Loading...
07-25-00755 Board of Directors Room City Hall — 500 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas July 25, 2000 4: 00 P.M. The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas reconvened from July 18, — 2000 regular meeting with Vice Mayor Wyrick presiding. City Clerk Nancy Wood called the roll with the following members present: Directors Pugh, Cazort, Keck, Kumpuris, Kelly, Adcock, Hinton, Lichty, Vice Mayor Wyrick — total 9, Absent. Director Stewart, and Mayor Dailey — total 2. With a quorum present, Vice Mayor Wyrick declared the Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting in session and announced the purpose of the reconvened meeting was to consider: PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION NO. 10,865 - To approve the HUD Five Year Consolidated Plan, fiscal years 2000 -2004. Vice Mayor Wyrick declared the public hearing open. Andre Bernard, Housing and Community Development, gave an overview of the plan, explaining how information is gathered, and developed and how the meetings are announced to the public, the deadlines that imposed, etc. Director Lichty asked if this document was compiled with all the proper public notification and public input procedures as required by the CDBG. Mr. Bernard answered that they were. Director Adcock asked, referencing page 2 of the plan, how the representatives from each ward were selected and who served. Mr. Bernard said that particular section mainly dealt with the development of the action plan committee, which dealt with each ward. The development of the five -year plan consisted of mainly of that committee, Housing and Development, which was a citywide committee. Director Adcock asked who was at the table that comes up with the five -year plan being discussed at this meeting. Mr. Bernard stated, basically they were specialist from the service community that provide housing, homeless care, domestic violence counseling, mental development, disabled development, those types of individuals sat down at the table to help compile this document. Director Adcock said she would like to have some information back on how to look in to representing people with drug and alcohol addictions and prisoners with felonies. Mr. Bernard stated he did not recall prisoners with felonies being represented, but they did have input on drug and alcohol addiction. Director Adcock felt this was important for people coming out of prison trying to put their lives back together and was disappointed this wasn't a consideration. Mr. Bernard added, the committee that met, and developed and accessed the information, at the conclusion of their meeting came up with the same priorities that the citizens groups came up with during the annual plan process, so that is a good sign they are headed in the right direction of meeting the goals that the citizens have set forth in the annual action plan. The five -year plan follows the same path, with the same goals. Kathy Wells, President of the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods, reiterated her concerns in her letter of July 20, 2000, to the Board of Directors. She stated in their Coalition meeting they were quite concerned because a number of them only recently obtained the formal announcement of the available plans for the five -year HUD plan. She stated they consulted among themselves, and discovered the plan arrived in the mail on July 15, 2000, and the proclamation that they (staff) were listening to folks for thirty days beginning June 21St and ending July 20th, was not factually accurate. They also discovered key interest folks had not been informed. She stated in her opinion the public notices were a mockery of public notice and public participation. Ms. Wells asked the Board to delay this hearing until a later date so there could be meaningful time to consult, to have meaningful distribution of the copies, and asked the Board to ask for an extension of the deadline from the federal s ("r, 756 authorities. She said she did not think this was the time to lock in to anything for five years. Director Lichty said what Ms. Wells just stated was in direct conflict to the question he had imposed earlier, questioning whether proper notification was given and public input was obtained. Director Lichty asked for this to be explained. Ms. Wells said she received information July 15th, and her colleague, Ms. Ambrose, received hers on July 14th. Mr. Bernard explained that a public notice was put in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on June 21St, announcing the availability of the plan, additional mail outs were sent on July 14th, and an additional ad was run in the newspaper on July 17th, announcing additional availability of the plan and the locations where the plans were available. Director Lichty asked Mr. Bernard again, if in his opinion, all the requirements were met. Mr. Bernard said they were. Bruce Moore, Assistant City Manager said maybe the plan has not been explained as simply as it needed to be. Director Kelly asked if given the propensity of the City to have a lot of citizen involvement, was there a way to write into future procedures, something more extensive than public notice in a newspaper ad, so that others could be assured when the issues come up there would be a little bit more than legal requirement to reach out an include them in this and other process. Mr. Moore stated he thought public notices could definitely be expanded and revision to policy could be made as required. Director Cazort stated that in addition to the legal notices required in the newspaper, possible these could be included on the Webb page and maybe scrolled across the Public Access TV Channel. Director Kumpuris added that notices could also be announced at the Board of Director's Meetings. Mr. Moore asked Lisa Spivey, who has worked with CDBG for a number of years to help explain. Ms. Spivey stated she felt a lot of confusion had come about as to what really the nature of these two plans is. She stated there is the five -year plan first which s developed though HUD guidelines and invoices input from a number of experts in community development and housing areas in the City of Little Rock. Included is a lot of data gather from state sources, UALR data center, etc. She stated the five - year plan is sort of an umbrella, a general look at what he needs are projected to be over the next five years. In that plan there are no dollar values assigned to anything, no specific projects selected, it is just a guideline. The annual action plan, which is a one -year plan that is developed, is a budget that address the needs identified in the five year plan and specifics specific projects to target those needs of the five year plan. Ms. Spivey stated the way the plan works is the information is gathered, the plan is written, and published for public comment for a period of thirty days, so that everyone interested can have input. Vice Mayor Wyrick asked if this is done every year? Ms. Spivey stated the annual plan (the action plan) is done each year; the five -year plan is done every five years. Director Kelly stated he understood the difference in the five year and the action plan, but still believes the facts, the data, the information that is provided by these experts provides a framework in which all the other action plans than have to follow, and stated he thought that although maybe not required, to have that kind of citizen input, demands that in order to be an honest presentation of what the goals are. He stated he feels citizen communication should be included at all levels. He stated he would like to make sure all prospective are presented. Director Hinton commented that the past year has been somewhat "muddy" because there has been a new director, new directions that were being implemented in how data is collected and how this data makes it back to the public. He asked that the plan be voted on tonight because he would hate to miss out on the funds from HUD. Director Lichty asked Director Pugh if she was satisfied with the answers provided her in the last week regarding the five -year plan. Director Pugh said she feels better about it, that she had gone to the meeting, and the explanations sounded better. Director Adcock asked why the ex- offenders and prison inmates, and in the section where the population is spelled out, these people were not included. Andre Bernard stated this would be corrected in the final draft. Ms. Sharlett Craig stated she thought it was a privilege to serve on one of the data collection committees and had done a lot of research to help with some of the statistics. She said she felt it was important for the Board to know two things: (1) This plan, even though it has it's criticisms, contains those needs identified by the citizens participation groups that met in the spring. The CDBG committees from all the different wards and all the public participation when they made their 2 757 applications for funding, that told the City and the Committee what the needs in this city were. (2) This is important to the general public is, that she stated she writes grants on occasion, and recently wrote a Section 202 Grant Application to HUD on behalf of a non - profit organization. She explained that a Section 202 is elderly housing; the grant application itself is replete with questions about the five -year consolidated plan. She said they expect that who ever is applying for money, from them for other purposes to access this information and use as justification for their application to HUD. They expect use of the plan for justification and they also expect them to sign on to be a citizen participant, that there are sections in the application asking for commitment or statements as to how the applicant is going to participate. Janet Berry, 8013 Mabelvale Cutoff, stated she had read the newspaper notice, but shared Ms. Wells's frustrations at the notification process. She stated she thought suggestions that had been made tonight would be good ones, and one other thing she would add is the Alert Center Facilitators. She stated she had served on the Citizen's Action Committee in the spring and wanted to note, her area of Little Rock, which is Southwest Little Rock, especially the infrastructure projects put forward in the spring were included in the booklet and felt from her area, citizens thoughts were included. Lia Lent, representing Women and Children First, 2001 S. Gaines Street, stated their shelter, formerly Advocates for Battered Women, has been run for 22 years in Little Rock, and wanted to say they support this plan, and to let the Board know the campaign against domestic violence the City did, that their shelter was the response line and they are getting a lot of calls. She stated the shelter has been full since the day this campaign started running, and they have been turning people away, in trying to find other placements in other cities if possible, so it looks as there is an actual need for more shelter space in this areas along with transitional housing and safe places for women to move into, because when they come to the shelter they come with nothing. Vice Mayor Wyrick closed the public hearing. The Resolution was read, Director Adcock made a motion to adopt the resolution, seconded by Director Lichty, and by unanimous voice vote, and the resolution was adopted. A motion was made by Director Kumpuris to add the following resolution to the reconvened meeting. Director Cazort seconded the motion, and the item was added to the reconvened meeting agenda. Resolution No. 10,864 - To approve an amendment to the amended restated and substituted lease and concession agreement that pertains to the Excelsior Hotel, the City, and the lease to the Peabody Group; to amend Little Rock Arkansas Ordinance 18,286, June 6, 2000; and for other purposes. The Resolution was read, Director Adcock moved for the adoption of the resolution, Director Cazort seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of Board Members present the resolution was adopted. Director Adcock made a motion to add item M -2 —A resolution to consider reinstatement of membership of Ms. Lou Ethel Nowden to the little Rock Education Commission. Director Adcock made a motion to go into Executive Session to consider the reinstatement of membership of Ms. Lou Ether Nowden to the Little Rock Education Commission, Director Pugh seconded the motion, all Board Members present voted in favor and the meeting was recessed at 5:10 PM. The meeting reconvened at 5:20 PM. The resolution failed. The reconvened meeting was adjourned at 5:23 PM. ATTEST: APPROVED City Clerk Nancy Wood ayor Jim Dailey 3 J.