City of Lawrence, KS

Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee

September 8, 2005 Minutes (City Commission Room)

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Jeanette Collier, Donna Duncan, marci francisco, Janet Gerstner, Paula Gilchrist, Greg Moore, Vern Norwood and Mike Randolph
MEMBERS ABSENT:	Kirsten Roussel and Patti Welty
STAFF PRESENT:	Lesley Rigney and Margene Swarts
PUBLIC PRESENT:

Moore called the meeting to order at 5:40.

The Committee introduced themselves and the public introduced themselves.

Approval of the August 25, 2005 minutes

Norwood noted that she was absent at the meeting and was shown as present.

Staff agreed to make the correction.

Gilchrist moved to approve the minutes. Gerstner seconded the motion, which passed.

Discussion of revised 2006 CDBG/HOME application

Randolph complimented staff on the revisions to the application.

Norwood said that when she does an application when there are two (or more) part questions, she likes them broken down a/b/c/etc. for clarity. She cited question number 9 as an example and said she could see some applicants leaving out information.

Collier said that was a confusing question.

Gerstner asked if number 4 could be just put into a sentence with a/b/etc.

Norwood named several questions that she felt were multiple part questions.

Swarts said that the Committee instructed staff to combine questions at the last meeting. Staff will break questions up again if the Committee wishes.

Norwood read 14 and said that there are additional parts to the questions that should be broken down.

Gerstner said that some, such as 6, she does not think it is necessary to split up, but in others it would be helpful.

Norwood said that it is important to make it clear so applicants will answer all of the questions.

francisco clarified that multi-part questions would be broken down. She moved to break down multi-part questions into parts a/b/c, etc. Norwood seconded the motion.

Gilchrist said that she would hate to see it made larger and she also likes the open-endedness of the questions.

Moore said he was thinking that maybe those questions could say “(three answers)” instead of “a/b/c.”

Randolph said that if would initially break down all multi-part questions, the Committee could then review the application again and determine if it makes more sense to leave some together.

Norwood suggested that it may be necessary to reword some questions in order to get all of the information without breaking them down into parts.

Gilchrist said that 7 could not be broken down but should include an example.

Norwood said that 9 could be done the same way. The application could give examples in parentheses “(e.g. infrastructure, services)” or could be broken down into two questions.

The motion to break down multi-part questions passed.

Francisco suggested changing 9 to say “what do you believe to be” instead of “assess”. The Committee is not asking applicants to perform a formal impact assessment. In addition, she feels that the second sentence is redundant. She would prefer to not have that. She moved to make the proposed changes in the application, gilchrist seconded the motion, which passed.

Swarts asked if the Committee wanted any other changes made.

francisco said in 18, say “if so, attach the approval.” She said that as an applicant she would be happier to receive this application than the previous one.

Randolph suggested attaching an explanation of the figure.

Gilchrist said that one change they did make last year was regarding collaboration and she does not see it in this revised application.

Swarts said the Committee had decided to keep something and let something else go. She stated that it was somewhat difficult to include all of Committee’s conversation in the application, but that we would go back and include both of the questions related to collaboration. She suggested it was kind of included in 14 – staff will add collaboration to the examples.

Moore asked if the Committee should recess before the public hearing.

Swarts instructed the Committee to take a five minute break.

The meeting recessed at 6:00 for the public hearing.

Miscellaneous Items/Calendar

The meeting reconvened at 6:30 following the public hearing.

Gerstner asked about the sentence after Table 7 which states “the city does not have a HUD approved revitalization strategy.”

Swarts explained that if a city has a HUD approved strategy, they can do different things with funds such as; currently anyone who receives benefits has to meet income guidelines. With a plan, the area would meet the guidelines and even if someone did not qualify as an individual, they could still qualify for assistance.

Swarts announced that Lawrence had been designated as an overflow shelter for evacuees but was notified today to stand down, that the city should not expect to receive any. She attended a meeting yesterday morning with FEMA, other agencies and government officials. The response of local leadership was incredible. They got in there and figured out exactly what would need to be done and it was great to see everyone working together.

Gilchrist clarified that other evacuees would be arriving through different efforts.

Moore asked if a location for a restaurant for the annual dinner had been picked.

francisco said she could not make the dinner.

Moore asked staff to check into La Tropicana and asked for any miscellaneous items or public comment.

francisco attended an Aquila meeting regarding gas price increases. They talked about ideas that people had to address the problem and she stated that anything done in legislature will be a year out. She is interested in what we could do about weatherization of rental properties. LEAP (is this right?) funds are used to weatherize far fewer homes (a fraction) than the demand. She is suggesting that energy companies use some of their current donations for weatherization efforts.

Collier said they are projecting a 51-71 percent increase in gas prices and it is very alarming since so many folks are on fixed incomes. More requests for utility assistance are pouring in from outlying areas and Lawrence numbers are staggering. There are already many families without electricity.

Gilchrist said that the population that grabs her is the seniors and the only time Salvation Army ever sees them is for Warm Hearts, which offers up to $300 for utility assistance over a three month period during the winter.

francisco said she noticed the city advertising weatherization and wondered what could be done for rentals.

Gilchrist said that with rental housing, a lot of the people can only live in substandard housing and those landlords often refuse to bring their units up to code. This will disqualify them from most weatherization programs.

Collier said she thinks that what is going to happen during the upcoming winter is that the $300 dollar limit will be used up for the first month.

Randolph said he does not think a lot of landlords realize that savings can be had by converting to electricity. Westar will give a break to customers who go all electric (water heaters, ranges, furnaces, etc.) In the near term, he does not know how to get the word out.

francisco said that she thinks Aquila will realize that it is not in their best interest for no one to be able to afford their bills.

Gerstner commented that the Lawrence Journal World should do an article about gas saving options.

Collier said ECKAN had excess money for furnaces in the state last year.

Adjourn

There being no further business or discussion, francisco moved to adjourn the meeting. Gilchrist seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.