Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/01/12-Minutes-HEDCCITY OF FORT WORTH ® CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Present: Committee Member Jungus Jordan, Chairman Committee Member Carter Burdette, Vice Chairman (Arrived at 1:05 p.m.) Committee Member Mike Moncrief Committee Member Salvador Espino Committee Member W. B. "Zim" Zimmerman Committee Member Danny Scarth Committee Member Frank Moss (Arrive at 1:05 p.m.) Committee Member Kathleen Hicks Committee Member Joel Burns City Staff: Tom Higgins, Assistant City Manager Peter Vaky, Assistant City Attorney Ron Gonzales, Assistant City Secretary Jay Chapa, Director, Housing and Economic Development Department 40 Cynthia Garcia, Assistant Director, Housing and Economic Development Department Other City Staff in Attendance: LeAnn Guzman, Assistant City Attorney Mark Folden, Housing Program Manager, Housing and Economic Development Department Dolores Garza, Economic Development Specialist, Housing and Economic Development Department Robert Stums, Economic Development Manager, Housing and Economic Development Department Robin Bentley, Real Property Coordinator, Housing and Economic Development Department Guy Brown, Economic Development Coordinator, Housing and Economic Development Department Andrew Rhodes, Economic Development Specialist, Housing and Economic Development Department With a quorum of the Committee Members present, Chairman Jungus Jordan called the meeting of the Housing and Economic Development Committee to order at 1:03 p.m., on Tuesday, January 12, 2010, in the Pre - Council Chamber of the Fort Worth Municipal Building, 1000 Throckmorton, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, with Committee Members Moss and Burdette temporarily absent. • CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 2 of 17 Approval of Minutes of the November 3, 2010, Housing and Economic Development Committee (Agenda Item 2) Chairman Jordan opened the floor for a motion on the approval of the minutes. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Committee Member Moncrief and seconded by Committee Member Espino, the Committee Members voted seven (7) and zero (0) "nays ", with Committee Members Moss and Burdette temporarily absent, to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2009, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Jordan adjourned the called — special meeting of the Housing and Economic Development Committee into Executive Session at 1:04 p.m. in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Open Meeting Act. Executive Session (Agenda Item 3) Chairman Jordan called to order the Executive Session at 1:04 p.m. in order to discuss the following items: (Committee Members Moss and Burdette arrived at the meeting.) A. Seek the advice of its attorneys concerning the following items that are exempt from public disclosure under Article X, Section 9 of the Texas State Bar Rules, as authorized by Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code: (i) legal issues related to any current agenda items; B. Discuss the purchase, sale, lease or value of real property, as authorized by Section 551.072 of the Texas Government Code. Deliberation in an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the position of the City in negotiations with a third party; and, C. Discuss or deliberate negotiations relating to any economic development negotiations, as authorized by Section 551.087 of the Texas Government Code. Chairman Jordan adjourned the Executive Session at 1:14 p.m. Chairman Jordan reconvened the called — special session of the Housing and Economic Development Committee at 1:14 p.m. CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL is HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 3 of 17 Review of the Neighborhood Empowerment Zone and Boundary Adjustments (Agenda Item 4) Ms. Cynthia Garcia, Assistant Director, Housing and Economic Development Department, spoke before the Committee and stated she would provide a Neighborhood Empowerment Zone (NEZ) Analysis that would cover the following areas: • NEZ Overview • NEZ Profiles • Current Concerns Regarding the NEZs • Next Steps Ms. Garcia presented the NEZ Overview and advised of the following: • Authority to Create NEZs Granted Under Chapter 378 of the Texas Local Government Code: o NEZ Must Promote is- The creation of affordable housing in the zone - An increase in economic development in the zone - An increase in quality of social services, education or public safety; or - The rehabilitation of affordable housing in the zone • First NEZ Established in 2001 (Stop Six) Ms. Garcia advised that the creation of an NEZ depended on the following criteria: • Population or Size • The population can be no more than 6,000 or • No larger than 1.5 square miles • Must be at Lease 75% CDBG Eligible or 50% Within the Central City • Must Meet Criteria for a Reinvestment Zone o (Tax Code §312.202) • Must Have Housing and Economic Development Opportunities • If it Has an Urban Village as Specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Village Must be Zoned Mixed Use Ms. Garcia stated that NEZs could be created by two methods: • Council Designation Council Proposal it'appro%ed CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 4 of 17 Review of the Neighborhood Empowerment Zone and Boundary Adiustments (cont'd) (Agenda Item 4) o M &C to designate • Applications Filed By Eligible Applicants • Neighborhood organizations /sponsoring organization operating in the proposed NEZ area • Plan for the area • Applications reviewed by various staff • If in compliance, can be submitted to Council for recommendation Ms. Garcia advised the Committee of various incentives offered in the NEZ as: • Tax Abatements • Fee Waivers • Development Fees • Impact Fees 100% of water and waste water for single family and multi - family - Commercial Development — varies depending on size • Lien Releases • Weed Liens • Demolition Liens — up to $30,000.00 • Paving Liens • Board up Liens Ms. Garcia stated that there were 17 Neighborhood Empowerment Zones and showed a colored map that denoted the locations of the NEZs. She also provided a chart of the NEZs that reflected the date they were created, their size, population and respective expiration dates. She also provided a separate slide on each of the NEZs that depicted a map of their respective location, when it was created, its adjusted size and its increase in value since adoption. She advised that there were areas that were vacant and even one development would significantly increase the value of that area as noted in the Rolling Hills NEZ where the value had increased 270 percent. Ms. Garcia stated that there had been a question as to whether some of the NEZs had already served their purpose. She added that the question was how to monitor this to determine whether the NEZs had served their purpose or not. She advised that staff set a benchmark of all the land within the Central City and that which was outside the NEZ to see if it was more valuable to be inside the NEZ or outside the NEZ. She then showed a slide that retected a CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 5 of 17 Review of the Neighborhood Empowerment Zone and Boundary Adiustments (cont'd) (Agenda Item 4) comparative analysis of the NEZs. She explained that staff looked at all the NEZs and compared them to their value per square mile because of the different size of each NEZ. She pointed out four NEZs that were highlighted which indicated that those NEZs were two times the value of the staff's benchmark; that benchmark being inside Highway 820 but outside of the NEZ with the land value at 100 percent. She clarified that it was two times more valuable to be in these NEZs than outside the NEZs and added that it appeared that they had began to attract development and maybe they had served their purpose or their boundaries had to be adjusted. Ms. Garcia advised of the next steps for the NEZs as recommended by staff: • Perform Further Analysis on Selected NEZs to Identify Trends • Analyze Locations for Transit Oriented Development Sites for Possible NEZ Designation • Reconfigure NEZ Boundaries to Meet Changing Needs of the NEZ • Terminate or Allow NEZ to Expire on Renewal Date Ms. Garcia concluded by drawing attention to the last slide in her presentation which depicted a map of the proposed Magnolia NEZ boundary. She reiterated that the Magnolia NEZ had a current land value of 240.5 percent and explained that staff would like to remove a northern portion of this NEZ that was in the Medical District and add a portion down south to Hemphill to push retail and commercial development on Hemphill to attract more development in that area. She added that staff would also like to do this type of readjustment for the remainder of the NEZs. Committee Member Espino requested that Ms. Garcia return to the first map that depicted the locations of the 17 NEZs. He stated that north of downtown there was a huge gap, specifically on the Far Greater Northside, Diamond Hill and other parts of Riverside where there were no NEZs and added that he would like to meet with staff to look at a NEZ in District 2 and in the Riverside area that encompassed District 2 and District 4 to encourage development in those areas. Committee Member Hicks suggested that staff also look in the Riverside area in District 8 off SH 121 to see if stakeholders in that area had some interest in promoting that synergy between the Districts. Committee Member Moncrief pointed out that not one of the NEZs was operating at a loss: all were growing. He added that it was a good idea to take a long look at what was being CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 6 of 17 Review of the Neighborhood Empowerment Zone and Boundary Adjustments (cont'd) (Agenda Item 4) proposed by Committee Member Burns in his NEZ and seeing how the growth could be redirected without taking something out that would negatively impact the NEZ as a result. He added that he was pleased to see how the NEZs were performing but pointed out that he did not know if there could be too many NEZs or if the number could be expanded without endangering what had already been achieved; that a balance needed to be determined. Committee Member Burns stated that one of the reasons the boundaries of the Magnolia NEZ were changed was in part that there had already been a critical mass of redevelopment happening behind Plaza Medical Center. He added that he encouraged staff to work with him to pull the boundary south along the Hemphill Corridor and thereby shifting development to the south to potentially help that area that needed it more. He further stated that in that vain, that he agreed with Committee Member Espino that this was a question of equity and that more NEZs were needed north of the downtown. He added this was a Center City redevelopment tool and the north side was just as much part of the Center City as the south side and that more NEZs were needed on the north and northeast side of downtown. Committee Member Hicks pointed out that the NEZs had worked and added that she did not know if the NEZs were not in place if the City would have been able to promote development in these hard to reach areas. She added that the information presented by Ms. Garcia needed to be on the Housing and Economic Development Department website as she thought it would be a really good idea to show citizens that the NEZs had worked. She further stated that in many of the NEZs were small businesses that really had seen a positive turnaround. Committee Member Moss agreed that the NEZs were working well and stated that in some of the NEZs there were some other strategies that needed to be implemented to start moving them forward, e.g., land banking, and that the economic downturn had impacted a lot of the development that was happening in several NEZs in his district. He added that once the economy turned around, the City would see more construction as there were various projects in place that were ready to be developed. Chairman Jordan stated that this information had been very helpful and in staff s action steps there would be analysis of Transit Oriented Development opportunities such as the potential of land banking mentioned by Committee Member Moss. He also questioned if there was a point at which NEZs would transition from an NEZ to a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIF). U r� u CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 7 of 17 Review of the Neighborhood Empowerment Zone and Boundary Adjustments (cont'd) (Agenda Item 4) Committee Member Moss stated that one other thing that would be very helpful would be to start looking at the amount of projects that had been put in place versus what kind of incentives that had been attributed as far as waiving fees and also looking at the actual tax abatement to determine the results of the investment. Assistant City Manager Tom Higgins requested that Jay Chapa, Director of the Housing and Economic Development Department, introduce new members of his staff who had been hired since the November 3, 2009, meeting. Mr. Chapa introduced the following staff members: Guy Brown, Economic Development Coordinator Andrew Rhodes, Economic Development Specialist Robert Sturns, Economic Development Manager Ana Alvarado, Economic Development Specialist Leticia Hurtado, Development Project Coordinator Sherie Goin, Economic Development Coordinator Robin Bentley, Real Property Coordinator This concluded the presentation and discussion on this agenda item. Overview of Federal Funding Process and Prioritization (Agenda Item 5) Mr. Jay Chapa, Director of Housing and Economic Development, prefaced his remarks with a brief summary of what the overview would encompass as reflected below: • Financial Update of HUD Findings • Consolidated Plan Overview o Funding Priorities • Action Plan — CDBG Funding • Eligible Uses of CDBG Funds • CDBG 2009 Budget Breakdown • Continued Projects for 2010-2011 • Requested Projects for 2010-2011 • Project Prioritization CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL ® HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 8 of 17 Overview of Federal Funding Process and Prioritization (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) Mr. Chapa explained the Financial Update for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 as follows: • Reimbursed to date: $1,433.439.00 • Pending reimbursement: $ 246,291.00 • Substitute funding to close findings: $ 282,000.00 • Cleared through documentation: $1,978,666.00 • Reimbursements not required: $2,487.796.00 • Projects still being worked out $7.2 million • Next step — M &Cs to appropriate funds to complete reimbursements ($126,055.00) and /or substitute funding ($282,000.00) to close findings o ($1.55 million originally deposited in escrow) Mr. Chapa continued his presentation with an overview of the Consolidated Plan: • The Plan Summarizes: • Housing and community development needs, particularly of low- income households • The goals, objectives and strategies to address these needs • Plan Consists of Two Parts: • The Long -Term Strategic Plan (3 years) • Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD which includes projects and expenditure of funds. Mr. Chapa provided a summary of the Consolidated Plan Statutory Goals and followed the summary with a short explanation of each objective under these goals as follows: • Objective 1: Decent Housing • Assisting Homeless Persons and Persons at Risk of Becoming Homeless Obtain Affordable Housing • Retaining the Affordable Housing Stock • Increasing the Availability of Permanent Housing in Standard Condition to Low - Income and Moderate - Income Families • Providing Affordable Housing That is Accessible to Job Opportunities • Increase Supply of Supportive Housing to Enable Persons With Special Needs to Live in Dignity and Independence CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL is HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 9 of 17 Overview of Federal Funding Process and Prioritization (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) • Objective 2: A Stable Living Environment • Improving the Safety and Livability of Neighborhoods • Eliminating Blighting Influences and the Deterioration of Property and Facilities • Increasing Access to Quality Public and Private Facilities and Services • Reducing the Isolation of Income Groups Within Areas Through Spatial Deconcentration of Housing Opportunities for Lower - Income Persons and the Revitalization of Deteriorating Neighborhoods • Objective 3: Expanded Economic Opportunities • Job Creation and Retention • Establishment, Stabilization and Expansion of Small Businesses • The Provision of Public Services Concerned with Employment • Availability of Mortgage Financing for Low - Income Persons at Reasonable Rates Using Non - Discriminatory Lending Practices • Access to Capital and Credit for Development Activities That Promote the Long -Term Economic Viability of a Community Mr. Chapa presented a slide that reflected a schedule of public meetings relative to the Consolidated Plan and stated that staff tried to focus on areas that would capture the bulk of the inner City and those areas of the City that met the CDBG numbers and property numbers to receive feedback from the community. The schedule was as follows: Event Date Public Input Meeting #1 — Riverside Community Center January 4, 2010 Public Input Meeting #2 — Texas Wesleyan University January 20, 2010 Public Input Meeting #3 — Greenbriar Community Center January 28, 2010 Public Input Meeting #4 — R.D. Evans Community Center February 4, 2010 Public Hearing #5 — Present to CDC — City Hall February 10, 2010 Comment Period Begins /Ends March 9 to April 8, 2010 Council Reviews Consolidated Plan — City Hall April 6, 2010 City Council Approval of Consolidated Plan April 13, 2010 Consolidate Plan Submitted to HUD April 15, 2010 Mr. Chapa presented the Action Plan regarding CDBG Funding and added that the entitlement funding had to meet at least one national objective as indicated: CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 10 of 17 Overview of Federal Funding Process and Prioritization (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) • Benefit to Low - Moderate Income o Residential area with at least 51 % low- moderate income population o Direct benefit to low - moderate income persons 0 70% of grant funds must meet this first criteria • Elimination of Slum & Blight • Area basis (designated by state /local law) • Spot basis (specific condition/structure) • Urgent Need • Immediate threat to health & welfare • No other local funding source Mr. Chapa transitioned to two slides that contained information on the Eligible and Ineligible Uses of CDBG Funds: • CDBG: Eligible Uses of Funds • Property Acquisition & Disposition • Public Facilities & Improvements ■ Infrastructure /Community Centers /Parks • Demolition/Clearance • Rehabilitation of Housing • Historic Preservation • Public Services for Low - Moderate Income Populations • Housing Services to Support HOME Grant Funded Programs • Homeownership Assistance • Code Enforcement • Economic Development • Must produce a public benefit, job creation or retail services, to a low- moderate income neighborhood • Ex. Acquisition / Construction /Rehabilitation/Installation of business equipment or improvements • Relocation Associated with CDBG Activities ■ For households or businesses • Grant Matching Funds or Technical Assistance Associated with CDBG- funded Activities • Neighborhood Revitalization or Economic Development Activities of Community Based Development Organizations (CBDOs) Planning & Administration of the Grant CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 11 of 17 Overview of Federal Funding Process and Prioritization (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) • CDBG: Ineligible Uses of Funds • General Conduct of Government • Political or Religious Activity • New Housing Construction (Except for CBDOs) • Operating or Maintenance Expenses of Public Facilities, Improvements or Services • Purchase of Equipment and Furnishings Mr. Chapa reiterated that any activity that was not listed as "eligible" was "ineligible ". Mr. Chapa's next slide depicted a pie chart relative to the 2009 -10 Entitlement Grant of $6,744,285.00 and indicated how the funds had been distributed among various entities. He then provided a slide that reflected a percentage breakdown among the same agencies. Mr. Chapa's next series of slides pertained to the 2009 -10 Budget Summary for CDBG funding, projects that were identified for existing funds, CDBG continued projects for 2010 -2011 and funding requests for possible projects in 2010 -2011. Mr. Chapa provided a slide regarding project prioritization that reflected the following information: • Rehab of Housing • Roofing Program/Rehab of Housing • Emergency Repair • Historic Preservation • Community Facilities • Swimming Pools /Splash Pads • Park Acquisition • Recreational Facilities • Infrastructure o Streets /Sidewalks /Lights He stated that the purpose of this slide was to obtain needed feedback from the Council regarding this prioritization and if there was a program that had a higher priority than one of the others. He added that the feedback would assist the staff with moving forward with a recommendation to the Council that would have the most significant impact. • CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL ® HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 12 of 17 Overview of Federal Funding Process and Prioritization (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) Mr. Chapa advised that if the Council provided staff with the ability to make a recommendation based on available dollars, the staff would recommend the institution of a City- wide roof repair program for low - income residents and to increase the income eligibility from 31 percent to 50 percent for the Emergency Repair Program. He then repeated information contained in the Action Plan Schedule and stated that staff would like to receive feedback from the Council for the longer term on the current programs and if they should be altered, changed, etc. Committee Member Moncrief asked Mr. Chapa if the City had a better working relationship with HUD to which Mr. Chapa responded affirmatively. Committee Member Moncrief asked if part of that was the City making an extra effort, whether the project was large or small, to try and get back on track with HUD. Mr. Chapa stated that making the extra effort was part of it and another part was really putting into place processes that HUD saw would preclude past issues from resurfacing. He added that the staff had made a lot of headway in the department and in the department's overall processes to get things in order so HUD could understand the current process. He pointed out that the City was not completely out of the woods and added that staff visited Harris County who had similar issues a few years back and it took Harris County five years to close all the findings. Mr. Chapa stated that he thought it would take the City of Fort Worth a lot less than five years to recover. Committee Member Moncrief commended the staff on their achievements thus far and added that the City had a ways to go. He referred to staff recommendations on receiving feedback from the Council regarding the institution of a City -wide Roof Repair Program or Emergency Repair Program and stated he did not know if it was a question of either /or; that maybe there was a way to do both if there was sufficient revenue or a way to at least start both programs and then see which one was working; that made more sense. Mr. Chapa responded that staff recommended both methods. Committee Member Hicks stated that it was very clear why it was so important that the City ensure that citizens were counted because these dollars would become more important. She added that in social compact the City had seen in just the few areas southeast and east Fort Worth that several citizens were overlooked. She referred to slide 17 and asked how many employees were covered under the General Administration area, if that covered their salaries and if the 13 percent was normal for the S 1.3 million. Mr. Chapa stated that it was normal and that General Administration had a 20 percent cap and that the amount was typical relative to salaries, benefits, etc. Committee Member Hicks asked how many of the department's staff was covered under this item to which Mr. Chapa responded approximately 65 employees out of a total of 103 CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 13 of 17 Overview of Federal Funding Process and Prioritization (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) employees. Committee Member Hicks noted that over half of the employees in the Housing and Economic Development Department were paid using federal funds and Mr. Chapa stated that the department had approximately 30 General Fund employees. Chairman Jordan noted that slides 17 and 18 had different entitlement percentages reflected relative to the General Administration entry. Ms. Garcia clarified that both entries should have reflected entitlement at 20 percent. Committee Member Hicks stated that it would be good to receive a further breakdown of the annual budget and added that she could not remember how much funding the department received from the General Fund. Mr. Chapa responded that for the housing programs the department received a little less than $400,000.00 from the General Fund for employees that worked on federal programs. Committee Member Hicks inquired if there was any way to bring the 20 percent down, perhaps as a long -term goal. Mr. Chapa stated that staff was working to isreduce that percentage through various initiatives. Committee Member Hicks advised that she supported staff's recommendation on City- wide assistance and for increasing the eligibility from 31 % to 50 %. She added that there had been concern about the closing of the swimming pools and splash pads and asked that staff look at grant opportunities above and beyond to see how the City could connect with other organizations on this issue. She further stated that infrastructure was a concern especially in very low income areas where lighting was not just about aesthetics but also about safety. She added that the roof repair program was critical but that emergency repair of housing was even more critical. She asked that staff continue to look at the splash pad issue as there was no splash pad on the north side of the City and pointed out that the splash pad on the east side of the City at Riverside had been very successful. Committee Member Espino referred to slide 18 that reflected a breakdown of the annual CDBG budget. He pointed out that the percentage on Economic Development had gradually reduced and asked if that, given some of the issues the City had experienced with economic development particularly with the Mercado project and the old Evans and Rosedale Plaza project, if it was really the best allocation of resources for CDBG dollars. Mr. Chapa stated that that unfortunately the Economic Development line item was not discretionary at all as the City had to pay the debt on Section 108 loans and CDBG dollars were used for that purpose. He added that if the dollars were moved elsewhere the debt would have to paid from General Fund resources to repay HUD. • CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 14 of 17 Overview of Federal Funding Process and Prioritization (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) Committee Member Espino stated that he supported staff's recommendation for moving forward with the funds for the City -wide roof repair program and emergency repair program. He added that relative to the prioritization of CDBG dollars, that the continuation of the rehabilitation of housing was important. He referred to discussion of a bond program and stated that perhaps it was time to consider a bond proposition on swimming pools and splash pads, but agreed that some CDBG dollars should be made available for community facilities. He pointed out that that he was also interested in park acquisition and urban green space as some parts of the community did not have enough parks. He added that perhaps this was an area that the Parks and Community Services Department could address in particular where Fort Worth ranked in terms of parks and green space in comparison to other cities. Committee Member Scarth referred to slide 11 relative to public meetings on the Consolidated Plan and asked Mr. Chapa how the meetings were publicized and what stakeholder groups had been invited. Mr. Chapa stated that the meetings were publicized through the is newspaper and stated that staff could do an overall e -mail blast to the respective neighborhood associations. He pointed out that staff had followed the requirements under federal law for publicizing the meetings. Committee Member Scarth advised that the Bonnie Brae area, Riverside Community Center and Carter- Riverside area were not as well connected with e -mail notification and Mr. Chapa stated that staff would work with the Community Relations Department to determine the best method to notify the neighborhoods. Committee Member Scarth also gave his support of the roof repair and emergency repair programs to assist the neighborhoods from slipping into disrepair and added that by raising the income eligibility from 31 % to 50% the benefit would reach more neighborhoods. Committee Member Burns voiced his support for the roof repair program and pointed out how a very modest investment could save a large expenditure in terms of all kinds of additional needed repairs. He added that the analogy could also be used on the repair of streets where a small investment could prevent a much larger expenditure in the future. Committee Member Moss also supported the expenditure of funds for emergency repairs and the roof program. He added that historic preservation was listed as an eligible use of CDBG funds and stated that there were several low - income level areas in his district that had also historic overlays and some of the costs involved was a real problem. He asked Mr. Chapa how he would approach this issue. Mr. Chapa stated that historic preservation was not one of the areas recommended by staff because of the limitation of funds; however, staff did want feedback as staff went forward on the Consolidated Plan on how to incorporate some of the other items that Council felt were a priority. CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 15 of 17 Overview of Federal Funding Process and Prioritization (cont'd) (Agenda Item 5) Committee Member Moss referred to the General Administration costs and the presentation on the NEZs. He stated that for a long time the Housing Department had added new functions and new activities and did not fund those; that those projects were implemented from unfunded sources. He added that even though there was 20% administration cap, there were a lot of programs that had been placed on housing that were not funded that the Housing and Economic Development Department had inherited. Committee Member Moncrief referred to the concerns that rose earlier about the notification of the public meetings and stated that the meeting held tonight would be a good opportunity to notify attendees. Mr. Chapa stated that staff would come back to the Council with a report sometime in the summer that would provide recommendations on the overall program and how it impacted administration of the program. Committee Member Burns advised that in the conversations conducted relative to Rosemont Park, there was a strong desire for additional urban park space in the City and not just on the south side but all over the City. He added that it was tough because the acquisition costs were so high but he thought it was a priority for the citizens who placed the Council in office. Chairman Jordan pointed out that 2009 was a recessionary period for economic development and that this was the only economic development coming out of CDBG funding. Committee Member Hicks cautioned the Council that while there had been issues in a number of areas that it did not mean there should be apprehension to go back into the north side, to work around the Mercado for instance, where it appeared it was totally full. She added that the City was finally getting private economic development in the Evans and Rosedale area and past issues should not stop the City from doing what needed to be done. She further stated that if it had not been for a federal grant across the street from Texas Wesleyan University, that economic development piece would never have happened. This concluded the presentation and discussion on this agenda item. Request for Future Agenda Items (Agenda Item 6) Chairman Jordan advised that he had asked the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce to come back to the Housing and Economic Development Committee to give an overview of all the great things going on in the City, e.g., exposure from the Super Bowl. He commended the Economic and Housing Devclopment staff for their work. CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL ® HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 16 of 17 Request for Future Ap-enda Items (cont'd) (Agenda Item 6) Committee Member Hicks stated that a report from the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce would be great and asked that they talk to not only City staff but also the Black and Hispanic Chambers about other efforts going on throughout the City, not just the downtown area. She added that as a future agenda item, she had met with staff relative to City -owned properties that the City was trying to sell. She stated that in the last budget process the conclusion was that the City needed to sell these properties to help the General Fund. However, she was concerned about unintended consequences especially about the appearance of the properties and asked that the Planning and Development Department work with the Housing and Economic Development Department to avoid the modern day shotgun houses seen in other parts of the City. This concluded the discussion on this agenda item. Date of Next Regular Meeting — February 2, , 2010 (Agenda Item 7) Chairman Jordan advised that the next regular meeting of the Housing and Economic Development Committee would be held on February 2, 2010. Adjourn (Agenda Item 8) With no further presentations or discussions, Chairman Jordan adjourned the regular meeting of the Housing and Economic Development Committee at 2:17 p.m., on Tuesday, January 12, 2010. These minutes approved by the Housing and Economic Development Committee on the 2nd day of February, 2010. Minutes Prepared by and Attest: • APPROVED: 4Juus rrdaCn, airman CITY OF FORT WORTH — CITY COUNCIL ® HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 12, 2010 Page 17 of 17 ,t4?G-)�'Axt- Ronald P. Gonzales, s stant City Secretary 0