Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/2016 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING (CDCIP) Monday, November 7, 2016 451 South State Street, Room 118 City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 5:30 p.m. 1. Board Members Mario Organista Jade Sarver Donald Butterfield Jennifer McGrath Mike Walton Pamela Silberman Julie Bjornstad Loree Hagen Sheila Walsh-McDonald Also Present Michael Akerlow Melissa Jensen Jeri Schumann Emily Strong Shyann Herbert 2. Staff Updates Ms. Schumann explained about public engagement work staff have been doing. She mentioned the four different events; two were housing plan workshops, Poplar Grove Community Council, and the Gallivan Center monster party. HAND put up posters and had residents vote on their top priorities in the community. 444 people were engaged and almost 100% voted with 1310 votes. The top three priorities were early childhood education, housing options, and parks and green space. HAND will continue to do more outreach and provide updates. Ms. Jensen reminded the board that the outreach program is taking place of the original Open House at Sorenson Unity Center, which previously produced very little community participation. Ms. McGrath asked if the CDCIP board could have access to another format describing community desires, and Ms. Schumann said she would send out totality posters and a power point summary. Ms. Silberman asked if HAND could break down the research tlu-ough events and neighborhoods. Ms. Schumann said yes, she does have the information for the breakdown. Mr. CDCIP Meeting Minutes (DATE) Page 2 Akerlow expressed that was a very good point because the Monster party was targeted towards children and families. Ms. Schumann said at the housing workshops the outcome was high in housing and homeless services, and she would send out that information. Ms. Schumann asked the board if they had any questions. There were no questions. 3. Approval of the minutes of the (DATE) meetin14. There were no minutes for approval. 4. Business A. Welcome Chairperson Pamela Silberman welcomed the CDCIP Members and opened the meeting on November-7, 2016 at 5:39PM. B. Application Review and Discussion Ms. Schumann stated the staff were unsure how much funding will be received for this year. What HAND anticipates is just over 3.6 million, which is down from last year. S481 K is allocated for public services, and the maximum for admin is $641K. Mr. Akerlow asked the board if everyone knew what the funds were and what the numbers meant. 15% is for public service grants for nonprofit organizations. There is also the administrative cost to run the grants which covers HAND staff salaries which also has a limit. Ms. Schumann identified that a little over $1 million dollars is tied to public services and administration. Ms. Silberman provided that the funding she calculated was just under 2.5 million left for Housing and Economic development, and Neighborhood Improvements Ms. Schumann mentioned that in the past week the Engineering Division came forward and explained that they would not be moving forward with their application for the ADA Ramps. Ms. Schumann opened the discussion for the applications. f) ASSIST application. Ms. Silberman would like clarification from the agency on the total number of households, and how many homes the prograrn helped last year. Ms. Schumann answered that the program helped 1 11 households last year with $350K of funding and left $80K on the table, and that with new staffing the prograrn has indicated that they will be helping less households with the same funding amount. He intent is to increase the amount per/household. 2) Community Development Corp. Loan program. CDC would issue Down Payment Assistance up to $7,500. Ms. Silberman asked for clarification on the application, stating that if the funding was to improve or revitalize the housing stock, but instead is providing down payment assistance, what specific activities is the program providing? Ms. Schumann followed up with information about the rehab prograrn and that the prograrn provides down payment assistance CDCIP Meeting Minutes (DATE) Page 3 after the home has been through a rehab. Ms. Hagen identified that in the application budget, the funding is going to salaries opposed to the down payment assistance. Ms. Schumann explained that the down payment program is being funded through HOME. Ms. Jensen explained that the board members would see this often in the applications, because a lot of funders will not fund salaries and operational support where as HAND finds them very valuable and ensure that all of the time is accountable, which HAND tracks very closely. Ms. Hagen wanted clarification on the grants that this program is receiving because the grant to fund the salaries is larger than the grant to fund down payment assistance. Ms. Schumann explained that this program receives funding from other sources as well. Ms. Jensen stated that if it is not reflected in the current budget, staff could follow up with the agency in order to understand what it costs to administer, if the board would like to know. Ms. Hagen would like to know. Ms. Silberman stated and asked that some applicants do everything slightly different, but what part of the budget is CDBG and what part is coming from other sources? Ms. Schumann added that the application was framed in order to identify what the cost for the program. In the application, agencies could identify total program and total agency budget so staff could analyze what funding the agency is requesting. Ms. Walsh-Mcdonald mentioned that CDC's application is very inconsistent compared to how other agencies approached this question. 3) HAND Housing Division: Rehabilitation on existing homes and loans for low income homebuyers. Ms. Silberman asked about the budget regarding mailing the post cards. Is that the primary source for marketing and where does the money for actually repairs come from? Ms. Schumann explained that the actual funding that goes into the loans comes from program income, which derives from previous loans becoming mature. Ms. Jensen mentioned that the housing team has been working on re-inventing the marketing of the program. Currently the program sends out the postcard, which is the most traditional method and better targets homeowners. This year, Housing opted in to social marketing and is using NextDoor and Facebook. Ms. Schumann mentioned that when other agencies find clients who do not fit the requirements or do not fall within the scope of their program, these agencies will refer clients over to the Housing Division. 4) HAND Housing Division: Small Repair Program. The Small Repair Program started as a request from the community and a need within the community to address small issues, focusing on elderly and disabled households. The program has just started and has been well received. Ms. Schumann asked if there were any questions. Ms. Silberman asked what the average cost of repairs would be. Ms. Schumann stated the maximum cost could be $500.00. Ms. Jensen discussed the challenges and recent successes of the Handyman Program, which includes the City requirements for Contractors and insurances. Ms. McGrath asked if the board could be provided with an update later in the year. Ms. Schumann said yes. Mr. Walton asked the staff if they had considered easing up on the requirements on the contractors. Ms. Jensen replied that insurance requirements were loosened based on the circumstance. 5) HAND: West Side Node. Ms. Schumann stated the application is to specifically target nodes in the West Side Master Plan. Ms. Silberman asked how the program intersects with other programs as well as focus on the inside of the house. Ms. Jensen stated that the programs would be paired with the loan program. Mr. Sarver asked about the 900 S and 900 W Street. He stated that the road was a funnel and is curious about the effect the street could have on the homes that CDCIP Meeting Minutes (DATE) Page 4 have been rehabbed. Ms. Jensen stated the department is working very closely with the Streets division and the Transportation division. 6)NeighborWorks Revitalize and Remove Blight. Mr. Akerlow stated which areas the program operated in and they were West Liberty Park, Central City, Salt Lake City Westside, neighborhoods of Poplar Grove, West Point, Rose Park, Jordan Meadows, Fair Park, and Glendale. Ms. Schumann asked if there were any questions. Ms. Silberman stated that this application also included an impact statement that she found helpful. Ms. Schumann stated that she would like to work with Ms. Silberman to formulate a question that could be added to next years applications regarding impact statements. 7) Ms. Schumann identified the Economic Development Neighborhood Facade Program application and gave a brief overview. Ms. Silberman asked what the eligibility requirements were. Ms. Schumann stated that the applicants for facade improvements must be small businesses. The team also looks into who will benefit from the grant, and ensures the local community will access the business. 8) Ms. Schumann introduced the Poplar Grove Community Council application. Ms. Jensen mentioned that community nodes tend to be larger than neighborhood nodes. Mr. Sarvar had a question about maintenance and ownership. Ms. Schumann said that in many of the communities, the signs would go on city owned property, and that the community council would take ownership of maintenance. Ms. Silberman inquired about why the program was listed as infrastructure and would this program be better listed as CIP rather than CDBG? Ms. Schumann said in terms of construction requirements, the application could be better for CIP. Ms. Schumann offered to provide that feedback to the community council. 9) Ms. Jensen reviewed the applications for 900 West Neighborhood Nodes, Deteriorated or Missing Concrete Program, and Jordan River Parkway Improvements. She said the effort represents to working internally. HAND sat down and talked with different groups, walked the nodes, talked about what needs to be done, what is in the City's realm of work to be done, and what funding should be applied for. It is a collaboration between Transportation, Engineering, Salt Lake City Arts Council, and Parks and Public Lands. Ms. Schumann asked the board if they had any questions about the three applications. Mr. Sarver asked if there were any pictures available on concrete improvement, and why are they not funding this out of a different city budget? Mr. Akerlow followed up that the city funds this out of CIP and CDBG and they are the two main funding sources for sidewalks. Ms. Schumann ended the application review. C. Other Business Ms. Jennifer Schumann stated that the next meeting the board will review the first 14 public services applications. 5. Adiournment CDCIP Meeting Minutes (DATE) Page 5 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:OOPM. Pam Si i-man e on This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held November, 2016.