|
A Reader Asks! And I
Answer!
Dear Mr. Baker,
Thank you for the educational read about the RDA on your website. It raises
a couple of questions.
1. The city I believe just used RDA monies to fund a program known as FOOD
Now, this for the salary of a director or other employees and also for the
payment of rent on the FOOD Now building. Is this a proper use or RDA money?
It is a permitted use. However, in my many years of
watching City Council meetings, I have never seen monies allocated from RDA
funds for charitable work in our City. Normally the process is for groups to
apply for Community Block Grant (CDBG) funds once a year. This year several
groups including FOOD NOW applied for CDBG funds and received at least a portion
of what they requested. Since I do not have access to the minutes of the
December 6 Council meeting that approved these grants I cannot comment on the
specifics.
It would appear that there might be some extraordinary treatment of an
additional request from FOOD NOW. Charitable non-profit organizations are run by
a Board of Directors who are responsible for the funding of the organization.
FOOD NOW came to the City with their request because their traditional funding
sources have reduced their commitment and the organization needs money.
I feel that by opening the door to one group for funds from the Redevelopment
Agency – we set a precedent which may not be in the best interests of the
City.
After doing some research, I offer the following information about
RDA/Community Block Grant Funds which I feel should be the only source of funds
from the City for these worthwhile organizations. :
This general objective is achieved by granting "maximum feasible
priority" to activities which benefit low- and moderate-income families or
aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/stateadmin/
Eligible Activities
Communities receiving CDBG funds from the State may use the funds for many
kinds of community development activities including, but not limited to:
· acquisition of property for public purposes;
· construction or reconstruction of streets, water and sewer facilities,
neighborhood centers, recreation facilities, and other public works;
· demolition;
· rehabilitation of public and private buildings;
· public services;
· planning activities;
· assistance to nonprofit entities for community development activities;
and
· assistance to private, for profit entities to carry out economic
development activities (including assistance to micro-enterprises).
2. In an accounting shift, the city reallocated RDA monies to replace money used
from the general fund on the Pierson Blvd. project. More specifically, $2.4
million was transferred from the RDA and into the city general fund. RDA
monies then were used for Pierson.
However, not all of Pierson Blvd. is in the RDA zone and most of the cost
associated with this road was outside the RDA zone. Was the use of RDA monies
for sections of Pierson not in the RDA zone proper?
I await your reply.
In my opinion money should never have been used from the General Fund for the
improvement of Pierson Blvd. It is a capital project and monies for it should
have come from capital improvement funds. If RDA money was transferred into the
general fund to cover expenses incurred by this project, those funds could only
be used for the portion of Pierson which is within the RDA area – which, in
this case would be Pierson Blvd from West Drive east to its terminus. Since the
project, to date, only covered the area from West Drive west to Palm Drive there
is every reason to question this use of RDA funds. Interestingly, the original
Pierson improvement was to run east from Palm Drive (which has not happened) as
well as to the West. Unfortunately, much of this project was conceptualized and
initiated when Jerry Hansen was the City Manager. Mr. Hansen owns property on
the western portion of Pierson Blvd.
Best Regards,
Russell Betts
Comments
& Responses
Readers
Comments
| 
