STATE OF KANSAS

Document Sample
STATE OF KANSAS Powered By Docstoc
					STATE OF KANSAS         )
WYANDOTTE COUNTY        ))SS                  SPECIAL SESSION, MONDAY, JULY 31, 2006
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KS )


       The Unified Government Commission of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, met in special
session Monday, July 31, 2006, with ten members present: Gilstrap, Commissioner At-Large First
District; DeSeure, Commissioner At-Large Second District; Barnes, Commissioner First District; Miller,
Commissioner Second District; Mitchell, Commissioner Fourth District; Kane, Commissioner Fifth
District; Pettey, Commissioner Sixth District; Cooley, Commissioner Seventh District; Ellison,
Commissioner Eighth District; and Reardon, Mayor/CEO presiding. Mendez, Commissioner Third
District; arrived at 7:00 p.m.   The following officials were also in attendance: Dennis Hays, County
Administrator; Hal Walker, Chief Counsel; Tom Roberts, U.G. Clerk; Bob Roddy, Asst. County
Administrator; Lisa Kearney, Interim Budget Director, various staff and department representatives.


MAYOR REARDON called the meeting to order.


ROLL CALL: Barnes, Miller, Mitchell, Kane, Pettey, Cooley, Ellison, Gilstrap, DeSeure, Reardon.


NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City,
Kansas, to be held Monday, July 31, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Office Building, 701 North 7th Street, for a Public Hearing on the 2006 Amended/2007 Proposed Budget
and 2006-2007 CDBG Consolidated Action Plan.


CONSENT TO MEETING of the governing body of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas,
accepting service of the foregoing notice, waiving all and any irregularities in such service and in such
notice, and consent and agree that the governing body shall meet at the time and place therein specified
and for the purpose therein stated.


JACK MANAHAN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, said we will give a brief overview of the 2006
Amended/2007 Proposed Budget. Budget goals for the Unified Government are to continue reducing
the property tax rate, diversify our revenues, grow the community, mitigate impact of improving
assessed valuation, continue to provide high quality services, and maintain financial stability. The first
slide shows what the levies were at in 1997 at the start of unification. The total was about 97 mills.
This budget, if adopted, is going to have a total mill levy of about 72 mills. That is a substantial drop in
the mill levy and the Commission has done a good job in continuing to keep that at the forefront. The
City Mill Levy, if this budget is adopted, will go down by 1.00 mills and the County Mill Levy will go
down by .74 mills. Overall that is about a 2.4% mill levy decrease. It is important to understand that the
government that we’re looking at this budget on is really just a part of what people pay taxes on. There
is the combination of the KCK Community College and USD 500. Fifty-three percent of the average tax
bill for somebody in USD 500 goes for education, 46% goes for the City and County, the state continues
to take 1.5 mills out of our budget. The Mitigating Assessed Value chart shows we have done a pretty
good job of mitigating the growth and assessed value. What you have to look at on this is the slope of
the lines. The top line shows how total assessed value has been increasing and the very bottom line
shows the tax rate. You will see the slope of that line is very shallow and the slope of the total line is
very high. What that means is we have been able to mitigate the growth of the property values by
diversifying revenues. We are in the business of predicting the future, not scheduling it. One of the
things that has happened that is going to be affecting future budgets is the impact of Machinery and
Equipment legislation that was passed last year. Because of this we are going to be losing significant
dollars in future years. That is going to make adopting budgets a little more difficult to some extent.


LISA KEARNEY, ACTING BUDGET MANAGER, said our total revenue base is approximately
$250,000 for the 2007 proposed budget. 62% is in Tax Revenues and the second largest portion is
coming from our Federal and State grants at $36 million, 15%, next is Charges for Services at 13%,
Fines/Fees is 2%, Reimbursements 2%, Interest Income 2% and Other Revenues is 4%. The slide shows
the tax revenue breakdown and what it shows is the total of $155 million in tax revenues for 2007, of
that 49% being property taxes or $77 million. The next largest portion would come from Sales & Use
Tax at $33 million or 21%. The expenditures for 2007 with all the adjustments that we incorporated into
the budget, after our workshops, resulted in an adjustment of approximately $1 million so the total
annual budget for 2007 is slightly over $273 million. We’re not changing any of the percentages of the
fund so the majority of that, 81%, still would come from Operating then the next would be Capital at
9%, Debt Service at 8% and Reserves is budgeted at 2%.


MS. KEARNEY said the key 2007 budget initiatives that we reviewed and incorporated into the budget
through the workshops that will start up in 2007 are the 3-1-1 citizen information system, Supplier
Diversity Compliance Software, increased delinquent tax collections, increased income limit for Senior
Citizen Utility Rebate, increased Neighborhood Street Overlay and Capital Projects for the District
                                               July 31, 2006
Attorney – Jail Waterproofing, Sheriff – ADC – Floor Replacement, Replace Obsolete Jail Control
System and Create a Midtown Police Division. In conclusion, we feel very confident that the 2007
budget continues to further our objectives of enhancing public safety, growing the community,
improving our services through technology, continuing to diversify our revenues while maintaining
financial stability and continuing to cut property taxes for our citizens.


LAVERT MURRAY, DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, said the slide before you
provides a summary of the 2006-2007 CDBG Action Plan. The Unified Government receives an annual
allocation of entitlement funds from the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development for the
following programs: Community Development Block Grants, HOME Investment Partnership and the
Emergency Shelter Grant Program.           The 2006/2007 fiscal year allocations are $2,484,790 for
Community Development representing a 9.3% reduction over last year.              $893,326.00 for HOME
Programs a 5.8% decrease over last years program and $105,347.00 for Emergency Shelter Grant
Programs or less than one-half percent increase. The One-Year Action Plan consolidates the three
formula grant programs into a single application. The three programs include the CDBG, HOME and
the Emergency Shelter Grants.


In order to comply with the Federal requirements, the plan states that the Unified Government must have
met an annual One-Year Action Strategy to address priority needs and local objectives with anticipated
program income. In this years budget we have programmed in $231,696.00 from that program income
and funds received during the next program year under the three grant programs. The 2006/2007 Action
Strategy follows and is summarized by category in funding sources. The total funding of all three
programs is $3,760,830. In order to receive the entitlement funds, the Unified Government must have
met the Annual Action Plan for the particular fiscal year. The Unified Government must hold two
public hearings to inform the community about the plan, the plan process and to collect community
input. One of the hearings was held on May 18, 2006 prior to publishing the draft 2006/2007 One-Year
Action Plan for citizen comment. The draft 2006/2007 Action Plan was published and citizens were
given thirty days to comment.        We are fulfilling the second public hearing requirement tonight;
however, it is important to note that a focus group session was also held with neighborhood group
representatives on July 27th at the Livable Neighborhood Center. Comments from that session were also
taken into consideration. The 2006/2007 Action Plan must be submitted to HUD forty-five days prior to
the start of our fiscal year that starts October 1st which means submission can be absolutely no later than
                                                July 31, 2006
August 15, 2006. Failure to submit the plan by August 15th will automatically result in a loss of CDBG
funds.   The Annual Action Plan includes a description of projects and activities expected to be
undertaken using formula grants and expected program income. It also includes actions that the Unified
Government expects to take during the program year to pursue strategies in the Five-Year Plan. The
CDBG budget income is broken out into demolition, rehab delivery, grants, public services, capital
improvement, housing development/new construction for a total of $2,716,486. The HOME Funds are
broken down into HOME Chip, substantial rehab, Administration, CHDO Operating for a total HOME
Award for $893,326. The Emergency Shelter funds can only be distributed to those agencies that
provide for emergency housing and shelter for the homeless. Total ESG Funds is $151,018.


MAYOR REARDON said I do want to note a couple things about tonight’s public hearing that is a
little different than the ones we’ve had previously. For CDBG two public hearings are required in order
to meet Federal regulations.    For the UG budget the State law requires one public hearing and
traditionally we’ve held that public hearing as we are tonight just in advance of consideration of the
budget. This year we did two things differently. We held a public hearing at the same time as CDBG
did at the beginning of our process in May and heard from members of the public. In fact, some of you
in the audience tonight spoke at that first public hearing which I think was very helpful for us as an
elected body to consider what you all were thinking at that time as we began this process. Secondly, we
had a part of our website that allowed citizens to interact with us in dealing us through the website what
their priorities were with respect to this budget. We had over 250 citizen’s report to us through the
website. It is the first time we used the website in that way to accumulate input from the public and we
had record numbers at our workshops. Many of you saw the process directly as the last few weeks
we’ve met in several large blocks of time and considered as an elected body the details of this budget.
We’ve taken some extra steps this year to get public input and we received a lot and I’m appreciative of
that. I’m also very appreciative to see so many members of our community here this evening.


MARCIA RUPP, 2816 No. 46th St., appeared stating I want to thank all of you. Even though you
haven’t voted yet, I want to thank Dennis Hays for six years ago saying we’re probably going to need a
fourth division. I want to thank Mayor Reardon for every time he got up to talk to the citizens. One of
the first things he always says is we need more police officers and for being such a people person. I
want to thank the Commissioners because they have been so good about sharing their dinner with us,
their time with us in the workshops and their ideas. We really learned a lot from you. We shared your
                                              July 31, 2006
frustrations and we got to talk to a lot of you and became a little closer. I also want to thank Chief Ron
Miller for six years of his service. He was a great leader. I really want to thank the citizens of the
Neighborhood Watch leaders; I couldn’t have done this without them. Some of these people were here
every day. I want to say that outside these doors there is a war going on. It is a war against crime. The
guys and gals in blue are fighting this war everyday around the clock and all you are going to do here, if
you can, is give them reinforcements. If this happens, it is going to be a great day in Wyandotte County.
I can’t wait to see that blue canopy with the white letters on it that says Midtown Patrol Division. This
was the Commissioners coming together with a Neighborhood Watch Group to get this done and that is
the way it should be.


CINDY CASH, 3633 No. 87th St., appeared stating I want to join Marcia in saying thank you. Thank
you for the proposed mill levy reduction rate. While our total actual tax bills may not totally reflect the
work that you have done, you all at the Unified Government have certainly set the standard and are
taking it in the right direction. We heard your frustrations for many of those reasons why maybe the
dollar amount isn’t going down, but tax mill levy rate is, and again thank you very much. There were a
lot of issues and a lot of hard choices that you had to make, and again the frustrations showed, but also
the cooperation and the hard work showed as well. There were a lot of good discussions that went on.
I hope a lot of those policy discussions and a lot of those ideas that were brought up and had to be set
aside because you were working on trying to finish a budget in a timely manner, continue throughout the
year and that those discussions turn into policy decisions and that in next years budget, we’ll see more
progress as we search for growth and redevelopment over our community. I think this is especially
important over the next couple of years because we are about to embark upon a community master
planning process and I hope that is also taken into consideration. Thank you for continuing to encourage
and praise public input. You went to great lengths this year to encourage that and there was quite a
group this year that joined in sitting through the budget workshops. I have a suggestion that next year
you look for a bigger venue because I hated to see your staff stand while we enjoyed the seats. I hope
this is the start of many larger groups to come and participate in our government that is what is
important. Thank you for listening to our input, questions and comments.


JACKIE ANDERSON, 856 Troup, appeared stating I’m here as a representative of the Northeast
Community Neighborhood Cooperative Council. The Northeast Community Neighborhood Cooperative
Council desires to work with the Unified Government in working to revitalize the housing stock of its
                                               July 31, 2006
service area. The organization strives to fine economically feasible options to begin to stabilize the
existing housing stock of the neighborhood, bring up the percentage of home ownership, develop the
vacant land that remains in the area, and salvage as much of the vacant housing in the area as possible.
The organization recognizes that resources are scarce and that priorities have to be carefully defined.
Further, the efficient stewardship of the small public dedicated resources available is necessary and the
leveraging of private resources as much as is possible is necessary to begin the incremental process of
bringing revitalization to the northeast neighborhoods.


The 2006/2007 One Year Action Strategy devotes approximately one-third of the budget to
administrative and project delivery cost according to this budget, over $1 million. These items include
$511,908 for Program Administration, $89,333 for HOME Administration and $461,312 for Project
Delivery in the rehabilitation program. Perhaps also the project delivery costs for rehabilitation are in
large measure of payments to contractors for doing the rehabilitation work, which would decrease the
administrative expense portion. Perhaps additional resources will be devoted to rehabilitation in the
CHIP Loan Program and set aside that would increase the amount going into rehabilitation. When
added to the amount being expended for demolition and clearance $775,000, however, it appears that
something on the order of one-fourth to one-third of the total budget is going into administration and
demolition and about one-fifth of the budget total is going into hard costs related to rehab. It is difficult
to achieve economies of scales when funds are limited. Administrator costs are fixed at a certain level
and amount to less when there is more funding to finance more transactions over which to spread them.
This is why it’s hoped that the Unified Government will work with the community to in each case look
for ways to leverage the housing dollars it invests. Our organization recognizes that there are many
competing priorities for these housing dollars. We also recognize there are a number of structures in the
community which may require demolition to facilitate development or prevent hazards to the
community.     We hope, however, that the Unified Government will be circumspect in its use of
demolition as a means of dealing with deferred maintenance and use creative approaches to deal with the
issue of vacant housing. One way to do this would be through experimentation with the Abandoned
Housing Act which allows non-profit organizations to petition district court to acquire temporary
possession of distressed vacant housing, rehab it and sell it.


While there is asbestos and lead paint abatement regulations attached to HUD funding often makes
rehab prohibitively expensive, perhaps there is a way to utilize funds to pursue such activity such as
                                                July 31, 2006
using the HUD funding for other pre-development activities and obtaining the actual rehabilitation
funding through other means. We hope the Unified Government will consider ways to salvage existing
homes wherever possible and to leverage HUD funding with private dollars to that end. The $80,000
earmarked for park improvements is vitally needed in areas like Jersey Creek and Heathwood Park and
we feel that the level expenditure for parks is appropriate. Our organization encourages the Unified
Government to use a portion of its Fair Housing allocation of $10,000 to consider the issue of predatory
mortgage lending which is victimizing some of the elderly homeowners in our area. National studies
show that up to 75% of the home equity lending in minority populated areas, like the northeast, is from
high interest sub-prime lenders. We are seeing foreclosure activity in our area from this trend and
encourage efforts with HUD to curb these practices.


We encourage the Unified Government to leverage as much as possible the $110,765 for housing
development with private financing as it can. This seems a very small amount with which to undertake
housing development.     Perhaps by blending it with other private sources for difficult to obtain
predevelopment costs, a large dividend for its expenses can be achieved.


Commissioner Gilstrap made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kane, to extend the time for
five minutes. Motion carried.


MS. ANDERSON said the action plan needs to include a statement of all of the various resources,
public and private, it anticipates using in the 2006/2007 program pursuant to 24 CFR-91.220. It
mentions at various points in the document entities including their LISC, Fannie Mae and the Lenders
Consortium. It would also be helpful for it to include prospectively resources available through the
Kansas Finance Authority, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, and the Kansas Neighborhood
Revitalization Act which provides tax credits for homeowner improvements. One potential tool might
be a grant application to the Home Loan Bank’s Affordable Housing Program through one of the
participating lenders to allow the recoverable grants to help senior citizen homeowners for
improvements that allow them to remain in their homes.


It does appear that the Unified Government assist a significant number of homeowners with the
$624,000 dedicated to rehab services since it says that approximately 155 families will be helped
through those expenditures. While this is over $4,000 per family, it seems in the typical home with
                                             July 31, 2006
which we are familiar where there is a significant amount of deferred maintenance, the costs to render a
home in compliance with local codes is likely to be much higher. It would aid our discussions and
ability to contribute insights if we could know the typical size of emergency grants, HELP Loans and
roof repairs.


We encourage the development of a model block program for the use of rehabilitation funds and for
clean up of vacant lots with weeds and trash. The plan tends to speak about targeted development areas
as the priority areas for such funding, but a prudently designed model block program would encourage
self initiative among the residents stimulate reinvestment in the broader northeast area that might not
otherwise occur.


We encourage the Unified Government to develop a program that helps graduates of the self-sufficient
programs of the Housing Authority pursue home ownership of houses that are rehabilitated in the
northeast. These residents already live in the area and may be among the most willing buyers in the
market to consider an existing home that has been rehabilitated. We also encourage the Unified
Government to work with the Housing Authority to map where the concentrations of Section 8 units are
located within the city and to develop workable Section 8 homeownership programs for those that have
sufficient income and who live in a suitable single family home.


The action plan should mention the future possible sites for Low Income Housing Tax Credit Funding
and use of Kansas Finance Authority Multi-family Housing bonds for the construction of new patio
homes for the elderly in portions of the northeast where there is an excess of vacant land. Such
innovative strategies were recommended in the Urban Land Institute study of northeast a few years ago
and still have merit. It would meet a need to find productive use for such land. There is a rental market
in the area that might sustain such development.


The action plan states the CHIP Program applies to low and moderate census tracts exist east of I-635.
However, a map of Wyandotte Census tracts areas attached to our copy of the action plan that has
eligible CHIP areas stated does not appear to include most of the areas that are in the northeast, all of
which are low and moderate income. It would be helpful if we could obtain such clarification on this
issue.


                                              July 31, 2006
MARILYN WHITE, 614 Washington Blvd., appeared stating I’m here to back up everything that Ms.
Anderson said. I really am upset about the way things are going in the northeast area, east of I-635. I
live in Turtle Hill. I am a recipient of the CHIP Loan Program. I am very happy where I live although it
is getting very stressful. I think there should be something that could be done about all the high level
commercial traffic that is going on Washington Blvd. with the 18 wheelers and everybody else that
wants to go up and down this street. I did complain about it once to somebody in the Traffic Dept. and
they told me I should have known that this traffic was going on before I lived there. I politely told him
it wasn’t like that when I first moved there because all of the traffic was going up on I-635 where it
should be off of I-70. I know I-635 has been undergoing a lot of repairs but they are just about done. I
think the truck traffic should be notified that they have to use I-70 or I-635. I’m also upset about the fact
that there are a lot of homes in the northeast that are vacant. Some of them can be repaired instead of
torn down and I think more attention should be given to that. I can’t understand why, since we have the
organization called Youth Builds which I thought was established to do some of this type of work, and
nothing is being done about reconstructing some of the homes that elderly people might live in. There
are a couple of houses like that in Turtle Hill. I think if a house is vacant and nothing is being done
about it for years and years, and the owner lives wherever, there must be something the city can do to
rehabilitate this house or make somebody take responsibility for it because it is an eyesore to have these
structures in the neighborhood.


I’m appreciative of the taxes going down on the house, but in reality the taxes do not go down. I know
you’re not privy to making the school board and KCK Community College do whatever they do to
lessen the tax burden on the community, but something needs to be done in that manner. Taxes, in
reality, are going up. Taxes take a significant bite out of my living status. It is really hard for a person
who is aging, with the health care bills the way they are, you almost put between either staying healthy
or homeless. All in all, I think there is a lot to be done. I would like to see the northeast area of Kansas
City, Kansas become more livable and more profitable for all of us.


DAN WELCH, 6221 Armstrong, appeared stating I’m here to talk to you about parks. I am somewhat
disappointed with this Commission that you didn’t find a way to deal with Schlitterbahn to get advanced
water safety training for the youth in our community.           However, the parks budget is generally
satisfactory. The Kansas City Star recent article about parks is doing us a great favor. It tells us we are
doing well and we’re very competitive with our dollars in getting a bang for our buck. Public comments
                                               July 31, 2006
are generally the same. Things are going good for our parks in a lot of ways. My comments, over the
years, have been generally supportive of you as well. We must think of parks in a different way. A lot
of the projects that we have been doing in the past have been deferred maintenance. We’re looking at a
time ahead when that is coming to a close and we have a choice of what to do. We’ve been talking
about a large Rec/Plex, which the community needs to become involved to see if they want to do this or
not. There has also been some discussion about small neighborhood parks in the western part of KCK in
the new neighborhood developments, but we must learn to think about parks in a new way. I must tell
you about one of the things I see in the budget. About 17% of the current parks levy budget, which is
supposed to go to the county, is being spent on Capital Improvements in the city parks. That is probably
satisfactory, but we know from the Kansas City Star’s comments, and they are public comments, that the
overall budget is acceptable. We need to get that resolved and cleaned up in the next budget cycle.
What is a park? Is it a flower garden, a lake, golf course, school playground, public sitting benches,
frezbie course, ball field? There are vacant lots, abandoned lots, and land bank lots. We need to start
thinking of parks in a different way. You can think about a park as a defensible space. Public parks cost
us a lot of dollars. We do have private parks in the city. We have one on Strawberry Hill and we have
one in Rosedale. There may be others that I don’t know about. There are a lot of unmanaged lands and
everyone knows somebody in their neighborhood where there is a corner or a sand lot, baseball or
football field, and neighbors make that a defensible area for their own community. Lands are a
community asset.    We must learn how to recycle and reuse our lands.           Right now the Unified
Government’s system to inventory and tract unmanaged lands is not adequate.                We need an
administrative reform so that we have more attention put on this. The planning and zoning group is an
obvious place to be a data central for gaining this and building maps. There are many other functions
which involve the unmanaged lands. The parks is the natural group to include, police, public works and
the community neighborhood groups and they must be concerned with design, quality, price,
compatibility, and if you are going to do something, how good is the builder. Right now there is a
dramatic new plan for St. Margaret’s Park on the map. There is quite a funding mechanism for it and
how it would fit into the community is quite dramatic. I don’t think we have seen anything in this city
like it. We have to get the trash off of the unmanaged lands. We have to make them mobile. The city
park department already mows thousands of lots. We have to create defensive spaces. We already
know that neighborhood groups will defend spaces. We have to get the Unified Government in some
way to make this manageable in a constructive way. It doesn’t have to be a very high budget. It has to
be a new way of thinking about parks and a new way of integrating all these groups together. It’s
                                              July 31, 2006
natural to believe that our parks department would be a facilitator in this new role. The Park Board has
a lot of good people and recently they have been asking for a pay raise. It seems to me you could give
them a lot of extra work on this task before you consider a pay raise. Before you start thinking about
surplus parks, we need to think of parks in a new way and integrate any surplus parks into our new
concept and way of thinking about parks.


CHESTER OWENS, 1150 Washington Blvd., appeared stating it is very difficult and I appreciate the
hard work that you do. I would like to thank you for the public input that you had twice this year and
also for reducing the mill levy. I hope as citizen’s talk, they tell each other the Unified Government is
not the only taxing entity. The City and County gets blamed for the increase in taxes and there are other
taxing entities so people need to take as much interest in the other taxing entities as they do the Unified
Government. We want to speak to the CDBG proposal. Some of the concerns have already been raised
by Ms. Anderson and one in particular, you look at the map and not the CHIP area shaded, we’re not
really sure in reading it of some of the areas in the proposal in the northeast if they are eligible. One of
the main reasons we are here is when we look in the neighborhood, and I happen to be serving currently
as President, the difficulty we have is communicating with some persons that handles these in finding
out what you are planning to do in our neighborhood. We’ve talked to everybody about this. We’ve
talked to the Mayor, our Commissioner, Mr. Hays, and we just cannot get access to find out what is
going on in our neighborhood. As I read through it concerned me about the trash removal. It said the
trash removal would go on in areas where they are planning to do development. Our question is where
are you planning to do this? The other main concern is that we do not have citizen input in the area
where we live and there is housing that has already been done in that area. We have tried every feasible
way to try to communicate with Economic Development to find out what are you doing in the area. We
would like for this to go into the record that is going to HUD.


The other comment, on page 12 of the grant, it has the Unified Government has established a task force
on the minority business enterprise to review women program procedures often to encourage greater
participation in minority owned and women owed Unified Government contracts. The Director of
Human Resources Department heads this task force for the Unified Government. We would like to
know has this task force met, who is a part of the task force and what were the results in 2006. When
we saw the development that went on in our area, just two blocks from me, we drove by that everyday


                                               July 31, 2006
and we saw no minority participation. We would like to get a response as to when does the task force
meet and who comprises the task force.


CHIQUITA COGGS, 2052 No. 3rd St., appeared stating I’m representing the Northeast Business
Association which is a relatively young organization in its own light right now. However, we are
adopting a legacy of an organization that existed here from 1946 through 1988 that worked
predominated with minority businesses. We are a 501C3 organization and our intent is to deal with
community revitalization through Economic Development and Community Development. We are here
seeking NBR funds and we recognize that in the past there have been funds available for the northeast
area which have gone unused and, therefore, were dropped from the budget. We’re just seeking to have
those funds reinstated for use in the northeast area and perhaps we might be able to obtain some of those
funds for the area that we’ve selected as a target area in our efforts towards revitalization of the slums
and blighted area in the northeast. Our target area is a very small area. We’re dealing with Front Street
to 6th Street and the river to Washington Blvd. as a target area to start our revitalization efforts. We
would like to not think that they would stop there, but that we were more interested in taking a small bite
of the elephant rather than trying to undertake the whole elephant. You have our information, and I
won’t go into all the things we are trying to do, but we are hoping that you will reinstate those funds for
the northeast area and consider our proposal for the funding.


                                   MAYOR REARDON ADJOURNED
                                     THE MEETING AT 6:20 P.M.



MAYOR REARDON reconvened the pubic hearing at 7:00 p.m. with Commissioner Mendez in
attendance. No one appeared.


                                 MAYOR REARDON ADJOURNED
                                  THE MEETING AT 7:10 P.M.




                                             Tom G. Roberts
                                             Unified Government Clerk
dt

                                               July 31, 2006
July 31, 2006

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:5/5/2012
language:English
pages:13