|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Jeanette
Collier, Donna Duncan, marci francisco, Paula Gilchrist, Carrie Moore, Greg
Moore, Vern Norwood, Mike Randolph and Patti Welty |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Janet
Gerstner and Kirsten Roussel |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
|
G. Moore called the meeting to order at
Introductions
Staff and members introduced themselves. Thereafter, the public introduced themselves.
Approval of the April14, 2005 minutes
Gilchrist moved to approve the
Receive Comments from April 14 Public Hearing
Swarts explained that the
Calendar Discussion
Swarts said that staff was not sure if the Committee
wanted to discuss all of the agenda items at the current meeting. There is nothing that the staff has to alert
the Committee to and the Committee may meet over summer as needed. If someone should happen to file an appeal
that would need to be heard by the Committee, they may be called to meet. Summer is defined as June, July and
August.
Swarts said that grant applications are ready in
September and the deadline for submission is
G. Moore stated that last summer the Committee had
three meetings.
Gilchrist asked what information staff was providing
for this meeting.
Swarts said that staff was providing information on
neighborhood association coordinators and
Gilchrist stated that she would prefer to start the
discussion immediately.
Discussion of Outcomes and Objectives Relating to Future CDBG/HOME
Allocations
Swarts handed out the materials.
Collier asked who monitors sub-recipients. Swarts
stated that she does. She said that it
is done primarily by reviewing requests for reimbursement – she reviews what it
is the funds are paying for, what they are doing, and so on. If there is something that looks different or
unusual, then she will do the necessary research and if the sub-recipient is
not in compliance with the grant, she will not reimburse for those
expenses. Once in awhile, agency staff
changes and clarification is needed.
Collier said that she received a complaint about an
agency that was allocated CDBG funds and did something different with the funds
than was proposed in the application.
Swarts replied that she had received a recent complaint about an agency
that had been allocated funds for capital improvements over a several year period. She researched the complaint and found that
the improvements in question had been made so long ago that it was likely the
improvements were needed again. She
explained that organizations that are receiving funds have to submit
documentation to justify expenses. For
example, when they submit a request for operating expenses, documentation
showing who is being paid and the number of hours worked is required. If rent is being reimbursed, they are
providing records and the same for utilities and any other reimbursed
expenses.
francisco said that Margene does follow up and
questions about specific agencies should be addressed directly to her – not in
front of the group.
Collier asked if there was a formal process in
place.
Swarts replied that they respond to all complaints
and as long as the complaint is not anonymous, staff will respond to the
complainant.
francisco said that is a city-wide policy. There is a form and a general policy.
Discussion of Neighborhood Coordinator Activities
Collier asked if neighborhood coordinator activities
vary from neighborhood to neighborhood.
Swarts said as of now, individual neighborhood
associations decide what they want their coordinator to do. She referenced the provided materials that
included two job descriptions that were attached to the CDBG applications and
the descriptions typed into the application if the job description wasn’t
included. Both
G. Moore asked how important neighborhoods feel
their coordinators are.
C. Moore said that it seemed to be a high priority
for neighborhoods.
Collier said that Pinckney residents receive their
meeting notices late and she has only received one newsletter in the two years
that she has lived in the neighborhood.
francisco said that it was important to have a sense
of what people do. It is similar to
asking if
Gilchrist asked what the ONA budget was. Swarts read the allocations for neighborhood
association coordinator salaries and operating expenses.
Gilchrist said that having funding gives an
association a purpose to meet, but questioned the discrepancy in coordinator
salaries. She stated that it is hard to
justify.
francisco said that different neighborhoods have
different needs. Oread has the highest
density, it is zoned residential-dormitory rather than single-family and so
there are more people they are trying to reach.
The costs of postage, newsletters, phone calls and projects would be
overwhelming without the CDBG funds.
Gilchrist suggested that maybe there should be one
person to coordinate all neighborhoods.
francisco said that it would be too hard to connect
with neighborhoods. Some associations
have tried to do some coordination activities.
Someone tried to handle two neighborhoods as a coordinator and there
were too many contacts and conflicts.
Gilchrist said that it also seems that ONA has more
talent and some pockets of money that you may not find in other neighborhoods
such as Brook Creek. She asked about the
composition of people involved with ONA and the percentage who were
low-moderate income.
francisco said that one-third to one-half have
low-moderate income. They have students on the board and in the cooperative
C. Moore said that is part of the question, but the
Committee needs to look at activities that coordinators are performing. She questioned whether there might be certain
activities that the board might not wish to support, considering shrinking
budgets.
G. Moore suggested having neighborhoods report on
how much time is spent on the various coordinator activities.
francisco said that sounds reasonable. The
C. Moore said that she agrees with francisco about
having each coordinator position defined by the neighborhood. She suggested looking at certain activities
that CDBG should support and it would be up to neighborhoods to fund the rest.
francisco asked if it was policy to produce a
newsletter four times per year.
Swarts stated that CDBG funded associations were
required to meet four times per year.
There is no newsletter requirement, but notification of meetings is
required. She said that some
associations do postcard notifications and some do newsletters.
francisco said that a mailing of 4000 is not a
trivial matter. They have tried to do
mailings with volunteers. Swarts said
that Brook Creek used to have children deliver newsletters but stopped because
of a lack of volunteers. francisco said
her husband, Joe delivers some newsletters for the ELNA.
Gilchrist asked how 4000 newsletters compare to the
other neighborhoods.
Swarts noted the populations of the five target
neighborhoods.
francisco said that the ONA coordinator does not
attend LAN meetings and she thinks CDBG funds should not pay for that type of
activity. In the past, the North Lawrence Improvement Association (NLIA)
coordinator attended LAN meetings.
Welty said that NLIA has benefited from a
coordinator. One of the reasons they
cannot currently find one is because it is for so few hours and so little pay.
Swarts said that the Neighborhood Programs Specialist
position was not a neighborhood coordinator, but rather a “go-to” person for
neighborhood outreach and information.
The programs specialist is not necessarily going to be able to answer
all questions, but can direct citizens to the right person or the correct City
department. There is also a lot of
department grant administration involved such as drafting the Consolidated
Plan, Annual Performance Report and other staff support.
Gilchrist stated that she buys the coordinator
concept and knows what it takes, but she still sees this as a funding issue for
francisco asked if Gilchrist was aware of the
history of CDBG. There followed a
discussion about the history of CDBG and HUD funding priorities. She emphasized that the City came to Oread
and asked residents to start ONA before
francisco stated that
Swarts said that in communities where the overall
low-moderate income population has a higher threshold, (less than 51%), the
community may be able to expend funds for projects that do not have a 51%+ area
low-moderate income population. However,
they cannot spend CDBG money fixing areas of town that do not serve
low-moderate income citizens. She
advised that CDBG funding does not have to be tied to a neighborhood
association or a “target” neighborhood and that target neighborhoods were
initially targeted because they needed more infrastructure and
francisco asked if census data is also
considered. Swarts replied it is.
Swarts said that any neighborhood can organize – no
matter how big or small or how active.
If one found out that an area was low-moderate income and decided to do
something, it would only require one person coming in to initiate the
process. Being organized helps as a
focal point, but is not necessary.
francisco suggested looking back into the CDBG
regulations governing neighborhood associations.
Swarts said that CDBG regulations did not establish
neighborhood association regulations; the City did through the citizen
participation process. When neighborhood
associations began receiving CDBG public service funding in the mid-80’s,
requirements such as a minimum of four neighborhood association meetings per year,
were established.
G. Moore asked if staff could provide information
for the Committee detailing allocations compared goals. It would be interesting to see.
Swarts said staff would create such a table. Gilchrist asked for percentages. Swarts said staff would provide information
for the
Collier said that what strikes her about Pinckney is
that the coordinator does not live in the neighborhood. Pinckney has a lot of crime – it really is at
risk. Looking at the number of rentals
and the racial makeup – it is a very impoverished group. She stated that she was concerned that a
coordinator could not know the neighborhood unless they lived in it.
Swarts said that she was not sure the
Collier replied that traditional activities are not
going to work in Pinckney Neighborhood.
francisco said that ONA had a grant in the past to
address crime.
Swarts said that might be an opportunity to utilize
the coordinator. They could be asked to speak with police about the crime
situation and possible solutions.
francisco said that maybe they should consider doing
a neighborhood watch.
Miscellaneous Items
Swarts suggested discussing the calendar. The next meeting would be May 26 or June
9. Staff can gather information about
coordinator activities, historical allocations data, and updates on
G. Moore suggested meeting next month.
Collier would like some time to meet with board
members and the Pinckney Neighborhood Association (PNA) coordinator.
Swarts said that staff could contact all
coordinators and do some research before a June meeting.
C. Moore and Collier concurred.
francisco suggested sending out the BCNA Coordinator
job description and asking coordinators to list the percentage of time spent on
each activity.
Swarts said that the Committee could require
associations to have job descriptions.
francisco said that in the hiring process, ONA shows
preference to people who live in the neighborhood, second to someone with a
record of association membership. ONA
has had good luck with coordinators who live in
Swarts asked if the Committee wanted to meet June 9
or 23 or July 14 or 28. She said
that if another June date is preferable, the Committee could meet in the
Neighborhood Resources Conference Room.
It was agreed that the
Collier said that one reason that she is interested
in outcomes is that everyone is concerned with outcomes and it is the wave of
the future.
Public Comment
Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting ended
at