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