NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
April 8, 2004 minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeannette Collier, Janet Gerstner, Paula Gilchrist, Carrie Moore, Greg Moore, Vern Norwood and Kirsten Roussel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Donna Duncan, James Dunn and Terri Pippert
STAFF PRESENT: Amanda Holloway, Cindy Nau, Margene Swarts and Barry Walthall
PUBLIC PRESENT: Heather Hoy, Van Go Mobile Arts; Lynn Green, Van Go Mobile Arts; Ed Tato, ELNA; Marcy Francisco, ONA; Tami Clark, CDIC;
G. Moore called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Introductions:
Staff and public introduced themselves.
Approval of Minutes:
Norwood noted that on Page 3, Paragraph 4, the wording should be changed to she “thought the committee would consider” rather than “suggested”.
Nau clarified an addition to the end of Paragraph 2, Page 7, “within the neighborhoods”.
Roussel moved to approve the March 11, 2004 minutes as corrected. C. Moore seconded the motion, which passed.
Swarts distributed draft copies of the 2004 Action Plan of the 2003-2007 Consolidated Plan to the Committee. She stated that she would like everyone to review the information contained in the draft and contact staff regarding any corrections or comments by Wednesday, April 14, 2004 so that corrections can be made to the document. Some of the public comments presented to the committee tonight may concern the Investment Summary. Questions about the document can also be answered by the Neighborhood Resources staff.
Nau stated that only through page 34 needs to be reviewed, the remainder is a duplication of information required for the federal Information Disbursement and Information System (IDIS).
G. Moore inquired if the Committee can email questions or comments about the Investment Summary to staff.
Swarts replied yes.
Public Comment:
Heather Hoy, Van Go Mobile Arts, stated that they currently have not received any allocations. The East Lawrence community would like to know if there are funds available to go to the proposal. Van Go is important to the community. She added that twice the number of children apply for their program than what they can handle.
Lynn Green, Van Go Mobile Arts, stated that they see themselves meeting the “Step Up to Better Housing Strategy” by providing for the kids a place and community. In a real way, they think they are the children’s home away from home. They provide a sense of belonging. They provide caring adults/surrogate parents for the kids. They provide a physical and emotional shelter for the children. She read a poem that a child wrote about the job-training program they provide to the community. She believes the organization means a lot to the kids in the community. The place they provide should get some support from the Committee.
Ed Tato, ELNA President, stated that he believes the CDBG funds have endured because they are beneficial to the municipalities and communities. By reading applications, the Committee knows what is needed in the community. There are partnerships to get some things done. Critical things are proposed for CDBG funds. He sees that $35-$40,000 is allocated toward neighborhoods. There is a lack of funds, but it concerns him that neighborhoods request things that are legitimate and get turned down. Most East Lawrence residents he has spoken with have positive response about the Van Go program. The HOOT and Tenants to Homeowners programs are difficult to run in East Lawrence because of lead paint, asbestos and other factors that drive up the cost. As a result, those programs do not have as big of an impact in East Lawrence as they do in other neighborhoods. Van Go takes kids and trains them to get into the labor force so when they are teens they know what is required of them to retain a job. Without experience or knowledge of what is needed to acquire a job, they will not succeed when they reach the job market. If Van Go continues to train these youth, there will be more people prepared to go into the workforce and those individuals will not need HOOT or Tenants to Homeowners and other such programs. It will not be a dramatic increase at first, but in the long run there will be less reliance on subsidies.
marci francisco, ONA stated that she wants to thank the committee for the time they put in to the decisions that they have made. She asked to reconsider the funds allocated for voluntary demolition and clearance. She stated that demolition requests do not happen quickly and that there should be a particular property identified. There should be a more level playing field of what to do with it positively. She asked if there is anything that can be done to reward people so “demolition by neglect” does not occur.
Tami Clark, CDIC, stated that the comments she would like to make tonight are a result of the last meeting. CDIC staff and board came away from the meeting with mixed feelings. They believe they have been well supported. They appreciate the extra funds that were allocated to them at the last meeting. They also felt frustrated because of the shrinking funds but they know it is not only Lawrence that has received lower funding. She inquired if there is a way to have a flat rate for the coordinator salaries.
Ed Tato, ELNA, added that he believes that the newsletter is important. He believes that the Neighborhood Coordinator does a lot of hard work that cannot be trusted for a volunteer to do. The ELNA coordinator organizes many things and does a lot of planning and phone calls.
There was no further comment.
Deliberations:
Norwood commented about the statements that were made tonight. She added that it is sad that they do not have the money to go to all the programs or proposals. She has been on the Committee for a number of years and there are a lot of different projects that the neighborhoods are taking on and it is heartbreaking that they cannot fund them. She stated that the Committee is planning a meeting to discuss coordinator salaries and activities. She would like the citizens of Lawrence to know that they only have so much money to do what they can and cannot fund everything.
Gerstner recommended discussing Voluntary Demolition. There is currently $10,000 allocated.
Swarts noted that Voluntary Demolition is the demolition of buildings; Voluntary Clearance is the removal of dangerous trees or limbs, brush, etc.
Gerstner stated that there are so many places that the money can go. She recommended taking from Voluntary Demolition fund and putting some to the CDIC renovation and the Van Go Mobile Arts project.
Barry Walthall entered the meeting.
Collier inquired about the demolition process.
Swarts stated that in the past they have demolished structures that have burned and were in a target neighborhood. Sometimes the owners have no insurance or cannot afford to do anything with the structure. The department could clear and potentially purchase the lot and give it to Tenants to Homeowners for redevelopment of affordable housing.
When asked for clarification regarding the building demolition process, Barry Walthall, Neighborhood Resources Code Enforcement Manager, stated that the interested party fills out a demolition application that starts the thirty-day waiting period. During that waiting period the department will send copies of the application to the City Clerk, City Commission, Utilities, Police Department and other interested parties (neighborhood associations, newspaper, radio stations, etc.). Anyone who would have a dispute or comment regarding the demolition can come in during that waiting period and state their case. In cases where the structure is immediately unsafe, the 30-day waiting period can be waived. If the structure were located in an historical section of the city, the Historical Society would also review the application.
Collier stated that in the Pinckney neighborhood there are houses with boards nailed over the windows and obvious blight issues. What can be done to help them?
Walthall stated that the department has Code literature that can help the owner get the structure into compliance with the current codes.
G. Moore asked what the general cost of demolition is.
Walthall stated that they do one or two per year. Each demolition costs generally between $1,500 and $2,000.
Collier asked what would happen if there were environmental issues such as asbestos.
Walthall stated that the only environmental issue recognized in the codes is asbestos. If asbestos is found in a demolition project, the permit is suspended until a licensed contractor abates the materials and paperwork is issued proving such.
Gilchrist inquired who is using these funds or owns the homes.
Walthall stated that they do not track demographical information.
Collier stated that she thinks landlords own most of the blighted properties in the Pinckney neighborhood.
Roussel asked if the funds used to demolish the properties could be recouped from the property owner.
Walthall stated that the owner is billed and if it is not paid, the City Clerk sends it to the County to be added as a special assessment to the property taxes.
Gilchrist inquired what the typical amount budgeted for demolition is?
Swarts stated that the department has not demolished anything this year. Recent demolition costs have been $2,200 to $3,500 each.
Gerstner moved to zero fund 31h, Neighborhood Resources Voluntary Demolition and fund 12b, Community Drop In Center Renovation-$615 and 2c, ELNA Van Go Mobile Arts Building Acquisition-$9,385.
The motion died for lack of a second.
C. Moore moved to fund 31h, Neighborhood Resources Voluntary Demoiltion-$4,385; 12b, Community Drop In Center Renovation-$615; 2c, ELNA Van Go Mobile Arts Building Acquisition-$5,000. Roussel seconded the motion.
Collier stated that she was curious about the renovation for the CDIC.
G. Moore stated that it was carpet replacement; materials only, not labor.
The motion passed.
Norwood inquired about 17a, First Step House Renovation.
Roussel stated that it was bathroom renovation, replacing doors, walls and ceilings.
Norwood inquired about 3d, NLIA Drainage Tubes and Ditches.
Swarts stated that it was for the materials; the city would install the tubes.
Norwood suggested looking at 13a, CLO Bathroom/Shower Surfaces-Four Group Homes and consider funding half or three-quarters of the homes and move the leftover funds to Van Go.
Collier asked if there are more funds available for CLO considering the amount of people that they help.
Nau noted they help the severely developmentally disabled.
Gerstner asked if the Committee would support a reduction on the Voluntary Demolition to $2,500 and moving the balance to Van Go. She stated that the Voluntary Demolition funds were not used much in the past years.
Gerstner moved to find 31h, Neighborhood Resources Voluntary Demolition-$2,500 and 2c, Van Go Mobile Arts Building Acquisition-$6,885. Roussel seconded the motion.
Jeanette inquired if a low to moderate-income individual could not get something demolished through the CDBG program if the general funds could cover that.
Walthall stated that the general funds would need to be paid back through a direct bill or go on special assessment against the property.
There being no further discussion, the motion passed.
Roussel moved to fund 1b, BCNA Coordinator Salary-$3,430; 2b, ELNA Coordinator Salary-$4,781; 3c, NLIA Coordinator Salary-$1,400; 4b, ONA Coordinator Salary $6,658; 5b, PNA Coordinator Salary-$3730; 12a CDIC Operating Expenses-$11,340, which was a $100 reduction each. Collier seconded the motion.
Collier stated that there should be a defined task for each coordinator.
Norwood suggested amending the motion to reduce the coordinator salaries by $200 instead of $100.
Roussel and Collier agreed to the amendment, thereby reducing each neighborhood Coordinator Salary by another $100.
Gerstner stated that many things that are being funded are increasing the negative impact on the Oread neighborhood. The homeless programs have been increasing there and she believes that it has drawn more people loitering in the neighborhood when the organizations there to help are not open. The neighborhood is very large and has a large student population. She noted that out of all of the totals of capital improvements and public service funds, Oread is receiving 3.9% of the total CDBG grant.
Norwood noted that other entities helping the homeless are also located within the target neighborhoods.
Gerstner stated that the intensity of the homelessness is concentrated in the Oread neighborhood and the rentals are increasing in those blocks.
Norwood stated that it should not be a “not in my backyard” type of situation. They have to be somewhere.
Gerstner stated that the densest neighborhood has the Drop-In Center, LOS, and LINK, which is the bulk of current homeless services. She cannot see taking away from the neighborhood coordinators.
C. Moore stated that she would be inclined to vote against the motion at this point in time. She suggested that they should look at the Coordinator issues at a future time and determine any changes during the next allocation period.
Nau noted there is not enough funding for the resources for the homeless to stay open longer. That is why they are loitering in those areas.
Gerstner stated that the homeless commute between liquor stores and the homeless resources. She feels that the old neighborhoods are bearing the brunt of this situation. Oread has tried to help the CDIC.
The motion failed.
Gerstner moved to extend the meeting until 7:10 p.m. C. Moore seconded the motion, which passed.
Walthall presented information about a hearing before the Committee regarding a residence at 830 Alabama St. It will be after the Public Hearing and regular meeting on April 22, 2004. He asked the Committee to review the information. There will be a hearing of the appeal and the Committee would need a motion and an action to either grant the appeal or uphold the city’s decision.
G. Moore asked if this would be the same sort of appeal that has been done in the past.
Walthall stated that it would.
Swarts stated that the Public Hearing regarding the 2004 Action Plan would be at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will start at 5:45 p.m. and then recess to the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing will be closed, reconvene the meeting, make changes to the Investment Summary if desired, and adjourn the meeting. The appeal will be after the public hearing.
Walthall stated the appellate has been told to appear at 6:45 p.m. He also added that questions regarding the case itself would be answered at the hearing. The department may be contacted regarding codes or materials needed to review the case.
Public Comment:
Tami Clark, CDIC, wanted to respond that they understand that where there are homeless services, there are concerns about it being in their neighborhood.
Adjournment:
There being no further business, C. Moore moved to adjourn the meeting. Gilchrist seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.