HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Special Meeting of the Ames City Council 01/22/2004MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA JANUARY 22, 2004
The Ames City Council met in special session at 5:04 p.m. on the 22nd day of January, 2004, in the
City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor Ted Tedesco
presiding and the following Council members present: Cross, Goodhue, Goodman, Mahayni, Vegge,
and Wirth. Ex officio Member Johnston arrived at 5:40 p.m.
STAFF PRESENTATION ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ( CDBG)
PROGRAM: Mayor Tedesco stated that tonight’s meeting would serve as a workshop for the Council
members to hear the staff presentation on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
City Manager Steve Schainker explained that when Ames’ population reached 50,000, the City became
a CDBG Entitlement City; that status will net the City new funding in an amount close to $600,000.
He advised that as an Entitlement City, the City must have a Consolidated Plan outlining how those
funds will be used submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by May
2004.
Mr. Schainker introduced Vanessa Baker Latimer, Housing Coordinator. Ms. Baker Latimer began
an overview of the CDBG Program. Three key definitions applicable to this Program were given:
(1) “Low- and Moderate-Income (LMI),” as defined by the CDBG law, means families and individuals
whose incomes do not exceed 80% of the median income of the area involved, with adjustments for
smaller and larger families; (2) “Low- and Moderate-Income Household” is a household having an
income equal to or less than the Section 8 low-income limits established by HUD, and (3) “Low- and
Moderate-Income Person” is a member of a family having an income equal to less than the Section 8
low-income limit, as established by HUD.
Ms. Baker Latimer advised that the primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of
viable urban communities, principally for low- and moderate-income (LMI) persons through decent
housing, suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunity. The national objectives:
principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevent or eliminate slums and blight, or meet
an urgent community development need having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose
a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where other financial
resources are not available to meet such need, were explained in detail. Ms. Baker Latimer advised that
an activity would meet the LMI national objectives criteria if it fell into any of the following
categories: (1) the area benefit test, (2) limited clientele, (3) the housing occupancy, or (4) job creation
or retention. Each of those categories was then further defined.
According to Ms. Baker Latimer, the three different ways that an activity could meet the Slum/Blight
criteria are on an area basis, on a spot basis, or be in an HUD approved Urban Renewal Area. Each
criterion was further defined.
Ms. Baker Latimer advised that, in the absence of objective data, an activity will be considered to
qualify as an urgent need if the recipient certifies to: [1] existing conditions pose serious and immediate
threat to health/welfare of the community, [2] existing conditions are recent or recently
became urgent (within 18 months preceding the certification by the recipient), [3] recipient cannot
finance on its own, and (4) other funding sources are not available.
It was explained by Ms. Baker Latimer that the City does not have to limit the benefits to strictly
grants; the City may issue loans and require payback. Mr. Schainker pointed out that the City will not
always receive the same amount of funding; if more cities are named as Entitlement Cities, the amount
allocated to Ames will decrease. Also, if the City of Ames’ population drops below 50,000, funding
could decrease or cease.
Ineligible and eligible activities were explained in detail. Ms. Baker Latimer reviewed the qualifying
characteristics of Community-Based Development Organizations (CBDOs). She advised that they must
be organized under state/local law for specific community development activities; must operate in a
specific geographic area within grantee’s jurisdiction; must have as the primary focus the improvement
of economic/physical/social aspect of service area, particularly for LMI persons; and must have a
governing body of at least 51% LMI representatives. According to Ms. Baker Latimer, there is only
one such organization operating within an Iowa entitlement community.
Ms. Baker Latimer stated that the CDBG Program has program caps on [1] public service activities
(may not exceed 15% of that year’s annual entitlement grant plus an amount equal to 15% of last year’s
program income), [2] planning and administration expenditures (20%), and [3] public benefit limits
for special economic development activities, which is determined by a complicated formula.
The City of Ames has received CDBG funding in the past. Ms. Baker Latimer summarized the
programs undertaken by the City between 1980 and 1990.
The next steps were defined by Ms. Baker Latimer. The first step is to prepare a Consolidated Plan,
which is the document that is submitted to HUD. It is a strategic plan to identify, prioritize, and
address the general needs of low- and moderate-income persons for housing, jobs, and services for a
five-year period. The Plan then needs to be submitted to HUD, and a workshop must be held (citizen
participation is required). The City would have to implement a one-year Action Plan, which would
address how the needs will be carried out through various program activities. Ms. Baker Latimer
advised that the Consolidated Plan must be submitted to HUD 45 days prior to the beginning of the
program year start date; for Ames, the program year start date is July 1. She said that the Consolidated
Plan may be amended if the proper procedure is followed.
The Mayor and City Council were informed that CDBG regulations require each local government
applicant to identify and prioritize its community development and housing needs over a five-year
period. Ms. Baker Latimer explained the categories into which the needs must fall. She described two
proposed priority needs. Five goals, based on the history of past decisions made by the City Council,
were outlined. These goals may be prioritized, and not all of the five goals need to be met; it depends
on the priority need.
Ms. Baker Latimer advised that the four key questions that need to be answered prior to funding an
activity are: (1) How is the activity eligible? (2) Is it expressly ineligible? (3) How will it meet a
national objective? (4) If it is not a LMI activity, what impact will it have on the 70% overall LMI
benefit rule? She stated that before CDBG funds may be disbursed to a subrecipient, there must be
a written agreement executed and a subrecipient workshop must be held prior to making a “request for
applications.” The required elements of the subrecipient agreement were described.
Reporting requirements were identified by Ms. Baker Latimer. Annually, the City must submit the
2
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to HUD. This Report must include
two major parts: narrative component, which lists the progress elements and the CDBG-specific
elements, and financial reports. The CAPER must be submitted to HUD within 90 days of the close
of the program year, and prior to its submission, the Report must be made available to the public for
at least 15 days. After that review period, the City must summarize all comments and make the final
report available to the public.
Lastly, Ms. Baker Latimer advised the Mayor and City Council of the staff’s proposed timeline of
events. Although not required by HUD, City staff plans to hold two public forums in February 2004.
Questionnaires will be distributed to ascertain what projects the public would like to see undertaken.
A public hearing will be held in May 2004; after which the Plan will be finalized, and ultimately,
submitted to HUD.
Council Member Goodman suggested that several groups, e.g., Habitat for Humanity, Land Trust, and
leaders of other community groups, be asked to participate in an interactive dialogue with one another
and with staff, rather than just submit information. Ms. Baker Latimer explained that the City prefers
to open up the discussion to all residents, not just certain groups. City staff also prefers to capture
their comments in writing through questionnaires; this information will be used to determine priorities
for the next five years. Mr. Schainker suggested the format for the forums. He recommended that staff
present an overview of the CDBG Program to the entire group. They will then divide into smaller
groups, if needed, for discussion of the goals, as proposed by City Council. Those groups will
disperse, and public input will be received concerning the goals as well as other recommendations.
He said that oral comments will be received from whomever wishes to speak, but staff will also
request that questionnaires be completed and returned.
The map indicating where HUD has designated as 51% LMI Areas was shown. Council Member
Wirth asked that the Mayor and City Council be provided with a more-detailed map showing street
names.
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Mahayni, to authorize staff to take the proposed goals, as established
by staff and presented this evening, to the public forums.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: Council Member Mahayni advised that he was offended by the letter sent to the
Mayor and City Council by L & H Real Estate Group, the owners of the North Grand Mall.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:24p.m.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Diane Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor
3