December 8, 2011 Minutes (City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Deron Belt, Quinn Miller, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, David Teixeira, Patrick Wilbur |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Eric Hethcoat, Patti Welty |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Molly Mays |
Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:30pm.
1. Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
2. Approval of the October 13, 2011 Minutes.
Teixeira moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from
October 13, 2011. The motion was seconded by Wilbur and passed 8-0.
3. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Project Presentation.
Jim Moore, Housing Investment Partners, provided the CDAC with a packet regarding his company’s proposal for a tax-credit financed senior housing development located at 25th Street and O’Connell Road in southeast Lawrence. The project will include applying for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Kansas Housing Resources Corporation (KHRC). Part of the funding requirement through KHRC is the developer collaborates with both neighbors and the governing body to secure a consent letter.
Moore said the Housing Investment Partners is a family-owned business based in Springfield, Missouri. They function as a developer, contractor, manager and owner for their projects. The company’s development experience ranges from new construction to rehabilitation. They have done family developments and senior developments, most in the form of 1-3 story complexes. They have a very diverse development background and have been in existence since the 1960’s. The company has a portfolio of 7500 units in six states, and they have a proven track record of success with the LIHTC program in Kansas. Moore said the company has a simple development philosophy. The first part of this philosophy is to build a good product. He said the development costs of their units run about $120,000 each. This includes the hard costs, engineering costs, and architect costs. The senior housing development project in Lawrence is 48 units. This will be a $6-7 million project. The second piece of their company philosophy is to hire good people. Moore said all their projects have an on-site property manager and maintenance worker. The company trains their on-site employees, and empowers them to make decisions locally. They are also very thorough on tenant checks, but at the same time they are fair on qualifications. The last piece of the philosophy is to treat the residents with respect and dignity. Moore said the company is a for-profit company and they have a very proven track record with these developments. They listen to the community and base the project on the community needs. Moore said this particular development will be one that the company builds, owns, and manages. The clientele will be older adults age 55 and above. The area at 25th Street and O’Connell Road has the proper zoning. The development will be a three story product with elevators, and will contain one and two bedroom apartments. It will include energy efficient appliances and a fitness center.
Polson asked if there will be empty units available for guests of the residents.
Moore said at least one of the tenants needs to be 55 and over to qualify for a unit, and there will be no additional units available for guests.
Norwood asked what the rent will be.
Moore said the units will rent from $500 to low $600s for one bedroom and $600 to low $700s for the two bedrooms.
Norwood asked if there was additional consideration for tenants below the poverty line.
Moore said they were targeting renters with income qualifications in the 60% area median income bracket. The target profile is a renter age 55 and over with an annual household income from the low $20s to the mid $30s. They will be expected to earn at least three times what the rent is. They are working to balance affordable housing, quality, and meeting the community need.
Norwood asked if the facility will have transportation as an amenity.
Moore said the facility itself will not offer transportation, but they are working with the transit department at the City. The target renter will be an older, healthy, ambulatory adult that does not need much assistance. This is not an assisted living facility. Moore said this was a three story product and each level will have amenities. The foyer will go all the way up all three stories, and the common area will be on the first level. There are exercise, media, and meeting rooms. They have found that amenities like these are important to the senior tenant.
Norwood asked if there was a pool included in the plans.
Moore said there was not, but sometimes their larger projects do have pools.
Miller asked if a future increase in size is incorporated in the site plan.
Moore said that the owner of the land owns a substantial amount of land around the project, but this project is restricted to the area that has been indicated on the site plan. There are no plans to consider increasing the size of the development.
Miller asked how many people the development would employ.
Moore said Housing Investment Partners is the general contractor, but they make their best effort to tie into local sub-contractors for electrical, heating, and plumbing. After the development is complete, there will be three to four employees on site, including a full-time manager, a part time manager, and a maintenance worker.
Miller asked how the development will compare to other senior housing projects in Lawrence.
Bill Newsome indicated that it will look aesthetically similar to several other projects in the community.
Polson asked if there had been any plans for the vacant land by the United Way building.
Norwood said someone was looking at it, but the project was nothing like the one being presented for the senior development.
Swarts said the purpose of the presentation this evening was that KHRC required a Resolution of Support from the local governing body for any tax credit application as evidence that the developer has spoken with the community regarding their intentions. Swarts noted the preferred process is that the project comes before the CDAC for a recommendation prior to being forwarded to the City Commission. The action of the CDAC this evening will be to determine if they are going to recommend the project.
Teixeira asked if the CDAC declined to recommend the project, is that where it ends?
Swarts said no, it still goes to the City Commission, but in the accompanying memorandum the decision of the CDAC will be noted.
Belt asked about the KHRC approval process.
Swarts said in a typical year, KHRC will take applications twice. Currently with the limited funding, the applications are being taken only once a year. There are not a lot of opportunities statewide for these types of projects. Since 2000 there have only been five or six applications for projects in Lawrence. Not every project for which KHRC receives an application is approved for the tax credits.
Belt said if this application is approved by the State then that will make two LIHTC projects in Lawrence.
Newsome said that is correct in that the Pohler building project also received tax credits.
Polson asked if the project was not approved by KHRC this year, will it be resubmitted.
Swarts said the City Commission resolution will be good until June of 2012. If the next application cycle is after that date, then the developers will need to come back and ask for another recommendation.
Teixeira moved to recommend approval of the submission of the Housing Investment Partners, LLC application to the Kansas Housing Resource Corporation for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to construct affordable senior rental housing at 25th Street and O’Connell Road in Lawrence. The motion was seconded by Norwood and passed 8-0.
4. Discussion of Update to Citizen Participation Plan.
Swarts said the current version of the Citizen Participation Plan has not been updated since September of 2008. There was discussion last year about it, but nothing changed in the document. The 2012 grant year is shaping up to be a very tough year, and it is projected that the City will have about $650,000 to allocate this year to projects, which is a lot less than in the past. Additionally, there are no reallocated funds this year. Swarts said CDBG was cut another 12% from last year. That leaves about $96,000 for public services, which will lead to some very hard decisions. Staff is working on getting the applications together to send out to the Committee, and the CDAC will see that while the amount available is much lower, the agencies and neighborhoods are asking for the same of greater amounts than they received last year.
Swarts noted there was a recent situation in that a CDBG-funded neighborhood association hired a coordinator, and the coordinator subsequently moved out of state. At first, staff was not overly concerned after finding out the coordinator moved because it was assumed the neighborhood would work to find a local replacement. This did not happen and staff sent a letter to the President of the neighborhood association to request that the neighborhood association find a local coordinator. Although the situation is being resolved, there was initial push back on the part of the neighborhood association President.
Swarts said when the City first began allocating money to neighborhoods to hire a coordinator the expectation was that the coordinator lived in the neighborhood. As time went by, it was not always possible for the coordinator to live in the neighborhood, but the expectation remained that the coordinator be a resident of the City of Lawrence. Staff feels that the coordinator is a liaison and contact of the neighborhood. Due to this situation, it seemed like a good opportunity to review the Citizen Participation Plan with regard to requirements and expectations for neighborhood associations, coordinators, expenses, etc.
Swarts stated that a review of a map of Lawrence indicates CDBG area benefit is essentially split by Iowa Street, with most of the area east of Iowa eligible for CDBG funding, and most of the area west of Iowa not eligible. There are many neighborhoods that are eligible for CDBG funds that are not participating in the CDBG program. That may be fine with residents of those areas, but perhaps not. Swarts said that since the CDAC makes the recommendation for which projects and activities are funded, it seems an appropriate time for a thoughtful conversation about the expectations of the Committee before the allocations begin in January or February.
Belt asked if the City was building a case against the neighborhood association mentioned because of lack of compliance.
Swarts said while there have been some issues, there is no case being built. This conversation is happening because of the anticipated decrease in CDBG funding; this situation brought some specific concerns to the forefront.
Belt asked if the staff is suggesting deemphasizing neighborhood association funding.
Swarts said staff was not specifically suggesting that, but it is a worthy discussion to have. There is an equity issue in that the same five neighborhoods are receiving funding, and this is at least in part because they always have received funding. Maybe this is acceptable, maybe it is not. Staff is suggesting the CDAC look at the big picture. Swarts said as she is involved in community activities, it is not unusual for people to speak to her about neighborhood issues when she is out in the community. Over the years every funded neighborhood has had issues of some sort, whether it be an issue with the board, a problem here or there, or a coordinator not performing their job. This is a good point to have this conversation.
Teixeira asked if there were more neighborhoods that would be applying for funding in the future.
Swarts said she did not know and is not sure they know they can apply. There were no new applications this year. Staff works very hard to get the word out in the community about the grant funds, working through LAN and other outlets. It is important the body look critically at the funding that they allocate, and what is happening with the money once it is granted. Staff monitors all capital improvement projects and can measure the performance with them. Staff can also monitor the public service agencies through their reporting mechanisms. Performance evaluation is more difficult with the neighborhoods.
Teixeira asked if the CDAC decided to limit neighborhood funding, what were the options for the CDAC to apply the additional funding to?
Swarts said that it is always possible to fund less public service and put more into capital improvement projects, but that is not necessarily the suggestion of staff. There is a 15% cap in the grant available to fund public services. That is a maximum not a minimum.
Mitchell agreed and said that Brook Creek had this discussion in their neighborhood meeting in that they expect there to be a hit. When it comes down to it there may be other priorities. She said that while a newsletter is nice, when there are homeless individuals in the community the funding focus may be elsewhere.
Polson asked what the point of the Citizen Participation Plan was.
Swarts said the document is required by HUD regulation and is designed to ensure there is good citizen process in the CDBG and HOME programs. The CDAC is established in the Citizen Participation Plan as the advisory body that is meant to be representative of the community and make recommendations to the governing body regarding the CDBG and HOME programs.
Polson said she feels that neighborhood funding is as good as any other public service tool at putting this particular plan into action.
Swarts noted that could also depend on the neighborhood association.
Belt said neighborhood activities can touch just as many people as a capital improvement project.
Swarts agreed and reiterated it had just been a long time since the CDAC spoke in depth about neighborhoods and their expectations for neighborhood associations.
Wilbur asked if the neighborhood performance measures are discussed in the public meetings.
Swarts said the CDAC can ask the neighborhoods to come in and report, but they have not. The performance measures assume that every person in the neighborhood received and reads the newsletter and are involved. The reality is that in any given neighborhood association a percentage less than 100% might or might not know what is going on. These same people may or may not know that there is even a neighborhood association.
Polson asked about the guidelines for CDBG-funded neighborhoods in the Citizen Participation Plan and asked if the neighborhoods are required to sign this document.
Swarts said that the guidelines are included in every CDBG sub-recipient agreement that is signed, and these agreements are signed by the neighborhood association president.
Belt said that he was a former neighborhood association president, and there are currently more than 19 neighborhood associations in town. The ones that receive the CDBG funding are those who have the issues to do something. Other neighborhoods wait for issues to arise.
Swarts agreed and said that as a general rule neighborhood associations are very issue driven. That is true city-wide.
Teixeira said the body is not questioning the validity of the work that the neighborhood associations do and how they perform, it is a question of the funding.
Swarts said that since performance measures were instituted for neighborhood associations, the associations realize they have to comply. Pinckney Neighborhood Association is one example of an association that got very serious when they were not funded due to not following the performance and reporting expectations.
Swarts said when she reviewed the neighborhood guidelines set forth in the Citizen Participation Plan, the coordinator section is not specifically written as to where the coordinator must reside. It never occurred to staff (or probably the Committee either) that there would ever be a case of an out-of-state coordinator.
Teixeira said that it could be as easy as adding a section stating that the coordinator is preferred to live in the neighborhood, or in worst case the community. He said he did not feel that the Citizen Participation Plan itself needed to change, just the section on the coordinator.
Norwood said the funding decisions this year will be hard choices since these agencies and neighborhoods plan on this money. The funding is cut, and this body just does not have the same allocation to give. The CDAC will have to stand firm on what they believe, and if the body does not think that a coordinator can effectively coordinate outside of the community, then that is what they need to stick to.
Swarts said that the CDAC needs to look at the expectations of the coordinator. There have not always been guidelines for CDBG-funded neighborhoods. The guidelines arose from a conversation similar to this one. There should be a discussion about the Citizen Participation Plan and funding priorities before reviewing the applications. There is still some time, and as a general rule the allocation process has gone quickly and there have been times when there has not been much business.
Polson asked about the section of the Citizen Participation Plan where it talks about a City Commission Study Session to discuss priorities.
Swarts said that particular item has ebbed and flowed with different Commissions. It is in the Plan because at one time the City Commission wished to regularly discuss CDBG funding with the Committee because there were issues that might be addressed with CDBG funds. In recent years, the City Commission has not had any issues that might require them to meet with the CDAC.
Norwood said it seemed like everyone has been on the same page with the Step Up to Better Housing Strategy as acceptable guidelines.
Swarts agreed that the City Commission has been happy with the work the CDAC does and believes the body is a good steward of the funding. That is a testimony to the CDAC in that the City Commission has not sent anything back to the CDAC for reconsideration or made any changes to recommendations for quite some time.
Polson asked if there was value in taking the Study Session part out of the Citizen Participation Plan.
Swarts said that perhaps the Study Session section could be changed to be on an “as needed basis”. In the past the process was more hands-on with the City Commission and the CDAC.
Teixeira asked about the grant funding process.
Swarts said at the first January meeting the body will establish a work plan. At that time the body will also elect a Chair.
Norwood asked if the Vice-Chair was expected to step up to Chair.
Swarts said the body did discuss a succession plan similar to that, and they can talk about that again in January.
Belt noted the Citizen Participation Plan is a 13 page document. He said the CDAC should be responsible for going over the entire document again and come back with ideas and suggestions.
Swarts agreed and said it would be very helpful if everyone had read the document and could be prepared to review it for the January meeting. She said she did not believe the document needs to be rewritten; it is a good document that just needs some updating and reviewing in a few places.
Mitchell asked about the public comment letter the Committee received.
Swarts said since the agenda item tonight was just a discussion of an update, there may have been some confusion on the part of the person submitting the public comment. If they agree, the Committee can receive the letter and keep it in mind as the document is reviewed and updates are considered.
Norwood asked if the author’s questions had been answered.
Swarts said that this letter contained more issues of concern than questions. Staff was able to provide her with a link to the Consolidated Plan. Staff will let the author know that her letter will be received and referenced as public comment.
Wilbur asked if the Citizen Participation Plan updates will affect the 2012 applications that were just received.
Swarts said the Citizen Participation Plan is not a priority-driven document. Expectations can be put into the Plan and then relayed to grantees. Neighborhood associations can be funded and informed of the CDAC’s expectations for their performance. This update will just update the guidelines. Any changes made to the Citizen Participation Plan needs approval from the City Commission. This can be done in conjunction with the recommended allocations and it can go on the same agenda. If the decision was to make a dramatic change to the Citizen Participation Plan the CDAC would want City Commission approval first before recommending the allocations. Swarts said minor updating and fine tuning the document is not a problem in terms of needing immediate approval in order to conduct business. This is the path that staff had in mind with this topic. During the course of updating the document the CDAC may find a larger issue that they want to review. Staff will work accordingly with the body if this is the case.
Polson noted the Citizen Participation Plan was more for the purpose of guidelines and the Step Up to Better Housing Strategy is more the basis for allocation decisions.
Belt said that all the applications received were based on the current Citizen Participation Plan and the Step Up to Better Housing Strategy. The funding debate is values driven and what the CDAC deems more prudent for the City as a whole.
Swarts said what the CDAC decides will be the expectations set going forward.
Teixeira asked how this will apply to the coordinator funding.
Swarts said that the neighborhoods can still be allocated the funding if the body so chooses, but there are rules that they will have to follow in order to keep the funding.
Belt said he looked forward to having an in depth discussion about the funding.
5. Miscellaneous/Calendar.
Swarts reminded the group that the next meeting will be on January 12, 2012, and the CDAC will elect a Chair and Vice-Chair.
Swarts said that staff was working on the application packet and would be getting this to the Committee members before Christmas.
6. Public Comment.
Molly Mays, KU Student, asked how the neighborhood coordinators were appointed.
Belt said that they were hired by the individual neighborhoods as a contract employee.
7. Adjourn.
Texeira moved to adjourn the December 8, 2011 meeting of the CDAC at 6:45 pm. The motion was seconded by Miller and passed 8-0.
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 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
X |
+ |
- |
E |
- |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
E |
- |
- |
+ |
|
Quinn Miller |
+ |
U |
+ |
X |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
U |
- |
- |
- |
E |
E |
U |
- |
- |
+ |
|
Julie Mitchell |
+ |
+ |
+ |
X |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
E |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
E |
- |
- |
+ |
|
Vern Norwood |
+ |
+ |
+ |
X |
E |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
E |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
+ |
- |
- |
+ |
|
Brenda Nunez |
+ |
U |
+ |
X |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
+ |
- |
- |
+ |
|
Aimee Polson |
E |
+ |
+ |
X |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
E |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
+ |
- |
- |
+ |
|
Roberta Suenram |
+ |
+ |
E |
X |
E |
- |
E |
- |
- |
U |
- |
- |
- |
E |
**U |
|
|
|
|
|
David Teixeira |
+ |
+ |
U |
X |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
E |
- |
- |
+ |
|
Patti Welty |
+ |
+ |
+ |
X |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
+ |
- |
- |
E |
|
Eric Hethcoat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*+ |
- |
- |
- |
E |
+ |
+ |
- |
- |
E |
|
Patrick Wilbur |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*+ |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
+ |
- |
- |
+ |
E Excused Absence
U Unexcused Absence
X Meeting Cancelled – Weather Conditions
- Meeting Cancelled – Committee Vote/No Business
* First meeting after appointment
** Last Meeting Prior to expired term