Community Development Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, let me call to order the meeting for Community Development Committee for Wednesday, May 27th at 4.30 p.m. Please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, roll call of membership starting from my left. Adrian Stancil-Martin, District 11.

Brad Meltzer, District 2.

Josh Lambert, District 1.

Martin Smith, District 4.

I'm gonna let the record show that Alder Jones is excused for the meeting today. All right, can I get, the first thing we have is approval for minutes from our previous meeting, 26-0593 from April 29th, 2026. Move for approval.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Any questions or items that we need to address from the previous meeting? Hearing none, can we get a vote for approval? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. We have no dissent or abstentions today. We have no public hearings or appearances, meaning that we're gonna jump right into our... Oh, I... One second here, I'll make sure. We have one public hearing. Yes, I was not on the right one. We have one public hearing, and for today, 26-0677, 2025 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, CAPER, for the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG Program, associated with the information item 26-0678. As this is a public hearing, should we have any comments from any of the staff today? Specialist Galleon.

So this is just a public hearing for the public to give comments on the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report. And for some context, the CAPER every year is required to be submitted to HUD. It's a summary of the actions that were taken during the 2025 program year in this case, and then how funds were spent and what was accomplished through that. One note for the caper is that some of our projects because of delays on the federal side with the award of CDBG dollars and then receipts by the city of those funds some of the projects were a little bit more delayed than typical so they may not have all expended the money and reached all the accomplishments that they were planning on at this point, but the caper provides a summary of the projects that were undertaken what was spent and then how they impacted the community and

Thank you very much. We'll hold any comments from the committee here while we listen to public comment. So this is a public hearing. Is there anybody that wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anybody who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anybody who wishes to speak? Hearing none, I declare the public hearing closed. Point of order here, I do want to mention that because I had the wrong agenda, I did list the incorrect action item for the meeting minutes previously. So that was for 26-0676 CDC minutes from 5-13-26. All right, perfect. All right, now onto our action items. One action item today, 26-0623, Resolution R-26, administrative fees for weed cutting and abatement services. All right, can I get a motion for approval? I would like to move to approve the administrative fees and weed cutting and abatement services. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. I know that there were some amendments made to this, and so why don't we first go to the city staff to discuss any of those amendments that were made, and then we'll open the floor for additional comments as well. Director Holman, District 2.

So we didn't make any formal amendments, but we did provide additional information just based on the feedback and discussion we heard at Common Council. One of the things that was articulated leading up to Council was that the first minimum fee category did not add up in total to 75. So we did add an additional miscellaneous expense item to further validate that 75 fee. from our assessment really is justified. By adding that extra $10, we then brought that through to the second category of where we prepare the warrant and or warrant plus contractor fees. So instead of 215, in the event that council and this committee would want to amend the motion to add in that $10, the minimum fee would stay at 75, but then the next level would go to 225. but just some information for you to consider as you do your debate.

Thank you. Alder Hayden, would you like to speak to the...

I've seen Alder Hartzheim with her hand up.

Oh, my apologies. I'll go to Alder Hartzheim over on 13. Yes, I'll go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I asked this to be sent back to committee because I feel like there is committee work yet to be done. And namely, I had talked to Director Holman in regards to the numbers not adding up. I also talked to Director Youngworth in regards to the snow removal charges. And my concern with that second piece is that an automatic adder could cause us to come into a conundrum at some point in time. So if a 3% increase continues, I mean, likely not to happen, but I still would prefer if the committee were to decide to move this forward, that there be some verbiage included regarding a annual review within the department, just verifying that that 3% adder does not put the costs that are incurred by the department, does not overcharge a assessment to a homeowner if the 3% ends up going above what the actual costs are to the department. So I want to be clear that I don't have a problem with this resolution and the information that has now been presented to justify it. I just want to ask that the committee make those changes or make those amendments if they were to push this to council as an approval, thank you.

Alder Hayden. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Alder Hartzheim, for calling out to make it clear because this makes it much more transparent to the public what we're doing, where their money's going, and why we're charging, what we're charging for this. And I would agree, too, with Alder Hartzheim's points on the charge-up because there's state statutes that could potentially be violated if we go to a certain point. So I think all those points are very valid. I would also ask the committee to move for approval on this. I see value in doing this. As I've talked to council before, I know, or the committee before, I know not everyone was present. This all came about when I had a constituent who had issues with a developer who was not cutting their grass and basically the city was basically subsidizing their services. So essentially what we're trying to do is get those developers who are acting in bad faith to make sure that they're not causing problems for people who are actually living in the houses within our city. Thank you.

Other comments? I have a question on the intent of the 3% annual addition. Does that mean that next year, so it's $75 and next year we'd add 215, or how would that work?

So the 3% language is only applicable to the public works snow removal charges. Their preference was to build in a 3%. Our preferences as community development, every year as we're assessing our fee schedule, we then bake it into our budget proposal. We would not anticipate changing this in our 2027 proposal. We typically adjust fees in increments where it's nice round numbers versus just calculating a 3%. So the 3% would only be applicable to snow removal in the public works fee schedule.

Thank you. Additional questions, Aldersmith? No, thank you. One thing I was just gonna add to Alder Hayden's comments with regards to the reasoning behind this. I also regularly meet with some retired individuals at a local nursing home and they shared how being able to even walk the neighborhood becomes difficult with some of the snow removal or ice on the sidewalks and things of that nature. And so when we had the opportunity to look at this, that was another reason why I was very interested in exploring this additional fee structure, not only for the weed abatement and yard care, but also for that snow removal. And we had some particularly snowy portions of the winter this year, and I know that that had a big effect on some folks' ability to safely navigate the community as well. So I really appreciated the opportunity to look at this as a whole. Alder Meltzer.

Thank you. Could I just get some clarification on the three different tiers for the snow removal charges? Let me pull up the public works fee schedule. Just wondering what the difference is between the different classes.

I believe it's the type of roadway and how complex it is to clear, but I don't have enough depth of knowledge to say that with certainty as this is public works.

No questions.

Thank you.

Um, older high time.

Thank you, Chair. Just subsequent to some of the questions that came out of the committee discussion, if there were to be an amendment in regards to the snow removal portion, I would like to be very clear as to at what point in time will it be effective then this following season, or I think it needs some verbiage that is very clear so that when it comes to council, we're sure on what we're voting for. Thank you.

Thank you, Alderhart. What I'm hearing from some folks, well, Alder Hartzheim has brought up a proposed amendment, and I would be interested in exploring that amendment because it sounds like something around an annual review to be completed each year. Just trying to make sure that if we get the right verbiage for an amendment on this. So right now it states that it would be a 3% increase annually, but what we're looking for is something along the lines of that there would be an annual review to ensure that the 3% adder remains in compliance with state statutes. Something like that seem aligned with what it is that you're looking for. So I'm gonna make a motion to amend the resolution so that the Public Works Department's administrative fee assessed in connection with city-performed snow removal services shall be modified to add a 3% annual increase commencing in 2027 and an annual review thereafter to ensure that the annual increase remains in compliance with state statutes.

Why not? If you have a suggestion for... Just on the same wording except and an annual review, maybe just comma with an annual review to ensure that it remains in compliance. Just a note that this is part of the same act that's happening. Would you like to make that official motion? I would like to make that motion, which I feel like is a friendly one.

And I will second that motion. So with that, we are looking at an amended, an amendment right now to the motion for approval for that final statement to state Alder Smith's language, which I don't have a stenographer, so Alder Hartzheim.

Just a point of order, please, Chair. Is an amendment, may I address the attorney?

Oh, yes, please.

Is an amendment needed to clarify the dollar figure, Attorney Glad, that was amended with the inclusion of the updated dollars from the Department of Community Development? Correct.

Go ahead. I think that's a great question because the way I was viewing this when it came in and the motion was made that we're voting on the one without the $10. So that's good clarification there. So that if the intention was to add the $10, we can do that with an amendment once we get through.

So we're looking at potentially two amendments, one being the annual review, the second being the fee shall be 225 per occurrence rather than 215 per occurrence would be the secondary amendment needed to go with what the recommendation from the staff have been. Okay. Thank you, Alder Hartzheim, on that. All right, so right now, just to clarify, what we are voting on is the annual review of the Public Works Department Administrative Fee, assessing connection with the City-Performed Snow Removal Services at this time. So we have a motion and a second for the amendment. Other additional questions, comments? All right, hearing none, now we're voting on the amendment on the annual review. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstention? All right, that amendment passes. Now what I'm hearing is we're gonna need a second amendment for the fee increase from $215 per occurrence to the 225 to align with the additional expenses that are highlighted, that $10 additional expenses. and we would need a motion for that.

I will offer that motion. I move that we change the fee where the warrant is required from 215 to 225. I will second.

Additional questions, discussion regarding that? All right, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Hearing none, that passes 4-0. So now we are on the double amended motion, which is to, with the included, the increase fee and the annual review. Additional comments, questions, or discussion items for the motion as amendment. Alder Meltzer.

Thank you. I've had a chance to get some input from my constituents, and there definitely is a lot of agreement out in the community that this habit that some developers and others have of subsidizing their lawn cutting is a big problem that people do want to see addressed. Also, I really appreciate staff's use of discretion with the residential lawn cutting fees. I just want to stress that our goal is to achieve compliance, not to extract fines. So I think in any situation where we can achieve compliance without the resident having to pay a fine, I think that that's wonderful work on the part of staff. And I think perhaps in future discussions, we could look at ways to kind of codify that and make the community feel more secure in, I think, what is right now a very much more internal policy. But I really, really appreciate that use of discretion, and I think our residents really benefit from that flexibility.

Additional comments or questions? Yes. Right, and the last thing I just wanted to highlight, I know we kind of mentioned this at a previous time, but if I'm not mistaken, all other fee structures within community development do have a $75 minimum fee if an event occurs. Is that accurate?

On one. Thank you. Inspector Cranon. Our minimum fee for almost all permits is $75, and the reinspection fee for all types of inspections is $75.

Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no additional comments or questions, it's time for us to take a vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Hearing none, that motion passes four to zero. All right, we have one information item today, Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation, CAPER, for the Community Development Block Grant. We already heard a little bit of information regarding that, but I'm gonna pass it back to Specialist Gallion to expound further.

Yeah, so like I said earlier, the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, or CAPER, because that whole name is a bit of a mouthful, is a summary to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that we're required to provide on a yearly basis just to tell them um how we spent the grant funds and then what accomplishments were reported or achieved from the funding so um as you may recall from previous meetings at the beginning or before every cdbg grant year we provide a an annual action plan to hud which tells them how we plan to spend the funds and then this is kind of the back end reporting to show yes, we indeed did spend the funds as according to the projects that we laid out in the annual action plan, and here's the results of that. So throughout the CAPER, you'll see different sections that kind of show the composition of families, that were assisted, the resources that were used, and that includes both CDBG resources and other resources that might have been used for the projects. So you can see how these dollars were leveraged as well with some of these projects. And then it covers overall. of interest in areas of challenges within the community. So affordable housing, homeless and other needs, public housing and other actions that these organizations may be contributing to throughout their work, not just the amount of money that's supported by CDBG dollars, but also includes other work that they've done to address those issues within the community. So it's a pretty comprehensive summary of what we use the CDBG dollars for and then the changes that we've seen as a result of those projects. Thank you.

Any questions, comments, discussion for Specialist Galian? Well, I just want to thank you and your team for putting this together, for all the work that you do on this annually. I know that this is a big undertaking and also a really important piece of information for folks in our city to see how we're taking steps to address some of these really critical issues that we have for our community. So thank you all so much for all your work on that.

Yeah, thank you. And one additional note I just wanted to say too, the CAPER is currently out for public comment. So any resident would be able to see the CAPER online on our website or request a paper version here at City Hall. And then any public comments can be directed to myself and any comments that are received will be wrapped into the CAPER prior to submission to HUD. But we have that 15 day public comment requirement just to get feedback from the community. So if anyone would like to give comments again, they can direct them to my email or via phone or send them into us at city hall.

Can you remind me when that comment period concludes?

Yes. June 10th, 2026.

So all comments, information or comments, things they would like to share can do so before that June 10th deadline.

Yep. By June 10th. Yep. Yep.

Perfect. So anyone unable to attend our meeting today can still provide their feedback as well.

Yep, exactly.

Perfect. All right. Well, thank you very much for that. Seeing as there are no additional information items, looks like we're on item number eight.

Move to adjourn. Second.

All right. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All right. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.