January 22, 2009 Minutes (City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Marci Francisco, Curtis Harris, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, Patti Welty. |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Quinn Miller. |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Margene Swarts, Danelle Dresslar. |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
None. |
Welty called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm.
Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
Approval of January 8, 2009 Minutes
Harris moved to approve the January 8, 2009 minutes as presented. Norwood seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Discuss Calendar and allocation timeline.
Swarts opened up the conversation and verified that the Public Hearing date for the CDBG/HOME deliberation process would be April 23, 2009. She said that all deliberations need to be complete by the end of the March meetings. She asked the committee members to look at their calendars and make sure there are no changes that need to be made. She suggested the April 9, 2009 meeting should be one for updates and last minute discussions, then the public hearing would be the next meeting. She asked if the committee wanted to divide the sections as they have done in the past, with Capital Improvements, Public Services, and HOME deliberations. She suggested a timeline of February 12 for Capital Improvements, HOME deliberations on February 26, then the two March meetings for Public Service deliberations. The committee agreed that this was a good timeline, leaving one April meeting before the public hearing to go over any last minute updates and questions. Welty and the committee agreed to the suggested allocation timeline.
Discuss 2009 CDBG/HOME applications.
Swarts told the committee that staff has some questions regarding the Commercial Residential Union application. She said that although it appears to be an eligible activity, there are questions such as the capacity of the organization to do this project; there is not a clear definition about how they are meeting the National Objective of helping low and moderate income persons. It appears to be job creation but there is no information regarding how that will be measured. She added that a decision did not need to be made at this time, but she wanted to point it out for something the Committee to consider. She added that the other applications were pretty straightforward.
Swarts also informed the committee that staff would prepare a breakdown of the requests for them to use for quick reference. They will have that at the February 12, 2009 meeting.
Welty requested the addresses for the homes that would be roofed for the CLO project. She also wanted to know the age of the current roof and structure information.
Swarts told her that staff would get that information.
Polson asked if the First Time Homebuyer program was in the Public Service category.
Swarts answered that it is the HOME program.
Welty asked if staff knew the dollar amounts have been determined yet.
Swarts said the funding has not been announced yet, but 2008 funding amounts will be used as a baseline for 2009 deliberations. The amount of the award may change as a result of the federal stimulus package.
Francisco added that there is a focus on having “shovel ready” projects available for additional funding if such a stimulus package is passed. She said that programs like CDBG and HOME would be good places for those funds to go because they are programs that already have structures in place, and they have program oversight from citizens. She said that having these programs with structures in place is extremely important because the government can ask the communities who decides where the money is spent and the allocation structure is already in place with these programs. She added that the Committee should look also if there is additional money that becomes available and where can that money be spent and how would the process work.
Polson noted that Habitat for Humanity did not complete an application for 2009.
Swarts added that there were several who have applied in the past who did not apply in 2009.
Welty asked about the request from Van Go since there was a similar request from last year for lights as well.
Swarts said that staff would check on it.
Welty asked about East Lawrence Neighborhood Association and the fact that there was no dollar amount listed on the application page.
Swarts said staff would check on that as well.
Welty asked about administration percentages of the CDBG and HOME funds.
Swarts said that it was 10% administration for HOME and 20% for CDBG.
Miscellaneous/Calendar items.
Swarts said that the Study Session with the City Commission was on February 10, 2009, in the City Commission Room and begins at 5:30 pm.
Polson asked how the process of a Study Session worked.
Swarts said that the City Commission will be provided with the request breakdowns and they will also receive the link for the applications. She said that historically the City Commission will talk to the committee about the application requests and get their opinions, as well as offer their own opinions about the allocation.
Swarts said that the Committee should review the priorities set for last year, which are included in the Memorandum that was sent out to the applicants and interested parties.
Francisco added that the City may also be looking for ways to partner with boards to deal with the budget. She said that historically there have been some applicants that have gotten funds from the CDBG/HOME programs as well as from the City of Lawrence general fund. She noted that the Committee should be prepared for discussion about the general fund and maximizing the CDBG/HOME allocations. This is especially true if the state budget goes through as proposed as there will be a lot of money to retrieve for the City.
Miscellaneous Discussion/Calendar items.
Swarts said that May 5, or May 12, 2009 would be the date to take the Consolidated Plan to the City Commission.
Francisco asked about what the Committee would potentially recommend with stimulus dollars. She said that shovel ready projects that are ready immediately will be incredibly important.
Swarts said that the Committee can either take in new proposals from social service agencies that need facility repairs, side walk proposals from Public Works, or parks and recreation improvements, as well as similar projects. She added that putting more money into the Comprehensive Rehabilitation program would be tricky because it is a very time consuming process and it is difficult to speed up. Although there is staff and a process in place, it is not “shovel ready” as some projects are.
Francisco added that it would be a good idea for the Committee to come up with a list of those shovel ready projects in the event that there is stimulus money to work with.
Welty asked about 2008 funding allocation.
Swarts said that the 2008 CDBG Grant was $798,320; Projected Program Income was $100,000; and there was $250,000 reallocated bringing it to a total of $1,148,320. The HOME Grant was $626,133.
Adjourn
There being no further business, Polson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 pm; Francisco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Attendance Record
|
Members |
01/08 |
01/22 |
02/10 Study Session |
02/26 |
03/12 |
03/26 |
04/09 |
04/23 |
05/14 |
05/28 |
|
Marci Francisco |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curtis Harris |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quinn Miller |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie Mitchell |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vern Norwood |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brenda Nunez |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aimee Polson |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patti Welty |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|