Council Social Services & Community Development Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Social Services and Community Development Committee met on January 17, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers, with Myers presiding. The committee addressed three informational agenda items during the meeting. The committee heard presentations on determining eligibility of current Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public improvement projects for funding through the Storm Water Quality Management Fee (SWQMF), received an update on CDBG and HOME funds with a future funding forecast, and reviewed items on the Committee List. The meeting included four public comments and three motions and votes.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on January 17, 2012:

• Myers
• Henson
• Kay
• Ford
• Lawless
• Stinnett
• McChord
• Ellinger
• Lane
• Crosbie

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

The meeting included three motions, all of which passed unanimously.

Approval of Minutes from November 29, 2011 4:30 Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Lane. This motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting passed unanimously with no abstentions.

Approval of $35,000 Budget with University of Kentucky 4:30 Motion by McChord, seconded by Ellinger. This motion to approve a $35,000 budget in partnership with the University of Kentucky's College of Social Work and Martin School of Public Policy passed unanimously with no abstentions.

Section 108 Loan Program Recommendation 4:30 Motion by Ford, seconded by Ellinger. This motion to recommend consideration of the Section 108 loan program and to follow up at a future meeting passed unanimously with no abstentions.

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting addressed funding allocations related to stormwater quality management and flooding mitigation projects.

Stormwater Quality Management Fee - Flooding Projects

The government approved appropriations for stormwater quality management fees to address flooding projects. Funding totaled $1.45 million in FY11, with projections to increase to $1.65 million through FY15.

Stormwater Quality Management Fee - Incentives Program

A grant of $1.2 million was allocated for an incentives program operating under the stormwater quality management fee framework.

Stormwater Quality Management Fee - Public Education and Outreach

An additional $500,000 grant was approved for public education and outreach initiatives funded through the stormwater quality management fee.

Public Comment

Four councilmembers raised concerns during the public comment period:

Administrative Costs vs. Capital Spending 20:17 Councilmember Lane questioned whether administrative costs were too high relative to capital improvements. Lane suggested a reevaluation of the budget to redirect more funds toward actual projects.

Northern Arlington Meadows Project 48:08 Councilmember Stinnett raised concerns about the prolonged timeline and escalating costs of the Northern Arlington Meadows project. Stinnett advocated for bonding to complete the project faster and more efficiently.

Unregulated Paving in Residential Areas 44:43 Councilmember Lawless expressed concern about permits allowing entire backyards to be paved without stormwater basins. Lawless characterized this as a serious issue that may require referral to another committee.

Sanitary Sewer Overflow 57:25 Councilmember Wallace reported a severe problem in the Elizabeth Street/Dantzler Court area where raw sewage erupts from manholes during heavy rain. Wallace requested that the area be reviewed for inclusion on the priority list.

Contested Items

Bonding the Northern Arlington Meadows Project

The council was divided on whether to bond the Northern Arlington Meadows project. Councilmembers Stinnett and McChord argued in favor of bonding, contending that it would reduce overall costs and shorten construction timelines. However, other council members raised concerns about the appropriateness of this approach. They noted that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are not intended to support large-scale bonding initiatives and questioned whether the project's eligibility under the Stormwater Quality Mitigation Framework (SWQMF) was limited to flood mitigation purposes only. This disagreement reflected broader questions about how federal funding should be deployed and whether bonding aligned with the intended use of CDBG resources.

Use of CDBG Funds for Private Property Development

Councilmember Lawless raised significant concerns about the use of CDBG funds for infrastructure improvements that would facilitate private property development. Specifically, Lawless questioned whether CDBG funding should support projects that enable private paving of backyards without requiring stormwater controls. The concern centered on whether such uses aligned with CDBG's core mission and public benefit requirements. This discussion highlighted tension between supporting infrastructure improvements and ensuring that federal community development funds were being used in ways that served legitimate public purposes rather than primarily benefiting private property owners.

Determining which elements in each of the current Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public improvement slated projects are eligible for funding through the Storm Water Quality Management Fee (SWQMF)

5:07

Charlie Martin presented an overview of the Storm Water Quality Management Fee (SWQMF), including its funding model and the $30 million obligation established under the consent decree. A key point emphasized during the presentation was that only projects appearing on the priority list and directly related to flooding qualify for SWQMF funding.

Bob Bayert discussed the stormwater elements contained within current CDBG projects, noting that stormwater components represent a significant portion of overall project costs, ranging from 11% to 29% depending on the specific project.

The committee engaged in debate regarding the Northern Arlington Meadows project, with discussion centered on whether the project should be bonded in its entirety rather than phased under the CDBG program. This represented a key point of contention regarding project financing and implementation strategy.

The agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal decision or action required.

Update on CDBG & HOME funds and the future funding forecast

59:36

Irene Gooding presented an overview of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) programs. The presentation included funding amounts allocated for 2010 and outlined the requirement for a five-year Consolidated Plan.

Key Topics Discussed:

• Program Overview: Gooding provided details on CDBG, HOME, and ESG funding streams and their respective purposes.

• Consolidated Planning Requirements: The presentation emphasized the federal requirement for a five-year Consolidated Plan to guide the use of these funds.

• Community Match Funds: The discussion addressed the need for community match funds to complement federal allocations and expand project capacity.

• Federal Regulations: Gooding explained how federal regulations shape local planning decisions and fund allocation strategies.

• Project Sequencing: The committee discussed challenges related to sequencing projects appropriately within funding cycles and planning periods.

• Administrative Cost Management: Concerns were raised regarding the management and allocation of administrative costs within the programs.

Outcome:

This agenda item was informational in nature, providing the committee with an update on current funding status and future forecasting considerations for CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs. The presentation established the framework for understanding federal funding requirements and constraints that would inform subsequent planning and allocation decisions.

Items in Committee List

48:08

The committee discussed various neighborhood projects during this agenda item. Key speakers included Councilmembers McChord, Ford, and Stinnett.

Projects and Concerns

The discussion focused on the Northern Arlington Meadows redevelopment and related neighborhood initiatives. A primary concern raised was the prolonged construction timelines associated with these projects, which the committee identified as a potential issue requiring attention.

Cost and Implementation Issues

Councilmember McChord highlighted cost overruns that have resulted from phased implementation of the projects. This fragmented approach to development has contributed to increased expenses that the committee considered noteworthy.

Potential Solutions

The committee explored options to accelerate project completion. Councilmember Ford advocated for investigating the Section 108 loan program as a means to expedite the projects. Additionally, the committee discussed the potential for bonding as another financial mechanism to accelerate completion timelines.

Outcome

This item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action taken during the discussion.