16-0719_NEW TURTLE ISLAND_F13_Correspondence 17/19/2016
Date: July 18, 2016
Subject: Opposition to Extending the Personal Services Agreement with New Turtle Island for the City's
Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Loan Program (OORLP) on Agenda 7-19-16 Consent Calendar F-13
To: Mayor Pam Patterson, Esq.,
Mayor pro tern Kerry K. Ferguson,
Council Members John M. Perry, Derek Reeve and Sam Allevato,
Ben Siegel, City Manager
Joel Rojas, Development Services Director
I am opposed to the inclusion of OOR Document 4 in the proposed Second Amendment to the Personal
Services Contract with New Turtle Island. This amendment to the consultant's responsibility does
nothing to protect the interests of the senior citizens using the Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program.
The Rehabilitation Program is designed to help low income senior citizens of San Juan Capistrano. The
wording of OOR Document 4 only provides benefits and protections to the ineffective program
consultants and to unscrupulous contractors.
The inclusion of this document is a prime example of the government and its employees/contractors
using the proverbial"it's not my job" to ensure sound and good workmanship is completed by all
contractors doing work under the Rehabilitation Program. The City's Developmental Services office will
lay the blame on the consultant. The consultant will lay the blame on the building inspector, who is not
responsible to inspect the work for sound and good workmanship. Therefore, senior citizens, who are
vulnerable to being mistreated, will be subject to having to accept substandard and inferior work.
The City Council would need to be naive and misinformed to believe that the local or state inspector
that passes the permit is signing off on good and sound workmanship as currently required under Item
#9 In the City of San Juan Capistrano Mobile Home Rehabilitation Program. Why is this safeguard being
deleted from the protection currently given to the owner of the mobile home?
I can assure you by first-hand experience that the signing off on a permit by a local or state inspector is
not a guarantee that the work was performed to state regulations and manufacturer specifications. The
work performed by my contractor initially passed state inspection, even after the consultant was
advised of numerous problems. I had to personally go the state inspectors office, showing pictures,
citing problems (including a leaking roof), and explaining how the work was not in compliance to the
building code and manufacturer's specifications. The burden of learning and knowing the state code
and regulations should not fall upon the citizens of San Juan Capistrano. Why did the consultant not
act as the advocate for the owner, when the consultant was told of the same facts as given to the
state inspector office? After I personally informed the state inspection office of my concerns, they then
did a re-inspection, and the work failed to pass Inspection. Not only was the work of the contractor
not in accordance with state code, the contractor also failed to meet the manufacturer specifications.
Of great consequence, is the state inspection is not inclusive of all workmanship, and the state
1
F13
acknowledged, it's inspection would not be comprehensive to cite all types of shoddy and substandard
workmanship. Additionally, the permit for the work on my mobile home submitted by the contractor
to the state office was found to be deficient as it did not cover all the work to be completed under my
contract. Again, the mere passing of a local or state Inspection does not guarantee work was properly
permitted or performed in with good and sound workmanship.
I also believe that the proposed changes to the Rehabilitation Program that does not allow the owner to
challenge inferior and substandard work by the contractor to be in violations of the federal and state
standards for the state home and community development block grants under which the San Juan
Capistrano Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program is administered.
Also having the Home owner acknowledge and sign the OOR Document 2, OOR Document 3, and OOR
Document 4 does not address the ROOT OF THE PROBLEMS-which was the consultant-New Turtle
Island. It does NOT re-enforce the consultant/New Turtle Island to fulfill their responsibilities in their
"Scope of Services" but actually has the homeowner just signing more documents, which does not solve
the problem.
Also, there should be a contact complaint procedure in place during the process, so the resident will
have the knowledge of where to file, who to call if a problem a raises with the consultant.
Sincerely,
Patricia Nigg
2