The Focus Group

The Housing Authority of Monterey County (Housing Authority) met with residents of Rippling River (residents), and the community in August, 2002. At this meeting, Housing Authority made an extended presentation that was interpreted by the residents and community as notice that the residents would have to move from Rippling River (Rippling River). Housing Authority has denied this intent, but the "alternatives" that it presented led to the above conclusion.[1]

Housing Authority contended that Rippling River had run at a deficit for some years, mainly because units in the 79 apartment facility were not individually metered, and therefore its utilities costs were extremely high. Housing Authority explained that to individually meter the facility would cost in excess of $300,000, which would then require ADA expenses of more than seven million dollars ($7,000,000) in order to perform all ADA mandated improvements.

Moreover, Housing Authority contended that, even were the money available, which was not the case, the entire complex would have to be evacuated during the rehabilitation of the 79 separate apartments, spread over eight buildings, and Housing Authority had no place to house the displaced disabled residents. Therefore, rehabilitation of the units was not possible.

Residents and the community strongly objected to the conclusions suggested by the Housing Authority presentation. Residents pointed out that they had services available that they could access on their own, in Carmel Valley Village. Residents noted that Carmel Valley residents had paid for and built access walkways from Rippling River to Carmel Valley Village. They overwhelmingly voiced support for remaining in Rippling River.

Community spokespersons testified that they considered the residents of Rippling River to be valued citizens, and wanted them to remain in the community. They suggested that Housing Authority work with the community to keep Rippling River in its present location. Housing Authority responded by forming the Focus Group (Focus Group). This committee has met almost by-weekly since its formation.

Relocation of Rippling River - Is this Trip Necessary?

After investigating, the majority of the group decided that relocation within Carmel Valley (Carmel Valley) was unlikely, and that, at best, consideration of this issue was premature. Community members noted that Carmel Valley is under a moratorium, declared by the Board of Supervisors in 2001. The basis for this moratorium was traffic congestion on Carmel Valley Road. It appears that the Housing Authority plan to privatize Rippling River would add hundreds of vehicle trips per day to the already overburdened road. Housing Authority chose not to discuss this problem with the Focus Group.

The discussion of relocating Rippling River to another site in Carmel Valley also focused on the transferability of Rippling River water credits to another site in Carmel Valley. Housing Authority staff and its architectural consultant insisted that water credit transfers were permitted by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The public members of the Focus Group insisted that such transfers had been banned by the MPWMD.

One Focus Group member (John Dalessio) stated that he met with three Board members of the MPWMD and was told that such transfers were not possible, and that there were no exceptions to this rule. Housing Authority ignored this statement, and insisted that it could transfer water for a Carmel Valley location. It appears that Housing Authority already had entered into negotiations with a property owner in Carmel Valley, with the intent of swapping the Rippling River property for a facility to be built on an undisclosed Carmel Valley location.

It (Housing Authority) has since been told by Water Board Member and County Supervisor Dave Potter that no water transfers for Housing Authority’s plan were possible, and that Housing Authority should abandon this idea. Housing Authority then acknowledged that moving to another Carmel Valley location was impossible.

Thus far, Housing Authority has not talked about relocating Rippling River to a location other than one in Carmel Valley. Focus Group’s community and resident representatives expect this "option" to be introduced by Housing Authority in the immediate future.

Housing Authority has maintained that it cannot rehabilitate Rippling River because it has no temporary units in which to house Rippling River’s ADA residents. The Focus Group suggested that Housing Authority do the necessary rehabilitation piecemeal, moving the ADA tenants as necessary. Housing Authority rejected this suggestion, saying that it could not discriminate among tenants. The Focus Group, however, found non-ADA tenants who volunteered to move from ADA units during the rehabilitation.

Housing Authority then claimed that the Monterey County Health Department (Health) and Planning/Building and Safety (Planning) had informed Housing Authority that they would not approve piece meal rehabilitation. The Focus Group attempted to determine if these decisions were inflexible, but did not find anyone at Health or Planning who had discussed this matter with Housing Authority. Further, staff at both departments did not foresee any problem with piece meal rehabilitation.

Identification of Community Resources.

Initially, Focus Group members collected names of persons who indicated that they wanted to work to keep Rippling River where it is. This included persons with building trades skills and handyman types, who volunteered to help repair the damaged sections of Rippling River. Housing Authority at first said that volunteer labor was not permitted. Then it reversed itself and said that volunteer labor would be welcome. Then re-reversed itself again, and said that volunteer labor was not permitted. Apparently it (Housing Authority) intended to hire contractors for the entire project and it believed that volunteers would interfere with the process.

Housing Authority also has been inconsistent with its estimate of the cost involved in rehabilitation Rippling River. At one point, Housing Authority estimated that the projected estimates presented by its consultant could be reduced by millions of dollars. It later withdrew this statement, without explanation.

Another community resource brought to Rippling River was a contractor, who reviewed the condition of a sampling of various apartments. He concluded that Housing Authority's cost estimates to refurbish were ridiculously high. If necessary, the Focus Group will retain its own contractor consultant to further investigate this matter.

Housing Authority staff insists that its experts have already covered this territory. Members of the Focus Group, however, have found from their own independent experience that expert advisors sometimes report what they think that the client wants to hear, rather than what they think. And sometimes the experts make legitimate mistakes. Focus Group members also wonder if Housing Authority’s figures were the result of a reverse analysis. Were the costs inflated in order to achieve the 90% cost of rehabilitation figure required by HUD, before the Rippling River property could be traded to a developer?

Beyond these efforts, the identification of community resources has been stalled by the Focus Group's not knowing the purpose for which the resources are to be identified. Are we talking about relocation or rehabilitation resources? This issue has not been settled by the Focus Group, and will require further study.

3. An ADA assessment.

Housing Authority stated that it had no resources with which to conduct an ADA assessment of Rippling River. It claimed to have received no cooperation from the County concerning this problem, and requested that Community members help it obtain an ADA expert from County Planning/Building and Safety to conduct an ADA assessment. The Focus Group enlisted the help of Supervisor Dave Potter, who ordered the MoCo Planning Department to provide its ADA expert for the Rippling River assessment. The Planning Department informed the Focus Group that it had no such expert. The Focus Group finds it curious that Housing Authority, which said that it was not receiving cooperation from Planning, did not know that the County did not have an ADA expert on staff.

Members of the Focus Group then solicited an expert from the State, through Assemblyman John Laird. As soon as it learned of this effort, Housing Authority decided to hire its own experts to conduct the assessment, and suddenly found the resources with which to do so. When and if this assessment will be made available to the Focus Group is not known.

Utility costs.

Housing Authority’s original reason for refurbishing Rippling River was to install individual meters to keep down the cost of electric utilities, which it considered unreasonably high. From this need sprung the ADA requirements, and the decision to replace all of the plumbing and electrical system, as the "walls would have to be opened to connect the meters to the electrical system."

The Focus Group, however, has suggested other, cheaper ways to reduce the cost of utilities. The first is conservation. To this end, the residents of Rippling River initiated a conservation awareness campaign at the facility. It is not yet known if this effort has effected utility expenditures, as no comparison has been made by Housing Authority between last year’s and this year’s utility bills. If this effort is helping to reduce costs, it should be further encouraged to see if individual metering is necessary.

The Focus Group also volunteered to approach PG&E to see if it might meter Rippling River at its expense for its public relations purposes. Housing Authority staff, however, discouraged this proposal by not providing the Focus Group with requested contact information. The Focus Group also questioned why it would be necessary to open walls in order to connect the meters. It believes that surface wiring is safe and efficient, and can be made inconspicuous with coverings available at any hardware store. Rippling River residents have indicated that they would prefer to live with surface wiring than move to another location. Housing Authority claimed that MOCO building codes would not permit surface wiring at Rippling River. It refused, however, to tell the Focus Group where this prohibition is located in the building codes.

The Focus Group also believes that electrical repairs and replacement do not trigger the need for ADA compliance. Housing Authority has contended the opposite. Again, it has not provided the source of this information to the Focus Group.

Alternative Energy.

The Focus Group also suggested that utility costs might also be brought under control without individual metering by the use of solar power. Grants for the addition of this power source might be available. Again, the public and resident members of the Focus Group have noted a reluctance on the part of Housing Authority staff to pursue this potential solution. Rather, Housing Authority staff seems driven by the need for individual metering. Which, as claimed by Housing Authority, then escalates a relatively small problem into a major remodel.

Alternatives to Housing Authority Ownership of Rippling River.

Housing Authority claims that, without exception, it must sell or trade Rippling River for "market value." The Focus Group notes that HUD regulation 970.9 provides for exceptions to this rule, if the sale results in "commensurate public benefits to the community." The Focus Group has asked Housing Authority to explain this discrepancy, but Housing Authority has refused to do so.

QUESTIONS THAT STILL NEED ANSWERS

This has been a frustrating process, for the Focus Group community members, and the Rippling River residents. The Housing Authority staff is focused only on new or rehabilitated buildings. The Focus Group community members, and the Rippling River residents are focused on the people who live in and want to stay in Rippling River. This has led the Focus Group to an impasse: the base line issue of rehab vs. remove.

To date, this has been presented as a technical issue. The Focus Group suggests that it is not. It is a policy issue. One that must be addressed by the Housing Authority board. Questions still to be addressed are:

1. If Rippling River eliminates the losses that Housing Authority has encountered will that solve Housing Authority ‘s problem?

2. Does Housing Authority object to volunteer labor working on construction problems at Rippling River, most of which are exterior?

3. There is anecdotal evidence that moving disabled residents has serious negative health consequences. How does this potential Housing Authority liability equate to Housing Authority’s potential liability for keeping Rippling River residents at Rippling River?

4. Housing Authority may experience a fire storm of bad publicity, and a loss of support within its usual constituency, if it moves the residents from Rippling River. Is the loss of public support worth the relocation of the residents of Rippling River?

THE FOCUS GROUP’S QUESTION

The question of the Rippling River resident’s future goes to the very heart and soul of the Housing Authority mandate. While not intended, Rippling River has opened this question for public discussion and review: How does the human element impact Housing Authority? How does this balance against monetary considerations?

The answers to these questions, in the context of the Rippling River issue will help to guide the Focus Group to a solution, or set the sides for a protracted political battle. We welcome the Housing Authority Commissioners involvement in this matter. As stated by one of the residents, "The process has been educational, but frustrating and stressful as my future depends on the decisions made here."

These questions were presented to the Housing Authority in mid-February, 2003, in time for the Commissioners to address them at its February Board meeting. For reasons not disclosed to the Focus Group, the questions have never been answered.

Members of the Focus Group:

The Focus Group will meet Thursday, April 10, at the usual time. Items to be examined are:

1. HA’s claim that MoCo Planning/Building and Safety and HUD rules prohibit repairs from being made one building at a time.

2. HA’s claim that it must perform all of the work for which it has received estimates, including that not identified as essential by its experts and advisors.

3. HA’s claim that it, and perhaps its officers and directors, would be liable if a resident or guest were to be injured while on the premises, unless the complete scope of identified rehabilitation work listed by WR&D was carried out.

4. HA’s claim that it cannot permit volunteers to work under the auspices of Habitat for Humanity or some similar group on correcting the exterior damage at RR.

5. HA’s claim that it can transfer water credits from RR to a new site in Carmel Valley.

6. HA’s claim that it must sell the RR property for market value.

7. Research, if any, performed by HA concerning the negative health consequences of requiring disabled persons to leave their homes. HA will provide a bibliography of this research, with a synopsis of the findings of each study.

8. The proposed timetable for the ADA assessment, and the date and time when the ADA assessor will meet with the Focus Group.

9. HA’s plans, if any, for repairing RR's well. Also, HA’s documentation of the cost of using well water instead of tap water on the landscape.

10. Operating Receipts and Expenditures for Rippling River for the years 1997 through 2002. Also, Operating Receipts and Expenditures for similar sized units managed or owned by HA.

11. Utility bills for the period beginning December, 2002, through March 2003, and utility bills for the comparable period beginning 2001.

In order to facilitate discussion and assist the Focus Group in addressing these problems, prior to the meeting, HA will provide the Focus Group with the name or names of the person or persons with whom HA consulted in making these determinations, and cite with particularity the specific laws, regulations and rules upon which HA relied in making these determinations. Also, in order to save time, HA will email relevant text to those on the email list.

John Dalessio

[1] Housing Authority taped this meeting, so that the reviewer can draw his or her own conclusions.