NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 11, 2004 minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: Donna Duncan, James Dunn, Janet Gerstner, Paula Gilchrist, Carrie Moore, Greg Moore, Vern Norwood, Terri Pippert and Kirsten Roussel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeannette Collier
STAFF PRESENT: Amanda Holloway, Cindy Nau, and Margene Swarts
PUBLIC PRESENT: Tami Clark, CDIC; Dudley Crow, LOS; Kent Ely, CDIC; Loring Henderson, LOS; Marceil Laupee, CDIC; Cornell Mayfield, HCCI
G. Moore called the meeting to order at 5:29 p.m.
Introductions:
Staff and public introduced themselves.
Approval of Minutes:
Norwood moved to approve the February 26, 2004 minutes. C. Moore seconded the motion, which passed.
Swarts noted that the Committee needed to balance the Public Service budget by the end of the meeting. Swarts stated there were no staff recommendations.
Deliberations:
G. Moore asked if there was public comment.
Loring Henderson, Chair of the Lawrence Open Shelter and Coordinator for LOS Volunteer staff, stated he was there to speak about allocations. LOS had requested funds for personnel support and had not received funding. Current services for the homeless are needed. There are more things needed such as a detox facility. He requested the allocations be equitable. LOS is working with the poorest and most difficult of clients. There are 120-200 homeless people in Lawrence. LOS currently has four part-time monitors that are paid and work twelve-hour shifts and the Coordinator position is part-time. The organization is dealing with difficult circumstances. They have no established funding, so without CDBG funding, they have no major source of income.
Dudley Crow, LOS, noted that LOS has served 247 individuals. They average 80 different clients a month. They work with very low-income persons and veterans. LOS has moved three individuals into permanent housing, three into detox, and one into psychiatric care. Staff calms people down when there is a problem and police reports and incidents have been a fraction of what they were in the past. There are consequences for clients who do not follow the rules. Residents in the neighborhood have reported that they feel safer because LOS is available. Each evening there are at least 21 individuals that are not on the street after 10 p.m. because of LOS. The organization cannot keep them there against their will. They have provided services at a lower cost to the community. Not all of the clients are intoxicated. Four or five clients that turn up each night may be intoxicated, but many are not. CDBG funding has been allocated in the past, and they hope for more in the future. LOS is facilitating an Alcoholics Anonymous group specifically for these individuals.
Gerstner asked if the 247 individuals that they have helped are the same people or if these are 247 different individuals.
Crow stated that a few of them are repeat customers.
Nau asked how LOS knows if the individuals are homeless.
Crow stated that they self identify themselves as homeless individuals.
Tami Clark, CDIC Director, stated that CDIC provides a place for people to escape inclement weather. They have had a 66% increase in clientele since their relocation from Oregon Street. Since 2000, the center has made changes in their services. They provide a place to be safe and include breakfast, lockers, and showers. Couches have been replaced with tables and chairs, an employment service room, and a “drop-in shop” which models real life experiences and allows clients to purchase items with accrued “drop-in” dollars. In 2003, 1012 individuals sought their services. Of that amount, 80% were homeless and 5% were not Lawrence residents. That means 769 of those individuals are Lawrence residents. With the increase in community support and NRAC, CDIC wants to use a caseworker to help with employment and independent living skills. The focus will be on job readiness and permanent housing. They have plans to network with businesses to find jobs for their clients. CDIC is just as concerned with the proposed reduction in funds as the NRAC. Without adequate support, CDIC will have a “flop-house” feel to it with which the neighboring residents are not comfortable.
Marceil Laupee, CDIC, noted she is concerned with all the organizations seeking funding from CDBG funds. She looked at past allocations and what money is to be allocated this year. She believes there was not a lot of fairness in what was allocated in the past.
Norwood stated that when the NRAC makes funding decisions, they look carefully at what is being proposed. She stated that everyone on the NRAC takes the process very seriously. The decisions may not always seem fair, but the NRAC tries hard to be equitable.
Cornell Mayfield, HCCI stated that he wanted to thank the committee and is grateful for what has been allocated in the past. He noted that the present recommendation is a $500 reduction from last year.
There being no further comments G. Moore moved to deliberations by the NRAC.
Norwood stated that the Committee had limited funds to allocate and it appeared drastic measures might be necessary. Norwood suggested that the Committee reduce operating expenses for the neighborhoods by $100, except for East Lawrence. She also suggested zero funding 4e, Oread Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Landscaping. She suggested reducing 15a, Emergency Services Council, Emergency Rent and Utility Assistance by $10,000; reducing 19a, Housing and Credit Counseling, Tenant/Landlord Counseling and Education by $9,000; and 26a, The Salvation Army, Emergency Shelter Operating Funds/Feeding Program by $10,000.
Pippert stated that to be fair they should reduce everyone by 17% because the budget is over by 17%.
Norwood stated that she would have some concerns about cutting the First Step House.
Dunn asked if they zero-funded 31i, Neighborhood Resources, Voluntary Clearance, how would the program be affected?
Swarts stated that they would not be able to remove trees or brush from the properties of low to moderate-income individuals.
Nau asked what the most expensive removal they have done in the past.
Swarts stated that the most expensive is about $500-$700. There are usually five or so each year, but sometimes less.
Dunn moved to zero-fund 31i, Neighborhood Resources, Voluntary Clearance. Gerstner seconded the motion.
Gerstner stated that she referred to the application and the amount of funds used varied from year to year. She inquired if the Voluntary Demolition funds could be used for this activity instead.
Swarts stated that Voluntary Clearance is for trees that are dead or in danger of falling; demolition funds cannot be used.
Gerstner stated she felt it was a lower priority.
Gilchrist stated that it is a service.
Norwood stated that it should be reduced, not cut completely.
Pippert stated that she agrees with Norwood. She suggested that maybe they should look into getting a tree service to donate services.
G. Moore stated that he would hate to see the program disappear.
The motion failed.
Gerstner moved to fund 31i, Neighborhood Resources, Voluntary Clearance-$2,500. C. Moore seconded the motion.
Swarts stated that having that line item would be helpful. Individuals that apply for voluntary clearance are frequently elderly individuals on a fixed income. With $2,500, two or three individuals could still be helped.
Norwood asked if there is a way that the City could advertise for individuals to come out and cut down trees for firewood and remove them.
G. Moore stated that would likely be a liability issue.
Swarts agreed and stated that it would probably be a situation in which the City would not want to be involved.
The motion passed.
Roussel moved to decrease 26a, The Salvation Army, Emergency Shelter Operating Funds/Feeding Program-$37,450 and 15a, Emergency Services Council, Emergency Rent and Utility Assistance-$18,000.
After brief comments, G. Moore asked if there was a second to the motion. Gilchrist seconded the motion.
Norwood stated that she would prefer the amount not to exceed what it was last year.
Roussel amended the motion to fund 26a, The Salvation Army, Emergency Shelter Operating Funds/Feeding Program-$31,215 but left 15a, Emergency Services Council, Emergency Rent and Utility Assistance-$18,000. Gilchrist agreed to the amendment. The motion passed with Gilchrist abstaining.
Dunn asked if anyone knew anything about the North Lawrence representative replacement.
Swarts stated that she had not heard anything. The NLIA continues to have regular newsletters and regular meetings. The neighborhood President sent a letter to the Mayor asking to have Gunter de Vries reappointed. The Mayor declined to do that.
Pippert suggested that the Committee look at the neighborhood and homeless services budgets.
Gerstner stated they should try to retain coordinators salaries and operating expenses.
Norwood moved to zero-fund 4e, Oread Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Landscaping. Gilchrist seconded the motion, which passed.
Regarding the North Lawrence cleanup, Pippert noted the request for last year and this year was $1,800. If cuts are to be made for cleanups, they should be consistent.
Swarts noted that the request is for two cleanups. Rather than shave a portion, fund only one cleanup rather than two.
Dunn moved to fund 3b, North Lawrence Improvement Association, Neighborhood Cleanup and Brush Removal-$900.00. C. Moore seconded motion, which passed.
Norwood moved to zero-fund 2d, East Lawrence Improvement Association, ELNA Work Day.
After a brief discussion, Norwood withdrew her motion.
Roussel moved to fund 2d, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, ELNA Work Day-$1133. Pippert seconded the motion.
Duncan clarified that the Work Day is to work on homes and the Cleanup is just to pick up trash and debris in the neighborhood.
Swarts inquired if the Work Day included painting.
Duncan stated that they may do painting.
Swarts noted there may be lead based paint issues.
Norwood stated that if they cut the ELNA Work Day, they should cut a portion from all of the neighborhoods.
Roussel stated that operating expenses and cleanups are things that are traditional to support the neighborhood association.
Gerstner stated that funding this activity would be an increase of $1133 over last year.
The motion passed.
Pippert stated that if they are going to be consistent that they should look at the Pinckney Neighborhood. She is hesitant about funding new projects with this year of low funding. The Committee has cut other projects that have been funded in the past.
Dunn stated that brush removal should not be funded when there are emergency housing problems within the city.
Pippert moved to zero-fund 2d, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, ELNA Work Day.
Duncan stated that it was her understanding that the purpose of the CDBG funds is not just for the homeless, but for the neighborhoods also.
Swarts provided a brief explanation of the CDBG regulations regarding meeting a national objective.
Roussel stated that she supports the ELNA workday. She added that it is a new project but that neighborhood bonding is what keeps a neighborhood strong.
Gilchrist stated that she agrees.
The motion failed.
Dunn inquired about the status of the budget.
Swarts stated that it is currently balanced.
Pippert moved to fund 5d, Pinckney Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Cleanup-$840. Roussel seconded the motion, which passed.
Pippert moved to fund 12a, Community Drop-In Center, Operating Expenses-$10,840. C. Moore seconded the motion. Dunn recused himself. The motion passed.
Nau noted it is important to keep the neighborhoods vital but has to wonder where we strike the balance between giving the money to the neighborhoods and giving the money to agencies that will reduce the loitering problems from homeless individuals.
There followed a brief discussion regarding neighborhood association coordinators including their job duties and salaries.
There being no further discussion, G. Moore closed deliberations.
Public Comment:
Tami Clark stated that she does not envy the task of the NRAC. They have difficult decisions to make.
Loring Henderson stated that he appreciates the process the NRAC goes into to determine who will receive funding.
Kent Ely, Board Member of the CDIC, stated that he hopes in the coming years that the neighborhood coordinators will have a definition of what their job description is. If funding is paying a salary to a coordinator, the public should know what that person is doing for their pay.
Dunn stated that each neighborhood association provides a proposal to the NRAC stating the activities of the proposal.
Roussel stated that as a part of each proposal, coordinator duties are listed.
G. Moore inquired if the NRAC could define Neighborhood Coordinators’ job descriptions.
Swarts stated that she believes the Committee could define their expectations. The City Commission might have additional input.
Norwood requested that discussion of Neighborhood Coordinators, including job description, duties, and salary be placed on a future NRAC agenda.
Miscellaneous:
Regarding the NRAC calendar, it was suggested the March 25, 2004 meeting be cancelled and the NRAC meet on April 8, 2004. The public hearing will be April 22, 2004 at 6 p.m. The Consolidated Plan will be on the May 4, 2004 City Commission agenda.
Pippert stated that she would not be present at the April 8, 2004 meeting.
G. Moore moved to cancel the March 25, 2004 meeting, meet April 8, 2004, and have the Public Hearing on April 22, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. Gilchrist seconded the motion, which passed.
There being no further business, C. Moore moved to adjourn the meeting. Gilchrist seconded the motion, which passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m.