April 12, 2012 Minutes (City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Deron Belt, Eric Hethcoat, James Minor, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, David Teixeira, Patti Welty, Patrick Wilbur |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Quinn Miller, Julie Mitchell |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
None |
Chair Teixeira called the meeting to order at 5:45pm.
1. Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
2. Approval of the March 8, 2012 Minutes.
With regard to Item Three, Norwood suggested clarifying that the funding request discussed, refer to next year’s funding.
Norwood moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from
March 8, 2012 with that clarification. The motion was seconded by Wilbur and passed 9-0.
The CDAC moved on to Item Six as it was not time to open the public hearing.
6. Discuss Citizen Participation Plan update.
Swarts said this agenda item was to make sure there were no additional additions, deletions, or recommendation of changes to the amended Citizen Participation Plan. The plan will go to the City Commission on May 8 for their approval of the update.
There were no further changes.
3. Recess meeting to conduct public hearing.
Teixeira opened the public hearing.
Swarts said the purpose for this public hearing is to receive comment regarding the upcoming grant year allocations, as well as to open the written comment period for the Annual Action Plan. The Action Plan document has been available on the website as well as in the Development Services offices since April 5, 2012. The part of the plan that people are typically most interested in is the Investment Summary found on Page Three. The Action Plan details the activities that the CDBG and HOME grants will fund in the upcoming 2012 grant year. There is also narrative regarding the Lawrence community and goals for the programs and other activities. The “Step Up To Better Housing” strategy is included, as well as the community’s adopted Housing Vision. There are sections that speak to housing goals and programs, homelessness needs, and neighborhood revitalization. The Citizen Participation Plan is noted in the Action Plan as well as listing of the members of the Community Development Advisory Committee and the Homeless Issues Advisory Committee.
Swarts said the Annual Action Plan is a piece of the overarching Five-Year Consolidated Plan. The 2012 program year will be year five of the current Consolidated Plan. Next year the City will create a new five year plan as well as a new first year Action Plan. This will be an opportunity to look at goals and priorities for the new five year time span and this will be information covered at the September public hearing. The Action Plan does note that the one of the biggest obstacles to meeting goals in the community is the lack of funding. There is never enough money to go around to accomplish the goals that the community sets forth. This has been very apparent in the recent cuts in the HOME program. There is not enough money to fund the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance program or the programs that Tenants to Homeowners administers to the extent as previously. Swarts said she anticipates the same funding levels for the next grant year as well.
Teixeira asked if there was any public comment.
Linda Bush and Pat Miller were in attendance representing the Pinckney Neighborhood Association (PNA).
Bush said she first wanted to thank the CDAC for their hard work on behalf of the citizens of Lawrence and especially on behalf of PNA. She said she was present to talk about the neighborhood association allocations. She said PNA has gone through a complete change of officers and they have seen increases in both neighborhood activity attendance as well as meeting attendance. There have been new social events implemented in the neighborhood as well as efforts to save a neighborhood park and support for a historic neighborhood elementary school. The core group of neighborhood volunteers has become more knowledgeable about the process of the CDBG and the costs associated with providing information to the neighborhood residents. The PNA CDBG request was greater this year because of the increased cost of the newsletter. This is the primary cost of the neighborhood and it is the main way that the neighborhood is able to provide information to the residents. Bush said that another significant expense is the coordinator salary. The neighborhood has just hired a coordinator in the last month and with the proposed funding for 2012 they will likely have to let them go. The allocation recommended for PNA in 2012 will pose financial difficulties for the neighborhood. With the actual costs of the newsletter determined, the 2011 level of funding allocated for 2012 will make it impossible to allow for effective neighborhood activities and the level of correspondence that is needed to be able to serve the residents. Bush said allocating each neighborhood the 2011 amount for 2012 is grossly inequitable. Bush said an equitable solution would be to fund each neighborhood at 67% of their funding request. This is a fair and logical solution to the inequality of funding.
Belt said the CDAC did arbitrarily decide on these amounts for 2012 based on the amount available for allocation. The allocation does not account for neighborhood associations that are growing and developing. An assumption was made that everyone was performing at the same level. Pinckney is expanding, and the Woody Park issue brought a lot of the neighbors together. He asked if Woody Park has been saved from becoming a parking lot.
Miller said based on the analysis that the neighborhood submitted the parties took a step back and are looking at other options. That does not mean that Woody Park will not eventually become a parking lot, but it has now become a more thoughtful decision.
Bush said in addition PNA has worked closely with Lawrence Memorial Hospital to look at green space alternatives as well. There are a lot of options and suggestions on the table.
Polson said there were a lot of things to consider when a neighborhood association is recommended funding. There are things like activity level, participation, membership, population, and the previous year’s performance. It is hard for some neighborhoods to work with drastically fluctuating allocations year to year, and it is helpful in most cases to keep that level somewhat consistent. If the CDAC were to fund at 67% across the board, it will likely cause future requests to be inflated.
Miller said she understood that, however PNA has identified actual costs of operation, and when the 2011 application was being put together the new slate of officers was trying to determine their needs without knowing a lot of the exact details.
Norwood said the CDAC only has so much funding available. The funding has been cut, and she can appreciate that as a neighborhood they have represented themselves at this hearing. She said hearing the progress that the neighborhood association has made is important and their concern in shown by their attendance. She said that the CDAC should take another look at the proposals.
Bush said the extra costs in this year’s application were almost entirely the newsletter costs. They based the coordinator amount on what another peer neighborhood was paying. The amount is negotiable with each individual.
Norwood asked where the 2011 requested amounts originated.
Miller said as the new group was formulating the application at that time, in developing the budget they really had no idea what they were looking at in terms of real costs.
Bush said the true cost difference in the 2011 newsletter and the 2012 newsletter was around $2020.
Miller said it is almost $1000 to print, fold, and mail each round of the newsletters. PNA also does e-news updates, a website, and a Facebook page. The newsletter has to be mailed, though, in order to ensure that everyone is getting the information in the neighborhood.
Norwood asked if they have considered a reduction in the amount of newsletters that they are sending each year.
Miller said they only did three out of the four planned newsletters last year.
Bush added LMH has also helped with the printing of the newsletters, but their timeframe is sometimes different than the neighborhood. There are occasionally events listed in the newsletters, and they are sometimes time sensitive. If LMH can print them in time to get the information out then that works great. If they do not get to them until later than anticipated, then things can be missed.
Polson said she used to be the coordinator for East Lawrence, and she knows from experience that it is expensive to mail the newsletters to every resident. They hand-delivered them on more than one occasion, and when the entire neighborhood was divided up amongst volunteers it took less than an hour.
Belt noted the request is really just a skeleton amount to fund the coordinator and fund the newsletter operations.
Bush said that was correct, and in looking at the budget the grant funding is only a small amount of their operations.
Belt asked if they had fundraising events in PNA.
Miller said there is one in conjunction with the spring picnic. The volunteers also go out and talk to businesses in the neighborhood about donations and sponsorship. There is a very small crew of folks that are handling the day-to-day work at this point and they are working hard to build up the entire organization.
Belt asked if PNA anticipated that the coordinator would work approximately 10 hours a week.
Bush said yes, that they were looking at around 30-35 hours a month.
Belt said personally he was a huge fan of the coordinator position. If the lack of funding disincentives the position then they will have trouble filling that spot. There is value in a coordinator. Belt said with that being said, an argument could be made that the CDAC was reasonable in allocating at 2011 levels across the board due to the overall funding picture. He said it was fair to look at the neighborhood association funding levels and leave the other public service recommendations as is.
Teixeira said he agreed that they should look at the requests a second time.
Norwood cautioned if changes are made it may set a precedent that if an agency or neighborhood does come to this venue, the CDAC will rearrange funds. Next year it could end up that all neighborhood associations end up attending and asking for more money. Hard choices had to be made and still have to be made. To fund a neighborhood additional dollars mean another neighborhood loses money. Some may not be as active as others.
Teixeira said in order to do this the CDAC will need to look at every neighborhood’s detailed budget. This is not a guarantee or a promise that anything will change, but it is worthy of a discussion.
Minor said if some neighborhoods are not performing at the level of others it may be because of the lack of funding and not a lack of effort or organization.
Welty said a few years ago a neighborhood came and spoke to the CDAC about needing more money and the committee did make a change in that they took money from another agency and funded the neighborhood.
Miller said PNA does send out several other mailings including a postcard reminder for the picnic. They have been successful in getting donations for some of these things. Having a coordinator helps with this type of activity. Those in the neighborhood that are committed to volunteering are spending money out of their own pocket to perform these tasks and they are on the road to getting burned out. Having a coordinator will make a huge difference in the time that they are able to commit.
Bush said in terms of the postcard the neighborhood can plan this in advance and receive assistance from LMH for the printing. Planning for this date-specific mailing would work in that case because they can be completed ahead of time. The main cost associated with that would be the postage.
Miller said they hope to be successful and be able to effectively fundraise. Until then they have to work with that they have, and right now they have no cushion with which to work. The coordinator position will help them to be more active and get more donations. Right now they are struggling with the bare minimum.
Norwood asked Swarts about the funding of the social events such as picnics.
Swarts said that CDBG will not pay for food directly, but it will be able to pay for communication and the postcard would fall under that category.
Polson asked when the transition of the officers in PNA occurred. She said it was not long ago that PNA was asked to speak about problems in submitting performance reports, as well as losing some funding.
Bush said the transition began a little over two years ago, and the Woody Park issue arose in 2010. The 2011 grant proposal was written as the transition was happening. There has been a huge increase in activity and representation since then.
Polson asked if there was not a coordinator in place prior to now.
Bush said the coordinator was hired for the 2011 grant year, and that grant year was the first one in which a coordinator salary was requested.
There was no further public comment.
Polson moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Norwood and passed 9-0.
4. Reconvene Meeting.
Teixeira reconvened the meeting.
Bush and Miller left the meeting.
5. Discuss Revised CDBG/HOME Allocations, If Applicable.
Teixeira said that in discussing the neighborhood allocations, the conversation has been about moving the money around within the neighborhood funding itself, not bringing in outside funds.
Welty said the CDAC could take $1000 from LCS and give it to PNA.
Teixeira asked if the CDAC wanted to pull money from other public services to do this?
Belt said he would not have an argument with redistributing neighborhood funding.
Welty agreed and said PNA is clearly growing their organization, and that was the point of them attending the meeting.
Teixeira said at the end of the day, someone will lose. No matter what the body decides to do they risk setting a precedent.
Hethcoat asked where the growth in the neighborhood was in terms of new homes and residents.
Teixeira said they were implying that the neighborhood now has a larger, more energized base of participation, not necessarily an increase in population. The activity is growing and the effectiveness is growing. The increase in funds is because they want to continue that growth, and before it was only a guess of what they would need to ensure that.
Norwood said if there is no money then the CDAC just cannot do it. She said she appreciates the fact that they are growing and have increased support, but there are no additional funds to allocate.
Teixeira said in terms of allocating at 2011 levels it was a logical decision to make for the CDAC based on the available funding. He said he was open to revisiting the allocations.
Belt agreed and said the decision was made arbitrarily at the time and they were made with the assumption that all neighborhoods were performing at the same level as 2011.
Wilbur said this has to do with accountability on the parts of the neighborhoods. It is not easy to tell what they are doing or how they are doing by just seeing a budget or newsletters. If a neighborhood is not as active it might not be fair that they are getting an equal or higher percentage.
Teixeira said an option was to give the neighborhoods the same percentages that they received in 2011.
Nunez said she thought that the neighborhood allocations for 2012 were fair.
Minor said if the CDAC is going to look at things that impact the neighborhood association, in the case of PNA they are close to breaking down if they do not utilize a coordinator. It might be fair to look at the coordinators as the drivers of the other neighborhoods as well. PNA also has the ability to utilize LMH for assistance with printing as well.
Belt said that LMH is a great asset for PNA, but their timeframe and ideas might not be congruent with the timeframe and ideas for the neighborhood.
Hethcoat said three of the five funded neighborhoods are within 4% of their year-to-year change. They have not requested much more and they received the same amount. ONA requested a lot less in 2012 than they did in 2011 and yet they received the same amount as 2011. PNA requested a lot more in funds and they were given the same amount as in 2011. The rest of the neighborhoods appear to be in balance.
Belt said another idea was to take money from a public service agency.
Swarts asked why the CDAC would want to make that recommendation. The CDAC determined their needs prior to the allocations and housing and homelessness ranked high on the priority list. Tonight, one neighborhood’s representatives show up to the public hearing and make a valid argument for their allocation. The resulting discussion has centered on the neighborhood funding, and Swarts questioned the equity of lowering the funding from a non-neighborhood public service to fund a neighborhood issue.
There have been instances in the past where an agency or a neighborhood has come in to speak to the CDAC about the allocations. There have been instances where the recommendations have been changed. The CDAC can look at the argument of what they were requesting and what they were awarded. The neighborhood funding for each neighborhood coordinator is a variable number and that affects how the request is presented. She suggested that perhaps it may be time for the CDAC to have a conversation about coordinator funding, hours worked, and hourly salary in order to level the playing field. Regardless, she reiterated the equity of pulling funding from an unrelated area to keep from having to make a hard decision.
Teixeira agreed and said there are ways to be creative with social media that can be less expensive as well.
Belt reiterated there needs to be an ability to fill the neighborhood coordinator role.
Norwood moved to leave the allocation recommendations for the 2012 CDBG/HOME program year unchanged. The motion was seconded by Nunez and passed 5-4.
Teixeira asked what a reasonable rate for the coordinator salary might be.
Swarts said staff provided a spreadsheet several months ago outlining each neighborhood’s coordinator costs, including salary and hours worked.
Belt said the funding has decreased, and the committee is expecting the same results. As the neighborhoods work with the reduced funding, it will be harder to operate under the same rules.
Nunez said in looking at these items if feels like the CDAC is trying to tell the neighborhoods how to run their business.
Hethcoat said they can prove their progress in this grant year and this can be discussed in the time leading up to the next grant year.
Polson said that is good to suggest, but there is a problem with the timing of the grant year. The money they just allocated will not even be available until August, and the next grant year allocation will be the August after that.
Belt said organizational solvency is very important.
Minor said the organizations are all hurting for funding, and this could lead to them being present in front of this body one-by-one. This committee and Development Services staff are stewards of this funding.
Swarts agreed and said the September public hearing will be a good opportunity to take information for the next grant year. That might be a good time to invite the neighborhoods and have a discussion about expectations and other related items. The neighborhoods can present what they are doing and where they are struggling. That way the CDAC has this information on the front end.
Belt said the neighborhoods should be encouraged to attend that hearing.
Minor asked if there are ever success stories shared with the CDAC that show how a group has improved or what they have accomplished.
Swarts said that does not happen with the CDAC very often. There have been homeowners that have spoken to the success of the program, but that does not typically happen with the agencies.
Minor said when groups share ideas and successes it becomes knowledge for other groups to try new ideas.
Belt said he agreed and it would behoove the neighborhoods to come to the meeting and talk about their successes.
Polson moved to extend the meeting for 15 minutes to 7:15. The motion was seconded by Hethcoat and passed 9-0.
7. Miscellaneous/Calendar.
Swarts said on April 26 there would be a training session on the Kansas Open Meetings Act and the City’s Ethics policy. The training will be held in the City Commission room at 6:00pm and it should not take any longer than 90 minutes. She said there is also a second available date that that is on April 18 at the same time and location. The session on April 26 will primarily be the HIAC and the CDAC, and the session on the 18th will be primarily the other Building Safety Division boards, including the Electrical Board, the Plumbing Board, the Mechanical Board, the Contractor Licensing Board, and the Building Code Board. There is no business being conducted at either session so if one date works better than the other then there is no problem with attending either.
Swarts said historically the committee takes off the summer months unless there is a reason to meet. Staff does not know of any upcoming business and did not think the Committee had anything in particular to meet about during that time. If the body chooses to cancel the next several months’ meetings, the next meeting date will be September 13.
Polson asked if the neighborhood associations can be encouraged to attend the public hearing in September.
Swarts replied staff would provide that outreach to the neighborhoods.
Teixeira moved to cancel the 2012 meeting dates of May 10, May 24, June 14, June 28, July 12, July 26, August 9, and August 23. The motion was seconded by Norwood and passed 9-0.
8. Public Comment.
As there was no public present, there was no public comment.
7. Adjourn.
Teixeira moved to adjourn the April 26, 2012 meeting of the CDAC at 7:15 pm. The motion was seconded by Norwood 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 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
U |
U |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quinn Miller |
+ |
U |
E |
E |
E |
U |
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie Mitchell |
E |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
E |
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vern Norwood |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brenda Nunez |
+ |
+ |
U |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aimee Polson |
E |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Teixeira |
E |
+ |
E |
E |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patti Welty |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
E |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Wilbur |
+ |
+ |
+ |
E |
E |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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