City of Lawrence, KS

Community Development Advisory Committee

September 22, 2011 Minutes (City Commission Room)

MEMBERS PRESENT:		Deron Belt, Eric Hethcoat, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, David Teixeira, Patti Welty, Patrick Wilbur

MEMBERS ABSENT:		Quinn Miller, Roberta Suenram

STAFF PRESENT:		Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts

PUBLIC PRESENT:

Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:45 pm. All members listed were present with the exception of Norwood and Polson.

1. Introductions

Members and staff introduced themselves.

2. Approval of the September 8, 2011 Minutes.

Welty moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from

September 8, 2011. The motion was seconded by Teixeira and passed 7-0.

Norwood entered the meeting (5:55 pm)

Polson entered the meeting (5:55 pm)

3. (6:00 pm) Recess for Public Hearing.

Chair Mitchell recessed the public meeting for the public hearing.

3. Public Hearing.

Swarts explained the purpose of this public hearing was to discuss the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) and receive public comment regarding the upcoming grant year. Swarts explained staff is required to submit two reports to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) each year, including the CAPER and the Annual Action Plan to the Consolidated Plan. The Annual Action Plan is a listing of the upcoming projects for the new grant year and is due to HUD on August 1. The CAPER document is a listing of the accomplishments for the grant year after it ends. It is due to HUD by October 31.

Swarts reviewed through the document and highlighted the Step Up to Better Housing strategy, the 2010 Investment Summary, the Citizen Participation Plan, the general narrative, and the related sections. She explained the section regarding Citizen Participation will be completed by inserting any public comment received at this meeting and any written comment that is submitted regarding the CAPER. To date staff has received no written comment.

Polson asked when an “at-large” area is identified in the document does that mean that the neighborhood is not low-moderate income?

Swarts said this was not necessarily the case. She said the “at-large” category includes all neighborhoods that are not currently included in the five CDBG-funded neighborhood areas. Staff is looking at restructuring the way this data is reported. The process is how it currently is because originally, projects were identified in “target” neighborhoods. As a result, activities located in any other “neighborhood” or “area” automatically fell into the “at-large” category. There are many more areas in the community now that are considered low-moderate income. The restructured reporting piece will take this into consideration.

Mitchell opened the public comment portion of the public hearing.

Eileen Horn, Sustainability Coordinator for the City of Lawrence and Douglas County, commended the committee for making the funding decisions for many excellent programs in the community. She indicated she was interested in giving the committee a project to consider for a future focus in the 2012 grant year. She said her purpose tonight was to introduce the topic of community gardens and then offer to come back at a later time for a more in-depth discussion of the project.

Horn said her focus at the county level includes serving on the Food Policy Council to explore ways to get healthy, local foods in stores and restaurants in Lawrence and Douglas County. She indicated there are three “food deserts” in Lawrence, and all three of these areas are located in low-moderate income neighborhoods. She explained a “food desert” was designated by being located in a low income census tract, more than one mile from a grocery store, and lacking in public transportation options. The purpose of the Food Policy Council is to create access to healthy foods for the entire community. These “food deserts” are prime areas to create areas to be able to grow this food locally. The City and County have identified 15 available sites that have the potential to serve as areas to grow local foods. These vary in size from half an acre to seven acres. Horn said most of these areas are located in North Lawrence and East Lawrence. There are some located in under-utilized parks. Horn said currently she is researching and designing a land lease program where neighborhood associations, young farmers, and non-profits can acquire this land to farm and grow healthy food. She said some places in the United States that have similar programs have utilized CDBG funding to help with infrastructure upgrades to eligible areas. Horn said the Food Policy Council is currently looking at models such as West Junior High, which utilizes great signage, great fences, and committee people working on the garden. Horn said this project can both provide healthy local foods for our low income residents as well as revitalize neighborhoods.

Teixeira asked if the Council would be requesting the funds or if the individual neighborhoods, farmers, or non-profits would be requesting the funds.

Horn said these are details that need to be worked out, but the Council wishes to have one person be the responsible entity for the lease.

Norwood asked how long Horn envisions the lease terms being structured.

Horn said most of the leases would need to be a minimum of three years.

Norwood asked if the application would be submitted by the Food Policy Council or if it would be intended to subsidize the lease for the individual leaseholders.

Horn said the individual leaseholder would ideally apply for the funds.

Norwood said that she was interested in hearing more about this program.

Polson asked if there would be the option to lease for more than three years.

Horn said the City Park areas are good places to be able to look at the option for a longer lease. These parks include John Taylor Park, Burcham Park, Peterson Park, and Riverfront Park.

Polson said she was unsure if the details would be finalized in time for the leaseholders to apply for 2012 funding.

Horn said the Food Policy Council would issue a RFP and require a narrative and a business plan for any interested leaseholder. The program criteria would be set up and included in this RFP.

Belt said he was very interested in hearing more about the program as well.

Norwood moved to ask Horn or a designated representative of the Food Policy Council to present a detailed program outline regarding community gardens to the CDAC at the October 13 meeting. The motion was seconded by Wilbur and passed 9-0.

Beth Myers, Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program homeowner participant, told the committee she was grateful beyond words for the CDBG program as she was one of the beneficiaries in the 2009 program year. She said could not ask for anything more wonderful than what this program did for her. She said her home is now a safe, comfortable jewel because of this program. She said she has become a vocal evangelist for this program, and her house was profiled in the City water bill insert as a success story of the program. Myers indicated in talking to people about the program, she believes there is misunderstanding, fear and anxiety about what the program actually entails. Many people do not get the newspaper nor have Internet service and there has been some issue with people hearing about the program and confusing the City’s program with Habitat for Humanity. The people she is talking about are mostly disabled people.

Myers said she was willing to do outreach for the program as these people need to be made aware of the programs that can help them from the City. She said while the notice for this meeting was large and noticeable in the newspaper, sometimes the programs are advertised in smaller type on the last page of the paper. Myers said in her opinion there is a need for stronger outreach. She said many people in her neighborhood simply do not know about the program, and when they find out about it they do not know how to go about accessing it. She indicated she did not find the process daunting at all, but there are people that just do not have the information. Myers offered to send an email to staff outlining what she is hearing as she is talking to people about her experience in the program. She said the information being provided about the program is good, but she thinks there may be a “disconnect” regarding how and when it is received.

Belt asked Myers what avenues she identifies to be the most effective ways to get word out about the program.

Myers said she felt that going into the neighborhoods and speaking to groups of interested people seems to be the most efficient way to get word out about the program. This can be separate meetings or partnering with other events taking place. Myers said in the case of her neighborhood, there are available venues at both Prairie Park School and Prairie Park Nature Center. She said she has neighbors on both sides of her that could benefit from the program, including a woman who is an amputee who cannot leave the house. Myers said initially when she applied for the program she did not know what to expect. She knew she needed a roof for her house, but she did not expect the level of professionalism and did not expect to be such a partner in the process. She said prior to using the program she was woefully misinformed. The program is great for the entire neighborhood because it brings up the value of the whole area.

Mitchell asked Myers to send Swarts an email outlining her ideas.

Wilbur asked Swarts if committee members were able to give presentations on the program.

Swarts said that has not happened in the past, but it is a possibility. She said that most of the outreach is staff generated by partnering with other activities as well as outreach in the newspaper and in the City water bills. This year has seen additional outreach opportunities with Take Charge events.

Myers said she has seen a considerable decrease in her energy bills since having the work done on her house. She said she has a pride of ownership in her house that is thrilling. It had deteriorated and she did not have the funds to rehabilitate it herself. She said she just wanted the committee to know how immensely grateful she was. She said she worked with Tony Hoch and she is very grateful as well to staff.

Mitchell said the CDAC appreciates hearing Ms. Myer’s story.

KT Walsh, Vice President of East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, thanked the CDAC for their volunteer work on this committee. She said the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association has worked with staff and the CDAC for many years and worked with CDBG funding for the ability to have a coordinator and newsletters. She said she wanted to mention to the CDAC a project in Kansas City, MO that is a low-income apartment complex that is being built to house grandparents caring for their grandchildren. There are many families that are now in this situation and in this case the complex is being built by the City. She indicated she thought this was a wonderful idea.

Norwood asked Walsh if she was interested in pursuing this as a project.

Walsh said no, that she did not have the time to devote to it, but she wanted to mention it to the CDAC so they knew what other communities were doing.

Myers said if the outreach can be generated to people in these situations that they may not know that the Comprehensive Rehabilitation program is available for them. This is just another way to visit with these people.

4. Reconvene Meeting.

There being no further comments, Mitchell closed the public hearing at 6:35.

5. Appeal of the International Property Maintenance Code – Mark Bradburn – 929 Holiday Drive.

Mitchell noted that the process for the appeal would consist of a staff presentation for approximately 10 minutes, followed by a presentation from Mr. Bradburn for approximately 10 minutes, followed by any public comment, and concluding with discussion and decision by the CDAC.

Brian Jimenez, Code Enforcement Manager, provided a memorandum to the CDAC, and stated that the last appeal this body heard was in 2008 and it was an environmental code appeal also submitted by Mr. Bradburn. He said the history of 929 Holiday Drive goes back many years and includes countless staff hours to reach a resolution. The exterior driveway and yard conditions were cited in August of 2008. The CDAC voted unanimously to uphold the code in that case. Jimenez stated that numerous complaints had been made about the property from neighbors. Staff sent Mr. Bradburn a letter on August 10, 2011 regarding their concerns about the property. Mr. Bradburn did not give consent to view the property and indicated that he would not work with the City.

Jimemez said staff applied for a search warrant based on probable cause. The search warrant was approved and executed. Staff visited the property, took over 100 photos, and based on the totality of the circumstances found that the dwelling was unfit for human occupancy. He said there were areas of the home with no exterior siding, there were areas that were open to the elements, structurally unsafe areas, issues with the roof and lack of shingles, unsafe wiring, the presence of mold, as well as other items listed in the memorandum. Jimemez said staff’s determination was that the property was unsafe and that no one should be living there nor should anyone be visiting anyone in the home at this point. Jimenez stated that this was not to say that Mr. Bradburn could never occupy the dwelling again, just that at this point in time, until the proper repairs are made to the unit it is unsafe for occupancy. Jimemez said in addition to Code Enforcement staff, City Electrical Inspector Phil Burke was present at the inspection and in his professional opinion, the electrical components of the structure are unsafe as well.

Norwood asked if there was running water in the dwelling.

Jimemez said yes.

Hethcoat said that he also served on the Board of Electrical Inspectors and was concerned about the unsafe receptacles and the “arcing” of the receptacles that has likely damaged the circuits.

Jimenez agreed and said that there was concern there. He said with electrical work you never know what is going on behind the walls, and many fires occur because of stressed wiring, inadequate services, overtaxing, and exposure, among other things. He indicated that he had been in thousands of homes in Lawrence, and while this is not structurally the worst he has seen, it is at the top of the list for the totality of the situation. The City has a liability to those that own and occupy these structures as well as the neighbors. There is a blighting impact on their property as well. Jimemez said that Julie Wyatt was also in attendance and was the main inspector on the case and has worked with Mr. Bradburn to try to find a solution. She was available to answer any questions the committee had. Jimenez said that the photos speak for themselves, and staff saw no other options than to determine the property unfit under the Property Maintenance Code. He said no work has been done on the house, and it has stayed constant in its dilapidated condition. With cold weather approaching, staff hopes that Mr. Bradburn will work on the home to bring it to a safe occupancy level.

Polson asked if in 2008 the Court found in Mr. Bradburn’s favor.

Jimenez said that was correct but that finding was based on problematic language in the City’s Environmental Code and not the fact that environmental violations did not exist. He indicated that one of the jury members contacted him after the hearing and stated that Mr. Bradburn was found “not guilty” because the language in the code was too vague to stand up in court.

Norwood asked if the language in the Environmental Code has since been changed.

Jimenez said that staff and the Legal Department were working on those changes.

Hethcoat asked if this interaction with Mr. Bradburn on the Property Maintenance Code started in 2008.

Jimenez said that it was at least 2008 and possibly before. He said that the Environmental Code dealt with the porch and yard conditions. At the time that staff worked with Mr. Bradburn on the Environmental Code aspects, they knew that the Property Maintenance Code would apply as well. Staff just hoped that the structure would be improved before they had to visit the Property Maintenance Code piece.

Teixeira asked what parts of the Property Maintenance Code were cited in the finding.

Jimenez indicated staff cited Mr. Bradburn for everything that applied. He said that as far as posting a structure as uninhabitable, it can be done on mold alone. Based on the totality of the list, though, it was unfit.

Hethcoat asked in looking at the condition of the house in 2008 when it was cited for Environmental Code violations, how is the structure different now.

Jimenez said the property was in worse condition now than it was then. He indicated that since 2008 the roofing and the siding have been removed.

Hethcoat asked when these items were removed.

Wyatt indicated it was August of 2008.

Jimenez said that the dwelling has been open to the elements since that time.

Belt moved to extend the September 22, 2011 meeting of the CDAC until the Property Maintenance Code Appeal item was completed. The motion was seconded by Polson and passed 9-0.

Belt asked how common it was for staff to spend this much time on one complaint.

Jimenez said that there have been a handful of cases like this since he began doing this job ten years ago. There are typically only a couple a year like this. Each situation is unique because of the property owners. Staff always has the motto that they will work with any homeowner to come into compliance and make progress on the homes. At some point, staff has to make the decision to move forward. With this particular case, complaints were being made to the City Manager’s office as well as to individual City Commissioners, so staff had no other options. Jimenez stated that staff has always wanted to see Mr. Bradburn succeed. Hopefully this is the avenue that gets him there.

Polson asked if the vote of the CDAC to uphold staff’s decision will have any impact on the rehabilitation of the dwelling.

Jimenez said that the CDAC was just voting this evening to see if staff was correct in their interpretation of the code, and that the dwelling should not be occupied under the current conditions.

With staff’s presentation being complete, Mitchell asked for Mr. Bradburn to present his information on the appeal, and indicated he would have the same amount of time to present as staff.

Bradburn said that he did not want to be at this hearing any more than the committee wanted to be there. This was a process that he did not ask for and that he did not want. He was forced into this process by others. He said that he received a letter on his door and that was how he was kicked out of his home. Mr. Bradburn provided a copy of the letter to the CDAC members.

Mitchell asked Bradburn if there were particular items that had been cited that he was disputing.

Bradburn said that he was disputing a number of the items, and told the CDAC members that this could have been anyone’s home. He said that he is aware that his house needs repair. He said that he needs to be able to live in his house to repair his house and that he does not need to be kicked out.

Mitchell asked staff if work could still be done on the house even if no one is permitted to live there.

Jimenez said yes, although the City does have some liability due to the safety issues. If Mr. Bradburn refuses to vacate the dwelling, staff will have to go through the courts. Staff does want him to repair the property; he just cannot live there while doing so.

Bradburn said that he has been harassed by the police, and that if all the CDAC members are going to do is pass judgment on him then there is no reason to be in attendance to appeal.

Bradburn presented a Power Point that outlined the citations and his response to them. He indicated that he was in this situation because of a history of abuse, depression, and job loss.

Mitchell said that the CDAC was here to receive information on the cited items that were in violation of the Property Maintenance Code, and while they understood that there are reasons, the items that are being heard are the violation pieces.

Bradburn said that he wanted a jury.

Teixeira noted the CDAC was not a jury.

Jimenez explained that there were boards of appeal for every code that the City has. Everyone has the right to appeal, and Bradburn has not been cited in court for violations of the Property Maintenance Code. This appeal is no different from any other appeal. The only reason that everyone is here is to look at the interpretation of staff in reading the code. Staff understands that there are underlying issues with this case.

Bradburn continued with his Power Point. The slides presented outlined health, electrical, and structural hazards. He explained that he did extensive research on mold and received documents from the County Extension office as well as the Kansas State University Extension office, and the documents all indicated that the proper cleanup for mold was cold water and soap. He said that mold is not a health issue, but agreed that his dwelling had more mold than most. He said that Toxic Mold Syndrome is a cause for public concern, but there are no legitimate health concerns that go along with it. He stated that every house has mold and there are no standards to address this. Most people are not affected by mold. He said that being evicted from his home because of mold was ludicrous.

Bradburn said in terms of the electrical issues, he was not aware that there was a problem with the circuits. He said that he can fix this, and the service will be upgraded. He said that he was cited for wiring in his home being exposed to the elements and that there was only one small section of wiring that was exposed and it was not truly exposed. He also said that in regard to there being signs of arcing, he only found one instance. When this was found he called the Fire Department and asked them to look at it. This occurred long before there were weather issues with the house. As far as the missing receptacles, he was working on this.

Bradburn then began speaking about the missing drywall.

Polson asked if all the drywall has come off the walls.

Bradburn said it had.

Hethcoat asked if this was in most places in the dwelling.

Bradburn said yes.

Bradburn spoke to the issue of rodent damage to the wiring. He said that there were no exposed conductors.

Norwood asked for Bradburn to explain why the drywall was taken down and the electrical covers removed.

Bradburn ignored the question and continued talking about the electrical system.

Norwood reiterated her question and Bradburn did not respond.

After a third attempt by Norwood, Bradburn replied he was working on the house.

Norwood asked how long he had been working on the electrical.

Bradburn indicated it had been several years. He said that staff entered the dwelling and determined that the electrical was bad. He said the wiring inside the house was not damaged, and that the sun and water were the biggest issues. He indicated that every house has some problem with electrical.

Norwood said that she looked at the photos and from what she sees and what the staff reports, placarding the home was the correct decision. She indicated that from what the CDAC was presented, the house does appear to be unsafe for occupancy. She said that as a body the CDAC is responsible for seeing if staff made the right decision. In looking at this she agrees.

Norwood moved to uphold staff’s determination of the property being in violation of the Property Maintenance Code. The motion was seconded by Teixeira and passed 7-2.

Bradburn indicated that he had work lined up to begin to receive income. He said there was an issue and due to the courts he could not do the work. He said at this time he told Jimenez that he was working on the property. He said that if this decision stands he will go back into depression. He said he was fortunate that he had people around him that care about him and have pushed him. He said that the Code Enforcement staff department used to be named Neighborhood Resources, and that title was not even close to what they did.

Polson asked Jimenez what the CDAC’s decision ultimately meant.

Jimenez said that the CDAC’s decision upheld the staff’s interpretation of the code. If Mr. Bradburn’s comments are correct, he will continue to work on his house, which is what staff wants to see. If the property is not repaired soon, it will deteriorate more, and staff will be left with the option to take the case to the City Commission for abatement of the conditions.

Bradburn said that he lived there the last two winters without a problem.

Jimenez said that may be true, but staff has an obligation to the neighborhood and community to enforce the code.

Mitchell asked if there was any public comment.

Michelle Myer indicated that she lived across the street from Bradburn, and for three years she has seen him wash cars in his driveway all weekend and never lift a finger to work on his house. She said for a long time she felt sorry for him because of his situation. She is trying to teach her children to be proud of their neighborhood and to the neighbors, but Mr. Bradburn does not seem to care about his property or the neighborhood. All the neighbors hear is that he is planning to do this and planning to do that. He does not care and will not do anything until he is forced to do so.

Sandra Tutwiler said that she too, lived directly across the street from Bradburn. She said on Sunday morning she sits down to read the paper and drink her coffee and the first thing she sees is his house. She said that she has lived in the neighborhood longer than anybody, and she even watched him move into his house. She said that she could not imagine how one person can allow for this condition to happen. She said that she feels like she has put a lot of sweat, time, and money into her house, and it is unfair that her property is affected by his lack of ability or intention to do anything with his house. She said at one time there were 12 vehicles parked in his driveway and on the adjacent street. She said in her opinion, she does not think he cares. She said he used to be a good neighbor, was friendly, and somewhere, something changed. He is either unwilling or unable to fix up his house, and she is not sure why the neighborhood should wait any longer.

Mitchell asked if the City Commission action was the next step.

Jimenez said that a packet will be sent to the City Commission that includes this meeting in the correspondence. He said that he wanted to reiterate that staff wants to see Bradburn succeed. He said that as the CDAC can see from the testimony of the neighbors, staff has the obligation to enforce the codes that are intended to protect the citizens of the City. The City Commission meeting will be an open meeting as well.

Belt said that while it was obvious that numerous hardships have been seen by staff in working with this case, he was not entirely comfortable by how the appeal process played out. He said this appeal could have been personality driven and in the future he would be more comfortable with a specific process for the appeal cases.

Jimenez noted that hearing the appeal before the CDAC was the process and said that Bradburn was informed of the purpose of the meeting this evening. He said staff has probably worked with him on 30-40 occasions, and no matter what the outlined process may be, it would not likely be followed by Mr. Bradburn.

Joe Burns said that he counts Bradburn as a friend. He said that Bradburn is a nice person but a horrible neighbor. He said that every one of the neighbors have offered to help him in one way or another, and he thought the CDAC was premature in shutting down his discussion before he finished. He said that he hopes that Bradburn does get his house fixed up, but the process this evening was flawed and he should have gotten the time he needed to in order to appeal the decision.

6. Miscellaneous/Calendar.

Swarts said that staff would include Horn’s presentation on Community Gardens on the October 13, 2011 CDAC agenda.

7. Public Comment.

There was no additional public comment.

8. Adjourn.

Polson moved to adjourn the September 22, 2011 meeting of the CDAC at 7:45 pm. The motion was seconded by Teixeira and passed 9-0.

Attendance Record

Members

Jan 13

Jan 27

Feb 10

Feb 24

Mar 10

Mar 24

Apr 14

Apr 28

May 12

May 26

Jun

July

Aug

Sept 8

Sept 22

Oct 13

Oct 27

Nov 10

Dec 8

Deron Belt

Quinn Miller

Julie Mitchell

Vern Norwood

Brenda Nunez

Aimee Polson

Roberta Suenram

David Teixeira

Patti Welty

Eric Hethcoat

Patrick Wilbur

E Excused Absence

X Meeting Cancelled – Weather Conditions

- Meeting Cancelled – Committee Vote

* First meeting after appointment