City of Lawrence, KS

Community Development Advisory Committee

September 24, 2009 Minutes (City Commission Room)

MEMBERS PRESENT:		Marci Francisco, Chris Marshall, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, Roberta Suenram, Patti Welty

MEMBERS ABSENT:		Curtis Harris, Quinn Miller, Katherine Pryor,

STAFF PRESENT:		Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts

PUBLIC PRESENT:		none

Chair Welty called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m.

1. Introductions

Members and staff introduced themselves.

2. Approval of the September 10, 2009 minutes.

Suenram moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from September 10, 2009. The motion was seconded by Nunez.

The motion passed 8-0.

3. Miscellaneous Discussion/Calendar Items.

Swarts told the Committee that they were on track with their meetings for October. The Environmental Code Violation Appeal that was to be heard on the agenda for September 24 has been moved to the October 8 meeting. At this time Swarts indicated that she did not know of any other items on the agenda for that evening, and that the appeal would be at the top of the agenda after the approval of the minutes.

Welty asked for confirmation that the October 8 meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m.

Swarts said yes.

Welty confirmed that the appeal will be at the beginning of the agenda for the October 8 meeting.

Swarts suggested that since it was not 6:00 p.m. the CDAC move along to Item 7. Discuss 2009 CDBG/HOME Application.

Swarts handed out the draft copy of the 2010 CDBG/HOME application and memorandum for the CDAC members to review. The memorandum has not changed since last year with the exception of the dates. The memorandum notes the priorities for funding allocations as well as basic application information and explanations. The memo states what the application requires, as well as stating that staff is available for technical assistance with completing the application. The listed priorities are in no particular order.

Norwood asked about adding information about the sub-grantees’ requirement of reporting and tracking performance measures.

Swarts said that that can be done, and that the sub-grantees still have difficulty sometimes separating numerical data from actual performance measures. She said that staff can go back and look at the applications and request performance measures from the agencies that received 2008 funding.

Francisco asked for clarification regarding the priority listed that reads “Projects to encourage income and owner/rental mix”. She asked if this was ever the case with any projects for which CDBG/HOME funds were requested.

Swarts explained that Tenants to Homeowners primarily help with owner occupied housing, but they do operate some rental units as well. These projects are not necessarily with CDBG funds.

Francisco said that the priority reads as if the CDAC is encouraging projects that develop a range of incomes within a neighborhood. Some could be ownership, some could be rentals. She asked the CDAC and staff if there has been a project that the Committee has looked at that falls within this priority or what type of project could fall into this priority.

Welty asked if this was an area that Tenants to Homeowners could fall into.

Francisco said that with regard to Tenants to Homeowners and the owner/rental mix that Tenants to Homeowners are not necessarily putting the tenants in the same house that they are already in. They are going into owner occupied housing and the rentals are staying rentals.

Swarts said that when the Committee had their goal-setting session to establish the funding priorities, affordable housing was the biggest issue facing the community. With the topic of affordable housing, there seemed to be the consensus that there were a lot of different ways to look at that within the priorities that were set. The Committee wanted to leave it open for projects of all housing types. Swarts said that the specific priority regarding owner/rental mix could be considered as a project similar to Delaware Commons.

Francisco said that there were rentals that were originally intended to be owner occupied in that project that are rentals because they could not sell them. The project itself was not originally established to be a owner/rental mix.

4. Recess for Public Hearing

Francisco moved to Recess the September 24, 2009 meeting of the CDAC for the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Marshall.

The motion passed 8-0.

Chair Welty convened the public hearing at 6:00 p.m.

Welty noted there were no members of the public present.

5. Reconvene Meeting after Public Hearing.

As there were no public present, Norwood moved Close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Suenram.

Chair Welty reconvened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.

5. Environmental Code Violation Appeal.

Swarts reminded the CDAC that the Environmental Code Violation Appeal has been deferred and will be heard at the October 8, 2009 meeting.

Item 7. Discuss 2009 CDBG/HOME Application (continued)

Swarts continued the earlier discussion of Item 7 by telling the CDAC that the City expects to see an increase in the CDBG grant this year. There is a bill in Congress pending legislative approval that will increase the funding for CDBG. HOME will also see a minor increase as well. As of now staff does not know what either increase will be.

Welty said in terms of the list of priorities that housing is still where she feels that the CDAC should continue to focus their funding allocations. There have been several articles in the Lawrence Journal World recently about housing and how expensive it is and how much of a problem it has become in Lawrence.

Norwood agreed that Lawrence is the most expensive housing market in the state.

Swarts asked if there were any suggestions to make regarding changes in the memorandum.

Welty commented that she saw that on the Memorandum from the City Code Enforcement division regarding the Environmental Code Violation Appeal that the City Code still refers to the Community Development Division as Neighborhood Resources.

Francisco said that her only suggestion to the memorandum would be to drop the priority stating “Projects to encourage income and owner/rental mix”. The priority, as listed, is too ambiguous. Francisco said that she did not know if that particular priority helps anyone understand the direction that the CDAC wants to go. There are no performance measures that can express what the priority is achieving.

Swarts said that if the Committee concurs staff will delete the priority from the memo.

Norwood said that if no one could remember specifically why it was a priority in the first place, and no on could find any justification as to why it is relevant now she agrees with Francisco to delete the priority.

Marshall clarified that the decision would be to delete the priority and not replace it with a different one.

Francisco said yes.

Welty asked if there were any CDAC members opposed to removing the priority that reads “Projects to encourage income and owner/rental mix”

There was no one opposed.

Swarts said that staff would delete the priority from the memo.

There being no other amendments to the memorandum, Swarts opened the discussion regarding the 2010 grant application and told the CDAC that the only changes that were made on the application from last year were adjusting the dates.

Marshall asked if the project types that were listed on the application match with the priorities set forth in the memo.

Swarts responded that the priorities all are able to tie in to one of the project types listed.

Francisco asked if there was any verbiage regarding the sub-grantee’s previous grant award performance.

Suenram suggested that the CDAC ask the sub-grantees to show the Committee what they did during the grant year with the money that they were given.

Francisco clarified that she meant asking the sub-grantees a question such as “If you were funded with CDBG dollars in the past what were you able to do with those funds to reach your goal”.

Francisco said that if the CDAC only asks the applicants about their current projects then the Committee cannot say that the applicant’s previous history was taken into consideration. There needs to be wording on the application that states that their previous history on grant applications and awards will be taken into consideration.

Norwood agreed and said that it would help with the neighborhood reporting as well.

Swarts said that staff can bring the information from the previous year on applicants. She suggested a line in the application that says that previous experience will be considered.

Francisco said that when the CDAC redid the application previously, it was to help in cutting down the amount of time the neighborhood coordinators were spending on the grant application. The previous application was asking for information that staff and the CDAC already had regarding past performance. That is why some questions were removed previously. The City has this past grant award information. If past performance is going to be considered, it needs to be stated for the applicant.

Swarts asked if the CDAC would like that piece of information on the application or on the memo. It can be placed on the memo under a heading of “please note” or something to that regard. The CDAC will then have the option of taking past grant performance into consideration when reviewing the application.

Swarts noted that staff can also ask the agencies to submit documentation regarding their performance measures. Staff can tell how they spent the money and the timeliness of the expenditure, but there can also be a submission by the agency to recite how they measured their success.

Marshall said that it is not necessarily a question of what they spent, but what they do with that after the fact. There needs to be a question that they answer regarding expenditure. The question should not be that open ended.

Francisco suggested a question asking if the funding received provided the outcome that the agency desired or anticipated.

Mitchell said that just having the statement on the memo would make it easier for the CDAC to consider the past performance.

Suenram said that the consideration of past performance and follow up should be part of what the CDAC does. The CDAC allocated the agency or neighborhood the money, and the CDAC needs to know how it made things better for those that the agency or neighborhood serves. There needs to be established measurements for the neighborhoods and to really hold them each accountable to provide information. It should be part of the criteria in terms of what they get the next time.

Swarts said that there could be a statement on the application that they will need to provide this, and then staff can follow up at the end of the grant year.

Suenram agreed and said that it should be a requirement that they have to report. She indicated that her sister works in a similar position in grant administration in the Kansas City metro area and they have very strict reporting guidelines for their neighborhood performance reporting.

Swarts noted the CDAC and the City have full authority to ask for information from those that they fund. The CDAC can ask for a one page report to be submitted at the end of the grant year from each agency and neighborhood. In the meantime staff will add the sentence to the memo regarding the consideration of past grant performance.

Suenram said that if the agency or neighborhood has not given the CDAC reports as they are required it should be allowable for the CDAC to tell them that they will not be considered for any funds. If they cannot handle the reporting requirement then what gives the Committee the confidence that they can spend the money.

Francisco added that this will help the CDAC to see evidence of the reporting and evidence of how the agency or neighborhood spent the money. An agency can report and show how they spent the money and their subsequent accomplishments, then the CDAC can look at that and decide if they can be supportive of those results or not. An agency could also have several good, effective projects and no reports so there is nothing to share.

Suenram said she though there were additional reporting measures required with the CDBG-R funding.

Swarts said yes and that was a federal decision made based on the stimulus funding, but it is also a decision that can be made on a local level as well with regard to the CDBG/HOME program.

Francisco added that the stimulus reporting was linked to public transparency, but it is still a very good idea for the CDAC to consider. As a member of the Committee they should all have the ability to know how to answer funding questions from the public.

Polson said that it provides an open ended opportunity for the agencies to explain when something did not appear to end as it should have.

Welty asked Swarts if staff could add that language to the memo.

Swarts said yes.

Polson added that she liked the idea of adding a question regarding a one page narrative of what they did with the previous year’s funding.

Francisco asked if it would work to send out a letter stating “To help follow-up on CDBG funding, please answer these questions”. The CDAC should ask for a document such as this from everyone that received funding. It should not be part of the application process for funding, but it should be part of receiving the funding. Then the CDAC has that follow up document to consider. This will ask how the agency did this work and how the funds were utilized, and it will also serve as a reminder in the future as similar projects are applied for in terms of what worked in the past and what did not, and why.

Marshall asked if this question or document would be in addition to the application or separate from it.

Swarts suggested follow up questioning for the grant year that has just ended. Both Staff and the CDAC will need to go back and look at the application and determine what information that staff needs to ask.

Marshall said he liked the intent of tying the past performance measures to the current funding that the agency or neighborhood is seeking. The report should not only be for performance measures to what they did, but also a tie in to what they are going to get.

Swarts said it was as easy as adding a question saying “if you have been funded with CDBG funds in the past, what is the justification to receiving an allocation again”.

Marshall added “what were you able to do in the previous year” to Swarts’ comment.

Suenram also added documented information should be required showing how the agency or neighborhood utilized the funding to support their established goals.

Swarts said the Committee can look at the document or response that is received from the agency or neighborhood and review it when the funding decisions are being considered.

Francisco added that it would always be on file for review with future applications as well.

Swarts asked about any other changes to the 2010 Grant Application.

Polson asked for clarification on parts I and II.

Francisco agreed that the paragraph in the memo that relates to parts I and II of the application is awkwardly stated. The cover sheet, which is part I, should only need to be filled out once. The attachments with the list of officers, members, and annual reports should only need to be submitted once per application. There should be a narrative for each project. Francisco also added that narrative question nine, which reads “Describe the agency philosophy and practices regarding recycling and other “green” practices” should not have to be answered for each project. The CDAC should rethink the setup of this section and decide if the questions are related to the project or the agency.

Norwood asked how the application states how success will be measured.

Francisco agreed and said that it needs to be a situation of follow up.

Polson made a suggestion of reworking the application sections.

Swarts said that staff will work on that and that question nine can be relocated.

Polson said that she would like to see the complete narrative for each project.

Swarts indicated that staff could change the language on the application to work with that request.

Suenram added that question nine was a question that did not have to do with housing, so it is really not part of the mission of the CDAC.

Swarts indicated that when it was brought forward by a neighborhood member, there was no organization at that time within the City looking at sustainability. Since that time, there has been a sustainability committee formed. This may be a topic for that committee.

Francisco suggested the CDAC meet with the Sustainability Committee to see how the two boards can coordinate. She indicated that she was not comfortable just saying that it is another group’s issue.

Marshall said that it did not fall under the outlined priorities on the memo, unless it is a blanket City priority.

Suenram suggested that maybe the issue does become one of the funding priorities of the CDAC. The greenness of a project could be something that the CDAC considers as important.

Francisco said that the CDAC was very careful in the past with projects such as the Van Go Mobile Arts parking lot lighting and asking the agency if it was sustainable lighting. She said she liked the idea of making it a priority that fits within the City’s agenda for sustainability. The priority falls under that and the CDAC wants to make sure that the money is being spent in that way.

Suenram said that the green practices belongs as a priority.

Swarts asked the CDAC what the priority should say.

Francisco suggested “The project align with the City’s agenda for sustainability”.

Swarts said that staff will add the last bullet point for priorities and will delete question nine from the narrative on the application.

Welty asked about the section for project types on the application and if a different heading needs to be listed there to accommodate the new priority being added.

Swarts said no, that the project type would fall under one of the others that are already listed in that section.

Norwood asked if there was every any funding provided under the Funding Need titled “Other”.

Swarts said that “other” could indicate economic development, or it could just be a project that does not fall under Capital Improvement or Public Service.

Francisco suggested that the items “New Program” and “Existing Program” under Funding Need might be better served elsewhere on the application.

Marshall said that those two items should be listed under the “Project Information” heading.

Francisco asked the CDAC if they would like eliminate the “Other” category under Funding Need.

The Committee agreed to delete “Other”.

Swarts said that staff would delete that item and will move “New Program” and “Existing Program” to the top of the section on “Project Information”.

8. Discuss Additional Changes to CAPER.

There was no additional changes suggested.

9. Adjourn.

Suenram moved to adjourn at 6:53 pm. The motion was seconded by Francisco.

The motion passed 8-0.

Attendance Record

Members

01/08

01/22

02/10 Study Session

02/12

02/26

03/12

03/26

04/9

04/23

05/19

06/11

09/10

09/24

Marci Francisco

Curtis Harris

Quinn Miller

Julie Mitchell

Vern Norwood

Brenda Nunez

Aimee Polson

Patti Welty

Roberta Suenram

* E

Chris Marshall

Katherine

Pryor

* designates first meeting after appointment.