Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-2013 CDBG MinutesCDBG Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 1 of 9 CITY OF ORANGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM COMMITTEE MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 6:30 P.M. Weimer Room, Orange City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Mary-Ellen Manning None Mary Ellen Laster Eva Perez Fernando Rico Gina Scott Robert Tunstall I.CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:42 P.M. II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 6, 2013 Committee Member Scott moved, seconded by Committee Member Rico, to approve the February 6, 2013, Minutes as presented. Motion carried, 5-0. III. FUNDING PRESENTATIONS BY NONPROFIT AGENCIES AGENCY:HELPING OUR MENTALLY ILL EXPERIENCE SUCCESS (HOMES), INCORPORATED PROJECT:Riley House Rehabilitation Request funds to rehabilitate a bathroom. Amount Requested:$9,700 Total Project Cost:$9,700 Helen Cameron, Manager of Resident Services, stated that HOMES has six houses, three of which are located in Orange; advised that five of the houses have clients who live independently with some form of mental illness; and mentioned that they have taken over a program in Irvine for emancipated youth with mental health diagnoses. She stated that HOMES co-developed the first 30-unit apartment community in Orange County CDBG Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 2 of 9 for homeless clients with mental illness; that they have 24 apartments in Anaheim for residents who have experienced chronic homelessness and mental illness; and she stated that their most recent program is a fully integrated affordable 60-unit housing community in Irvine wherein 10 of those units have been set aside for residents with mental illness diagnoses. She advised that they will be ground-breaking the second phase of that development on February 27th; that this phased development will have 74 units with 10 more units set aside for their clients with mental illness diagnoses. Ms. Cameron advised that they are seeking funding to rehabilitate one of the three bathrooms at the Riley House, a house with six residents; noted that each resident pays an affordable rent; and that they are typically on Social Security income and SSI, earning approximately $850 a month. She noted that the residents do their own shopping, cooking, and budgeting; and advised that staff meets with the residents every two weeks at the house to discuss their medication management, their house and group relationships, household responsibilities and chores, and how they spend their 20 hours a week of required outside activities. She mentioned there are currently two women and four men in this house. Ms. Cameron stated they provide one of the few quality housing opportunities for those with special needs; explained that the cost to provide this service is well beyond what the clients pay, stating it is approximately three times the clients’ income; and that they continue to rely on partnerships with the cities where the homes are located to support their long-term housing program. Ms. Cameron stated the rehabilitation of this bathroom will include a new tub enclosure and replacement of fixtures; added that they strive to provide attractive housing for their residents, houses that meet or exceed community standards; and stated their homes are typically one of the most attractive and well kept homes in the neighborhoods. She thanked Orange for its past CDBG support. Ms. Cameron noted for Committee Member Rico that she did not bring any photos of the bathroom being proposed for rehabilitation. Committee Member Manning asked what type of fund-raising the agency conducts. Ms. Cameron advised that they have two annual fundraisers: a golf tournament and a wine dinner; and stated they are very proactive on grant writing and also receive some donations from organizations. Ms. Laster asked Ms. Cameron to confirm which homes are located in Orange. CDBG Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 3 of 9 Ms. Cameron stated they have the El Modena/Esplanade House located in an unincorporated County area, and the Cypress House and Riley House located in Orange. AGENCY:MARIPOSA WOMEN AND FAMILY CENTER PROJECT:Community Counseling Program Request funds for salaries and benefits. Amount Requested:$10,000 Total Project Cost:$468,500 Dr. Krista Driver, CEO, stated that this agency is a low-fee counseling center located in Orange; and that the center has been in operation for 37 years, starting out as a substance abuse program for women. She noted that they currently have three running programs: substance abuse, CalWORKs, and community counseling, noting the requested funding is for the Community Counseling Program. She noted that collectively, they served approximately 3,000 unduplicated clients throughout the year; and advised that in the past six months, they have served 110 Orange residents. She advised that the Community Counseling clients must be Low Income; that they are under-insured individuals; and that 30 percent of these clients are men and 70 percent are women. She stated they primarily deal with domestic violence, conduct parenting classes, and bereavement counseling, etc. She explained that they will soon put in place a wrap-around program that involves school aged children grades one through six, providing them tutoring, counseling and support services centered around academic success. Dr. Driver stated they also provide transitional youth life skills classes for 16- to 25-year-old individuals; that these classes focus on teaching life skills, such as how to balance a check book, how to create and manage a budget, and interview for a job; advised that this program was put in place about a month ago at the urging of the Orange County Probation Department, noting these clients are getting into trouble and do not know how to live life as an adult; and explained that they are finding this age group to be passed over for various services. Dr. Driver noted that from July to today, they have provided services for 13,000 clients in their family program, sessions with individuals, couples, families, groups; and noted they provide a wide variety of services for Orange residents and Orange County residents. She mentioned they also have a facility in San Juan Capistrano that recently opened, noting they are running their CalWORKs program out of that facility. CDBG Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 4 of 9 Noriko LeCompte mentioned that just this week they started the tutoring program for youth under the age of 12, but noted that is not part of this CDBG funding request because it is so new. Dr. Driver advised they are also partnering with the Orange County School District for their referrals of children who fall between the gaps in that program, noting there are kids in the middle income bracket who cannot afford tutoring costs and do not qualify for other programs; and noted they have the capacity to serve 80 kids per week with that wrap- around program. Committee Chair Perez asked what happens when a woman who is Low Income asks for assistance but is not able to pay any fees. Dr. Driver stated they have a sliding scale, noting their fees go as low as $15 to $120; advised that they have multiple level of providers; that they receive referrals from Social Services, Victims Witness Assistance, the Probation Department, or the court system; and stated they also partner with Casa Teresa. Committee Chair Perez stated that it has come to her attention an Orange resident not affiliated with any of those agencies asked for help from Mariposa but was not able to afford the intake fee of $30 and was turned away because she could not pay, asking if they have a policy of waiving fees for those who cannot even pay the smallest amount. Dr. Driver stated that no one is turned away from their substance abuse programs because of their contract with the County; and stated they will adjust and work with people on fees. Committee Chair Perez again asked what happens to a potential client if she cannot pay anything. Dr. Driver stated they are not necessarily turned away; advised that she oftentimes waives the intake fee if someone cannot pay; stated that they will refer some to other agencies for more focused help that they do not provide, such as a place to sleep; and that they extend their resources with whatever is available. Committee Member Tunstall asked what the income limits are for qualifying as Low Income versus not being qualified to receive assistance. Dr. Driver stated she did not have that information with her this evening, noting the numbers are similar to the income amounts for the CDBG program. She stated that all of their programs are based on income. Committee Chair Perez urged Dr. Driver to pass the word on to her staff about the woman who did not receive service because of her inability to CDBG Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 5 of 9 pay the fee and encouraged her to put in place a policy of waiving fees when necessary. Dr. Driver confirmed for Ms. Laster that the Community Counseling Program is a fee-based program; and that this is a fee-based program because there is no funding for it. Dr. Driver stated as far as she knows, it is very rare for someone to be turned away for service. Ms. Laster asked how Mariposa pays for this program if there is currently no funding source. Dr. Driver stated they have money to supplement the program; they are fee based in order to generate some revenues to provide the services; reiterated they do refer some clients to other agencies; and stated that hopefully, the woman sent away was the exception to the rule. Committee Member Rico pointed out that each year, Orange receives a decreased amount of CDBG funding, asking what would happen if the full requested amount is not available. Dr. Driver stated that any money will help with the program; stated that all of the counselors in this program are volunteers, approximately 50 of them that provide counseling services; and explained that the cost of this program is for the supervision of those volunteers and materials for the program. She noted they have 43 paid staff. Dr. Driver stated that before a client comes to their facility, the agency performs a phone screening to determine if they are a good fit for this agency. Committee Chair Perez stated that there was a phone screening with the woman from Orange; suggested there should be a policy in place for handling those who cannot even pay the intake fee; and she reiterated that the staff should be apprised of this unfortunate incident. Ms. Laster stated that if CDBG funding is involved, clients meeting HUD’s income qualifications should not have to pay a fee for services. AGENCY:ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, INC. PROJECT:Orange F.H. Education, Counseling & Enforcement Request funds for salaries and benefits. Amount Requested:$22,560 Total Project Cost:$28,225 CDBG Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 6 of 9 Denise Cato, President and CEO, stated that this Committee may have heard some issues of concern from the City’s representative that are not accurate; advised that she has been in this business for 22 years; that she teaches related courses at various schools in Los Angeles and Long Beach, teaches courses with the Orange County Apartment Association and the San Gabriel Apartment Association; and noted the importance of educating property managers and realtors on how to run their businesses without discriminating. Tracy Melvin, Le Bre Management, stated that her agency manages over 4,500 units in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, noting they have properties in Orange as well; advised that they have worked with the Orange County Fair Housing Council for a few years; stated that all their managers receive training annually from this agency; and noted they have a good working relationship with them. She pointed out that their representatives can phone the Orange County Fair Housing Council to ask questions when they need assistance and stated they always receive answers to their inquiries; and noted it is never an argumentative situation and there is no intimidation in calling them. Ms. Melvin advised that her agency also works with the Fair Housing Foundation located in Long Beach; advised that that relationship has been a very vindictive one; that they believe the Fair Housing Foundation is targeting their company with frivolous lawsuits; noted there have been five or six lawsuits with Fair Housing Foundation in the past year and a half, all which have been closed due to lack of evidence. She pointed out it takes a lot of money for a property owner to hire attorneys; and stated they will continue to fight these baseless lawsuits. She stated their agency likes their relationship with Orange County Fair Housing Council and that they prefer to work with that agency. She noted for Ms. Laster that the lawsuits involved properties located in Tustin, Bellflower, and the Inland Empire, but nothing in Orange. Ms. Laster asked where her agency’s apartments are located in Orange. Ms. Melvin stated that one is located at 1622 to 1625 East Fairway Drive (Castilian Park), 22 units; and the other is located at 250 to 274 Flower Street (Casa Flores), 34 units. Oscar Rodriquez, Board Member of Fair Housing Council and property manager, stated that he grew up in Orange in the El Modena area and that he is currently a resident of Orange; advised that he is a property manager; and that he has faced discrimination and knows what it feels like even as a property manager. He pointed out that there is still discrimination in 2013. He stated this is a very crucial program; that this is not an issue of us against them, that it is about working together to bring equality. He urged the Committee to support Orange County Fair Housing Council. He stated he does not own the properties he manages through his company; expressed his belief that the only agency that has CDBG Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 7 of 9 the capacity to effectively and adequately train its clients is Orange County Fair Housing Council. He advised that the name of his property management company is Proactive Realty Services located in Santa Ana. Committee Member Manning asked which apartments Mr. Rodriquez manages in Orange. Mr. Rodriquez stated that one is a fourplex on Millard. Ms. Cato stated that she could provide letters of endorsement if the Committee is interested. Committee Member Rico asked that those be sent to Ms. Laster. Seeing that the Fair Housing Council’s representatives had departed before the Committee could ask any questions, Committee Member Rico asked if the Committee Members could pass questions on to Ms. Laster. Ms. Laster responded that she would have to check to see if this would conflict with the Brown Act. The Committee asked staff to investigate the allegations made by Ms. Melvin that the Fair Housing Foundation had filed frivolous lawsuits against La Bre Management. Ms. Laster stated that she would contact the Fair Housing Foundation to inquire about the allegations. Addressing Committee Member Scott’s inquiry, Ms. Laster explained that the Orange County Fair Housing Council has not been responsive to staff’s communications; that Ms. Cato has been argumentative when City staff has attempted to address issues; that they have an antiquated phone system and rarely a live person to answer the phone; that a counselor recently provided incorrect legal information to a tenant and an inaccurate referral to HUD; and that they provide late and inaccurate reports/data. She stated that Ms. Cato advised her that walk-in clients are given priority over clients that call in regardless of whether they live in a contract city; and noted that this agency has had problems in other cities. Committee Member Rico noted the importance of contracting with agencies that prioritize their services for Orange residents. He stated he does not have enough information at this time to consider either agency for CDBG funding, noting he would like further information regarding the basis of the lawsuits and whether there are any grounds to what was reported this evening. The Committee expressed its belief this agency was immediately on the defense instead of providing a presentation about their program. CDBG Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 8 of 9 Ms. Laster mentioned that the Fair Housing Foundation performs local seminars and trainings within their contract cities, noting that Orange Fair Housing Council does not perform any seminars or trainings for Orange tenants or landlords. She pointed out that on Page 5 of the application, Section 2, 6th line down, it indicates that Orange County Fair Housing Council “will hold two tenant workshops and a landlord workshop at an accessible location in Orange to be chosen in consultation with City staff.” The Committee asked Ms. Laster to contact other cities to get feedback on their working relationship with the Fair Housing Foundation. AGENCY:PAINT YOUR HEART OUT, INC. PROJECT:Orange Paint Day Request funds to screen applicants, train volunteers, test/remove lead paint, create work plans, salaries. Amount Requested:$30,000 Total Project Cost:$45,000 Debbie Schultz, Executive Director, noted she has one part-time assistant; and she handed out photographs and project statistics from the past year. She advised that this agency paints the homes of Low Income seniors, the disabled and veterans; and noted there is no cost to the homeowners. She stated the agency has worked on four homes this year, noting that another home will be done in April. Ms. Schultz stated they have a great volunteer base; and advised that each homeowner gets to pick their own paint colors. She stated that every dollar they receive is worth $1.77; noted that some of their volunteers are students from Chapman University, Cal State Long Beach, Orange County Funeral Directors, and stated that Saddleback Church will volunteer this Spring. She advised that they help some residents who have Code Enforcement actions against them; and stated that if there is any funding left over, there is a Rampart Street mobile home park resident who is in desperate need of help. Ms. Shultz noted for Committee Member Rico that Behr donates paint; that they receive discounts from Dunn Edwards; and stated that representatives from Sherwin Williams will soon be volunteering their time and possibly supplies. She explained that the houses they work on should be built after 1978; that any house older than that is more costly to work on because any lead paint has to be abated before they can work on them; and she noted that their lead paint abatement activities this past year were minimal, allowing them to be able to put more money into improving the homes. CDBG Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 9 of 9 Ms. Shultz noted for Committee Member Manning that most of the homes they worked on this last year were built prior to 1978, reiterating they need to test for lead paint on those houses. She stated they use professional lead abatement companies, pay for the testing, the abatement, and clearance, noting this takes a big portion of the funds. She advised that she receives referrals from Code Enforcement, but noted that most referrals come from past clients. She added that Community Action Partnership also helps with this effort by checking/replacing furnaces, hot water heaters, appliances, weather stripping, etc. Committee Member Tunstall asked if the client gets to choose the paint colors. Ms. Shultz indicated yes, but noted she will first offer them left-over paint in order to recycle the paint. Ms. Laster asked if Community Action Partnership only works with Very Low Income clients. Ms. Shultz stated she believes Community Action Partnership has the same income eligibility requirements as their agency; noted that she has never heard of anyone being turned away when she refers to that agency; pointed out that their clients gets faster service from Community Action Partnership when this agency refers them because they are not put on a waiting list; and noted that Community Action Partnership can do a lot more things on the homes than Paint Your Heart Out. She noted that their agency continues to install wheelchair ramps, handrails in the bathrooms, etc. Committee Member Rico stated this is a great program. Ms. Laster advised the Committee that she suggested this agency apply for more money in the Public Facilities category, because the City’s Home Improvement Program has been suspended due to lack of funding. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT None. VII. ADJOURNMENT At 7:58 P.M. the meeting was formally adjourned.