Community Development Advisory Committee

CDAC MINUTES DELIBERATIONS APRIL 26, 2011 4:30 P.M. ROOM 319 Members Present: Les King, Demo Angelopoulos, Red McKeon, Ed Derr, John Mathieu. Others Present: Gary Evans, Susan Goldman, and Linda Lee Smith Absent: Lynn Norris Chairman Les King called the CDAC meeting to order at 4:36 p.m. It was determined there was a quorum. Les King wanted to make sure everyone had seen Lynn Norris’s notes for the deliberations as to the categories she’d like funded. Les King wanted the committee to keep in mind the City’s CD Office website says that the 5 Year ConPlan is directed towards revitalizing neighborhoods, economic development and providing improved community facilities and services. Les King also wanted it noted that the 5 Year ConPlan states that Norwich provides a disproportionate share of social service programs to low and moderate-income individuals in the region. Les King said the funding is broken down into two parts social services, and construction. In 1982 Norwich chose to go up to $217,000 for Social Services and not the 15% of allocations as many communities chose to do. The request for funding is always 100%-200% more than the City can support. According to the Con-Plan, there is concern in the future that if CDBG funds will continue to decline, there will be a need to invest the funds into bricks and mortar programs thereby severely impacting the amount of funding available to provide for public services. With a estimated 20% cut in funding, the committee will use $872,800 as a reasonable number, as they are unsure of the final allocation. Les King said the committee had questions for many of the organizations. They were requested to send their information by Tuesday, April 19, 2011, but not all supplied it. The committee said that it may not have been clear to everyone that the additional information was needed by the deadline date of Tuesday April 19, 2011. Ed Derr said in the future, the committee needs to make a point to the agencies that their additional supporting documentation needs to be received by the deadline. TVCCA sent information and Gary Evans responded back that he couldn’t read it and it had missing information. John Mathieu asked about information he received from Gary Evans on the Rehab Review Committee pertaining to boarding and halfway houses. Gary 1 Evans explained that there was a question on whether a commercial property that housed people could qualify for rehab funding rather than CDBG funding. The program’s policies and procedures manual states it is strictly for residential and boarding houses don’t fall under residential. The minutes from previous Rehab Review Committee, however, state a conflict to the policies. The Policies and Procedures are the governing document unless the RRC votes to change or amend it. The RRC needs to fully discuss the issue in detail with a vote to amend the program or keep it as is. Les King mentioned previous years they had categorized the projects from A-to- C with A being most desirable and C being least desirable. It was determined to continue with the same method. Les King asked if there were any applicants that didn’t meet the criteria. Gary Evans said that everyone who applied met the requirements of the program in terms of CDBG funding - whether or not they fit into the 5 Year Plan and development plans of the City needs to be determined. Red McKeon left after reviewing and placing applicants into the ABC categories. TVCCA – $30,000 The committee was confused about certain aspects of the program and were not completely satisfied with the answers. The request is for rental assistance and Norwich Human Services provides something similar. TVCCA was asked to send information on four specific questions, which they never did. Questions were: What number/percentage were re-housed in 30 days? What number/percentage were re-housed for greater than six months or longer term? What are policy & procedures for screening & tools used? No response was received. The request was for first, last months rent, and security deposit. TVCCA was originally awarded $10,000 to help 4 families and we would see how their outcomes turn out this year. They do provide a similar service as Norwich Human Services. Recommended Funding $0 Big Brothers/Big Sisters – $4,000 While there is some concern that CDBG has become a line-item for BBBS, the outcomes are good and there is positive impact on the children. It is also supported by the 5 Year ConPlan. It’s a small amount of money they request with a very large return on investment Recommended Funding $4,000 NHS/Food Pantries – $10,000; Program services 10 pantries around the City. There are no salaries paid for by the allocation and funding goes directly for food for the Food Pantries. Last year they asked for $10,000 and they were awarded $10,000. Recommended Funding $10,000 NHS/Hospitality Center - $52,437 The 5 Year Plan says that the City will continue to support the homeless. Last year they requested $29,500 and they were given $29,500. This year they are requesting $52,437, which is for food operations and a case manager. The dinner is provided by all volunteers and they bring in the food. A portion of the funds are for heating costs of the St. Vincent De Paul Soup Kitchen. The request covers $25.00 per day for heating for the soup kitchen because they eat dinner there. The money above the 2 $29,500 was for the case worker. To keep it consistent, the funding was reduced to $29,500.Recommended Funding $25,000 NHS/Childcare Assistance Program - $15,000 Funding is for an emergency situation. It is a safety net for childcare. This is for a short-term emergency with a maximum cap amount per year. The committee thought this was a very good safety net. The 5 Year Plan supports it and without it there could be a tremendous barrier for a working parent and achievement of financial stability. Last year NHS requested and were awarded $15,000. There are no salaries coming out of this program. Recommended Funding $10,000 NHS/Norwich Works – $50,000 This funding is for small stipends for educational needs such as for CNA and Pharmacy Tech. Previous years request was $30,000. The committee wanted to know if they’ve seen safe returns on this investment. It’s part of the 5 Year ConPlan and creates economic opportunity by providing the ability to go to school to increase their level of wages, and it has been successful in the past. According to Lee-Ann Gomes the percentages that have completed are pretty high. It has successfully pulled people out of lower income and put them into middle income. They paid for a certain amount of scholarships for the nursing program at Three Rivers, as well as the CNA Program, classes at American Ambulance, and medical billing. Some of the funds are for salaries and some go towards the programs. The total amount is $50,000 and there is a permanent part-time caseworker $229.00 a week. This request is only paying part of a salary; NHS may have another grant that is paying for the other part. CDBG portion of salary is $11,937. Last year’s funding is the same as their request this year; they pay for classes, uniforms and transportation to get to the classes. This is one program that the money goes to the end user, it’s not just a hand out or rental assistance. It’s a successful program that’s been going on for years. They are raising people’s income by removing barriers and increasing education/training/skills. They want case management because outcomes would never be achieved without that missing ingredient. Recommended Funding $48,000 NHS/Supportive Housing Services – $20,000 Of the requested $20,000, 20% goes towards wages to get people into the SOAR Program, get them qualified for social security disability, to be able to afford an apartment. A letter had been sent stating they would reduce the time and level of payments. Half goes towards wages for administration. It’s a very difficult process to go through on their own. The paperwork is overwhelming, it takes an intermediary to get them qualified. That’s why the money is in the salaries and not the end user. The end user gets the benefits of Social Security Disability, which they couldn’t have if there wasn’t this intermediary. That is why it’s heavy administratively. The reason this falls under supportive housing is because of the linkage of homeless individuals not being able to quickly and appropriately access any kind of benefit program that would get them into an apartment. Last year they requested and received $15,000. Three have achieved the outcome so far this year (as of April). These people get the Social Security Disability and become housed permanently and no longer in the homeless system, which would cost the community more money. Recommended Funding $10,000 3 UCFS - $25,000 This program is for OBGYN uninsured persons & low income person. There are a lot of referrals annually to this program. They have picked up clients as a result of an office closing. This is their first request of CDBG funding. Recommended Funding $10,000 Norwich Adult Education – $15,000 Program provides an economic opportunity. Reducing the language barrier to improve economic conditions is fully supported by the Five Year ConPlan. Last year they requested and received $15,000. There wasn’t enough funding, and further cuts needed to be made. Recommended Funding $10,000 Otis Library – $8,700 – The program is for Civil War education for underrepresented children. Some concerns with the program were that it was the program was not fully developed enough to explain the impact on the community. Recommended Funding $0 Recreation Dept. – $20,000 Gary Evans let the committee know there was a medical condition that was why the Recreation Dept. didn’t attend the public hearings The CDAC needs to be careful about summer programs, and what impact a program has just for a couple months in the summer. Are the children gaining anything that will help them to move forward in education or life to become better citizens? In a school sponsored education summer school there are/need to be measurable outcomes. Usually programs have pre testing and post testing to see if they acquired any higher skill. The outcomes for this request seem to be based on convenience for the parents, it wasn’t driven for the children. Other questions include: How are the children selected? Is it by income and first come first served? Participants need to bring income verification. They asked specifically for the budget because it may be a positive source of program income for the department which is not allowed under the City/CDBG regulations. Last year they requested and received $25,000. They have been receiving scholarships for a number of years and it’s a good program. Last year it cost $80 per week, this year it’s $90 per week. Recommended Funding $10,000 and the Recreation Dept. would pay for 50% of the cost of the scholarships. Norwich Arts Council – $28,500 The application didn’t detail what they were going to do, or buy with the money. The additional information requested had numbers that were not accurate even though the events have been going on for years. They were not sure if it met the economic benefit for LMI and there was concern if the program could provide the needed information to HUD to justify the allocation. In reviewing the 5 Year Plan the program didn’t completely align with the categories. The application was written stating they met the criteria and they were the best ones to do it; there was no definition to prove that they met the criteria. The committee thought it was more important to keep people fed with a roof over their head and not for entertainment. The application was not thorough or detailed enough and they were asked for information and didn’t get the right information. The numbers that came in on the budgets were not realistic based upon what they have seen in the past for events. Recommended Funding $0 Norwich Police Dept. - $150,000 Community policing would bring two person 4 teams out in targeted areas of town for five nights a week. It would all be overtime. They want to set up the model and see if it works and if it works with this funding they could hopefully get funding from the City next year. It’s a good idea, patrols on bikes, foot patrols. It would be for hot spots such as Greeneville where there are problems. The program itself is a good idea, even though the price tag is high. With all the economic development going on in the City they need to be funded a reasonable amount so these funds could make an impact. Recommended Funding $65,000 Literacy Volunteers – $12,140 They are requesting funding for partial Rosetta Stone software. People can learn quicker and more efficient on computers. This new system would be to upgrade the software on computers. It tracks people’s progress, they can’t move to the next level without reaching a certain level of proficiency. From an outcome stand point it’s a very good program. The success is based upon performance not just sitting in class for hours. Last year they asked for and received $10,000. The CDAC originally awarded them $12,140 but further cuts needed to be made. It could reduce to 3 licenses or 25% of coordinators salary. Recommended Funding $10,000 Women’s Center – $10,000 This money is for the advocate and they are attempting to open their own office in Norwich. They are presently using space at UCFS. They talked about it last year but the committee only gave them a certain amount of money last year to pay for the service and not the office. Now they have set up office at UCFS, which is good, and the Five-Year ConPlan supports it. They do a good job. Last year they requested $15,000, they were given $5,000 and gave a tremendous amount of services. Recommended Funding $5,000 Norwich Fire Department – $40,654 The committee had concern because this seems to be an ongoing project with CDBG money. These funds will do the downstairs community room and left side of the building. They also had to take out the gas meters that were there and had them moved out. Over the years they’ve put a lot of money into the Greeneville Fire Station. The Five Year ConPlan does talk about doing some buildings such as this with community centers. It does meet several of the requirements for the Five Year ConPlan. Recommended Funding $40,000 Norwich Housing Authority – $100,000 This is for City owned residential housing. It’s a priority in the ConPlan. There were some concerns they spend a lot of money doing architectural studies. This funding is for a new roof. One main concern was if they needed to strip the roof completely or could they put another layer over the first, which would be a lot cheaper. NHA had told them they couldn’t put another layer over the first layer of shingles. In most real estate you don’t pull off the first layer of shingles. Usually you put a second layer of one layer of shingles. There was some concern if the plywood on a 20-year roof could be rotted? It meets the Five Year ConPlan. They may level the funding and put a stipulation. Can they get along with a second layer or do they need to strip the first layer? Do they need to have architectural designs done? Is it required by HUD, or ownership or maintenance of the building? They need to supply cost estimates. They were fully funded $100,000 last year and they also received 5 Stimulus funding in PY 34, and they may be able to get funding from other places. NHA will pick up the architectural costs; the $100,000 would be for the roof. Recommended Funding $75,000 Norwich Department of Public Works – $95,000 DPW is requesting funding for North Main Street sidewalks. DPW had said this was there highest priority for sidewalks. There was some concern that the majority of people walk on Central Avenue as opposed to North Main Street. The sidewalks had been measured in Greeneville from the gas station where they are planning on starting on the right side of the road all the way over to Second Street. There is nothing at all on the right side of the road but a few houses further up on the left side of the road with broken sidewalks. On the map it looks like they would have a continuous sidewalk on Main Street and Central Avenue where it breaks off. They would need to relocate the guardrails on the other end near Dunkin Donuts. It’s very difficult to walk up near the Old Mill Tavern and Alex Cohen’s place. The committee wanted to put sidewalks only between 9th and 10th Streets. The two side streets between 9th and 10th there are no sidewalks. They are putting a piece of sidewalk in front of two houses with no connection to anything else. They connect to the sidewalks on either side to North Main Street. There is a new sidewalk between 8th and 9th. There are no sidewalks between 9th and 10th but between 10th and 11th there are sidewalks. Commercially there is nothing to walk to on North Main Street. They don’t have a breakdown in linear feet so it’s difficult to determine the dollar amount without the linear feet. There was not much information submitted on other charges. This is a small amount of sidewalks to be done compared to what they submitted. The CDAC would like to stipulate where the sidewalks are done. Recommended Funding $40,000 but do not see the need for doing sidewalks from Second Street back towards the City on North Main Street. DPW to speak with CDAC to confirm locations. SCADD - $8,000 The Five Year ConPlan talks about fixing older buildings and renovating downtown. The committee thought $8,000 was a high price for a door. They could drop it to $4,000 and have it go out to bid with Davis Bacon wage rates need to be included. It’s a fiberglass-insulated door with (2) 12” frosted side lights (not stain glass) and it states the door is unfinished. Recommended Funding $4,000 Disabilities Networks – $11,700 They used funds for temporary ramps for handicap/disabled people. This adds increased mobility. Some fundraisers have been done as well by organizations such as the Rotary Club. They would be able to buy 3 ramps. Ramps are important because they provide economic opportunities, the organizations recycle them in the community when possible (adding further impact from one-time investments), and they are not permanent. Most towns have a ramp program through their rehab program. They buy the ramps, which fit the house and zoning codes. Once the house no longer needs it they trade it with the manufacturer, because there is no place for storing it. The trade-in is part of recycling and the manufacturer will give credit per linear foot back. That is why the price of the ramp is low because of the reuse of the ramps. Because it’s a ramp no matter who gets it, it will automatically fit CDBG requirements of limited clientele, and income won’t matter. Handicapped 6 accessibility is an automatic. Recommended Funding $7,500 for 2 ramps. CD/Rehabilitation Program – $350,000 - The Rehab Program is fully supported by the 5 Year Plan. Outcomes are strong and include increasing property values, reducing high cost burden, increasing tax revenues, returning abandoned/blighted/vacant properties back to the market, code compliance and lead hazard reduction.They had awarded $350,000 but further cuts needed to be made. This program is a loan and not a grant as it was in previous years. Recommended Funding $314,740 After all the funding awards the dollar amounts needed to be adjusted. The total for construction $481,240, Public Service was $217,000, Administration $174,560. John Mathieu made a motion, seconded by Demo Angelopoulos to accept the total dollars deliberated on the final spreadsheet for PY 37 applicants. All were in favor, except Red McKeon who had left early. Adjournment Motion was made by Demo Angelopoulos, seconded by John Mathieu to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously, except Red McKeon who left early. The CDAC meeting ended at 8:03 p.m. 7