03/12/1991 - Minutes /If 9°/"..4
Community Development Advisory Committee
Minutes
March 12, 1991
In attendance: Ranae Pierce, Rosemary Grim, Rosemarie Rendon,
Rawlins Young, Marion Willey, Hermoine Jex, Curley Jones, Kim
Anderson and Diana Smoot. Guest: Ken Daily.
Staff: Stephanie Harpst and Sherrie Hansen.
Excused: Nancy Saxton and Russell Allred
Meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m.
Stephanie opened the meeting by announcing that New CDAC
Members were needed to fill current vacancies along with
vacancies created as appointments expire. The following
appointments expire July 1, 1991 : Hermoine Jex, Russell
Allred, Rosemary Grim, Kim Anderson and Diana Smoot. She
advised CDAC to submit names of anyone interested in joining
the committee . She introduced Ken Daily, recommended by Wayne
Horrocks from District 2, who is considering joining CDAC and
attended this meeting to observe.
She reminded CDAC that the Mayor would be making his
recommendations to the City Council on Tuesday, March 19, the
Council would set the Public Hearing for Tuesday, April 2, the
Projected Use of Funds would be listed in the Salt Lake Tribune
and the Deseret News on Sunday, April 7, and the Council would
make their final decision on Tuesday April 16 . All CDAC
members were encouraged to attend these meetings . She also
told CDAC that the Council briefing would be held on April 4,
and that the Chair or Vice Chair needed to attend this meeting.
Stephanie then announced that Roy Porter and Karen Clark from
HUD Denver were here to conduct their annual audit.
Laura Landikusic with Building and Housing Services reported on
the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) . Laura
explained to CDAC that the National Affordable Housing Law had
been passed last November. In this law, each jurisdiction that
receives federal funding is required to write a CHAS. The CHAS
is a strategy report, designed to provide aid to low and very
low income families in obtaining affordable housing. Laura
distributed an outline which lists requirements needed in the
CHAS, and a timetable for the CHAS preparation. She continued
by explaining to CDAC the strategy she was using to obtain
information in order to write the CHAS which is due October 31,
1991 . See Attachment A.
Marion and Rawlins then reported on their meeting with the
Mayor concerning CDAC recommendations . Marion told CDAC that
he had conveyed their feelings of protest concerning the
Canterbury Apartment payback, and for this reason CDAC had
recommended the $300, 000 payment to be applied to Sidewalk
Replacement.
Stephanie reported that CDAC had been represented well by both
Rawlins and Marion. Kim asked when the Mayors recommendations
could be expected and Stephanie said hopefully by Friday.
Stephanie distributed the analysis of variances between Staff 's
and CDAC recommendations . She reported that Staff and CDAC had
made very similar recommendations on projects to be funded, but
the level of funding was different on some projects. See
Attachment B.
Ranae commented that the funding recommendations workshop had
gone very well and CDAC had worked very closely to make good
decisions in a short amount of time.
Diana moved and Rosemarie 2nd to pass the Minutes from their
meetings held on October 18, November 28 and December 12, 1990
and Minutes from January 8 and 17, 1991 . Voice vote taken
resulted in favor of this motion. Motion passed.
Meeting was adjourned at 7 : 00 p.m.
ATTACHM ' A
CDAC MEETING
March 12, 1991
1. CHAS Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
5 year action plan
1 year goals (October 1, 1991-September 30, 1992)
2 . Sections
I. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
for very low, low, and moderate income families
for homeless people
II. MARKET AND INVENTORY CONDITIONS
housing stock, condition
assisted housing inventory, homeless shelters
III. STRATEGIES
institutional structure
effect of public policies on affordable housing
IV. RESOURCES FOR THE COMING YEAR
government and non-government
V. IMPLEMENTATION
citizen participation in developing plan
goals for families to be assisted:
for five-year period
for one-year period Oct 1, 1991-Sept 30, 1992
3 . Plan requires citizen participation and social agency input
Final CDAC approval last week in August.
Hearing before City Council Sept. 12
4 . Why CHAS needed
Have cities make coordinated and long-range plans for
affordable housing
Necessary to get HOME and CDBG funding
Agencies must certify their proposals are in accordance with
CHAS
Will do one in 1991, again in 1992 (Census data available)
Probably also in 1993 , with HUD-supplied data on needs and
assisted units.
1991 TENTATIVE TIMETABLE FOR CHAS PREPARATION (3/8/91)
Mar. 8 Comments submitted on outline
Mar. 11 Outline determined
March Preliminary meetings with community groups and
housing agencies
March Begin gathering data; continue thru July
Determine table formats
Collect information for I. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
and II. MARKET AND INVENTORY CONDITIONS
April- Work on III. STRATEGIES
May-June
June Complete data collection for IV. RESOURCES
July Complete data collection for V. IMPLEMENTATION
July 31 Send preliminary data to agencies for them to check
and return by August 7
Aug. 21 Draft document ready for citizen review
Aug. 26- Hearings with housing and citizen boards
Sept. 5
Sept. 12 City Council Hearing
Oct. 31 Document received by HUD
Dec. 30 Document approved by HUD
ATTACH_hindT B
Salt Lake City Community Development Program
Analysis of Variances Between Staff's and CDAC Recommendations
17th Year (1991-92)
All Projects
Number Percent Category
58 67 Staff/CDAC agree
8 9 Same project funded,
different levels
13 15 CDAC funded, Staff didn't
($279 ,000 or 7% of grant
minus admin. - Sugarhouse
CDC, W. Cap Hill CDC Blocks,
Playgrnd Install, Nettie
Gregory, Pop Grove Pk. ,
Richmond Pk. , Parleys
Greenbelt, YWCA, Alcohol
Treatment Ctr. , 3 bike paths,
UDAP)
7 8 Staff funded, CDAC didn't
($758,000 or 20% of grant
minus admin. - Multi-Ethnic
Ctr. , 800 No. Const. , 8th E. ,
4th-5th design, 8th E. ,
So.Temple-4th design,
Westpointe Pk. , Print Master
Plans . Amt Includes
Canterbury Apt. payback)
86 100
Administration - Same funding recommendation.
Reflects 14% of total grant amount
Percent for Art - Difference in funding recommendation, $400 .
Contingency - Difference in funding recommendation, $3,500.
Reflects 2% of total grant amount