1979 REG MTG MIN APR 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 3 �r. Newcomb stated the Housing Assistance Plan identifies housing needs and also establishes goals. Mr. Newcomb said the County is attempting to implement those goals, and also to assure the grantor that the County will implement those goals. Councilman Rehrer stated if the City of Colton is doing more than is required as far as housing rehabilitation, as outlined by the City Manager, why, then, is the City of Colton obligated or required to sign this Cooperation Agreement. Mr. Newcomb explained that he and Mr. Rush are here this evening representing the County Office of Community Development, to relate the provisions and requirements of the Community Development Block Grant Agreement between the City and the County, and also to express concern for the City's funding of its Grant monies. Mr. Newcomb said that truthfully, no one knows what HUD will do if the City of Colton chooses to take an action in conflict with implementing the Housing Assistance Plan; however, HUD has been known to reduce a jurisdiction's funding to zero because of taking an action in conflict with implementing the needs and goals of the Housing Assistance Plan within their communities. Mr. Calabrese stated an action of this sort would seem contrary to what the City of Colton is already doing in their own community. Mr. Calabrese said if Colton is doing 30 percent or plus towards its rehabilitation program, what advantage would it be for HUD to cut off that funding for something they want anyway. Mr. Newcomb replied that he does not know what advantage it would be to HUD, but the need indicates that new housing is required to speak to your housing deficiencies, and the rehabilitation alone does not speak to those deficiencies. Discussion then followed with regard to the Housing Authority's application for the 319 units, which will be placed on scattered sites throughout two counties, San Bernardino County and Riverside County. Mr. Calabrese stated then, in all probability, there is no guarantee that Colton would get any of these units anyway, as there may be a greater demand for these units in other cities. Mr. Calabrese said he does feel, however, that the City of Colton should be given some idea of how many units might be placed in the City to enable the City Council to make a decision in this matter. Mr. Rush stated that the City Council can, in their own resolution, state the number of units desired. Councilwoman Cisneros asked if the City were to designate a number of 10 units in its resolution, would this be acceptable and would this keep the City within the provisions of the Agreement. Mr. Rush answered yes, this would be acceptable, and it would show a positive action by the City in this regard. Mr. Rush stated the City could indicate 319 units, but that does not mean it would even get 1. Mayor Gonzales thanked Mr. Rush and Mr. Newcomb for their presentations, and asked if anyone in the audience desired to speak in favor of or in opposition to this matter. Speaking in opposition to the Cooperation Agreement and low and moderate income, publicly owned housing units in the City were: Mrs. Mandy Karr, 1265-3/4 North Mt. Vernon Avenue, Colton. Mrs. Margaret Ritz, 655 North 4th Street, Colton. Mr. Francis Polhamus, 700 North 2nd Street, Colton. Speaking in favor of the Cooperation Agreement and the proposed housing was Mrs. Millie Herrera, 1405 Pennsylvania Avenue, Colton. Moved by Councilman Hayes, seconded by Councilman Rehrer, to terminate the Public Hearing. Unanimous vote. Moved by Councilman Temby, seconded by Councilman Rehrer, to deny Resolution No. 3898, and the Cooperation Agreement between the City of Colton and the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino. Upon Roll Call, the Vote was: AYES: Four; Hayes, Rehrer, Temby, Gonzales. NOES: One; Cisneros. ABSENT: None. Motion carried. APR 3 1979