SPECIAL

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT

A Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting was held on January 29, 2008, at 12:00 noon with Chairwoman Russell presiding. Members present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Horsey, and Mr. Lewis.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried.

CDBG Program Guidelines and Update

During their meeting of December 11, 2007, members deferred consideration of proposed amendments to the CDBG Program Guidelines until the January meeting, with the understanding that members will be presented a decision sheet on each one of the actions that have been taken through January with a recommendation for re-programming, if necessary, within the guidelines. Additionally, members directed that staff reconsider arbitrarily setting a percentage and allow all applicants to be equal regardless of the resulting applicant percentages.

Mrs. Harvey, Community Development Manager, reviewed the 2006/2007 CDBG Expenditure Status Report and the proposed amendments to the CDBG Program Guidelines.

In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Harvey stated that the unencumbered balance for FY2006 Housing Rehabilitation Program, in the amount of $23,906, has been carried forward to FY2007. She confirmed that with the $50,000 allocated for the Housing Rehabilitation Program for FY2007 and the $23,906, there is a total of $73,906. She stated that there are six (6) homes intended for rehabilitation and assured members that the funds would be expended by the end of the program year, which is June 30, 2008. Mrs. Harvey assured members that these funds would be utilized, explaining that the initial inspection confirms extensive work is required for many of these homes.

Mr. Ruane suggested that members be provided the list of homes, with addresses, that are eligible for the Housing Rehabilitation Program and a progress report for this work.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, using Whatcoat Social Service Agency as an example, Mrs. Harvey advised members that the grant was awarded in July 2007. Monitoring letters were sent by the City in October and January. It was Mr. Ruane’s feeling that there may be a need to have additional monitoring letters to assure that work begins in a more timely manner. Mrs. Harvey noted that the Guidelines have been revised to require each applicant to expend 25% of the grant each quarter of the year (page 4, first paragraph). If this requirement is not met, she stated that the matter would be presented to the committee for their review and recommended action. Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, explained that each applicant may have specific circumstances for the delay. Mr. Lewis suggested that these details be included in the monthly report.

Although he felt that the City should increase the monitoring of each project, Mr. McGlumphy disagreed with the requirement for expending 25% of the grant each quarter.

Mrs. Townshend explained that HUD requires the City to have expended, by 60 days prior to the end of the program year, no more than 1½ times the City’s allocation remaining in the credit line, otherwise, the City may not be granted the full allocation the next year. She also advised members that if an organization is a chronic violator of the time limit standard, HUD will eliminate the City’s eligibility for the future. She stated that the money received by the City for the community is necessary to meet an important need, specifically for low and moderate income persons, and explained that the City does not want to take the risk of losing it in the future because the City is being too nice to applicants.

Mr. Ruane reminded members of their struggles in determining the allocation of the grant money when there are multiple applicants. He stated the unfairness to those that were not awarded the money when the awarded recipient does not utilize the funds awarded. He advocated for the monitoring to be serious so that if the grant money has not been expended, there be consequences, which would include having the funds withdrawn.

Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Townshend stated that the House of Pride has been given 30 days, from January 23, 2008, to have a structural engineer inspect the property at 110 S. New Street and submit a report. Although the grant included heaters for specific properties, the House of Pride can select other properties for installation of the heaters.

After much discussion, members suggested that staff meet with Ms. Harris to provide assistance and an understanding of all options available for the House of Pride. Mrs. Russell noted that Ms. Harris also needs to put forth an effort to help the City assist her in this matter.

Based on Mrs. Russell’s questions, Mr. Ruane suggested that members be provided a copy of the guidelines and blank contract which specifies requirements for recipients of these grants.

In reviewing Section D of the proposed amendments to the CDBG Program Guidelines, Mrs. Harvey provided members with “Attachment A” to the Guidelines, which is the table of income limits (Attachment #1). She noted that for Section E of the proposed Program Guidelines, she included only two (2) of the categories for Documentation of National Objectives since its so broad; however, she provided members with “Attachment B” to the Guidelines, which is a list of all categories (Attachment #2). Responding to Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Harvey explained that she chose to list “Housing Rehabilitation Activities” and “Transitional Housing Operating/Cost Rehabilitation” since they are the most popular categories.

Mr. Ruane explained his understanding that the Guidelines are a description of the CDBG Program. He expressed concern that if the Guidelines are to provide assistance to applicants, it should be inclusive of all categories. He also felt that specific restrictions and guidelines should not be included. Responding, Mrs. Townshend suggested that staff revise Section D in its entirety to address the concerns relayed by members.

In response to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Ruane requested that members be provided a copy of the Application Schedule for the CDBG Program and that, in the future, members be kept informed of any notices regarding the CDBG Program.

Responding to Mr. McGlumphy regarding the notices being placed in the “public notice” section of the newspaper, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff can issue a press release in addition to the public notice ad in an attempt to provide better notice to the public regarding this issue.

With reference to the last paragraph of the Program Guidelines regarding waivers, Mr. Ruane relayed concern with giving the Director of Planning and Inspections authority to waive any requirement of the policy not required by Federal/State Law or Regulation. He suggested that such waivers be required to be reviewed by the committee for recommendation to City Council. Mrs. Townshend assured members that the paragraph would be modified to provide clarification regarding this authority.

In reviewing the 2008 CDBG Grant Application Review Sheet (Attachment C of the Guidelines), Mr. Ruane felt that there should be definitions which would help guide members in making a determination. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that there are no definitions for Performance Measurements and that members must make a “judgement call” for the scoring.

Noting that HUD provides measures for conducting Performance Measurements, Mr. Ruane suggested that the guidelines include the requirement for applicants to “track and measure” in accordance with the HUD Performance Standards and that the Review Sheet include the question “does the application reflect the use of the HUD Performance Standards”.

Mrs. Russell reiterated that members will not accept any hand-written applications, as was specified during last year’s review.

Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Russell noted that a Special Meeting will be scheduled to continue the review of the guidelines. Mrs. Townshend stated that this matter must be finalized before the end of February.

Meeting Adjourned at 1:44 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Sophia R. Russell

Chairman

SRR/ac/jg

S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20081-29-2008 SPECIAL PR&CE.wpd

Attachment

Attachment #1 - Table of Income Limits (Attachment A - Proposed Amendments to the CDBG Program Guidelines)

Attachment #2 - List of Categories (Attachment B - Proposed Amendments to the CDBG Program Guidelines)