If the above recommendation is accepted, the functioning of the Housing and Community
Development Advisory Committee should be reexamined. The remaining Community Development
Block Grant funds could remain the purview of a Community Development Advisory Committee, or
separate committees for the major funding areas could be established. It is recommended that the
Board of Supervisors initiate a process to establish separate committees for the Public Service and
Economic Development components of the CDBG program. A Public Service Advisory Committee
consisting of representatives of service interests and/or existing policy advisory committees in the
public service area is one alternative(see Appendix C for County committees related to public service
currently in the Maddy Book). Existing Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
members could be considered for appointment. Other alternatives would include exclusively
community representatives (interested citizens, or a mix of community representatives and service
interest/existing public service advisory groups(Appendix Q. The optimal number for a Public
Service Advisory Committee would be seven to eleven members.
With the emerging importance of economic development, an Economic Development Advisory
Committee set up along similar lines to the Affordable Housing Finance Advisory Committee is
recommended, i.e., representation from economic development (public or private), finance,
employment contractors, and non-profits, combined with community representation would be
appropriate. Existing Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee members could
be considered for appointment. Optimal number for an Economic Development Advisory Committee
would be seven members.
Internal Operations Committee -5- April 25, 1995
The remaining Open funds under the CDBG program(for facilities and infrastructure) are relatively
small, therefore, a new committee may not be warranted. This function could be assumed by staff
to review and recommend to the full Board (or a subcommittee of the Board), or attached to the
Public Service Committee as recommended above.
Should these recommendations be approved, it should be noted that where the CDBG, HOME,
HOPWA, and ESG funds(or their successor program funds) are involved, the staff function would
continue to be assigned to the County's Community Development Department. The various
committees established would be charged with the task of working with Community Development
Department staff to develop recommended allocations of funds for the Board's consideration.
Program administration, contracting, and monitoring and oversight would continue to be a
Community Development Department staff function.
F. Process for Implementing Community Development Block Grant, HOME Program
Committee Structure Changes
Major considerations in the formation of a new advisory committee structure would be:
1. Compliance with federal regulations, particularly for citizen participation, and
representation of lower income households;
2. Ethnic diversity;
3. Geographically diverse representation;
4. Optimal size (7-11 members);
5. Consultation with cooperating cities.
While each of these considerations can be successfully addressed in the Board's appointment process,
it is recommended that the Internal Operations Committee retain this committee conversion process
on referral, and direct Community Development Department staff to prepare recommended
implementation steps for the Internal Operation Committee's consideration. The intent would be to
convert to any new structure no later than September 1, 1995.
nc:m
sral ftsgbd.mem
a
APPENDIX A
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE:
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW REPORT COMMITTEE -
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF
HOUSING RELATED COMMITTEES
7
APPENDIX A P 2 of 3 `
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY .ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA ' COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California 94553
DATE: August 23, 1994
TO: Richard Martinez, Executive Director
Contra Costa County Housing Authority
Jim Kennedy, Deputy Redevelopment Director
Mickey Perez, Chief, Neighborhood Preservation Program
Building Ins on Department
FROM: Claude L. Van Mart sistant County Administrator
SUBJECT: REFERRAL OF HOU G-RELATE® ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO THE
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
As you may be aware, on July 12, 1994, the Board of Supervisors, referred to its
Internal Operations Committee six advisory boards, committees and commissions
which appear to each have some responsibility for or jurisdiction in the area of
housing services. The actual language of the Board's Resolution reads as follows:
I. SOME OTHER ACTION OR STUDY IS RECOMMENDED.
B. Housing-Related Advisory Boards, Committees and Commissions:
There are a number of advisory boards, committees and commission
which address one aspect or another of housing issues in the County.
1. Homeless Advisory Committee
There is no mandate for the existence of this advisory committee.
2. Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
It is unclear whether this Advisory Committee is required by
Federal or State law or regulations.
3. Advisory Housing Commission
The appointment of an advisory housing commission is provided
for in Health & Safety Code § 34290 and § 34291. However, this
only allows the creation of such a Commission, it is not required,
nor are the tenant and over age 62 commissioners required.
4. Housing Trust Fund Interim Advisory Board
There is no mandate for the existence of this advisory committee.
5. Loan & Grant Review Panel - Housing Rehabilitation Program
It is not clear whether federal law requires this group or not. It
evaluates and approves housing rehabilitation grants and loans
upon recommendation of the Building Inspection Department.
APPENDIX A P 3 of 3
-2-
6. Mobile Home Advisory Committee
The Board of Supervisors appears to have complete discretion
regarding whether to continue this Committee in existence.
;abod �€ . comauteesarcoimaso�xs<:: o
A :
W. ::>_>:::.e:: xifeto ><> rol "'
acs:<;cusi;es>:< im :airiz <::ad: ev3zsh ;eachsf fiZee'..:. ........
beard :: >cammi ::;
frmuz
I would appreciate each .of you notifying those of these advisory boards for which
you provide staff support of this referral. Later this year we will probably schedule
a discussion of this assignment,with the Internal Operations. Committee. At that
time, we would like to have. some:staff comments and recommendations from you
regarding any legal or practical barriers you see to establishing a single Housing
Services Advisory.Committee to the Board of Supervisors, with sub-committees on
various sub-topics such as Homeless Programs, Housing Authority Programs, CDBG
Programs,. Housing Rehabilitation Programs, etc.
I will notify you as far in advance when the Internal Operations Committee will be
ready to consider this item. I would, however, appreciate your beginning to give
some thought to how this might implemented. You may also want to ask the advisory
boards for which you provide staff support to consider how they would like to be a
part of this conversation.
CLVM:amb
abollsh.031
cc: Supervisor Jeff Smith
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Val Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency
Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director
Frank Lew, Director of Building Inspection
Kathleen Hamm, Staff to the Mobile Home Advisory Committee
G ,
APPENDIX B-1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 24, 1984 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds
On May 1, 1984, the Board referred to the Internal
Operations Committee (Supervisors Powers and Fanden) the recommen-
dations of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
on a variety of matters relating to the Community Development Block
Grant Program for the 1985-1986 program year and including the allo-
cation system.
The Board this day received the recommendation of the
Internal Operations Committee, and Board members expressed concern
with respect to the 8 percent funding level allocated to administra-
tion of said program. Board members expressed a preference to have
administrative costs adjusted to the 10 percent level and agreed
that the allocation system should be further reviewed by staff to
_ determine where the adjustments can be made to reflect the 2 percent
increase.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that deci-
sion on the report of the Internal Operations Committee is DEFERRED
' I to July 31, 1984, -and-tha.t -the Director of Planning is REQUESTED to
review the proposal for a 10 percent administration allocation.
--ma
can
cc: Director of Planning
r County Administrator
t
1 here9y eerttfY thea this h a trua tnd eorraet esepy a1
an sedan taken snd snterred On tiw m:autt s Of the
Berard of Supentsors on the date shown.
ATTESTED:
J.R.OLS Ofd,COtr:JT1f CLERK
- ' and ex offie to Clerk c:tho Board
By .Deputy
1 of 6
t
APPIMIX B-1
TO: BOARD OF SUPF-VISORS
FROM: Internal Operations Committee �,, � Contra
Costa
DATE: -July 18, 1984 ti...' ^ County
SUBJECT: RECO,"IMEN OAT I ONS OF THE HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve.the following allocation system for the 1985-1986 program year:
Housing 47%
"New"-Development Assistance 15%minimum
�=:
:s
Economic Development 20%
Loan Fund for Businesses 10% minimum
Open Category* 201,a
Administration 8%.
Contingency 5%
100%
The "open category" would include all proposals which are
not housing or economic development. The primary types
would be public works and public facilities•for specific
neighborhoods. But, in order to have an open process which
includes eligible public service proposals and other activities
eligible for CDBG funding, this category should. be labeled
16open"
2. Abolish-all existing Neighborhood P'reserdation Committees effective July 24,
1984,.with the understanding that individual cities are free to establish
whatever project screening mechanism they wish and that local organizations
or the former Neighborhood Preservation Committees can submit proposals
from the unincorporated areas of the County.
3. Abolish the existing Housing and Community Development Advisory Co". ittee,
effective July 24, 1984.
4. Create a new Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee effective
July 25, 1.984 consisting of fifteen (15) members selected as follows:
A. Each city in the County, with the exception of the cities of Concord,
Richmond, and Walnut Creek may submit the names 'of up to two (2)
nominees, excluding members of the City Council.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YE)))S SIGNATURE:
R ECOMMENDA O CP OUNTY ADq�INISTRATOR x RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROV
�1�1 tit
S NATURES �om Powers Nancy C. F )den
ACTION Of BOA ON ON JU ty 24. 1981 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTNER
The Board APPROVED the above recommendations with the following amendments:
1. Increase the allocation for "administration" to 10 percent.
2. Reduce the allocation for "open" to 18 percent.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
�V/ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKETI
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
County Administrator OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Director of Planning (1_ Y/— � �
I
cc: Auditor-Controller ATTESTED _ ,ws
Contra Costa Flavors' Conference J.R. 0L/'SoNfcoUNrY CLERK
Chair, HCO Advisory Committee AND eX OFF)CIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
Members--Board of Supervisors /.
.,
APPENDIX B-1
i
-2-
4. (continued)
B. Each member of the Board of Supervisors will nominate. three (3)
individuals for appointment by the Board of Supervisors as follows:
District 1
Three (3) nominees, including one member of the existing advisory
committee and two (2) from the names submitted by the cities.
District 'c
Three (3)' nominees,'including one member of the existing advisory
committee and t.so (2) from the names submitted by the cities.
' District 3
Three (3) nominees, including one member of the existing advisory
committee and one (1) from the names submitted by the cities.
F
District 4
Three (3) nominees, including one member of the existing advisory
committee and one (1) from the names submitted by -the cities.
District 5
Three (3) nominees,.including one member of the existing advisory
committee and two (2) from the names submitted by the cities. .
5. A city nominee could be an existing Advisory Committee member, thereby
creating more appointment latitude for a member of the Board of Supervisors.
An appointee need not be a resident of the appointing Supervisor's district.
Four appointees should be from cities which have and could continue to have
neighborhood preservation 'are Antioch, Brentwood,
E1 .Cerrito, Martinez., Pleasant Hill, and San Pablo..
6. The provision for appointment of members of the existing advisory committee
applies only to initial appointments. Once the new advisory committee is
formed this provision no longer applies. In the case of future vacancies
of city nominees, the member of the Board of Supervisors responsible for
the nomination may utilize the existing pool of names or may request the
cities in his/her district to submit new names for consideration.
7. Terms for members of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
will be for four years, expiring June 30 except that the initial appointees
shall draw lots; seven (7) of the initial appointees shall serve terms
expiring June 30, 1986 and eight (8) of the initial appointees shall serve
terms expiring June 30, 1988.
B. The charge given to the Advisory Committee is to work with the County
Planning Department to develop recommendations on the use of annual entitle-
ment grants consistent with the allocation system and Federal regulations
to best meet the needs of lower income persons in the urban county.
9. The members of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
shall receive no compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and
necessary expenses, including mileage, meals, and child care.
10. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall follow existing Board policy
regarding notice of the formation of the Advisory Committee and the existence
of vacancies.
3of6
APPENDIX B-1
-3-
11. The Director of Planning shall advise the cities entitled to submit the.
names of nominees of their right to do so and shall establish a reasonable
deadline for receipt of the cities' nominations.
12.. The Director of Planning shall poll the members of the existing Advisory
Commnittee to determine which members wish to be considered for appointment
3x to the new Advisory Committee..
13. Each member of the Board of Supervisors is urged to consult with County
CDBG staff before making his or her nominations to insure-adequate continuity
and the overall geographic representation and composition of the Advisory
C,,..nittee. _. _...
BACKGROUND:
On May 1, 1984, the Board referred to our Committee the recommendations of the
Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee on a variety of matters
relating to the Housing and Community Development. Program. Our Committee met .
with staff from the Planning Department and representatives of the Advisory Committee
on June 25, 1984. Supervisor Fanden indicated her concern with the proposal to
abolish the Neighborhood Preservation Committees.' In addition, the Contra Costa
Mayors' Conference expressed concerns about the Advisory Committee's recommenda-
tions. Planning Department staff were asked to review the concerns of Supervisor
Fanden and the Mayors' Conference and return to the Committee on July 16, 1984.
On July 16, 1984, we met with the Director of Planning and his staff, representa-
tives from the Advisory Committee, and representatives from the Mayors' Conference.
The Director of Planning reviewed the attached July 11, 1984 memorandum with us.
The representatives from the Mayors' Conference expressed support for the compromise
position recommended by the Director of Planning. We believe the above recommenda-
tions substantially respond to everyone's concerns and recommend their adoption.
We have requested that this report be listed at 10:30 a.m. on July 24, 1984 because
we have circulated the Director of Planning's..J.uly._ll.x_eport.to,all the cities in
case some wish to speak to our recommendations.
.bT..
4of6
w APPENDIX B-1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra}}
FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus p�pNHING
Director of Planning Costa-
DATE: April 18, 1984 HAY 2 4 Z� �� I�. Courty
SUBJECT: A New System for Allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds
47
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)3 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
The Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee recommends the
following:
1. Allocation of Funds
The Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) has
adopted as its primary goals for the CDBG program the provision of assistance to
housing and economic development projects which will benefit lower income
persons in the Urban County.
The Committee recommendation for use of funds in 1985-86 is as follows:
Housing 50%
"New"Development Assistance 15%minimum
Economic Development 25%
"Special"Projects Loan Fund 15% minimum
Administration 10%
a
Open 10%
Contingency 5%
100%
4,
2. Neighborhood Preservation Committees and Neighborhood Preservation Areas
a. The Neighborhood Preservation Committees and Neighborhood Preservation
Area System should be discontinued. The members of those committees and
communities are encouraged to participate in the process at the County level.
b. The Neighborhood Preservation Areas should be considered Housing Re-
habilitation Target Areas.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: �•
RECOMMENDATION Or COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR R ME DATION F OARO COMM EC
_H. APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREtS)
ACTION OF BOARD ON May I. 19R4 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above report is REFERRED to
the Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Powers and Fanden).
=" VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
r
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
y: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED � -� �• �yp�
✓Housing and Community Development J.R.OLS N. COUNTY CLERK
Advisory Committee AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
Participating Cities
, . APPENDIX B-1
Page 2
C. A study should be undertaken and completed by September 1984 to determine
whether any expansion or contraction of areas to receive housing rehabilita-
tion services should occur. The study should also analyze components of the
housing rehabilitation program and make recommendations.
3. The Housing and Community Dewelopment Advisory Committee
The present Committee composition was derived by six nominees from the Mayor's
Conference and five from the members of the Board of Supervisors, which appoints
all eleven members. The Committee should be modified to better represent the
County geographically and to include represention from persons with expertise in
areas of increased concentration of program funds.
The HCDAC is recommending that the Committee be reformed to include fifteen
members and that the new composition be derived by having each member of the
Board of Supervisors appoint three members to the Committee including at least one
present member of the HCDAC for continuity. All interested parties, cities,
community groups and individuals would be encouraged to submit names for
21 consideration to the appropriate Board member.
i;
The Board should take into account the lower income serving nature of the program
and continue to appoint lower income and minority representatives on the
Committee. Active Neighborhood Preservation Committee members, city
nominees, past Committee members and persons with interest or expertise in
housing and economic development should also be considered. Elected officials
should not be appointed to this citizen advisory committee.
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION
I concur with the Committee's recommendation. The terms of the members of the
Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee expire June 30, 1984. Should
the Board approve this recommendation, advertising should begin immediately to fill
appointments for the new committee by August 1, 1984, so that proper training can be
conducted prior to the regular meetings beginning in September: • '- -'- F R
See Attached Committee Recommendation
k
I
6 of 6
APPENDIX B-2
' 4�7C . 3
Contra
' Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSDourity
' y.
d
FROM: Finance Committee
DATE: December 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Funding Guidelines
- SPECIFIC REQUESTS) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPT.recommendations of the Housing & Community Development Advisory
Committee and Deputy Director - Redevelopment establishing new funding
guidelines for the Community Development Block Grant program.
FISCAL IMPACT
No General Funds are involved.
I,CKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
At its September 28, 1993 meeting the Board of Supervisors met in
workshop session with members of the Housing & Community Development
Advisory Committee. Among the discussion topics was modification of
the Board adopted funding guidelines for the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) program. The Committee made suggestions shown as
recommendations on the attached December 13, 1993 report. The
Community Development Department staff recommended more precise
guidelines, consistent with the Committees recommendation, to enhance
implementation. Those recommended Funding Guidelines are as follows:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: SS YES SIGNATURE:
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON i•! /999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDEDOTHER
VOTE O$ SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
1, AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Jim Kennedy
646-4076
cc: Community.Development
` CAO ATTESTED !S�, /9 93
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M m BY , DEPUTY
- �- - 1 of 7
APPENDIX B-2
1. Housing - not less than 50% of the annual grant (plus
program income that is not revolving in . Contracted
Programs [PI]) , with the Housing Development Assistance
Fund being 15% of the annual grant plus PI income.
2. Economic Development- not less than 15% of the annual
grant plus PI.
3. public Services - up to 15% of the annual grant plus PI.
4. open - 5% of the annual grant plus PI.
5. - Program Administ=•ation - not less than 13% of the annual .
grant plus PI, or the amount necessary to cover general
program administration.
6. Contingency - up to 2% of the annual grant plus PI which
the Board of Supervisors could program subsequent to its
public hearing.
r
f
r
2 of 7
APPENDIX B-2
A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
° COAfiMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: December 13, 1993
TO: Finance Commi
FROM- Tim
Depu Redevelopment
SUBJECT: S mmendations on Funding Guidelines for Community
Dev went Block Grant Program
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Finance Committee with the information
needed to re-examine the Funding Guidelines approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1985-86.
At a luncheon workshop meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the Housing and
_ Community Development Advisory Committee(HCDAC)on September 28, 1993,both groups
agreed that it is an appropriate time to re-visit the Guidelines in today's context so that they may
be tither re-affmned or modified.
RECOB04ErTDATIONS
A.
Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee Recommendations
1. The Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee advises that the
Contingency Fund be eliminated. It is also that Committee's recommendation that any
'surplus' Economic Development funds, along with the money which would have been
allocated to the Contingency Fund, should be utilized for projects in the Open category.
2. The Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee suggests that the
Funding Guidelines for Economic Development be reduced and the Contingency Fund
greatly reduced with the freed-up funding available for allocation to the Open category.
In their recommendation, the Committee also suggested that Public Services and Open
be listed as two separate funding categories within the Funding Guidelines.
Staff Recommendations
The following staff recommendations conform to those of the Housing and Community
Development Advisory Committee, but are more precise to enhance implementation.
1. Houscne' - not less than 50% of the annual grant (plus program income that is not
revolving in Contracted Programs [PID with the Housing Development Assistance Fund
being 15% of the annual grant plus PI income-
I of 7
' . APPENDIX B=2
• r
2. Economic Development-not leas than.15% of the annual grant plus PL
3. Public Services-up to 15% of the annual grant plus PL '
4. 5% of the annual grant plus PL
5. Proeram Administration-not less than 13% of the annual grant plus PI, or the amount
necessary to cover genual program administration.
6. Contingency-up to 2%of the annual grant plus PI which the Board of Supervisors could
program subsequent to its public hearing.
BACKGROUND
The adopted Funding Guidelines for the CDBG program, which have eusted since 1985,have
been very useful to the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee as it reviews
applications for annual funding and develops a preliminary program to recommend to the Board
Of Supervisors.
The Funding Guidelines currently provide that the County's CDBG annual grant be allocated as
follows:
• Housing 32%
• Housing Development Assistance Fund 15%
• Economic Development 20%
• Public Services/Open 18%
•
Administration 10%
• Contingency Fund . 5%
To briefly review these categories,$ i�Asn' g includes housing rehabilitation and the development
of new housing; Housing Development Assistance Fund is essentially a set-aside find for
housing projects which emerge during a program year; Economic Develooment is for projects
which create or retain jobs; Public Services are generally non-profit organizations who are
funded to deliver a broad spectrurn of human services to the low-income residents of the urban
county;Q=is the term for projects of a capital nature which address infiwtmcture and public
facdities needs;Administration comprises all staff and all personnel and non-personnel needs of
the County to administer the CDBG program;the Contingency Fund consists of unprogrammed
funds which are set-aside to cover unforeseeable costs which arise during the program year,
primarily cost overruns in capital projects.
DISCUSSION
= There are several factors to be considered in reviewing the above Funding Guidelines. These
include Federal Regulations, County policies and priorities, economic realities, and, the nature
and number of the proposals which are received for Community Development Block Grant
funding. To assist the Finance Committee and the Board of Supervisors in its review of the
CDBG Funding Guidelines, staff has identified issues/considemdons.
2.
LL nf 7
r
APPENDIX B-2
• r
1. There are statutory limitations in two areas of the CDBG program.
(a) No more than 15% of the annual grant combined with 15% of litre prior year's
income can be used to support Public Services. In recent years the County has
uttt ii the full 1596 allowed by the statute to support Public Services.
(b) No more than 20% of the grant may be utilized for Administration purposes.
z This 20% includes not only Program Administration, but also certain types of
projects which are carried out by the County or by sub-recipients which art only
eligible as administrative expenses. (These projects are represented in their
prima ► categories - e.g., housing, pre-development costs, during the funding
_ 2. The merging of Public Service and Open categories, combined with the practice of fully
utilizing the 15%Public Service cap has resulted in only 3% for'Open'Projects(public
infrastructure and facilities projects). When the Funding Guidelines were adopted by the
Board, there was much less emphasis on supporting Public Service projects so that a
larger portion of the Guideline for Open/Public Service projects could be utilized in the
OPM category-
3. Public Services resources are calculated by adding 15% of the new grant award to 15%
of the prior year's program income. However, the program income itself is not always
available for=programming,because it is left for re-use in the programs which generate
it(e.g.,housing rehabilitation loan repayments recycle to make new loans). Thus, the
new grant available for the program is actually reduced by the amount of program
income included in the Public Services category. An alternative approach would be to
calculate the Public Service cap using 15% of new funds and reprogrammed dollars.
4. The 47'% guideline for the Housing and the Housing Development Assistance fiord is
My udliized by these types of projects. When the Guidelines were adopted,
construction of new housing was an ineligible activity in the CDBG program. Now,
however, the housing categories support both new and rehabilitated projects.
4 The 47% Guideline for both housing categories is generally consistent with the County's
State-approved Housing Element, which says that 50% of the grant will be used for
f. housing. In the past two program years,actual housing programming has exceeded 50%
of available funds.
i
S. The County's 100 cep on Program Administration has become inadequate to support
administration due to diminishing grants and increased personnel and non-personnel
s costs. Although the final figure for 1994-95 funding will not be released by HUD until
mid-December, the withdrawal of the City of Pittsburg from the Urban County may
result in a decreased grant for the upcoming program year in which can 10% will
.- actually provide fewer dollars for 94/95 administration than the doll=committed to this
area in the 93/94 program year.
= 3.
5 of 7
APPENDIX B-2
6. The County's guideline of utilizing 20% of the Block Grant for Economic Development
has never been met. The primary reason for the under utilization of CDBG funds for
Economic Development in the past has been the =t mmdy restrictive interpretation of
the Economic Development regulations and statutory requirements by HUD which,has
in turn,resulted in very few Economic Development proposals. Generally,proposals for
Economic Development funding have been well below 5% of the grant with 3 or 4
percent being approved as viable,worthwhile projects.
7. The new Federal administration has increased the focus on economic development as a
way to spur recovery of the national economy. As a result of this emphasis, the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development is evaluating ways in which the CDBG
Economic Development rules and regulations can be loosened to improve their viability
as an economic development tool.
S. The Federal administration's emphasis on Economic Development coupled with the
Economic Development goals established in Contra Costa County has resulted in an
enormous increase in CDBG proposals in the Economic Development area. The dollar
amount of proposals received for Economic Development for 1994/95 has jumped to
approidmateiy 23% of the grant planning figure of $3.3 million. (Not all of these
projects will necessarily be recommended or approved for funding)..
9. In recent years, the lack of erfective demand for Economic Development dollars has
resulted in a large amount of money which could be allocated by the County to proposals
for Open and/or Housing projects. In the last few years, in fact, an average of 12 to
13% of the grant was approved by the County for Open projects. If Contra Costa
County's final statement for 1994/95 utilizes the fully allowed 15% for Public Services,
47% for Housing purposes,20% for Economic Development purposes,and 10%and 5%
for Program Administration and the Contingency Fund respectively, proposals in the
Open category could receive only 3% of the grout. In its RFP process, the County
received 46 Open proposals, totalling over 4 million dollars. Assuming full utilization
of all other categories and 3% allocated to Open projects, only $99,000 would be
available to allocate to projects in this category based on the planning estimate of a$3.3
million 1994/95 grant
10. The 5% Contingency Fund is viewed by HUD as unprogrammed funds. HUD is very
much opposed to this type of set-aside for a variety of reasons, including the citizen
participation and grantee performance report.requirements of the program. The presence
of a contingency in the Housing & Community Development Advisory Committee's
recommendation has provided the Board of Supervisors with the flexibility to respond to
concerns expressed at the public hearings, without reprogramming funds from projects
recommended by the Committee. Only the amount remaining in Contingency after the
adoption of the final statement would be considered un-programmed or contingency
Z.' funds.
4.
1
6 of: 7
APPENDIX B-2
In a recent survey by Community Development staff, it was discovered that among the
t entitlement jurisdictions surveyed,none of their final statements contained unprogrammed
or contingency funding,-with the exception of the City of Antioch which has
appimdmately$10,000 in a contingency fund.
11. Elimination of the Contingency Fund could necessitate a contingency amount calculated
for and built into each capital project funded by the Block Great program. These
contractual contingencies, however, could be utiiiud only under certain conditions and
any dollars left unused at the closeout of the capital project would be available for
;� reallocation in the following program year. In looking at recent capital projects,we are
learning that most of them do contain contingencies.
J
2
S.
7 of 7
APPENDIX C
COUNTY COMMITTEES IN THE .
PUBLIC SERVICE AREA
Adult Day Health Planning Council
Advisory Council on Aging
Child Care Task Force
Developmental Disabilities Area Board (Contra Costa County members only)
Economic Opportunity Council
Family& Children's Services Advisory Committee
Homeless Advisory Committee
Housing& Community Development Advisory Committee*
Human Services Advisory Committee
Juvenile Justice Commission
Mental Health Commission
Newcomer's Task Force
Private Industry Council
Public&Environmental Health Advisory Board
Substance Abuse Advisory Board
Women's Advisory Committee
Youth Commission
*Current members may be considered for appointment.
10
APPENDIX D
County News,April 10, 1995 NACo —Celebrating 60 years of service to counties! 5
HUD reorganization — one, two, three or no block grants?
(HCF)would consolidate Section 8 which programs should beconsoli- Sub committee for VA,HUD and authorizes HUD programs,also is
By Hamn N.Battle certificates and vouchers and other dated.Rep.Lazio said his subcom- IndependentAgencim hasnotnded considering a Community Devel-
associate legislative director project-basedassistedhousing.HCF mittee will review the feasibility of outretaining housing for seniors and opment Block Grant which would
would be administered by public using the existing HOME and the disabled and HOPWA as scpa- consolidate the existing CDBG and
Housing and Urban Develop- housing authorities(PHAs)instead CDBG programs to administer the rate programs. HOME programs and the homeless
ment (HUD) Secretary Henry of by state and local governments consolidated homeless program. Sen.Bond who also is a mem- assistance programs. Although
Cisneros has released an extended as previously proposed. Others have suggested a need ber of the Senate Banking,Housing the CDBG funding formula would
summary of the Administration's Funds could be used for mort- foraspecial housing blockgrantfor and Urban ffairs Com- be retained,Sen.Bond suggests
plan to consolidate 60 HUD pro- gage payments as well as to pay the elderly and disabled, whose mittee, which that 40 percent instead of 30 per-
grams into three blockgrants,which rent,and good-performing PHAs needs require combining housing cent of the funds be allocated to
essenriallyupdatestheblueprintthat would be able to transfer up to 15 and supportive services.Senator the states, and 60 percent in-
was unveiled last December, in- percent from 14CF to the juris- Christopher Bond (R- steadof70percentbeallo-
eluding a timetable for achieving diction's Affordable Housing Fund Mo.), chair of the rated to entitlement
the bulk of consolidation by 1998. for project-based operating subsi- Appropria- Summary of HUD's counties and
Congressional hearings are under- dies for very-tow-income house- t i o n s cities.
way which will shed some light on hulas. Program Consolidation
how the plan is being received on The Administration envisions
Capitol Hill. twoblodtgrantsforpublichousing
iThe Community Opportunity in 1996—acapimifundtoup9rade Current Major Programs fFY96 FY98 and Beyond
Fund(COF)would be modeled on and replace units and an operating
theCommunkyDevelopmemBlock fund. These accounts would be CDBG Community Community
a Grant(CDBG)Program and retain phasedomoverthceeyearsforsmall Opportunity Fund Opportunity Fund
the 70/30, local/state allocation. PHAs(six years for larger PHAs) Economic Development Initiative
Emphasis is given touseofCOFfor and converted into tenant-based Empowerment Zones/
i job creation and economic devel- assistance through the Housing Economic Development
opment For example,cleaning up Certificate Fund. UDAG Recaptures
polluted or industrially contami- Youthbuild
Car
hated sites lbrownfields) would Congressional reaction
colonies
l�� Earl Childhood Development
explicitly be an eligible activity.As Congressional reactions genet- Neighborhood Development
j
with CDBG,counties wouldbe able ally have been positive towards the Community Adjustment Planning
to use COF for housing activities as HUD plan. Members recognize iHOM : AEfasdable. A., -his i
well. CDBG as a model for program de-
Housing Fund Housing Fund
Building ng on the HOME Invest- livery. In bis address dining the National€Homeownership Fund 1
ng i
meat Partnerships Pro the NACo Legislative Conference, �ousingCouaderly
p �• 8 Section 2112 Elderly Housing
Affordable Housing Fund(AHF) Representative Rick Lazio (R- tsectlon 811 Housingfor the Dhiabled
would consolidate HOME,Section N.Y.),chair of the House Subcom kOPE 2 ;
202 housing for the elderly and mittee on Housing and Community MOPE ----- — ---
Section 811 housing for the dis- Opportunity,said"CDBG is one of Based Paint Huard Reduction'
abled. the few successful HUD programs :
Shelter Plus Care
Homeless Assistance Bund
A homeless assistance block and has been since its creation inSection 8 Single Room Oeeapai[ey
grant(wit!105I25,10cal/state alto- 1974.CDBG is a model on which Emergency Shelter Grants
cation)tbattheAdmimstrationpro- we can base murk of out e8ma in Supportive Housing;
poses would be merged into the reinventing HUD—itisasuccesshum, di-Homeb;�11aidative
-
AHFintheyear2000,andHousmg fulcommumity-ddveaprogtamthat Rural WaselessGrant/SafeHaveut
Opportunities for Persons with bases its saceess on the capabilitiesHousing Opportunities
Housing opporteniticr
AIDS(HOPWA)world be folded of local initiatives.Following this for Persons with AIDS for Personswtth AIDS
into this block grant in 1998. model,local government will take
HOME's local/state allocation of on more of a partnership rob;." bUrllq ewia pent cat. .a
60!40 would be retained � @�utlri 'MT
�•
huisdictionseouldchoosetouse Plan criticisrtt8 PaerelyDianessedPuAmHousints
AHF for project-based assistance The greatest criticism has come SeverelyDistressed PublicHousing
PH Major Reconstruction
and to modernize public housing, over HUD's desire to withhold a Public Housing Coordinators
The 15 percent non-profitsetaside portion ofeach block grant in order PH Vacancy Reduction
under HOME would increase to 30 to allocate performance bonuses to Tenant.UppnKtoniro. +m.
percent so that more money is re- jmisdkU=based on a post-audit Urban Yc;tb Corps:
served for traditional sponsors of review. Critics of this provision THIM Moderniutlgn
Iramily Investment Centers
elderiyanddisabledhrnsingaswell agree with NACo that it could lead 1
as community-based non-profitor- to excessive micromanagement by PH Youth Apprenticeship
Subsidies
ganvations. HUD and restrict local flexibility. H/IH operating Subsidies PH/IH operating Subsfdtes
Den Elimination Grants s
A Housing Certificate Fund Consideration is being given w
1 oath Sports ------------------
:PH Service Coordinators
n 8 CertificatesFood
Keep The Home Fires Burning �n 0 Voucheirs
Sutton 8 Contract Renewals
Build a secure future with U.S.Savings Bonds,a comlietift �.Sectlon 8 Family Unification
safe investment.Bu themhbank work
Buy were you or :Sectiou 8 for Persons w/AIDS
Section 8 for Homeless j
Section ti Opt Oats
CS '',Section 8 Counseling i
"M�anca`�^UL��QS ;Section 8 Pension Fund Certifleates
S.estion$Veraru Agacrs Supportipe Housing:
•5eetion'ti`Ifie�itlqudrteis tTeserve
Lease Adjustments
Family Self-Suindency Coordinators
FlexibleSubsidy FHA Multifamily
Housing Resolution Activities
�3. Title VI Preservation Program
' - ,•. Section 8 Property Disposition
t Y; Section 8 Loan Management Set-Astde
a Elderly Housing Service Coordinators
Project-Based Service Coordinators
Congregate Housing Services
APPENDIX E page 1 of 2
ye Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - CostaCounty
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Community Development
DATE: June 21, 1994
SUBJECT: Contra Costa HOME Program Consortium Technical Review Committee
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
.APPROVE the following appointments to the Contra Costa HOME Program
Consortium Technical Review Committee: Leonard Costa, Home Savings
of America; Mike Freedland, Citibank; Calvin Robie, Bank of Contra
Costa; Paul Renno, TRI Financial; Libby Seifel, Elizabeth Seifel
Associates; Manny Ungson, San Jose Housing Department/Contra Costa
County resident; and Perfecto Villarreal, Director, Social Service
Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
No General Fund impact. Administrative support will be paid for with
federal-HOME funds.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
=RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ` RECOMMENDA OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER I
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON gRCf 41 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
_ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Kathleen Hamm
646-4208 ATTESTED Q 14
cc: County Administrator PHI BA CHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Community Development AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
City of Antioch ��
City of Concord $Y �quo... , , DEPUTY
City of Pittsburg
City of Walnut Creek
Appointees via Community Development
Department
APPENDIX E p 2 of 2 '
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On June 15, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a Consortium
Agreement creating the Contra Costa HOME Program Consortium. The
' Consortium includes all of Contra Costa with the exception of the
City of Richmond, which is an independent Participating
Jurisdiction for purposes of HOME. Contra Costa County, through
the Community Development Department, is responsible for the
allocation of HOME funds among eligible affordable housing projects
and implementation of the HOME Program in accordance with all
federal requirements.
As specified in the Consortium Agreement,. the County will be
assisted in implementing the HOME Program by a Technical Review
Committee to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and composed
of seven members with expertise in affordable housing development.
Four members of the Committee are required to be nominated by the
County and three members are to be nominated by the cities, with
one nomination each from the cities in East, Central, and West
County. Committee members will be appointed for four-year terms,
with the initial terms staggered to permit continuity.
During May, the Community Development Department and the cities in
each of the three county regions solicited applications for the
HOME Technical Review Committee from potentially interested
parties. Nominations for Committee membership were developed based
on expertise in the development and financing of affordable housing
in Contra Costa County, as well as socioeconomic balance. Based on
these criteria, the following individuals are recommended for
appointment to the Committee:
City Nominees Initial Term
Leonard Costa, Branch Manager, Home Savings of
America (East County) 2 years
Calvin Robie, Senior Vice President - Construction
Lending, Bank of Contra Costa (Central County) 4 years
Libby Seifel, Principal, Elizabeth Seifel Associates
(West County) 4 years
County Nominees
Mike Freedland, Director - Community Lending,
Citibank 2 years
Paul Renno, General Counsel, TRI Financial 4 years
Perfecto Villarreal, Director, Social Service
Department 2 years
Manny Ungson, Policy and Planning Administrator -
San Jose Housing Department and County resident 4 years
RH/k5/BOS94-2
41
• APPENDIX F--p 1 of 6
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1.0.-2 Contra
v
• FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa
County
.DATE: February 8, 1993
SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF AND APPOINTMENTS TO THE INTERIM HOUSING TRUST FUND
ADVISORY BOARD
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND ANO JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Expand the Interim Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board by four
seats so that the Board would contain 11 seats, as follows:
1. A representative from. Contra Costa cities, to be
nominated by the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference.
2. A representative from the local building industry.
3 & 4 2 representatives of nonprofit affordable housing
developers.
5. A representative of housing advocates, preferably
from the League of Women Voters.
6. A representative of the real estate industry.
7. A representative of financial institutions.
8. A representative from the County.
9. A representative of Low-income Seniors.
10. A representative of Rural Areas/Farmworkers.
11. An at-large representative of the general public.
2. Appoint to the Interim Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board the
following members:
1. Barbara Woodburn, Martinez .City Council, representing
Contra Costa cities.
2. Guy Bjerke, Building Industry Association, representing
the local building industry.
3. Carol Galante, BRIDGE Housing Corporation, representing
nonprofit affordable housing developers.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -YES SIGNATURE
-RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD MNIEAPPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S: SUNNE WRIGHT MCPEAK . JEFFACTION OF BOARD ON a ruary , 1991
VED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
• VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) 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.
ATTESTED ^ ••�'E^ 3 /�9.-9
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OWTHE BOARD OF
CC. County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Community Development Director
Jim Kennedy, CDD
Kathleen Hamm, CDD By DEPUTY
APPENDIX F--P 2 of 6 '
I.O.-2
4. Greg Hyson, Oakland Community Housing Corporation,
representing nonprofit affordable housing developers.
5. Lynn Osborn, League of Women Voters, representing housing
advocates.
6. Darlyne Houk, Contra Costa Association of Realtors,
representing the real estate industry.
7. Mike Freedland„ Citibank, representing financial
institutions.
8. Richard Martinets, Interim Executive Director, Contra
Costa Housing Authority, representing the County.
9. Carol Severin, Satellite Senior Homes, representing Low-
income Seniors.
10. Rose Mary Tumbaga, Farmworker Housing Task Force,
PCSI/Nonprofit Housing Developer.
3. Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
solicit applications for the at-large seat and return to the
Internal Operations Committee with those applications so our
Committee can determine how to select the at-large member of
the Board.
BACKGROUND
On December 8, 1992 the Board of Supervisors created the Interim
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board with seven members and asked
staff to recruit applicants and return to our Committee with the
names of individuals for each of the seats.
On February 8, 1993 our Committee received the attached report from
staff and reviewed it with Jim Kennedy and Kathleen Hamm from the
Community Development Department. Staff suggest adding two
additional seats, one each representing Low-income Seniors and
Rural areas/Farmworkers. Our Committee concluded that we also
wanted to add a second seat representing the nonprofit affordable
housing industry and an at-large seat representing the general
public.
-2-
APPENDIX F-- p 3 of 6
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: February 8, 1993
TO: Internal Operations Committee
Supervisor Wright McPeak
Super eff mith
FROM: Jim Kenned
Deputy D.'/ecto - 4edevelopment
SUBJECT: Nominations,tw the Interim Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
I�
On December 8, 1992, the Board of Supervisors voted to create an Interim Housing
Trust Fund Advisory Board'. In addition, the Board directed the Community
Development Department to solicit applications/nominations for Advisory Board
members and report back to the Internal Operations Committee with the results in
February. Advisory Board responsibilities are summarized on Attachment B.
Interim Advisory Board Composition
As approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Interim Advisory Board will consist
of representatives of the following groups or organizations:
1. Contra Costa Cities (nomination by the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference);
2. local building industry;
3. nonprofit affordable housing industry; ...
4. housing advocates, preferably from League of Women Voters;
5. real estate industry;
6. financial institutions; and
7. the County.
In addition to these seven seats, the Community Development Department
recommends that the following two groups be added to the Advisory Board: a low-
income senior representative; and a rural/farmworker representative. Both groups
are recognized as having special housing needs in the County's Housing Element and
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, and their addition to the Advisory
Board would ensure consideration of these needs in the development of Trust Fund
programs and strategies.
Finally, the Board directed that Advisory Board members should: be knowledgeable
and concerned about the affordable housing needs of very-low, low and moderate
income households in Contra Costa; ensure adequate geographic and minority
representation; and provide technical expertise in affordable housing development
and/or related areas.
APPIIdDIX F--p 4 of 6
RECOMMENDATIONS: Nomination of Interim .Advisory Board Members
Individuals expressing interest in serving on the Advisory Board are listed in
Attachment A. Based on the criteria established by the Board of Supervisors, staff
recommends that the IOC nominate the following individuals to serve on the Housing
Trust Fund Interim Advisory Board:
1. Contra Costa Cities - Barbara Woodburn, Vice-Mayor, City, of Martinez;
2. Building industry - Guy Bjerke, Executive Director - Local Government
Affairs, Building Industry Association;;
3. Nonprofit affordable housing industry - Greg_ Hyson, Executive Director,
Oakland Community Housing, Inc. ;
4. Housing.advocates - Lynn Osborn, League of Women Voters;
5. Real estate industry - Darlyne Houk, .Vice President, Contra Costa
Association of Realtors;
6. . Financial industry - Mike Freedland, Vice President,. Citibank;
7. Contra Costa County - Richard Martinez, Acting Executive Director, Housing
Authority of the County of Contra Costa;
8'. Low-income seniors - Carol Severin, President/CEO, Satellite Senior'Homes;
9. Rural areas/farmworkers - Rose Mary.Tumbaga, Housing Programs Manager,
Pacific Community Services, Inc. , and member, Farmworker Housing Task
Force.
APPENDIX F--p 5 of 6
e
CL
O CO N O N �.
C 0 0 D O
++ O H H
Uf ++ Q1 2
> Q 0 r_0)
(� CL C
QIV C0 VN Q N O
NC
CL
0 Q =
6 .2
EN � O O ZO O CO �C = V cn CISS YC � �, 0 N CmUE n . y CD OO
= r m 3
mQ .0o cpo5 0 wEtv c- Fr a 0 S .& C EU oCo o Ei�' ? o =o — o
=O tStLcnc� uLL
m Z UUULcn
UL
w
0o U
c
Q c � c U E c c c c c c c
U = cc$ = = = = =
O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca Iz
.� U -- U � cr UU UUU UU w
C C C C C C C 1 C
O O O C13 c0 ca ca 0 0 O
U U- m N N win U) in c C N O
S ca C
O Co O- ca � Q
IrCW cd CIS � CIS0 � � N N ii (� U UU m UU 10US SU 1 LL v
C
� O
Q N m 0 4) 0 m
z ca Nca Nccs ca m N 0 NCIS ca
N
LU 0 O � cd 0) 0 O O 4) 0 S
0 LL. LL LL LL LL LL. II
S
cc "c
c cm O
ca
N RS
O Y C
C ` I—
CL
� 4) CO m0 O ti S
cd m U-
CIS
t
Z a ca 2 >, cd Y O U O cd O O
m 010 U' _lam � S T- CL U a: 2
0
p c rn II
0
SZ m w o S m
O ma } m cn n 0 Z, E
CC
Q ? O ¢ U Z � �- c Y Q
O S > m Z m °> 0 3 w
U Q ?- o c c Q Q c m E II
H Q Uc cLij LL
Zm �
O
S 55 W ojO O os o 0) o c
o
m Z a: iz fA a: zUS ?
APPENDIX F--p 6 of 6
s
ATT-AGHMENT--B
Housing Trust Fund Interim Advisory Board Responsibilities
As approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Interim Advisory Board will be
responsible for working with the Board of Supervisors, the Cities, and the
Community Development Department to accomplish the following tasks:
o Develop a strategy for securing public support needed to implement revenue
sources selected for capitalization of a Contra Costa County Housing Trust
Fund.
o Establish the Housing Trust fund as a legal entity authorized to accept and
allocate -resources for affordable housing development in Contra Costa
County.
o Develop recommended policies, programs, and funding criteria for use in
allocating Trust Fund revenues to: improve homeownership opportunities for
low/moderate income households; and increase the availability of affordable
rental housing for very-low income households.
o Explore equity share programs as a potential use of Trust Fund revenues.
o Determine degree to which priority can be assigned to current residents and
employees of Contra Costa County for participation in Trust Fund programs.
kh/k3/HTFIOC7