Deed - 1234 Orchard Ave (Thrasher Park) - File 1267, 1990

Home

Pennington Appeal 3 February 14, 1991 Mr. Oliver's decision to the City Council, as prescribed under the City's Relocation Appeal Procedure. Attached is Mrs. Pennington's Relocation Assistance Appeal form and her letter requesting the City Council to consider increasing her replacing housing benefit. Mrs. Pennington is not satisfied that she has enough money to purchase a replacement home. When escrow closed, Mrs. Pennington had debts she had to pay off against her property. Those debts were small bank loans and a divorce agreement that specified her ex-husband to receive $40,000 whenever their Orchard Avenue property sold. According to Mrs. Pennington, paying her ex-husband the $40,000 settlement has caused a tremendous hardship for her to relocate. She does not want to go into debt again and believes that the City has created this hardship by forcing her to move. As long as Mrs. Pennington remained at her Orchard Avenue home, she did not have to pay her ex-husband the $40,000 as specified in their divorce agreement. She believes her $40,000 divorce payment should be reimbursed by the City under her relocation assistance. This issue of paying off a debt against a property such as a divorce settlement is not a consideration for a displacee to receive compensation under Federal and State relocation guidelines. Relocation assistance does take into consideration replacement housing costs such as increased interest payments on a new mortgage and other incidental expenses. However, adding compensation for eliminating a debt directly caused by the displacee such as a credit lien, alimony judgement, or divorce agreement would be establishing a new precedent in the disposition of relocation benefits. Fiscal Impact A remaining balance of approximately $155,420 is left to finish the expansion project for Thrasher Park. Project costs remaining to be paid are Mrs. Pennington's relocation payments, relocation consultant fees and park construction items of demolition, minor excavation for additional off- street parking stalls, asphalt paving, additional driveways, security lighting, and landscaping. All of the remaining $155,420 fund balance is needed to complete these budgeted expenses. Any increases in the budget to occur now, such as increase in a relocation payment, could limit the funds available for construction work necessary to complete the park project. CONCLUSION Present at the public hearing will be Mrs. Pennington, the Right -of -Way Chief from Alameda County Public Works Agency Real Estate Office, and City staff to present the information concerning Mrs. Pennington's relocation assistance appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, Council should decide whether to deny her appeal or authorize an increased amount of a replacement housing benefit. If Mrs. Pennington is unsatisfied with the Council's decision, she has the right to appeal their decision to the Courts.