City of Lawrence, KS

Community Development Advisory Committee

February 23, 2012 Minutes (City Commission Room)

MEMBERS PRESENT:		Deron Belt, James Minor, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, Patti Welty

MEMBERS ABSENT:		Eric Hethcoat, Quinn Miller, David Teixeira, Patrick Wilbur

STAFF PRESENT:		Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts

PUBLIC PRESENT:		Elena Ivanov, Douglas County AIDS Project

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 February 9, 2012 Minutes.

Welty moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from

February 9, 2012. The motion was seconded by Minor and passed 7-0.

3. Follow Up of CDBG Capital Improvement Questions.

Swarts said this item refers to the two additional questions the CDAC had at the last meeting for staff regarding bus stop shelters and the stormwater project. Swarts indicated she spoke to Bob Nugent, Public Transit Administrator for the City of Lawrence, and he said the City was in the process of creating a standard for the bus stop shelters and other related amenities. The department is currently looking into increasing the amenities offered to bus passengers. The original shelters were constructed as a resource for those waiting for the bus, and they placed them primarily on main thoroughfares. Part of the new amenities plan is looking at the location of these shelters, and for the new future there will continue to be shelters on the main thoroughfares. There has never been a master plan for the shelter locations.

Norwood asked if there will be a chance for public comment to be heard on this new plan.

Swarts said the Transit department allows time for public comment on a yearly basis. Last week there was a public meeting to discuss potential changes in the current routes. A citizen can always submit comments to the Transit department. The department saves these comments and reviews them. Swarts said when the department determines that they are ready to move forward with a plan or a creation of an amenity standard, there will more than likely be a chance for public comment at that time as well. The City is also looking at the possibility of using the Santa Fe Depot as a transportation hub. There will be more to come on that, and that may affect a future master plan.

Swarts said the second question was about the stormwater project and if the project could move forward with reduced funding. Swarts spoke to Matt Bond, City of Lawrence Stormwater Engineer, and Bond indicated that the project that was applying for CDBG funding was part of a larger stormwater project that is addressing the stormwater concerns of a larger area. The entire project is not limited to the described cul-de-sac in the application document. The project as a whole alleviates a stormwater situation that encompasses an area between Iowa Street, Ridge Court, 27^th Street, and 31^st Street. The units in this area are scattered sites and are not only duplexes on that particular street. The amount of CDBG funding requested is critical to being able to do the entire project. There is a chance that some of the new development officials in that area will be part of the larger stormwater project as well, but to answer the question the CDBG piece is a critical and necessary piece.

Swarts said to revisit a question that was proposed last meeting regarding the request for the Weatherization funding for the Community Development Division being less than what was requested in previous years, she has information to report to the body. Last week the 2011 Weatherization item was on the City Manager’s Report to the City Commission and provided Commissioners with a report of the program year accomplishments. There were 30 households that were assisted with Weatherization in the 2011 program year, and in addition to the energy efficiency improvements each homeowner was given a six-pack of fluorescent light bulbs as well. Commissioner Carter had additional questions about the history of the Weatherization program and the expenditure of funds. Staff provided a table that shows the five-year historical data and it can be found here.

In 2011 staff asked for $75,000 and only spent $34,000. As a result of this trend as well as the lower amount of available funds, staff believes that the program can effectively be administered with a budget of $40,000. Historically, staff has been able to help every eligible applicant of the Weatherization program. When all the funds have not been used for Weatherization, staff has been able to assist additional homeowners in other housing programs such as Emergency Loans, Comprehensive Rehabilitation, and Furnace Loans. Swarts said one of the reasons for the decreased amount of applicants in 2011 might be that when applications were being accepted for our program, Efficiency Kansas was also thriving and assisting homeowners with such improvements. In addition, ECKAN had weatherization money as well that was assisting homeowners in Douglas County. In the 2011 program year staff also changed the way income verification was being conducted for program participants. This may have resulted in fewer applicants being determined eligible for the program.

Norwood asked if this was the reason that the applications received was a higher number than the homes that were completed.

Swarts said this was partially the case, but there are several factors beyond income qualification that can determine the eligibility of a home under the program including occupancy, previous weatherization program participation, and insufficient housing standards. Weatherization has been a program in the City since 1977. Staff met two years ago and looked at the program standards from the beginning, and determined that although historically if the applicant address had received weatherization in the past, as long as it was prior to 1990 they could be eligible again for additional insulation upgrades.

Polson asked if there was a national standard for income guidelines.

Swarts said HUD released the income guidelines and they are specific to census areas, so the city of Lawrence has their own set of guidelines under this umbrella. These are updated yearly, and the program guidelines say the program is available for those who meet a guideline of being at 80% of area median income or less.

4. Review of CDBG Capital Improvement and HOME Allocations.

Swarts said there was conversation during the previous meeting about the possibility of moving money around to additionally fund CDD programs, which is why staff included this agenda item.

Minor said in regard to the stormwater project, was there a potential that developers may assist with the funding of the overall stormwater project, allowing for a reduction in the CDBG dollars needed to complete the project?

Swarts said it was possible, but it was likely not going to be voluntary. Many times an influx of CDBG funding is necessary gap funding to catapult a project to the top of a list to ensure it is completed. There has been much talk in the community about stormwater and stormwater improvements.

There was no further discussion from the CDAC regarding previous allocations.

5. Discussion/Allocation of CDBG Public Service Requests.

Elena Ivanov, Executive Director of the Douglas County AIDS Project, was present to answer any questions the committee might have regarding the DCAP application. Ivanov said the agency has been providing direct services to those in Douglas County affected by HIV and AIDS since 1999. The Emergency Assistance Program at DCAP helps to provide this population with rent and utility assistance. She said the agency is very thankful for the support they have received from the CDAC and the CDBG program.

Polson asked why the agency requested less funding this year than last.

Ivanov said the agency works very hard to be conservative with the funds, and is very careful with who is assisted in terms of making sure that the individual is able to be stabilized in their housing and knowledgeable about their budgeting. DCAP staff works very closely with clients on their budgeting skills, and it is never known how much money will be needed and when it will be needed. Staff also works with the clients on other aspects such as job searches and workforce skills. Ivanov said 85% of the clients served by DCAP are below the poverty level.

Belt said his suggesting was to do 70% funding across the board for all requests.

There was discussion regarding the starting point for funding levels.

Belt moved to fund 9a, The Salvation Army Feeding Program and Warming/Cooling Center, in the amount of $8,867; 8a, Lawrence Community Shelter Operating Expenses, in the amount of $48,706; 7a, Housing and Credit Counseling, Inc. Tenant-Landlord Counseling and Education Programs, in the amount of $25,000; and 6a, Douglas County AIDS Project Emergency Assistance Program, in the amount of $4,638. Norwood seconded the motion.

Welty offered a friendly amendment to exclude 9a, The Salvation Army Feeding Program and Warming/Cooling Center from the request. Belt and Norwood accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed 7-0.

Welty said she would prefer to look at the neighborhood requests and then make a determination on the Salvation Army request.

The committee looked at what the neighborhoods were allocated in the 2011 Program Year as well as additional discussion regarding neighborhood clean-up requests and entertainment requests.

Swarts told the CDAC that historically they have set a standard of spending no more than 55% of an allocation to a neighborhood on coordinator salary.

Norwood asked if it could be included in the Citizen Participation Plan.

Swarts said this stipulation is not necessarily appropriate for inclusion in the Citizen Participation Plan, but it has been a standard that has been agreed upon over the past few years. This falls under a policy discussion rather than a Plan item. Policy recommendations can be made that are not necessarily a part of the overall Citizen Participation Plan.

Norwood asked about adding an exclusion of paying for entertainment with CDBG funds it as a policy at the committee level.

Swarts said that is what the body did last grant year in specifying that CDBG funds could not be used for items such as taxes, Secretary of State fees, and payroll taxes among other things. The “entertainment” category can be added to the budget template as an excluded cost.

Belt said it is important to document these in order to ensure that this data is not institutional knowledge only.

Swarts said the budget document will be updated accordingly.

The committee discussed funding neighborhoods at the same level that they were funded in 2011. There was discussion regarding the Salvation Army feeding program and the remaining CDBG funds to be allocated.

Swarts said staff was unaware of how the loss of the homeless shelter downtown in the fall of 2012 will affect the services of centers such as LINK and The Salvation Army. She said the population numbers that were previously present in that area of town will not necessarily be there when the shelter moves. Additionally, the City Commission will likely not renew or issue a Special Use Permit for a downtown drop-in center, and nothing in the code currently allows that type of establishment in this area of town.

Belt asked if LCS was the only entity with the drop-in component.

Swarts said currently this is correct. Neither the Salvation Army nor LINK is considered a drop-in center.

It was noted that the Salvation Army feeding program continued in the 2011 grant year and it was not funded with CDBG funds.

Norwood moved to fund 1a, Brook Creek Neighborhood Association Operating and Coordinator Expenses, in the amount of $5,536; 2a, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association Operating and Coordinator Expenses, in the amount of $7,933; 3a, North Lawrence Improvement Association Operating and Coordinator Expenses, in the amount of $4,732; 4a, Oread Neighborhood Association Operating and Planning Coordinator Expenses, in the amount of $8,172 and 5a, Pinckney Neighborhood Association Operating, Coordinator, and Neighborhood Activities Expenses, in the amount of $5,267. Belt seconded the motion which passed 7-0.

Swarts asked if the committee wished to reiterate the 55% coordinator funding level.

Norwood said there are different expectations for coordinators in different neighborhoods.

Mitchell noted the Brook Creek coordinator costs appear greater than the operating costs with the lesser amount of funding.

Belt asked if there were any neighborhoods in violation of the 55% guideline.

Swarts said everyone to this point seems to be within that guideline.

Norwood asked that the neighborhoods be reminded of this guideline again upon this grant allocation.

Polson said her concern was that this will negatively affect a neighborhood like Brook Creek.

Norwood suggested having a guideline of 55%, but allowing for flexibility on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.

Belt agreed and said that if there is a neighborhood that is consistently exceeding this guideline it will stand out.

Belt moved to fund 8a, Lawrence Community Shelter Operating Expenses in the amount of $51,618. Welty seconded the motion which passed 6-1.

Welty moved to zero fund 9a, The Salvation Army Feeding Program and Warming/Cooling Center. Norwood seconded the motion which passed 7-0.

6. Miscellaneous/Calendar.

Swarts said there has been additional conversation with neighborhood associations about by-laws. The Citizen Participation Plan does not specify that if by-laws are amended that the updated document needs to be provided to staff. There has been discussion about different regulations for how many votes a member can receive, and the possibility of having it tied to an item such as properties owned in the neighborhood. Staff does not support this type of voting activity, and believes that in staying within the intent of the CDBG program a single membership in a neighborhood association should entitle a member to one vote. This is the type of activity that would be addressed in updated by-laws.

Norwood said that occasionally when officers and board members change, the by-law update trail could be lost and staff could subsequently not be updated immediately.

Swarts said there are items such as this in the sub-grantee agreements as well.

Belt said that neighborhood associations need flexibility and the CDAC needs flexibility in looking at these cases. If a neighborhood wants to perform their voting in this way, then it will be their issue to work with. This type of decision will be something that the CDAC can consider when looking at performance of the neighborhoods and whether or not it is a good representation of the work that they are doing.

Belt moved to add additional language to the Citizen Participation Plan, page four, stating that neighborhood associations will be expected to provide staff with any updated by-law document voted upon and approved by their membership in a timely fashion. Polson seconded the motion which passed 7-0.

Swarts said the next meeting will be March 8, and the committee will have a chance to review the allocation decisions and make any changes if they wish to. The public hearing will be set for April 12. Unless other business arises, there may be no need to meet on March 22. After the public hearing the CDAC will meet again to discuss the calendar.

Swarts added the dedication for the Oread Lighted Pathway has been tentatively scheduled for March 29 in the evening. Staff will send an announcement out to the CDAC members when the date and time are confirmed.

Welty said she will be unable to attend the next meeting.

7. Public Comment.

Ivanov thanked the committee for their continued support of DCAP.

8. Adjourn.

Nunez moved to adjourn the February 23, 2012 meeting of the CDAC at 6:50 pm. The motion was seconded by Mitchell 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

Vern Norwood

Brenda Nunez

Aimee Polson

David Teixeira

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