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.