City of Lawrence, KS

Community Development Advisory Committee

March 10, 2011 Minutes (City Commission Room)

MEMBERS PRESENT:		Deron Belt, Quinn Miller, Julie Mitchell, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, David Teixeira, Patti Welty

MEMBERS ABSENT:		Vern Norwood, Roberta Suenram

STAFF PRESENT:		Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts

PUBLIC PRESENT:

Vice-Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.

1. Introductions

Members and staff introduced themselves.

2. Approval of the February 10, 2011 Minutes.

Norwood pointed out a typographical error. Staff will correct.

Miller moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from

February 10, 2011. The motion was seconded by Welty and passed 5-0.

3. Review of Allocation Decisions.

Mitchell entered the meeting.

Swarts said this agenda item was only to review the allocation recommendations in case anyone needed further clarification or further discussion was needed. She said that the CDAC should keep in mind that the recommendations are still preliminary until the public hearing. Once the public hearing takes place, the CDAC will finalize their recommendations and the information will be forwarded to the City Commission. Swarts reminded the CDAC that they all received the email containing the neighborhood coordinator salary comparison sheet. If the CDAC wished to revisit the salary comparisons this was a good time to do that if they wished. This is nothing that needed to be changed, it was just additional information. Staff has no recommendation of what the CDAC should or needs to do with this information.

Polson said in her experience she saw that there is work that needs to get done and people subsequently get paid. She said that she saw very little correlation in hours worked.

Miller said that the CDAC wanted to have this originally because there have been budget discussion issues and it is good to look at comparisons on one sheet instead of going back and forth between the agency applications.

Belt said it is interesting to see the differences and it would be relevant to ask why they pay what they pay. If the rest of the CDAC was interested in doing that they could request to have the information by the public hearing.

There was discussion and it was determined that the CDAC would not request this information for the 2011 grant year, however they request that an explanation of wages for neighborhood association coordinators be included in the narrative for the 2012 CDBG/HOME application.

4. 2011 Federal Budget Discussion.

Swarts said that staff had hoped there would be news regarding the 2011 federal budget, but so far there has just been an extension of the Continuing Resolution. The federal fiscal year began on October 1, 2010, and as of today the Federal government had not established a budget for the fiscal year of 2011. As far as the CDBG/HOME allocations, staff recommends at this point retaining the expected funding levels based on the 2010 allocation. The current Continuing Resolution extension is set to expire on March 4, 2011. The House passed their proposed budget, and the Senate rejected that proposal and passed one of their own. The House proposal included up to a 62% cut in CDBG funding, and the Senate proposal retained the 2010 funding levels for the program. Thus far, neither the House nor the Senate has agreed on any budget. At this juncture, staff has no idea of what the actual allocation for CDBG will be. Staff feels that allocation will be less than in 2010 based on the discussions in the House and Senate, but at this time it is premature for the CDAC to look at recommended allocation cuts. Swarts said that staff feels it is appropriate to wait until the final budget is passed and there are firm numbers with which to work. If needed, at that time the CDAC can revisit their funding decisions. Staff is hoping to have final numbers and information by the public hearing, but if that information is not available at that time and there are funding cuts that require revisiting the allocations, then there may need to be a Substantial Amendment.

Swarts said that the CDBG grant did have reallocation of funds this year. This is a positive piece of information, because even if the funding is cut in the 2011 budget, that amount remains. Swarts said that the allocation for the 2010 program year that we are currently in is funded so we will not have a shortage of funds for the current grant year. That money is already there. The 2011 allocation is the amount in question.

Miller asked how to handle the recommendations at the public hearing if there has not been final 2011 numbers released at that time.

Swarts said it is appropriate to share with public during the hearing that the allocation may change based on final budget numbers from the federal government. After the public hearing, the recommendations go to the City Commission, who typically approves the CDAC’s recommendations. At that point staff will finish the Annual Action Plan and forward it to the local Kansas City HUD office. Staff has to have this document submitted to HUD by the middle of June. If no final budget numbers have been announced at that time, staff will be prepared to call another meeting, revisit the allocations, and forward the amended recommendations to the City Commission. It is not unusual to not have the final allocation from the federal government at the onset of the discussion of the applications, so staff starts the process with an estimate based on the previous grant year. Sometimes there is more money received through the grant, sometimes it is a little less. Staff has never gotten through the allocation process with an estimated number not knowing the final allocation by the end. Swarts told the CDAC that there have been discussions about eliminating the CDBG program in the budget discussions at the federal level and also just reducing funding for the program. Staff feels that the cuts will not be 60% as the House has proposed, but the cuts may fall between 10% and 25%. If that is the case, then the CDAC can still fund public services to a point, but with such a cut, the CDAC may have some hard decisions going forward.

Polson asked where the reallocation dollars originate.

Swarts noted that generally it is projects that come in under budget or might not go forward for some reason. Generally, the funds build up over time. Historically, the CDBG program has always had some money in reserve even while staying within the regulatory spending rate. After this year, staff is looking for the first time in a long time at spending nearly the entire grant allocation by the end of the grant year.

Teixeira asked in regards to cuts in the budget what the methodology for revisiting the recommended allocations would be, and what impact the cuts will have on the programs.

Swarts said that the biggest impact is on administration and public services. For administration, staff should be able to scale back on activities. It is anticipated that there will still be enough funding to pay staff and do what needs to be done. There will be a potentially heavy impact on public services. That allocation will be reduced by the amount the CDBG program budget.

Polson asked what happens to the reallocated dollars from public services?

Swarts replied that public service dollars that are not spent are lost to publis services as they cannot be reallocated to public services but must go into the capital improvements “pot”.

The cap for public services is 15% of the grant allocation for any particular year. If the agencies or neighborhoods do not spend this money, it is lost for public service activities because it cannot be rolled over for a new public service activity. The funds need to be expended in a timely fashion. The City does not lose the money but it must at that point be used for capital improvements. This is how HUD views the reallocation.

Swarts noted that so far, staff has not heard of any substantial cuts to the HOME program but the CDBG program is older and better known, so it frequently becomes a target in tough budget cycles.

5. Discuss Upcoming Meetings and Timeline.

Swarts said that there is nothing upcoming on the calendar before the April 14 public hearing, so staff is not sure if the CDAC will need to meet prior to the public hearing if there is no budget information from the federal government concerning the 2011 fiscal year. If staff hears something prior to the next scheduled meeting on March 24, 2011 the CDAC can meet, however with no new information from the standpoint of the budget there is no other agenda item to discuss.

Teixeira said that since the public hearing is set the CDAC can keep the option of meeting on March 24 open, but if no new information is obtained regarding the budget the option should be there to cancel it.

Swarts agreed and said that staff will let the CDAC members know via email prior to the meeting on March 24 if there is any new information to report. Swarts reminded the CDAC to not “reply to all” in emails as any discussion the committee wishes to have should be done in an open meeting forum. If there is information that they want to go out to the CDAC, they can send it directly to Swarts and she will share the information with the committee.

6. Miscellaneous/Calendar.

There were no additional items.

7. Public Comment.

There was no public comment.

8. Adjourn.

Polson moved to adjourn the March 10, 2011 meeting of the CDAC at 6:30 pm. The motion was seconded by Mitchell and passed 6-0.

Attendance Record

Members

Jan 13

Jan 27

Feb 10

Feb 24

Mar 10

Mar 24

Apr 14

Apr 28

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Deron Belt

Quinn Miller

Julie Mitchell

Vern Norwood

Brenda Nunez

Aimee Polson

Roberta Suenram

David Teixeira

Patti Welty

Vacant

E Excused Absence

X Meeting Cancelled – Weather Conditions