Loading...
01-30-1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY OFFICE CENTER JANUARY 30, 1997 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Mr. Alfred Rucks Mr. Al Pickett Mr. Jim Ericson, Dr. C. Quentin Ford Acting City Manager Ms. Sinclair Hunt Mr. Don Fahrenkrog, Ms. Shirley Daniels Grants Compliance Ms. Yvonne Medina Ms. Mary W. Gallegos, Mr. Gabriel Paz (Transcriber) VISITORS: Mr. James A. Ericson, Acting City Manager, Mr. Jack King, Las Cruces Sun News, Mr. Jim Creek, Tierra Del Sol, Mr. Bill Strouse, Director, Community Action Agency; Mr. George Pearson, Citizen, Ms. Yvonne Attwood, Community of Hope, Mr. Bob Attwood, Community of Hope, Ms. Diane Door, Community of Hope, Ms. Nancy J. McMillan Ph. D., President, Community of Hope, Ms. Julie McClenton, Executive Director, Community of Hope; Ms. Sue Shearer, Mesilla Valley Homeless Shelter, Mr. William Mattiace, Adventure Travel, and Mr. Edward Gamboa, President, Atlas Travel,. I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Hunt, Chairwoman, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. A quorum was present allowing for conduct of official business. Ms. Hunt asked the roll to be called to show for the record the members present. Ms. Medina: here, Mr. Ford: here, Mr. Rucks: here, Ms. Daniels: here, Mr. Paz: here, and Ms. Hunt: here. Mr. Pickett was absent. For the record Mr. Gabriel Paz, the new member for District III will sit on the Committee as a non-voting member until he is formally appointed at the City Council Meeting, on February 3, 1997. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Hunt asked that the minutes of June 20, 1996, be reviewed at this time. The minutes were approved as presented. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ms. Hunt opened the nomination for the Chairperson of the Community Development Advisory Committee. Ms. Daniels nominated Mr. Rucks for Chairman; Mr. Ford seconded the motion. The vote for the record was: Ms. Medina: aye, Mr. Ford: aye; Ms. Daniels: aye; and Ms. Hunt: aye. The motion carried. At this point Ms. Hunt turned over her Chair position to Mr. Rucks , the new Chairman of the Community Development Advisory Committee and the election continued. Mr. Ford nominated Ms. Daniels as Vice-Chairwoman, and she was voted in by acclamation. Mr. Ford nominated Ms. Medina as Secretary, and she was voted in by acclamation. IV. OLD BUSINESS a. Other There was none. V. NEW BUSINESS a. Meeting Times and Places Discussion centered on the presentation of the FY 1997 Community Development Block Grant Allocation Process. A new proposed schedule for the process was handed to the Committee members for accommodations and the following meeting dates were changed: The date of February 13, 1997, was kept for the Neighborhood Public hearings so that it could be concluded prior to the City Wide Public Hearing on February 20, 1997; The date of February 26, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. was changed to February 25, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. The date of March 26, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. was changed to March 25, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. and the date of April 2, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. was changed to April 3, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Ericson suggested that the Public Hearing of the Proposed 1997 Consolidation Plan on April 21, 1997, be held by the Community Development Advisory Committee or staff, however, City Council members are welcome to attend. Mr. Fahrenkrog summarized the Consolidated Submissions for the Community Planning and Development Programs (Consolidated Plan). He stated there were three sections; the housing needs, the strategic plan, and the action plan. He stated that the first two long term sections have a three year commitment with this year being the last. The last section, contained all the new activities which are reviewed, modified and approved by 2 City Council every year. Currently, the Consolidated Plan process is being reevaluated on the critical parts such as the priorities, methodology and research. A discussion followed regarding the input of the 1997 Consolidated Plan. For the record, it was the consensus of the Community Development Advisory Committee to receive copies of the 1997 Consolidated Plan in a timely manner to review and render their input. Due to this intensive and extensive process in prioritising the annual appropriations, the Community Development Advisory Committee scheduled separate worksessions to go over the priority overview and provide input. The dates of February 12, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. and March 11, 1997, at 1:00 p.m. were set aside for these changes which are due for review by City Council on April 10, 1997, with the final document due at the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office on April 14, 1997. The Advisory Committee requested Mr. Fahrenkrog to provide a brief overview presentation for this worksession to walk them through the regulations. They also requested a staff update on streets and sidewalks in the low/moderate income areas, especially in the unpaved streets of District 1 and 6. Also requested was an update on the parks and recreation projects. For the record it was stated that the current priorities did not need to be changed because they were based on the 1990 demographic data. Input from different departments were also requested to make a sound priority. b. Review of Subrecipient Application Booklet Discussion centered on the review of the Subrecipient Application Booklet. There were no changes in the narratives since the last review, however, footnotes were added to reflect additional HUD regulations that were being reviewed on special economic development. The footnotes are as follows: Footnote on Page #10 (Identification of eligible activities and objective is very complex and over simplified in the summary affirmation) Additional eligibility requirements are required for activities of economic development(reflective of some new HUD regulations that were put in place about a year ago). These additional requirements are not covered by this document. Footnote on Page #16 (Additional narrative is required for Economic Development Activities) Any proposal which does not contain a narrative of 13 points clearly labeled will be considered incomplete and may not be considered for funding. Discussion continued on the analysis of special economic development activities, and centered on the additional requirements compared to the existing requirements which are scheduled to be updated on the 1998 plan. It was stated that priorities may be modified this year to reflect the neighborhood public input and will be included in this document. 3 Discussion continued on the Community Development Process. It was stated that applications will be reviewed, ranked and then provided to City Council for final approval. Mr. Fahrenkrog stated that when Community Development responds to the annual report, HUD asks us to reply on how the activities currently engaged in reflects priorities that were established in the plan. Logical schedule of events would be that you establish the priorities and then you put out the request for proposals so that the community providers can respond to the identified priorities. Discussion continued on writing a proposal for priorities that are yet to be established. Mr. Ericson agreed not to change housing priorities but develop new priorities to have in place. In reviewing the current proposals, it was the consensus of the Advisory Committee not to rely solely on this years Priority Community Development Needs, identified on page four but to modify the priorities to reflect input from this year's Public Input Meetings to meet the needs of the Community. Thus, the Advisory Committee recommended that priorities be struck from the plan for this year or until there are some new priorities in place. An Addendum was attached to the Subrecipient Application Booklet to notify subrecipients that priorities will not be used. A short discussion followed regarding priorities and items that were considered in the past. Discussion continued and centered on Special Economic Development. This project was to provide special loan agreements with private corporations. It was stated that the project should be underwritten in accordance with HUD guidelines and that the underwriting basically had two parts. The first part was a feasibility study of the corporation to reflect the jobs to be provided. The second one was for a financial analysis to determine the Corporation as a financially sound investment. Ms. Barbara Willis or Mr. Mark Sutter from finance would be assigned to this underwriting. The schedule for the Subrecipient Application Booklet was then announced. It was stated for the record that the Subrecipient Application Booklet will be available on Monday, February 3, 1997, and training would be provided for applicants on February 5, 1997. The Deadline for the proposals would be on March 7, 1997. A review of the advertising procedure was requested by the Advisory Committee to see if it needed improvement in allowing ample time for CDBG funding requests. The procedure is as follows: Two display advertisements are placed in the Las Cruces Sun News on Sunday, February 2, 1997, and Monday, February 3, 1997. Public notices are then distributed to several locations throughout the City such as The City Office Center Bulletin, City Hall Bulletins, City Administration Office, Branigan Library Bulletin, Police Department Bulletin, Community Development Advisory Committee, and the Public Information Office. Thirty different media personnel receive these public notices from the Public Information Office and then a notice is also forwarded to the Las Cruces Sun News. Extra public notices are then provided at the Subrecipients Training Session and the Neighborhood Public Input meetings throughout the City. 4 Q C. Other - Casto Travel Company Mr. Ericson gave an overview of Economic Development. He stated that the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) staff had raised the issue expressing support and encouragement for the City to actively undertake economic development as an activity. Additionally, it was an understanding that job creation was also a priority of the City Council. Mr. Ericson stated Casto Travel project offered the City an initial opportunity to begin undertaking some economic development activities utilizing the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds and that if this project appeared to be a workable concept, it would be his recommendation that over the next several years the City attempt to establish a pool of funds from the CDBG allocations to be utilized for a revolving loan program. Mr. Ericson gave a brief summary of the Casto Travel Company for everyone in attendance. He stated that the California travel company worked with corporate travel arrangements to set up 800 services where all their business is phoned to a specific location by an 800 number throughout the country. It was determined that under HUD relations Community Development could offer a low interest loan for economic development such as the Casto Travel Company, however, the Company would then have to produce a certain benefit such as jobs for low/ moderate income people in Las Cruces to meet the HUD income level definition and keep the loan. Mr. Ericson stated that in order to fund the loan there were three specific options: The First option was a program where the City of Las Cruces borrowed the money from HUD and made sure it was repaid. The second option was to utilize a portion of this years allocations, and the third option was to reprogram a portion of existing funds from existing projects and either replace those with the upcoming year allocations or find an alternative source of funds for those projects. Option three was selected, because of the time frame this company was working on. The proposal was then to find $700,000 dollars of existing CDBG funds and reallocate it. In this case those projects would be funded with other sources of monies using either downtown revitalization monies, or the roads; and funding would be replaced with current allocations. In this case projects remain on hold without a delay and would receive the full funding level allowing the reprogramming of existing funds. Mr. Fahrenkrog who was knowledgeable with the Community Development Process would then amend the plan. The floor was opened to the public to voice their concerns on the Casto Travel Issue. The concerns were as follows: There were several comments on the integrity of the Community Development Advisory Committee, their recommendations for CDBG funds, and that the procedures for the proposals should be followed. There were a some 5 concerns about not having information on Casto Travel and requested staff do a Research to provide this information which included an underwriting. Several People disapproved of the reallocation of the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). It was stated that instead of providing CDBG funds for Casto Travel, money should be used to provide assistance for the welfare reform. It was then stated that any money received for the City of Las Cruces should stay in the City. Several people voiced their concern on the impact Casto Travel would have on the projects already underway. Especially Community of Hope, the time frame given , and it's effectiveness on future fund raising. Another issue was the revenue bond competition and its impact on retail competing businesses. The public approved of providing a revolving fund for special economic development in the near future. A short discussion followed regarding the Status of applications on the East Mesa Gas Line Project. Mr. Fahrenkrog announced the receipt of the formal notification from HUD on actual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollar amounts proposed for use by the City of Las Cruces . In agreement with the Federal budget, the City of Las Cruces was awarded $1,224,000 for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and $407,000 for the HOME Program for the Fiscal Year 1997. VI. ADJOURNMENT The Community Development Advisory/Iffoinmittee Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Altred Rucks, Chairmanv lie Medina, Secreta rY6