16-0719_NEW TURTLE ISLAND_F13_Correspondence 3Matisse Reisch!
From: City Clerk Scanstation
Subject: FW : Rehabilitation Loan Program
From: Jess Lopez I _ .. --····
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 6:31 PM
To: City Clerk Scanstation
Subject: Fwd: Rehabilitation Loan Program
Please ADD as Correspondence to Consent Calendar-Item F 13 City Council Meeting 7-19-16
Thank You
Jess A. Looez
SJC Ca 92675
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jess Lopez
Subject: Rehabilitation Loan Program
Date: July 13, 2016 at 8:29:07 PM PDT
7/19/2016
F13
To: ppattersoh@sanjuancapistrano .org, kferguson@sanjuancapistrano .org,
jperry@sanjuancapistrano.org , dreeve@sanjuancapistrano .org, sallevato@sanjuancapistrano .org
To:
Mayor Pam Patterson, Esq.,
Mayor pro tem Kerry K. Ferguson,
Council Members John M. Perry, Derek Reeve and Sam Allevato,
Agenda Report 6/21/16 (taken off calendar)-Extending the Personal Services
Agreement with New Turtle Island for the City 's Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Loan
Program
I am a resident of the city of SJC. I oppose , the consideration of Second
Amendment for NEW TURTLE ISLAND to the Personal Services Agreement for the
City's Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Loan Program.
There are many Senior's and residents of the City of SJC who are in need of many of
the repairs available through this STATE GRANT LOAN PROGRAM. It NOT only
benefits them as individuals but their neighbors, neighborhoods and our City as a
whole. Improvements to any property, is an improvement to our City. Safety, code
violations, electrical hazards, unsanitary plumbing conditions do exist in some of the
Homes in SJC. WHY IS THIS STATE GRANT NOT BEING USED TO ITS FULLEST
AVAILABILITY AND IN A TIMELY MANNER?
1
I know of people who have been on the list waiting, only hear the excuse the city is
waiting for STATE GRANT FUNDS. When in reality there has been grant funds
available since 2012 when New Turtle Island was 1sT awarded the position and there
are funds currently available and projected loans amounts are not being met.
In 2012 according to the City's Staff Report there was $1,161,900 .00 total funding
available for NEW TURTLE ISLAND to administer to our residents. How much of those
funds did NEW TURTLE ISLAND actually administer to our residents? The City
projected 48 loans for NEW TURTLE ISLAND 1st term and facts show only 29 loans
were completed.
The Staff Report states there are deadline dates for the use of funds, did NEW
TURTLE ISLAND make available to our residents all the funds available? Did the
residents lose out on the chance to use the STATE GRANT FUNDS due to NEW
TURTLE ISLAND FAILURE of executing the program in a timely manner? The City
states "TIME IS OF the ESSENCE" in the "Personal Services Agreement"
In NEW TURTLE ISLAND 2nd term the city projected NEW TURTLE ISLAND to
administer 21 loans, NEW TURTLE ISLAND administered ONLY 2 loans to our
residents. I do not in any way see that as "excellent service" for our residents, as was
stated for a reason to approve NEW TURTLE ISLAND for another term.
Also the City states the same 3 reasons for continuing services with New Turtle
Island for this next term, as were stated in 2015 for the reason to continue services .
#1 states-New Turtle Island has 3 loans in progress,
#2 states-New Turtle Island has provided excellent service to the SJC residents
#3 states-New Turtle Island fee as being lower.
#1. City's 1st reason-Three loans in progress does not constitute a justifiable reason to
keep Services with New Turtle Island. Three loans were in progress in 2015 and NEW
TURTLE ISLAND still ONLY completed 2 loans in that term. So the 3 loans that were
in progress in the beginning of New Turtle Island last term, were NOT even
completed. I of the 3 loans from 4/7/15 must still be in process according to the
6/21/16 Agenda. I do not see in any way that is being of excellent service to our
residents. If the current residents in the process chose to continue work with New
Turtle Island, have New Turtle complete the 3 loans in progress. And put the
Agreement for Grant Administer of Grant Loans back up for bid to other firms. This
seems to be an ongoing position with future Grant Funds continuing to come available
as loans are paid off. Let's find a firm who WILL DO EXCELLENT SERVICE for our
residents.
2
#2. City's 2nd reason-"has provided excellent service to the SJC residents, and is an
efficient liaison between residents and the City" excellent means surpassing,
exceptional merit, the actions above does not equal excellent service. Efficient means
directly producing, 29 loans out of 48 and 2 loans out of 21 is not efficient. Liaison is a
person whose function is to make and maintain a connection . Making a connection
with a total of only 31 residents when 69 were projected is not an efficient liaison.
#3. City's 3rd reason-New Turtle Island fee proposal was lower, back in the 2012 RFP
process. As we all know and have experienced, lower cost is not always better.
Sometimes you get what you pay for. The low production of loans by New Turtle Island
is evident to back up "you get what you pay for". Would it not be better to find a
consultant firm who will serve MORE RESIDENTS even if it means paying more to a
firm and a few less loans will be available? 2 loans completed out of 21 loans is NOT
SERVING OUR CITY OR RESIDENTS.
Again, this seems to be an ongoing position with future Grant Funds continuing to
come available as loans are paid off. And the possibility of applying for additional
HOME funding, as was available in 2013 (did the city apply for those additional funds
in 2013? And will the deadline of 3 years be met by 2016?) Let's find a firm who WILL
DO EXCELLENT SERVICE for our residents and our City now and in the future.
I strongly oppose the 2nd Amendment for New Turtle Island based on the facts in the
Staff Report 7/17/12, Staff Report 4/7/15 and the Agenda Report 6/21/16.
Sincerely
Jess Lopez
3