CDBG Minutes Jan 5, 2009

Press Enter to show all options, press Tab go to next option



January 5, 2009

Members Present:                 Members Absent:

Patricia Eldredge                     Genevieve Keller

Joy Johnson                         Jennifer McKeever

Natasha Sienitsky

Paul Martin

Juandiego Wade

Colette Brown


Melissa Celii

Meeting began at 7:15.

  1. Approval of Minutes from December meeting
    1. Unanimously approved

  1. Discussion of Social RFPs
    1. The Task Force discussed each of the Social applications and made preliminary recommendations.

OAR: Yes, but want to interview to determine amount Members wondered why hadn’t they spent all of their money in previous years. Members stated that they liked the program. One of the strongest programs as far as ‘bang for the bucks.’ Members liked the outcomes. Some members felt that there was still a large number falling through the cracks. OAR should be collaborating more with other organizations to find jobs for recently released. Some members would like to see different measures for measuring success.

Info needed: How big is their target population and how many people are they serving out of the population? How are they working with workforce development office on Hydraulic? Why can’t they spend down the money?

ASG: No The application arrived on Monday 11/17; the deadline was 4:00 11/14. The Task Force did not want to set the precedent of accepting late applications. Members feel ASG provides a much needed service to the community and regret not being able to fund them.

CCDC: No The Task Force did to like that CCDC was asking to have the entire program funded by CDBG. Members felt like they would rather see the money go to actual improvements and energy efficiency upgrades. There were concerns about how party hosts would be identified. Members had concerns about some of the numbers in the budget not adding up. There was concern about all the admin time built into the project. Members would have liked to see more funds leveraged. There was concern that there was a disconnect between CCDC and the audience they hoped to serve. Members also noted that the application was not double sided.

PVCC: No The Task Force did not like that PVCC was asking to have the entire program funding by CDBG. There was concern about PVCC’s capacity and preparedness to complete this program. Members wondered how transportation would be provided. Some members thought the age group may be too young. Members thought this program may be more appropriate and successful as a series of career days held throughout the school year. Members liked the partnership between Urban Vision and PVCC. There were concerns about how PVCC proposed to evaluate the outcomes. Some members wanted to see more direct targeting of low-income children and not just low-income neighborhoods.

FOCUS/Teensight: Maybe Mr. Wade noted that his wife was once associated with Teensight. There were questions about how FOCUS and Teensight fit together. Members thought the application was asking for too much money (it was over the budget allowed for social programs). Members thought the financials provided were weak and confusing. The application was sloppy. Some members would be interested to talk to them.

Info needed: Where else are they getting money from for sure? How could the budget be revised to be more affordable.

PHA Education and Counseling: No This had been a previously funded position. The Task Force said they stopped funding because they wanted PHA to find long term support for it. The application does not mention how program will be supported long term. Members also felt that the current demand for homeownership counseling is not strong enough to warrant funding this program at this time.

CMCC-Workshops: Yes Members liked the idea and thought it is good to give people the tools to solve their problems peacefully. Members really liked that the application was asking for an affordable amount of money. Members liked that CMCC was reducing the costs of the workshops. They also liked that they are working with CRHA’s prevention specialist.

CMCC- Mediations: Maybe Members favored the workshops over the mediations. Some members felt that mediations are really important to deal with specific conflicts. One member made the point that even if only one mediation is successful it is worth it because it could be one less crime in the city. There was concern that the participants would not gain communication skills like in the workshops.

Info needed: Specific success rates for CMCC mediations. What is their track record?

PHAR: Maybe Ms. Johnson noted that she is a Board member. There were some questions about what exactly the program was that Ms. Johnson was able to answer. Some members were concerned that $30,000 might be too much for the outcomes. Members felt that it is a much needed service to get people involved where they are not normally. Some members would like to see more leveraging.

Info needed: Is there a better way to spend the money or do it more affordably?

JABA: Maybe The Task Force thought that this was a very large, ambitious project that could perhaps be broken into smaller pieces. Members also felt that the price tag is far too large. Members liked that they want to do health assessments and are pushing CRHA to do upgrades. Members said they would be more favorable towards funding if the scope was reduced to perhaps floor by floor. Members wanted to know what leveraging is in the project. It was suggested that nursing students conduct the assessments. Some members felt that JABA receives a lot of public support. There were concerns that any upgrades would be redone when CRHA redevelops. It was suggested that JABA perform an assessment and tells CRHA what should be done.

Info needed: How much does it cost to do one assessment. What would a scaled down program look like.

RBC Institute: No The application was not completely hole-punched and arrived after the 4:00 deadline. The application is missing required sections (table of contents, description of geographic area and demographics served, outcomes and performance measurements, financial statements, program budget). Federal regulations state that CDBG funds may not be used to acquire, construct of rehabilitate properties used for religious purposes or to promote religious interests; and that a CDBG funded organization will provide no religious instruction or counseling, conduct no religious worship or services, engage in no religious proselytizing and exert no religious influence in the provision of the public service activity.

CYFS: Yes Mr. Wade noted that he is on the Board. Members liked that CYFS listened to their recommendations. Members felt that for people who can not provide day care/preschool to their kids, it is important to have providers that do more than plop kids in front of TVs. There were concerns about how this program would be sustained in future years. Members felt they would rather pay for this than do ‘damage control’ down the road as students enter schools unprepared. Members also thought that the training could boost the career potential of the providers down the road.

  1. Final Determination of applicants to make presentations
    1. To be determine via email.

  1. Other Business (if any)
    1. None