May 10, 2007 Minutes (Neighborhood Resources Department)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Jeanette Collier, Curtis Harris, Greg Moore, Carol Nalbandian, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Kirsten Roussel, Mike Randolph |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
marci francisco, Susan Mangan, Patti Welty |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Brian Jimenez, Lesley Rigney, Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
|
Randolph called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
Approval of April 12, 2007 Minutes
Harris moved to approve the April 12, 2007 minutes. Moore seconded the motion, which passed.
New Property Maintenance Code
Jimenez said the NRAC is in charge of housing code appeals. Currently the housing and environmental codes are separate but in the future there will likely be a new code in place that incorporates both. The International Property Maintenance Code should be adopted in some form in September. He may recommend deleting the exterior section of the IPMC and keeping the current Environmental Code. There are benefits to the codes we have but there is also a potential benefit to just having one code. Most cities have moved to this code. This is a new edition. The good thing about the I-codes is that there is a residential code that ties to this one. The residential code will be adopted with fire, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and this one. He will come back to present the draft ordinance once it is ready and committee members can refer suggestions and/or requests to him.
Randolph said this will need to be understood by Committee members in the case of an appeal.
Nalbandian asked for an example.
Swarts said a recent appeal was heard by the Committee when a house needed exterior paint. The property owner was appealing that he could not paint the house and that it shouldn’t be a blighting condition. Another example is if someone is cited for having an apartment in a basement without adequate egress – they may come in and ask for variance on window size and the Committee will need to determine whether they can receive variance or not. There is more judgment on the environmental side.
Jimenez said in the event of a hearing, staff will always be present and will provide a report and answer any questions.
Performance Measures
Randolph said the City Commission (CC) liked the objectivity of the neighborhood allocation formula, but Amyx and Highberger expressed a concern regarding the rental weighting.
Swarts said there was a misunderstanding with Highberger and Ted Boyle that she has cleared up. She does not think there is a concern in NL anymore. They were thinking that the formula only took into account the rental rates.
Randolph said Amyx was afraid that neighborhoods with higher owner rates were being penalized. He may also not have understood that it is the resident’s income that is taken into account, not the landlord’s.
Roussel said we could always just look at strictly numbers. We tried to say that NAs trying to function effectively in high rental neighborhoods face different types of issues, but that is always something we could tweak. The bulk of the formula was based on the number of households.
Randolph said it will be a good SS topic. We can also talk about blight, caps for coordinators – overall they like what we have done.
Swarts said one thing that might help will be to talk about performance measures. It will also help to make it clear that it is only in terms of operating expenses and coordinators – the overall funding is not impacted by the renter-owner rates. If the CC decides it is not acceptable, the formula can be based on population only.
Nalbandian asked if there were any discussions about NA concerns in general.
Swarts said that did not come up this year.
Randolph said Walsh stood up and said that neighborhoods had more flexibility under the new method.
Swarts said that segues into performance measures.
Staff handed out information about performance measures.
Randolph said that the highlighted information would be a good start.
There was a brief discussion about relevant measures.
Nalbandian gave some examples: housing rehabs, graffiti removed, units remediated from lead, infill homes completed – these are good blight measures. Another is how many code cases closed.
Swarts said the Department gathers a lot of that information already. Staff is looking at how to measure the value of what NAs are doing with CDBG funds. It is conceivable that if you have a good way of dealing with graffiti removal you can track the amount of time that it takes to remove it, but that has nothing to do with a NA. The Committee has to figure out what NAs are to accomplish and what measures will be relevant.
Norwood said the last three will be an excellent starting point.
Randolph said that if the Committee asks NAs to provide the information the Committee needs to use it and there is some cause and effect implied. He doesn’t want to place a huge burden on NAs and suggested starting with a core and building upon that.
Nalbandian said the last three are output measures and we would be assuming that there was a positive outcome. We then have to use them in decisions. It needs to become part of the formula.
Roussel said there are a couple of things neighborhoods are doing well such as the neighbor helping neighbor network in East Lawrence. If NAs are doing these types of things that would be much more outcome-related and that needs to be captured. The other thing was the slum and blight effort in Oread and they tracked and reported their success.
Harris asked if neighborhoods have their own goals and are we looking for ways to measure the neighborhoods’ goals, or do we have goals for associations.
Roussel said her neighborhood has a goal statement that is very generic – something about supporting improvement in the neighborhood, etc.
Norwood said different neighborhoods can have different goals and we need something that we can use for every neighborhood.
Harris said the United Way uses outcome based measurements and each organization sets their own measurements.
Norwood said even if they did set their own goals within these three parameters we would have neighborhoods say they could achieve different goals. They could provide their measuring stick – we will still be using some consistent measures.
Nalbandian said if a neighborhood is allocated a pool of money and if they decide to put 50% of funds into blight reduction and not do any newsletters or cleanups, could they do that? Maybe we should ask them what they want to be measured on. We should be encouraging efficiency and initiative.
It was suggested that perhaps a better measure are participation numbers.
Randolph suggested just jumping in and choosing a good base and then other things will become clear as time goes on.
Moore said the Committee needs to step back and realize that neighborhoods are not getting much money. He suggested choosing one or two.
Randolph agreed. When agencies are asked to provide outcome measures they usually have trained staff.
Nalbandian asked what are typical things – meetings, cleanups, parties, monitoring development, and dealing with blight? We could ask for numbers in attendance at meetings and events, partnerships and special programs – it is giving them credit for what they are doing. Maybe then really good programs could be duplicated in other neighborhoods.
Randolph wants to take the first two and the last three as a base – for the next discussion.
Roussel said not to consider the first two. The first two of last three have greater importance, but partnerships and special programs could be added.
Swarts said one thing about asking for number of newsletters is they will pay attention to it.
Nalbandian asked if we want to highlight newsletters or the number of participants at the meetings – then the NA can figure out how to get people there.
Swarts read from the Citizen Participation Plan the notification requirement – it is flexible. If the Committee thinks a newsletter is important, maybe they will decide it isn’t a measure that they care about.
Randolph said that as far as getting information out, newsletters are more important than meetings. He advised the group to stick with the last three for the next discussion.
NA Allocations
Randolph said the Committee told the CC that they would be discussing caps for salaries.
Staff provided a spreadsheet of coordinator salaries showing current amounts between 55 and 60% of the total allocation.
Nalbandian asked why the Committee want to cap salaries. It feels a bit paternalistic.
Swarts said NA’s do not have to spend the full amount on salaries, but she is afraid if they don’t cap it NAs will pay coordinators and nothing else will happen.
Nalbandian said the measures are supposed to be the accountability mechanism. The Committee could say we don’t care how you spend it but lets see your measures and if you don’t measure up your funding gets cut.
Swarts said what Nalbandian is saying is good but she isn’t sure that funding could be pulled since they have been funded for so long. Even if the Committee had the wherewithal to pull funding NAs could still come to the CC and complain.
Roussel doesn’t have a problem with a cap – they have other things that are important and have fixed costs such as the newsletter.
Nalbandian said so there is a self-imposed cap.
Randolph said there is no cut in pay.
Nalbandian said what happens when you set a cap – you rise to the cap.
Collier said some neighborhoods are very organized and have a strong sense of community. Hers is not one of them and it is difficult to see the impact of a coordinator. She thinks measures are needed and they will probably go to the salary cap. They are missing partnership opportunities.
Moore said if no cap is set it is set at 100%. He thinks a cap is necessary. 60% seems reasonable.
Norwood said it is a trend nationally and locally to show outcomes – it isn’t unusual to ask for measures. As funds are cut the Committee is going to have to make some adjustments and we need this information to make those decisions.
Roussel said by combining the money we are asking them to track money in a different way – this will be a good first step; having a cap.
Harris moved to cap coordinator salaries at 60%. Roussel seconded the motion, which passed.
Miscellaneous/Calendar Items
Swarts suggested meeting first regular meetings in June, July and August. June 14, July 12, August 9.
It was decided to meet next June 7 and establish summer meeting dates at that time.
Harris wants to have a meeting over the summer to get some statistical visual help understanding what requirements are to be a target neighborhood and what neighborhoods could qualify that don’t currently. Are maps available?
Swarts said staff can put together a map that shows all low-mod areas in town, where there are NAs in those areas, and where there are not.
Nalbandian asked if the Committee had a mission to help neighborhoods organize. It seems to her that if there is a neighborhood that is trending toward blight, but they don’t qualify for funds, they should organize.
It was suggested that helping neighborhoods organize is the job of the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods (LAN).
Adjourn
There being no further business, Roussel moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Moore seconded the motion, which passed.