Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP 93A WTV O� U mu ULVmp d� r dpa�n � -war Ir Var ifm POLICY PROPOSAL DATE FILE NUMBER SUBJECT Proposed Ordinance for Community PAGE-1-0E-2- 12128/81 OF_ 12/28/81 CP-93 Development Citizen Participation Program PROPOSAL PROPOSED BY: CITY MANAGER'S REVIEW Councilman Zapata . ' Background On December 3, 1981, members of the ACORN organization presented the City Council with a proposed ordinance designed to strengthen and continue the Citizen Participation efforts in the City's Community Development Program. The major points included in this proposed ordinance were: Section 1. The Housing and Community Development Department continue to prepare an annual plan identifying projects proposed for funding, target areas affected and the benefits to low and moderate-income citizens; Section 2. (a) Ensure citizen participation by publishing the first draft of the plan and making it available at City Hall, public libraries and appropriate neighborhood locations. (b) Community Development Council (CDC) hold second set of hearings when a revised draft plan is complete. (c) Publish the final version of the plan and make available to public as identified in Section 1. (d) Public meetings shall be held by the CDC no less than six months after the beginning of the program year.and at the close of the program year to evaluate implementation and progress of the plan. (Any amendments to the plan shall be governed by Section 2(a). (e) The CDC shall hold additional hearings whenever it proposes changes amounting to 102 or more in their cumulative effect on the allocation of funds for an affected program year. Section 3. All Commits Development plans and reports shall be on file in the Housing and Community Development Department and available to the public. LEGALITY FISCAL NOTE CRY MANAGER'S COMMENTS ® C! POLICY PROPOSAL (cont'd) PAGE-LOF 5 a Section 4. Each project or activity funded by Community Development Block Grant funds shall target at least 75% of its benefits to low and moderate income persons. Low and moderate income shall include those persons whose income is 80% or less of the median income for the SMSA. Section 5. Community Development funds be used to underwrite special assessments made again t properties owned by low and moderate income persons. However, no Community Development funds shall be used to pay assessments which are normally paid by using City bond funds. Section 6. Community Development funds used for economic developments projects must generate substantial long term employment for low and moderate income persons. In no cases shall more than 20% of all program year funds be allocated for economic developments projects. Section 7. The Ca=.mity Development Council shall review the extent of displacement and recommend to the City Council measures it believes are necessary to alleviate these problems. I believe the majority of the items that ACORN recommends, including in an ordinance- governing the use of Community Development Block Grant funds, already are in place or their implementation would have an insignificant effect. Therefore, I recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance as outlined above. The proposed cuts in CDBG funds, coupled with the changes in the regulations, would seem to suggest that steps should be taken at the local level to preserve our program. The ACORN ordinance would accomplish this goal. City Manager's Commeat -- In the opinion of staff, most of the items that ACORN recommends for inclusion in an ordinance already are being adhered to. However, those remaining items that are not would, we believe add significantly to our operating cost without an increase in benefits to low and moderate income persons. Staff analysis of each of the proposal follows: Section 1. Annual Community Development Plan The Housing and Community Development and Planning Departments, now prepare the annual Community Development Plan. The plan specifies the projects being proposed, the area where the projects will be implemented and the benefit to low or moderate income families. Thus, Section 1 of the ACORN proposal is current practice. Section 2a -- First Draft of Plan The ACORN ordinance suggests that a first draft of the Community Development annual plan will be available through publications and public hearings. Currently, City staff prepares a staff work plan after meeting with citizen groups in the various target neighborhoods. Only after this input is received from citizens is a staff work plan prepared. These neighborhood meetings are publicized by the CITY OF FORT WORTH POLICY PROPOSAL (cont'd) PAGE_OF 5 Community Affairs Department and are announced well in advance. Survey forms are completed and good dialogue occurs at each of the meetings. The meetings also are announced by direct mailing to many citizens in the neighborhoods. The staff work plan is not printed and distributed following the first round of community meetings. Staff believes this recommendation will increase the program administrative cost and add little if anv benefit to low and moderate income Dersons. Section 2b - Second Hearimes Currently, once the first round of public meetings is held in the neighborhood a staff work plan is prepared for the second set of hearings, which also are held in the target neighborhoods. Target neighborhoods are selected by the City Council uD_ on recommendation of the staff. The second round of the public hearings is scheduled by the Planning Department and Community Development Departments in order to receive comments on the staff work rlan in order to make final revisions. Following these - revisions, a draft plan is prepared and submitted to the Comm•.n;ity DeveloDment Council. However, the new Federal regulations recuire that this draft elan be published in local newspapers and distributed in other places for Dublic comment. Section 2c - Publication of Plan The City now prepares a final plan each year, and publishes it. Conies are available in all branch libraries, in all multi-purpose centers and in City Hall. This recommendation is part of our current plan. Section 2d - Public Meetings on Implementation and Amendments City staff, through the Community Development Council, conducts a Derformance hearing. during the program year to evaluate implementation and Drogress of the Dlan. In addition, quarterly review_ of each nrogram are conducted by fiousing and Communitv Development staff to determime the value of the program and whether goals are being. achieved. These quarterly_ reports are submitted to the Comr=itv Development Council for review, and they also are reviewed by the City ?tanager's Office. The second portion of this section, we believe would be most cumbersome. The ACORN ordinance suggests that every amendment to the plan would have to follow the public hearings process set forth in Section 2a. This would mean, for example, that if a program ended its contract period with a $2,000 surplus, then a new set of hearings would have to be conducted or the proposed amendment to utilize the S2,000. Almost all programs end with a surplus of funds or a shortage of funds, and amendments are required in the plan. To send all amendments, wuich include dozens of actions throughout the program year, through the nuhlic hearing process would be cumbersome and recuire extensive staff involvement. Current amendments are acted on by the Community Development Council and the City Council. Staff believes that this practice is adequate and should not be changed. Section 2e - Public Hearings on Ten Percent Amendments Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations require Dublic hearings on any amendment which would affect the total program year allocation by more than ten percent. Under this practice, a formal hearing by the Community Development Council and City Council would continue during the next vear. Staff is not aware of any regulation changes or proposed regulation changes that would alter this process. CITY OF FORT WORTH POLICY PROPOSAL (cont'd) PAGE_Of Section 3 - Plans and Reports of Public Record All plans and reports pertaining to Community Development Block Grant programs are on file with the Department of Housing and Community Development and available for public inspection. These plans also are available at libraries and multi-purpose centers. Section 4 - Targeting Benefits to Low and Moderate Income Persons At present, Community Development Block Grant funds are targeted in low or moderate income areas. The new Special Emphasis Target Areas will continue to focus CDBG funds to low or moderate income areas. Records indicate that we have consistently exceeded 75"_ benefits to low and moderate income persons since the inception of the programs. I . Section 5 - Special Assessment Staff is not sure what this section proposes and can only comment on our current practices. So Community Block Grant funds have been used to pay s-oecial assessments which normally are made using bond funds. If it was determined that CDBG funds be used for this purpose, it would require City Council approval. Section 6 - Economic Development } Some Community Development Block Grant funds are being used for Economic Development purposes. These programs are aimed at generating long-term employment for low or moderate income persons and to assist in retaining e=loyment in target areas. The Year VIII allocation guideline for Economic Development Programs is that no more than seven percent of prozra= year funds be used for economic development activities. 'Most of the City fu ds for economiz development activities have been used to fund local Economic Development organizations. These organizations are encouraged to fund groups that will provide lonz term em loyment. Section 7 - Displacement Communitv Development Block Grant programs always are planned to minimize displacement activities. A relocation officer is funded from the General Fund to work with anv person displaced as a result of a CDBG f—Eed project. Staff believes that the Federal Uniform Relocations Act ofl97gand asamended in 197', is sufficient to cover relocations that result from the use of CDS'S funds. Summary The City is in the process of refining its citizen particip-ation plan. This plan is now before the Community Development Council for action and incorporates a number of citizen participation measures. The above comments are linked to the existing citizen participation plan. We believe that the City's current citizen participation process is adequate and meets, and exceeds in many cases, the Federal requirements and local requirements for citizen participation. Because it is not possible to predict the additional cost these recommended changes will impose on CDBG funds, staff strongly recommends that the City Council not adopt the proposed ordinance submitted by ACORN. CITY Of FORT WORTH POLICY PROPOSAL (cont'd) PAGE 5 CIF s Fiscal Note: It is not practicable to estimate the additional cost of these proposed changes. Legal Concurs with City Manager's staff analysis. Lou s Zapata ilman District 2 CITY OF FORT WORTH