April 9, 2009 Minutes (City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Marci Francisco, Curtis Harris, Quinn Miller, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, Roberta Suenram |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Patti Welty |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
KT Walsh, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association; Loring Henderson, Lawrence Community Shelter
|
In the absence of chairperson Welty, vice-chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
1. Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
2. Approval of the March 26 2009 minutes.
Francisco submitted the following correction to the March 26, 2009 minutes.
Item #4, Page 9, Paragraph 4 corrected to now read:
Francisco moved to reduce funding for 2a, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association in the amount of $316. The reduction is to eliminate funds requested for stand up recycling containers and LAN dues. The reduction also will reduce funds requested for the tiller and mower maintenance. Francisco said that she had discussion with neighbors in East Lawrence and they are pleased about the funding this year, and therefore will be able to cover this cost in other ways. The motion was seconded by Norwood.
There being no additional corrections, Polson moved to approve the March 26, 2009 minutes. Miller seconded the motion, which passed 9-0.
3. Receive updated CDBG/HOME allocation recommendations (if applicable.)
Swarts reported that staff has not received word from HUD yet on the final allocation numbers for the City of Lawrence yet.
4. Finalize CDBG/HOME allocation recommendations.
Mitchell opened discussion regarding the finalization of the allocation recommendations.
Polson said that East Lawrence Neighborhood Association is a concern for her because she is worried that if they get essentially the full funding this year, what will happen next year if the funding is reduced as it has been in past years. She hopes there is not a windfall next year if this happens.
KT Walsh, East Lawrence Neighbor, said that the neighborhood understands this and that they are planning on enjoying the extra funds that they are getting this year.
Francisco brought up the fact that there were two requests for Emergency Service funding through the Ballard Community Center and Douglas County AIDS Project (DCAP). She expressed an interest in discussing a more fair allocation for these two agencies since they are asking for funding for the same service. It seems awkward to her to fully fund DCAP and not look at splitting the funding between the two agencies.
Francisco moved to reduce funding to 8a, Douglas County AIDS Project Emergency Assistance Program in the amount of $1500, and to increase funding to 6a, the Ballard Community Center Emergency Services Council in the amount of $1500. This would result in an allocation of $2500 for Douglas County AIDS Project and an allocation of $7829 to the Ballard Community Center. The motion was seconded by Harris.
Discussion followed:
Norwood asked what percentage of the funding budget made up the request from DCAP and from the Ballard Community Center.
Polson said that the DCAP request was 26% of the project budget and 2% of the agency budget. The Ballard Community Center request was 25% of the project budget and 2% of the agency budget.
Francisco said that this stood out to her that these were both emergency assistance programs, and it just seemed awkward to her to fund one at 100% and not the other.
The motion passed unanimously.
Harris moved to approve the allocation recommendations as amended. The motion was seconded by Norwood.
The motion passed unanimously.
Francisco moved to reduce funding for 2a, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association in the amount of $316. The reduction is to account for funds requested for stand up recycling containers, tiller and mower maintenance, and LAN dues. Francisco said that she had discussion with neighbors in East Lawrence and they are pleased about the funding this year, and therefore will be able to cover this cost in other ways. The motion was seconded by Norwood.
The motion passed unanimously.
5. Receive 2009 Annual Action Plan draft; Discuss upcoming public hearing (April 23, 2009).
Swarts said that the public notice was going to be sent to the Lawrence Journal World on Friday, April 10, 2009. The investment summary included in the notice would reflect the allocation change in the Ballard Community Center and DCAP.
Swarts explained that the purpose of distributing the Annual Action Plan is to allow them a few days to look over the document and see if there are any changes that need to be made before it is made available to the public. Changes could include typos and incorrect information. If there are any substantial alterations to the document, the CDAC should let staff know and this can be discussed at the public hearing on April 23. If a member finds something that is obviously incorrect and they would like it fixed let staff know. This document will be ready for review next Thursday, so if there are any changes that they would like to submit it should be to staff no later than Monday or Tuesday morning of the week of April 13, 2009.
Swarts said that the Annual Action Plan contains several components. There narrative responses as well as tables and charts. This document is electronically submitted to HUD, but because of the program that HUD supplies for the submission, it cannot be printed out effectively in that form. This copy is formatted so it makes sense to citizens. The document lists questions and responses, as well as tables and charts to illustrate priorities and allocations. This information is gathered from local agencies, as well as from the Census, the Citizen Participation Plan, and HUD. This is just one large all-encompassing document that says how we arrive at the funding decisions on our own community. The Investment Summary is located on page 19, and this is the page that the public will be the most interested in.
Swarts reminded the committee that the public hearing is scheduled at 6:00 pm on April 23. The meeting will start at 5:45 and they will look at a couple of pieces of business, then they will break and reconvene for the public hearing at 6:00pm.
Norwood told Swarts that she would be late for the public hearing.
6. Review letter to public service agencies regarding potential CDBG stimulus funding.
Swarts passed out the draft of the letter that staff compiled for Francisco’s request at the March 26 meeting.
Swarts explained that before she came to this meeting she attended a meeting of interested parties in an overview discussion of stimulus funds that will be available to the community through the Federal Government. The meeting was held by the major funders in the community, such as the City, the County, the United Way, the Douglas County Community Foundation and the Rice Foundation. The purpose was to allow the agencies to talk to one another to determine how they can collaborate on projects as well as lend support to other agencies in their pursuit of funding. A main point of the meeting today was to make sure that the agencies were aware that the funding is to go to shovel-ready projects. These are not programs for operating costs or budget enhancements. The focus is shovel ready and infrastructure projects. Swarts said she also spoke to that group this afternoon regarding the CDBG-R. She shared with the agencies that the City of Lawrence is set to receive $216,798 in CDBG-R funding.
With the letter that was requested, Swarts said that she spoke to City Manager David Corliss and the determination was that the letter should be open to all agencies, not just the ones that did not receive all of their CDBG funding request as originally suggested. Staff wants to make sure that they are not missing anybody and that everybody is able to receive the notification. This will also give the agencies a chance to think about what projects they would like to submit for, as the application period will most likely be shortened. The letter will go out to agencies in the community. Staff will be administering CDBG/HOME, NSP, NSP2, and Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing (HPRP). This is a lot more administration than in the past. Eligible activities for agencies would be building needs such as repairs and weatherization.
Norwood asked if there will be a match dollar requirement on the funds.
Swarts said as like CDBG funds, there is no match required.
Swarts said that although the draft letter is dated April 10, 2009, this is not when the letter will be sent. Staff is waiting on additional information from HUD regarding any rule or regulation changes. These factors will want to be included in the letter if they will directly impact the agencies.
Norwood asked about the portion of the letter that states that the area-wide activities are eligible as long as it benefits neighborhood with 51% of the residents in the low-moderate income category.
Swarts explained that most agencies are qualified for this stipulation because their clientele is qualified. With a few exceptions, everything east of Iowa are low-moderate areas. This type of project could be sidewalks, streets, and parks.
Polson asked if it mattered if the agency owned the building or not in terms of building improvements funded with CDBG-R money.
Swarts said they did not. If they do not own the building there still needs to be a set amount of time that the activity in the building must meet the national objective. This time limit is usually five years. If an agency leaves a building before that time something else has to go into that building that helps low-moderate income residents. An example would be the City owned building where Health Care Access is located. The building was originally leased to the Lawrence Indian Center. The Lawrence Indian Center utilized HUD money to build the property, and they moved out of the facility before the five year mark. At that time, Health Care Access moved into the building. This was within the HUD regulations because the new agency still met the national objective.
Walsh asked Swarts what the definition of a “shovel-ready” project was.
Swarts said that most of the projects would be those that could be moved on within nine months, obligated and in process in eighteen months, and fully expended within three years. With the CDBG-R there will be projects that can be committed within six months and completed within a year.
Harris asked if the City will receive the funds to disburse or will the Federal Government administer the funds.
Swarts said that the City would be administering the program. When funds are needed to be drawn down, the City requests the money from HUD.
Harris asked about the Health Care Access building example. Who built the building? Who owned the building?
Swarts said that the building was and still is City property. The Lawrence Indian Center approached the City about using the land for a building for their operations. CDBG money was set aside to build it. The Indian Center was leased the property for $1 per year. They left the site early and Heath Care Access moved in and pays $1 per year also. Heath Care Access has done a lot of fundraising on their own for renovations to the property.
Francisco added that although their rent is only $1, Health Care Access has put a lot of their own money into the facility.
Mitchell asked Swarts who keeps track of the buildings and the occupants in regards to those who leave their facilities early. How is it ensured that the national objective is still being met by the new tenant?
Swarts said that typically there is a second mortgage put in place with the stipulations. Usually in this case the agency will try to sell the building, then when the title search is administered the second mortgage is discovered. One example was Hannah’s House. The City provided CDBG money to do major improvements to their structure, including heating and air and rehabilitation. Their agency closed and they still owed money to the City on their loan program. When the house sold the City got back the funds due to them from the sale.
Harris asked Swarts about mandated deliberation process for the CDBG-R.
Swarts said that depended on if it is done on an abbreviated level. If it is abbreviated, the citizen participation process may be decreased as far as the period for public comment is concerned. It all depends on the instructions that the City receives from HUD. The public comment period may be reduced from 30 days as it currently stands to 15 days on an abbreviated system. This particular item does not change how the CDAC decides to handle the deliberations. The process for the CDAC may be abbreviated as well. It will be helpful once staff knows the timeframe that the City is working with from HUD. The CDAC will have a meeting to determine a calendar for the process. Staff is holding off on sending the letter because they do not want an agency spending a lot of time on an application, all to find out when the final regulations are set forth by HUD that their project would be ineligible. There are possible stipulations in the allocations that staff are not aware of yet. The deadline that has been mentioned is May 3. At that time HUD will release the information on the CDBG-R funding and staff can move forward from there. The City is getting ready so it is poised to move forward when that time comes.
Harris asked if the letter would go out soon.
Swarts said that the letter would not be sent until we get the final information and stipulations on the funding. The letter will go out, as well as a memorandum and application to the list of interested parties in the community. This is how the yearly CDBG/HOME application process is handled as well.
Francisco moved to approve the staff letter to CDBG-R applicants, and authorize Swarts to forward the letter on behalf of the City of Lawrence to interested parties with any additional information included regarding instructions set forth in the regulations received from HUD regarding CDBG-R funding. Norwood seconded.
Discussion followed.
Norwood asked about the paragraph in the letter that discussed the new performance measures that may be included for recipients of this funding.
Swarts said that this is something that is going to be an additional requirement with stimulus funding. There will be more transparency and tracking of performance measures. This paragraph is to let recipients know that there will be a higher expectation of performance measures than may have been required in the past.
Francisco asked to amend the motion by adding to thank Swarts and staff for their work on the letter. Norwood agreed to the amendment.
Harris said that he would prefer to see the letter again before it goes out. He would like to have the committee look at the letter, find out the details of the funding, and see the list of interested parties that the application is being sent to.
Norwood said that the letter needs to be ready to go so when staff gets the proper notifications from HUD we are prepared. She said that really was not a reason to see the list of interested parties before hand. Her concern is that it will tie staff’s hands if it has to be ready by tomorrow and then they have to wait 13 days to move on it. Norwood said that her concern is the applications coming in.
Harris said that he still prefers to see the letter before it is sent out, and this copy is only a draft copy.
Francisco said that since this is a federal program that the information that is already in the letter cannot change too much. It would only be additional requirements if anything else is released. If there is an agency that should apply then the committee should let them know to contact staff to make sure they are on the notification list.
Harris asked Swarts if the letter would have an application attached.
Swarts said that staff does not know enough about the requirements to determine that part yet. Staff simplified the application that is used in the CDBG/HOME application process and cut out information that would not be eligible under the CDBG-R. There is also a memorandum that has been created to go with the application with additional explanations for the program. Once the final program regulations are release then staff can move forward with the notification process. At that time they will know if the letter will contain the application, or if the letter will be sent, then the memorandum and application.
Miller asked Swarts if the Federal Government would allow for the alteration of the application.
Swarts said that the City is at liberty to create their own application mechanism. This application that has been used for CDBG/HOME is one that the City created, so there is not problem with the feds if it is changed.
Suenram asked if there would be more guidance on what the CDBG funds could be used for.
Swarts said that staff knows what the focus for the funding is. That part will not change. What staff is waiting on is time frames. Staff is hearing that there will be little things that might vary from the existing CDBG program, and they are just waiting for the package of information to come from HUD with the explanations. The purpose of the letter and notifications is to make sure the City is poised and ready to go.
Harris said that the committee and staff know that there might not be any new information from HUD until May. The committee meets again before then. He said that he knows the concern is the applications that are received, but he feels that the committee should also see the application before it goes out.
The motion passed 4-3-1.
Swarts said that the chances are that staff could send out the application and memorandum in an email to the committee members to review. If they would like to have a meeting we can call a meeting. It is up to the committee how they want to proceed.
Francisco said that in two weeks when the CDAC meets again it can be revisited. Her reason for the motion was to try to make this part of the process easier on staff. She is just trying to make it a straightforward process.
8. Public Comment.
Henderson said that he had attended in case there were any questions for him regarding the overflow shelter. The overflow shelter may be more relevant to the CDBG-R discussions. They have identified a property, and the property will need a couple of bathrooms, a sprinkler system, and some additional rehabilitation. The property will be temporary in nature, ranging from 12-24 months, and the time frame will be contingent on relocation Lawrence Community Shelter. The overflow shelter will be a nighttime shelter only and will hold no day activities. It is just for sleeping and an evening meal.
9. Miscellaneous/Calendar.
Swarts passed out the Declaration of Participation and Interest to the committee for 2009.
10. Adjourn
There being no further business, Norwood moved to adjourn the April 9, 2009 meeting. Polson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Attendance Record
|
Members |
01/08 |
01/22 |
02/10 Study Session |
02/12 |
02/26 |
03/12 |
03/26 |
04/9 |
4/23 |
05/14 |
|
Marci Francisco |
+ |
+ |
+ |
E |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
Curtis Harris |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
Quinn Miller |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
E |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
Julie Mitchell |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
Vern Norwood |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
Brenda Nunez |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
Aimee Polson |
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
Patti Welty |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Roberta Suenram |
|
|
|
|
* E |
E |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* designates first meeting after appointment.