January 12, 2012 Minutes (City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Deron Belt, Eric Hethcoat, Quinn Miller, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Patti Welty, Patrick Wilbur |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Julie Mitchell, Aimee Polson, David Teixeira |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Ted Boyle |
In the absence of Chair Julie Mitchell, Vice-Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 5:30pm.
1. Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
2. Approval of the December 8, 2011 Minutes.
Miller moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from
December 8, 2011. The motion was seconded by Belt and passed 6-0.
3. Discussion of Update to the Citizen Participation Plan.
Swarts indicated this item was to discuss any updates or revisions that the CDAC would like to see in the Citizen Participation Plan. The Plan has not been updated since 2008, and in particular there may be some updates needed on neighborhood association guidelines for CDBG-funded neighborhoods.
Knowing that Ted Boyle, President of the North Lawrence Improvement Association (NLIA) was attending the meeting in response to a letter (here) the CDAC received at the December 8, 2011 meeting, Vice Chair Miller asked if Mr. Boyle would like to make comments prior to the CDAC discussion.
Boyle said NLIA heard there was a citizen who had written a letter to the CDAC regarding the practices of the NLIA. He wanted to provide insight to the CDAC about the situation that led up to the resident providing them this letter. Boyle said Ms. Lowther of the letter, Natalya Lowther, lived on a farm in the county, just outside of the city limits. Ms. Lowther determined she wanted to have the ability to have up to 12 tents and/or campers on her property in order to give individuals who were working on her farm, the ability to reside on site. In response to the proposal, the residents on North Street, which is where Ms. Lowther’s home is located, formed an association, indicating they were opposed to the potential for a tent city on North Street. They also requested that the NLIA support their position.
The NLIA membership considered Ms. Lowther’s request and the North Street neighbors’ concerns and decided to support the neighbors on North Street. Ms. Lowther took the issue to the Planning Commission as well as to the County Commission and was denied by both bodies as camping is not allowed within Douglas County, outside of approved camping facilities. After the denials by those bodies, Ms. Lowther took the issue to court and the court upheld the Douglas County decision.
Boyle noted her next step has been to lash out at the NLIA, and the comments and accusations made in the letter about NLIA are, in the opinion of NLIA, incorrect. He said Ms. Lowther indicated she recently had moved into the City of Lawrence. The home Ms. Lowther moved into was approximately 50 feet from her prior residence. She resided right along the City/County line, so she moved from the county right next door to the city. Boyle indicated Ms. Lowther has lived along North Street for the past 20 years. Ms. Lowther used to attend the NLIA meetings approximately 10 years ago, but she left for a time and went to Canada, and upon her return was no longer an active participant in the meetings. The night she refers to in the letter as the night of the meeting that was cancelled, happened to be a night where there was a substantial snowstorm. Ms. Lowther called Boyle upon finding out the meeting was cancelled and expressed displeasure at NLIA, explaining that her feeling was that the meeting was cancelled because she was planning on attending to speak about the tent proposal. Boyle said Ms. Lowther was not on the agenda for that evening, but like any other NLIA meeting, she would have been given time during the public comment portion to talk. The meeting was cancelled due to the dangerous conditions of the weather. Boyle said NLIA rescheduled the meeting for the following Monday and provided notice regarding the rescheduled meeting, but Ms. Lowther did not attend.
Boyle said NLIA has over 100 members. He said diversity makes the world go around, and if someone in the neighborhood does not agree with something they are encouraged to speak to the membership about their concerns. He said even with that option when the membership takes a vote, if the majority stands on one side of the issue, that side rules. He said everything NLIA discusses comes through the city or the county. He said that the process of voting and elections within NLIA are transparent and if the elections are being held on a night where there is low attendance, they will be deferred until more of the membership can attend and vote. He said NLIA feels as if Ms. Lowther is just lashing out at the neighborhood since all other entities have denied her in what she wants to do.
When the issue first arose, NLIA met with Ms. Lowther to try to determine a compromise, and NLIA indicated that they would support one pop-up camper on the property. This request was also approved by the county. Ms. Lowther determined she wanted to add four more campers. The code did not allow this, and NLIA did not support it. Boyle said as they tried to work with her and offer her an opportunity to speak and he was very taken aback when he found out about the public comment letter that was received. He said even though this letter was sent, NLIA would still be willing to help her no matter if she is a city or a county resident. If you come to NLIA, you will receive assistance.
Norwood asked if the neighborhood associations have by-laws.
Swarts said the five CDBG-funded neighborhoods do have by-laws, as do a few others who have received CDBG funding in the past. When these neighborhoods started receiving funding they needed to provide by-laws and boundaries. This is not required for all neighborhood associations in the city. The City does not dictate what the individual neighborhood associations do or how they operate. If there are CDBG funds involved then there are requirements.
Norwood asked Boyle if Ms. Lowther had a copy of the NLIA by-laws.
Boyle said that they are available online.
Wilbur asked if the only meeting Ms. Lowther expressed interest in attending recently was the night of the snowstorm.
Boyle said yes. He said she has not attended another meeting, and the only time NLIA sees her is at County Commission or Planning Commission meetings. He said he has told her that the association has an open door policy and anyone can attend the meetings. The night of the snowstorm is the only night she has made an attempt to attend a meeting.
Belt said Boyle indicated Ms. Lowther used to attend meetings.
Boyle said about 10-12 years ago she was a regular participant in the meetings, but upon her return from Canada she has only attended one or two meetings.
Hethcoat entered the meeting at 5:45.
With no further questions, the Committee thanked Boyle for his response.
With regard to review of the Citizen Participation Plan, Swarts noted the CDAC was asked to review the Plan prior to the meeting for discussion regarding possible revisions or updates. Depending on what suggestions the Committee has, staff feels there needs to be conversation regarding the “Guidelines for CDBG-Funded Neighborhood Associations”.
When the neighborhoods originally received funding for coordinators in the 1990’s, there were no written guidelines requiring the coordinators to live in the respective neighborhood, but they all did. Over time, there were some instances when a person within a neighborhood could not be identified to be the coordinator, so some coordinators were hired that lived outside the particular neighborhood. However, they always have still resided in the City of Lawrence.
This year the coordinator previously hired by ONA, moved out of state to Arkansas. ONA continued to employ the individual as the neighborhood coordinator. When staff initially became aware that the coordinator no longer lived in Lawrence, there was little concern because it was assumed that ONA would search locally for a replacement. When it became apparent that this was not the plan of ONA, staff sent a letter to the President of ONA stating it was staff’s belief that the coordinator should live within the city limits and that ONA would need to find a replacement for their current coordinator as he no longer was a resident of Lawrence. This letter resulted in a meeting with CDD staff, the City Manager, the Director of Planning and Development Services, and the ONA President.
According to the President of ONA, they did not see the residential location of the coordinator as a problem. City staff did not agree and after discussion, ONA agreed they would find a new coordinator by March 1, 2012. Staff continues to believe that although it is not specifically addressed in the guidelines, a coordinator should live in the city. As a result, if the CDAC concurs, this is one area of the Plan that needs to be updated.
As the CDAC looks at the guidelines, there needs to be evaluation to see if there are any items that need fine-tuned, tightened up, added, or deleted. Swarts indicated there are also other items in the calendar, such as stating that the CDAC will meet yearly with the City Commission to discuss goals. The City Commission has not felt the need to meet yearly with this body in recent grant years. That is an example of something that can be changed to reflect an “as needed” basis. Staff expects that there will be no significant changes to the document; it is more of a review and update where necessary. The revised Plan will need to be approved by the City Commission and it is likely the document can go to the City Commission with the funding allocation recommendations in May.
Swarts said another item to consider is the proliferation of web pages and online notifications. There are still a lot of people in the community that do not have the ability, knowledge or resources to access the web. Some neighborhoods want to make their items all web-based. That does not always work with all their residents. This is a balancing act for cost saving measures and making sure the information is dispersed to all neighborhood residents.
Wilbur said there needs to be a balance struck between offering web-based items for those neighbors that request them, but at the same time continuing to offer the paper items.
Swarts agreed and said as long as everyone in the neighborhood has the opportunity to stay informed and receive the newsletter, how the neighborhoods get there is their responsibility. Staff requires the neighborhoods to ensure that each resident receives the newsletter and notifications, but keeping the notification and participation equal.
Norwood asked if an item could be inserted into the guidelines regarding the requirement of the neighborhood coordinator to live in the neighborhood, as well as requiring officers of the board to live in the neighborhood.
Swarts said if that is what the CDAC wishes to do then that is a change that can be made. She indicated this was not how the guidelines or understanding of the role of the coordinator has been in the past, and it may have pushback from the neighborhoods by requiring the coordinator to live within the boundaries of the neighborhood. In terms of the membership of the neighborhood association, Swarts said that anyone can join a neighborhood association by paying dues, but they cannot necessarily vote. Most by-laws also should state that you have to be a voting member to serve on the board. Swarts said she did not see many instances where a non-voting member would be elected to the association board.
Belt said the guidelines to not mention anything about a president of the neighborhood association living in the neighborhood. He said he had a problem also with the coordinator of the neighborhood association not living in the city. He said that item needed to be tightened up along with some guidance on the board and the president.
Swarts said as far as the application process for CDBG funds go, the neighborhood association is required to provide a list of names and addresses of the board members. Often this information is provided in the form of a PO Box. These board members may or may not live in the neighborhood. Staff will support whatever recommendation the CDAC has for this guidance as long as it falls within regulations. There will be an opportunity for public comment both before the CDAC and when the Plan goes before the City Commission for approval.
Belt said recently there has been a precedent set for multiple organizations and interests being represented in a single neighborhood.
Swarts said that with a CDBG funded neighborhood association, membership is open to anyone who owns property in, or resides in, the boundaries of the neighborhood. If you live there and rent you can belong, if you own property there and do not live there you can belong, or if you own property and live there you can belong. In order to be eligible for CDBG funds on an area-wide basis, the defined area must meet the guidelines for being low-moderate income. If you have a subset of a group within that area that defines a particular group that only has certain people that can belong, then you no longer meet the definition of an “area” because your membership is limited to a particular group and not a geographic area. For instance, this could be renters only, owners only, or residents only. When you limit the membership like that, you no longer meet the definition to enable you to receive CDBG funding based on “area”. A subset association could try to prove their members all meet the income guidelines and if they do, it would then be a decision of the “appropriate” use of funds, even though it may appear to be “eligible” use of funds.
Boyle referred to the neighbors on North Street and their association. He said they are not asking for anything under CDBG, but in a case like ONA there are two organizations that are separated by landlords and residents. How does that fall under eligibility for CDBG funding?
Swarts said that ONA is open to the neighborhood at large and is CDBG-eligible. There are defined neighborhood boundaries and everyone that lives or owns property within those boundaries is eligible to be a member. The Oread Residents Association (ORA) is not eligible for CDBG funding for public service activities such as operating or coordinator costs because the membership is limited to those owner-occupants within the same boundaries. The ORA might be eligible for capital improvement projects such as streets or sidewalks, because there is no way to limit the access in the neighborhood to ORA residents only, so it does not constitute anything but an area benefit. Also, there are some capital improvement projects that might be considered “eligible”, but might not necessarily be “appropriate”.
Belt said that while the neighborhood itself is brick and mortar and therefore eligible, both groups in Oread are not necessarily representative of low-moderate residents. It is complicated being there are no specifications for a situation like this.
Swarts said most people would argue the fact that the landlords as a general rule are not low-moderate income. Based on Census data, it is known that the owner-occupied portion of Oread is very small, and the low-moderate income make up of that portion is extremely low.
Norwood asked if there could be a recommendation in the guidelines for officers and the requirement that they shall live in the neighborhood or own property in the neighborhood to be eligible to serve.
Welty asked if the coordinator position was considered an officer role.
Swarts said no. They are an employee of the neighborhood association.
Wilbur asked if coordinators are paid.
Swarts said the CDBG-funded coordinators are. She said she was unsure of how other neighborhoods handled their coordinator positions, if they had one.
Norwood asked if the CDAC felt that they could tie neighborhood coordinator positions to residence in the neighborhood.
Belt said he felt this was too stringent, and that the coordinator at the very least should live in the county.
Hethcoat said that this was appropriate in a case like North Lawrence where someone may be 50 feet from the city limits. Requiring that they live in the city precludes them from being able to be a coordinator when they may be very much a part of a neighborhood.
Belt said he agreed and that the coordinator needed to live within the county and the officers and board members needed to live in the neighborhood or own property in the neighborhood.
Welty agreed on the idea that the coordinator should be allowed to live in the county but have an interest in the neighborhood.
Norwood said she had concerns about a person living outside of the area and receiving funds from this program.
Hethcoat moved to amend Page Four, Item Four of the Citizen Participation Plan “Guidelines to be followed by CDBG Funded Neighborhood Associations” to include the language that for CDBG-funded neighborhoods, coordinators must live within Douglas County. The motion was seconded by Belt.
Belt asked if allowing a coordinator to live within the county and not in the city conflicts with CDBG regulations in that the grant must be spent in the City of Lawrence.
Swarts said that there was no conflict as the activity was still happening within the city limits. She said technically, the coordinator may be able to do all the job requirements from out of state, but staff feels that the coordinator is the neighborhood liaison and “face” of the neighborhood and cannot have a true vested interest in the community and not live there.
Welty said she was under the impression that most coordinators attend the neighborhood meetings.
Miller noted that just because you can have a coordinator that lives out of state does not mean that you should.
The motion passed 7-0.
Belt moved that the Citizen Participation Plan “Guidelines to be followed by CDBG Funded Neighborhood Associations” shall reflect that members and officers on the board of CDBG-funded neighborhoods must live in or own property in the neighborhood of the board for which they serve. The motion was seconded by Norwood and passed 7-0.
Swarts asked the Committee about the section of the Plan pertaining to the neighborhood association meeting requirements. Page Four, Item One speaks to the fact that at a minimum the neighborhood associations should be having quarterly meetings. She indicated that at least one neighborhood association has four neighborhood meetings a year and monthly meetings of the board, including officers and their district representatives. All meetings are open to the public, but since the board conducts the primary business of the neighborhood association, should there be guidelines on what business is being conducted at the monthly board meetings?
Belt said as it is written it is flexible, and as a former neighborhood president that is appreciated. At a minimum they should be required to have quarterly meetings, and it may be worth adding language to this item that states that all meetings need to be open to the public.
Swarts said that as long as the meetings are all open to the public it might work to just reword the item for clarity.
Norwood asked if it would benefit the item to remove the “monthly” piece.
Swarts said staff feels that it is appropriate to encourage monthly meetings, but in the case of a neighborhood association like NLIA, they have a monthly scheduled meeting but they take the summer off. The guidelines should be flexible to allow for this type of scheduling.
Norwood said the guidelines should reflect the necessity for quarterly meetings at a minimum, but it also does not say that these meetings need to be open to the public.
Swarts said Belt suggested adding the language regarding open meetings to the item.
Belt said each neighborhood association by-laws will be separate documents, but there can be information put into the Citizen Participation Plan regarding the fact that one can consult the by-laws for specific guidance.
Norwood said Item Five on Page Four is very vague.
Welty suggested at the end of Item One, Page Four, a piece on open meetings be added.
Belt said in that case, Item Five can be deleted.
Miller said the goal is to have more participation and involvement from the neighbors and at meetings. Each neighborhood group is going to differ on what they deem necessary for conducting meetings. The guidelines should be kept as open as possible.
Swarts said it would be appropriate to delete Item Five if the open meeting piece is referenced elsewhere in the guidelines. The meetings are referred to in Items One and Two.
Belt said that in neighborhoods issues arise and issues can occur very quickly. Having to go through a structured process in order to provide notifications and waiting 30 days for meetings does not always work. If a neighborhood has to organize around a cause they should be given authority to do that.
Norwood moved to delete Item Five, Page Four of the Citizen Participation Plan “Guidelines to be followed by CDBG Funded Neighborhood Associations”. The motion was seconded by Belt and passed 7-0.
Miller asked staff if quarterly performance reports were being turned in timely manner.
Dresslar said that the neighborhoods have been very prompt in turning in the quarterly reports and all neighborhoods are up to date.
Norwood moved to add language to Item Seven, Page Four of the Citizen Participation Plan “Guidelines to be followed by CDBG Funded Neighborhood Associations” regarding the requirement of quarterly performance reports from CDBG-funded neighborhoods. The motion was seconded by Wilbur and passed 7-0.
Swarts said that the CDAC will want to verify that the expectation of the Committee for the funding is reflected in this document. Staff will go through the document and make the updates as approved by the Committee from this meeting. Staff will also look over the document and see if there are any other sections that need to be updated. Any CDAC member can email suggestions to staff as well for updates. Staff can make the changes if they are minor clarifications, or if it is major change it can be brought back at the next meeting. Staff’s assumption was not that the document would be reviewed on a paragraph by paragraph basis, but just if there were specific things that needed updating they could be updated. The neighborhood association guidelines and funding is one of the most nebulous parts of the process. When money is given to public service organizations such as Lawrence Community Shelter, they turn in a report with quantitative data that shows who is being helped and how they are being assisted. Neighborhood associations are a different type of funding in that the CDAC really does not know specifically what they are getting with the funding.
Miller asked if it was possible to receive PDF copies of the newsletters from the neighborhoods.
Swarts said staff can start requesting that and will get in touch with the coordinators to work on that.
Miller said in these tough economic times a newsletter will be helpful because it will give the CDAC an idea of what the neighborhood activities are.
Norwood asked if Ms. Lowther was notified that the letter would be received as public comment.
Swarts said staff responded to Ms. Lowther when the letter was received and let her know it would be received as public comment.
Miller said the CDAC should review the document again and be prepared to finalize any changes at the next meeting.
4. Discussion of 2012 CDBG/HOME Allocation Timeline.
Swarts said at the beginning of the yearly allocation process the CDAC typically decides the order in which they want to review the applications. At the next meeting the CDAC will finish the review of the Citizen Participation Plan. After that is complete it will be time to begin to look at the allocation recommendations. In the past, the body has first looked at the CDBG Capital Improvement projects, then moved on to HOME, Administration, and then ended on Public Services. The next meeting will be January 26, 2012.
The Committee agreed staff can place the Capital Improvement projects on the agenda for that meeting.
5. Miscellaneous/Calendar.
Swarts reminded the Committee they will elect a Chair and Vice-Chair at the January 26 meeting.
Norwood asked if the Vice-Chair will automatically become Chair.
Swarts said it has been done that way in the past at times and that is a decision the CDAC can make when the elections are held.
6. Public Comment.
There was no additional public comment.
7. Adjourn.
Welty moved to adjourn the January 12, 2012 meeting of the CDAC at 6:50 pm. The motion was seconded by Norwood and passed 7-0.
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 |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Hethcoat |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quinn Miller |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie Mitchell |
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vern Norwood |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brenda Nunez |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aimee Polson |
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Teixeira |
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patti Welty |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Wilbur |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vacant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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