2007 Action Plan

City of Lawrence Consolidated

 Plan

2003 to 2007

Prepared by the

Department of Neighborhood Resources

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................... 4

Background....................................................................................................... 7

Housing Outreach And Suitability.................................................................... 7

Strategic Plan: 2003—2007 ............................................................................. 9

Summary................................................................................................................................. 9

Activities In 2006.................................................................................................................. 9

Summary Of Actions Taken Thus Far.................................................................................. 9

Citizen Participation...................................................................................... 10

Public Comments.................................................................................................................. 12

Community Profile.......................................................................................... 13

Trends In General Population........................................................................................... 13

Households And Families................................................................................................... 13

Income Data......................................................................................................................... 13

Areas Of Racial/Ethnic Concentration.......................................................................... 14

Profile Of City’s Housing Market.................................................................... 16

     Trends In Housing Stock................................................................................................ 16

High Percentage Of Rental Housing.............................................................................. 16

Fair Market Rents........................................................................................................... 17

Analysis Of Impediments To Fair Housing Choice......................................... 18

Background.......................................................................................................................... 18

Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 18

Target Neighborhoods................................................................................... 19

Brook Creek Neighborhood................................................................................................ 20

East Lawrence Neighborhood........................................................................................... 21

North Lawrence Neighborhood......................................................................................... 22

Oread Neighborhood.......................................................................................................... 23

Pinckney Neighborhood...................................................................................................... 24

Homeless And Other Special Needs Activities............................................... 25

Continuum Of Care............................................................................................................... 25

Intake, Outreach, And Assessment................................................................................... 25

Emergency Shelter.............................................................................................................. 25

Transitional Housing......................................................................................................... 25

Permanent Supportive Housing......................................................................................... 26

Permanent Housing.............................................................................................................. 26

Special Needs Of People Who Are Not Homeless............................................................. 26

Continuum Of Care Diagram.......................................................................... 27

Activities Taken By The Community To Close Gaps...................................... 28

2007 Action Plan............................................................................................ 29

Resources............................................................................................................................. 29

Other resources.................................................................................................................. 29

Home program match sources and uses......................................................................... 29

Home program recapture provisions............................................................................. 29

Lead-based paint hazards................................................................................................ 30

Monitoring standards....................................................................................................... 30

Identified hud goals for 2007........................................................................................... 30

Performance measures...................................................................................................... 31

Planned spending................................................................................................................. 32

Investment Summary..................................................................................... 33

Application For Federal Assistance (CDBG) – Form 424................................ 34

Application For Federal Assistance (HOME) – Form 424............................... 35

Resolution...................................................................................................... 36

Certifications.................................................................................................. 37

Listing Of 2007 Proposed Projects................................................................. 44

Appendix A – HUD Tables And Charts........................................................... 54

Appendix B – Step Up To Better Housing...................................................... 58

Appendix C – Census Tracts……………………………………………………………..60

Appendix C – Notice Of Public Hearing.......................................................... 62

Appendix D – Public Comment………………………………………………………….64
Executive Summary

Introduction

This plan reports on the status of needs and outcomes the City expects to achieve in the coming year. All of the activities mentioned in this Action Plan are based on current priorities and quantified by level of need.

All proposed activities and projects are intended to principally benefit citizens of the City of Lawrence who have extremely low, low- and moderate-incomes, including populations with special needs such as disabled and homeless individuals and families.

The entitlement grants received by the City of Lawrence are:

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)

Previous analysis of several need- and opportunity-based criteria has identified five neighborhoods, clustered in the core of the city, as targets for revitalization.

Institutional Structure

• The Neighborhood Resources Department, Community Development Division (CDD) is the lead agency of the City in the development of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans.

• To enhance collaboration among agencies, CDD staff participates in various city-wide initiatives and committees that assess needs and propose solutions to community problems.

• CDD works closely with the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority (LDCHA) and many other city and state agencies, as well as private sector businesses, on planning and program implementation.

• CDD’s public participation efforts are on-going in many neighborhoods as staff supports neighborhood programs.

• On April 12, 2007, the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee and CDD held a Public Hearing to identify community needs and receive feedback on previous and proposed funding priorities.

• The City of Lawrence assures fair and accurate monitoring of grant and sub-grant program functions and activities to maintain compliance with city, state and federal requirements.

• CDD requires that contractors participating in any rehabilitation programs comply with lead-safe practices.

Resources

The City of Lawrence expects to receive approximately $1,572,745 in formula grants and program income for the 2007 program year (summarized below).

Figure 1

Source of Funds Available for 2007	Amount
CDBG Grant	828,822
Program Income (Projected)	100,000
Total CDBG Funds	928,822
HOME Grant	643,923
Recaptured HOME Funds	0
HOME ADDI Funds	0
Total HOME Funds	643,923
Total Funds	1,572,745

Program Activities

The City of Lawrence organizes its activities and funding in to four areas in accordance with the Step Up to Better Housing Strategy – emergency shelter, transitional housing and affordable rental and owned permanent housing. In 2007, Lawrence will take steps to address these four priorities.

Lawrence’s overall housing objective is to create “decent affordable housing” for the purpose of “improved availability and affordability.” Success of housing activities will be measured against the following outcomes:

Emergency Shelter

• Six hundred (600) homeless persons will have continued access to two shelters for the purpose of enhancing a suitable living environment (Lawrence Community Shelter & the Salvation Army).

Transitional Housing

• Twenty (20) new homeless or transitional households will have access to affordable rental housing for the purpose of creating decent housing (Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority).

Permanent Housing

• Ten (10) affordable housing units will be developed or rehabilitated by Tenants to Homeowners, Lawrence’s Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) and six (6) will be developed by Habitat for Humanity for the purpose of creating affordable housing.

• Six (6) housing units will have a guaranteed affordability period of at least 20 years for the purpose of preserving decent affordable housing. These units, which will be acquired through the Housing Trust, will actually be perpetually affordable (NRDepartment).

• Six (6) households will have new access to affordable housing through the homeownership rehabilitation and down payment assistance program for the purpose of creating decent affordable housing (NR Department).

• Seven (7) households will have sustained affordable housing through emergency repairs for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing (NR Department).

• Forty-five (45) households will have sustained affordable housing with exterior weatherization improvements for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing (NR Department).

• Ten (10) households will have sustained affordable single family housing through a single family rehabilitation program for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing (NR Department).

• One-hundred (100) households will have sustained affordable housing through emergency rent and utility assistance for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing (Emergency Services Council).

• Eighty-five (85) households will have improved access to homeownership through counseling and educational services for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing (Tenants to Homeowners).

• Five hundred (500) individuals will have sustained affordable housing through landlord/tenant counseling for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing (Housing and Credit Counseling, Inc).

• Sixty (60) individuals who are HIV+ will have sustained affordable housing by receiving emergency financial assistance for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing (Douglas County AIDS Project).

• Ten (10) rental units will be improved for accessibility and mobility of disabled tenants for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment (Independence, Inc.).

• One (1) household whose members are disabled will have new access to homeownership for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing (Independence, Inc.).

Homeless

In May 2003, Mayor Dunfield appointed a Task Force on Homeless Services with a mandate to create a plan to address homeless issues. Performance measures for activities to be implemented in the next year are:

• Twenty (20) households will have new or improved access to rental housing through Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) for the purpose of creating decent affordable housing.

• Six hundred (600) homeless individuals will have continued access to shelter for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment.

Neighborhood Revitalization

The overall objective of neighborhood revitalization is to create a “suitable living environment.” Success will be measured in terms of the following outcomes:

• Five thousand three-hundred seventy-one (5,371) individuals will have improved access to community service centers for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment.

• Eight thousand households (8000), in five target neighborhoods, will have sustained access to neighborhood support activities for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment.

                        Figure 2 – Summary of Proposed Investment Category       

Category of Investment	Amount
Emergency Shelter	53,000
Transitional Housing	200,000
Permanent Housing	1,020,531
Revitalized Neighborhoods	46,123
Contingency Fund	22,935
Administration	230,156
Total	1,572,745

See Planned Spending, page 35 and Investment Summary, page 37 for 2007 allocations.

Background

Lawrence qualifies for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs as a metropolitan city (population over 50,000), thus Lawrence is an "entitlement community." This means that Lawrence receives grants each year provided the City meets requirements established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  Both CDBG and HOME funding amounts are formula grants – funding amounts are determined by a formula.  Lawrence is a local government that meets funding thresholds and has a HUD-approved Consolidated Plan, thus qualifies for the CDBG program and as a participating jurisdiction for the HOME program.

CDBG funds are to be used to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low-moderate income.  The funds can be used for a wide variety of purposes.  By federal regulation, no more than 15% of the grant may be expended for public services and no more than 20% can be expended for administration expenses.

HOME funds are to be used to provide decent affordable housing to lower-income households, expand the capacity of nonprofit housing providers, strengthen the ability of state and local governments to provide housing, and leverage private sector participation. By federal regulation, at least 15% of the grant must be expended for CHDO projects and no more than 5% may be spent on CHDO operating expenses. No more than 10% can be spent on other administrative expenses.

Home Ownership Outreach and Suitability

The Lawrence Community Land and Housing Trust (Housing Trust) program is the City’s first time homebuyer program.  Outreach to tenants of public housing, families assisted by public housing agencies, and residents of manufactured housing will be done primarily through Tenants to Homeowners, Inc. (TTH, Inc.), and Independence, Inc. Tenants to Homeowners, Inc. is the City’s designated Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) that administers the Housing Trust.  Independence, Inc. is a non-profit organization that empowers people with disabilities to control their own lives and to advocate for integrated and accessible communities.  They qualify people for the Home of Your Own (HOYO) program that is a component of the Housing Trust program.  Independence, Inc. serves anyone with a physical or mental condition that limits one or more of life's major activities, or anyone who is regarded as having such a disability.

Outreach is done in many ways.  TTH, Inc. conducts a first-time homebuyer workshop bi-monthly on the second Saturday of the month.  This four-and-a-half hour class provides prospective homebuyers with valuable information on buying homes, including information on the HOYO program and the Housing Trust program.  Independence, Inc. staff attends the workshops to assist with educating prospective program participants.

The workshops are advertised in the local newspaper, through the local television channel, on local radio stations through public service announcements, in neighborhood association newsletters, in agency newsletters including those from Independence, Inc. and Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority (LDCHA), and on Tenants to Homeowners’ and the City’s websites. Referrals are also received from local realtors and lenders.  More than half of the workshop participants report learning about the program through the local newspaper.

To ensure targeted populations are reached, brochures are distributed and a workshop is scheduled onsite at Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority (LDCHA), Independence, Inc., and Haskell Indian Nations University.   Brochures are also distributed to mobile home park offices and to the Landlords of Lawrence, an organization primarily comprised of individual landlords.  Additionally, TTH staff attends neighborhood association and Landlords of Lawrence meetings to present the program and answer questions.

Individuals who are income eligible for the Housing Trust program are offered one-on-one budget counseling where credit reports are accessed and reviewed and an action plan developed.  These individuals are also eligible for one free session on budgeting from Housing and Credit Counseling, Inc. (HCCI, Inc.).  The education component is a pre-requisite for participation in the Housing Trust program.

After attending a workshop, individuals go through the following steps:

1. It is determined if individuals are income qualified for a loan and details are provided on expectations from individuals as they become a homeowner.
2. Independence, Inc. staff determines if an individual has a disability that qualifies him/her for the HOYO program.  This is done only after an individual is determined to be eligible for the Housing Trust program.
3. Clients submit an application to one of the banks that participate in the Housing Trust program.  TTH staff assists with the application process.
4. After pre-approval of a loan application, participants may begin looking for a home.
5. When a home is found, TTH staff performs a prescreening to make sure it is eligible for the Housing Trust program.
6. Upon approval by TTH staff, City staff inspects the property and complete a work write up and cost estimate.
7. TTH staff facilitates receiving bid proposals for the rehabilitation.
8. If the rehabilitation, closing costs, and down payment do not exceed program limits, the home is purchased and rehabilitation performed.

The following services are offered to homeowners after the purchase of a home through the Housing Trust program:

1. Post-purchase counseling on home maintenance and budgeting is offered.  Information is shared on the City’s emergency loan and weatherization programs as well as ECKAN’s weatherization program.
2. A maintenance escrow account is created at closing in the amount of $250.  Homeowners must contribute an additional $25 into the account with each mortgage payment. Escrow is collected for five years and is returned to the homeowner for home maintenance purposes. 
3. Homeowners are sent a bi-annual issue of the Housing Trust’s newsletter.  This newsletter provides access to resources, tips on home maintenance, and tips on budgeting.
4. Homeowners are able to access a tool lending library operated by TTH, Inc.
5. Both TTH, Inc. and Independence, Inc. staff are willing and able to assist new homeowners.

Strategic Plan: 2003 – 2007

Summary

Lawrence has a number of successful housing and community development programs in place, including Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation, First-time Homebuyer Assistance including Community Land and Housing Trust opportunities, Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBR), Weatherization, Emergency Loans and Furnace Loans. Support for these programs will continue during this five-year plan, assuming conditions remain equivalent.

The City adopted as its housing and neighborhood development strategy a document entitled Step Up to Better Housing, which was developed through conferences with public and private agencies and community groups. This strategy focuses on four areas: emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent housing, and revitalized neighborhoods. Each area will receive attention, although the investment may change annually depending on changing conditions.  See Step Up to Better Housing, page 59.  Individuals receiving benefits from CDBG and HOME programs may live anywhere in Lawrence, including on property owned by the Housing Trust, but some programs give priority to target neighborhood applicants. This decision is guided by the fact that low-income people live throughout the city, but that neighborhoods with high concentrations of low-income people have additional needs.  Funds spent in target neighborhoods have a leveraged impact because of their positive influence on the neighborhood as a whole, as well as the low-moderate income family.

In order to derive strategy and priorities for housing and community development and to maximize the impact of CDBG and HOME funds, the City will continue to operate under Step Up to Better Housing by funding programs that tie directly to the strategy or support the Continuum of Care[1].  The scarcity of funds and the statutory limits on their use mean that agencies should not depend on CDBG or HOME money for their core operating funds.  See Step Up to Better Housing, Appendix B on page 59 for more details.

Activities in 2006

The City planned to use its CDBG and HOME funds in 2006 as follows:

Figure 3 – Summary of Proposed Investment by Category

Category of Investment	Amount
Emergency Shelter	67,000
Transitional Housing	180,000
Permanent Housing	1,007,017
Revitalized Neighborhoods	42,021
Administration	260,249
Total	1,556,287

Summary of Actions Taken Thus Far

Currently the use of funds is proceeding according to the 2006 Investment Summary.

Citizen Participation Plan

The Citizen Participation Plan is based on the recognition that the heart of the consolidated planning process is the participation and involvement of citizens in those decisions that directly affect their lives.  The principal purpose of this Plan is to encourage and ensure full and proper citizen participation at all stages of this process.  It is intended to achieve this purpose by formally designating certain structures, procedures, roles, and policies to be followed by program participants. The City has adopted a Citizen Participation Plan that is reviewed and updated periodically with the last update being done in May of 2001. A copy of the Citizen Participation Plan is available from the Neighborhood Resources Department at City Hall and the City of Lawrence website, www.lawrenceks.org.

The Community Commission on Homelessness, The Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee, Practitioners Panel, and Community Development Block Grant Review Board make recommendations to Neighborhood Resources staff and the City Commission regarding housing and neighborhood development needs, strategies, and policies.

Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee (NRAC)

Purpose:

· Develop and propose Neighborhood Resources strategy and policy.

· Recommend allocation of CDBG and HOME funds.

· Serve as Housing Code, Environmental Code, and Rental Housing Code appeals body.

Members:

Of the eleven members of the Committee, five are drawn from target neighborhoods and six are members at-large.  One of the target neighborhood members is also a member of the Practitioners Panel.  Members as of April 2007 are:

Member	Constituency	Term Expires
Jeanette Collier	Pinckney Neighborhood Assn./ Practitioners Panel	September 2008
marci francisco	Oread Neighborhood Association/Landlord	September 2007
Paula Gilchrist	At-Large	September 2007
Curtis Harris	At-Large	September 2006
Susan Mangan	At-large	September 2008
Greg Moore	At-Large	September 2007
Carol Nalbandian	At-Large	September 2008
Brenda Nunez	East Lawrence Neighborhood Association	September 2008
Michael Randolph	At-Large/Landlord	September 2007
Kirsten Roussel	Brook Creek Neighborhood Association	September 2008
Patti Welty	North Lawrence Improvement Association	September 2006

Practitioners Panel

Purpose:

· Share information.

· Assess needs of the Neighborhood Resources Department.

· Provide practitioner perspective.

· Develop funding applications.

· Recommend activities to carry out strategy.

Members:

Organizations that provide housing and housing services, representatives from selected sectors such as banking, realty, landlords, mental health, and other health services make up the membership of the Panel.  Since August 1999, all social service organizations that receive CDBG, HOME, or ESG funds are asked to participate on the Panel.  Members as of April 2006 are:

Organization	Representative
Ballard Community Center	Andy Brown
Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center	Lynn Amyx
Brookcreek Learning Center	Jessica Tuttle
Children’s Learning Center	Holly Turner
Coalition for Homeless Concerns	Hubbard Collinsworth
Douglas County AIDS Project	Kristin Brumm
E.C.K.A.N.	Jeanette Collier
First Step House	Bridget Dixon
Habitat for Humanity, Inc.	Jean Lilley
Housing and Credit Counseling, Inc.	Tammy Kahle
Independence, Inc.	Kelly Nightengale/Kendall Simmons
Landlords of Lawrence	Bob Ebey
Lawrence Board of Realtors	Marilyn Lynch
Lawrence Community Shelter	Loring Henderson
Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority	Charlotte Knoche
Lawrence SRS	Penny Schau
Lenders	Joe Oberzan
Pelathe Community Resource Center	Teresa Staskal
Project Lively	Sandra Kelly-Allen
Tenants to Homeowners, Inc./Housing Trust	Rebecca Buford
The Salvation Army	Vivian Baars/Wes Dalberg
Women’s Transitional Care Services	Sarah Terwelp

Community Development Block Grant Review Board

Purpose:

· Review requests for homeowner rehabilitation projects.

· Hear appeals regarding homeowner rehabilitation projects.

Members:

Of the seven members of the Board, three are drawn from low/moderate-income neighborhoods.  Members as of April 2006 are:

Name	Constituency	Expires
Steve Braswell	Target Area	December 2007
Richard Heckler	Target Area	December 2007
William Jeltz	At-Large	December 2007
Amy Lemert	At-Large	December 2009
Shon Qualseth	At-Large	December 2009
Vacant	Target Area	December 2008
Kirk Weisner	At-Large	December 2007

Community Commission on Homelessness (CCH)

Purpose:

· Evaluate current services for homeless individuals and families.

· Oversee the implementation of the Task Force Final Report.

· Provide information and recommendations to the City Commission regarding issues affecting homeless services.

Members:

The eleven member board is drawn from the community at-large and is meant to provide broad-based representation by including neighborhoods, service providers, law enforcement, homeless, business, faith community, landlords and other housing providers and members of the faith community.

Name	Constituency	Expires
Hubbard Collinsworth	Homeless Community	December 2008
Helen Hartnett	KU Social Welfare	December 2008
Phil Hemphill	Landlords/Neighborhoods	December 2008
Katherine Dinsdale	Faith Community	December 2008
Loring Henderson	Service Provider	December 2008
Rick Marquez	Downtown Lawrence	December 2008
Shirley Martin-Smith	Business	December 2008
Mike Monroe	Law Enforcement	December 2007
Jane Faubion	KU Public Health	December 2007
Kim Gouge	Business	December 2007
Robert Mosely	Homeless Community	December 2008

Public Comments

The City hears public comment in a variety of ways and forums.  The public has access to staff by visiting the office, phoning, letters, and e-mail.  The three advisory groups described above hold open meetings, soliciting and receiving public comment at meetings.  There are two formal public hearings each year before the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee.  Finally, the City Commission has made a practice of hearing from the public before giving final approval of the annual Investment Summary. See Appendix E on page 69 to review citizen comments received by the Neighborhood Resources Department.  Comments are considered prior to the adoption of the Consolidated Plan. 

Community Profile

Trends in General Population

Based on 2000 Census figures, the population in Lawrence has grown to 80,098. This is a 22.09% increase from the 1990 Census figure of 65,608, an average of 2.209% a year. Growth from 1960 to 1990 had averaged 2.33%; thus, Lawrence has continued to grow at a steady rate for decades.  It is projected that the City will continue to grow by 2.33%.  Most recent estimates place the Lawrence population at 90,475.

Households and Families

In Kansas as a whole, 67% of households are family households, whereas in Lawrence, only 52% of households are family households. The Census Bureau defines a household as "a person or group of persons who live in a housing unit." A family is "a group of two or more people (one of whom is the householder, the person in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented) living together and related by birth, marriage or adoption." Lawrence also has a much younger median age than the state as a whole, 28.6 compared to 36.1.  This may be attributed to the large population of university students in Lawrence. The median age and composition of households in Lawrence is a significant factor to consider when the community devises housing and neighborhood policies and strategies.  

Figure 4 - Comparison of Households to Families (2005 Community Survey)

Households	Comparison Basis	Families
34,459	Number	17,764
2.18	Persons Per	2.75
51,541	Mean Income	70,045

Income Data

The Lawrence Median Family Income (MFI) for 2007 is $61,500 according to HUD data published in February 2007.  The MFI is based on a family of four.  CDBG funds are meant to principally benefit low/moderate-income people.  HUD considers a family moderate-income when the family income is less than 80% of the MFI; thus, to qualify for most CDBG or HOME programs, a family’s income must be less than 80% of the MFI.  The 2000 Census indicated that low/moderate-income individuals reside in all Census tracts of the city. The chart below shows 80% of the MFI based on family size.

Figure 5 - 80% of 2007 Lawrence MFI Based on Family Size 

Family Size	80% of MFI
1	$36,250
2	$41,400
3	$46,600
4	$51,750
5	$55,900
6	$60,050

While most HUD program eligibility is based on the MFI, other types of social programs are based on a family’s income in relation to the federal poverty level.  There is no universal administrative definition of "income" that is valid for all programs that use the poverty guidelines.  The office or organization that administers a particular program or activity is responsible for making decisions about the definition of "income" used by that program.  To find out the specific definition of "income" used by a particular program or activity, one must consult the office or organization that administers that program.  The following chart is provided as an example and is for informational purposes only.

Figure 6 - Federal Poverty Guidelines published in the Federal Register January 24, 2007.

Family Size	Poverty	125%	130%	150%
1	10,210	12,763	13,273	15,315
2	13,690	17,113	17,797	20,535
3	17,170	21,463	22,321	25,755
4	20,650	25,813	26,845	30,975
5	24,130	30,163	31,369	36,195
6	27,610	34,513	35,893	41,415
7	31,090	38,863	40,417	46,635
8	34,570	43,213	44,941	51,855
each add'l.	3,480	4,350	4,524	5,220

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, defines low-moderate income concentration areas as those areas in which at least 51% of the residents are of low-moderate income according to MFI calculations. The Consolidated Plan identifies five areas as target neighborhoods based on the income of residents: Brook Creek, East Lawrence, North Lawrence, Oread, and Pinckney.  See Target Neighborhoods, page 19.

Areas of Racial/Ethnic Concentration

Minorities live throughout Lawrence according to the 2000 Census, and make up about 13% of the population.  For that reason, Census tracts with more than 13% minority households were considered areas of racial or ethnic concentration. Since there are no census tracts with more than 13% minority households, there are no designated areas of racial or ethnic concentration.

Figure 7 – Minority Population by Census Tract

NOTE: Numbers reported do not include CTs  12.01, 12.02, 12.03,14, or 15 because they are not inside the city limits. 

Figure 8 – Map of 2000 Census Tracts

Profile of City’s Housing Market

Trends in Housing Stock

The 2000 Census identified 32,761 housing units in Lawrence consisting of 31,388 occupied units and 1,373 vacant units.  The vacancy rate in Lawrence, according to 2000 Census data, is 4% compared to 8% for the state of Kansas.

Figure 9 – 2000 Census Occupied and Vacant Housing Units

Type of Units	2000 Census Percent	2000 Census Total Units
Occupied	96%	31,388
Vacant	4%	1,373
Total	100%	32,761

Based on building permit data, the housing stock has increased in the city as shown in the following chart.  Since the 2000 Census, the housing stock has increased by 4,024 units, for a total of 36,785 housing units.

Figure 10 – Building Permits for New Units thru 2006

Year	Single Family	Duplexes	Triplexes	Fourplexes	Apartment Complexes	Total Units
2001	308	336	6	72	224	946
2002	304	238	6	0	271	819
2003	317	314	6	24	253	914
2004	313	110	0	0	102	525
2005	232	73	3	12	112	432
2006	247	28	6	20	87	388
Total	1721	1099	27	128	1049	4024

High Percentage of Rental Housing

The high percentage of rental housing in Lawrence is a key factor in understanding the city’s housing market. The 2000 Census echoed the findings of the 1990 Census with 54% of units being renter-occupied and 46% being owner-occupied.  The statewide rates are 31% renter-occupied and 69% owner-occupied.  Monitoring the relative health of the rental market in Lawrence is thus important when developing housing strategy.

The 2000 Census found 31,388 occupied units and 1,373 vacant units in Lawrence.  Of the occupied units, 14,393 are owner-occupied and 16,995 are renter-occupied.

Figure 11 – 2000 Census Owner-occupied and Renter-occupied Housing Units

Type of Unit	2000 Census Percent	2000 Census Total Units
Owner-occupied	46%	14,393
Renter-occupied	54%	16,995
Total	100%	31,388

In order to approximate the current number of renter-occupied units compared to owner-occupied units, building permits issued for new units since 2000 must be multiplied by 46% to find the owner-occupied units and 54% to find the renter-occupied units.  The formula does not account for units that have been converted from owner-occupied to renter-occupied since the 2000 Census or for the 1,373 vacant units found at the time of the Census.

Figure 12 – Estimate of Owner-occupied and Renter-occupied Housing Units

Type of Unit	2000 Census Percent	2000 Census Total Units	Units Added Since 2000	New Total
Owner-occupied	46%	14,393	1897	16,290
Renter-occupied	54%	16,995	2127	19,122
Total	100%	31,388	4024	35,412

Fair Market Rents

Rents in Lawrence are among the highest in the state for most bedroom sizes. Each year, HUD determines the fair market rent (FMR).  The FMR is based on 45% of the housing market, so the rents listed below should be sufficient to rent 45% of the units of the listed size including utilities.  Data on other cities is given to provide a comparison.

Figure 13 - 2007 Fair Market Rent Chart Based on HUD data published March 19, 2007

CITY	FMR EFF	FMR 1 BR	FMR 2 BR	FMR 3 BR	FMR 4 BR
Lawrence	499	513	659	962	1,157
KC, MO-KS	518	622	714	966	1,016
Topeka, KS	439	478	585	742	780
Wichita, KS	420	470	618	790	889

The Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority (LDCHA) uses FMRs to determine Section 8 subsidy for rent assistance.  Let’s look at an example.  If an individual finds a three-bedroom apartment to rent at $850, the LDCHA will evaluate the unit to estimate utility costs (gas, electricity & water).  The utility costs will be added to the rent to develop a gross rent.  If utilities for this three-bedroom unit are estimated to be $123, then the gross rent would be $973.  Since the maximum subsidy for a three-bedroom unit is $962, the individual would be responsible for $11 over and above the subsidy.  Additionally, the individual would be responsible for a portion of the rent charged by the owner for the unit based upon a formula used by LDCHA to determine how much of the FMR will be paid by the individual and how much will be paid by LDCHA.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Background

Each year, the City certifies in the Consolidated Plan that it will affirmatively further fair housing as one requirement to receive funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  Consolidated Plan Regulations (24 CFR 91.520(a)) require an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).  In addition to the AI, the City of Lawrence Human Relations/Human Resources Department monitors, records and carries out fair housing activities in the City.

The AI involves:

· A comprehensive review of the City's laws, regulations and administrative policies, procedures, and practices;

· An assessment of how those practices affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing; and

· An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing choice.

Impediments to fair housing choice are:

· Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or

· Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

The purpose of the AI is broad.  It covers the full array of public and private policies, practices, and procedures affecting housing choice.

The AI:

· Serves as the substantive, logical basis for Fair Housing Planning;

· Provides essential and detailed information to all interested parties; and

· Assists in building public support for fair housing efforts.

Conclusions

The City views the Analysis of Impediments as an ongoing process.   The research and discussions compiled here are the foundation of the City's endeavors to affirmatively furthering fair housing.

The AI indicates that Lawrence has avoided systemic impediments to fair housing choice, though affordability remains an important challenge.  City ordinances, regulations, administrative policies, procedures or practices do not tend to impede housing choice.  Lawrence has demonstrated its commitment to fair housing by expanding the protected classes beyond those required by federal law to include sexual orientation as a class protected by ordinance from housing discrimination.

The City believes that continued diligence is important to assure that fair housing remains a priority in the community.  To that end, the city will take the following steps:

• The City will continue to fund the Human Relations/Human Resources Department in order to provide education and resources on fair housing, along with a forum for citizen support in cases of housing discrimination.
• The Human Relations Commission will continue to support fair housing choice through community education activities.
• The Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority will continue to assure racial disbursement in Public Housing.
• The Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority will fund two residential service coordinators to:

- provide services designed specifically to meet the challenges the elderly, disabled or families might encounter which could put their housing at risk; and

- solicit resident participation in planning to assure programs meet residential needs.

• Neighborhood Resources will support fair housing through continued emphasis on affordable housing activities.
• Neighborhood Resources will continue to require grant and loan recipients to certify compliance with fair housing policies.
• Neighborhood Resources will provide support to agencies attempting to better the affordable housing issues in Lawrence.
• Neighborhood Resources will provide support to agencies assisting the homeless.

Target Neighborhoods

The City of Lawrence targets five neighborhoods for housing and neighborhood development activity.  Each of these areas has an active neighborhood association and qualifies to be targeted because of the Median Family Income (MFI) in the neighborhood. In Brook Creek Neighborhood, 65% of the residents are low-moderate income. In East Lawrence Neighborhood, 66% of the residents are low-moderate income.  North Lawrence Neighborhood has 56% of the residents being low-moderate income and Oread Neighborhood, has 78%.  In Pinckney Neighborhood, 61% of the residents are low-moderate income. 

Figure 14 - Map of the City of Lawrence Target Neighborhoods

The proposed uses of funds for the 2007 CDBG allocation includes $35,323 in public service support for neighborhoods to pay for operating expenses. This is 28.4% of the funds that may be used for public service activities ($124,323). East Lawrence will received $2,000 in capital improvement funds to assist with building repairs for the Social Service League building and Ballard Community Center will receive $8,800 for window frame replacements. The total neighborhood support from the 2007 CDBG grant is $46,123, which is 2.9% of the total funds available ($1,572,745).

Brook Creek Neighborhood

MFI means median family income.  In Lawrence, the 2007 MFI for a family of four is $61,500.

$49,200 = 80% MFI

$30,750 = 50% MFI

$18,450 = 30% MFI

In Brook Creek, 65% of the residents are low or moderate income, meaning less than or equal to 80% of MFI.

East Lawrence Neighborhood

MFI means median family income.  In Lawrence, the 2007 MFI for a family of four is $61,500.

$49,200 = 80% MFI

$30,750 = 50% MFI

$18,450 = 30% MFI

In East Lawrence, 66% of the residents are low or moderate income, meaning less than or equal to 80% of MFI.

North Lawrence Neighborhood

MFI means median family income.  In Lawrence, the 2007 MFI for a family of four is $61,500.

$49,200 = 80% MFI

$30,750 = 50% MFI

$18,450 = 30% MFI

In North Lawrence, 56% of the residents are low or moderate income, meaning less than or equal to 80% of MFI.

Oread Neighborhood

MFI means median family income.  In Lawrence, the 2007 MFI for a family of four is $61,500.

$49,200 = 80% MFI

$30,750 = 50% MFI

$18,450 = 30% MFI

In Oread, 78% of the residents are low or moderate income, meaning less than or equal to 80% of MFI.

Pinckney Neighborhood

MFI means median family income.  In Lawrence, the 2007 MFI for a family of four is $61,500.

$49,200 = 80% MFI

$30,750 = 50% MFI

$18,450 = 30% MFI

In Pinckney, 61% of the residents are low or moderate income, meaning less than or equal to 80% of MFI.

Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities

Continuum of Care

Lawrence developed its Continuum of Care strategy in 1993.  Revisions and updates have been made to the strategy as services have changed and needs have shifted.  The Continuum of Care strategy is used to move homeless individuals and/or families from homelessness through necessary supportive services to permanent housing. The lead entity for the CoC planning process is the Practitioners Panel (PP).  This advisory group, staffed by the Neighborhood Resources Department, consists of 27 agencies.  See Continuum of Care Diagram on page 27.

Intake, Outreach, and Assessment

Through the PATH grant, Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center conducts homeless outreach for people who are mentally ill.  Through a new contract with the City of Lawrence, Bert Nash manages an outreach team of four, for the homeless community at-large. Outreach workers go to places frequented by homeless people, establish contact in order to build trust, then offer assessment and services.  The homeless outreach workers can set up case management services for those who qualify or can refer people to other organizations for services.  Besides outreach workers, most agencies that provide for the very-low income and homeless individuals or families are able to provide services or referrals for assistance.  Programs with ongoing case management and continuing care also contribute to prevention services in the community. 

To further assist with homeless prevention and outreach efforts information and education about programs are posted on community bulletin boards in various locations where homeless and at-risk individuals congregate.

Douglas County Aids Project, The Lawrence Community Shelter, The Salvation Army, Emergency Services Council, Housing & Credit Counseling, Inc., Independence, Inc. and Ballard Center are all agencies that do intake, outreach, or assessment and will receive CDBG funding.  See Figures 18,19,20 and 21 on pages 31-32 for details. 

Emergency Shelter

The general homeless population, including families, is able to access nighttime emergency shelter at The Salvation Army upon passing a Breathalyzer test.  The plan for 2007 includes the continuation of a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week shelter that began operations during 2004 as the result of collaboration between The Salvation Army, and the Lawrence Community Shelter. The Community Shelter provides shelter for those who are unable to pass a Breathalyzer test.  They also accept non-intoxicated, single male/female individuals in need of shelter.  The Lawrence Police Department assists with late night emergency admissions to the shelters.  On weekday mornings the Community Shelter provides day shelter and services, with an emphasis on employment, for people experiencing homelessness or who are at-risk of homelessness. The Lawrence Community Shelter and The Salvation Army will receive CDBG support for emergency housing activities.  See Figure 18 on page 31 for details.

Transitional Housing

Service agencies assist homeless individuals with finding housing and supportive services.  Transitional housing is also provided through vouchers funded by HOME funds to the general homeless population.  LDCHA will receive HOME funds for transitional housing vouchers (Tenant Based Rental Assistance).   See Figure 22 on page 32 for details.

Permanent Supportive Housing

Private nonprofit agencies administer 62 units of permanent supportive housing.  The Practitioners Panel estimates the need for another 91 supportive housing units.  The need was based upon waiting lists for permanent supportive housing -- Bert Nash (3), Community Living Opportunities (36), and Cottonwood (37) -- and an estimate of the homeless population in need of permanent supportive housing (15). 

Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority (LDCHA) is currently in the 3^rd year of a $328,928 Continuum of Care Supportive Housing Grant for its permanent supportive housing program, Hope Building.  Hope Building provides housing and support services for up to 10 chronically homeless persons with disabilities.  The LDCHA operates the program with the Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center providing mental health services and DCCCA providing substance abuse services.  As of January 2007, there were two (2) units available and the LDCHA was contacting applicants on the waiting list. During the first two years of the program a total of 26 persons have been housed and 101 have been referred to apply by local shelters.

 Permanent Housing

A total of 1029 permanent housing units are available in the City of Lawrence through the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority (LDCHA) operating Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Low Rent Public Housing, Permanent Supported Housing and Section 8 New Construction.  All HUD funded projects.  It is important to note that all of the voucher and public housing units are full.  Additionally, the combined waiting list of the LDCHA is over 400 families long.  The City of Lawrence Neighborhood Resources Department, Habitat for Humanity, Independence, Inc., and Tenants to Homeowner’s, Inc. will receive HOME funds to assist with permanent housing activities.  See Figure 20 on page 32 for details

 Special Needs of People Who Are Not Homeless

In 2007, Lawrence plans to invest $45,000 to meet the special needs of people who are not homeless. The Independence, Inc., Accessible Housing Program (AHP), which assists with accessibility modifications, will receive $30,000.  The Independence, Inc., Home of Your Own (HOYO) program will receive $15,000.  The HOYO program complements the Housing Trust First-time Homebuyer program by providing additional financial assistance for down payments, accessibility modifications, and rehabilitation for homebuyers with disabilities or with family members that have disabilities. 

Two privately owned projects in Lawrence contracted with HUD to provide Section 8 subsidized housing for low/moderate-income, elderly, or disabled individuals (Prairie Ridge Apartments, and Vermont Towers).  A third project. Clinton Place Apartments, was acquired in December, 2006 by the LDCHA.  That 59 unit facility will be renovated and the units rented to elderly persons.  As of January, 2007 there were 13 vacant units.  Project owners may choose to renew their contracts or opt out of them at the end of their term.  Each of the projects has passed its initial contract expiration date and has chosen to renew with HUD to continue to provide subsidized housing.  If a project owner was to decide to opt out, residents in the building would receive special Section 8 vouchers at the time of conversion, provided they met eligibility requirements.  These special vouchers, called enhanced vouchers, would be administered through the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority and would expire once the holder no longer needed it.  To the best of our knowledge, each of the projects will continue to renew their contracts with HUD on a yearly basis.

Figure 15 - Section 8 Subsidized Housing Projects

Project	Subsidized Units	Contract Expiration
Prairie Ridge	100	November 15, 2009
Vermont Towers	60	August 31, 2010

Activities Taken By the Community to Close Gaps

Supportive Services

The City of Lawrence has over 50 entities that provide supportive services to its citizens.  These include: 

Mental Health Services	Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center, Catholic Social Services, KU Psychological Clinic, KU Student Assistance Center
Substance Abuse Treatment	Alcoholics Anonymous, DCCCA Center, First Step House, Hearthstone, Bert Nash, Haskell Indian Health Center, Lawrence Alano Society
Disability Services	Independence, Inc., Community Living Opportunities, Cottonwood, Families Together, Full Citizenship, The Arc, NEK Handicapped Sports, THRIL, Trinity Respite Care
Child Care Services	Ballard Community Center, Brook Creek Learning Center, Children’s Learning Center
Women and Children Escaping Violence	Women's Transitional Care Services, Inc., GADUGI Safe Center
Medical	Health Care Access, KU Speech and Hearing Clinic, Visiting Nurses Association, Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department, Hospice, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Douglas County Dental Clinic, Haskell Indian Health Center, Heartland Medical Outreach
Education and Training	SRS Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Lawrence Continuing Education, Job Service Center, KU Career Resource Center, Lawrence Workforce Center
Neighborhood Centers	Ballard Community Center, Pelathe Community Resource Center, ECKAN, Penn House
Recreation	Lawrence Arts Center, Lawrence Parks and Recreation, Boys and Girls Club
Laundry & Shower Facilities	Community Building, Lawrence Community Shelter, East Lawrence Recreation Center, Holcom Recreation Center, Salvation Army
Housing	Housing and Credit Counseling, Inc., Lawrence/Douglas County Housing Authority, Tenants to Homeowners Inc., Habitat for Humanity Inc., ARO, Bert Nash 911 House, Pelathe Community Resource Center, Hearthstone
Elder Services	Douglas County Senior Services, Project Lively
Feeding Programs	Meals on Wheels, LINK, Jubilee Cafe, Salvation Army
Legal Services	Kansas Legal Services, Douglas County Legal Aid Society, Inc.
Rent/Utility Assistance	American Red Cross, Ballard Community Center, ECKAN, Penn House, Salvation Army
Cash Assistance	SRS, Social Security
Emergency Shelter	Salvation Army, First Step House, Lawrence Community Shelter, Women's Transitional Care Services, Inc.
Miscellaneous	Emily Taylor Women's Resource Center, Lawrence Public Library, Roger Hill Volunteer Center, Douglas County AIDS Project

2007 Action Plan

Resources

In 2007, the City will receive $828,822 in CDBG funds.  The budget projects $100,000 in program income, which provides total CDBG funding of $928,822.  The HOME grant will have $643,923 and thus, the 2007 Investment Summary lays out spending of $1,572,745, see Figure 1.

Figure 16 - Source of Funds

Source of Funds	Amount
CDBG Grant	828,822
Program Income (Projected)	100,000
Total CDBG Funds	928,822
HOME Grant	643,923
Recaptured HOME Funds	0
HOME ADDI Funds	0
Total HOME Funds	643,923
Total Funds	1,572,745

Additionally, the City of Lawrence applied to the state of Kansas for Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds through a competitive process.  An award announcement is expected in June, 2007. 

Other Resources

United Way of Douglas County and individual social service agency funding continue to address many needs identified in this plan.  United Way usually raises more than a million dollars each year and nearly all the social service agencies raise money through annual campaigns and special events.  CDBG and HOME funds enhance agency stability, increase public confidence and fill one-time needs, thus leveraging additional resources.

HOME Program Match Sources and Uses

The City continues to identify match contributions for the HOME program.  Thus far, match has been obtained from cash from non-federal sources; forgone taxes, fees, and charges; appraised land and real property; and site preparation, construction materials, and donated labor.  The City received a 100% reduction of match liability for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006 as a result of the declaration of a major disaster for Douglas County, Kansas, pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.  This designation is due to the May 2003 tornado and the January 2005 ice storm in Douglas County.  The reduction in match will apply to all HOME funds expended by the City during the 2003 through 2006 Fiscal Years.  The City will continue to accumulate and track match from non-cash resources such as forgone taxes, fees, and charges and in 2007 will begin documenting/expending the 25% match requirement for HOME funds as they are expended.

HOME Program Recapture Provisions

Recapture provisions must ensure that the City recoups all or a portion of the HOME assistance to the homebuyers if the housing does not continue to be the principal residence of the family for the duration of the period of affordability.  Currently, Lawrence uses the reduction during affordability period method. The City reduces the amount to be recaptured at the rate of 5% a year for four years, then 10% a year for three more years. The maximum reduction of the HOME investment is 50%.  The reduction for each year occurs at the completion of the year and is not prorated by the month.  Recapture occurs when the homebuyer ceases to be the owner occupant of the home.

Recapture provisions, as mentioned previously, pertain to the on-going participants in the former HOOT program. Because the existing program is changing to a Housing Trust First Time Homebuyers Program the affordability requirements will be based on resale, rather than recapture, provisions. These provisions will ensure that the housing is made available for subsequent purchase only to a buyer whose family qualifies as a low-income family and will use the property as its principal residence.

Lead-based Paint Hazards

The City will ensure that all federally funded improvement programs for the existing housing stock use lead hazard reduction activities including evaluating lead hazard risk and using only lead free paint.  Staff distributes Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home pamphlets, published by the Environmental Protection Agency.  The department has two staff certified as Lead Hazard Risk Assessors and Inspectors.  They have also received training as Lead Safe Work Practices Instructors.  Staff was instrumental in developing the Kansas Lead-Based Paint PRE (Pre-Renovation Education rule) pilot program with the Kansas Department of Health & Environment.

Monitoring Standards

Neighborhood Resources closely monitors all federal programs.  Administrative procedures will meet all federal rules, regulations, and guidelines for program monitoring, compliance, and reporting.  The staff conducts field inspections and monitors sub-recipients to ensure the compliance of locally administered housing projects.  Neighborhood Resources monitors the Consolidated Plan through the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).

Identified HUD Goals for 2007

Housing: The Neighborhood Resources Department estimates a total of ten (10) comprehensive rehabilitation projects will be completed in program year 2007.  All individuals or families served will be at least 51%-80% of the Median Family Income (MFI), with one individual or family falling in the very-low income category (31%-50% MFI), and one being at 30% MFI or lower.

Non-Housing: The Neighborhood Resources Department will assist two social service providers, Douglas County AIDS Project and Ballard Center.

The City has adopted as its housing and neighborhood development strategy a document entitled Step Up to Better Housing, see Appendix B on page 59.  The strategy focuses on four areas: emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent housing, and revitalized neighborhoods.  Each area will receive attention, though the investment may change annually depending on changing conditions.  Meeting 100% of the identified needs would cost more than can reasonably be expected to be available.

In order to maximize the impact of CDBG and HOME funds, Lawrence will emphasize the Step Up to Better Housing strategy by funding programs that tie directly to the strategy or support the Continuum of Care.  The scarcity of funds and the statutory limits on their use mean that agencies should not depend on CDBG for their core operating funds.

Performance Measures

The Neighborhood Resources Department recently developed a performance measurement system.  The goals, outputs, and outcomes are listed below.

Figure 17 – Goals, Outputs, and Outcomes of the Performance Measurement System       

No.	Goals	Outputs	Outcomes
1	Preserve existing housing stock	Number of homes served by  emergency loan, furnace loan, weatherization and comprehensive rehabilitation programs	Increased percentage of housing units that meet housing code; increased property value
2	Increase the number of low-income persons obtaining homeownership	Number of persons served by HOOT program	Improved quality of life for program participants; increase number of L/M income homeowners in the community; increased property value
3	Increase the accessible housing stock	Number of homes provided accessibility modifications through comprehensive rehabilitation, HOOT, and HOYO programs	Improved quality of life for program participants and provides future options for disabled clients; increased property value
4	10% decrease in the number of chronic homeless persons on the street	Number of persons housed in LDCHA’s Hope Building	Improved quality of life for program participants
5	Provide emergency shelter 24 hours a day, year round	Number of days/hours emergency shelter was available	Decreased loitering and public nuisance complaints
6	Reduction of energy use or costs for L/M income homeowners	Number of homes assisted with energy efficiency programs (furnace and weatherization)	Improved quality of life; increase in discretionary income; increase in value of home; increased property value

The above outputs and outcomes will be tracked through data collection on units completed and individuals served as well as by regular interactions with citizen groups, committees and practitioners.

Planned Spending

Planned spending in 2007 supports Step Up to Better Housing as follows:

Figure 18 - Emergency Shelter Investment

	Activity	Amount
Lawrence Community Shelter	Operating Expenses	23,000
The Salvation Army	Shelter/Feeding Program	30,000
Total		53,000

Figure 19 - Permanent Housing Investment

	Activity	Amount
Douglas County AIDS Project	Emergency Financial Assistance	4,000
Emergency Services Council	Rent & Utility Assistance	20,000
Habitat for Humanity	Land Acquisition	76,000
Housing and Credit Counseling, Inc.	Tenant/Landlord Counseling & Ed.	12,000
Neighborhood Resources	Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation	400,000
	First Time Homebuyer/Rehabilitation	100,000
	Weatherization Grants	40,000
	Furnace and Emergency Loans	35,000
	First Time Homebuyer Assistance	156,335
Independence, Inc.	Accessible Housing Program (AHP)	30,000
	Home of Your Own Program (HOYO)	15,000
Tenants to Homeowners	CHDO Set-Aside	100,000
Total		988,335

Figure 20 - Revitalized Neighborhoods Investment

	Activity	Amount
Brook Creek Neighborhood Assn.	Operating Expenses	6,012
East Lawrence Neighborhood Assn.	Operating Expenses	5,863
	Social Service League Building Repair	2,000
North Lawrence Improvement Assn.	Operating Expenses	4,130
	Ballard Center Window Frame Replacement	8,800
Oread Neighborhood Association	Operating Expenses	12,231
Pinckney Neighborhood Association	Operating Expenses	7,087
Total		46,123

Figure 21 - Transitional Housing Investment

	Activity	Amount
Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority (LDCHA)	Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)	200,000
Total		200,000

Figure 22 - Other Investment

	Activity	Amount
Neighborhood Resources Community Development Division (NR CDD)	Contingency Fund	0
	Administration (CDBG & HOME)	211,587
LDCHA	TBRA Administration	18,569
Tenants to Homeowners	CHDO Operating Expenses	32,169
Total		262,325

The Listing of Proposed Projects on page 44 provides additional information on each activity. 

RESOLUTION NO.____________

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AGREEMENTS FOR THE 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND 2007 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS, UNDERSTANDINGS, AND ASSURANCES AS MAY BE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED, AND THE NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT OF 1990. 

WHEREAS, the City of Lawrence, Kansas is entitled to certain funds under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990; and

WHEREAS, it is required that grant agreements for the 2007 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the 2007 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) be executed; and

WHEREAS, it is required that an Annual Update to the Consolidated Plan for the 2007 program year be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and

WHEREAS, it is required that certain other documents, understandings, and assurances be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF

LAWRENCE, KANSAS:

That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the grant agreements for the 2007 CDBG and HOME programs and to sign certain other documents, understandings, and assurances required to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, including but not limited to the following:

a. Consolidated Plan Annual Update

b. CDBG and HOME Grant Applications

c.   CDBG and HOME Environmental Reviews

d.   Consolidate Annual Performance and Evaluation Report

all in accordance with Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990.

ADOPTED by the Governing Body of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, this 24^th day of April, 2007.

APPROVED:                                                                           ATTEST:

____________________________                                        ________________________

Sue Hack, Mayor                                                                     Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CERTIFICATIONS

In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that:

Affirmatively Further Fair Housing -- The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard.

Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan -- It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs.

Drug Free Workplace -- It will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by:

1.         Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;

2.         Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about -

(a)        The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;

(b)        The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;

(c)        Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and

(d)        The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace;

3.         Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 1;

4.         Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will -

(a)        Abide by the terms of the statement; and

(b)        Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction;

Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction.  Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices.  Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant;

6.         Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted -

(a)        Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or

Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;

7.         Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Anti-Lobbying -- To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief:

1.         No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;

2.         If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and

3.         It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti-lobbying certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

Discharge Planning – The jurisdiction has verified that publicly funded institutions (such as health care facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, or correction programs and institutions) have discharge policies are in place in order to prevent such discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for such persons.

Authority of Jurisdiction -- The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations.

Consistency with plan -- The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan.

Section 3 -- It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135.

___________________________________                              04/24/07   

Sue Hack, Mayor, City of Lawrence                                  Date

Specific CDBG Certifications

The Entitlement Community certifies that:

Citizen Participation -- It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105.

Community Development Plan -- Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term and long-term community development objectives that provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24 570.2 and CFR 24 part 570)

Following a Plan -- It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD.

Use of Funds -- It has complied with the following criteria:

1.         Maximum Feasible Priority.  With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available);

2.         Overall Benefit.  The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program year 2006, one (a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period;

3.         Special Assessments.  It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements.

However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds.

The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment.

Excessive Force -- It has adopted and is enforcing:

1.         A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and

2.         A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction;

Compliance With Anti-discrimination laws -- The grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-3619), and implementing regulations.

Lead-Based Paint -- Its notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR §570.608;

Compliance with Laws -- It will comply with applicable laws.

___________________________________                              04/24/07   

Sue Hack, Mayor, City of Lawrence                                  Date

Specific HOME Certifications

The HOME participating jurisdiction certifies that:

Tenant Based Rental Assistance -- If the participating jurisdiction intends to provide tenant-based rental assistance:

The use of HOME funds for tenant-based rental assistance is an essential element of the participating jurisdiction's consolidated plan for expanding the supply, affordability, and availability of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing.

Eligible Activities and Costs -- it is using and will use HOME funds for eligible activities and costs, as described in 24 CFR § 92.205 through 92.209 and that it is not using and will not use HOME funds for prohibited activities, as described in § 92.214.

Appropriate Financial Assistance -- before committing any funds to a project, it will evaluate the project in accordance with the guidelines that it adopts for this purpose and will not invest any more HOME funds in combination with other Federal assistance than is necessary to provide affordable housing;

___________________________________                              04/24/07   

Sue Hack, Mayor, City of Lawrence                                  Date

APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS:

A.         Lobbying Certification

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into.  Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 

B.         Drug-Free Workplace Certification

1.         By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the grantee is providing the certification.

2.         The certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when the agency awards the grant.  If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, HUD, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.

3.         Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification.  If known, they may be identified in the grant application.  If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of application, or upon award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on file in its office and make the information available for Federal inspection.  Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements.

4.         Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the grant takes place.  Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio stations).

5.         If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee shall inform the agency of the change(s), if it previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph three).

6.         The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant:

Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code)

1Riverfront Plaza, Suite 110

Lawrence

Douglas

Kansas  66044

Check  if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here.

The certification with regard to the drug‑free workplace is required by 24 CFR part 24, subpart F.

7.          Definitions of terms in the Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to this certification.  Grantees' attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from these rules:

"Controlled substance" means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR

1308.11 through 1308.15);

"Conviction" means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes;

"Criminal drug statute" means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance;

"Employee" means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: (i) All "direct charge" employees; (ii) all "indirect charge" employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and (iii) temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are on the grantee's payroll.  This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll; or employees  of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).

Listing of Proposed Projects

		Table 2A Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:			Source of Data:			Data Current as of:
Lawrence(CDBG), Kansas			CHAS Data Book			2000
	Renters					Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem	Elderly	Small Related	Large Related	All	Total	Elderly	Small Related	Large Related	All	Total	Total
	1 & 2	(2 to 4)	(5 or more)	Other	Renters	1 & 2	(2 to 4)	(5 or more)	Other	Owners	Households
	member			Households		member			Households
	households					households
	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)	(G)	(H)	(I)	(J)	(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI	598	1,688	101	6,029	8,416	590	469	79	511	1,649	10,065
2. Household Income <=30% MFI	358	863	29	3,796	5,046	236	165	15	256	672	5,718
3. % with any housing problems	69.6	82.3	100	86.8	84.9	64.8	90.9	0	68.8	71.3	83.3
4. % Cost Burden >30%	69.6	81.1	100	86.4	84.4	64.8	90.9	0	68.8	71.3	82.8
5. % Cost Burden >50%	57	73.9	100	75.5	74	53	80	0	55.5	59.4	72.3
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI	240	825	72	2,233	3,370	354	304	64	255	977	4,347
7. % with any housing problems	55	68.1	94.4	71.3	69.9	35.6	75	84.4	59.6	57.3	67.1
8. % Cost Burden >30%	55	63.5	68.1	68.4	66.3	32.8	75	68.8	59.6	55.3	63.8
9. % Cost Burden >50%	22.5	15.5	13.9	16.3	16.5	19.2	39.1	31.3	32.9	29.8	19.5
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI	251	1,073	160	2,598	4,082	621	793	249	478	2,141	6,223
11. % with any housing problems	35.1	26.1	38.8	31.7	30.7	18.2	42.2	40.6	46	35.9	32.5
12.% Cost Burden >30%	35.1	22.6	15	29.2	27.3	15.9	41	29.3	46	33.5	29.4
13. % Cost Burden >50%	7.6	0.9	0	1.1	1.4	5.6	4.8	0	8.4	5.3	2.7
14. Household Income >80% MFI	281	1,776	178	2,262	4,497	1,886	6,362	816	1,527	10,591	15,088
15. % with any housing problems	17.4	7.4	36.5	4.2	7.6	3.8	6.8	15.4	12	7.7	7.7
16.% Cost Burden >30%	17.4	1.4	11.2	2.6	3.4	3.8	6.3	11.3	11.5	7	5.9
17. % Cost Burden >50%	8.9	0	0	0	0.6	0.2	0.3	0	0.3	0.2	0.3
18. Total Households	1,130	4,537	439	10,889	16,995	3,097	7,624	1,144	2,516	14,381	31,376
19. % with any housing problems	45.8	37.1	51	53.3	48.4	15	15	24.6	29.1	18.2	34.6
20. % Cost Burden >30	45.8	32.8	27.8	51.7	45.6	14.2	14.5	18.3	28.7	17.2	32.6
21. % Cost Burden >50	26.7	17.1	8.9	29.9	25.7	7.5	4	1.7	10.7	5.8	16.6

             Appendix A – HUD Tables and Charts

Table 2B - Community Needs
Anti-Crime Programs
				Need Level			Units			Estimated $
	Overall			M			0			500000
Sub-Categories
	Crime Awareness (051)			M			0			500000
Economic Development
				Need Level			Units			Estimated $
	Overall			M			0			454000
Sub-Categories
	Rehab; Publicity or Privately-Owned Commer (14E)			L			0			20000
	CI Land Acquisition/Disposition (17A)			N			0			0
	CI Infrastructure Development (17B)			M			0			100000
	CI Building Acquisition, Construction, Re (17C)			N			0			0
	Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements (17D)			L			0			20000
	ED Direst Financial Assistance to For-Pro (18A)			N			0			0
	Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)			M			0			284000
Infrastructure
					Need Level			Units			Estimated $
		Overall			H			0			26217000
Sub-Categories
		Flood Drain Improvements (031)			H			0			3688000
		Water/Sewer Improvements (03J)			H			0			12861000
		Street Improvements (03K)			H			0			9018000
		Sidewalks (03L)			H			0			200000
		Tree Planting (03N)			M			0			250000
		Removal of Architectural Barriers (10)			M			0			200000
		Privately Owned Utilities (11)			N			0			0
Planning and Administrations
						Need Level			Units		Estimated $
			Overall			H			0		4780000
Sub-Categories
			HOME Admin/Planning Costs of PJ (not part (19A)						0		0
			Planning (20)			H			0		3100000
			General Program Administration (21A)			H			0		1000000
			Indirect Costs (21B)						0		0
			Public Information (21C)			H			0		100000
			Fair Housing Activities (subject to 20% A (21D)			H			0		100000
			Submissions of Applications for Federal P (21E)			H			0		20000
			HOME Admin/Planning Costs of PJ (subject (21H)			M			0		300000
			HOME CHDO Operation Expenses (subject to (21I)			H			0		160000

Public Facilities
		Need Level	Units	Estimated $
	Overall	H	0	21422500
Sub-Categories
	Public Facilities and Improvements (Gener (03)	H	0	7724500
	Handicapped Centers (03B)	H	0	3000000
	Neighborhood Facilities (03F)	L	0	200000
	Parks, Recreational Facilities (03F)	M	0	778000
	Parking Facilities (03G)	H	0	2000000
	Solid Waste Disposal Improvements (03H)	M	0	500000
	Fire Stations/Equipment (03R)	H	0	1000000
	Health Facilities (03P)	H	0	5000000
	Asbestos Removal (03R)	H	0	400000
	Clean-up of Contaminated Sites (04A)	L	0	800000
	Interim Assistance (06)	N	0	0
	Non-Residential Historic Preservation (16B)	M	0	20000

Public Services
		Need Level	Units	Estimated $
	Overall	H	0	20325000
Sub-Categories
	Public Services (General  (05)	N	0	0
	Handicapped Services (05B)	H	0	4000000
	Legal Services (05C)	H	0	100000
	Transportation Services (05E)	M	0	200000
	Substance Abuse Service (05F)	H	0	8000000
	Employment Training (05H)	M	0	1000000
	Health Service (05M)	H	0	2000000
	Mental Health Service (05O)	H	0	5000000
	Screening for Lead-Based Paint/Lead Hazar (05P)	M	0	25000

Senior Programs
		Need Level	Units	Estimated $
	Overall	H	0	3075000
Sub-Categories
	Senior Centers (03a)	M	0	75000
	Senior Services (05A)	H	0	3000000

Youth Programs
		Need Level	Units	Estimated $
	Overall	H	0	3150000
Sub-Categories
	Youth Centers (03D)	H	0	50000
	Child Care Centers (03M)	H	0	100000
	Abused and Neglected Children Facilities (03Q)	N	0	0
	Youth Services (05L)	H	0	1000000
	Child Care Services (05L)	H	0	2000000
	Abused and Neglected Children (05N)	N	0	0

Other
		Need Level	Units	Estimated $
	Overall	N	0	0
Sub-Categories
	Urban Renewal Completion (07)	N	0	0
	CDBG Non-profit Organization Capacity (19C)	N	0	0
	CDBG Assistance to Institutes of Higher E (19F)	N	0	0
	Repayments of Section 108 Loan Principal (19F)	N	0	0
	Un-programmed Funds (22)	N	0	0

Appendix B – Step Up To Better Housing Strategy

Developed for the City Commission and the Citizens of Lawrence     with input from the

Neighborhood Resources            Advisory Committee

Practitioners Panel

and

Community Development Block Grant Review Board

Staffed by the Department of Neighborhood Resources

Step Up to Better Housing

Background

In August 1996, the four groups who advised the City on housing policy (Housing Advisory Council, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Advisory Committee, Practitioners Panel, and Community Development Block Grant Review Board) met jointly with City staff to develop consensus goals and priorities.  The groups recommended that the City adopt goals and make spending decisions based on the theme of helping each citizen of Lawrence Step Up to Better Housing.  Four categories of needs emerged:  emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent housing and revitalized neighborhoods.

The groups believed that all citizens would benefit from a coordinated approach to housing.  The potential gains include enhanced property values, stronger, safer neighborhoods and economic development resulting from investment.  In the interim, the four groups have become three, (Housing Advisory Council and CDBG Advisory Committee were combined to form the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee (f/k/a HAND Advisory Committee)), and they still make recommendations within this framework.  The Strategy, used to frame Lawrence housing policies, is reviewed each year by the City Commission and is included in the Annual Update of the Consolidated Plan.

Lawrence City Commission

Mike Rundle, Mayor

Sue Hack, Vice Mayor

David Dunfield

Jim Henry

Marty Kennedy

Neighborhood Resources                                   Advisory Committee

Practitioners Panel

Community Development Block Grant              Review Board

Department of Neighborhood Resources

The eleven member Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee develops and proposes funding strategies and policies, and reviews Housing Code and Environmental Code appeals.  In addition, they make recommendations to the City Commission on the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds.

The twenty-seven member Panel shares information on housing/homeless programs, services, and needs, and makes recommendations to the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee for carrying out strategy.

The GRB reviews and acts on housing rehabilitation requests, including hearing appeals.  The GRB has seven members.

Staff works closely with the above three advisory groups, both as members and as resources to the groups.  For additional information, please call 832-3108.

Appendix C – Census Tracts

1990 Census Tracts

2000 Census Tracts

Appendix D – Notice of Public Hearing

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE

CITY OF LAWRENCE

2007 ACTION PLAN

of the

2003 – 2007 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

Members of the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee will conduct a public hearing on the 2007 Action Plan of the 2003-2007 Consolidated Plan, including the 2007 Investment Summary, on Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Commission Room, First Floor, City Hall, 6 East 6 ^th Street. 

During the public hearing the Advisory Committee will seek input regarding the 2007 Action Plan and 2007 Investment Summary.  The Action Plan and Consolidated Plan is required by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and is the result of a collaborative process whereby a community establishes a unified vision for community development using federal, state, and local funds. 

The annual hearing is intended to provide the following:

1. An explanation and discussion of the City's one year Action Plan and the Consolidated Plan.  The Consolidated Plan provides a unified vision for community development.  More specifically, it examines the housing needs of special populations, the availability of affordable housing, the condition of housing in the City, and the housing market.  Additionally, the Plan examines the needs for infrastructure, capital improvements, and neighborhood development in the community.  The Plan is a five-year strategy and includes a one-year Investment Summary.

2. An opportunity to make public comments concerning the Consolidated Plan and Investment Summary. 

Copies of the draft Action Plan and/or Investment Summary will be available April 2, 2007 in the Neighborhood Resources Department Office, 1 Riverfront Plaza, Level 1, or by calling 832-3108.  The plan will also be available on the department web site at www.lawrenceneighres.org.  The public comment period for the Plan will be thirty (30) days from the date of the public hearing, until May 14, 2006. 

The City encourages written comments on this document.  They may be mailed to Neighborhood Resources Development, P.O. Box 708, Lawrence, KS  66044, or brought to the Department, 1 Riverfront Plaza, Level 1, or emailed to mswarts@ci.lawrence.ks.us.

2007 Investment Summary follows:

Appendix E – Public Comment

PUBLIC COMMENT

PUBLIC HEARING

CITIZEN’S COMMENTS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME) 2007 ACTION PLAN to the CONSOLIDATED PLAN

I. April 12, 2007

Members, Staff and public introduced themselves.

Randolph said there were some changes made this year during the allocations process. Neighborhoods were considered more objectively based on population, percent of owner-occupants, and percent of low-mod residents. Moreover, neighborhood funding was made in a lump sum so that neighborhoods can decide what they want to do with the funds.

Staff gave a brief overview of the 2007 Action Plan.

Randolph opened public comment.

Janet Good, ELNA, commented on the sidewalk repair project that was not funded. It did not seem worthwhile for the amount of money requested but they put a lot of thought into dual problems they are facing in their neighborhood. She passed out some photos of sidewalk repair projects in the neighborhood. They take the pedestrian environment seriously. East Lawrence (EL) has the worst sidewalks in town and a large number of rentals and landlords are not fixing their sidewalks. The other problem that has been increasing in the neighborhood is vandalism – they have done outreach with the junior high and they were excited to try to give kids a sense of investment. EL has been characterized as a crime-ridden ghetto and this rubs off on youth – this project would show them that EL is a really cool neighborhood that people care about it. They will put it on the request every year and the neighborhood is going to keep looking for ways to reach out to kids.

Norwood said she can see where it would be a benefit to have them repaired for elderly and children. She used to live in EL and the sidewalks there are a real hazard.

Good said they have 100 year old brick sidewalks that are in great shape. Others that have not been installed or maintained properly deteriorate very quickly. EL is trying to be creative and work together to solve their problems.

KT Walsh, ELNA, added to what Good said – the project involves two skilled stone masons, non-profit coordinators - it is a great project. She asked if 2005 census numbers were automatically inserted because EL is bigger than she thought. She felt strongly about coordinators making a living wage and she understands how the lump sum could work. She asked how the committee felt about a living wage for coordinators.

Randolph said the discussion centered more on disparity among neighborhoods. When they decided to not break salaries out separately the discussion kind of left the living wage discussion. The Committee will consider if a cap should be put in place for salaries.

James Dunn, ONA, clarified that the allocation for neighborhoods can be expended based on how neighborhoods see fit.

Staff said as long as the activity is eligible and as long as it has been mentioned in the application, they can do it. Swarts wants to ask the Committee what they think in terms of limits as far as operating/coordinator/cleanup – within guidelines staff will ask NAs what they plan to do with the funds. If a NA decides they want to do something different from what was stated in the application, staff will decide whether to bring the change back to the Committee or whether it can be approved by staff.

Dunn said the Investment Summary includes a contingency amount that seems a bit high.

Randolph said Habitat for Humanity made a request for roughly that amount for water development fees. The Committee and Habitat has asked of the CC that those fees be waived by the City. The Committee wants to hold the funds in contingency until they know the status of the request.

Dunn pointed out that there was an error with the ONA boundaries.

Walsh said a lot of people have asked why ONA is getting so much this year. Some have said that with only 9% owner-occupied, are we using some CDBG funds to help landlords? It would help to know.

Roussel said it looks like a lot there because allocations have been combined. When comparing the total amount with past allocations it is not a significant change. When the Committee looked at neighborhoods the first thing they did was look at total number of households because they felt communication between the NA and households will have an impact on expenses. The Committee then took into account the percentage of owner-occupants and percent of low-mod residents.

Walsh asked if they were considering adding percentage of blight to the equation.

Randolph said if they were able to quantify blight they would be considering adding it to the equation.

Walsh said a lot of students are poor and they are being counted as low-income in Oread.

Francisco said if you look at the population, there is a local requirement that we deliver a newsletter to every household in the neighborhood. That cost in a larger neighborhood is substantially more. She is interested in looking at the blight question to make sure it is being addressed. The problem with rentals is that ONA faces more rezoning questions than other neighborhoods because they have multi-family zoning – it is difficult. It is more awkward for homeowners that are there because the population keeps changing and it is harder to communicate with neighbors if they are so transient. Adding blight would be a good thing to do.

Walsh thanked the Committee for answering questions and said she likes the idea of adding in blight.

Tammy Kahle, HCCI, thanked the Committee for working hard on the budget.

Randolph closed the PH and reconvened the regular Committee meeting at 6:35 p.m.

WRITTEN COMMENT

Steven C. Watts

1649 Edgehill Rd., Lawrence, KS  66044-4193

Thursday, April 05, 2007

City of Lawrence

Neighborhood Resources Development

Mr. Victor Torres, Director

P.O. Box 708

Lawrence, KS  66044

Dear Mr. Torres,

RE:  2007 Investment Summary

Please accept this letter as requested feedback relative to the proposed budget for the Neighborhood Department with respect to “Block Grant” monies and the 2003-2007 Consolidated Plan.  I was prevented from attending the April 12, 2007 meeting.

I have many times volunteered to be a member of the NRAC.  I have never been appointed and have been insulted by the likes of past commissioner Dunfield who dared to suggest I was “dismissive” as he dismissed my desire to participate in how our City’s future might be sculpted.

The CDBG monies are better and best spent at this point in time on owner occupied dwellings and their respective neighborhoods; all of which need to be in the core inner city of Lawrence.  I embrace the concept that the rebuilding of the infrastructure of the core inner city of Lawrence is not hand in glove the same as the social programs so badly needed as well.  There is only so much money to go around any more and that money needs to be “earmarked” for the “little guy”.   The "little guy" in this matter is the Joe and Jane who have worked their entire lives and need assistance keeping the family home the family home without getting even more deeply in debt than "Joe/Jane" already are.

Let the social service groups re-radicalize themselves and get off the suckling breast of government; let them understand that the sell out that occurred 30 years ago and longer and which they embraced, in essence, must be reversed in order to facilitate the more "kinder and gentler" Nation envisioned by what's his name.  Anymore, the social service groups included in the 2007 Investment summary have come to depend upon funding by the City of Lawrence rather than by their supporters and benefactors.

Look at the "salaries" the “administrators” receive and take to the bank on their way out of the inner city and to their home(s); next, take a look at the "others” involved in social service programming decision making and their salaries as well as the people they hire to do their bidding(s).  Notice any similarities?   I do. 

Yes, there are a couple of good organizations out there that will suffer if and when the City of Lawrence modifies it’s focus to assist first and foremost the low to moderate home owner occupant.  It is not an easy or a simple decision.  However, the pain we will experience might just be the kick in the backside we've been needing well over 30 years so we can get the train back on the tracks, moving, and heading in forward direction again.  We've been stuck in a "We've always done it this way" mode for far, far too long.   The fragrance of complacency and brown nosing is all too prevalent around here.  It's "make nice" City.  The bulk that will "suffer" have needed to find a better way to do business for many, many years in my view.

Neighborhood Associations within the City of Lawrence have made a mockery out of the concept of neighborhood organization.  No one within governmental circles has clue one how many actual members really exist in a single “Neighborhood Association” identified by the City of Lawrence and receiving funds from same.

It is absurd that the City of Lawrence does not require a specific, quantifiable membership number before it identifies a social group as something as important as a “Neighborhood Association”.

And that is what the bulk of these so-called “Associations” are: Social Groups.   The City allocates funds to these groups and yet has, again, no clue how many people these groups represent.

The CDBG target neighborhoods of Lawrence have been receiving monies for thirty years and then some and yet blight, favoritism, and core infrastructure problems have not improved; to the contrary, they’ve grown.  It is ridiculous that the Associations are allocated monies for “administrative” purposes.  Coordinators need to be committed to the neighborhood and as such unpaid with City monies.  If the neighborhood wants to pay someone money for some task, let them generate the money from the neighborhood or the larger associations of neighborhoods.

The “neighborhood associations” act with impunity and arrogance at this point in the road in my personal experience.  My home at 1649 Edgehill Road was briefly a part of the Oread Neighborhood Association.  I was active in that association in a way I can be: via phone, fax, and email.  The ONA “leaders” did not like the issues I brought to the table.  The ONA “leaders” did not like that I pointed out to them that they could not conduct official business if they were not going to follow the By-Laws (they typically failed to have a quorum present as an example during Board of Directors’ meetings); the ONA “leaders” did not like my “style” or simply put, me.  What was their response?  They surgically removed Edgehill Road from the “boundaries” of what they were claiming the ONA to be!  While I brought this fact to the attention of your department, you noted there was nothing you could do about it.

On April 2, 2007 I sent an email to the “leaders” of the five target neighborhoods requesting they provide me with a membership count.  I received but one cogent response.  That response was from the Pinckney Neighborhood Association and that response noted:

“The Pinckney Neighborhood Association does not collect mandatory dues. Our by-laws state that anyone who lives in or owns property in the neighborhood is a member.”

I also requested data from LAN or the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods.  That organization has yet to respond to my civil request for data.

It is my assertion that these groups are nothing more than that: GROUPS.  They’re SOCIAL GROUPS that have a pecking order and an “Animal Farm”ish way of existing.  They do not represent neighborhoods.  How can they when they haven’t a clue how many members they have or, like Pinckney simply say anyone who lives in the arbitrarily assigned boundaries are “members”.  Really?  How many people attend their meetings?  Is it the same nine or fifteen people over and over and over?  How can the City of Lawrence respect such a gaggle as an official Association who speak for anyone?

The time has come that the City of Lawrence re-define how and what a Neighborhood Association really is.  The time has come that the City of Lawrence DEFUND administrative costs to these social groups.  It is imperative that the City of Lawrence compel a group to demonstrate that they have specific, quantifiable number of members in order to be recognized as an official Neighborhood Association.  The group is allowed to define its boundaries.  Fine.  The City in turns needs to respond “Ok, you’ve identified an area that has 6,000 people living within the identified boundary.  Please demonstrate that you have 60 active members.”  (That’s but 1% of 6,000 and is a ridiculously low number to meet any standard of representative democracy).

The 2007 Investment Summary totals some $1,572,745.00.  The allocations speak loudly to the hegemony a small group of “active” people possess.  $35,323.00 administrative costs for the five target neighborhoods?

Why do these groups need that money if they’re really invested in their neighborhoods?  That money is better spent on ten or twelve heating systems for low-income homeowners.

$124,323.00 for social service programs?  The same social service programs that have been getting money from the City for years, I might add.  Nice, but too expensive.  The Housing and Credit Counseling group is darn laughable.  Again, that’s $124,323.00 that could be spent to help low to moderate income home owners repair and otherwise make livable the homes they have worked hard for and are working even harder to hold on to them as their property taxes rise year after year after year.

The $575,000.00 allocated for the Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation, LCLHT First Time Homebuyer/Rehab, Weatherization, and Furnace Loans make sense and are where the bulk of all the monies need to go.

$8,800.00 for window frame replacement at Ballard Community Center is a dollar amount that could be generated by the facility itself.  The $2,000.00 for “Social Service League Building Repair” is misspent.  That $2,000.00 could be better utilized by some senior citizen that may own a home, but it’s in disrepair.  $30,000.00 for Independence, Inc.?  The state of Kansas needs to step up and provide those monies for that program.  The City of Lawrence isn’t chartered to do that.

You will notice, please, that I have not commented on the NR CDD Administration of CDBG.  I have also not commented on what is being referred to as the “HOME” program.  I support the idea of the City assisting income eligible people in purchasing a home, but when we as a City confront the rotting of the core inner city infrastructure, I don’t know that we need to be focusing on “the future” with that money.

Recapitulating:  The so called Neighborhood Associations are improperly being allowed input into the decision making of how City monies are being allocated and spent.  The City does not and cannot state how many members make up these groups and it is my assertion these “Associations” are in fact social groups/clubs which do not represent much of anything.  Their time has come and gone and we as a community need to find a more democratic methodology in obtaining input from the citizenry.  My personal experience with the Oread Neighborhood Association and the deference which the Lawrence City Commission chose to show certain specific members was and is sufficient for me to understand how the decision making was and is going on.  The City MUST force accountability from any entity it allocates money to and it must make certain said entities are legitimate and do what they say they’re going to do.  Small groups of professional meeting attenders do not make up a Neighborhood Association.   To the contrary, they mock neighborhood organization.

Cordially,

Steven C. Watts

---

^[1] The Continuum of Care is a community plan to organize and deliver housing and services to meet the specific needs of people who are homeless as they move to stable housing and maximum self-sufficiency.  It includes actions steps to end homelessness and prevent a return to homelessness.