CDBG-only Cities Working Group

Information by State  Print version   Working Groups   States   Consortia   Counties   Cities (CDBG-only)   Cities (multi-funded)   Technology   Steering Committee Want More Information?   CDGB- Cities Only Working Group Membership List Jump To...   August 12, 2002   July 22, 2002   July 1, 2002 Related Information Summary List of Ideas

Consolidated Plan Improvement Initiative Summaries of CDBG-Only Working Group Meetings

Participants:
Terry Amabisca, Margy Coccodrilli, Kathy Fedler, Ken Black, Michael Hanley, Ed Talbot, Sue Guio and Jim Smith.

Fast Track Recommendations
Review:

1. The ConPlan and PHA Plans should have the same submission date, if the program year is the same.
2. CPD grantees should have access to the following PHA information:
   

   	De-concentration data.
   	Demolition of PHA units.
   	Loss of Section 8 units.
   	Families on waiting list.
   	Resident Characteristics Report.
   	Availability of privately owned, affordable rental units.

3. The ConPlan, Annual Plan, and CAPER should use consistent terminology, including definitions for income categories, families-households, units-beds, and chronic homelessness.

Discussion:
Can we add recommendation to allow for abbreviated plans for CDBG-only grantees?
A template that indicates when a section is "not required for CDBG-only" is one way to implement an abbreviated plan. Working group will add this as a Fast Track Recommendation.

There is a lot of duplication of effort for communities that do other planning documents such as land use plans. Suggested that existing plans be submitted in place of the substantive portion of the ConPlan because other plans (like comprehensive plans) more accurately reflect what the jurisdictions are doing. Are other plans such that public can find them and find what they need readily? Some do not find it useful to substitute local plan for ConPlan. Decided not to add this as a recommendation at this time.

On template, there are questions that need to be defined such as with job training, what are the specific units of job training? Also, breaking out needs (p8) by income categories (p7). This suggestion applies to Fast Track Recommendation 3. Modify Fast Track Recommendation 3 to incorporate these concerns.

Pilot Projects: ConPlan Template
Objective is to further define pilot recommendations and agree on what to send to Steering Committee.

Possible Pilot No. 1, Develop ConPlan Template for both ConPlan and PHA Plan
ConPlan template provided by Sal is very similar in format to PHA template. Check boxes work for grantees, but be careful not to mandate a one-size-fits-all approach. Provide template as minimum requirement that communities can build upon. Allow addenda to cover additional submission.

Consensus is that we should recommend having the same submission schedule for ConPlan and PHA plan along with our other pilot recommendation (Pilot No. 2) to develop a checklist-style template. No need to have a template that covers both plans as it would be too long and only appropriate for a few grantees that do both ConPlan and PHA plan.

Q: If a strategy was not checked off on the template, what happens in two years if grantee want to apply funds there? A: Do an amendment with citizen participation process if it is a substantial change.

Possible Pilot No. 2, Template for grantees that receive only CDBG funds
Point of clarification: Are there some HOME-only grantees? Yes, in Washington state there are. Template may be needed for those cases as well.

Possible option is to develop a CDBG-only template with HOME, ESG and HOPWA attachments as needed? Add hot links to census web site (e.g. data profiles page on American Fact Finder) and other Web resources. Add % of funds and owner/renter breakout for each strategy area under Part E: Strategy for Addressing Need? This is very useful for public. Also, adding a little narrative to this part may makes it more descriptive to citizens

There is general interest in seeing minimal requirements list for ConPlan submission.
Group will ask for minimum requirements of CDBG-only grantees when it submits the Fast Track Recommendations.

Possible Pilot No. 3, Streamline certifications
What is current approach? Most grantees make it easy for themselves and submit signed certifications without too much consternation. It is currently the simplest part of ConPlan but it could be simpler if only one signature is required for all applicable certifications.

Lead and Fair Housing certifications are significant for public input but some communities will sign without giving much thought. (e.g. Most jurisdictions don't have Fair Housing Action Plan but sign certification anyway.) It requires complaints to prompt HUD inspection on Fair Housing. Maintain the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing requirement.

Template could mention resources for what kind of attachments would be useful to grantee/public and explanations could clarify requirements (i.e. that communities should be affirmative in pursuing fair housing in their community.)

Wrap Up

Sue willing to help develop CDBG-only template if pilot is accepted by Steering Committee. Tempe would help develop template but won't be CDBG-only by time of implementation so they can't be pilot community.

Next Steps:
Finalize Fast Track Recommendations (add fourth) and concept of pilot ideas and send around for comment to whole group before co-chairs send to Steering Committee on August 30.
Send Consolidated Plan Elements out to whole group.