|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Donna
Duncan, marci francisco, Janet Gerstner, Paula Gilchrist, Carrie Moore, Greg
Moore, Mike Randolph, Kirsten Roussel and Patti Welty |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Jeanette
Collier and Vern Norwood |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Lesley
Rigney and |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Steve Braswell, Marilyn Roy, Janet Good and Ed
Tato |
G. Moore called the meeting to order at
Approval of the
Gilchrist moved to approve the
Discussion of
G. Moore called attention to the handouts provided
by staff regarding the historical allocation of CDBG and HOME funds in the
categories of emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing,
homeownership, and rental activities.
Swarts said that for the past several years the CDBG
allocation has remained relatively the same.
However, entitlement communities whose populations fall below the 50,000
threshold are not excluded from the program and there are new communities
coming on board every year, which causes the pot to shrink further. The program started in 1975 and there was a fairly
steady rise in allocation except for a few years that amounts dipped. In the 1990’s there was a sharp funding increase
(from $700,000 to $1,000,000) and funding continued to increase for several
years. Since 2001, the City’s allocation
has been decreasing.
francisco entered the meeting.
Gilchrist asked how the decision to allocate so much
to home ownership came about and was it a local or federal decision.
Swarts stated it was a part of the local flexibility
allowed by the CDBG program. Communities
are able to determine what needs exist and determine the best strategy to
address them. Housing rehabilitation has
always been considered to be an important cornerstone in the program for
preserving neighborhoods and furthering neighborhood revitalization.
Gilchrist asked about demolition.
Swarts said the small amount that was allocated
previous to 2004 would have been in the home ownership category.
Gerstner questioned what was included in
neighborhoods.
Swarts said improvements to neighborhood structures
and housing stock, land acquisition, and neighborhood association coordinator
and operating expenses.
Gilchrist asked if a lot of home ownership dollars
go into target neighborhoods.
Swarts said that it is not limited to the target
neighborhoods because people can buy homes wherever in the community they can
qualify to buy a home. There is a lot of
participation in some of the target neighborhoods, however. For instance, there is a lot of participation
in Brook Creek, some in
G. Moore stated that the Committee appeared to be all
over the map according to goals, but noted part of the problem could be the
restriction on the amount that can be allocated to public services (subject to
a 15% federal cap) because the number one goal (emergency shelter) has been funded
the least.
francisco asked how often
Swarts said the group conducted strategic planning last
year and it was the first time the Committee had done that for several years. In some years, there was consensus by the
Committee that they would focus more on one thing than others, but this is
first time that the process was really formalized. She also noted that for the 2005 program year,
the lowest percentage was allocated to emergency shelter. However, total dollar amounts are going to be
skewed by the public services cap and most allocations for emergency shelter
were public services. It might be better
to look at percentages rather than dollars to get a more accurate picture.
Gerstner noted that the spike in 2001 for emergency
shelter may be explained by the $140,000 capital improvement allocation to The
Salvation Army for the new shelter site preparation.
C. Moore asked if that money was still available.
Swarts said yes.
G. Moore asked what numbers were in the top
chart.
Swarts said the chart contained the overall allocation
history.
Swarts said it has to do with both and that the caps
have not changed since they began allowing public services to be funded in the
1980’s. As a general rule, the same
activities have been requested every year.
The Department has done the same thing with small variations for
years. Once public services became
allowable, many of the same agencies were funded year after year, but there are
some who are no longer funded or no longer apply. The Step up To Better Housing strategy
changed the focus to housing strategies and services and some agencies were not
funded because this was not their focus.
francisco said that the change for allowing public services
came after the elimination of federal revenue sharing. At one time these funds were used for a variety
of services in
G. Moore said that this information was an eye
opener and that the allocations were pretty heavy in home ownership and pretty
light in the top goal of emergency shelter.
francisco noted one thing to be considered was how
many people are taking advantage of emergency shelter versus home ownership and
to ask if dollars spent are reflective of the number of people served and the demand
for services.
C. Moore said part of it is the mix of what
proposals are submitted. Applications
drive allocations. The graph is a great
way to visualize history and to keep it in mind for future allocations
decisions.
francisco noted that said in 2001 when there was a
request (Salvation Army), funding followed.
Gerstner asked if it would be possible to encourage
emergency shelters to apply for capital improvements funding.
francisco suggested breaking down the allocation
history into capital improvements and public services.
Swarts said staff could provide the breakdown at the
next meeting.
Braswell asked if goals are prioritized.
G. Moore replied yes, that the committee spent three
months last summer doing the goal-setting process.
Gerstner asked if HMIS could be considered a capital
improvement.
Swarts said no.
There was a brief discussion about the HTF
allocations being deferred by the City Commission.
Discussion of Neighborhood Coordinators
Swarts said that staff sent out requests to the five
neighborhood presidents and coordinators asking them to customize job descriptions
and attach the amount of time spent to each activity. Responses were not received from Oread and
Pinckney.
francisco said that the Oread coordinator had
already given his resignation and may have been less inclined to do a good job
on the request.
G. Moore opened up the meeting for discussion. He said at the last meeting, the Committee
wanted to know what coordinators were doing and how much time was spent on each
activity so that the Committee could compare and contrast. Some members had mentioned
neighborhoods working together and the NR department helping out with costs.
C. Moore said that there was an opportunity to have a
discussion realizing that funding is an ever-shrinking resource. She questioned whether there may be areas of
economy – certain activities that should be funded through department dollars
and some that should not. She wanted a
breakdown from Oread and Pinckney to match the others for a thorough
comparison.
Swarts said that staff could review the job
descriptions and compare categories and time spent. There may be common activities that the Committee
thinks coordinators should or should not be doing if they are receiving CDBG
funding. Swarts noted that staff received
the responses without spending a lot of time trying to analyze them.
C. Moore said that she was more interested in the
relationship of activities to funding and the importance of activities. Because public services are capped and the
overall grant is decreasing, it may be helpful if the Committee could determine
if certain functions fall across all neighborhood associations. She stated that she isn’t interested in
rewriting job descriptions, just determining which activities the Committee
wants to fund.
C. Moore said that is not her intention.
francisco said one thing that should be noted was
what percentage is just to fill out CDBG forms such as
Gilchrist said that applications are often redundant
and could be simplified.
Gilchrist said to keep it in mind.
francisco said that the Committee needs to note that
applying is not an easy task. She noted
that
Gerstner asked if there could be a sharing of skills
between coordinators. The Committee may
be able to see opportunities for this and encourage it.
Gilchrist said that part of the discussion last
month was about outcomes. She does not
know how to get at that in terms of coordinators.
C. Moore said that it is difficult in all areas, not
just coordinators.
There was a discussion about the differences between
outcomes and outputs.
Gilchrist said that yes, it is hard, but it could be
a reasonable expectation.
francisco said it is going to also take more
dollars. She suggested considering the
amount of money allocated – for instance, maybe if the Committee is allocating
$7,000 and can see newsletters coming out, then that is enough outcome
measurement.
Gilchrist said that she has worked with a lot of
agencies – Emergency Services Council is a good example. The Committee allocated $18,000 to ESC and
could call them today and they could say how many people they have helped.
francisco stated that this would not be the outcome. An outcome might be whether or not the family
stayed in their house because of the subsidy.
Tato said that ELNA tried to track numbers and
outcomes of each event but there were too many things that multiple different
people did at different times to track it all.
Good said one outcome of the newsletter is that
board names are out there and citizens are able to contact them when needed. It can be observed by the increase in calls
to board members after newsletter distribution.
Gilchrist asked the public what the greatest value
of the coordinator is.
Tato said to look at the first paragraph of ELNA coordinator
job description and to note that all of those things go through the
coordinator. The board cannot do those
things due to involvement in other activities.
He stated that he is not supportive of the newsletter and has been
trying for years to find another way to get it done because he can find plenty
of other things for the coordinator to do with their time. He noted that the newsletter works in a
strange way but someone will see something and something will happen because of
it. He directed the Committees’
attention to their list of goals and stated that neighborhood associations have
helped with many goals and the money that comes through the coordinator is what
makes it happen. Associations could not
do it without coordinators. It would not be a functioning unit.
francisco said that as far as newsletters go, people
need a reminder about what is going on in their neighborhoods. It brings issues to attention and Oread would
have fewer meetings and less attendance without the newsletter.
Braswell said there is nothing special and different
about neighborhoods that are funded, that every neighborhood needs one. Their neighborhoods just happen to fall
within the CDBG guidelines. Gwen
Klingenberg is the Pinckney neighborhood coordinator and spends more time on
the job than she reports. She is the
liaison between the neighborhood and the City.
Some people are not comfortable dealing with the City and the coordinator
allows neighbors to approach the City in a less formal way. He stated that Klingenberg gets into City
government and keeps the neighborhood up to date with what the City is doing
that will impact the neighborhood. He
suggested measuring outcomes by looking at how often citizen input changes the
direction of public meetings. In
addition, coordinators keep neighborhoods on the City’s radar screen.
G. Moore brought the discussion back to the
Committee. He stated that he believes the role of a coordinator is important,
but the Committee is looking at an ever-shrinking budget and is asking if this is
a place to look at making cuts.
francisco said that it is more difficult to explain
the importance of coordinators, but it is an annually budgeted item and she
questioned why it would be unusual for it to be discussed every year.
G. Moore clarified that the Committee tends to look
at why this item is being funded every year.
Gilchrist said that if you put a coordinator in any
neighborhood, they would find issues and get something done. It bothers her that it is not a level playing
field between target neighborhoods and others and also among target
neighborhoods that are funded at different levels. She stated that there is no rhyme or reason
to the allocations. She questioned what Pinckney
NA would do with more money.
Gerstner said that from her years of living in
target neighborhoods – the intensity of the problems is different. In
Gilchrist asked for an explanation for the
discrepancy in funding.
Gerstner said one indicator could be population. The
lowest is
francisco said to also consider zoning. Oread has a lot of single-family houses but
little single-family zoning.
francisco said to also consider subdivision rules that
do not apply to older neighborhoods.
Existing development may not meet City Code and people are trying to
conform to code that doesn’t fit in to existing development. She stated that furthermore, there were
guidelines set by HUD to distinguish target neighborhoods.
Swarts said the term “target” does not show up in HUD
regulations. In order to qualify for
CDBG funds on an “area-wide” basis, the area has to be 51% or more low-mod, but
the area could be huge or it could be one block.
francisco asked if any other neighborhoods meet the
criteria.
Swarts said that there are other low-mod areas in
francisco notified that the City had a hand in establishing
target neighborhoods. For one, ELNA was
established to comply with CDBG regulations.
Citizens were invited to a meeting in 1977 and encouraged to organize.
Swarts explained that according to the CDBG regulations,
eligible activities must meet a national objective. One of the objectives is to assist low and
moderate income persons. Meeting that
national objective can be accomplished on an area wide basis in low-mod
areas. In Lawrence it was determined
that, rather than the City making decisions on behalf of low-mod area neighborhoods,
the City would talk to residents within the area and ask what they thought was
necessary to improve the neighborhood.
It was easier to work with organized groups of people. Funds did not go to the individual neighborhood
associations, but the association was the focal point for requesting specific activities.
Tato said that funding allows neighborhoods to do
things, it doesn’t cause them to. If
something is not funded, it may not get done.
Tato stated he is of the belief that there are other neighborhoods that
would qualify and the City should allow them into the process and let them
compete. He recommended getting the City
to fund NR departmental administrative costs outside of the grant and from the
General Fund in order to further CDBG funds for low-mod area activities. He stated that the City needs to step
up. CDBG funds are not a monopoly that
should belong to these five neighborhoods and they have become that. What neighborhoods do with their funds is
pretty urgent but if there are others that need it more, they should get
it. ELNA does count on the coordinator’s
salary, but they also know that it is not likely to increase.
francisco directed the discussion back to variances
in neighborhoods and asked Gilchrist if she required additional
information. She noted there is not
another neighborhood that has a lower owner-occupancy rate than Oread.
Tato said that there is a lot of development going
on in
francisco said that maybe the vitality of
neighborhoods can be attributed to funding neighborhood associations.
Tato said goals are accomplished, without a doubt, because
of the coordinator.
C. Moore asked staff if any organized neighborhood association
has access to the CDBG application.
Swarts said application information is sent to all
known interested parties.
G. Moore asked if neighborhoods have ever banded
together and demanded money from the City.
francisco said maybe with regard to sidewalks and
historic street signs.
Good said the rail-trail project was an example of
this.
G. Moore stated that the discussion was good and
asked if the Committee wanted to extend the meeting or continue the discussion
at a later meeting.
C. Moore asked if staff could put together a
spreadsheet of additional information.
francisco asked for clarification of what is needed.
C. Moore said that she would like input from
Pinckney and Oread that was not provided yet.
Braswell agreed that he would work on it with his
coordinator to come up with percentages.
G. Moore asked for capital improvements and public
services breakdown.
Gilchrist asked for a map of areas with overlays
depicting low-mod areas and neighborhoods.
Swarts said that it would be a visual aid and staff
will bring maps for the next meeting.
Miscellaneous Items/Calendar
Swarts asked when the Committee would like to meet
next and after a brief discussion, it was agreed to meet August 11 in the City
Commission Room.
Swarts stated that staff will take some time to
discuss what they can provide that will be helpful to the discussion.
francisco instructed Committee members to think
about what the Committee can do for neighborhood associations to make the
application process easier.
Swarts said there is nothing regulatory required for
an application. The current one has evolved over 20 years. The Committee can look at the current
application and decide what it is that they want to know of applicants. It may be possible to simplify it for all
applicants.
Gilchrist said the Committee is seeing the same agencies
over and over and turning down new ones.
Swarts said the Committee could revisit that
practice. The group has developed a strategy
that excludes some agencies and agencies know that and do not apply. That is not necessarily a bad thing as it
provides some focus for the program. One
of the reasons for the adoption of the strategy was a feeling on the part of
the Committee that they were allocating funds randomly. Some thought that there were getting to be so
many applicants and recipients and the Committee questioned the significance of
a very large number of very small grants.
The Committee decided to pull back and focus on housing strategies and
revitalized neighborhoods. Although the
strategy was developed in 1997-98, perhaps it could be time for a change.
G. Moore noted that the Committee did revisit the
strategy last summer and ended up with basically the same thing.
Adjourn
There being nor further business or discussion, Gilchrist
moved to adjourn the meeting.
Gerstner seconded the motion which passed. The meeting adjourned at