January 26, 2012 Minutes (City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Eric Hethcoat, James Minor, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, David Teixeira, Patti Welty, Patrick Wilbur |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Deron Belt, Quinn Miller |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
None |
Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:30pm.
1. Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
2. Approval of the January 12, 2012 Minutes.
Hethcoat moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from
January 12, 2012. The motion was seconded by Welty and passed 9-0.
3. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair.
Polson nominated Teixeira for Chair. The motion was seconded by Welty.
Polson nominated Belt for Vice Chair. The motion died for lack of a second.
Teixeira nominated Polson for Vice Chair. The motion was seconded by Norwood.
A vote was taken. Teixeira was elected Chair. Polson was elected Vice-Chair.
4. Discussion of Updates to the Citizen Participation Plan.
Swarts said that staff made the recommended changes to the Citizen Participation Plan document that were discussed in the meeting as well as some other grammatical changes and additions made by staff. Swarts said staff also received an email from a CDAC member suggesting items nine and ten be combined on page four of the document. There was a suggestion that the newsletter piece be deleted and it be left to the individual neighborhoods to determine how they wanted to notify the neighbors in terms of their news updates. Swarts said from the staff perspective the neighborhoods should be required to have newsletters, and a newsletter in some form is needed.
Teixeira asked if the neighborhoods can choose between an electronic copy or a hard copy to provide to the neighbors.
Swarts said it is staff’s belief that the hard copy needs to be available to all neighbors. It is still too early in the community process to expect that everyone in these neighborhoods is able to access an electronic version of the newsletter.
Hethcoat said that even if they are sent an electronic version there is no guarantee they will read it.
Teixeira said in his neighborhood it was suggested that the newsletter be produced electronically to save money. He agreed that not everyone has access as this was a point brought up in their meeting. He said that he believes that the Citizen Participation piece regarding newsletters should be left in the document, and have a piece added about the requirement of a hard copy.
Swarts said that there should be a guide as to the minimum requirement for production of the newsletter.
Mitchell said Brook Creek is down to producing the newsletter three times a year because of costs.
Swarts said that the language can say that the expectation is that the neighborhood associations produce a minimum of two newsletters per year.
Norwood said there should be guidance on how additional notifications will be handled as well. There may be something that comes up after a newsletter has been produced.
Swarts said in a case like this most associations have websites and they have several ways to get the information they need to out to neighbors. She said right now the trend is between the old way of paper and the new way of the electronic form. Not everyone has moved from the old way to the new way.
Wilbur asked if it would be appropriate for neighbors to opt out of the hard copy form and accept an electronic version.
Swarts said that the requirement is to produce the newsletter and allow for it to be available for all neighbors. It does not require that it be mailed to people that prefer to have an electronic copy.
Norwood asked what was supposed to be in the newsletter.
Swarts said the neighborhood association is supposed to keep staff and the committee apprised of minutes and neighborhood activities. Some neighborhoods have submitted the minutes with the newsletters. Some have submitted the newsletters separately.
Teixeira said the language needs to be carefully crafted in that if there is a blanket requirement that the neighborhood associations produce a hard copy, you may encounter an association that will produce one copy of the newsletter. He said he did not want to make the language too exact, but he did not want to leave the neighborhood associations with an out either.
Norwood asked if the item in the document could be left alone as we are getting the newsletters currently.
Swarts said that there does need to be a “hard copy” piece included. When the Citizen Participation Plan was created there was only one way to produce the newsletters, and that was by hard copy. She added that if the neighborhood decides on their own to produce more newsletters than those funded by CDBG those also need to be available in hard copy.
Teixeira suggested language noting that the newsletter must be distributed as a hard copy unless otherwise requested by neighborhood residents or association members.
Welty asked about the part of the document that refers to the fact that the CDAC needs to have a landlord on the committee.
Swarts said this item was suggested early on by someone on the committee that felt strongly that a landlord presence was important. Staff has not always thought this was necessary. This is a piece that staff talked about while incorporating the recommended changes from the last meeting. Staff does not know that there is a landlord on the committee now, and does not know that this is a piece that needs to be left in.
Polson said she did not feel that having landlord representation was very important based on the small amount of the funding that actually goes to the neighborhood associations.
Welty moved to amend Page Three, Paragraph Three of the Citizen Participation Plan “Objective No. 1” to delete the language requiring the CDAC body to include the requirement of landlord representation. The motion was seconded by Norwood. The motion passed 9-0.
Welty said that there are several places in the document where “public hearings” and “public meetings” seemed to be used interchangeably. She asked that these be made uniform.
Swarts said staff will work with this language to make sure that it is uniform throughout the document.
Hethcoat asked if the requirement of the neighborhoods to provide the committee with a PDF copy of their newsletter should be an outlined requirement.
Swarts said that particular item does not have to be in the Citizen Participation Plan, but it will be incorporated into the sub-grantee agreement.
Swarts said one additional change that staff made in the document was to delete the sentence on page three, paragraph two that referenced the CDAC was to “review the Residential Code and Property Maintenance Code appeals”. Swarts said upon consulting with other Development Services managerial staff, it was more appropriate to have the Building Code Board of Appeals hear these items.
Hethcoat asked if anything additional has happened with the Holiday Drive appeal that the CDAC heard in the fall. He asked how the appeal originally started and if it was structural or lawn care based.
Swarts said originally the complaint was one of the exterior conditions and not the lawn mowing piece. She said that in the process of being angry about the violations on the exterior, the homeowner began tearing apart the structure. Staff is currently still working with the homeowner to resolve the issues.
Teixeira moved to accept the recommended changes to the Citizen Participation Plan document. The motion was seconded by Norwood. The motion passed 9-0.
5. Discussion/Allocation of the CDBG Capital Improvement Requests.
Polson asked about the ONA applications and if it is possible to find out the physical addresses of the board. She said it is hard to tell if anyone lives in the neighborhood from the information supplied.
Swarts said staff can ask for the addresses of the board. Staff will request the physical address of either the home that the board member lives in if it is in the neighborhood or the property that they own in the neighborhood. Several of the neighborhoods provided their board members and their occupations, but the addresses have been left off of some.
Hethcoat asked if a renter could serve on the board.
Swarts said yes. The neighborhood association is open to owner-occupants, renters, and landlords. Historically, in order to be a board member you have to be a voting member of the neighborhood association.
Mitchell said that a person can join a neighborhood association as a non-voting member as well.
Swarts said this was true, but the assumption was that the non-voting members would not be voted onto the board.
Polson asked it the ONA election was an open one, and that it might make a difference if, although it is not officially violating a rule, but it has created a bad climate.
Swarts said she understood Polson’s point; however there is not much this body can do about the climate of a neighborhood. She said that changing the requirements of the board makeup would be something that is included in the Citizen Participation Plan. She said staff will notify all neighborhood associations and ask that they submit a listing of their board with physical addresses that tie them to the neighborhood they serve.
Hethcoat asked if the CDAC cares if a board such as ONA includes representation of mostly non-residents of the neighborhood.
Swarts reminded the committee that they just amended a part of the Citizen Participation Plan that said that a board member be a resident of the neighborhood or own property in the neighborhood. Technically any neighborhood association can have a board made up entirely of property owners.
Polson said very few of the landlords are considered low-moderate income.
Minor said that any requirement the committee tries to suggest can currently be challenged based on what is in the Citizen Participation document.
Swarts agreed and said every neighborhood has some renters, some homeowners, and some landlords. Some of those landlords live there and some do not.
Teixeira said the landlords have a vested interest in the neighborhoods and the long term stability of that area.
Swarts noted that as an example, in looking at the board makeup of the Brook Creek neighborhood, only names and occupations are listed. She said that the committee cannot look at Brook Creek’s listing and know if these board members live in the neighborhood or not. She said that while staff will gather the information, she is unsure that the CDAC can dictate that the neighborhood association board cannot be made up entirely of landlords.
Polson said that boards have regulations. She said the CDAC has regulations on the make-up of this committee.
Swarts said the representation of the CDAC is based on aggregate numbers in the community of low-moderate income neighborhoods and at-large neighborhoods. On the CDAC this is broken down into six low-moderate neighborhood representatives and five at-large representatives. In Lawrence, the numbers reflect that the community is approximately 46% low-moderate income and 54% above moderate income or “at-large”. The make-up of the CDAC basically reflects the community. In a neighborhood association such as the ONA, the argument could be made that it is 80% rental, so 80% of the board should be made up of landlords.
Polson moved to fully fund 3c, North Lawrence Improvement Association Bus Stop Pad – 3rd and Lyons, in the amount of $1,000. Norwood seconded the motion.
Norwood further said she was having difficulty determining the scope of this project based on the application.
Welty said that it was for the school bus that stops at this intersection. The northeast corner of the lot has a retaining wall, so she is unsure of the location of the concrete pad. She asked if a diagram of the project could be requested.
Dresslar said she would contact Ted Boyle to have a diagram submitted of the project.
Polson withdrew the motion Norwood the second.
Welty moved to fully fund 11a, Independence, Inc. Accessible Housing Program, in the amount of $33,000. Norwood seconded the motion, which passed 9-0.
Polson moved to fully fund 4c, Oread Neighborhood Association 14th and Tennessee Crosswalk Realignment, in the amount of $13,492. Welty seconded the motion.
Teixeira asked if this was part of the previously funded Oread Lighted Pathway project.
Swarts said no.
The motion passed 9-0.
Norwood moved to fully fund 10a, The Boys and Girls Club of Lawrence Parking Lot and Front Entrance Replacement, in the amount of $10,100. Polson seconded the motion.
Mitchell said that she was under the impression that the school district wanted to tear that building down and build a new school.
Nunez said this was what she heard also.
Swarts said that if the committee does not want to fund this project that is one thing, but she said she did not believe that they can hinge that determination on a rumor of a new school.
Norwood said that if the building will have continued use she is supportive of funding it. If the building is going to be torn down she does not want to fund it.
The motion passed 7-2.
Polson moved to zero fund 4d, Oread Neighborhood Association Edgehill Road Stairway & Sidewalk Repair. Welty seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0.
Welty moved to fully fund 13a, City of Lawrence (Public Works Division) 27th and Ridge Court Stormwater Improvements for $48,000. Norwood seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-1.
Polson moved to fully fund 12a, The Social Service League of Lawrence Building Repairs in the amount of $7,900. Nunez seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-1.
Norwood moved to zero fund 4f, Oread Neighborhood Association Alleyway Overlay. Welty seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0.
Norwood moved to fully fund 14a, City of Lawrence Community Development Division Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program in the amount of $375,000. Teixeira seconded the motion.
Polson asked if funds came back into the program since it is a loan program.
Swarts said funds are always being recycled into the program. Program income from these loan programs are factored into the total allocation that the committee has to work with. This request is asking for $375,000 and about $125,000 of that is for program delivery of all the Community Development programs. The Project Specialists are paid from this money and they handle the project management for all the programs.
The motion passed 7-2.
Welty moved to fully fund 14b, City of Lawrence Community Development Division First-time Homebuyer Rehabilitation Program in the amount of $100,000; 14d, City of Lawrence Community Development Division Energy Saving Improvements – Exterior Weatherization in the amount of $50,000; 14e, City of Lawrence Community Development Division Furnace and Emergency Loans in the amount of $40,000; and 14a, City of Lawrence Community Development Division Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation in the amount of $240,624. Norwood seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-2.
Norwood moved to fully fund 14f, City of Lawrence Community Development Division CDBG Administration in the amount of $151,728 and HOME Administration in the amount of $39,621. Teixeira seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0.
Teixeira moved to zero fund 3c, North Lawrence Improvement Association Bus Stop Pad – 3rd and Lyons; 4e, Oread Neighborhood Association Oread Rock Garden & Stonewall Maintenance; 10b, Boys and Girls Club of Lawrence Efficient Bus; and 13b, City of Lawrence (Public Works Division) CDBG Sidewalk Replacement and Gap Program. Norwood seconded the motion.
Polson said the sidewalk program has done a good job and there is nothing here for that project. She said that zero funding the sidewalk program seems bad.
The motion passed 6-3.
Teixeira moved to zero fund 10a, Boys and Girls Club of Lawrence Parking Lot and Front Entrance Replacement; and to fund 13b, City of Lawrence (Public Works Division) CDBG Sidewalk Replacement and Gap Program in the amount of $10,100. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion failed 4-5.
Polson asked if the Boys and Girls Club could possibly partner with the City or KU on the bus replacement.
Swarts said that in the past there have been little in the way of partnerships outside of the City and KU with the bus system. The bus fleet cannot be used for anything else other than what routes they currently run. The only thing they might be able to look at would be alternate routes, but they will not be able to specifically partner with the agency for a specialized purpose.
Wilber said the application noted that they spend $500 a month currently on bus maintenance, but there is nothing that shows what they intend to spend after the upgrade.
Teixeira said the bus replacement is a worthy project, there is just no extra money this year to look at it.
Mitchell moved to fully fund 13a, City of Lawrence (Public Works Division) CDBG Sidewalk Replacement and Gap Program in the amount of $50,000, and to fund 14a, City of Lawrence Community Development Division Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program in the amount of $190,624. The motion was seconded by Polson.
Hethcoat wondered if there were sidewalks in dire need of repair under this program.
Swarts noted that at a certain point the Comprehensive Rehabilitation program is no longer viable without appropriate funding. Taking $50,000 additional away from what has already been cut will hurt the program.
Norwood said in terms of the funding awarded to the Boys and Girls Club for the parking lot, what does the committee feel is more important, the sidewalk or the parking lot?
Mitchell said they are both concerns, but the sidewalks seem more important.
Nunez agreed and said the parking lot is currently gravel and not that bad.
After additional discussion, Mitchell withdrew the motion and Polson withdrew the second.
Swarts said this completed the allocation of CDBG Capital Improvements and that if the committee decides they want to revisit any item in Capital Improvements they can do so at any time. Historically the CDAC has moved from CDBG Capital Improvements allocations into HOME allocations. Swarts said staff has some additional information regarding the HOME requests as the requests came in prior to the determination from HUD on the actual funding amounts. Staff will share this information with the CDAC next meeting.
6. Miscellaneous/Calendar.
The next meeting is February 9, 2012.
7. Public Comment.
There was no additional public comment.
8. Adjourn.
Welty moved to adjourn the January 26, 2012 meeting of the CDAC at 6:50 pm. The motion was seconded by Hethcoat and passed 9-0.
Attendance Record
|
Members |
Jan 12 |
Jan 26 |
Feb 9 |
Feb 23 |
Mar 8 |
Mar 22 |
Apr 12 |
Apr 26 |
May 10 |
May 24 |
Jun |
July |
Aug |
Sept 13 |
Sept 27 |
Oct 11 |
Oct 25 |
Nov 8 |
Dec 13 |
|
Deron Belt |
+ |
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Hethcoat |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quinn Miller |
+ |
U |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie Mitchell |
E |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vern Norwood |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brenda Nunez |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aimee Polson |
E |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Teixeira |
E |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patti Welty |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Wilbur |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Minor |
|
+* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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