2004-08-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

37 administration and planning; and providing any other guidelines or directions Council may wish. The public hearing was opened, but as there were no speakers, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Hamilton asked what the thinking was behind not recommending a priority neighborhood. Ms. Creasy said that when Councilors last discussed the CDBG program, they said that since all target neighborhoods have received funding perhaps there would be another priority for the $200,000. Ms. Hamilton asked what criteria is used to determine target neighborhoods, and Ms. Creasy said funding has been provided to target neighborhoods on a rotating basis. Mr. Schilling said he favors the proposal since attention has been given to each neighborhood. He said this will give flexibility to the Task Force to see what needs to be addressed city wide. Mr. Lynch said he supports the current priorities, and Mr. Schilling concurred. Mr. Caravati said he would like to include "rehabilitate substandard renter- occupied homes and multi-family units" in the priorities. Mr. Lynch said that funding for Friendship court is an example of the type of rental rehabilitation he would support, and would support adding that as a priority as long as the rehabilitation is done on that sort of scale. He said he is not interested in providing funding for private landlords. Ms. Hamilton asked if there are any HUD restrictions on rental rehabilitation, and Ms. Creasy said no, it is an eligible program. Mr. Caravati said he will not support doing away with funding for target neighborhoods. He said funding is much needed in the Fifeville and Ridge Street neighborhoods, and suggested that Ridge Street be designated as the target neighborhood for the next three years, in part due to the housing proposed to be built there. He said this will help retain and enhance the stability of the neighborhood. Ms. Hamilton said that based on her experience with funding for target neighborhoods, she feels that three years is just enough time for a neighborhood to get started. She said she agrees with Mr. Caravati. Mr. Caravati expressed concern about funding Weed and Seed salaries with CDBG funding, and said he would like to think that through a little more. He said if we want to continue Weed and Seed we need to look at how it might be structured. Mr. Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services, said that the Justice Department requires that the City pick up the administrative costs of the Weed and Seed program, but funds are not available in the general fund. He said a commitment of this funding needs to be made now as it has to be included in the application for Weed and Seed funding. Mr. Caravati said he retains his reservation and said he would like to try to find money elsewhere to reduce the commitment of CDBG funds. Mr. Caravati made a motion to: maintain the current priorities with the addition of rental rehabilitation; retain a priority neighborhood and designate Ridge Street; provide 15% for social programs, minus funding for Weed and Seed, subject to review in the budget cycle; and maintain current funding for administration and planning. Ms. Hamilton seconded the motion.