En Español

Sacramento housing agency disputes HUD report of misspending

Published: Wednesday, Jun. 16, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1B

 

A federal watchdog says the Sacremento Housing and Redevelopment Agency misused millions of dollars intended to revitalize areas the foreclosure crisis had left as wastelands.

The agency misspent more then $1.1 million in federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds on ineligible properties and costs, according to an audit by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of the Inspector General. The audit recommends that SHRA be forced to repay those funds.

In addition, the agency overbudgeted by $3.8 million for apartment rehab projects, the HUD audit found. The reason: inflated developer profits and amounts allocated for renovation that were too high.

The federal report recommends that the money be redirected to other projects, along with an additional $1.5 million allocated to ineligible projects but not yet spent.

SHRA officials say they did nothing wrong. The money is helping fix a blighted area of the unincorporated county in need of such projects. The local officials struck a defiant tone Tuesday afternoon, calling the inspector general's office uninformed and refusing to change tracks.

"We're not going to stop work," said Christine Weichert, the agency's assistant director of housing and community development. "We are meeting the intent of the stimulus funds."

The controversy stems from the agency's use of federal funds to rehab seven fourplexes at Lerwick Road near the intersection of Watt Avenue and Auburn Boulevard, and an additional eight fourplexes at Norcade Circle near Folsom Boulevard and Highway 50.

The owner and developer of all the properties is EPO Development, a firm run by brothers Erik and Paul Olson. They received more than 40 percent of the $18.6 million allocated by HUD to SHRA to fix up vacant or foreclosed properties in unincorporated Sacramento County. That money was awarded to the Olson brothers without competition.

But the inspector general's audit says five of the EPO properties were ineligible for the federal funds, because the developer had already bought them before SHRA even applied for the money. The audit also found that the housing agency allowed the developer to bill for unnecessary upgrades and exorbitant costs.

"The Agency approved the construction company … to earn 20 percent in profit and overhead when the average for similar projects averaged about 9.62 percent for other developers," the audit states.

As a result of the inflated costs, the agency budgeted $500,000 to rehab each Lerwick Road and Norcade Circle property. HUD, however, estimated the actual cost per property should have been closer to $100,000. In total, SHRA overbudgeted $3.8 million for those properties that could be redirected to other projects, according to the audit

"The Agency approved the construction company … to earn 20 percent in profit and overhead when the average for similar projects averaged about 9.62 percent for other developers," the audit states.

As a result of the inflated costs, the agency budgeted $500,000 to rehab each Lerwick Road and Norcade Circle property. HUD, however, estimated the actual cost per property should have been closer to $100,000. In total, SHRA overbudgeted $3.8 million for those properties that could be redirected to other projects, according to the audit

Geoffrey Ross, a program manager with SHRA, disputed the inspector general's reading of the rules regarding the properties' eligibility for funds. Ross said it doesn't matter that the developer already owned the properties in question, because they were and still are vacant.

EPO was able to purchase the Lerwick properties and begin work on the two sites thanks in part to $6.7 million in local funds the agency also committed to the projects, according to SHRA.

Paul Olson said the costs for the project are in line with the marketplace. EPO is a for-profit company, he said.

"In private industry, 10 percent profit and 10 percent overhead is a low standard," he said. "We have an obligation to not lose money."

Olson also took issue with the inspector general's finding that the developers made unnecessary fixes that drove the cost up. EPO plans to be a long-term landlord, and simply slapping down new carpeting and fresh coats of paint would be a short-term solution, he said.

In addition to the allegations regarding the agency's handling of money, the inspector general's office faulted SHRA for failing to meet reporting requirements. The agency was supposed to submit quarterly reports to HUD regarding the program and to post those reports online.

"Contrary to the requirements, not only did the Agency not upload the reports to its website, it also did not report essential information about the projects to HUD," the audit states. "Consequently, the Agency was not being transparent to HUD and the public on how the funds were spent."

U.S. Housing and Urban Development officials will ultimately decide the remedy for the alleged violations. HUD has 120 days from the date of the audit to review the inspector general's recommendations.

 
 

725 could lose jobs to close Sacramento County budget gap

Published: Thursday, Jun. 10, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Thursday, Jun. 10, 2010 - 12:04 pm

Sacramento County officials are counting on better days ahead.

At least that's their explanation for dipping into special funds and using $20 million in quick fixes to help patch a projected $181 million shortfall in the fiscal year that starts July 1.

That strategy is one piece of the draft budget plan to be released today, which The Bee reviewed Wednesday.

Even with the infusion of money from special funds, county officials are proposing to lay off 725 workers and cut 211 vacant positions – a 7.5 percent reduction in the county work force. That comes on top of the 750 positions the county eliminated to balance this year's budget and does not include proposed cuts to the Sheriff's Department, which faces a $37.6 million hit.

The proposed cuts would have been even deeper had interim County Executive Steve Szalay decided against using some "one-time funds" – reserves, borrowed money and other nonrecurring revenue sources that might cover a shortfall for a single year but don't address an underlying deficit.

Just a few months ago, Szalay told The Bee he would not use such quick fixes to balance the general fund budget. His pledge followed two fiscal years in which the Board of Supervisors borrowed heavily and relied on accounting tricks to paper over shortfalls and push deficits forward hoping that a stabilizing economy would stem the bleeding. Such budget practices have led major ratings agencies to lower the county's credit rating.

After a couple months of budget work, however, Szalay said he now believes the county has little choice but to once again use quick fixes to cushion the impact of looming cuts.

"I didn't want to do it. I really had to do it," Szalay said Wednesday. "The budget reductions were just too large."

In addition to the $20 million in one-time funds – which includes transferring $18 million from the workers' compensation fund – Szalay identified $40 million in cost savings and revenue transfers that could be used to stem the deficit. Even so, the proposed budget shortfall is $122 million in the county's roughly $2 billion general fund.

That will mean massive cuts across departments, including proposals for fewer health professionals treating indigent residents, another 43 jobs gone from Child Protective Services and closure of the Boys' Ranch, a juvenile detention center.

The proposed budget did contain some good news for several departments. Szalay is proposing to retain several high-profile positions that had been on the chopping block, including the animal care volunteer coordinator and two veterans' services workers who process claims. The other two claims workers are still targeted for layoff.

Officials also are proposing short-term funding for Effie Yeaw Nature Center and Gibson Ranch Park to keep those programs open until nonprofits can be found to take them over.

The Sheriff's Department also appears better off. The proposal Szalay will unveil today calls for a $37.6 million cut to the department – lower than original estimates but still 10 percent less funding than the sheriff said he needed to keep his department whole.

It's unclear what cuts Sheriff John McGinness will propose. The sheriff is an elected official who controls his own budget based on an allocation of funds from the county.

On Wednesday, McGinness said he is in talks with supervisors and is optimistic that officials will restore additional funding to his department. "I'm not saying we're going to get off with no pain at all, but it won't be $37.6 million," he said.

The Sheriff's Department funding isn't the only wild card to watch for when budget hearings begin next week. The proposed budget calls for cutting more than 20 percent of the Probation Department's budget – cuts that would mean closing the Boys' Ranch, eliminating most adult field services and closing a housing unit at the juvenile hall. The Sacramento County Probation Association has filed a lawsuit arguing that the proposed cuts would put the county in violation of state mandates.

Mental health advocates also have sued the county over proposed cuts, and on Wednesday asked the court for a preliminary injunction until the case can be reviewed.

Last month, the county received a scathing letter from the state's Department of Mental Health, which threatened to withhold funding should the county go through with cuts to mental health programs.

The county originally proposed eliminating four regional support teams that provide outpatient treatment. Officials said Wednesday that they are working on an alternative plan that would keep the teams operating in a limited capacity.

The Board of Supervisors will begin budget hearings at 9:30 a.m. Monday in the board chambers at 700 H St.


Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/10/2811951/725-could-lose-jobs-to-close-sacramento.html?storylink=lingospot_related_articles#ixzz0r1Z6lwyP
 

 

Groups sue Sacramento County to halt mental health cuts

Published: Friday, May. 7, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
Last Modified: Wednesday, Jun. 9, 2010 - 2:19 pm

Disability rights groups are asking the federal court to intervene on behalf of thousands of Sacramento County mental patients who may soon be forced out of their community treatment programs because of budget cuts.

The lawsuit seeking class-action status, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, contends the cuts violate various state and federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, and would be devastating to patients.

If the services are eliminated as planned on June 30, thousands of severely, chronically mentally ill people "will inevitably be exposed to increased harm of injury and death," the lawsuit claims.

Plaintiffs named in the suit, filed by Disability Rights California, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Cooley LLP, are five indigent residents of Sacramento County whose programs are on the chopping block. Named as defendants are the county, the Board of Supervisors and county officials responsible for administering outpatient mental health services.

A county spokeswoman said officials had yet to see the lawsuit and most likely would decline to comment on a matter in litigation. Administrators previously have said they have no choice but to make wrenching cuts in an effort to cut $17 million from their behavioral health budget.

Under its latest proposal, the department of Behavioral Health Services proposes cutting its ties with five programs that provide outpatient care to people with such conditions as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

The programs have been slashed by more than half during the past year, leaving area hospitals and private clinics struggling to fill gaps in care. If the current budget proposal passes, 5,000 or more patients would have to find care elsewhere.

To make up for the cuts, the behavioral health department has proposed expanding its Adult Psychiatric Aftercare Clinic and opening four new outpatient mental health "wellness centers" staffed by county workers.

Private care providers are sharply criticizing the plan, arguing that the proposed new system would cost more to run and disrupt care to numerous patients. The result, they said, would be more psychotic people going untreated, crowding emergency rooms, wandering the streets and committing crimes.

The lawsuit makes similar arguments, and urges the court to prevent the county from cutting the services.

"We're asking them to keep the status quo," said Stuart Seaborn of Sacramento, lead attorney for Disability Rights California.

"These programs help people maintain independence. We're pleased with the tools that the county has developed, and now they want to take them away."

One of the patients named in the suit is Leslie Napper, 41, who depends on the county for the mental health services she receives through Medi-Cal. Napper has been getting care for her bipolar disorder at Northgate Point, one of the five programs under the gun, for more than seven years.

Napper came to Northgate Point from a locked mental hospital.

"I was in deep crisis," she said.

The program has helped Napper manage her medications and symptoms and avoid relapses. "The continuity and quality of care is unparalleled in Sacramento," she said. "Everything we need is accessible to us on a daily basis."

The proposed cuts have sent a wave of panic through patients who have depended upon the programs for years and have regained stability and independence, Napper said.

"We've gone straight to fear. There have been lots of tears," she said.

Without the programs, "I'm afraid we will decompensate," said Napper, who has suffered from hallucinations and suicidal thoughts in the past. "I could sink deep into my illness. At worst, I could succeed in committing suicide. Many of my peers feel the same."

The county has provided few details about its proposed new clinics, including where they might be located, said Seaborn.

"It's impossible for them to set up a fully functioning outpatient mental health system before July 1," he said. "These patients have no idea where they are going to go."


Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/07/2733802/groups-sue-sacramento-county-to.html?storylink=lingospot_related_articles#ixzz0r1aIucO0