March 8, 2007 Minutes (Neighborhood Resources Department)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Jeanette Collier, marci francisco, Curtis Harris, Susan Mangan, Greg Moore, Brenda Nunez, Kirsten Roussel, Mike Randolph, Patti Welty |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Carol Nalbandian |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Lesley Rigney, Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Andy Brown, Rebecca Buford, Loring Henderson, Paul Hunt, Tammy Kahle, Marilyn Roy, Jodi Wente |
Randolph called the meeting to order at 5:35.
Introductions
Members, public and staff introduced themselves.
Approval of February 22, 2007 Minutes
Welty suggested three following corrections: one grammatical, two to clarify (page 4) that she was considering households and not the overall population, three to note that (page 6) a formula-based allocation for neighborhoods “could” result in NLIA getting more and ELNA getting less.
Moore moved to approve the February 22, 2007 minutes with corrections. Mangan seconded the motion, which passed.
Public Services – Neighborhoods
Roussel proposed using a formula such as the one she developed. She passed out her proposal as well as the spreadsheet she used to compute the totals. She looked at many different factors including population, percentage of low-mod and percentage of rental to owner-occupied. She asked if anyone had some different suggestions.
Harris said he is all in favor of formulas that can help to figure allocations out.
Randolph said that in order to avoid complacency on the part of the neighborhoods (an assumption that they would received a specific allocation) – the Committee might say that 75% would be formula based and the remaining 25% would be based on projects outside of newsletters, meetings, etc. It would reward neighborhoods who are going above and beyond the status quo.
Roussel said she is also uncomfortable making it strictly formula based.
Mangan said even if it is formula-based, neighborhoods will still have to show what they will accomplish with funds.
Swarts said the Committee should consider performance measures as well.
francisco said the current formula is not factoring in blight. She knows it would be difficult at this point but one point of CDBG is to target blighted neighborhoods. We do not have a way to say “this number of properties are blighted” within the neighborhoods. The County Appraiser has info on how many properties are identified as poor. The Committee ought to know where those properties are and decide how to address them. She is concerned that in Oread, landlords may be choosing not to fix up houses and so others will be choosing not to live there and the cycle goes on. While we are targeting low-income neighborhoods, the real benefit to neighborhoods is making the neighborhood more desirable to live in.
Mangan asked if blight was included in the Committee’s list of goals.
Randolph said yes. Blight could be quantified and accounted for in the formula for future allocations.
francisco would like to see it addressed for the coming year.
Moore asked how often do the census numbers with regard to population, percent low-mod, and percent renter/owner change?
Rigney said census data is updated every five years.
Mangan provided a formula that she came up with. She handed out the spreadsheet. She considered that there are a lot of good projects that can be done with PS funds and she isn’t sure what the proper percentage going to neighborhoods should be. She used 30% as a starting point. ELNA is by far going to experience the biggest difference in funding. Her formula is simpler and does not consider the factors of low-mod and owner/renter, but the numbers came out very similar to Roussel’s.
Roussel said it was important to consider those other factors.
Mangan agreed; she had not known where to find the figures.
Randolph asked Swarts her thoughts.
Swarts said a few years back the Committee made allocations made based on some type of percentage and formula. It could certainly be a way to bring more objectivity to the process. She does not feel anyone should get a pass – every applicant should have to define what they are going to accomplish and then provide information indicating they did. Other than that, using a uniform method sounds like a good idea.
Randolph asked if the group wanted to use the formula this year or use it as starting point for next year.
Mangan said if the Committee just does what they have in the past, it seems to be very arbitrary.
Randolph said this conversation comes up every year.
Moore said he would like to see the Committee use the formula this year. The discussion that has occurred could be lost and we could return to the status quo. He asked if the overall CDBG grant was based on similar factors.
Swarts replied that the allocation the City gets is based on a formula which takes into account the City’s percentage of low-mod income residents, overall population and age of housing stock.
Roussel asked how people feel about using 30% of the total PS funds for neighborhoods.
Moore said last year it was closer to 33%.
Roussel said that is where it has been but is this the way the Committee wants to continue doing it?
Mangan asked how other communities allocate PS dollars.
Swarts noted that with CDBG funding, each community gets to drive its own destiny. As a result, every community does it differently – some fund no PS, others fund the entire 15%, and many are somewhere in between. Lawrence has typically funded the entire amount.
Moore said going back to goals; neighborhoods are one of the Committee’s goals.
Collier said 30% seems like a significant amount unless NAs are showing that they are having an impact. If there was some direct impact it would be justified – the idea that they put out newsletters, that is not significant in her opinion.
francisco said newsletters are a requirement. The Committee needs to look at requirements – that can be changed.
Swarts said newsletters can provide meeting notification as well as other information. The Committee has to look at what NAs say they are going to do, determine if that is acceptable, and then look at performance. The performance measurement idea is new – the City has to demonstrate performance and everyone is learning how to do it.
Mangan asked Collier if the 30% seems high.
Collier said it seems high based on what can be measured.
Mangan said she knows that the neighborhoods do a lot. Where she lives she can’t think of any impact it has had on her neighborhood, but she knows that the target neighborhoods are a huge deal in Lawrence. She has never lived somewhere that neighborhoods are so influential.
francisco said the Committee should consider what we are getting in return for all social service agencies such as TTH or ESC. The scary thing is that the community continues to see the same social problems even though CDBG funds continue to be invested. How can we measure success when this is occurring?
Moore said he has thought recently about when James Dunn was a member (and Oread representative) and he would take a minute at each meeting to update Committee members about what was going on in the neighborhood. It would help the Committee to hear that information regularly.
Randolph said going back to NAs verses agencies – a big difference is that NAs depend solely on CDBG funding; for agencies, it is a only a percentage of their budgets.
francisco agreed and stated that it isn’t that there are enough funds to fund social services but this is the only source of funding for NAs. There are other dollars that agencies can go after. If we are giving to agencies and this is just part of their money; overall, what differences are agencies making in Lawrence? We need ESC, Ballard, Hospice, etc. – but CDBG is a piece of their funds, but every year the same problems exist and they don’t change. She wants to go back to identifying blight, especially rentals. Fifty percent of properties in the community are rental and for the Committee to not say that we care how things are kept up is making a big mistake.
Mangan said she cannot tell how funding fits in to what neighborhoods are doing with blight. They do newsletters, meetings, cleanups – what are they doing that impacts blight?
Harris said the coordinators are pursuing blight by calling the City, and then following up.
fancisco said we have not funded capital improvements that NAs have requested. There was a time when they got capital improvement funds as well as PS.
Swarts said the entitlement has dropped from $1.2 million annually to $816,000. When that happens, something has to give because the funds just are not available.
After a brief discussion about what the City has done with NAs to address blight, Nunez said the Committee should not pinpoint what some NAs are doing and others are not, because they may all be doing a good job. The Committee is not aware of what is going on in the neighborhoods.
Swarts noted that five members on the Committee represent the neighborhoods and one responsibility is to provide information from the Committee to the NA and vice versa. Then it would be possible to know what was going on in NAs. Moore’s reference to the updates from James Dunn is a good idea. It was an informal approach, but perhaps it could be incorporated more formally into Committee business.
Randolph said there are two issues before the Committee – planning for next year and what the Committee needs to do this current cycle. Consideration of blight is a good idea but to measure it more data is needed. Perhaps that should be included for next year and if so, is there enough information here in these spreadsheets to continue allocations?
Harris said he would be most comfortable with Mangan’s Option 2.
Roussel asked if the formula could be changed to use census household and population data rather than the estimates Mangan used.
fancisco said the percentages seemed a bit arbitrary.
Moore said also to consider mailings – the population base number took that into account. How do they do newsletters for fraternities, sororities, scholarship halls, etc?
Wente (ONA Coordinator) said they get one or two per fraternity/scholarship hall.
Collier and Roussel agreed that they want to consider low-mod and rental in the formula.
Harris said we have on the list NAs that qualify, not every NA in the city. He is under the impression that no other NAs can become eligible.
Randolph said no these are just the organized ones.
Swarts said there are other neighborhoods that might qualify that have associations; they may not have chosen to apply. There are many other areas of the community that could qualify on an area-wide benefit.
Moore suggested going with Roussel’s model.
Randolph asked how the group feels about the 60% base and 40% based on low-mod and rental.
Roussel said those numbers are based on percentages of the totals in all target neighborhoods.
Harris moved to fund NAs as laid out in Roussel’s spreadsheet up to and not exceeding requested amounts. Moore seconded the motion.
Roussel said NAs that are under-funded with this formula can be awarded the excess between what NAs qualify for with the formula and their request.
Collier clarified the discretionary amount would be the difference between what the NA would receive via the formula and what the request was.
Swarts noted there is not enough in PS left to fund this entire request.
Harris said that several people have suggested that this is a first pass. Why don’t we wait two weeks and put it on new spreadsheet for consideration at the next meeting? We are all on the same page; there is just some minor tweaking to be done.
Randolph suggested using the motion as a starting point and fine tuning the allocations at the next meeting.
fancisco asked if the group wanted to consider operating, coordinator salary, cleanups, blight survey, etc. separately.
Welty said the blight survey and rezoning were already zero-funded.
Randolph said based on the motion passed at the previous meeting, it would all be inclusive.
Collier agreed, stating the Committee decided that NAs would receive an amount of dollars to decide what to do with it.
The motion passed, Nunez dissenting.
Miscellaneous/Calendar Items
Swarts said the next meeting date is March 22.
Public Comment
Andy Brown with Ballard Center/Penn House introduced himself and Paul Hunt. He thanked the Committee for funding them for $20,000. It is a slight increase from last year. ESC money goes to clients directly – none is used for administration and payroll. He asked if the Committee had any questions or comments. He added that in terms of agency reports and getting an idea of cost-benefit, they are a United Way agency and are required to do outcomes. They are constantly measuring their performance and that information is available to the Committee at any time. Also in terms of why requests come up every year: Rent and utility assistance has five major funding streams (UW, DGCO, City general fund, donations, and CDBG) but the need is great. They will continue to come and ask for money every year and hopefully they will continue to work to prevent homelessness. CDBG is the only source for capital improvements and they rotate requests between Penn House and Ballard. Their buildings are old; the annual operating budget is around $750,000.
Paul Hunt said that each of the ESC agencies receive $1000/month which will help about 5 households. Westar (electric service) reported 455 turnoffs last month and Aquila (gas service) turned off 128 in October just in Lawrence. That is where the money goes and we are nowhere close to getting to all of those. We just want to address the biggest chunk possible.
Loring Henderson, LCS, thanked the Committee for the allocation. His request reflects making the point that much has changed at the shelter – growth, unfortunately. They added 10 more sleeping spaces and utilities have increased. Rent is likely going to be dramatically increased in the near future. Even though they get private and church money, CDBG money is very important. He asked that as the Committee is doing the next step to make the lines balance they not reduce LCS’ current allocation. He asked what will be done with the remaining capital improvement money; is there an opportunity for a late request.
Randolph replied there are a couple of allocations pending and by the time the Committed is finished, all will be allocated to existing requests.
Tammy Kahle, HCCI, thanked the Committee for the recommendation for funding and said she appreciates their efforts. HCCI has seen an increase in homeless phone calls and HCCI is providing increased amounts of counseling for Salvation Army clients.
Marilyn Roy, PNA, said the discussion the Committee had tonight was so important. She has wondered for a long time how money was allocated to neighborhoods. Blight and sidewalks need to be addressed in Pinckney neighborhood particularly. Considering how much money is spent on newsletters – it eats into CDBG funds. We really need help as a neighborhood – with the amount of money required to be spent for newsletters and the amount left – there isn’t a lot left to address blight, sidewalks and poverty. She is trying to figure out the best way to use this small amount of money. She wants to see the NA using it responsibly. She has only been in Pinckney for two years. It would be great if the Committee could help NAs best use the money.
Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:05 pm.