Laserfiche WebLink
34 <br /> <br />improve neighborhoods. <br /> <br /> Mr. Herman Key, representing the CDBG Task Force, stated <br />that the Task Force felt that designating a neighborhood <br />discouraged participation by the other neighborhoods and the <br />Task Force would prefer that all six target neighborhoods be <br />encouraged to participate. Mr. Key added that the Task Force <br />felt it was important to fund the staff position in Community <br />Development because the person would be a valuable liaison <br />with the public. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Rev. Edwards about ways to <br />increase neighborhood participation, Mr. Key stated that <br />conducting a survey of what people felt was important was <br />discussed as well as funding the staff person. <br /> <br /> As there were no other speakers the public hearing was <br />closed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters noted that a staff report was due about <br />continuing the priority neighborhood designation. Ms. Waters <br />stated that she was reluctant to let go of the priority <br />neighborhood designation and felt it was harder to see the <br />impact if the funds are spread among several neighborhoods. <br />Ms. Waters supported giving the CDBG Task Force the option of <br />using up to 15% of the funds for social programs and added <br />that she would hate to let existing programs go in favor of <br />using the CDBG funds as seed money for new programs since the <br />City may not be able to fund existing programs out of the <br />General Fund. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she favored the priority <br />neighborhood programs and recommended having more flexibility <br />without abandoning the idea altogether such as spending a <br />shorter period of time in one neighborhood or designating two <br />neighborhoods. Ms. Slaughter stated that she would support <br />15% for social programs, with a focus on children and youth. <br />Ms. Slaughter noted that the North Downtown Residents <br />Association had successfully used U. Va. planning students to <br />conduct a survey of neighborhood needs and consideration <br />might be given to using this approach for the CDBG target <br />neighborhoods. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he was also concerned about <br />abandoning the neighborhood priority designation. Mr. <br />Vandever recommended involving all City departments in the <br />CDBG process and having the CDBG Task Force make a <br />recommendation on the best use for 100% of the money, using <br />either none or up to 15% of the funds for social programs. <br />Mr. Vandever stated that he was not prepared to recommend <br />focusing on children and youth at this time. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards stated that he would support the children <br />and youth focus and was not ready to abandon the priority <br />neighborhood designation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano recommended that Council give further <br />thought on the priority neighborhood designation issue, did <br />not support necessarily designating 15% for social programs, <br />and agreed that there needed to be a strong rationale for <br />supporting new programs over successful existing ones. Mr. <br />Toscano stated that he would support the focus on children <br />and youth if it was for a program which helps children <br />develop. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that in staff's opinion work still <br />needs to be done in the Fifeville neighborhoods and he felt <br />that having a priority neighborhood gives citizens an <br />opportunity to significantly improve the took of their <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter suggested a phase-out of Fifeville and <br />phase-in into another neighborhood approach be considered and <br /> <br /> <br />