February 9, 2012 Minutes (City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Deron Belt, Eric Hethcoat, James Minor, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Aimee Polson, Patti Welty, Patrick Wilbur |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Quinn Miller, Brenda Nunez, David Teixeira |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts, Officer Dustin Chase |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Ted Boyle, Unknown Male |
In the absence of Chair Teixeira, Vice-Chair Polson called the meeting to order at 5:30pm.
1. Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
2. Approval of the January 26, 2012 Minutes.
Welty informed staff of typographical errors in the January 26 minutes. Staff will correct prior to sending forward to City Commission.
Wilbur moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from
January 26, 2012 with noted corrections. The motion was seconded by Welty and passed 8-0.
3. Review of CDBG Capital Improvement Allocations.
Swarts said there had been additional discussion at the end of the January 26 meeting about moving money around within the Capital Improvement allocations to fund the Public Works sidewalk project. The committee discussed moving money from the Community Development Division’s (CDD) Comprehensive Rehabilitation program to fund the sidewalk project. Staff does not support this suggestion. Swarts said if the CDAC wishes to cut any of the CDD programs, that the program that can still be sustainable and absorb a cut of that size would be the First Time Homebuyer Rehabilitation program. Staff is seeing a lot of the first time homebuyer activities stemming from new construction, and down payment and closing costs are what the staff is seeing as the need at this juncture. The cost for rehab activities per unit is typically lower.
Welty asked the CDAC if anyone had looked at the parking lot adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club building to assess the need. She said there was a major pothole in the parking lot near the entrance, and half of the parking lot is composed of dirt and/or rock.
Mitchell agreed and said the pothole was located where cars pull into the lot. She said she was unsure if it could be graded or not.
Polson said the entrance repair itself was listed in the application budget at a cost of $5,270. If they funded this amount to the project to fix the entrance, it would free up $4,830 to allocate to a different project.
Mitchell moved to fund 10a, Boys and Girls Club of Lawrence Parking Lot and Front Entrance Replacement, in the amount of $5,270. Wilbur seconded the motion, which passed 8-0.
Ted Boyle, President, North Lawrence Improvement Association, was present to speak about the CDAC request for additional information on the NLIA Bus Stop Pad request. He said the families in that area had requested a concrete slab be installed at the northeast corner of 3rd and Lyons to provide a place for children to stand while waiting for the bus. Boyle spoke to Chuck Soules, Director of Public Works, and Soules said a slab could be installed on the west end of the intersection. NLIA residents will be responsible for snow removal, and if for any reason the City needs to tear the surface out to reach anything located under the slab, NLIA will be responsible for replacing it. Soules also indicated that all the needed utility replacement work has already been done at this location, so the city will only need to tear it up in the event of an issue with what is currently placed there, and not just to add anything. The families in that area were very happy that there was the potential for the concrete slab and that the City had approved the project location. He said they were happy that the children would stay out of the mud and snow while waiting for the bus. Boyle said NLIA will use a North Lawrence contractor to do the slab and under the advisement of Soules they wrote their grant request for $1000. Boyle said he felt that the actual cost will probably come in at around $700-800. He said there is not a lot of preparation work or dirt removal that needs to take place. Boyle said the sidewalk replacement has been completed between 3rd and Elm and 3rd and Locust and it looks very nice and now there is a sidewalk on both sides of the street there.
Welty asked if all the homeowners at 3rd and Lyons were in support of the project.
Boyle said the homeowners were supportive of the project as proposed in the application.
Hethcoat asked if the bus route has ever changed in that section of North Lawrence.
Boyle said the NLIA coordinator lives in in that area, and her children have used that bus stop and route all through their schooling. Lyons Street is the main street on that side of the railroad tracks because the other streets are too narrow for the bus traffic.
Norwood asked if there are any plans to put seating in at the bus stop location.
Boyle said it would be a possibility, but NLIA did not want to ask for too much with this project. The kids have been standing at that corner for years to wait for the bus. He said there is a possibility that NLIA will look for a donation of a bench, but since it is not an official City bus stop there are no plans to put in the seating.
Norwood asked if the City bus ran in that area.
Boyle said the route is the same, but the school bus stops at this corner. He said the only shelter for the city bus route is on Locust.
Norwood moved to fund 3c, North Lawrence Improvement Association Bus Stop Pad – 3rd and Lyons, in the amount of $1,000. Belt seconded the motion, which passed 8-0.
Norwood asked what the criterion was for the City to put up bus stop shelters along the city bus route.
Swarts said staff will check on that and report back to the CDAC.
Belt said the City may be reluctant to put up permanent shelters in the areas that are not main thoroughfares because that limits their ability to change routes.
Swarts said this was a possible reasoning for the lack of bus shelters on the lesser-traveled routes. She agreed with Belt and noted in locations where it is possible that a route or a stop could potentially be moved, it would be harder to justify a permanent shelter. She said she is unaware of what the plan is for bus stop shelters on the less traveled roads. There are obvious locations for bus shelters, such as 23rd or 6th Street, where they are main thoroughfares.
Minor asked what the occupancy limit was for the bus stop shelters.
Swarts said they are not very big and her thought is around six adults could comfortably stand in them. The City is looking at a transfer station, and the stand alone units are not designed for a lot of people at this point.
Mitchell asked Swarts about the options for already allocated money to allow for funding of the gap sidewalk project.
Swarts said if the CDAC wishes to fund the sidewalks, the First Time Homebuyer Rehabilitation program will be the program that can absorb the reallocation better than the others.
Mitchell moved to fund 13b, City of Lawrence Public Works Division CDBG Sidewalk Replacement and Gap Program in the amount of $50,000, removing the $50,000 from 14b, City of Lawrence Community Development Division First Time Homebuyers Rehabilitation.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Belt asked if the sidewalk program was for sidewalks throughout the City.
Swarts said yes as long as they were in a low-moderate income area.
Belt said he remembered arguing for this project last year, and he feels that the sidewalks affect the largest amount of citizens. The project is not centralized in one neighborhood and it provides a good brushstroke to the City’s low-moderate income neighborhoods.
Norwood asked if the CDAC could designate certain sidewalks to be completed by partially funding the project.
Swarts said she was unsure of if the program could work that way based on how Public Works has administered it in the past.
Welty asked if there would be any funding left over in the grant at the end of the year.
Swarts said staff does not anticipate any remaining funds. The years of staff seeing larger reallocation amounts will not be realized again for several years because of the program cuts that have been seen in recent years.
Belt asked if the reallocation is based on Comprehensive Rehabilitation projects.
Swarts said this was partly the case. She said some extra funds can be just unspent, and some projects do not spend the entire amount allocated. The money is constantly being recycled from one grant year to the next. The CDBG program is always using the money in some way. The grant has been significantly cut in the last few years, so that number has been shrinking.
Mitchell moved to fund 13b, City of Lawrence Public Works Division CDBG Sidewalk Replacement and Gap Program in the amount of $40,000, removing the $40,000 from 14b, City of Lawrence Community Development Division First Time Homebuyers Rehabilitation. Belt seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Polson moved to fund 14b, City of Lawrence Community Development Division First Time Homebuyers Rehabilitation in the amount of $63,830. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Hethcoat asked Swarts how many furnace and emergency loans has staff completed in the last grant year.
Swarts said the program will provide each homeowner up to $5,000 for furnace replacement or emergency repairs. According to the 2010 CAPER, the last grant year saw 26 total homes helped by the two programs.
Hethcoat asked what the loan stipulations were for those two programs.
Swarts said the loans are deferred, no-interest loans. The loans are paid back when the homeowner ceases to be the owner/occupant. At that time the loan is due and payable in a lump sum. The Comprehensive Rehabilitation loan is a deferred no-interest loan, and half of the amount is forgiven after a seven year period. If the homeowner is aged 62 or above, the loan amount stays as it is with no payment requirement. If the homeowner is less than 62 years of age, they make $50 payments each month, thus reducing the balance owed upon sale of the home.
Polson said the City never gets the full amount of the loan paid back.
Swarts said that is correct, but there are many homeowners making the $50 payment each month.
Minor said in looking at the requests, this year the CDD is requesting half of what they spent in the previous grant year for these items. He said he felt more money could be put toward the CDD loan programs.
Swarts said the statement about CDD asking for less money is true, but this is because there is less money overall to work with.
Belt asked what type of hit the Weatherization program will take with the decreased grant amount available. He said he does not want to touch the funding allocated to this type of program because it has shown to be very successful.
Swarts said the 2011 program year came in under budget with the Weatherization program, and in asking for $50,000 for 2012 that is still a total of 50 houses that can receive the benefits of the program. Not every house gets all three items in the Weatherization program, including attic insulation, storm windows and weather-stripping of doors.
Hethcoat agreed with Belt and said these programs have a proven success rate and are very important in the community. He said that although we have had a mild winter this year, he expects the requests to only go up next year in the 2012 grant year. He said he is unsure if $40,000 is enough to put toward these programs.
Belt asked where the CDAC thought they might be able to look at moving money from if they did want to fund these programs at a higher level.
Minor said he would like to see an additional $20,000 in the allocation to the CDD programs if at all possible, but he is unsure of where that should come from.
Polson asked if the Independence, Inc. allocation was a place that could still sustain their program while receiving less funding that the $33,000 they have been allocated.
Swarts said that staff would suggest not taking money from that program as they do a lot of the same work as the CDD programs, but their clientele are all disabled. There are many different improvements made with this money and this program. Independence, Inc. has proven to be very good stewards of the CDBG funding.
Polson asked if Public Works could get a lump sum of money and have the allowance to allocate it between the two programs.
Hethcoat asked if the stormwater project would still go forward with less funding that requested.
Swarts said if the sidewalk gap program was given “x” amount of funding they would do “x” amount of sidewalks. The stormwater project is probably representative of a real cost to complete the project. This project might not go forward without fully funding it. She said she was unsure of what a cut in funding would do to that project.
Swarts said in terms of the CDD programs, there is some flexibility in the department as far as which items might come in under budget and how staff handles that. The CDD recognized that there is less funding this year, and adjusted the requests accordingly. In asking the amounts that the department did, staff thinks that the programs can run under these funding levels. If this is not the case, the 2013 funding request will reflect this. The department has tried to be cognizant that the resources are less this year and staff has worked to allocate current resources accordingly.
Wilbur asked how low the funding can go on the First Time Homebuyer Rehabilitation program and have the program still be sustainable.
Swarts said that just over $60,000 will still allow for between six and eight rehabilitation projects. It all depends on the project and the house. There have been cuts to the HOME program, and staff will be asking for $90,000 in the First-Time Homebuyer program. This will allow for approximately three projects for first time homebuyers on newly constructed units, and five to six projects on existing housing. Combining the rehabilitation program and the down payment programs should make both of the programs sustainable under the reduced funding.
Hethcoat said the stormwater project is in front of a pair of duplexes on a dead-end street. It is an area very deteriorated from the current stormwater problems. The application indicates that the CDBG funding is half of the cost of the project. With this project being a dead end street and serving a very limited number of people in the community, it might be wiser to spread this funding out.
Polson asked Swarts if staff could contact Public Works and see about the effect of reduced funding on this project. In addition, what would be an acceptable reduced amount where they can still complete the project successfully?
Belt added that there is a large development in the works in that area and that may have stormwater effects as well. He said this development could make the current stormwater problems worse. The Public Works department might have already taken this into consideration.
Swarts said staff will check on the stormwater project and will report back to the CDAC at their next meeting.
4. Discussion/Allocation of HOME Requests.
Swarts said HOME received a cut of around 38%, and all the agencies applying for funding submitted their application before this cut was known. Swarts said that staff has been in contact with the HOME-funded agencies and they are aware of the reduced funding. Because there is such a gap between the requests and the amount available, based on the discussions that staff had with the agencies there are recommendations that can be passed along to the body.
Swarts reminded the CDAC that Tenants to Homeowners, Inc. (TTH) is the City’s lone Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO), and under HOME regulations the City is required to have a minimum of one CHDO. Swarts said TTH has performed very well for the City as their CHDO, and additionally TTH does not rely only on HOME funding for their operations. After talking to TTH as well as LDCHA in reference to the TBRA program, staff is recommending funding as follows: 14c – First Time Homebuyer Program, $90,000; 15a – LDCHA Tenant Based Rental Assistance, $151,781; 16a – Lawrence Habitat for Humanity, $20,000; 18a – CHDO Set-Aside, $75,000; and 18b - CHDO Operating, $19,811. Swarts said the minimum required funding allocation for the CHDO set-aside is 15% of the grant amount, and historically the CDAC has funding this item at a higher allocated amount because of the success that TTH has had in providing affordable housing in the community.
Belt asked if anything is fully funded under this recommendation.
Swarts said no, there is no single item receiving full funding.
Norwood moved to fund 14c, Community Development Division First Time Homebuyer Program in the amount of $90,000; 15a, LDCHA Tenant Based Rental Assistance in the amount of $151,781; 16a, Lawrence Habitat for Humanity 78th, 79th, and 80th Home Foundations project in the amount of $20,000; 18a, CHDO Set-Aside in the amount of $75,000; and 18b, CHDO Operating in the amount of $19,811. Belt seconded the motion.
Welty said according to the request, each Habitat for Humanity home had a cost of $16,500.
Welty offered a friendly amendment to the motion to fund 14c, Community Development Division First Time Homebuyer Program in the amount of $90,000; 15a, LDCHA Tenant Based Rental Assistance in the amount of $155,281; 16a, Lawrence Habitat for Humanity 78th, 79th, and 80th Home Foundations project in the amount of $16,500; 18a, CHDO Set-Aside in the amount of $75,000; and 18b, CHDO Operating in the amount of $19,811. Norwood and Belt accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed 8-0.
5. Discussion/Allocation of the CDBG Public Service Requests.
Staff provided the CDAC with the requested information regarding the neighborhood association board/officers neighborhood affiliation.
Polson said this information satisfied her questions.
Norwood said on some of the information some neighborhood officers are listed as “at-large”. She asked how this segment was determined.
Swarts said for those neighborhoods that are broken into districts, an at-large member can come from anywhere within the neighborhood. The at-large representatives in neighborhood associations do not carry the same requirements as an at-large member of the CDAC, which can come from anywhere in the community that is not a designated low-moderate income area. In the case of a neighborhood association, at-large still comes from the defined neighborhood.
Belt asked what the initial concern was for requesting this information.
Polson said the CDAC had been discussing the Citizen Participation Plan and she was curious as to if the board members of all neighborhoods were affiliated by living in or owning property in the neighborhoods in which they served. She said she wondered this since there was a polarization of several groups in a single neighborhood and wondered if there were any changes in the board make-up in terms of who is representing the neighborhood. She said she feels that with the information provided that they are all in tune with the correct representation.
Belt said two meetings ago the CDAC spoke about the requirements of the coordinators. He said this is still a concern of his. He said that he knows the CDAC probably is not deciding anything on funding at this meeting, but in looking at the apps and how little money there is to allocate, everyone will take a hit this year. He said he would like to see Housing and Credit Counseling fully funded at the very least, because they are the only agency that provides this type of service in the community.
Swarts noted that with regard to the conversation over the last few weeks about the Oread Neighborhood Association (ONA) and the Oread Residents Association (ORA), she wished to clarify the City’s position on neighborhood associations. The City does ask them to register with the City, but that is mainly so the City can contact a point person when there are questions or notifications that impact their neighborhood. The City does not regulate what the general membership is composed of, what their bylaws are, or how officers are elected and members are accepted. The only time the City requires this information is when the neighborhood is CDBG-funded for operating and/or coordinator costs. The ORA did not apply for CDBG funding, so any discussion of the ORA is immaterial to this allocation process.
Norwood asked for clarification that there are two different organizations present in the Oread neighborhood.
Swarts said this is correct, but only one is open to all residents or property owners in the defined boundaries, so only one qualifies for CDBG funding of operating and/or coordinator expenses. The ORA is not open to all residents of the area. This is why they are not eligible for operating costs and/or coordinator costs and the ONA is.
Belt said the ONA has done a lot of great work as a neighborhood organization. He said he had some concerns with the emails that CDAC members had received; there seemed to be a measure of paranoia. Belt said the fact that the neighborhood association was resistant to providing basic information to ensure that they are meeting a minimal requirement was troubling to him.
Polson said she personally knew several ONA board members and she finds them to be upstanding individuals.
Belt agreed and said there are very reputable people on this list.
Wilbur said since the concerns have been addressed by the material submitted to staff, all the CDAC can do at this point is make funding recommendations and hold the neighborhoods accountable.
Welty said last year the CDAC funded the neighborhoods a total of $32,100. She said in calculating things on her own and keeping roughly that amount the same, she is looking at $50,000 to Lawrence Community Shelter, $20,000 to Housing and Credit Counseling, and $4,000 to Douglas County AIDS Project. This leaves around $8,000 and she is undecided on what direction to take with the Salvation Army.
Mitchell said she did not think that the ONA cleanup was something that they needed to fund as there are already dumpsters set up throughout the neighborhood.
Mitchell moved to zero fund 4b, Oread Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Trash and Debris Pickup. Welty seconded the motion.
Norwood said sometimes the clean-ups are a neighborhood activity.
Mitchell said Brook Creek does a clean-up every year and they do not ask for any funding to operate the activity.
Boyle said NLIA holds their clean-up twice a year, and the only thing that they use the CDBG funding for is the tree limb mulching part of the clean-up activity. NLIA turns the tree limbs into wood chips to benefit the homeowners in the area. He said if the CDAC can fund this item for one clean-up instead of the two requested that the NLIA could work with that and just provide the mulching in the spring.
The motion passed 8-0.
Belt moved to fund 3b, North Lawrence Improvement Association Clean-Up Expenses in the amount of $900. Norwood seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Noting the time was nearly 7:00 pm, the group suspended allocations for the evening and moved to the remainder of the agenda.
6. Miscellaneous/Calendar.
The next meeting is February 23, 2012.
7. Public Comment.
There was no additional public comment.
8. Adjourn.
Norwood moved to adjourn the February 9, 2012 meeting of the CDAC at 7:00 pm. The motion was seconded by Mitchell and passed 8-0.
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 |
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie Mitchell |
E |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vern Norwood |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brenda Nunez |
+ |
+ |
U |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aimee Polson |
E |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Teixeira |
E |
+ |
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