Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-17 Personnel and Finance h U C W PEACE 14*1a� 1865 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER,CITY CLERK PERSONNEL &FINANCE JULY 24, 2017 3:58 P.M. Committee Members Present: Karen White, Regina Williams-Preston, John Voorde, Gavin Ferlic (late) Committee Members Absent: None Other Council Present: Dr. David Varner, Jo M. Broden, Randy Kelly, Tim Scott (late), Oliver Davis (late), Other Council Absent: None Others Present: Kareemah Fowler, Graham Sparks, Bob Palmer Presenters: John Murphy, Aaron Perri, James Mueller Agenda: Bill No. 42-17- Regional Cities Allocation Bill No. 44-17-Housing Study Appropriation Committee Chair Karen White called to order the Personnel and Finance Committee meeting at 3:58 p.m. She introduced members of the committee and proceeded to give the floor to the presenters of the legislation. Bill No. 42-17- Regional Cities Allocation John Murphy, Department of Administration and Finance with offices on the 12' floor of the County-City Building, stated, This is an additional appropriation of$5 million from the Regional Cities Grant for the improvements at Howard Park. The grant has already been approved. We set up new accounts in the Parks & Rec Fund (#201) to keep track of the grant so that it won't be intermingled with any property tax revenue. The accounting is pretty simple. The project begins later this Fall and plans to be completed in 2018. This is an additional appropriation that is fully funded by the grant. Aaron Perri, Executive Director of Venues Parks &Arts with offices at 321 E Walter Street, stated,As discussed previously,this is part of the Riverfront Parks &Trails framework. The Park Board officially accepted that framework at its meeting last week. The State recently made available the Regional Cities funds. The funds will encompass the construction of the new ice- 455 County-City Building•227 W.Jefferson Boulevard•South Bend,Indiana 46601 Phone 574-235-9221 •Fax 574-235-9173-TDD 574-235-5567-www.SouthBendIN.gov JENNIFER M.COFFMAN ALKEYNA M.ALDRIDGE JOSEPH MOLNAR CHIEF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK OPERATIONS skating rink, Community Center, splash plaza, the ecological area and the rest of the redefinition of Howard Park. Those plans reside for public viewing at riverfrontparksandtrails.com. Committee Chair White asked, So in terms of the Regional Cities monies, this was the intended use for these dollars? Mr. Perri confirmed, That is correct. We applied for the funds via the B1ueWays Project initiative. Committee Chair White then opened the floor to questions for the presenter from the Committee and Councilmembers. Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked, Was this the complete appropriation of the Regional Cities money? Mr. Perri replied, Yes, it was $5 million in its entirety. Councilmember Dr. Varner followed up, What was the other$2 million for? Mr. Perri replied, The City of South Bend was only awarded$5 million as part of the grant, and there was other monies collected through private organizations and partnerships equaling roughly$2.5 million. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, The proposal for the Regional Cities only focuses on Howard Park? Mr. Perri replied, It encompasses more than just that. It funds the proposal of the B1ueWays Project that also encompasses Seitz Park, East Bank Flats, the TRANSPO Housing Development and other things that are required by the grant. Primarily Seitz Park and Howard Park are addressed with these funds. Councilmember Tim Scott arrived at the meeting at 4:02 p.m. Councilmember Broden followed up, What about the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians dollars? I apologize for not coming prepared and having not looked at the Park Bond. Mr. Perri replied, I can outline it all and deliver that all in a nice presentation soon, as it is all still unfolding. Specifically, as it relates to Howard Park, $5 million is from the Regional Cities appropriation,plus the additional $1.5 million of River East TIF dollars as well as the $2.25 million that had been committed by the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians. That was a partnership agreement that will primarily fund the bulk of the Howard Park projects. Howard Park will cost about $10 million in total. Committee Chair White then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. There were none. She then turned the floor back to the Committee for further comments or main motions. 2 Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 42-17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried unanimously by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. Bill No. 44-17-Housing Study Appropriation Mr. Murphy stated, This is an appropriation of$77,000 for the Housing Market study. It is from the Community Investment Operating Fund. It is not a TIF Fund or anything of that nature. Over the years we have budgeted the operating fund by the balance of the annual expenditures for the Department. The Department has done a good job not always spending all their money every year so we are able to cover this $70,000 out of the Operating Fund. James Mueller, Executive Director of Community Investment with offices on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated,As we discussed two (2) weeks ago, we went over the very broad overview of the various activities as well as where we are in our Housing Fund with respect to each of the Federal, State and Local Funds. Also,there are efforts already underway to figure out how to direct those monies more effectively and where in the community they impact the most. At this point,there is a fair amount of consensus around the need for the market study. There are some remaining questions about what supplementary activities would be helpful. The Administration shares those questions about what would be helpful and is certainly open to doing those types of things. The Administration seeks a plan of demonstrated value and, if we do use City funds for these efforts, it would have to be a contract with performance metrics and move through the Board of Public Works. We are open to it, but we haven't been able to wrap our heads around how to get that to work the best. Committee Chair White opened the floor to questions for the presenter from the Committee and Councilmembers. Committeemember Regina Williams-Preston asked, Why was $100,000 initially proposed and now it is $70,000? Have you received offers or estimates? How has the study become more robust with regard to the engagement of the people that will be most impacted by it? Mr. Mueller replied, The original $100,000 proposal was initially drafted without having any scope or figure from any consulting firm at that point. We put it there knowing we could always come down from that number and spend less. When we re-filed, after it was taken out of the Quarter Two (2) appropriations, we had a conversation with a consultant so we made that number$70,000. Since then, we think with the expanded scope, we think we can do it for $50,000. Both the $100,000 and$70,000 were extra,not knowing what the exact number would be. In terms of community engagement, like I said,the Administration is always open to that. We haven't yet figured out how that would work with all the other things moving in the Administration, but we would want to see a few more details of how exactly those pieces would work. Furthermore, as John mentioned,this is the Operating Fund of DCI. Councilmember Broden asked, So the 2014 study on the Westside Corridor, that was done in 2014? 3 Mr. Mueller confirmed, Yes, that was done in 2014. Councilmember Broden followed up, I also understand there were target areas? I assume that is an overlap? So what are we trying to find out in this proposed study that is different from that previous study? What's the intention here? There are the Downtown and the Westside Corridor studies, are those the two (2)that are in play right now? Mr. Mueller stated, We have created new impact areas that coincided with the one hundred (100) houses group and our team agreed upon the areas. After our meeting two (2) weeks ago, there were questions about expanding that area south of downtown. We want to know where the market is in these areas to figure out many things. One (1) of the things we hope to figure out is where the best investment could be both from the private market and the areas where the City could intervene to help push the market. The study is definitely broader and has expanded since the onset of the discussion, given the feedback we have received. We will start with the whole City market assessment and then start honing in on potential impact areas. The other issue given is that anything outside of the Federal funds, which are income-restricted for eligibility, the funding sources would likely be part of the General Plus Funds. These dollars would be competing with all of our other expenditures such as the Police Department, Fire Department and other operative funds within the City Government. We aren't likely going to be able to do one hundred (100) houses in five hundred (5 00) days, which was the original effort, but we are hoping to make a serious push and see how we can get more neighborhood development. Councilmember Broden followed up, So where does the 2014 study stand with regard to action steps? What has happened since then with regard to the recommendations to that report? Mr. Mueller replied, The Downtown Study showed there was a market for residential housing downtown and we had shifted resources toward those developments. That was easier to do because they were eligible for TIF dollars because a lot of them were mixed use. This study will help find the resources and help direct the resources to the impact areas. Councilmember Oliver Davis arrived at the meeting at 4:17 p.m. Councilmember Scott stated, To me the 2014 study gave us partial data and this next study will give us more information. Mr. Mueller replied, We are trying to see how our existing housing studies will coincide with this market study. Councilmember Davis asked, In the 2014 study,there was a 50,000 number. Was that the number of houses or was it $50,0009 Mr. Mueller replied, The 2014 study yielded that number as the average annual income needed to afford the downtown housing options. Councilmember Davis followed up, Will this study have any stipulations like that? 4 Mr. Mueller replied,No, this study will be at all income ranges and then if the market is not there, we would take a look at what it would take to get it there. Committeemember Williams-Preston asked, Is your Department committed to development without displacement? Mr. Mueller replied, Yes. There are undoubtedly many complicated factors that play into inequality and displacement but we are committed to doing what we can to mitigate displacement. Committeemember Williams-Preston followed up, So in order to assure development without displacement,would you agree it is important to benchmark who exists in the neighborhood now, so next year we can take a look at the impact on the migration patterns? Mr. Mueller replied, That is one plausible pathway, yes. Committeemember Williams-Preston followed up, Would you agree to have development without displacement, it is important to get information from the people that will be the most impacted in that area? Mr. Mueller replied, Yes and we are seeking engagement from those people. If neighborhoods, though, are going up, we also need to find out how to raise incomes. That's the key. Committeemember Williams-Preston then asked, What do you have in terms of this market study that would reflect these inclusive values? Mr. Mueller replied, If it is like the previous studies,they will try to categorize the people they think the market is, so we will have a good sense of where the market is coming from. Committeemember Williams-Preston interjected, See, I get confused about this market stuff because, who is your market? If you are developing, for example, on the Westside, a big part of the market is going to be the people already there. Sure there will be people coming in but the people most impacted are already there. Mr. Mueller replied, If you are building on vacant lots,there is no one there. Committeemember Williams-Preston replied, Well there are tons of people that are in homes that are in need of repair. So what I want to ensure is that as we are moving forward with the market study,we need to expand it and include some sort of plan to support people that already live there to improve the housing stock. And in order to do that, we have to know what the stock is like. I feel there is a lot missing that this market study will have to include. I propose we go back to at least the original allocation we had so that money is set aside and we can have more discussion about how we might live our values and have more robust engagement with the community. We can also look at this as an opportunity to fulfill the Diversity and Inclusion 5 Order about creating opportunities for people to thrive, as well as investing in people in underrepresented communities that have been traditionally unserved by government. Committee Chair White stated, I am in agreement with you on having that money in place so we can come back for more discussion. She then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to this legislation. Sue Kesim, 4022 Kennedy Drive, stated, I think a study is great. But, we keep hiring consultants from the East Coast and they don't know our region, weather,businesses or culture. I would like to see consultants that come from Fort Wayne, Chicago or Indianapolis that actually know our region and know who we are. This also means the dollars are leaving the region and going to the East Coast. We need those dollars to stay here in business. I would also like to add to this study zoning considerations because I think when a neighborhood becomes too many landlords, it goes downhill. As you build new houses, I would hope to see more owner-occupied homes. We also need more emphasis on the environmental impact like proper sewers or requiring the new homes to have high-efficiency energy. Committee Chair White turned the floor back to the Committee for further comments or main motions. Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 44-17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Voorde seconded the motion which was hung by a voice vote of two (2) (Committeemembers Ferlic and Voorde)to two (2) (Committeemembers Broden and Williams-Preston). Council President Scott broke the tie by voting in favor of the main motion, sending Bill No. 44-17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. With no other business, Committee Chair White adjourned the Personnel and Finance Committee meeting at 4:36 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Karen White, Committee Chair 6