HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-11-22 Bd Comm minutesgb�.,
MINUTES • •
THE IaVA CITY HOUSING COhmssiGPI
NovavMM 2, 1977
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROQti1
MEMBERS PRESENT: Hibbs, Lombardi, Owens, Pollock
MEmERS ABSENT : Kamath, Smithey
CITY STAFF: Seydel, Burke, Kimball
DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
1.
;Hibbs called the meeting to order.'
2.
Motion was made by Icubardi and seconded by Pollock to approve minutes
of October 14th and October 20th. Motion carried 4/0.
Minutes of October 19th were approved with the following correction:
Chapter 9.30.2 DUPLEX shall mean any habitable structure containing
two '(2) separate, dwelling units.Motion moved by Pollock seconded
by Lombardi. Motion carried 4/0..
3.
Coordinator's Report:
22 Applications for Section 8 Assistance approved.
Applicant # 8463 was deemed not eligible by Coordinator to participate
in Program due to,fact that supporting 'documents from Physician and
Psychiatrist did not support illness.
November
As of lst there were 241 units Section 8 and 29 under Section 23,
total 270.'
notified of Housing
4.
Burke Commission three vacancies on the Appeals Board.
5.
Housing,Maintenance and Occupancy Code: The following changes are recommended
by the Housing',Commission.
9.30.6.E' Should now read, _"DIRECT ACCESS. Access to each dwelling unit or
roaming!unit shall not require first entering any other dwelling unit or
rooming, unit except that access to roaming units may be through a living
room ,of'a unit', occupied by the owner -operator of the structure."
Motion roved by Lombardi, seconded by Owens. motion 'passed '4/0
9.30.6.F Eliminate #3, so that 44 becomes #3. Motion passed by Lombardi,
seconded by Pollock. Motion passed 4/0
Next Special Meeting - November 9, 7:30 p.m. in the City Manager's Conference'
Room.
yogg
(.
� ',..
�1
Iowa City Airport Commission
0 t b 20 1977
co er ,
City Manager's Conference Room, Civic Center
Members Present: Gary Bleckwenn
Caroline Dmbree
Jack Perkins
Claude Peterson
Members Absent: Dick Phipps
Others Present: E.K. Jones, Jr.'
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
Jones read 'the minutes of the September 15th meeting.It
was moved; by Perkins, second' by Bleckwenn, minutes be app-
aspresented,'
'motion carried.
roved
Jones presented the bills for the month. It was moved by
Bleckwenn, second by Embree, bills be paid,as presented.
Motion carried.
Chairman Peterson reported he had received copies of the
Airport Master Planning Grant Application from Jay Haas
and stated their ',distribution,',one copy to each of,the
following: ;r Airport Manager,ICity Manager, Mayor, Johnson
County RegionalPlanning ''Commission,;and each memberlof the
Iowa' City Airport Commission. Chairman Peterson reported
he met with the Johnson County :Regionallanning Commission, P
on September 21,'11977., One of 'their concerns is the proper
coordination as they are responsible for coordinating''
planning of the various agencies. Chairman' Peterson read
a copy of;'ia memorandum of understanding between Johnson
County'Regional'iPlanning of,
and the Iowa Cityl
Airport Commission. Copy of`memorandum attached. It was
moved by Perkins second by Bleckwenn to sign the memorandum'
of understanding with the Johnson County Regional Planning
Commissioh`and'to forward a copy of the agreement to Jay
Haas.!' Motion Carried.
Chairman Peterson reported that in the process of formalising
the Commission's Budget for 1979: the Commission is to establish
Goals and Objectives using the', guidelines stated in the
budget; planning literature. Chairman Peterson presented
what he thought' should' be the goals and objectives of the
Commission and 'asked 'for 'additional suggestions. General
discussion followed. It, was suggested that under`acitivity
objectives vie list the capital expenditures items 2,9,5, 66
so,that individuals will realize what they are. Item '2
lengthen runway to make airport qualify as basic transport.
Item, 9,, install VASI`system on runway 17-35 and runway, 12'
to eliminate the 'problem of high speed and large aircraft
from getting too low on their approaches to these runways.
Item 5, construct additional T -hangars to satisfy demand.
Item 6,,resurface parking near terminal building to add
i
parking spaces to eliminate the parking hazards. Perkins
,
•
moved, Bleckwenn second, motion that the Goals and Objectives
be submitted to the City. Motion carried.
Chairman Peterson having to leave asked Secretary Bleckwenn
to takeover the meeting. Bleckwenn asked about the fire
insurance policy of $539.00 to Russ Mishak Agency, that
the Commission held up paying last month. Jones stated he
had check with Mel Jones of the City Finance Department and
the bill is for insurance on the new T hangars, and the
bill was correct. It was moved by Embree, second by Perkins
that the insurance, bill be paid. Motion carried.
Bleckwenn asked for any new business. Jones reported we only
have $5,760.00 plus what the Commission takes in 'revenue
the remainder of the year to maintain the airport. Bleckwenn'
pointed out we certainly 'want ,to watch to make certain we do
not'deficit spend without knowing it.
Perkins asked about the taxi -way lighting.. Jones pointed out
the F.A:A. willnot allow the designation of ',a runway as
a taxi -way` -and therefore we cannot have blue lights at
the ':intersections 'of,12-30 5,6-29 on runway 17-35.
Dnbree reported that after last -month's meeting she went to
the'Finance'Department and visited, with Rosemarie and she
was 'very'cooperative. Embree presented 'a statement of
transactions for the airport from 1967 through 1977 prepared '
by ;,the City, Finance Department,,which the Commission studied.
It was pointed out that the construction of the new`T-hangars'
last yearwas what caused the deficitexpense for 1977. Also,
so far this year the Commission receipts'are'running ahead
of theirexpenditures.
It was moved by Perkins, second by Embree, the meeting be
adjourned. .Motion carried.
Nrxt Meeting,' November 17, 1977, Civic Center, 7130 P.M.
;f
• o
MEMORANDUM OP UNDERSTANDING
COMh1ITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS
NOVEMBER 2, 1977 -- 4:00 p.m.
RECREATION CENTER -- MEETING ROOM 6
COMMITTEE ME PRESENT: Amidon,'Braverman, Click, Clark, Dennis, Hall, Pecina,
Purington, Rock, Swisher
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Baschnagel, Bohlken, Hibbs, McCormick
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Vann, Wilkinson, Milkman
OTHERS PRESENT: Kristy Kissel
M17ETING DISCUSSION:
1. The meetingwas called to order br Curtis Purington, Chairman, who introduced
.
Kristy Kissel.l Ms. Kissel presented a' request, for $30,000 to fund a program of
Aid and Aliernatives4for Victims of Spouse Abuse.
Ms. Kissel explained that this program ,was created with a CETA grant sponsored
by the Women'sAcsource and Action Center. The salary, of one program coordinator i
is paid by this:' grant. However, additional funds are needed in order to get a
program proving aid and alternatives to spouse abuse victims in operation. The
$30,000 request includes office expenses, staffing, and 'temporary ,assistance for
the victim''and children.
2 Dennis moved and Swisher seconded that,the minutes of the October 'S meeting be
approved. Motion carried.
!' 3.; The committee began discussions on proposed funding for FY 179., A summary of
these discussions follow:
I. NEI GHBORHOOD,iIMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
1.< Housing Rehabilitation
No discussion
This, is an ongoing program that has had beneficial impact
Staff Comment: g gr
p_ g f mp
on owner-occupied single family dwellings. Since February,
20householdshave had their homes inspected, work orders
written, and the construction phase initiated. Many
applications are still awaiting, processing.
HUD 312 funds can be used during FY 179 in place of the
Rehab I Zoan program, no only funds for 'grants and adminis
tration are needed from this year's CDBC funds.r
ell 60
•
Committee on Community Needs
November 2, 1977
Page 2
2. Minimum Housing Code Enforcement
There was a great deal of concern about the importance of this program's
continuation with CDBG funds. It was pointed out that apartment owners
are charged for rental permits to offset inspection costs. The consensus
was to cut the amount requested for this program from the $118,000 to
$60,000.
Staff Comment: The increase reflects a staff recommendation to charge more
administrative costs to the CDBG budget and less to the
City's General Fund. The senior housing: inspector, -director
of Housing and Inspection Services, and secretary 'of,Housing
and Inspection Services were not funded out of this account
before, ',only three inspectors and part of.a cZerk;typist.
If the 'budget is cut from $116;000 to $60,000, the director`
and secretary salaries will be absorbed by the CDBG General
Program Adminiatration budget and the senior housing in-
spector will remain 100% City funded, even 'though ?he super
vises 2-3 CDBG inspectors.
3. Ralston Creek Flood Control
There was a question raised as to whether the amount requested could be
cut any at all. After'arlengthy discussion of the pros and cons of this
project, it was the consensus that the entire amount be funded. CCN
members are anxious to 'see the final Powers -Willis report so that more
information is available on which to base budget decisions.
r
4. Ralston Creek' Floodplain Housing Acquisition
The committee tentatively eliminated this new program proposal. $235,000
is'a'large sum of money. Only five families would'' directly benefit. Other
programs have already been established;` this is a new undeveloped program.
Staff Comment: .There are a few severely substandard homes in Iowa City that,
provide 'hazardous living environment for their occupants.:
No programs are, currently available at Johnoom County Social'
Serviceslor the `City 'of Iowa City to assist these families.
The HCDA',program is supposed to eliminate slum and blight.
This program mould really do that and at the same time,
would help some low income families escape from homes filled
with health and safety hazards.
This program can also assist in removing structures that
appear to be about to cave in -- garages, vacant sheds or
other buildings.
Committee on Community Needs
November 2, 1977
Page '3
S. Neighborhood Site Improvements'''
No discussion
Staff Comment: This is a good public involvement: program. It allows citizens
to select speca.ftic improvements for their neighborhood. The
administration time commitment is proportionally greater -
than other programs, but it is'a program that directly,
involves and ',affects 'lots of Iowa City residents.
G. Traffic Controls and Buffers
This proposal was temporarily eliminated.from the budget. Members
suggested stopsigns might work as well. [Other members were worried about
whether the improvements would merely divert the traffic into other
neighborhoods. !,
Staff. Comment: This proposal has been suggested at numerous neighborhood
imeetings. Some Longfellow School area residents and
Northside Neighborhood residents are strongly in favor of
trying this out on a temporary basis.
i
7. Conversion of SP Dwellings to Duplexes
Members questioned if ,spending $10,000420,000 in each of 2 or 3 homes
would have very much impact toward accomplishing CDBG program goalsi The
proposal was temporarily eliminated from the budget.
Staff Comment: !If a special situation anises, where converting a structure
,. from a single family dwelling into a duplex is a good eolu
tion, HUD 312 rehabilitation funds could be used. Repairs
!,- could be made with a 3% Zoan,direct from HUD.
8. Routine Maintenance to Ralston Creek
The cost of this proposal is too high. If the dams do their job, there
would probably be no'need for this additional cost. 'Members questioned
why Boy.Scouts or summer employees couldn't be used rather than permanent
City',;staff.I The consensus was to drop this project.
Staff Comment: The project would clean out the sediment collected in the
creek bed during the past 30 years. The improvements
would have a""lot 'of aesthetic value to the neighborhood,
as well as slightly improving the carrying capacity of the
channel. Approximately 1000 tons of sediment need to be
removed to restore the channel to its original size ,and
condition.
Committee
on Community Needs
November
2, 1977
Page 4
Il. PROGRAMS FOR HANDICAPPEDAND ELDERLY
1:`
Senior Center
There was some discussion of doing part of the work now and doing the
rest at a later date with some future funds. After a lengthy discussion
on the subject, the consensus was; to allocate'S500,000 for the Senior
Center.
Staff Comment: [Mere will the money come from at a later date? This is
a source of available federal funds that can be used to
"IcempleteZy,;develop a facility that will serve thousands of
elderly; residents for years to come. No other sources
of 3/9 million dollars have been available. If you budget
it now,.you're less likely to be short of funds later.
2
Architectural:Barrier Removal Program for Buildings in Public Use
No discussion';-- Letters had been received from State Historical Department,
State Department of Public Instruction, and United Way supporting -improve-
ments at Old Brick. A Goodwill Industries request; was also submitted.
III. OTHER PROGRAMS
1.`
I '
General Program Administration
Vexplained
Members questioned the increase over!last year's budget.'ann
that while the comprehensive plan has been a CDBG project, seven CDBG
salaried planners have been available,' providing research, data, and
'
documentation::for Community Development Block Grant programs. The
comprehensive plan will be completed before next year's budget period
begins, but programs are',still being planned and developed and staff is
needed.
12.
Housing Assistance Plan
Members; questioned why this was being'budgeted separately this year.
Vann explained that the City is ,required to prepare a housing assistance plan,
as'aP art ofathe CDBG application, and to take steps toward accomplishing
stated goals i Vann explained that to do a satisfactory job, during the
year, approximately 1000 staff hours should be directed towprd planning
programs to meet housing'' needs:' investigating pros and cons of public
housing, working with 'Section 8,developers, host a workshop to encourage
local businesspersons to' :take advantage of newly available programs such
as 235 and 'therefore help meet our housing needs of low and moderate income
residents, and evaluating existing programs such as housing rehabilitation.;
�I.
Cunnnittoo on Community,Needs
November 2, 1977
Page 5
3. DowntownRedevelopment
No discussion
4.
Solar Energy Use
The committee temporarily eliminated this proposal from the budget. Members
questioned why $2000 per unit had been budgeted in the booklet proposal, when
the citizen had stated that materials would only cost a few hundred dollars.
Vann reminded the 'committee that' the City is responsible for carrying out
programs that are worth the money invested. Preceding thorough development
of program guidelines,;, she would:discourage not budgeting for construction
costs and/or staff to monitor the improvements.'
5.
Energy Conservation
The committee members questioned the impact of various activities suggested
in the budget proposal,' but no budget cuts were made. One member suggested'
that $50,000 should be adequate. -I
6.!
Tree Planting
iNo
discussion
7
l
Human N eeds Plan'
No discussion
8.
Spouse Abuse
Several',members'are strongly in favor of having the programlfunded by the
City of Iowa City. Several other members question using CDBG funds if
Aid to Agencies or; General Revenue Sharing would be available.
Staff Comment: 'During the past few years, BUD regulations have become more
strict. To, be eligible for CDBG funding, the City would
have to prove that the majority of clients served reside
in the CDBGprogram area. The City mould also have to Beek
aZZ other funding, sources such as IIEW, TitZe`-90, etc.
CDBG regulations are designed for physical community develop-
ment projects. When public service projects are planned,
-
tr.
" " becomes cumbersome.
the administrative red. tape '
I
Committee
on Community Needs
November 2, 1077
Page
G
IV.
CONTINGENCY
No; discussion -
Item cut
V.
'BUS SHELTERS
Amidon suggested
that one
other project ought to be considered: Downtown Bus
Shelters. Vann
suggested
that provisions' were being made for bus riders as
part of the Urban
Renewal
Improvements.
4.
The meeting was
adjourned
after plans for another meeting were made. The next
meeting will be
Monday, November 7, at 4:OO p.m. in the Recreation Center,
Meeting Room A.
Sandra S, Wilkinson
,
J
COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS',
NOVEMBER 7, 1977 -- 4:00 p.m.
RECREATION CENTER -- MEETING, ROOM A
COMMITTEE M03MBERS PRESENT: Amidon, Braverman, Cilek, Clark, Hall, Hibbs, Pecina,
Purington,'Rock, Swisher
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Baschnagel, Bohlken, Dennis, McCormick
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Vann, Wilkinson, Milkman, Tinklenberg
SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION:
1. Curtis Purington „ Chairman, called the meeting to order and introduced Roger
Tinklenberg who was present in behalf of the Energy Commission.
Mr. Tinklenberg explained that the Energy Commission had not approved the budget`
that was included in the proposal booklet and that they wanted to submit a
proposal, drawn up by them. He further stated that the Commission felt the
amount would probably not go'up and that, there was a possibility that it might
even be less than the amount originally requested. Tinklenberg explained that
the Commission was established in May and was just beginning to develop a pro-
gram for energy conservation: They are looking into the possibility of working
out some type of rehabilitation program for low and moderate income families
to''help''them insulate their homes. When !asked if this would overlap, with the
Housing Rehabilitation program, Mrs Tinklenberg responded that this was one of
the items the 'Commission was researching. When asked if it would be more efficient
to',fund ,an energy conservation program separately from the Rehab program,
Tinklenberg.responded that this is also being researched.
Mr.' Tinklenberg's request that the Commission be allowed to submit another pro-
posal at a later date was denied. It was explained that CCN has a public hearing
scheduled for this Thursday' evening,November 10, at 7:30 p.m., at which time
" the Committee recommendations will be presented to the public. It was pointed
out, however ,'that the Committee could decide upon an amount now and the program
'could be developed later.
2. Horace Amidon presented a request for $10,000 to 'install shelters for bus riders'
at main transfer points downtown at the intersection of Clinton and Washington
Streets. It was pointed out that Old Capitol Associates' proposal for a shopping
mall includes a bus shelter in that area.
Amidon feels very strongly, that there should be sheltered: places for people to
wait for buses. He suggests that something be done now instead of waiting for
completion -of the downtown' development. He also felt that there should be
shelters on both sides of the"street rather than just on one side.
Amidon moved and Braverman seconded that $10,000 be allocated for a shelter to
be, constructed on the north side of Washington' Street. Motion carried with
2 members opposed (Hibbs and Cilek).
5900
Committee on Community Needs
November 7, 1977
Page 2
3. The Committee discussed, at length, the proposal requesting funds for Traffic
Controls and;Buffers. Several members of the Committee voiced concerntitthis
program should be funded with Road Use Taxes. There was also some concern that
perhaps allocations for some very important programs (e.g., Ralston Creek,
Housing Code Enforcement) were being cut if this proposal is funded. Several
Committee members were in favor of placing stop signs, and possibly making 4 -way.
stops, on Sheridan Avenue to help alleviate the high speed traffic.'
Hibbs moved an Amidon seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council
that stop signs be placed on Sheridan Avenue as they were on Court Street. The
motion carried with 4 voting against (Purington, Cilek, Clark, Braverman).
4. In answer to a question regarding the Human Needs Plan, Vann explained that the
City had contracted with Johnson CountyRegional Planning to survey the human
needs °of the area. This is'a fact, finding committee that is researching the
1. needs of the area and the current: resource services offered. ,This study will
help cut down on the duplication of services and provide a more efficient system
of helping meet human service needs. , When asked if the Committee were committed
to funding this request, Ms. Vann answered "yes, a contract has already been
signed committing,; the City to $13,530during 179. i
5. Regarding the proposal to fund a Spouse Abuse'program,,the general consensus was,
that there is a definite rop blem in that area. It was suggested that this is
not theiight'time to start a new program, since the CDBG money will be, cut
next year. :It was also felt ',that this program should not be funded with Community
Development''funds,.but instead that it is the type agency that should apply for
funds, from the City'sg Aid to 'A encies;budget.',
It was moved by Cilek and seconded by Hibbs to delete the Spouse Abuse proposal
from this year's allocations. Motion carried unanimously.
6. It was moved by Cilek and seconded by Hibbs to delete the Solar Energy proposal '
:from this: year's. allocations'. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Adiscussion regarding the Tree Plantia& proposal revealed the feeling of
several -members that federal monies vs.' local) should not be, spent on a'program
of this type, even though it is a most desirable program. One member stated
that he''knew of no alternate source of funding for a program of this type. In
addition, it was pointed out that trees were included in the Neighborhood Site
Improvement' Program.:'
It was moved by Hibbs and, seconded by Swisher to delete the Tree Planting pro-
posal from this year's allocations. The motion
failed with a 5-5 vote those
voting no were: Cilek, Clark, Purington, Pecina, Braverman).
8. While Ralston Creek flooding is a major concern of the Committee, the Routine r
Maintenance for Ralston Creek was not 'thought :to be the most efficient manner of
solving any of the problems. There was a good bit of concern that the cost of
the equipment was too expensive and that, in fact, it should be the responsibility
of the City's general tax funds. It was explained that the purchase of this
equipment would not,represent a one-shot
deal but that it could be usedand
nd
Committee on Community Needs
November 7, 1977
Page 3
over to help keep, the channel cleared of sediment and debris.
Hibbs moved and Hall seconded that $145,325 be allocated for the Routine
Maintenance of Ralston Creek:The motion failed 3-6 (those opposed were:
Amidon, Braverman, Cilek, Clark, Pecina, Purington, Swisher).
9. Letters in support of Architectural Barrier' Removal for Buildings inPublic Use
were read. These letters (from Sharon Bonney, Adrian Anderson o t e State
Historic Preservation Department, Thomas Hills; of the Rehabilitation Education
and Services Branch, and Tim McCue of Goodwill) are on file in the Department
of Community Development.
There was great concern that this money not be used in, privately owned buildings
when the removal of barriers in publicly owned: buildings has not yet been com-
pleted (for example, the Civic Center). The Committee did suggest the possibility
of using,a rebate system for privately owned buildings
Swisher moved and Hibbs seconded that the Committee fund a program to assess
and remove architectural barriers with priority on public buildings, with
Committee review of all proposals. Motion carried unanimously:'
10. It was moved by Braverman and seconded by Hibbs to de Tete the Energy Conservation
request. Motion carried unanimously.;
Y1. There was some concern about the Nei hborhood Site Im rovement request.) In
answer to 'the question of whether the currently available funds would be spent ".
during FY 178 or, carried over for an;indefinite period, Vann responded that the,
money remaining would be, spent or encumbered this spring as the improvements in
the.Longfellow School area are completed and meetings in other: neighborhoods are
organized. She further, explained,'that she felt some of the preliminary work in
other areas could begin this winter if additional funds are now set aside.
Several neighborhoods can be organized, to define site improvements, concurrently
if funds are available. The program administrative costs per neighborhood will
be considerably less if neighborhoods participate concurrently rather than
sequentially.
12. Several Committee'members voiced concern about the proposed cut in the Senior
Center' request, and others encouraged the City staff to seek other funding such
as Title S. Vann explained that if,'the senior center budget would be cut to
$500,000 considerable staff time would have to be spent seeking other funds to
complete a''successful project; She reminded them that at this time no other
sources have been'Jdentified'that can provide $100,000 or more in 'grant funds:
Title 5lfunds to Iowa City ,will most likely' not exceed $30,000; other funds are
specifically earmarked for kitchen='equipment, exterior historic preservation, and
staff plans to utilize 'them as they become available.'
Committee members wondered if the improvements could be completed in phases:
$500,000 this year and more in future years. Vann said yes, but reminded them
that very few CDBG funds would be'available after this year. She wondered if
adequate funds would be available.
Committee on Community Needs
November 7, 1977
Page 4'
13. In answer to a question regarding the request for Downtown Redevelopment, Vann
explained that it would be necessary to cover administrative costs related to
the completion of the project. It was pointed out that the reason Iowa City
was granted the $8 million grant was because the Urban Renewal project was
originally funded, and CDBG funds were specifically intended to complete exist-
ing categorical
xisting'categorical projects.
14. The recommended budget is as follows:
Housing Rehabilitation $ 272,000
'Minimum Housing Code Enforcement 60,000
Ralston Creek Flood Control 686,000
Neighborhood Site, Improvements 205,000
Senior Center 500,000
Architectural Barrier Removal in Public Buildings 55,000
` General Program Administration 140,000
Housing Assistance Plan 15,000
Downtown Redevelopment 29,000
Tree Planting 22,000
HumanNeeds Plan 13,530
TBus Shelters
10,000
Contingency 122,470
Total $2,130,000
to approve the bud et as'read.
a and seconded b Clarkg
It'was moved b Braverm n y,PP
Y
Motion carried unanimously.
15. It was moved by Hibbs and seconded by Swisher, to approve the minutes of the
November 2, 1977, meeting., Motion carried unanimously.
16. It was moved by Hibbs and seconded by,Purington to adjourn. Motion carried
unanimously:
Sand a S. Wil inson
.a
!i'
CCN PUBLIC MEETING CITIZENS PIIIiSENT: 22
NOVEMBER 10, 1977 -- 7:30 p.m. comm1TTHE MEMBERS PRESENT: 5
COUNCIL CHAMBERS -- CIVIC CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENT: 3
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson, Curtis Purington. Mr. Purington
explained that the meeting was being held to inform the public of the funding
recommendations ',drawn 'up by the Committee on Community Needs for the 4th year CDBG
allocation of funds. 'Worksheets showing the amount requested and the amount
recommended for'each project were distributed.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
I. Neighborhood Improvement Programs
1 Housing ,Rehabilitation --------------------------------------- $272,000
A question was raised regardingsufficient staffing for the project.
It was 'noted that the staff is, adequate at this time for carrying out
the program.
2. Minimum' Housing Code Enforcement-- - - - - - - - -------------- ---$ 60,000
Mr. Purington pointed out that the Committee felt the rationale provided
was not strong enough to support an increase in°:the funding. The
Committee ,felt 'that the above amount would be adequate.
3.' Ralston Creek Flood Control--------------
- ------`---------,-$686,000
Mr. Purington stated that this is a.priority item of the Committee.
The funds will be used to build'',retaining dams in strategic places.
These dams will: be designed to help prevent any disatrous:flooding.'.
I; 4.. Ralston; Creek Floodplain Housing Acquisition --------------:,-$ 0
This amount would handle about 5 or 6 houses. The Committeefelt the
)
cost per unit was too high to justify the :funding requested land did not
think ,it was, the most effective way of solving the problem.
S. Neighborhood Site Improvements------------------------ - --�-$205,000
This is a public involvement program that allows citizens to select
specific improvements for their neighborhood. This amount will allow
improvements to be made in'4 additional neighborhoods.
ISI
,
6.' Traffic Controls and Buffers --------------------------------- $ 0
Dorothy Schabilion re-emphasized her concerns regarding the highspeed
traffic on Sheridan Avenue. She stated that she felt the residents
did not have a'free!rein'in choosing the neighborhood site improvements
to be done in the Longfellow School area.
i
CCN Public
Meeting
November
10, ,1977
Page 2
Mr. Purington explained that the Committee seemed to be split on this
traffic control issue. He further explained that the Committee did not
vote against stop signs but did feel this was the responsibility of the
Traffic Department. Mr. Purington did state, however, that he did not
feel this was :a'dead issue'. Ms. Schabilion responded that if the problem
were left up to'the traffic engineers there would be no action taken.
Ms. Sheets, City Redevelopment Specialist, responded to Ms. Schabilion's
concerns by saying that the items approved for site improvements came
directly from the neighborhoodresidents and not from staff. She further
explained that an explanation about why certain projects were or were notl
funded has been sent to each neighborhood household. It was felt that
there are other sources of funding for transportation issues which would
be more appropriate to her concerns than the Neighborhood Site Improve-
ment project, especially', since' transportation problems are so complex
—
that they must be analyzed in relationship to the entire city.
7.
Conversion of SF Dwellings to Duplexes----------------------=$ 0
This project was not funded because the Committee felt it was not
a very cost efficient 'item and would not be sufficient to do very much
work. Thereiwas also.a lack of information regarding the project ,and a
lack of support for such a project.
d
8. 'Routine
Maintenance for Ralston Creek------ -------- --------$ 0
The amount requested was to be used to purchase a piece of equipment
to be used to clean out the channel. The Committee felt the, proposed
dams would be'the most efficient way of controlling the creek's flooding.
II. Programs
for the Handicapped and Elderly
1.
Senior Center ------------------------------------------------$500,000
Jim Harris l6xpressed his'feelings that if special funding were not
available the City would have to go ahead and do the necessary work
anyway.; He felt the money should go''for new things rather than older
items.
i
Mr. Purington pointed out that this project had high priority for
funding., The Committee did not feel; however, that it should start
programs they could not keep, up with. Therefore, the on-going
programming costs will not come out of HCDA funds.
2.
Architectural Barrier Removal for; Public Use Buildings ------- $ 55,000
Mr. Purington stated that this funding proposal was not intended for any
one specific building but is to be used for buildings in public use.
CCN Public
Meeting
November
10, 1977
Page 3
Jim Harris voiced his concern that the City might have a back -log of
requests for use of these funds. Mr. Purington'explained that applications
for grants'wi12'be made available and that CCN has reserved the right to
review all applications.
III.' Other Programs
1.:
General' Program Administration ---------------------,----------$140,000
There are expenses incurred with any, program and this amount is
necessary to cover these expenses.
r 2.
g' --------- ----
Housin Assistance Plan------------ ------------- $ 15,000
This is.an ongoing program that is required as a, part of the HCDA
grant program.
•i 3.
'Downtown Redevelopment--------------------- - ---------------$ 29,000
As with any program, there are administrative costs that will need
to be funded.'_ This proposal will cover this on-going project.
4.
;Solar Energy Use ----------- ----I-- -------- -----------------$ 1 0
Sue Gwinn was present and read a statement regarding the solar energy
proposal. This statement is on file in the Department of Community':.
Development.
Mr. Puri,ngton explained that in the Committee's initial considerations this
program was granted funding. However,, since the program was not
developed,,it was dropped from this year's funding. He also pointed out
that this request should probably',be handled by the Energy, Resource
Commission.
5.>
Energy :Conservation ------------ -----------`-------------------$ 0
The Energy Resource Commission presented an up -dated, proposal request.
The Commission's',top priority is insulation and heating loss in low and
moderate income areas. They hope to find where and how.much energy
is being lost and provide funds to help, people make their homes more
energy efficient.
c
xr
CCN Public Meeting
November 10, 1977'
Page 4
6. Tree Planting ------------------------------------------------ $ 22,000
This project will make funds available for planting more trees
throughout the City.' -
7. Human, Needs Plan --------------------------------------------- $ 13,530
Representatives'from Johnson County Regional Planning were present to
formally let the"Committee know that theSfirst year of the comprehensive
:study of human needs in Iowa City is ending and a report will be
available in the near future.
8.Spouse Abuse------------- -----------------------------------$ 0
This program was not funded with;HCDA funds since there are other
sources of funding for programs of this,type.' Other sources available
might be the United Way or Aid to Agencies in the City budget.
9. Bus Shelters--------------------`----------------------------- $ 10,000
This proposal stems from a Committee member's concern for:bus riders
in`the downtown area.'', While final plans have not been completed, the
" Committee felt the project justified funding.
IV. Contingency ------------------------------------------------------ $122,470
I
Irene E. Murphy of 304 Rorialds Street asked the Committee if there were funds avail-
-'able,for a parking study of the north end. Her specific concern is calendar day
parking on her street.
After much discussion on the subject, Mr. Purington told her that the Committee could
do nothing at this time but would gladly forward her letter to the City Council He
also suggested that she contact the Legal Department, the Police Department, the
Department of Public Works, or City Council'', regarding her concerns.
:There being no further comments or discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Sandra S. Wilkinson
I
vv .
I�