Laserfiche WebLink
<br />There was no unfinished business, <br />but the Executive Director did <br />comment about the May 7,1979 minutes in that he had contacted HUD <br />regarding Commissioner Serrato's correction of the minutes, but that he <br />had also misunderstood the question. Chairman Luxembourger asked the <br />4IÞ Executive Director to please prepare in writing an answer to Commissioner <br />Serrato's question regarding the PHA requirement of notifying the public <br />at the time that they advertise for applications, that units are not, <br />at the time, available in certain unit sizes. Mr. Serrato then asked <br />the Executive Director for the number of elderly persons presently <br />being served under the Section 8 Program. (This question was also <br />subsequently answered by the Executive Director in the memo dated June <br />5,1979 to Commissioner Serrato.) <br /> <br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The report of the submission of <br />the annual HUD budget for Section <br />Housing Assistance Programs <br />was approved as submitted on a <br />7:0 carried motion by Commissioner <br />Yamamoto, seconded by Commissioner Ward after discussion from the floor. <br />Commissioner Ward stated that we did not have a budget of $163,000 for <br />administrative fees and he could not see a substantial breakdown of the <br />annual budget being submitted. Chairman Luxembourger asked the Executive <br />Director to comment on this subject. The Executive Director stated <br />that the proposed budget was only a preliminary budget preparation for <br />HUD so that HUD could continue with their preparation of their annual <br />4IÞ budget. He further stated that the Housing Authority Agency/City Council <br />would receive the Housing Authority budget for final approval, along <br />with the rest of the City budget at a later date, as has been the custom <br />for many years. <br /> <br />NEW BUSINESS: <br />SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL <br />HUD BUDGET FOR SECTION 8 <br />HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS <br /> <br />Commissioner Serrato requested a copy of the audit of the SAHA showing <br />the actual breakdown of staff and duties performed by the individuals <br />at the Santa Ana Housing Authority. The Executive Director stated that <br />the Agency would receive these materials the following morning, June 5, <br />1979. (Section 8 budgets and related materials were sent to The Housing <br />Authority Agency/City Council on June 5, 1979.) <br /> <br />NEW BUSINESS: <br />LOGAN HOUSING REPLACEMENT <br />PROGRAM/SPECIAL REQUEST FOR <br />DEFERRED PAYMENT LOAN <br /> <br />The report on the Logan Housing <br />Replacement Program/Special Re- <br />quest for Deferred Payment Loan <br />authorizing a Housing Authority <br />deferred payment loan to Mrs. <br />for approximately $21,000 was adjourned to Tuesday, <br /> <br />Dalila Sanchez-Orozco <br />June 5, 1979. <br /> <br />commissioner Yamamoto protested on the Logan Housing Replacement Program <br />. because he felt that the Logan EIR/Rezoning Study was not complete and <br />the Housing Authority was placing the home in that area before the loan <br />was even approved. There was no second on this motion of protest. <br />Commissioner Yamamoto then made a motion that this item be held or <br />continued until after a determination of the Logan situation had been <br />made. He commented that we were "putting the cart before the horse." <br />Commissioner Ward stated that we were putting the "house before the <br />loan." <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ward expressed concern with the $21,000 of deferred payment <br />loan. He felt that if he voted for it, it would be setting a precedent <br />and that he felt it was on the border of being a "gift of public funds." <br />Chairman Luxembourger also felt that it was a "gift of public funds." <br /> <br />Commissioner Griset felt that the Agency should sit down and discuss <br />this issue and have some written policy on the matter. He questioned <br />whether there would be any recovery that the City could make in this <br />investment. Could the City recycle this money? For those reasons, <br />Commissioner Griset felt that he was not ready to make a vote on this <br />item. <br /> <br />. Commissioner Bricken commented that he hoped that this issue was not a <br />"gift of public funds," but he did state that that the City had invested <br />in public streets and had even paid those individuals for the "right-of- <br />way." If that is not a form of 109 ift of public funds," he commented, <br />he did not know what was. <br /> <br />-2- <br />