HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 3828 - Grant Application - HUD - 1992-93 CDBG - 02_27_1992Resolution No. 3828
February 27, 1992
Item #13
DWM:js
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and
directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a Community
Development Block Grant Application of 1992-1993 for the year 1992 and related
documents, which Application is attached herewith, which shall be spread upon
the minutes of the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council
shall constitute and be a part of this Resolution as if fully copied herein in
detail.
Passed by the City Council this 27th
ATTEST:
egte boya, Llty becreta
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
an y Og ejr ee, mmunity Development
Administrat r
APPROVED AS RM:
sW.MiTri-Attorney c , a
BLKGRANT.RES/D1-Agenda
day of Februa
� c
B. C. McMINfi, MAYOR
, 1992.
Resolution No. 3828
February 27, 1992
Item # 13 0FA5 Approval No.0348.0043
C
A
t
AP P L I LrA 1 1 V n ^V H
FEDERAL ASSISUNCE
2. DATE SUOYRTEO
Applicant Identifier
1. TYP! OF SUeurwiort
2. DATE RECEIVED ZY STATE
State Application Identifier
Aoolicar.on PnaoOliCetrG"
p Construction p Construction
4. DATE RECEIVED OY FEDERAL AGENCY
Federal Identifier
Non -Construction p NonJronsiruction
1. APKIC.ANT INFORMATION
Legal Name. — —
Organizational Una:
City of Lubbock
Community Development Department
Address (give city. county. state. and tip code)-
Name and te*ohone number of the person to be contacted on matters wwoNwi0
P.O. Box 2000
this application (give area code)
Lubbock
Sandy Ogletree
Lubbock County
Community Development Administrator
Texas 79457
(806) 767-2290
S. EMPLOYER 10ENTIFICATION NUMBER IEINY.
7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (enter appmpnafe letter in boa)
A. State H Independent School Ors(.
County I: State Controlled Institution of Higher Learring
.8
C. Municipal J. Private Unrversdv
D. Townslip K Indian Tribe
L TYPE OF APPLICATION
X3 New p Continuation p Revision
E Interstate ' L. Indivdual
F Inteimunicipal M Profit Organization
tf Revision, enter aopropriate letter(s) in boxiest ❑ ❑
G Special District N. Other (Specify)
A Increase Award 8 Decrease Award C- Increase Duration
D- Decrease Duration Other (specify):
f. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY'
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development
10. CATALOG O< <EOERAL DOMESTIC 1 !{ 2 1 8
11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANTS PROJECT:
ASSISTANCE NUMBER: e
1992-93 CDBG Entitlement Program
(A complete listing of projects and project
TITLE. Community Development Block Grant
descriptions are attakhed). -
IL AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (cities. counties. states. etcj:
City of Lubbock
13. PROPOSED PROJECT:
14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
Start Date
Ending Date
a. Applicant : b Protect
6/1/92
5/31/93
19th 19th
13. ESTIMATED FUNDING:
If. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12272 PROCESS?
s YES THIS PREAPPL)CATIONlAPPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
a Federal
= .00
2,555,000
STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON
DATE
b NO C� PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E O 12372
❑ OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW
b. AppnCJlnt
2 '00
c State
= .00
d Local
= .00
e Other
= .00
t Program Income
2 .00
17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?
❑ Yes If 'Yes.' attach an explanation No
g TOTAL
f .00
2,555,000
Is. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY
AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACMED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED
a Typed Name of Authorized Representative
b Title
a Telep►one nwnber
B. C McMinn
Mayor
806-767-3000
d Sign re of Autiorized Representative
e Oam Sgned ;
�
C, .. '
February 27,-199
1. PROVED AS T CON ENT:
HrriC V G1J t1J 1.1J z' VlCf1: -
FINAL STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
AND PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
FOR THE
CITY OF LUBBOCK
JUNE 1, 1992 - MAY 31, 1993
The City of Lubbock, through the receipt of $2,555,000 in Community
Development Block Grant funds from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, proposes to implement its Community Development Program
which has been developed so as to give maximum feasible priority to:
1. Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight.
2. Principally benefit persons of low and moderate income.
In order to implement this program, the Lubbock City Council has approved
the following programs:
A. Concentrated Code Enforcement .................. .$ 165,000
Project Neighborhoods ..................165,000
B. Neighborhood Redevelopment ....................... 1,565,614
Housing Redevelopment ............ .....175,000
Sidewalks/Arnett Benson/Chatman Hill... 40,000
HOPE Program Property Management....... 5,000
Residential Rehabilitation .............750,000
Land Disposition ....................... 5,000
Project Helping Hands..................225,000
Paint -Up Program ....................... 35,000
Home Security Program .................. 30,000
Field Services.........................300,614
C. Park Improvements ............. ............ ...... 107,690
Mae Simmons Athletic Field Lighting.... 50,000
Guadalupe Strip Park Security Lighting. 22,000
Detroit Ave. Landscaping ............... 35,690
D. Public Facilities ............ ................ .... 154,393
Early Learning Centers of Lubbock...... 75,000
Carlisle Paving ........................ 79,393
E. Public Services .................................... 160,700
Butler Park Outreach Program........... 30,500
Summer Satellite Program ............... 51,200
Graffiti Removal Program ............... 35,000
Drug Elimination Program ............... 44,000
F. Administrative Costs ............................... 340,664
Program Management .....................240,664
Indirect Costs.........................100,000
G. Contingency Fund ................................. 60,939
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM ...... $2,555,000
COMM1JNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
GRANTEE CERTIFICATIONS
In accordance with the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, and with 24 CFR 570.303 of the Community Development Block Grant
regulations, the grantee certifies that:
(a) It possesses legal authority to make a grant submission and to execute a
community development and housing program;
(b) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a
resolution, motion or similar action authorizing the person identified
as the official representative of the grantee to submit the final
statement and amendments thereto and all understandings and assurances
contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified
as the official representative of the grantee to act in connection with
the submission of the final statement and to provide such additional
information as may be required;
(c) Prior -to submission of its final statement to HUD, the grantee has:
1. Met the citizen participation requirements of §570.301(b);
2. Prepared its final statement of community development objectives
and projected use of funds in accordance with §570.301(c) and made
the final statement available to the public;
(d) It is following a detailed citizen participation plan which:
1. Provides for and encourages citizen participation, with particular
emphasis on participation by persons of low and moderate income
:•rho are residents of slum and blighted areas and of areas in a•ih i ch
funds are proposed to be used, and provides for participation of
residents in low and moderate income neighborhoods as defined by
the local jurisdiction;
2. Provides citizens with reasonable and timely access to local
meetings, information, and records relating to the grantee's
proposed use of funds, as required by the regulations of the -
Secretary, and relating to the actual use of funds under the Act;
3. Provides for technical assistance to groups representative of
persons of tow and moderate income that request such assistance in
developing proposals with the level and type of assistance to be
determined by the grantee;
4. Provides for public hearings to obtain citizen views and to
respond to proposals and questions at all stages of the community
development program, including at least the development of needs,
the review of proposed activities. and review of program
performance, which hearings shall be held after adequate notice,
at times and locations convenient to potential or actual
beneficiaries, and with accommodation for the handicapped;
5. Provides for a timely written answer to written complaints and
grievances, within 15 working days where practicable; and
6. Identifies how the needs of non-English speaking residents will be
met in the case of public hearings where a significant number of
non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to
participate;
(e) The grant will be conducted and administered in compliance with:
1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352; 42
U.S.C. §2000d et seg.); and
2. The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-20);
(f) It will affirmatively further fair housing;
(g) It has developed its final statement of projected use of funds so as to
give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and
moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of
slums or blight: (the final statement of projected use of funds may also
include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet
other community development needs having a particular urgency because
existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not
available); except that the aggregate use of CDBG funds received under
section 106 of the Act, and if applicable, under section 108 of the Act.
during the 1991-92. 1992-93 and 1993-94 program years shall principally
benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that
not less than 70 percent of such funds are used for activities that
benefit such persons during such period;
(h) It has developed a community development plan, for the period specified
in paragraph (g) above, that identifies community development and
housing needs and specifies both short and long-term community
development objectives that have been developed in accordance with the
primary objective and requirements of the Act;
(i) It is following:
1. A current housing affordability strategy which has been approved
by HUD in accordance with Section 105 of the Cranston -Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act; or
2
2. A housing assistance plan which was approved by HUD during the 180
day period beginning November 28, 1990, or during such longer
period as may be prescribed by the Secretary in any case for good
cause. -
(j) It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements
assisted in !.hole or in part with funds provided under section 106 of
the Act or ►Jth amounts resulting from a guarantee under section 108 of
the Act by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by
persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or
assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public
improvements, unless;
1. Funds received under section 106 of the Act are used to pay the
proportion of such fee or assessment that relates to the capital
costs of such public improvements that are financed from revenue
sources other than under Title I of the Act; or -
2. For purposes of assessing any amount against properties owned and
occupied by persons of moderate income, the grantee certifies to
the Secretary that it lacks sufficient funds received under
section 106 of the Act to comply with the requirements of
subparagraph (1) above;
(k) Its notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures
concerning lead -based paint will comply with §570.608;
(1) It will comply a:ith the acquisition and relocation requirements of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 as required under §570.606(a) and Federal implementing
regulations; the requirements in §570.606(b) governing the residential
antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of
the Act (including a certification that the grantee is following such a
plan); the relocation requirements of §570.606(c) governing displacement
subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the relocation requirements of
§570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section
105(a)(11) of the Act; and
(m) It has adopted and is enforcing:
1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement
agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged
in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against
physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location
which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights
demonstrations within its jurisdiction;
r
(n) To the best of its knowledge and belief:
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will -be paid, by
or on behalf of it, to airy person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any
Federal.loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and
the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification
of any:Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid
or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a -Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or -an employee of a
Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit
Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in
accordance with its instructions; and
3. It will require that the language of paragraph (n) of this
-certification be included in the award documents for all subawards
at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loan, and cooperative agreements) and that all
subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly;
(o) It will or will continue to provide a drug -free workplace by:
1. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful
manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a
controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and
specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for
violations of such prohibition;
2. Establishing an ongoing drug -free awareness program to inform
employees about -
(a) The dangers of drug abuse in the :,iorkplace;
(b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace;
(c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee
assistance programs; and
(d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse
violations occurring in the workplace;
3. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the
performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by
paragraph 1;
4
4. Notifyina the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as
a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will -
(a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and
(b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a
violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no
later than five calendar days after such conviction;
5. Notifying the agency in writing, :vithin ten calendar days after
receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise
receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted
employees must provide notice. including position title, to every grant
officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee
was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point
for the receiot of such notices. Notice shall include the
identification number(s) of each affected grant;
6. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of
receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b), with respect to any employee
:•iho is so convicted -
(a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up
to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or
(b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug
abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such
purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or
other appropriate agency;
7. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug -free workplace
through implementation of paragraphs 1, 2. 3, 4. 5 and 6.
3. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the
oerformance of work done in connection with the specific grant:
Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code)
Community Development Department
Citv of Lubbock
P. 6. Box 2000, 1625 13th Street
Lubbock, Texas 79457
Lubbock County
Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified
here; and
(p) It will comply with the other provisions of the Act and with other
aool icable laws.
5
r I I
Office of
Community Development
City of Lubbock
P.O. Box 2000
Lubbock, Texas 79457
BOB-767-2296
August 25, 1992
Mr. R. D. Smith
Regional Director for Community
Planning & Development
U. S. Department of Housing &
Urban Development
Fort Worth Regional Office
P. O. Box 2905
Fort Worth; Texas 76113-2905
Attn: Mr. Jerry Jensen
Dear Mr. Smith:
Please find attached the City of Lubbock's Grantee Performance
Report for the Fiscal Year ended May 31, 1992. If you have any
questions concerning this report, please call me.
Sincerely,
Sandy Ogl tree
Community Development
Administrator
SO/cf
enc.
Grantee Performance Report
U.S. Departmentof Housing
and Urban Development t�
Community Development
Block Grant Program ir
OMB Approval No. 2506-0077 (exp. 3131/90)
1. Named Grant« - 2. Grant Nurrraer '>.
City of Lubbock B-91-MC-48-0022
Y:. ,
s:: : _.. _ . _. ..: _..
7. Grantee's Address 14. Person who can best answer questions about this report
P. 0. Box 2000
Lubbock, TX 79457
Sandy Ogletree
Community Development Administrator
Telephone Nuniner ,,....::. ... :..._ .:---...
1(806) 767-2290
6. This report consists of the following forms showing progress achieved through (date) : 5-31— 9 2
a. Activity Summary, form HUD-4949.2.
b. Status of Funds - Part I and Part II, form HUD-4949.3.
c. Low / Mod Benefit Worksheet, form HUD-4949.3a.
d. Status of Funds - Part III, form 4949.4.
e. Direct Benefit Activities, form HUD-4949.5.
f. Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, form HUD-4949.6.
g. Displacement, form HUD-4949.7.
See HUD handbook 6510.2. 'Entitlement Grantee Performance Report Instructions' for guidance on completing the GPR.
7. This report also contains:
a. Assessments by the grantee of the relationship of the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to:
(1) locally identified community development objectives;
(2) the National Objectives which require that each CDBG assisted activity must either benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in the prevention or
elimination of slums or blight, or meet community needs having a particular urgency; and
(3) the Primary Objective wnich requires that in the aggregate at least 60 percent of all CDBG funds expended during the one, two or three consecutive
program years specified by the grantee in its certification will be for activities which benefit low and moderate income persons;
b. Descriptions of:
(1) the nature of and reasons for changes in the grantee's program objectives; and
(2) how the grantee would change its program as a result of its experiences;
c. Summary of any comments received by the grantee on its program from citizens in its jurisdiction.
8.Thegrantee'sauthorizedOfficial Representativecertlflesthat:
a. This report contains all items identified in items 6 and 7 above.
b. To the best of his / her knowledge and belief the data in this report is true and correct as of the date in item 6.
c. Federal assistance made available under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program has not been utilized to reduce substantially the
amount of local financial support for community development activities below the level of such support prior to the start of the most recently completed
CDBG program year.
Warning: Section 1001ofTitle 18dfthe United States Code (Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure) shall apply to the foregoing certlflcation.Title
18provld ,am therthings,thatwhoever,knowinglyandwlllfullymekesorusesadocumentorwrilingcontainInganyfalse,flctitlou3,of
fraudule t statementVirentry,in a er IntheJurlsdlctlonofanydepartmentoragencyoftheUnitedStates,shallbeflnednotmorethan
$10,000orImprison otmore than five yea ,or both.
Y. Typed Name and Trtle t A horded Oftldal Reor ntatne
Dav
10. Slgnatut'k `(,J/ — 11. Date
Retain this recor fl
for ear
Previous edition Is obsolete
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
',— J:g, - ---------
Sandy Ogle ree, ommunity Development
Administ4� �
tor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Linda Ch males, Assistant City Attorney
form HUD-4949.1(4B8)
rot. handDDOn 6510.2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 1 OF 14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
IGRANT NUMBER
IB-91-MC-48-0022 0 7TH YEAR )
IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
I I
I I I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
IACTIVITYI LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIRI i ACT- I I
I NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
IIVITY( I I I THIS (EXPENDED( LIQUID -I OBLIGA-(CODES I
IFUND-I I I I REPORT-1 TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI
I I I I I I I PERIOD i I TIONS I I I
A I B I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I
I IDED ASSISTANCE TO FOR -PROFIT I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I7.2.1-87IDED ASSISTANCE TO FOR -PROFIT I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I -----------------------------------I I I I
17.2.1-87IECONOMIC INCENTIVE FUND I87/10I)l I
I I
I OI
I
80500I
I
OI
I
44500IA,D
I
(Active Project I
I (Economic Incentive Fund (8620) I I I I
I I
I
I
I
13 new loans in process. I
I (Provides local match requirement I I I I
I I
(
I
I I
I Ifor the SPAG revolving loan fund. I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
(Loans have been made to Diesel Injel I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I Iction, Porter Manufacturing, & Bighl I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I jam Brothers Inc.. _ I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
1# of Expected Jobs: 5 I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I 1# of Lou -Mod Jobs: 5 I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
i I I I I I
I IACQUISTION I I I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I1.5.1-90IACQUISITI0N OF REAL PROPERTY I90/06Ihl I
I 1193611
149180I
OI
-1780IB
(Active Project I
I (Arnett Benson (16th Year) I I I I
I I
I
I
I
14 Acquisitions I
I (Bounded by Univ. Ave on the E., I I I I
I I
I
I
I
12 Demolitions I
I ICLovis Rd. on the N., 4th on the S.I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I(C.T. 3) (LM% 65.9) I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I# of Units to be Rehab: 4 I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I# of Lou -Mod Units: 4 I I I I
I I I Illj
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I I Illl
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I
I l
I I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
Page I I I III
1193611
I
01
I
I I
ITotals I I I I I
I I
229680I
I
42720I
j I
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 2 OF 14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT I
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
IGRANT NUMBER
IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR
IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
I I
I I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
IACTIVITYI LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIR I ACT- I I
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
IIVITY( I I I THIS (EXPENDED( LIQUID -I OBLIGA-(CODES I I
IFUND-I I I I REPORT-1 TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I I
A i B
I C IDIEIFI
G I
H I
I I J I K
I L i
I1.5.2-90IA000ISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
190/06Ihl I l
472971
70984I
OI 27161B
(Active Project I
I lChatman Hill (16th Year)
( I I I I
I
I
I I
11 Acquisition I
I I Bounded by Ave. A on the W. , South
I I I I I
I
I
I I
I I
I least on the E., 19th to the N. and
I I I I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I34th to the South.
I I I I I
I
I
I I
I
I l(C.T. 12.02) (LM% 65.6)
I 1# of Units to be Rehab: 2
I I I I I
I
I
I I
I 1
I# of Low -Mod Units: 2
i I
I I I I I
I IIII
I
I
I
I
I I
I 1
I I
I
I I
I1.6.1-91IACGUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
I IIII
I91/06Ihl I l
I
DI
I
OI
I I
OI 1474001A
I
(Active Project. I
I (Arnett Benson (17th year)
I I I I I
I
I
I I
llnteraction with new programs I
I (Bounded by Univ. Ave. on the E.,
I I I I I
I
I
I I
lin process.
I (Clovis Rd. on N., 4th on the S.
I I I I I
I
I
I I
I I
I l(C.T.3) (LM% 65.9)
I I I I I
I
I
I I
I I
I 1# Units to be Rehab: 4
I I I I I
I
I
I I
I I
I# Low Mod Units: 4
I I
I I I I I
I ( I l l
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I1.6.2-91IACOUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
I ( I l l
I91/06Ihl I I
I
DI
I
OI
I I
OI 75000IA
I I
lActive Project. I
I lOn-Site Redevelopment (4413)
I I I I I
I
I
I I
lInteraction with new programs I
(Purpose of project is to clear
I I I I I
I
I
I I
Iin process. I
I Iseverly dilapidated structures not
I I I I I
I
I
I I
I I
I Ifeasible for rehabilitation.
I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I1.6.3-91IACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
I I I I I
191/09Ihl I I
I
310I
I
310I
I I
OI 74690IA
I
JProject Completed. I
I II-27 Aquisition (1618)
I I I I I
I
I
I I
IAquisitions were completed I
(Purpose of project is to clear
I I I I I
I
I
I I
Ithrough private funding. I
I (severely dilapidated structures
I I I I I
l
I
I I
I
I lalong 1-27 corridor.
I I
I I
I I
I I I I I
I IIII
I I I I I
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
(Page I I I I I I 47607I I DI I I
I Tota i s I I I I I I I 712941 I 2998061 I
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (NAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 3 OF 14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CITY OF LUBBOCK I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT I I
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
(GRANT NUMBER
JB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR )
(PERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
I I
I I I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
IACTIVITYI LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIR' � i ACT- I I
I NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
I IIVITY( I I I THIS IEXPENDEDI LIQUID -I OBLIGA-ICODES I I
I I IFUND-I I I I REPORT-( TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
I I IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I I
A I B I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I
I (PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROV. I I I I
I I
I
I
I I I
I2.2.4-87IPUBLIC FACIL. 8 IMPROVEMENTS I87/10Ial I
I 156631
684021
OI
-5702IA (Active project. I
I (Neighborhood Entrance (7116) I I I I
I . I
I
I
I I
I (Construction of an entrance I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I Itreatment at 23rd and Ash. This I I I I
I I
I
I
I I I
I (project also includes the I I I(
I I
I
I
I I
I (installation of plant material I I I(
I I
I
I
) I I
I (along Ash Ave. I I I I
I I
I
I
I I I
I I I I I I
I I(C.T. 12.02) (LM% 65.6). I I I I
I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I I
I I
i I I I I I
12.5.3-90IPUB FACIL-PARKS,RECREAT. FACIL I90/06Ial I
I I
I 244701
I
254181
I
OI
I I
-3418IA (Project under construction. I
I (Guadalupe Neighborhood Entrance I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I (Sign (0107) I I I I
I I
I
I
I I
I (Construction and Landscaping of an I I I I
I I
I
I
I I
I (entrance marker in the Guadalupe I I I I
I I
I
I
I I I
I (neighborhood. I I I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I I
I I I I
I I(C.T. 2.02, 8) (LM% 64.09) I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I I I
I2.5.5-90IPUB FACIL-SIDEWALKS I90/06Ial I
I I
I 488761
I
495921
I
OI
I I I
408IB (Project Completed.
I (Sidewalk/ North Overton (0613) I I I I
I I
I
I
I 1 I
I Itnstallation of sidewalk for Low/ I I I I
I I
I
I
I I I
Imoderate income homeowners on Aves.I I I I
I I
I
I
I I
I IR-T• I I I I
I
I I
I
I
I I I
I I I I I
I I(C.T. 6.01, 6.02) (LM% 82.02) I I I I
I i I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I
I I
I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I
I
I I
(Page I I I I I
I 890091
I
DI
I I I
(Totals I I I I I
I I
1434121
I
-87121 I I
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 4 OF 14 1
IC1TY OF LUBBOCK
IGRANT NUMBER IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 1
IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR ) I {
I i I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
I I IMO IL{S{UI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
(ACTIVITY( LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIR l ACT- I i
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS 1
I IIVITYI I I I THIS (EXPENDED( LIQUID-1 OBLIGA-1CODES I I
I IFUND-1 I I I REPORT-1 TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
I ( IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-1 BALANCEI I I
I i I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I I
I A I B
I C IDIEIFI
G I H I I I
J I K
I L I
12.5.7-901PUB FACIL-STREET IMPROVEMENT
190/091al 1 1
265941 265941 01
162841A
(Project Completed. 1
I (Chapel Hill Paving (0319)
1 I I I{
I I I
I
I I
I IThis project has provided a
I I I I I
I I I
I
I I
I (residential street including curb
I I I I I
I I I
I
I I
I land gutter on Baylor Ave. between
I lolive and Niter.
I I I I I
I I I
I
I 1
I I (C.T. 11) (LM% 80)
I I
I I I I I
I (III
I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I
I I
12.6.10 IPUB FACIL-PARKS,RECREAT.FACIL
I I I I I
192/021al I 1
I I I
01 OI 01
I
319001A
I
(Active Project. I
I IRodgers Playground (1121)
1 l l 1 1
1 1 1
1
(Planning and Bidding in 1
I IThis project will provide for the
I I I I I
I I I
I
1progress. 1
I lexpansion of the playground equip
1 1{ l I
1 { 1
1
l I
I Iment at Rodgers Park and add side
I 11 1 I
I I l
I
1 I
I lwalk to the playground.
I I I I I
I I I
I
I I
i I (C.T. 3) (LM% 65.99)
I I
I I I{{
I I I I I
{ I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I I
12.6.11 IPUB FACIL-STREET IMPROVEMENTS
I I I I I
192/021al I 1
I I I
01 OI 01
I
586941A
I I
(Active Project. I
I lcarlisle Paving II (1306)
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1
lEngineering and Planning in 1
I IThis project will augment the
I I I I I
I I I
I
1process. I
I (current paving project in Carlisle
I land will serve to complete main
I I l 1 1
1 I I
I
I I
I Istreets. Urbana Place.
I I I I I
{ I I
I
{ 1
I I(C.T. 104) (LM% 55.29)
I I
I I
i I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I I
I IIII
I I I I I
I I I I I
I IIII
I IIII
I I{II
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I {
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I {
I
I
I Page I I I I 1 1 265941 1 01 1 1
ITotals I I I I I 1 1 265941 1 1068781 1
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 5 OF 14 l
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT I I
I IGRANT NUMBER IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 1
1 ACTIVITY SUMMARY IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR ) I I
I I I YEAR/III I I I I
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
tACT1VITYI LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIR ACT- I 1
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- (1VITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS l
I I IIVITYI I I I THIS IEXPENDEDI LIQUID-1 OBLIGA-ICODES I I
1 I IFUND-1 I I I REPORT-1 TO DATEI ATED I TED I I 1
I I IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-1 BALANCEI I I
I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I I
I A I B I C IDIEIFI
I I I I I
G I H I I
I I
I J I K
I I
I L t
I
I
12.6.1-911PUB FACIL-SIDEWALKS I91/061al 1 1
39531 39531
OI 46047IA
(Active Project. 1
I (Arnett Benson/Sidewalks (1607) 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
(Construction in progress. 1
I linstallation of new sidewalks in ( I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I Ithe 2700-2800 blocks of Emory and 1 I I I I
1 I
1 I
1 1
I I Corner 1. I I I I I
I I
I I
I
I I(C.T.3) (LM% 65.9) 1 1 1 1 1
I I I IIII
1 1
I I
1 1
I I
1 I
I
I I I I I I I
12.6.2-911PUB FACIL-STREET IMPROVEMENTS 191/061al 1 1
I I
725381 725381
I I
01 113621A
I I
(Active Project. 1
I ICarlisle Street Paving (1305) 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
(Paving in process. l
I IThis project will provide for the I I I I I
I I
1 1
145 households will be affectedl
I Iconstruction of standard City of I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I (Lubbock residential streets for thel I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I ICarlisle area. 21st & 25th, Urbana I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I Ito Upland Rd. I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I(C.T. 104) (LM% 55.29) I I I I I
I I I I I I I
1 1
I I
1 1
I I
1 1
I I
I I I I I I I
12.6.3-911PUB FACIL-PARKS,RECREAT.FACIL 191/061al I 1
I I
11 11
I I
OI 14999IA
I I
1Active Project. l
I (Arnett Benson Beautification (1101)1 I I I I
1 I
1 1
1 I
I linstallation of landscaping materi I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I Ials along Detroit Avenue corridor. I I I I I
I I
I I
I
I I(C.T.3) (LM% 65.99) 1 I I I I
I I I IIII
1 I
I I
1 1
I I
1 I
I I
I I I I I I I
12.6.4-911PUB FACIL-PARKS,RECREAT.FACIL 191/061al 1 1
I I
50I 501
I I
01 209501A
I
(Active Project l
I IGuadalupe Strip Park Lgtg. (1103) 1 I I 1 1
1 1
1 1
(Currently underway: 8 Poles & 1
I IThis project will provide for the 1 I I I I
I I
1 1
117 Lights being added. 1
I linstallation of park area lighting I I I I I
I I
I 1
1 I
I Iat end and Ave. P. I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I(C.T. 8) (LM% 64.09) I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I Page I I I I 1 1 765421 I 01 1 1 I
ITotals I I I I I 1 1 765421 1 933581 1 I
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 6 OF 14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT I I
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
IGRANT NUMBER
IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR )
IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
I I
I i I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
IACTIVITYI LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIR ACT- I I
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS 1
1 ( IIVITYI I I I THIS (EXPENDED( LIQUID-1 OBLIGA-ICODES I
I I IFUND-1 I I I REPORT-1 TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
I I IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I I
I A I B I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I
12.6.5-911PUB FACIL-CHILD CARE CENTERS 191/06Ial I
1 375001 375001
OI
OIB
(Project Completed. I
I IPlayground Renovations (1613) I 11 1
1 I I
I
1
(Each facility services 120-1401
1 (Replacement of existing playground I I I I
I I I
I
I
Ichildren daily. I
I 1equipment at the Vanda Early Learn I I I I
I 1 I
I
I
I I
I ling Center & Erskine Early Learningl I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I I Center. I I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I I(C.T. 12.02,2.02,3,8,9,10,11,12.01)1 1 1 1
1 I 1
1
I
I I
I I(LM% 62.53) I I I I
I I I I l l
I I I
s i I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
i I I IIII
12.6.6-911PUB FACIL-NEIGHBORHOOD FACIL 191/061al I
I I
1 100001 100001
I
OI
I
OIB
I
(Project Completed. 1
I 1Chatman Hospital Restoration (16101 I I I
I 1 1
1
1
lone analysis was completed andl
I IThe purpose of this project is to I I I I
I I I
I
I
Ipublic and private funding I
(begin the process of restoring the I I I I
I I I
I
I
lis being sought to continue I
I Ifacility at 2301 Cedar. I I I I
I I I
I
I
1project next year. I
I I(C.T. 12.02) (LM% 65.61) 1 l I l
I I I I I I
l 1 1
I I I
1
I
1
I
1 I
I
I I I IIII
12.6.7-91IPUB FACIL-NEIGHBORHOOD FACIL 191/091al 1
I I
1 5161 5161
I
OI
I
94841A
I I
lActive Project. 1
I 1Health Department Renovations(1219)1 I I I
I I I
I
I
1Renovations in progress. 1
I IThe purpose of this project is to I I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I ladd examination rooms to the Women'( I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I Is Health Clinic at the Health Dept.1 I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I I(City Wide Benefit) I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I I I I I
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I i I I I I
I I I
I i
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I Page I I I I I
I 480161 1
01
1
1
ITotals I I I I I
1 I 480161
1
94841
I
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 7 OF 14 I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
IGRANT NUMBER IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
ACTIVITY SUMMARY IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR ) I I
I I I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
I I IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I
(ACTIVITY( LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIRI I ACT- I I
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
I IIVITYI I I I THIS IEXPENDEDI LIQUID-( OBLIGA-ICODES I I
I IFUND-1 I I I REPORT -I TO DATEI ATED I TED I I
IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I
I A I B 1 C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I
I2.6.8-91IPUB FACIL-PARKS,RECREAT.FACIL 191/091.1 I
1 OI
OI
OI
22310IA
(Active Project. I
I (Detroit Avenue Landscaping (1120) I I I I
I I
I
I
I
IPLanning and purchasing in I
I IThe purpose of this project is to I I I I
I I
I
I
I
Iprocess. I
I (augment current efforts to beautify) I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I Ithe Detroit Ave. right of way with I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I (plant materials. I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I(C.T. 3) (LM% 65.99) I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I I I I I
I2.6.9-91IPUB FACIL-NEIGHBORHOOD FACIL I91/09Ial I
I I
I 183941
I
183941
I
OI
I
1606IA
I i
(Active Project.
I lGoodwiLl Industries Rehabilitation I I I I
I I
I
I
I
190% Complete. Heating and AC I
I I(1621) _ I I I I
I I
I
I
I
Isystems installed and reno
(Purpose of the project is to expandl I I I
I I
I
I
I
Ivations added.
I land rehabilitate the facility. I I I I
I 1
I l(C.T. 25,12.02) (LM% 59.26) I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I I I I I
I IPUBLIC SERVICE I I I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I4.5.2-90IPUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES I90/06Icl I
1 158341
202881
OI
5212IB
(Project Complete. I
I (Butter Park Outreach Program Ph. III I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I (0103) I I I I
I I
I
I
1
I I
1 (Expands existing programs to the I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I (Rodgers and Rawlings Community Ctrsl I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
i I I Ill)
I I(C.T. 13,24,3) (LM% 64.88) I I I I
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I Page I I I I I
I 342281
I
01
I
I
ITotats I I I I I
1 1
386821
I
291281
1
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 8 OF 14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT {
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
IGRANT NUMBER
IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR )
IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92
� I
I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
(ACTIVITY( LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIRI ' ACT- I
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I i INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
IIVITY( I I I THIS (EXPENDED( LIQUID-( OBLIGA-(CODES I
IFUND-I I I I REPORT-1 TO DATE( ATED I TED I I
IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I
I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I I
I A I B I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L
I4.5.4-90IPUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES I90/06Icl I
1 OI 104421
OI 10158IB
(Project completed. I
I ISummer Satellite Program Phase II I I I I
I I I
I I
I I (0106) I I I I
I I I
I I
I
IExapands phase I to include the I I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I Ifollouing locations: Chatman (E. 21 I I I
I I I
I I
I
I I9th 8 Juniper), Mahon (2010 Cornelll I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I (),Carlisle (28th 8 Ave.X), Clayton I I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I ICarter(G(obe & N. Loop 289). I I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I I IIII
I l(C.T. 2.01,9,14,12.02) (LMX 57.87)I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I4.6.1-91IPUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES I91/06Icl I
I 246341 246341
OI 4866IB
(Project Complete. I
I (Butler Park Outreach Pgm. (1102) I I I I
I I I
I I
16,000 youths participated I
I (Provides organized recreation progrl I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I lams for youth at Rodgers,Raulings, I I I I
I I I
I I
I
I land Mae Simmons community centers. I I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I(C.T. 3,8,9,10,11,12.02,13,24) I I I I
I I I
I I
I
I I (LMX 64.88) I I I I
I i I IIII
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I I I
I4.6.2-91IPUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES I91/06Icl I
I I I
I 380971 380971
I I
OI 9703IB
I I
(Project Complete.
I ISummer Satellite Pgm. (1104) I I I I
I I I
I I
145,121 participants recorded. I
I (Provides organized recreation progrl I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I lams for youth at H011ins,BurnS,Chatl I I I
I I I
I I
I
Iman, Carlisle, Carter,Yellouhouse I I I I
I land N.Overton parks. I I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I(C.T.2.01,2.02,7,8,9,12.02,14) I I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I (LM% 65.82) I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I IIII
i I I IIII
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I I I
I I l
I I
I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I Page I I I I I
I 627311 I
01 I
I I
(Totals I I I I I
I I 731731
I 247271
I I
AMRS 2.12
FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989
ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 9 OF 14 I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT i '
IGRANT NUMBER ]PERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
ACTIVITY SUMMARY IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR ) I I
t i i t
I I I YEAR/ ] I I I I I
I IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
]ACTIViTYI LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIR' i ACT- I I
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDED] TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
I IIVITY] I I I THIS ]EXPENDED] LIQUID-1 OBLIGA-ICODES I I
I I IFUND-1 I I I REPORT-1 TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-1 BALANCEI I I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS ] I I I
I A I B I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I
I4.6.3-91IPUB SVS-COMMUNITY SERVICES I91/061cl 1 1 30001 30001 01 8500IA (Active Project. I
I (information 8 Referral (1817) 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 IPlanning and Purchasing in I
I ]Purpose of this project is to I I I I I I I I I (process. I
I Icreate an information 8 exchange I I I I I I I I I I I
I Ifor human service providers throughl I I I I I I I I I I
I la networking system. I I I I I I I I I I I
I ((City Wide) I I I I] ] ] ] I ] I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I i I I I I I I I I I I
14.6.4-911PUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES 191/09Icl 1 1 5321 5321 01 49468IA (Active Project
I (Youth Initiatives (1622) I I I I I I I I 1 (Contracts and Liability legal I
(Expands the drug eljmination I I I I I I I I I lities in process. I
I ]program to Arnett Benson,Overton, I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
I lButler,Chatman and Guadalupe area's] I I I I I ] I I 1 I
I lyouths at high risk. I I I I I I I ] I I
I I(C.T.3,6.01,6.02,8,9,10,12.01) ] I I I I I I I ]
I I(LM% 67.49)
I I I IIII I I I I I I
I I I IIII I I I I I I
14.6.5-91IPUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES I91/091cl 1 1 6111 6111 OI 343891A (Active Project
I (Graffiti Removal Program (1623) I I I I I 1 1 1 I (Coordinators, employees, and I
I IThe purpose of this project is to I I I I I I I I I Isites chosen. Work is primar I
I Iremove graffiti from private proper] I I I I I I I I Illy in summer months.
I Ity as well as giving JTPA youths ( 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I
I Iuummer employment. I I I I I I I I I I I
I ((City Wide) I I I I I I I I I I
I I I IIII I I I I I I
i I I I I I I i 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I IIII I I I I I I
I I I IIII I I I I I I
Page I I I I I I 41431 1 01 1 1 I
(Totals I I I I I 1 I 41431 1 923571 I
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (NAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 10 OF 14 i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
I IGRANT NUMBER IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
ACTIVITY SUMMARY IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR ) I I
I I I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
IACTIVITYI LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIRl Ti ACT- I I
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION IACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
IIVITYI I I I THIS IEXPENDEDI LIQUID -I OBLIGA-ICODES I I
I I IFUND-I I I I REPORT-1 TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I
I A I B I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L
I IREHABILITATION I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I5.5.1-90IREHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL I90/06Ihl I
I 849521 5938841
OI
6116IB
144 Households assisted during
I (Rehab. 16th Year I I I I
I I I
I
I
Ithis reporting period.
I (Assistance to qualified households I I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I Ito correct substandard condditions.I I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I (Based on individual applications. I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I I(Citywide) I I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I I# of Units to be Rehab: 44 I I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I 1# of Low -Mod Units: 44 I I I I
I I I IIII
I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I
I5.5.5-90IREHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL I90/06Ihl I
I I I
I 4851 43591
I
OI
I
641IB
I
(Active project. I
I ILand Disposition (0611) I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I (Provides for all site preparation I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I Iwork necessary on marketed parcels I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I Iof land in the C.D. inventory. I I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I I# of Units to be Rehab: 10 I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I I# of Low -Mod Units: 10 I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I
I5-5.6-90IREHAS-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL I90/06IhI I
I I I
I 53641 53641
I
OI
I
-364IB
I I
(Active Project. I
I (Homestead Property Mgt. (0612) I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I (Rehabilitation services associated I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
Iwith the Urban Homestead Program. I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I ((Urban Homestead Target Area) I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I I# of Units to be Rehab: 5 I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I I# of Low -Mod Units: 5 I I I I
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
i I
I I
I I
I I
I Page I I I I I I 908011 I 01 I I
ITotals I I I I I I I 6036071 I 63931 I
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 11 OF 14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT I
IGRANT NUMBER IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
ACTIVITY SUMMARY IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR
I YEAR/ I I I I I I i
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I i
IACTIVITYI LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIRI I I ACT- I I
I NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
IIVITYI I I I THIS (EXPENDED( LIQUID -I OBLIGA-ICODES I
IFUND-I I I I REPORT-( TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I I
A B I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I
I5.6.1-91IREHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL. I91/06Ihl I
I 2275001
2275001
OI
-2500IB
(Project Completed I
I (Project Helping Hands (1608) I I I I
I I
I
I
I
1135 Households Assisted. I
I IThis program provides emergency I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I Irehab services to qualified house I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I Iholds to correct substandard condi I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I Itions. Based on individual applicatl I I I
I I
I
I lions. I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I(City Wide) I I I I
I I I IIII
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I I IIII
I5.6.2-91IREHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL. I91/06Ihl I
I
I 2549061
I
2549061
I
OI
I
345094IA
I I
(Active Project I
I (Rehab 17th Year (4413) I I I I
I I
I
I
I
135 Households assisted. I
I (Assistance to qualified households I
I Ito correct substandard conditions. I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I (Based on individual applications. I I I I
I I
I
I
I I(City Wide) I I I I
I I I IIII
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I I I I I
I5.6.3-91IREHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL. I91/06Ihl I
I I
I 754651
I
754651
I
OI
I
174535IA
I
(Active Project I
I (Residential Loan Program-17th year I I I I
I I
I
I
I
117 Households assisted.
I IThe purpose of this program is to I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I (augment the rehab program with be I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I Ilow market rate loans which have anI I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I installment payback. I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I(City Wide) I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I I I IIII
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I Page I I I I I
I 5578711
I
01
I
I
(Totals I I I I I
I I
5578711
I
5171291
I I
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (NAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 12 OF 14 i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
IGRANT NUMBER IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 l
ACTIVITY SUMMARY I8-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR ) I l
I I I YEAR/III I I I I
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT
(ACTIVITY( LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIR1 ACT- I I
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS l
IIVITYI I I I THIS (EXPENDED( LIQUID-( OBLIGA-ICODES I
IFUND-1 I I I REPORT-1 TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
I IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I I
I A i e I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I
15.6.4-911REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL. 191/061hl I
1 497101
497101
OI
-197101B
(Project Completed i
I (Paint -Up Program (1609) I I I I
I I
I
1
I
1682 Households Assisted l
I (Provides paint 8 supplies for low I I I I
I I
I
I
I
12 non -Profit Assisted. l
I (income persons to paint their homes) I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I(City Wide) I I I I
I I I IIII
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I I IIII
15.6.5-911REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL. 191/06Ihl I
I
1 139531
I
139531
I
OI
I
160471B
I
(Project Completed. I
I (Home Security/Elderly (1816) I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I (Provide 8 Install deadbolt locks I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I l
I land other security devices for low I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I 1
I lincome elderly homeowners. I 1 I I
I I
I
I
I
I 1
I I(City Wide) I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I I IIII
15.6.6-911REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL. I91/061hl I
i
I 37091
I
37091
i
OI
I
1291IA
I
(Active Project. l
I )Affordable Housing (1611) 1 I I I
I I
1
I
I
1 I
1 )Provides for all site preparation I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I 1
I )work necessary on marketed parcels I 1 I I
I I
I
(
I
I l
I lof land in Urban Renewal inventory.) I I I
I I I IIII
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I I I I I
15.6.7-911REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL. 191/06Ihl I
I I
I 38841
I
38841
I
01
I
11116IA
I I
(Active Project. i
I lHomestead Property Mgmt. (1610) 1 1 1 1
1 1
I
1
I
I
1 )Rehabilitation services associated I I I 1
1 I
I
I
I
I I
I )with the Urban Homestead Program. I ) I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I )(Urban Homestead Target Area) I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
1 I I ill)
I I
I I
i
I I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I I IIII
I I I I I I
I I i IIII
I
I I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
1Page I I I I I
I 712561
1
01
1
1 I
)Totals I I I I I
I I
712561
I
87441
1 l
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 13 OF 14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
IGRANT NUMBER IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
ACTIVITY SUMMARY IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR ) I I
I i I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
I I IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT
(ACTIVITY( LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIR ACT- I I
I NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
I I IIVITYI I I I THIS (EXPENDED( LIQUID-( OBLIGA-ICODES I I
I I IFUND-I I I I REPORT-( TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
I I IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I
I A I B I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I
15.6.8-91IREHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL. I91/061hl I 1 2785351 2785351 OI-13535IB (Project Completed. I
I (Field Services (4415) I I I I I I I I I I
I IStaff and overhead of Rehab.prgm. I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I IIII I I I I I
I I I IIII I I I I I
ICODE ENFORCEMENT ( I I I I I I I I I I
I6.6.1-91ICODE ENFORCEMENT I91/06I Ial I 1863621 1863621 OI 27118 (Project Completed I
I (Project Neighborhoods I I I I I I I I I I I
I (Elimination of slum & blight by I I I I I I I I I I I
I (enforcement of minimum housing codel I I I I I I I I I I
I Istandards. I I I I I I I I I I
I i I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I IPLANNING I I I I I I I I I I I
19.6.1-91IPLANNING DOCUMENTS I91/061 1 1 1 40001 40001 OI OIB (Project Complete I
I IPlanning Documents (1615) I I I I I I I I 1 1 I
1 (Printing of the Lubbock population'( I I I I I I I I I
I land economic report,census informatl I I I I I I I I I
I lion documents, and other planning dl I I I I I I I I I I
I locuments which benefit the general I I I I I I I I I I I
I IpubLic. I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I IIII I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I i I I I
I I I I I I I I I i I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I Page I I I I I 1 4688971 1 01 I 1 I
ITotals I I I I I 1 I 4688971 1-132641 1 I
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
November 1989 ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 14 OF 14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT i
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
IGRANT NUMBER
IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR )
IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92 I
I I
{ I I YEAR/ I I I I I I I
IMO ILISIUI CDBG AMOUNT I I I
(ACTIVITY( LOCATION, ACTIVITY, NAME, I IMIBIR r ACT- I I
NUMBER I AND DESCRIPTION TACT- I I INIEXPENDEDI TOTAL I UN- I UN- IIVITY I ACCOMPLISHMENTS / STATUS I
IIVITY( I I I THIS (EXPENDED( LIQUID -I OBLIGA-(CODES I I
I IFUND-1 I I I REPORT-1 TO DATEI ATED I TED I I I
I IED I I I I ING I I OBLIGA-I BALANCEI I I
I I I I I I I PERIOD I I TIONS I I I I
I A I B I C IDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I
19.6.2-911PLANNING DOCUMENTS
192/021 I I
1 01
OI
OI
100001A
(Active Project I
I (Redevelopment Study (1624)
I I I I
I I
I
I
I
{ {
1 (Providing study and architectual
I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I {
I (analysis of the Starlight
I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I {
I Icom ercial center.
I I I I
I I
I
I
I
{ {
I I(C.T. 12.02) (LM% 65.61)
I I I I
I I
I
1
{
{ {
I I
I IPROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
I IIII
I I I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
110.6.1-91PRGM.ADMIN-GEN MGMT,OVRST,COOR
191/061 I I
I 1910301
1910301
OI
-50301B
(Project Completed
I (Administration (4411)
I {
I I I I
I I I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
110.6.2-91PRGM.ADMIN-INDIRECT COSTS
I I I I
191/061 I I
I I
I 1584451
I
1584451
I
OI
I
-33445IB
I I
(Project Completed
I (Indirect Costs (1612)
I I
I I I I
I I I I
1 I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
i I
I (UNPROGRAMMED FUNDS
I I I I
I I I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I 1
111.6.1-91UNPROGRAMMED FUNDS
I91/06I 1 1
1 OI
OI
OI
64687IA
(Active Project {
I I Contingency Funds
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I IIII
I IIII
I IIII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I Page I
I I I 1
1 3494751
1
01
1
I {
1Totals I
I I I I
I 1
3494751
1
362121
1 I
I Grand I I I I I 1 2046531I 1 01 1 I
(Totals I I I I I 1 127626421 112449601 1 {
AMRS 2.12 FORM HUD-4949.2 (4-88)
ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
Grantee Performance Report
Rehabilitation Activities
U.S. Ccoarim twit of Housing
an a Urban Oeveiooment /9
Communirv, Oovooment !�
Bloc^ Grant Program I i
V- B Aoomval No. 2=C5-0077 (exo. 3M1F_
r;ec.:r_ro =af:Cn rcr'.n;s :=.!aG'cn of intCrma:on is esamawa tJ averaae 4 nouns oat resoonso, nciucing Vte Ome for reviewing tns=CL:on$. sararcn-
!+q e■'s:r'a cam scurces. ga=onnq ana mainaininq tr.e data neecaa. and ccmcietinq and reviewing trio collection of information. Sera comments reoan=in-
:s =:neon es'.:mats Cr any a-. er ascect of tr.is ec eccon or intermaaon. inc:ucina sugceseons rcr rr_cuc:na :.his tureen, to trio Recia s Vet = -err Cmoer
C'-`-:a :t ::C:os .3.:a Sivons, U.J. Zooar--rent ci hCUsino ano Urban Gavejocment, Wasninglon. O.C. Z3410-3600: and to 7:0 Chico of
Yar+ace�ent and = =cot Pacerworx .:acuc_cn Pro-ect iS°C6-00771'Nasnincicn. O.C. 2C°03q- Q
♦�� a ... �.� w
Gan rr,+tir
1.00 t:,o—o
City of Lubbock
-91-MC-48-0022
1c-,6-i-91 To 5-31-9;
Single Family
Multifamily
Activities
Activitles
(One Unit Structured
(Two or More Unit Structures
S:alfina
t. ` urr=er cl s:a:t years
3.25
85
rT`c s=1 Years
F T E start years
Activity Cellvery Costs:
2. ':van cenvery cost trcn all sources
a. VWI! c=za —
S 113,501.00
S 35,590.00
b. c: ere:rec: css
S —0—
S —O—
]. Act:+v ceitvery c=st ircm CCSG Lnas
a. s:s' c=::s
S 113 440.00
S 29 593.00
b. c•: er c:rect c:ss
S
-0-
S
Units nenaouitatco:
J. ':S C�rr-red
17 2 vr,,ts
51 um:s
S. Units eomwetao
147 Uses
27 Unts
Time:
S. ,A:o tern --tote
32 wens %;
16 wee.s
Cbllgatlons:
7. Amount oc!icated trcm all sources
S 1 643 1 1.00
s 610 538.00
a. C::HG tunes octigated
$1 , 086 , 541 .00
S —0—
b. crier cuc!tc (Feceral, stare. local) tunas ocligatea
S 547 325.00
S 305, 269.00
c. omiate lunds obligated
S 9,325.00
S 305, 269.00
d. umicuidated obliaations at end of year
S
S
Expenoilures:
8. Amount expended from all sources
S
1,267,339.00
S 400,735.00
a. CCP-G tunas expenaea
S
S
710,689.00
—0—
b. other public (Federal, state. local) tunas oxponeod
S
S
547 325.00
c. „nvatotunasexcencea
S9,325.00
J�200,368.00
200,367.00
*Applications for the Residential Rehab Program are taken during a designated time
period for the year's caseload.
form NU04349.28 (1t
Retain cols record for 3 years
ref. 24 CFR Pan 5',0 ana, nanc000it 6t
Housi
-Grantee Performance Report U.S. roan evelo mentng
and Urban Development f�
Status of Funds Community Covopment
Parts 1 and l! Block Grant Program
OMB Approval No. 2506-0077 faze. 3131/90)
La v Nurt ( Psoa l:a— ea --
Citv of Lubbock—91—NZiC-48-0022 From 6-1-91 To5-31-9:
Part[:SummaryotResources andExpenaltures CDBGFunds
1. Unexpended CCSG funds at end of previous reporting penod
$ 2,067,811
2. ACC:nonal CC3G funds received $
a. Enticement Grant (HUD-7C32. line 6b) 2,431,000
b. Surplus from Urtian Renewal! NOP Settlement (HUD-7C32, line 1Cb) $
0
C. Loans guaranteed uncer Seccon IOa I $
0
d. Program income received dunng the program year (as shown In Status of Funds Part 111, column f) f S
27,842
0. Return of grant funds
3. Total CCZG funds available for use dunng this reporting penod (sum of lines 1 thru 2e) $
4 526 653
4. Total COSG funds expended during this reporting penod $
a. Amount snown on Activity Summary forms, column 9 2,046,531
b. COBG funds used for Section 10a payments ( $
0
S. Unexpended balance of COBG funds at the end of this reporting period (!ine 3 minus line% 4a and 4b) I- $ 2,480,122
11: Uverall VrO9ra m tlenellt tO Low ana 610aera to Income eorsons
A. Lowr lAod Benefit During this Reporting Period
6. a.• Total CC2G funds expended (from line 4a above),
S. Low
except for Sec. 108 payments
$
2,046 531
b. Les s: Planning and program administration costs (as shown in Activity Summary forms, column g)
$
353. 475
e. flat expenditures subject to program benefit calculation (line 6a minus line 6b)
$
1,693,056
7. Expeneduros benellntng low and moderate Income persons (as shown in LowrMod Benefit Worksheet
Part iv)
$
1,855,975
S. Percent bonollt to low and moderate income persons (line 7 as a percent of line 6c)
91.2 % -
9. Program year(s) covered in conificabon PY90-91 PY 91-92
rMod Benefitfor lAultl-YearCortlflcatlons (corn plate only IIcertification period exceeds oneyear)
10.a. Cumulative not oxpendlturos subject to program benefit calculation
S
3,848,032
b. Cumulative expenditures bonefitting low and moderate income persons
$ "
4,119,267
C. Percent cumulative benefit to low and moderate income persons (line 10b as a percent of line t0a)
107.05 %
Retain this record for 3 years
Previous odit+ons are obsolete
to—HUD-4949.3 (4-68
ref. 24 CFR part 570 and hanabook 651C..
i. U.S. DopartmentolHousing
%,rantee Performance Report land Urban Development 0
Low/plod SenefitWorksheet Community Dovelopment "ir
Block Grant Program
OMB Approval No. 2506-0077 (exp. 3131/90)
hers o W 'Wen,
Citv of Lubbock
C•rent hurrwr
I B— 91—MC-48-0022 •
Pet" cowreo
I From 6-1— 91
To 5-31-92
Pan l: Direct Cipen miure■ for the Acquisition. Construction or Asnabimation of Propeny for Housing
% of total
COBG
units to be Total Max
CDBG Reduction
expenditures
LCwhnod
Aov+ty, Accvtty Nama
occupied cost low/ mod
share of ratio
this
ceditttns
^
by lowimod credit
Cost
reporting
reporting
housenolas
2ertod
erid0
a
I bc
I
de
p
I
t
Please reference 7.a 2) & 3)
Sum of Direct Expenditures 0
Pan e:CCVGE Denciaturm *Used 0ntv for Stalland Overhead to Assist Inthis Acquisition. Construction or Rehabilitatlonot Properiv for Housino
of units
in program
Total admin
I,— / mod
Artettr Number
Activity Name
to be
cost this
Credit this
Name of Program Assisted
occupied
reporting period
reporting penod
by low/mod
-- --
households
a I b
c
d
e
Please reference 7.a 2) & 3)
Su mofStaff and0vorheadCosts ..
van in; r otai"psnaitureaThis Reporting Period forAll OtherActivltleaQualifying as Low/Mod Benefit =
1,855,975
Partly: Tot at Low/Mod Bsnalltfrom Part a1,ll,andIII =
1,855,975 .
Re= this record for 3 yea: s formHUO.4949.3e(4,
previous eGt:on is obsc,o:a ref. 24 CFR part 570 and hanaboofc 651t
Grantee Performance Report andUrb a Development
ng
andUrbenDevelopment 1^3
Status of Funds Community Devopment ea; r
Part III Block Grant Program
OMB Aoproval No. 2506-0077 (exp. 3/31M)
Mama a wu+taa Grant Nurrdr Par oO Gov�ra0
City of Lubbock B-91-MC-48-W22 I From 6-1-91 To 5-31-92
Program Income and Status of Lump Sum Accounts
Activity ReCd Revolt'{ lump Program Income
Number Activity Name and Nature of Income by Sub- ing Sum Received
recipient Fund
a b c d e f
11.5.1 Demolition Income 12,200.58
11.5.1 NIDP Pay -Off 7,684.60
11.5.1 Program Income: Urban Renewal 7,489.45
(includes sales of alnd under Urban Renewal)
11.5.1 Program Inane: Revolving Loan Fund 467.00
Attach narrative (see instructions) Total IS 27,841.63
Retain this record for 3 years Page of pages form H U D .4 9 4 9.4 (4-W)
Previous edition is obsolete ref. 24 CFR part 570 and handbook 6510.2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
INAME OF
GRANTEE
I PAGE
1 OF
3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM
ICITY OF
LUBBOCK
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
IGRANT NUMBER
IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91
TO
05/31/ 1
DIRECT BENEFIT ACTIVITIES
IB-91-MC-48-0022
(17TH YEAR
)
I
I
I
I TOTAL
[PERCENT OF
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS/PERSONS ASSISTED(Coluin OWHO ARE:[
[ I
I NUMBER OF
[ACTIVITY[ ACTIVITY NAME
(HOUSEHOLDS/1 LOW I
I WHITE I
BLACK
IAMERICAN I
I
ASIAN
(FEMALE I
NUMBER I
I PERSONS
I AND I
LOW
I NOT I
NOT
IINDIAN ORIHISPANICI
OR
(HEAD OFI
I ASSISTED
IMODERATE-I
INCOME
IHISPANICIHISPANICI ALASKAN I
(PACIFIC
(HOUSE- I
INCOME I
I ORIGIN I
ORIGIN
I NATIVE I
[ISLANDER[ HOLD I
I IDED ASSISTANCE TO FOR -PROFIT
I
I I
I I
( I
I
I I
I7.2.1-87IDED ASSISTANCE TO FOR -PROFIT
I
I I
I I
I (
I
I I
I I ------------------------------
I7.2.1-87IECONOMIC INCENTIVE FUND
I I
I
I 0(P)
I
I I
I 0% I
I I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I
0% I
I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I IACOUISTION
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I1.5.1-90IACOUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
I 5(H)
I 20% I
80%
I 40% I
0%
I 0% I
60% I
0%
I 60% I
I I
I1.5.2-90IACOUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
I
I 2(H)
I I
I 0% I
100%
I I
I 0% I
100%
I I
I 0% I
I
0% I
0%
I I
I 100% I
I i
I1.6.3-91IACOUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
I
I 0(H)
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I
0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
IPUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROV.
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I2.2.4-87IPUBLIC FACIL. & IMPROVEMENTS
I 0(H)
I 0% I
0%
I 0% I
0%
I 0% I
0% I
0%
I 0% I
I i
I2.5.3-90IPUB FACIL-PARKS,RECREAT. FACILI
I
0(H)
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
1 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I
0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
i I
12.5.5-90IPUB FACIL-SIDEWALKS
I
I 0(H)
I I
I 0% I
0%
i i
I 0% I
0%
I I
i 0% I
I
0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
i I
I2.5.7-90IPUB FACIL-STREET IMPROVEMENT
I
i 0( )
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I
0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I2.6.1-91IPUB FACIL-SIDEWALKS
I
I 0(H)
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% i
I
0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I2.6.2-91IPUB FACIL-STREET IMPROVEMENTS
I
I 45(H)
I I
I 100% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I
0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I2.6.3-91IPUB FACIL-PARKS,RECREAT.FACIL
I
I 0(H)
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% (
I
0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I2.6.4-91IPUB FACIL-PARKS,RECREAT.FACIL
I
I 0(H)
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I
0% I
0%
I I
( 0% I
I I
I2.6.5-91IPUB FACIL-CHILD CARE CENTERS
I
I 140(P)
I I
I 0% I
100%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I
0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I2.6.6-91IPUB FACIL-NEIGHBORHOOD FACIL
I I
I I
I
I 0( )
I
I
I I
I 0% I
I I
I I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I I
I
0% I
I
I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I i
I I
i I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I i
AMRS 2.12
FORM HUD-4949.5 (4-88)
November 1989
ref.
Handbook 6510.2
Report
date: 8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(NAME OF
GRANTEE
I PAGE
2 OF
3
1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
ICITY OF
LUBBOCK
I
1
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
i
IGRANT NUMBER
IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO
05/31/921
DIRECT BENEFIT ACTIVITIES
IB-91-MC-48-0022
(17TH YEAR
)
I
I
I I I
TOTAL
(PERCENT OF
TOTAL NUMBER
OF HOUSEHOLDS/PERSONS
ASSISTED(Colu n 0 WHO ARE:(
I I I
NUMBER OF
(ACTIVITY( ACTIVITY NAME (HOUSEHOLDS/1 LOW I
I WHITE I
BLACK
IAMERICAN I
I
ASIAN
(FEMALE I
I NUMBER I I
PERSONS
I AND I
LOW
I NOT I
NOT
IINDIAN ORIHISPANICI
OR
(HEAD OFI
I I I
ASSISTED
IMODERATE-1
INCOME
IHISPANICIHISPANICI ALASKAN I
IPACIFIC
IHOUSE- I
INCOME I
I ORIGIN I
ORIGIN
I NATIVE I
IISLANDERI
HOLD I
12.6.7-911PUB FACIL-NEIGHBORHOOD FACIL I
0( )
1 0% I
0%
I 0% I
0%
I 0% 1
0% I
0%
1 0% I
I I I
12.6.9-911PUB FACIL-NEIGHBORHOOD FACIL I
I I I
0( )
I I
I 0% 1
I I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I
0% 1
I
0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I IPUBLIC SERVICE I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
14.5.2-901PUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES 1
150(P)
1 0% 1
0%
I 5% I
15%
I 0% 1
79% 1
0%
I 0% 1
I I I
14.5.4-901PUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES 1
O(P)
I I
1 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% 1
0%
I I
i 0% 1
I
0% 1
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I i I
14.6.1-911PUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES I
6000(P)
I I
1 0% 1
0%
I I
( 0% i
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I
0% 1
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I I I
14.6.2-911PUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES 1
5000(P)
I I
1 0% I
0%
I I
1 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% 1
I
0% 1
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I I I
14.6.3-911PUB SVS-COMMUNITY SERVICES I
0( )
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
1 0% I
I
0% 1
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I I I
14.6.4-911PUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES I
461(P)
I I
1 0% 1
0%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
( 0% 1
I
0% (
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I I I
14.6.5-911PUB SVS-YOUTH SERVICES I
I I I
0( )
I I
1 0% I
I I
0%
I I
1 0% I
I I
0%
i I
1 0% 1
I I
I
0% 1
I
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I I
I IREHABILITATION I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
15.5.1-901REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL 1
44(H)
1 45% 1
55%
1 41% 1
27%
I 0% I
32% 1
0%
1 45% I
I I I
15.5.5-901REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL 1
O(H)
I I
1 0% 1
0%
I I
1 0% 1
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I
0% 1
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I I I
15-5.6-901REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL I
O(H)
I I
1 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% I
0%
I I
I 0% 1
I
0% 1
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I I I
15.6.1-911REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL.1
135(H)
I I
1 10% 1
90%
I I
1 17% 1
30%
I I
1 0% 1
I
53% 1
0%
I i
1 51% 1
I I I
15.6.2-911REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL.1
35(H)
I I
1 17% 1
83%
I I
1 14% 1
20%
I I
1 0% 1
I
66% 1
0%
I I
1 49% 1
I I I
15.6.3-911REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL.1
17(H)
I I
1 24% 1
76%
I I
1 18% 1
29%
I I
1 0% 1
I
53% 1
0%
I I
1 41% 1
I I I
15.6.4-911REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL.I
682(H)
I I
1 0% 1
0%
I I
1 9% 1
13%
I I
1 0% 1
I
78% 1
0%
I I
1 26% 1
I i I
15.6.5-911REHAB-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL.1
I I I
I I I
26(H)
I I
1 0% 1
I I
I I
100%
I I
1 0% 1
I I
I I
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I I
I I
I
0% 1
I
I
0%
I I
1 0% 1
I I
I I
AMRS 2.12
FORM
HUD-4949.5 (4-88)
November 1989
ref.
Handbook 6510.2
Report
date:
8/24/1992
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INAME OF GRANTEE I PAGE 3 OF 3 I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ICITY OF LUBBOCK I
GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT I
IGRANT NUMBER IPERIOD COVERED 06/01/91 TO 05/31/92I
DIRECT BENEFIT ACTIVITIES IB-91-MC-48-0022 (17TH YEAR ) I I
I TOTAL
IPERCENT OF
TOTAL NUMBER OF
HOUSEHOLDS/PERSONS
ASSISTED(Colurn c)WHO ARE:(
I NUMBER OF
i i
r
r
IACTIVITYI ACTIVITY NAME (HOUSEHOLDS/1 LOW I
I WHITE
I BLACK IAMERICAN
I I ASIAN
(FEMALE-1
NUMBER I
I PERSONS
I AND I
LOW I NOT
I NOT IINDIAN ORIHISPANICI OR
IHEAD OFI
I ASSISTED
IMODERATE-I
INCOME IHISPANICIHISPANICI ALASKAN
I IPACIFIC
(HOUSE- I
INCOME I
I ORIGIN
I ORIGIN I NATIVE
I (ISLANDER( HOLD I
I5.6.6-91IREHAB-SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTL.I 0( )
I 0% I
0% I 0%
I 0% I 0%
I 0% I 0%
I 0% I
I I
I5.6.7-91IREHAB-SINGLE FAMILY
I
RESIDENTL.I 0( )
I I
I 0% I
I
0% I 0%
I I
I 0% I 0%
I I
I 0% I 0%
I I
I 0% I
I I
I5.6.8-91IREHAB-SINGLE FAMILY
I I
I
RESIDENTL.I 0( )
I
I I
I 0% I
I I
I
0% I 0%
I
I I
I 0% I 0%
I I
I I
I 0% I 0%
I I
I I
I 0% I
I I
I ICODE ENFORCEMENT I I
I6.6.1-91ICODE ENFORCEMENT I 0( ) I
I I I I
I IPLANNING I I
I9.6.1-91IPLANNING DOCUMENTS I 0( ) I
I I I I
I IPROGRAM ADMINISTRATION I I
I10.6.1-9IPRGM.ADMIN-GEN MGMT,OVRST,COORI 0( ) I
I I I I
I10.6.2-9IPRGM.ADMIN-INDIRECT COSTS I 0( ) I
I I I I
AMRS 2.12
November 1989
I
I
I
0% I
I
0% I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0%
0%
0%
0%
I
0%I
I
I
0%I
I
I
0%I
I
I
0%I
I
I
0%I
I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
0% I
I
0% I
0% I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
I
0% I
I
FORM HUD-4949.5 (4-88)
ref. Handbook 6510.2
Report date: 8/24/1992
Attachment for HUD-4949.5
Narrative for Limited Clientele, Direct Benefit Activities
(without personal records or presumptive benefit)
4.5.2-90 Public Services - Youth Services: Butler Park
Outreach Program Phase II
The Butler Park Outreach Program Phase II expands organized
recreation activities into the Rodgers and Rawlings
Community Center neighborhoods. Low and moderate income
persons comprise 640 of the area residents.
Attachment for HUD-4949.5
Narrative for Limited Clientele, Direct Benefit Activities
(without personal records or presumptive benefit)
4.5.4-90 Public Services - Youth Services: Summer
Recreation Phase II
The Summer Recreation Program Phase II expands the program
to include Chatman Park (E. 29th & Juniper), Mahon
Elementary (2010 Cornell), Carlisle (28th & Ave. X), and
Clayton Carter (Globe & N. Loop 289).
Low and moderate income persons comprise 570 of the
residents within the vicinity of the four City parks.
Attachment for HUD-4949.5
Narrative for Limited Clientele, Direct Benefit Activities
(without personal records or presumptive benefit)
4.6.1-91 Public Services -Youth Services: Butler Park
Outreach Program
The Butler Park Outreach Program provides organized
recreation activities at Rodgers, Rawlings, and Mae Simmons
Community Centers. Low and moderate income persons comprise
64.88 0 of the residents.
The recreation program is attended by elementary age
children and teens residing in the area. Informal athletic
leagues and tournaments are promoted in basketball,
volleyball, and tennis.
Attachment for HUD-4949.5
Narrative for Limited Clientele, Direct Benefit Activities
(without personal records or presumptive benefit)
4.6.2.-91 Public Services -Youth Services: Summer
Recreation
The Summer Recreation Program provides organized
recreation activities in seven city parks: Carlisle Annex
(7337 22nd), Yellowhouse Canyon (Northeast Lubbock), Overton
Park (14th & T), Burns Park (23rd & Ave. K), Hollins Park
(1st & Temple), Chatman Park (E. 29th & Juniper), and Carter
Park (Globe & N. Loop 289). Low and moderate income persons
comprise 65.820 of the residents within the vicinity of the
seven city parks.
The recreation program is attended by elementary age
children and teens residing in the area. Informal athletic
leagues and tournaments are promoted in basketball,
volleyball, and tennis.
Grantee Performance Report
Actionsto Affirmatively Further
FairHousing
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Community Devopment
Block Grant Program
f0
ei r
OMB Approval No. 2506-0077 (oxp. 3131/90)
Name of Granroe
Grant Numbor
Poriod Covorod
City of Lubbock
$-91-MC-48-0022
From 06/01/91 To 05/31/92
Actions Taken
Results
a
b
Counseling:
Community Development Department's Relocation Counselor
With resources provided through the Relocation
assists displaced persons in contacting builders, real
Assistance, displaced low-moserate families and
estate brokers and rental offices. Counselor is charged
individuals have the opportunity to move to any
with the responsibility of insuring clients are not
location in Lubbock or the U.S..
discriminated against in seeking housing. Clients are
familiarized with all housing resources suited to their
needs and of procedures for securing housing.
?. Human Relations Commission:
The purpose of the commission is to promote the rights
The Human Relations commission has established a
of minorities in Lubbock and to investigate complaints
Housing Committee.to review:complaints.or to under -
of discrimination.
take special studies related to fair housing or
housing opportunities.
3. Lubbock Fair Housing Strategy -October 9,1980:
Action by the Lubbock City Council to define a specific
Establishes a strategy that will promote Fair
strategy to affirmatively further fair housing. The
Housing through education assistance of minorities
strategy closely parallels the components of the New
and local initiatives.
Horizons Program.
+. Fair Housing Analysis- May 25,1990:
Fair Housing Analysis study completed. Fair Housing
informational brochure to be distributed through
utility payments during September 1990.
i. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy -Nov. 1991:
Analysis to identify the housing needs of the
community in an effort to improve the conditions.
and to assess the availability of housing for the I
citizens of the City.
Retain this record for 3 years
Previous editions are obsolete
page of pages
form H U 0-4949.6 (4-88)
ref. 24 CFR part 570 and handbook 6510.2
Grantee Performance Report
Displacement
Attach narrative (see instructions)
City of Lubbock
D he I Co I nil P V
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Community Dovelopment
Block Grant Program
Grant Number
B-91-MC-48--0022
r 0
wir
OMB AODroval No. 2506-0077 (oxp. 3131190)
Period Covered
From 1-1-91 To 5-31-92
Low anamoaeratelncomenvuselwldsDlsPlaced
u"ngt a- mPet rogram o
Households residing in this census tract
Households remaining in this census tract
Displaced households relocated to this consul tray
who were displaced
after displacement
from another census trail
Census
White Black American Asian or
White Black American Asian or
White Black Amoncan Asian or
Not Not Indian or Hispanic Pacific
Tract
Not Not Indian or Hispanic Pacific
Not Not Indian or Hispanic Pacific
Islander
Hispanic Hispanic Alaskan Islander
Hispanic Hispanic Alaskan Islander
Hispanic Hispanic Alaskan
Origin Ongln Native
Origin Ongin Native
Origin Origin Native
a
b
c
d
a
f
g
h
i
J
k
I
m
n
o
P
3
2
3
2
3
12.02
2
2
t1
Totals
2
2
3
2
2
3
/.... Ulln_AOAO
7rA-AM
Retain this record for 3 years
Previous editions are obsolete
pago of pages
rot. 24 CFP1 van 570 and handbook 6510.2
ATTACHMENT TO GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
Displacement: HUD - 4949.7 (3-83)
Narrative Identifying Displacement Areas and
Action Taken to Mitigate Adverse Effects of Displacement
Urban Renewal acquisition and relocation activities have caused dis-
placement in the following neighborhoods:
# of L & M
# of # of # of owner- Income
Neighborhood Businesses Tenants Occupants Households
Arnett Benson 0 0
Chatman Hill 0 0
# of
Neighborhood Families
Arnett Benson 5
Chatman Hill 2
5
2
# of
Individuals
A
0
5
2
# Female
Headed
Households
3
2
# of Temporary
Relocations
5
2
Actions taken by the City through the Community Development Department
to assist low and moderate income persons to remain in their neighbor-
hoods when they prefer and to mitigate adverse effects of displacement
include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Owner occupant displacees have the option, with the excep-
tion of the Phyllis Wheatley Neighborhood which is a total
clearance area, of redeveloping on their original lot with
funds derived from the purchase of their property and from
payments made under the Uniform Relocation Act. Approxi-
mately five to ten owner occupants are displaced each year.
2. The Community Development Department, which carries out
relocation activities under the Lubbock CDBG Program,
adheres to a policy of maximum flexibility in the displace-
ment of families and individuals. The "90 Days Notice to
Vacate" is never issued until the displacee has secured
suitable replacement resources. In special cases several
months may elapse between time of purchase and issuance of
the 1190 Day Notice".
3. The 1190 Day Notice to Vacate" is never issued until the dis-
placee has been referred to at least three potential
resources outside of impacted areas for housing. Both the
Relocation Counselor and the displacee participate in the
search for suitable rehousing. Where special problems
exist, the Relocation Counselor will assume most of the re-
sponsibility, and where necessary, will transport the dis-
placee to potential resources for inspection.
4. The relocation staff consists of 1 full-time person. The
counselor has approximately 21 years of relocation
experience, and is thoroughly familiar with housing
resources in Lubbock.
5. The Relocation Counselor maintains close contact with social
service and human resource agencies in Lubbock, and where
special services, other than housing, are required,
appropriate referrals are made. Assistance with social
services in some cases involves transporting displacees to
local agencies and institutions.
6. Guidelines have been adopted for replacement housing pay-
ments to be made in excess of the statutory limits where the
circumstances require such additional assistance. Such pay-
ments in excess of the statutory limits are made only where
hardship conditions are present. (Last Resort Housing
Assistance Payments.)
7. Although the situation has not occurred, the Relocation
Counselor would take immediate action if he felt that a dis-
placee was facing racial or other discrimination in their
search for replacement housing.
8. Before the property is acquired, the Relocation Counselor
carefully counsels with and reviews each family to be sure
that displacement will not give rise to adverse effects
which cannot be mitigated. Should such a situation appear,
the case is returned to the administrative level of the
Community Development Department for consideration of alter-
natives.
9. Displacees are counseled fully on matters relating to relo-
cation which include information on family budgeting, local
taxes, housing maintenance, insurance, and other matters.
10. The cooperation of several local lending institutions has
been received in the relocation of families and individuals.
One institution has made special arrangements to make small
loans to low income displacees who might otherwise not meet
normal conventional lending criteria. Such loans, where
necessary, are used to finance any residual mortgages which
may result from rehousing owner occupants. The Relocation
Counselor maintains on -going contact with staff members in
several local lending institutions.
City of Lubbock
B-91-MC-48-0022
6/1/91 - 5/31/92
7. a. 1)
ASSESSMENT
The Amended Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and
Projected Use of Funds for the City of Lubbock for the period of June
1, 1991 through May 31, 1992 was as follows:
The City of Lubbock through the receipt of $2,431,000 in Community
Development Block Grants funds from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development proposes to implement its Community Development Pro-
gram which has been developed so as to give maximum feasible priority
to:
1. Aid to the prevention or elimination of slums and blight
2. Principally benefit persons of low and moderate incomes
In order to implement this program, the Lubbock City Council has ap-
proved the following programs:
A) Concentrated Code Enforcement $ 186,633
B) Neighborhood Redevelopment 1,607,400
C) Community Facilities 0
D) Public Facilities 181,400 (a)
E) Park Improvements 36,000
F) Public Services 88,800
G) Planning Activities 4,000
H) Program Management 186,000
I) Indirect Costs 100,000
J) Contingency Funds 62,767
Community Development Entitlement Program $ 2,453,000
Assessment
Page 2
Since this Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds was sub-
mitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, funds ex-
pended towards these objectives have been:
A)
Concentrated Code Enforcement $
186,362
B)
Neighborhood Redevelopment
907,662
C)
Community Facilities
0
D)
Public Facilities
142,902
E)
Park Improvements
50
F)
Public Services
66,874
G)
Planning Activities
4,000
H)
Program Management
191,030
I)
Indirect Costs
158,445
J)
Contingency Funds
0
Community Development Entitlement Program
$1,657,325
All of these
programs (Program Management and Indirect
Costs excluded)
have either
aided in the prevention or elimination of
slums or blight
or have
benefited persons of low and moderate incomes
(see Activity
Summary
for breakdown of National Objectives).
(a) Amendment to original statement of objectives funded with $22,000
from previous years' Contingency Fund.
City of Lubbock
B-91-MC-48-0022
6/1/91 - 5/31/92
7.a. 2) & 3)
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME BENEFIT
In accordance with the changes made to the Community Development Block
Grant program by the enactment of the Housing and Urban -Rural Recovery
Act of 1983, the following information shows the amount of Community
Development funds for 1991-92 that were used for activities benefiting
low and moderate income persons.
In determining activities benefiting low and moderate income
individuals, the activity and the geographical areas benefiting from
each activity were examined. The service areas for each of the
projects were reviewed to determine the percentage of low and moderate
income persons served. Census tract and block group information was
used to determine the percentage of low and moderate income persons
within the defined service areas.
Each activity listed below shows the Service Area in which that
particular activity would have an impact. The residents of the
Service Areas were found to possess low to moderate income
characteristics. Also shown with the activity is the particular
section of 24 CFR 570.208 in which that activity is best defined.
ACTIVITY
Arnett Benson Project (16th Year)
Service Area: C.T. 3
570.208 (a) (3)
Chatman Hill (16th Year)
Service Area: C.T. 12.02
570.208 (a) (3)
Arnett Benson Project (17th Year)
Service Area: C.T. 3
570.208 (a) (3)
On -Site Redevelopment
Based on individual application
primarily CD Target Area
570.208 (a) (3)
I-27 Acquisition
Based on individual application -
primarily CD Target Area
570-208 (a) (3)
EXPENDED THIS
REPORTING PERIOD
$119,361
47,297
0
310
Low/Mod Benefit - Page 2
ACTIVITY EXPENDED THIS
REPORTING PERIOD
Neighborhood Entrance 15,663
Service Area: C.T. 12.02
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Guadalupe Neighborhood Entrance 24,470
Service Area: C.T. 2.020 8
570.208 (a) (3)
Sidewalks - North Overton 48,876
Service Area: C.T. 6.01, 6.02
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Chapel Hill Paving/Baylor 26,594
Service Area: C.T. 11
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Sidewalks - Arnett Benson 3,953
Service Area: C.T. 3
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Rodgers Playground Renovation 0
Service Area: C.T. 3
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Carlisle Street Paving 72,538
Service Area: C.T. 104, Block Group 1
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Carlisle Street Paving II 0
Service Area: C.T. 104, Block Group 1
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Arnett Benson Beautification 1
Service Area: C.T. 3
570.208 (a) (3)
Guadalupe Strip Park Lighting 50
Service Area: C.T. 8
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Early Learning Centers Playground Renov. 37,500
Service Areas: C.T. 12.02, 2.02, 3, 8, 9, 10
11, 12.01
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Chatman Hospital Restoration 10,000
Service Area: C.T. 12.02
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Low/Mod Benefit - Page 3
ACTIVITY EXPENDED THIS
REPORTING PERIOD
Health Department Renovations 516
Based on individual application -
primarily CD Target Area
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Detroit Avenue Landscaping 0
Service Area: C.T. 3
570.208 (a) (3)
Goodwill Industries 18,394
Service Areas: C.T. 25, 12.02
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Butler Park Outreach Phase II 15,834
Service Areas: C.T. 13, 24, 3
570.208 (a) (2) (i) (D)
Butler Park Outreach Program 24,634
Service Areas: C.T. 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.02
13, 24
570.208 (a) (2) (i) (D)
Summer Recreation Satellite Phase II 0
Service Areas: C.T. 12.02, 14, 2.01, 9
570.208 (a) (4) (i)
Summer Recreation Satellite Program 38,097
Services Areas: C.T. 2.01, 2.02, 7, 8, 9,
12.02, 14
570.208 (a) (2) (i) (D)
Information & Referral 3,000
Based on individual application
570.208 (a) (1) (i)
Youth Initiatives 532
Service Areas: C.T. 3, 6.01, 6.02, 8, 9, 10, 12.01
570.208 (a) (2) (i) (D)
Graffiti Removal Program 611
Based on individual application
570.208 (a) (2) (i) (D)
Residential Rehabilitation -City Wide (16th Year) 84,952
Based on individual application -
primarily CD Target Area
570.208 (a) (3)
Low/Mod Benefit - Page 4
ACTIVITY
Homestead Property Mgmt. (16th Year)
Based on individual application -
primarily CD Homestead Target Area
570.208 (a) (3)
Project Helping Hands (17th Year)
Based on individual application -
primarily CD Target Area
570.208 (a) (3)
EXPENDED THIS
REPORTING PERIOD
5,364
227,500
Residential Rehabilitation -City Wide (17th Year) 254,906
Based on individual application -
primarily CD Target Area
570.208 (a) (3)
Residential Loan Program (17th Year) 75,465
Based on individual application -
primarily CD Target Area
570.208 (a) (3)
Paint -Up Program (17th Year) 49,710
Based on individual application
Primarily CD Target Area
570.208 (a) (3)
Home Security Program 13,953
Based on individual application -
primarily CD Target Area
570.208 (a) (3)
Homestead Property Mgmt. (17th Year)
3,884
Based on individual application -
primarily CD Homestead Target Area
570.208 (a) (3)
Community Development Field Services
278,535
CD Target Areas
570.208 (a) (3)
Total Low & Moderate Benefit
$1,502,500
% of Total Funds Expended This
Reporting Period
73.420
Concentrated Code Enforcement
186,362
CD Target Area
570.208 (b) (1) (ii)
Low/Mod Benefit - Page 5
T P mT•TTrmr
Land Disposition
Service Area: C.T. 12.02, 2.02, 3, 8, 11,
12, 12.01
570.208 (b) (1) (ii)
EXPENDED THIS
REPORTING PERIOD
Land Disposition/Affordable Housing
Service Area: C.T. 12.02, 2.02, 3, 8, 11, 12.01
570.208 (b) (1) (ii)
Total Slum & Blight
of Total Funds Expended This
Reporting Period
Redevelopment Study
Planning Documents
Indirect Cost
C.D. Administration
Total Planning & Administration
of Total Funds Expended This
Reporting Period
TOTAL FUNDS EXPENDED THIS REPORTING PERIOD
485
3,709
$ 190,556
9.310
0
4,000
158,445
191,030
$ 353,475
17.20
$2,046,531
City of Lubbock
B-91-MC-48-0022
6/1/91 - 5/31/92
7.b.
1.) CHANGES IN CDBG PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The City of Lubbock submitted two amendments to its 1991-92 Statement
of Community Development Objectives. Each amendment was subsequently
approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The first amendment (September 27, 1991) reflected the allocation of
$297,310 from previous years' Contingency Fund to fund six new -
projects, and supplement four existing projects.
The new project funded from Contingency Funds included:
I-27 Acquisition $75,000
Health Department Renovation $10,000
Detroit Avenue Landscaping $22,310
Goodwill Industries $20,000
Youth Initiatives $50,000
Graffiti Removal Program $35,000
The existing projects supplemented with Contingency Funds included:
Helping Hands $25,000
Indirect Costs $25,000
Homestead Property Management $10,000
Economic Incentive Fund $25,000
The second amendment (February 27, 1992) reflected the allocation of
$100,594 from previous years' Contingency Fund to fund three new
projects:
Rodgers Playground $31,900
Redevelopment Study $10,000
Carlisle Street Paving II $58,694
2.) PROPOSED CHANGES AS A RESULT OF EXPERIENCES
The City of Lubbock does not propose any major changes in its program
as a result of its experiences, and will continue to concentrate its
efforts on housing rehabilitation for low -to -moderate income citizens.
1
7.c. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CITIZENS
i. Community Development Advisory Committee Neighborhood Meeting,
January 7, 1992.
ii. Community Development Advisory Committee Neighborhood Meeting,
January 14, 1992..
iii. Community Development Advisory Committee Neighborhood Meeting,
January 16, 1992.
iv. Community Development Advisory Committee Neighborhood Meeting,
January 21, 1992.
V. Community Development Advisory Committee Worksession,
January 28, 1992.
vi. Community Development Advisory Committee Worksession,
January 30, 1992.
V. Public Hearing for the 1991-92 Community Development Block
Grant Program, February 27, 1992.
MINUTES
CC?t!UNLT': :rvrLo?-mvy ADVISORY com.-: EE
C:-: or _UB90CK ;iumi CIP:.L aulL :V
is=SLAY. J:..\UARY 7, 1992 12:00 P.M.
Jose :'cntelongo
Roose•elt Carroll
L. lto;•se >:c:1urtry
Setty Car:
Gary C=canougher
Co:otly :alley Furr
Vonta K. Samrville
Lary Gardner
Paul xasn
Jose cavila
Puss uili.inson
Rev. I -.ado Lanq
Mary xauldin
C^-G _ LERS AES*nrT-
Sharon Eenrett lexcusedl
Robert Snell (excused)
CITY - --
Sandy Ogletree
Chris Hcoper
Robin Alexander
14r. Paul :rash, CDAC Chairman, welcomed everyone and Intred_ced Mr.
Jose Davila, a new member of the committee and Rooin Alexarcier, the
new C.D. Intern. Mr. Nash explained the CDAC's role in accepting
requests, developing a recommendation of projects to be funded anal
submitting that reccmmmendation to the City Council. He then reviewed
the 1992-93 Community Development Application Calendar.
Sandy Ogletree, C. D. Administrator, reviewed the Interim C:BG
allocations which were approved by the City Council an Seetercer 26,
1991. Ms. Ogletree also informed the ccl:mmittee that the 'm
_ 2 C:Su
funding level would be approximately 50 more than the 1991CCBG
allocation.
Ms. Ogletree next gave an overview of the status of the C: _unity
Development Block Grant program, the terminated etograms sl-zh as the
312 and Urban Homesteading program and presented new inf--maticn
concerning the National Affordable Housing Act cf 19?0.
Sandy Ogletree then proceeded to give a presentaticn of the
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Stratcgy. -ht•. p escctatlon :ast21
approximately 15 minutes. At the conclusion of hir tresantatiz- she
asked for any questions or comments and thanked the t-ZAC their
attendance and participation.
Mr. Nash noted that the next CDAC meeting will be Tuesday. January :
. 1 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Mae Sit:mons Senior Citizens Center. He asked
'"" • for any closing questions or comments and ad)ounccd the meeting at
1:03 p.m.
'i
MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - --
MAE SI:^70NS SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1992
.-- CDAC "E."9ERS IN AT-MMANCE:
CDAC MEMBERS ABSENT:
= Paul Nash -
Betty Carr (excused)
- Jose Davila
- Robert Snell (excused)
_ - E. Hayse McMurtry
- Jose Montelongo
Gary Cocanougher
_
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Russ Wilkinson
-
. Vonda K. Somerville
Sandy Ogletree
Roosevelt Carroll
Chris Hooper
Rev. Kado Lanq
Tony Reyes
Mary Mauldin
Robin Alexander
- Dorthy Dailey Purr
Sharon Bennet
_ Larry Gardener
Mr. Paul Nash welcomed everyone at 7:05 P.M. He explained that there
would be a short video presentation concerning the accomplishments and
activities funded by the CDAC over the past year. Following this, the
Public hearing would then be called to order. He stated that this
year the CDAC has approximately $2.5 million in CDBG funds with which
to Work (an increase from $2.4 million the previous year). He
explained that last year there were $6.3 million in requests:
therefore, the CDAC cannot fund all requests and some difficult
decisions must be made.
The video presentation explained the CDBG program. It covered the
funded projects for 1991-92. It explained that Lubbock's main CDBG
priority is housing and neighborhood improvement projects. The video
also covered the new HOME and HOPE housing programs. The presentation
lasted approximately 15 minutes.
Mr. Nash then called the public hearing to order. He explained hew
'i the CDAC members were selected. Each member then introduced himself
or herself and stated the district or group he or she represented.
The first citizen to speak was Mr. Quincy white of 6604 Norfolk, a
representative of the Martin Luther King Little League program. He
requested that the ballparks used by the league in Mae Simmons Park
and Mackenzie Park be improved. He stated that they -ere poorly
lighted and the bleacher facilities were old and rundown.
Improvements requested were new lights, possibly some bleacher
facilities, and moving outfield fences to bring the parks up to little
league regulations. He explained that this year the league would be
expanding to include 13-15 year olds, and the fences would need to be
moved out for this reason.
Y1
Minutes - January 14, 1992 Neighborhood Meeting
Pago 2
Mr. Nash asked in what capacity did Mr. White represent the MLL
league. Mr. white replied that he is the president of that
organization. Ms. Mauldin asked if any cost estimates were available -
Mr. white responded that he did not have any exact figures. Mr.
Gardener asked if the land was available behind the fences in order to
move them out. Mr. white replied that there was enough land for the
200 feet requlation for the Mae Simmons field and for the 300 feet
senior league requaltion at the Mackenzie field. He explained that
light poles must be moved also and that this could be expensive.
Finally, Mr. Davila inquired as to how many teams the league has and
hold many hours the fields are used per Week. Mr. white responded that
there were 21 teams and approximately 300 kids involved last year and
the league would be expanding to 32 teams and approximately 450 kids
this summer. Each team plays two games per -week --------
Second to address the committee was Mr. Dwight Pierce of 1521 E. let
Place. He requested a covered patio with tables and beeches be built
at the Mae Simmons park. He explained that the Juneteenth celebration
iz held there every summer with approximately 2000 in attendance. A
senior citizens picnic is held at the same time, and there are no
adequate facilities to shade and shelter these people from the heat
and elements. In addition, Mr. Pierce explained that the cross
country track activities for the city are held at Mae Simmons each
year with 1500 participants plus families and other spectators. Be
stated that cement Would be the best option for the patio due weather
and possible vandalism; however, he did not have any cost estimates at
this time.
Mr. Nash asked if the facility Would be open air, and Mr. Pierce
responded yes. He also asked if Mr. Pierce had spoken with the Parks
and Recreation Department. Mr. Pierce said he had spoken with Sumac
Services, and Ms. Ogletree explained that Community Development bad
referred the request on to Parks and Recreation.
Reverend G. E. O'Neal of 2605 Hickory Avenue addressed the eomittee
next. He requested that something be done about the debris on thr
back side of the lake in Mae Simmons Park. Clearing out this debris
would make that side of the lake accessible. He stated that he hat
discussed this situation with the Parks and Recreation Department. He
also requested that permanent toilet facilities be built at Mat
Simmons to replace the undesirable temporary facilities currently is
place. He also explained that Mae Simons needs some walk paths an:
bridges around the lake. He did not have any cost factors for thesk
improvements.
Mr. Nash asked about the need for bridges. Rev. O'Neal explained tha
to cross over the lake from one side of Quirt Avenue to the other
person must walk out into traffic on Quirt due .to the lack of walkway
and bridges. He statcd that this is a very dangerous situation. Mr
Cocanougher asked what kind of debris needed clearing. Rev. O'Nea
decribed the debris as a combination of plants and trash. Mr. Nas
inquired as to which side of Quirt was being discussed. Rev. O-Nee
stated that he was primarily discussing the lake east of Quirt. H
said that some work had been done on the vest side of Quirt, but not
Minutes - January 14, 1992 Neigld»mmti:MienlbW
Page 3
still needed - to be done. Mr- GacdLtutr damm�>se!! tMOat the eurrer
temporary toilet facilities apex a= aII__ihle elm haadicappt
citizens. -
Ms. Joan Ervin of 2806 Walnir: -Ai Mee suppoat 'Saar all of e
suggested improvements to Mae Mim—nm; 3enil:. zEbe said that mar
Lubbock citizens use and enjoy itm _qatnk, �. 1%L rne-� sore care m
better facilities. She reiterafah tte neeal r= a;:amLkamy car bridge c
the point where Quirt crosses tide iaNv:.
Mr. Billy Morrison III of Route- !I Sbm 7.5,k 3IL]dad) -�r2m acted of a pal
and facilities for children in Z'tr _1ad2b @dv,sm, ryiily® ogres. Be as -
he had spoken with some city siai=f •.Worn, dzibd 4Lz= xtutt tM lAing a par
was not feasible in that area iLm a, 3. iha=irning yopulation. I
explained a need for an aree txu g1L'Q exh ldtm..n a rrbeec. to plc
outdoors and occupy themselves:. :Mt.. Ata=MFOIn Ithen showed tt
committee a picture of the only jae'Lt R1etz>G. MaG)3mimsketball
overgrowwith weeds."
n
Mr. Gardener asked how the bas:eetlnFll qe mZim qua, t�be, ft. Morris,
said he assumed that the Parks and Jodrwn >V4X3z=%&>¢ bad put th-
there. Sandy then stated that a Siumam 3a*m-1LLy dam for yM
was held in the Yellwhouse Carrru: acme edir.itep tie: a..mes-
Next, Everett Hooper of 5311 31kY. Bl•mmeza : ddresrwd tehe sesmittee.
stated that he was a coach wiYi. a1a::fErA,, -* •+'y,. Sra,,. Twograe
Wanted to reiterate Mr. Wl—da s' —Ostr .ZnnC===9 ballfie
improvements at Mae Simmons ma` :trackrncz c '1arv�. Him stressed t
importance of Little League as .r gmrT=31MA L' -%m ,cure thy se3.1ng that t
program provided positive role motui:m..vind e-ocnsy Activity f
children at risk for drugs, crimes, am[i orator: gi>onr.a,Q
Reverend W. 0.- Haynes of 2411 3'.h wonua °nvsdu.3lt .himself as t
pastor of Christ Temple, Church rd an -A. L-r. .'LrMao_ HR ovtated that
appreciated the City of Lub0scA.1 a. e:13a.-,>s• 1kn ,he Chatmem Hi
neighborhood. He stated that t:a 3=1110 a: air dtrrqe and eximre in th
area had decreased considerably. 3e• enitatfteel t-hat mose faeiliti
and activities were needed in t--tall 1etynd=x1033m1 fir education.
training, crime prevention, etc_. dose- iile yi0s 42ay 174pared as to
the area might "advertise" iv 3mn®90. 'fa. xhe -larger Lubtc
community. He stated there is v Rrrnlvy y an• zhee .c¢-;Q of 23rd
Fir that he now owns. He exple-nus' Zed 'TL - -t1d he eery benefic:
for- the community if funds eolith 3v. -ruin) trm --amert it is
facilities and efficiency apt.-evanr: C;rn -ina humdi>rzrpped and :
others in the Chatnan Hill ne.�{nuan;leniwi. Zlxul:.and r-z-:a prevent:
activies as well as job trainnq .ins oaucm iin, ,prvzrmns could t.
place there.
Reverend G. A. Blocker of 34& T_. Baiy3rrr a_-xV=csxsd support
requests for improvements previ,usitri mama) car itr,. Arhus, Mr. pier,
Rev. O'Neal and others. He striA!-vlim� ne .eUnaveiivmd ache eommitte,
Concern.
Minutes - January la, 1992 Neighborhood Meeting
7.90 4
Minutes - January 16, 1992 Neighborhood Meeting
Page 2
Ms. Ogletree stated that HUD does not consider the canyon lakes 1-6,
the canyon area, Mae Sla hens Park, and Mackenzie Park low to moderate
Income areas but rather a regional area that benefits and is used by
the entire Lubbock community. Therefore, there would probably be same
major eligibility problems with many of the projects proposed there at
the meeting. She did say the the mLK. League requests were within HUD
eligibility standards and had already been submitted and were in
revi". I
Ms. Ervin, Mr. Hooper, and others present expressed their views that
this park did benefit the entire community but is primarily for
benefit of and use by the surrounding law and moderate income
neighborhoods. Ms. Ogletree stated that she agreed with their
concerns, but did not want anyone to leave with false hope because she
saw little chance of HUD reversing its decision. She stated tbac (MSG
standards and requirements had changed considerably over the years and
that currently 70% of CDBG funds must be spent on low and moderate
income area.
Mr. Mash reiterated Ms. Ogletree's concerns and asked her to quickly
go over the CDBG requirements. she explained that Lubbock CCBG funds
priaurily go toward housing, human services, and public improvements,
but 701 smut be expended on law and moderate income people within
these areas. .. .
Rev. Haynes then questioned Ms. Ogletree about the status of the
Chatman Hill projects. She stated that there has teen eleven houses
built In the past year, and four more are scheduled to be built this
year. She explained that last year S10,000 had been used to fund a
study to determine the feasibility of renovating the Chat --an Hill
Hospital facility. So far, University Medical Center has co,a. teed to
leasing the first floor and there are possible tenants for the second
floor as well. She also cited the completion of the tree planting and
entrance sign projects in that area. Rev. Haynes asked about possible
public relations activities to be undertaken. Ma. Ogletree said sbe
felt a lot of progress had been suds, and this progress spoke for
itself.
Mr. Nash stated that the next CDAC meeting and public hearing Would �e
held Thursday. January 16. at Rodgers Community Center, 3200 Amherst.
He thanked everyone for their attendance and commented, along with Mr.
Carroll, on the good turnout. (It was consented by the participants
that scheduling and ccommunication had been much better this year.]
The meeting was ad)ourned by Mr. Mash at 8:15 p.m.
MINUTES
CCYTRMITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISCRY COMMITTEE
RCDGERS COMMUNITY CENTER -
THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1992
CDAC '!-L-9 RS IN ATTT_`MANCE: CDAC MDMERS ABSENT:
E. Hoyse Mc.Murtr/ Robert Snell (excused)
Larry Gardner Rev. Kado Lang (excused)
Gary Cocanougher
Paul Nash
Jose Montelongo CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Jose Davila
Vonda K. Somerville Sandy Ogletree
Sharon Bennett Chris Hooper
Roosevelt Carroll Tony Reyes
Russ Wilkinson Robin Alexander
Betty Carr
Dorothy Dailey Furr
Mary Mauldin
Mr. Paul Nash, CDAC Chairman, welcomed everyone and called the meeting
to order at 7:05. He explained that there would be a short video
presentation concerning the accomplishments and activities of the CDAC
over the past year. The video presentation explained the CDBG
program. Ic covered the funded projects for the 1991-92 program year.
It explained that Lubbock's main CDBG priority is housing and
neighborhood improvement projects. The video also covered the new
HOPE and HOME housing programs. The presentation lasted approximately
15 minutes.
Mr. Nash then explained how the CDAC members are chosen and what their
duties are. Each member introduced himself or herself and stated the
district or group that he or she represented.
Following the introductions, Mr. Nash stated that this year the CDAC
has approximately $2.5 million with which to fund CDBG projects (an
increase from $2.4 million the previous year). He said that last year
the CDAC had S6.3 million worth of requests. He explained that not
all proposed projects can be funded, but the CDAC does cry to help as
many people and neighborhoods as they can within the funding
constraints.
The first citizen to address the committee was Ms. Yolanda Larez of
3203 Grinnell. She stated that she lived in the Arnett Benson
neighborhood and wanted to request that a new playground be built for
the children of that area. She said that other children from outside
the immediate neighborhood use the park facilities also, and there is
not enough space and equipment available. She also said the current
Playground equipment was not in good condition.
Ms. cares then introduced five young girls from the Arnett Benson
neighborhood who wished to address the committee concerning this
issue. They were: Stephanie Alvarez of 3006 3rd Street: Barbara,
Amanda, and Jessica Flinders of 3515 26th Street: and Nora Lares of
3202 Grinnell. The children each spoke requesting a nicer, better
Playground for themselves and their friends. The girls stated that
over 200 children use the facilities in the summer, and there is just
not enough equipment for all to play. They also mentioned that there
are not any facilities or equipment for the use of handicapped
children. They estimated the cost of a new playground to be $35,000.
The children then passed around pictures of the current playground and
a petition signed by several children to the committee members.
Following this, Ms. Larez spoke again of .too_ many children and not
enough equipment. She also mentioned that it would be nice for the
parents to have a comfortable place at the park in order to sit with
and better supervise the children. Mr. Davila asked approximately how
many children of what ages make use of the playground. Ms. Larez
estimated that 100 to 200 children of all ages use the playground par
day in the summer months. She said others from ocher areas come in,
and many activities are held there.
Ms. Somerville asked what types of programs are held at the park. He.
Ogletree responded that the Sumner satellite program is held there
during the summer months. It provides lunches and supervised
activities for approximately 200 children of that area during the
summers. She told the committee she would get the exact figures for
them.
Next to address the committee was Ms_ Ruby Gonzales of 4614 Harvard,
representing the Our Lady of Grace Parish Council. She requested
funds for the landscaping of Detroit Avenue. She estimated the cost
Of the project at $46,000. She expressed a community desire to
continue the beautification and tree planting efforts in the Arnett
Benson neighborhood. Ms. Gonzales requested the continuance of the
sidewalk project currently taking place in that area. She estimated
the cost of this project to be $20,000. She stated that the community
appreciated all CDAC had done.
Mr. Concanougher asked for a more definite description of the area
that needed landscape work. Ms. Gonzales replied that it was
approximately a two to three block area around Detroit from about 4th
Street to Erskine. She stated that some houses in that area had been
torn down, and the lots needed some kind of work. He then asked
exactly what work had been done on the sidewalk project. Ms. Gonzales
responded that while some sidewalks had been built, other streets
still had no sidewalks at all. Mr. Cocanougher then inquired as to
how many blocks still needed sidewalks, and Ms. Gonzales said that she
did not have an estimate. Mr. Nash explained that the sidewalk
project was an ongoing project that had been funded for a number of
Years, and work on the sidewalks in the area was still being done.
Next, Ms. Betty Anderson 5017 15th Street addressed the committee.
She stated that she was A representative of the Early Learning Centers
Minutes - January 16, 1992 Neighborhood Meeting
Page 3
program associated with the United way. She introduced other members
of the board and the program's executive director. She explained that
since 1975 CDBG funds have helped to build and renovate several Early
Learning Centers (ELCs) in this city and that help was greatly
appreciated. The ELCs provide low and moderate income families with
day care services.
Ms. Anderson requested that a ELC be built in the Overton
neighborhood. The amount of the request was approximately 3285,000.
The other ELCs are in the eastern and norther sections of the city,
and a more central location is needed to better serve the families of
the Overton area. The current ELCs are now serving approximately 450
to 500 children, and they are near capacity. The waiting list is now
over 600 children. The ECLS are currently coo crowded and space is
needed. The Texas Department of Human Services has regulations
concerning group size and amount of space per child that are not being
met at this time. No exact location for the new ELC has been found,
but several are being explored.
Ms. Anderson stated that there are approximately 650 children in the
Overton area, and poverty there is a major problem. Many of these
children are being reared in low income and/or single parent hoses.
The Overton ELC would not only serve these children but also children
of Tech students and parents who work downtown. There are currently
three day care centers or preschools in that neighborhood, but not
many low income children are served. The new ELC would be similar to
the Erskin location and would serve about 110 children. It could also
serve as an excellent training station for high school vocational
programs and as a laboratory for child development students.
Ms. Bennett asked about unused United Way funds that had been
mentioned earlier. Ms. Anderson explained that the ELC program hoped
to use them as matching funds for the CDBG funds. The total cost of
the project will be approximately $382,000.
Mr. Nash then reminded the committee of the next neighborhood meeting
to be held 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 21, 1992 at the Central Senior
Citizens Center located at 2001 19th Street. He adjourned the meeting
at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was immediately called back to order because
one citizen who wished to address the committee had not spoken.
Ms. Diana Lozano of 717 3rd Place asked the committee if any Work was
going to be done on the area surrounding 4th Street and avenue H. She
said that street improvements, paving, and general beautification need
to be done. She specifically stated that the streets around the
intersection of 3rd Street and Avenue G need paving badly.
Mr. Gardner asked if most of the homes in that area are rented or
owned by the occupants. Ms. Lozano responded that most are owned.
Ms. Ogletree explained that work is being done in that area and that
there are already cost estimates for the paving there. She also said
there is a possibility that soma strip paving may be done in
cooperation with the county. Ms. Ogletree then stated that all of the
requests except the playground had been submitted. She cold the
Minutes - January 16. 1992 Neighborhood Meeting
Page 4
committee that the City was looking into the Mae St—, Pazk requests
from the previous meeting. She said a meetinq had been set with Parks
and Recreation for Friday, January 24, at 9:00 a.m._
Mr. Nash officially adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
�•.. <- MINUTES
-•;i - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
CENTRAL SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER
Y'UESD:.Y, JANUARY 21. 1992 7:00 P.M.
CDAC ^'!ERS IN ATTENDANCE: CDAC MEtffiERS ABSENT:
Paul Nash Gary Cocanougher (excused)
Roosevelt Carroll Russ Wilkinson (excused)
Jose Davila Robert Snell (excused)
E. Hoyle MCMurtry Rev. Kado Lang (excused)
Vdnda K. SOM0CVille
Getty Carr CITY STAFF PRESENT -
Sharon Sharon Bennett
Dorothy Dailey Furr Tony Reyes
'Q Mary Mauldin Chris Hooper
Carry Gardner
Jose Montelongo
-s t-
i
Mr. Paul Nash. CDAC Chairman, welcomed everyone and called the meeting
-�-�, to order at 7:OS P.M. He explained that there would be a Short video
!: presentation of CDBG activities funded during the previous year. The
j• 1990-91 CDBG Performance video vas then shown. It lasted
approximately 15 minutes.
Mr. Nash then gave a Summary of the CDAC's purpose of considering
requests for CDBG funding and developing a recommendation regarding
the use of CDBG funds to be presented to the City Council. Each CDAC
:'r• member introduced themselves and indicated which sector of the City
[hey represented.
Mr. Nash then informed the audience that he would proceed down the
sign -in sheet and call the names in order of those wno requested to
_ -"_i' address the commaccee. Mr. Nash then called Viola McKelvy, 1120 22n3,
" A' representing the Carlisle community. She informed the committee that
she was a resident and homeowner in the Carlisle community and had
been since 1962. She informed the Committee that since the Carlisle
area had been annexed by the City, approximately seven years ago, that
it would be nice to be treated as part of the City. She requested
that the City look into upgrading the overall transportation
); facilities in the Carlisle area and a Community center to provide
supervised recreation for the area Children. She thanked the City for
the development of the Carlisle Annex Park, but also informed them
that this provided recreation for only three months out of the year.
The Construction of a Community Center would provide year-round
_ retreat ion for the area Children. Ms. McKelvy also requested that a
walkway be Constructed around the park area. She once again requested
Minutes - January 21. 1991 Neighborhood Meeting
Page 2
the Committee to please consider funding these projects in the
Carlisle community and thanked them for their time. Mr. Nash called
for any questions from the committee members directed towards Hs.
MCKel•ry. No questions were asked and Mr. Nash thanked lis. McKelvy for
her Comments.
', Mr. Nash then Called Margaret Johnson, 2302 Urbana Place, to Come
y forward and address the committee, She Informed the committee that
her main concern was the conditions of the roads in the Carlisle area.
She stated that before the City annexed the Carlisle area that the
-= County provided caliche on the roads in the area, which prevented many
of the proolems that they experience today. Mr. Nash then called for
any questions from the committee members. No questions were asked.
Mr. Nash thanked Ms. Johnson for her presentation to the committee.
Mr. Nash then called Ms. Margaret N. Johnson, 7346 25th, to come
forward and address the Committee. She informed the Committee that
she was a homeowner and a tax payer from the Carlisle Community.
According to Ms. Johnson, her main concern was the streets in the
Carlisle area. She stated that after the recent rains and snow that
--- her sons have had to walk in cold mud up to their knees from the point
where there school bus drops them off to their home, which is
approximately one block away. She reiterated the point that when the
County was in Charge of the Carlisle community, caliche was provided
on the roads in that area. She also informed the committee that due
to the amount of water remaining in the area, during the summer time
the Infestation of mosquitos is unbearable. In addition, she informed
the Committee that maintenance costs have increased on her automobile
due to all the mud and water on the roads. She requested that City
vehie les tour the area when the weather conditions are inclement, such
as this evening. She stated that the City is doing enough just to
keep the residents of the area pacified and that she was not impressed
with the efforts thus far. Mr. Nash thanked Ms. Johnson for her
presentation and Called for any questions. Mr. Joe Davila asked how
many blocks are presently in this condition. Ms. Johnson replied that
,! the whole area is in this condition. Mr. Nash then informed the
audience that two streets were funded for paving in the Carlisle area
last year. He then called Ms. Pat Romo, Program Administrator for the
west Texas Community Development Corporation, representing the
Carlisle community. She informed the Committee that her organization
adopted the Carlisle community three years ago due to the fact that it
is the most impoverished area in and around Lubbock. She also thanked
the City for their efforts in the Carlisle area. She stated that the
City is selecting the most traveled areas to pave, rather than
Considering the residential areas of the community. She informed the
Committee that the Carlisle community has the support of 25 Lubbock
area Churches. She then Called for the Citizens representing Carlisle
to please stand and be recognized. Approximately 95♦ of the 60 people
- = in attendance at the meeting stood at that time.
Minutes - January .1. 1991 Neighborhood Fleeting
Page 3
Ms. Romo then asked the committee members to refer to the letter she
submitted which listed the funding requests of the Carlisle community
for the 1992-93 program year. Mr. Nash then thanked Ms. Romo for her
presentation and called for any questions. There were no questions
for Ms. Romo so Mr. Nash then proceeded to call James Miller, 2010
Urbana Place, to come forward and address the committee. Mr. Miller
informed the committee that he vas a 20 year resident of the
Cermunity. He submitted a picture of the road conditions in the
Carlisle area for the committee to view. He suggested that the paving"
estie.ices for the streets in that area were possibly too high and
requested that the Committee come and tour the area themselves. Mr.
Hiller estimated that the cost of paving the seven blocks of roadway
on Urbana Place and Urbana Avenue at S100,000. He noted that the
Community would eventually like to see all the streets in the area .—
paved, but understood that [his would take time. He then requested
that at least two streets be paved out of this years funding
allocation and asked that those streets include the bus routes for the
Carlisle community. Mr. Miller thanked the Committee and Concluded
his presentation. Mr. Nash asked which street the bus route runs.
Mr. Miller informed the committee that the bus route runs only on
those streets which are paved in the Carlisle community. Mr. Nash '
Called for any additional questions of Mr. Miller and then thanked him
for his presentation.
Mr. Nash then Called Anthony.Burns, 2506 Urbana, to address the
Committee. He informed the Committee that the 21st and 25th Street
paving projects have not been completed. He reiterated Mr. Miller-*
statements concerning the bus routes in the Carlisle area. He also
informed the Committee that the day before two buses had gone Into the t:'
ditch due to the Conditions of the roads. Mr. Nash called for any
questions of Mr. Burns and thanked him for his presentation. 1l4-
Mr. Nash informed the committee that no one else had signed up to
speak, but left the floor open for anyone who would like to speak but !`
did not sign-up. Pat Romo then approached the Committee and requested V:.e
water and sewer hook-up for renters as well as homeowners. She
suggested that the landlords be given a payment plan to allow for
these hook-ups, similar to the ones the residential homeowners use.
Mr. Nash thanked Ms. Romo for her Comments and informed the audience
that funds are not available for assistance to hook-up water and sewer
services for renters at this time.
Mr. Nash then informed the audience that the Committee had requests of
over $6.4 million last year with only $2.4 million to allocate. He
stated this year's funding amount at S2.i million and anticipates
funding requests to approach the 6 million dollar mark once again.
Mr. Nash then called for any additional Comments to the committee.
Mr. A.T. Miller, 5222 14th Street, spoke on behalf of the senior
Citizens and RV owners to request an Rv park in the Lubbock area. Mr.
Nash thanked Mr. Miller for his Comments and called for any questions.
Flinuces - January 21. 1991 Neighborhood Meeting
Page 4
Mr. Charles Collier, 5611 16th Street, addressed the committee and
reiterated Mr. :ailler's request for an RV park for RV owners in the
Citv of Lubbock and surrounding towns. At this point Mr. Nash thanked
those in attendance at the meeting for their participation and called
for any other questions. There were no other questions and Mr. Nash
adjourr.ed the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
COMMUNITY
DLVELOPtMr
CDBG TOUT: GB ?RCS&S.3
THURSDAY, ZAIMAW Z1%, 19-W
CDAC MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: amm 'f£ggggm ;mow
E. Hoyse McMurtry
Rahw -- ineJM (WL=ummd1
Larry Gardner
aev...:;adto Taro) tls�.xcusedl
Gary Cocanougher
Jose. JAVI:k. 4M=XMmdA
Paul Nash
Vanes. ix'3xeeaai ae (excused)
Jose Montelongo
gpymn, 3]Lnnws ((Xmcused)
Roosevelt Carroll
Russ:ALLI"_ mor, !(•rm:uSed)
Betty Carr
Nlm')y .laalanf:t: tUmmmusamil
Dorothy Dailey Purr
S`ardpaa)lttc�.
man•-= ib'spdS
07t'Qs: Me.Namti�p
311tann `_ptc _:1:L1
J
abul2m• Aiyxandls
The Citibus left the Municipal Ad. atiamxt�tbitiy 3_K'P.M. 0:
the way to the first stop, Sandy •.giorrgr sFxi.lsi:tsal Shur nose of the
projects to be viewed on the tout itru icp =B1 fynmh,4_ Thome project:
fall under other community develrverm 1o.'israv, r_1at ,rb. 1 , allow for
any administration costs; cheretcro'., 'Ma: autirrl3Z-dr,,m its must
paid out of the CDBG administrat.,ir, atlbt-arm. ;%. -. 0VA"trxe be
said she
wanted the Committee to see some :14. = r c¢tls pmµ cr= oaf the
Community Development (C.D. ) sta:' ael_k on, S1rauun, 1=Mr ,edmiv,,.tratio:
funds.
The first stop was at 2420 30th :arnsx.. mi_c: ga-utesy : Vert of the
federal Urban Homesteading Progr r,,nta_1 Ica iueyt, !mar! o.narrsbip
opportunities to families who 02017"0' 1^uihl:rni nfYvrd 1a Duy a home
The Lubbock Urban Homestead Agency ,Ui14_r)' reFinasessed
properties from the U.S. DepartmNn c:! .HnLaxirx! x+nil ilriSn1 Development
(HUD) and transfers the houses ar wury 1_rlr coffi am
Lubbock residents. Ms. Ogletree .coiSuled: Crr...yAaL�^airra .w ding to
participate in this program are cu0.Uaouui 3>n ,1ras•::_ trs�: (I)
creditworthiness, (2) low income .d,c�xs,. ,•St! 't=tc- r_e, .n.11+yer
status. (A lottery was held and ni_-i}d.W-.p]lie:TCz `wui.- %e
available properties.) The wlnm,-m -.ra 21un. ;: tbrouqh 20
year loans) for the major repala.ga•ri:t dame;, hewm'ar, •ym r . :apt
Coordinates these efforts.
The property toured was about 801,O'nLaftd+.ics"jcnp 'ra. ,Eletys
Mcfarlinq, the C.D. Rehabilitation. 9gsna, t=n weary --not wLLlb rba%
property. Woodwork, painting. irpa.u"C.mi, mor'iae•. uiiUTy work. etc.
Was all being done. Mr. McFarlirv/ vM1a►ned, ".4dm date affU%LLm at would
Minutes - January 23, 1992 C=BG Tour of Projects
Page 2
have to live in the homa for five years to obtain the deed. The
payments 'an the loan include principal, interest, taxes, and
insurance. Ms. Ogletree pointed out that this program had been
terminated and replaced with the now federal program Mon.
The next stop on the tour was the Mae Simmons Athletic Field Lighting
Project site. It was explained that there had been a request to move
the outfield fence and to replace the old lightinq with new florescent
lights and metal poles. The cost was estimated at approximately
s —30. no major cost of the project consists of the movement and
update of lighting.
no third stop was at 1106 2nd Place, an Affordable Housing Project
site for the Guadalupe Neighborhood. Sharon Patillo, the Real Estate
Specialist with the C.D. Dept., was there to answer questions. This
Program is a joint venture between the City of Lubbock, HUD, and the
west Texas Hose Builders Association. It assists people with low to
moderate inca�es in purchasing newly constructed quality homes at
affordable prices In the City's Affordable Housing Target Areas. The
C.D. Dept. prescreens the applicants for FHA loan eligibility and then
links them with the builders. The agreement with the builders assures
that the cost -reducing techniques are in compliance with City Building
Codes and FHA standards.
The property toured was a new, three bedroom/two bath, brick home
built for S4S,700. The family is scheduled to move In next week. The
monthly payments are s474; it is a 30 year note at 81 interest. It
was estimated that $1.6 million had been spent in the Guadalupe area
through the Affordable Housing Project. Eighteen hoses had been built
under the program last year.
After leaving this property, the bus toured the Guadalupe
Neighborhood. The neighborhood entrance marker, a small park,
landscaping, etc. were pointed out to the Committee. The I-27
reclamation property was also Pointed out. Next the bus moved on to
the Arnett Benson area. Landscaping, sidewalk, parks, and street
paving and widening projects were pointed out.
The fourth stop was at 2614 2nd Place, a property involved in the 312
Loan Program. This is a program that helps rehabilitate Owner -
occupied housing in low and moderate income areas. This house had
been completely rehabilitated, and a master hedroom and bathroom plus
a utility room had been added on. The family was there during the
tour; they seemed very pleased with the work that had been done. The
total loan for the property rehab was $26,000.
The last stop on the tour was the Carlisle Neighborhood. The park
that was built with previous CDBG funds was pointed out to the
Committee. The staff also pointed out two streets that had been paved
through the previous year's CDBG funding as well as two more on which
paving has been requested this year. Many roads still remain unpaved,
and they were very muddy, though not impassable. The residents of the
Carlisle area have been very vocal in protesting the conditions there.
It was noted by Ms. Ogletree that during the previous year the C.D.
Minutes - January 21, 1992 CDBG Tour of Projects
Page 3
Dept. had offered to strip pave two other streets in place of
completely paving (full -width with curb and gutters) one of the
streets on their request, but Carlisle residents had refused the
offer.
The bus brought the Committee back to the Municipal Building at
approximately 5:05 p.m.
MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY CCXMITTEE
WORKSESSION I
MUNICIPAL
BUILDING CO'LMITTEE ROOM
TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1992 7:00 P.M.
CDAC *IV''dBERS TDl ATTENDANCE:
CDAC 'TMBERS ABSENT:
Paul Nash
Robert Snell (excused)
Roosevelt Carroll
Rev. Kado Lang (excused)
E. Hoyse htcnurtry
Jose Davila (excused)
Jose Hontelongo
Betty Carr
Sharon Bennett
CITY STAFF PRESF*. i
Dorothy Dailey Furr
Mary Mauldin
Sandy Ogletree
Larry Gardner
Chris Hooper
Russ Wilkinson
Tony Reyes
Vonda Somerville
Sylvia Martinez
Gary Cocanougher
Rob Allison
Larry Hertel
Jerry Smith
Carlos Vigil
Russel Howard
Todd Steelman
Bert McWilliams
Chairman Paul Nash called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. He
reviewed the contents of the packets distributed which included a
Priority Assignment Sheet, the Minutes of the CDAC Bus Tour, and a
summary listing of the 1992-93 Proposed Projects. The Chairman
reviewed the Priority Assignment Sheet with the members defining each
category. He informed the Committee that he would hegin with to
Project titled "Project Neighborhoods" and skip through those projects
administered by the Community Development staff in order to
accommodate the other City staff members present.
The following proposed projects were considered by the CDAC and
priorities set.
Protect Neighborhoods: The Chairman then called Rob Allison, Ccdes
Adminisc rat or, to come forward and address the CDAC. Din. Allison gave
his summary of the primacy purpose of the Project Neighborhoods, rhich
is code enforcement. He informed the Committee that the 1991=undiag
for cede enforcement was $185,313. He explair.ed that dnrinq t-r.e 90-91
CD fiscal year that code enforcement cited over 3,100 weed vlolaticns
and approximately 1,000 junk vehicle violations in the CD target
areas. He noted that the Project Neighborhoods budget also includes a
second program which would be two alley clean-ups. He noted that one
alley Clean-up was completed this past November with a cost of just
under a19,000. CDAC member Mary Mauldin asked when the next alley
clean-up would be and if the cost was expected to be the same. Rob
Minutes - January 28, 1992 Worksession I
Page 2
Allison explained that the alley clean-ups are bid on a competitive
basis and normally five to six bidders are expected. CDAC member Jose
Montelongo asked it any income is generated on t.`.e citations issued by
the Code Enforcement Department. Rob Allison explained that the
property owner is sent a Notice of Violation and has ten days to
comply with the notice. Upon reinspection of the violation, which is
usually within 12-LB days, if the property is still in violation the
property is then placed on a movers list and is moved or shredded or
in the case of rubbish, picked up. The property owner then,has 30
days -to pay the contractor. If he does not, then the City pays the
contractor and a lien is placed on the property. The only additional
costs involved when a lien is placed is an administration cost which
is approximately S20. CDAC member Gary Cocanougher asked if the money
coliected goes back Into the CD funding allocation. Sandy Ogletree
explained that the miscellaneous revenue generated is referred to as
program income which is reported to HUD on a yearly basis. Motion was
made by Sharon Bennett to rate Project Neighborhood as a high
priority, the motion passed 11 in favor, 0 against.
Graffiti Removal Program - Paul Nash called Jerry Smith, Director of
Building Services, to come forward and address the CDAC. Jerry Smith
gave an overview of the Graffiti Removal Program which was Initially
funded by the City Council during Program Year 1991. CDAC member Mary
Mauldin asked how much the kids are paid. Mr. Smith explained that
the kids are paid minimum wage. A motion was made by Betty Carr to
rate the Grnf fiti Removal Program as a high priority. CDAC Gary
Cocanougher asked how the kids were selected for employment. Jerry
Smith explained that an application is filed with the City of Lubbock
Personnel office and interviews are conducted for each kid. Sandy
Ogletree explained that the kids salaries are paid for through JTPA
funding and the supervision is the only cost realized by the Couni
.'mty
Development Block Grant. The motion passed 11 in favor; 0 against.
Paving / Carlisle Area - Chairman Paul Nash called Larry Hertel, City
Engineer, to come forward and address the CDAC. He explained that
there is approximately $329,000 worth of unpaved streets in the
Carlisle area. However, he stated that 69 miles of unpaved streets
exist within the City of Lubbock and approximately 38 miles of theta
are In residential areas. In addition, he stated that between 60-90%
of those 38 miles ounpaved residential streets are within the CD
Targec area. He informfed the Committee that the Street Engineering
Department would prepare estimates for any streets they might recei•re
a request on. CDAC member Vonda Somerville asked -nicl streets would
be paved Lf the S70,000 allocation was granted. Chairman Paul `tasn
explained that the Carlisle area's priority is Urbana Place !rem 19th
to 26th Street. Motion was made by CDAC member E. -oyse Mc2urtzy to
rate Carlisle Paving as a high priority. The roticn passed 6 In
favor; 5 against.
Home Security Program - Sylvia Martinez, Community Services
Supervisor, gave a summary and overview of the Community Service
program. CDAC member Mary Mauldin asked how much Would a homeowner
save if they participated In this program. Sylvia Martinez responded
minutes - January 28. 1992 Worksession I
Page 3
that approximately s684 per household would be saved due to the
installation of home security devices. CDAC member Dorothy Dailey
Furr asked the income guidelines for participation in this program.
Ms. 'artinez explained that only low and moderate income individuals
with an emphasis on the elderly would be considered for this program.
A motion was made by Larry Gardner to rate Home Security as a high
priority. The motion passed 11 in favor, 0 against.
Chairman Paul Nash then called Carlos Vigil, Park Development
Supervisor, to come forward and address the CDAC. Carlos Vigil gave a
summary of all Park requests and answered a variety of questions on
thethirteen Park projects listed in the 1992-93 application.
Detroit Avenue Landscaping - Carlos Vigil gave a summary of this
project which was initially funded by the City Council during the
1991-92 Interim Allocation Public Hearing. A motion was made by
Sharon Bennett to rate Detroit Avenue Landscaping as a high priority.
The motion passed 11 in favor, 0 against.
Butler Park Outreach Program 6 Rawlings Park Outreach Proarams -
Carlos Vigil gave an overview of the BPOP/RPOP program. Notion was
made by Betty Carr to rate BPOP/RPOP as a high priority. The motion
passed 11 in favor, 0 against.
Summer Recreation Satellite Program - Carlos Vigil gave an overview of
the program which includes eight park sites. A motion was made by
Larry Gardner to rate Summer Recreation Satellite Program as a high
priority. The motion passed 11 in favor; 0 against.
Mae Simmons Athletic Field Lighting - Carlos Vigil gave an overview of
this project. A motion was made by Gary Cocanougher to rate Mae
Simmons Athletic Field Lighting as a high priority. The motion passed
8 In favor; 3 against.
Maedgen Park Playground - Carlos Vigil gave a summary of this project.
A motion was made by Betty Carr to rate Maedgen Park Playground as a
medium priority. The motion passed 8 in favor; 3 against.
Booker T. Washington Playground - Carlos Vigil gave an overview of
this proposed project. A motion was made by Sharon Bennett to rate
Booker T. Washington Park Playground as a high priority. The -otic:
passed 11 for; 0 against.
Ernest Butler Plavelround - Carlos Vigil gave an overview of this
project. A motion was made by Sharon Bennett to rate Ernest Butler
Park Playground as a medium priority. The motion passed 11 for: 0
against.
George woods Center Lighting - Carlos Vigil gave an overview o! this
project request. A motion was made by Sharon Ecnnect to rate Georas
Woods Center Lighting as a medium priority. The motion passed 9 fort
2 against.
Ctirutcs - January I8, 1992 worksassion I
Page 4
Ouadslcre Stria Park Security Lighting - Carlos Vigil gave an overview
of this croject and a current statu. report on the first phase of the
project !unded during the 1991-92 program year. A motion as made by
Sharon Bennett to rate Guadalupe Strip Park Security Lighting Phase II
as a high priority. The motion passed 11 for; 0 against.
Sine Simons At-nletie Field Pressbox/Restrooms - Carlos Vigil gave an
overview at tnis project wnicn is ranaeG 9th by the Parks Department.
A ratan was made by Larry Gardner to rate Mae Slamons Athletic Field
Pressooxi Restrooms as a high priority. The motion passed 11 for; 0
against.
Guadalute Park Playere•ied - Carlos Vigil gave an overview of this
proposaa project. A motion was made by Larry Gardner to rate
Guadalupe Park Playground as a medium priority. The motion passed 10
for; 1 against.
Clavtcn Carter Plavground - Carlos Vigil gave an overview of this
protect which is ranked llth by the Parks Department. A motion was
lade by Gary Cocanougher to rate Clayton Carter Playground as a medium
priority. The motion Passed 11 for; 0 against.
Mackenzie Little League Field Upgrade - Carlos Vigil gave an overview
of this project wnien is ranked 12ah by the Parks Department. A
motion was made by Larry Gardner to rate Mackenzie Little League Field
Upgrade as a medium priority. The motion passed 10 for; 1 against.
Washington 1 Butler Parks Tennis Court Renovations - Carlos Vigil gave
an overview of this project whim is ranxed 13th by the Parks
Department. A motion was made by Sharon Sennett to rate Washington
and Butler Parks Tennis Court Renovations as a low priority. The
motion passed 10 for; 1 against.
Chairman Paul Nash then called Tony Reyes, Rehabilitation and
Redevelopment Coordinatoru, to come forward and address the CDAC. Tony
Reyes gave a smmery of the following projects: Residential
Rehabilitation, Project Helping Hands, Housing Redevelopment, I-27
Acquisition, Sidewalks/Arnett Benson, Chatman Hill, Self -Help Paint -
Up, Land Disposition, HOPE Program Property Management, and Field
Services.
Sandy Ogletree then gave a project summary of C.D. Administration and
Indirect Costs.
At this point CDAC member Larry Gardner made a motion that the
projects explained by Tony Reyes and Sandy Ogletree receive a high
priority. The motion passed 11 for; 0 against.
Neighborhood Support Planner - Sandy Ogletree gave an overview of the
responsioilities and requirements for the assistant planner position.
She explained that the primary data the position would be working with
was the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). She
explained that in order for the City of Lubbock Community Development
office to access funding under the new HOPE and HOME programs, as well
Minutes - January 28, 1992 worksession I
Page 5
as continue access to existing funding, the CHAS must be updated on a
yearly basis. In addition, a non -housing Community Development Plan
must be developed which identifies all the infrastructure needs in they
identified low and moderate inccme areas of the City of Lubbock. A
motion was made by Gary Cocanougher to rate Neighborhood Support
Planner as a high priority. The motion passed 11 for; 0 against.
Early Learning Centers of Lubbock - Sandy Ogletree gave an overview of
the request from Early Learning Centers which is for 5286,500. She
explained that the CDBG request of 5286,500 is for 75% of the projects
total cost of 3182,000. Sandy Ogletree then explained that Early
Learning Centers might possibly submit an alternate request which
would provide for an expansion of an existing facility based on the
lack of funding available to construct a new facility. A motion was
made by Larry Gardner to rate Early Learning Centers of Lubbock as a
high priority. The motion passed 11 for; 0 against.
Drug Elimination Program - Sandy Ogletree gave an overview of the
program wnicn targets at -risk youth that reside in public housing.
She explained that the City Council allocated 550,000 to the Lubbock
Housing Authority at the interim public hearing in September to
provide expansion for this program. She explained that this project
proposal is for the continuation of the expanded Drug Elimination
Program. A motion was made by Vonda Somerville to rate the Drug
Elimination Program as a high priority. The motion passed 11 for; 0
against.
Contingencv Fund - A motion was made by Larry Gardner to rate
Contingency Fund as a high priority. The motion passed 11 for; 0
against.
At this point Chairman Paul Nash asked for any additional questions or
comments. He stated that the Committee would meet again on Thursday
to determine the budget amounts set for each of these projects. The
meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
Minutes - January 30, 1992 CDAC Work Session II
Page ]
decided to adjourn. Mr. Nash reminded the CDAC members that he would
present their recommendations to the City Council at 5:00 p.m. on Feb.
27th. All were encouraged to attend. The work session was adjourned
at 8:00 P.M. -
MINUTES
CO..". UNITY DEVELOPMENT A.DVISORY CON'!ITTEE
WORK SESSICN II
TH'JRSOAY, JANUAiY 30. 1992
CDAC vEMMERS IN A:: �MANCE: C�;.0 !=!5ERS .ABSENT:
E. Hoyse McMurtry
Larry Gardner
Vonda K. Somerville
Paul Nash
Jose Montelongo
Roosevelt Carroll
7.arltiSaaldzn-Yrxc�sedi
Dorothy Dailey Purr
Mary Mauldin
Sharon Bennett
Russ Wilkinson
Rev. Kado Lany
Cary Cocanougher lexrrsed)
Jose Davila lexcused)
CITY STAFF ?near.;^•
Sandy Ogletree
Chris Hooper
Tony Reyes
Robin Alexander
Carlos vigil
CDAC Chairman Paul Nash called the work session to order at 7:05 p.m.l
The first item to be discussed was the Rodgers Playgrcz-d project. -
Questions were asked as to the need for additional playground
equipment there. Carlos Vigil, Parks Deve lopment Supervisor..
explained that the Rodgers playground was near the bottom of the Parksl
and Recreation's list of priorities. Mr. Vigil and Mr. Nash, however,
both explained that it was the only park playground in the Arnett
Benson neighbonccod which is heavily populated. A motion was made too
fund at the project cost of $31,900. A tic vote resulted and was,
broken by Paul Nash. The motion was then made and passed to place thej
Rodgers Playground project as a high priority without funding.
The second item concerned the Mae Simons Athletic Field project tci
provide now lighting (545,000) and move the out_ic Id fence (55,0001.1
Both were made high priority projects. These two co:hpa-chts were)
comoined, and the additional $5,000 needed for the fence was taken
from the contingency fund. A motion to tund at $50,000 was =assed.
Mr. flash explained that the committee would have to work within the
available funds range of 52,555,000. The current total of hign
Priority projects was still $3, 534,017. Ms. Bennett wanted to know
the total amount of staff recommended funding for all projects. This)
equaled the available amount of 32,554,.)00. %It. Nash aswca if there't
were any projects that the CDAC had doslgnated as high priority b:it1
that the staff had not recommended for funding. Ms. Ogletree weal
there were some such projects.
The next item concerned a motion to change the priority of the Maednen
Park Plnvn-a -
Minutes - January 30, 1992 CDAC work Session II
Page 2
funds became available, this project would then be funded. Ms.
Ogletree answered that yes, that was the case.
A motion was then made that the committee approve as a package the
Field Services, Administration, Indirect Cost, and Contingency funds
(as changed) at staff recommended funding levels ($679,610). The
motion passed. The Planning -Neighborhood Support fund (S]],000) was
then added to the package by a motion. The motion passed.
Another motion was made to also approve, At' staff recommended funding
levels, the series of projects that are continually funded from year
to year. These include: Project Helping Hands, Residential
Rehabilitation, Project Neighborhoods, Housing Redevelopment, Paint -up
Program, Sidewalks/Arnett Benson/Chatman Hi-11, and the Home Security
Program. The motion passed. The Land Disposition ($5, 000) and the
HOPE Program Property Management ($5,000) funds were both added to the
package through motion. The motion passed.
A motion to drop the Detroit Avenue Landscaping. After a discussion,
the motion was withdrawn. Another motion was made to fund the
remaining projects at staff recommended levels. The motion passed.
Thebalance of available funds was calculated as s]63,]90. A motion
was made to approve as presented the B-POP/R-POP (S30,500) and
Graffiti Removal (535,000) projects. The motion passed. This left
the committee with a balance of $246,690 in available funds. A motion
was made to approve the Guadalupe Strip Park Security Lighting
($22,000) project at staff recommendation. The motion passed.
Mr. McMurtry then made a motion that the streets Urbana Avenue (from
22nd to 24th streets) and 24th Street (to Upland Avenue) be paved in
Carlisle at a cost of 570,000 rather than paving Urbana Place. This
would pick up a total of 25 houses. It was asked what would be the
cost of paving the full length of 24th Street. An additional s9,]9]
would be needed. It was decided to take this amount from the
contingency fund. The motion passed.
A motion was then made to fund the Drug Elimination Program IS44,000)
at staff recommendation. The motion passed. A motion was then passed
to fund the Early Learning Centers project at staff recommendation of
$75,000. It was commented that ELC's had been encouraged to look for
a site so that if extra money became available, they would be in a
position to utilize it. Ms. Bennett asked if the CDAC would have
input on the recommended allocations of any additional funds. Ms.
Ogletree said the CDAC would be reconvened in such a case. (The CDAC
will be reconvened regardless to consider some policy decisions.)
The balance was then calculated to be $35,690. The motion was made to
fund the Detroit Avenue Landscaping project at that &mount. The
motion passed.
Mr. Nash then asked the committee if they Would rather adjourn now or
to go back over the items not funded in order to give same a -high
plus" priority as had been discussed previously. The eomolttes
u, U,ll J u , l J7L
Page 151
February 27, 1992
Page 152
92-51A-151-125
(33.)
32-51A-151-126
(34.)
32-51A-151-127
,35.)
12-51A-151-128
.36.)
-2-51A-151-129
12.)
Hold an Executive Session to discuss personnel
matter$ regarding duties, responsibilities, and/or
appointments to:
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Lubbock Civic Centers Board
Board of Health
nsider five a000intments to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. The terms of Robin Parks, Penny Morin,
and Kim H. Allen will expire February 26, 1992. The
terms of alternate members Ron McLaurin and Ruben
Reyes expired on January 28, 1992.
Motion was made by Councilman Phillips, seconded by
Mayor Pro Tem Patterson to reappoint Penny Morin,
Kim Allen, Ron McLaurin and Ruben Reyes; to move
Bobby Rogers from Alternate to Regular Member; and
to appoint Jerry Schafner to replace Bobby Rogers as
Alternate Member on the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays.
Consider one appointment to the Lubbock Civic,
Centers Board. Sam Ogletree resigned his position
December 30, 1991.
Motion was made by Councilman Phillips, seconded by
Councilwoman Trejo to appoint Linda Greenstreet to
replace Sam Ogletree on the Lubbock Civic Centers
Board. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays.
Consider two appointments to the Board of Health.
The terms of Jim J. Northcutt and Ronald Thompson
will expire February 21, 1992,
Motion was made by Councilman Phillips, seconded by
Councilman Aderton to reappoint Ronald Thompson and
to appoint Rich 011er to replace Jim Northcutt on
the Board of Health. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0
Nays.
Hold a Public Hearing for the 1992-93 Community
Development Block Grant Program
Mayor McMinn opened the Public Hearing at 5:04 p.m.
and established the format as follows: Presentation
by Paul Nash, Chair of the Community Development
Advisory Committee of comments and recommendations
from the CDAC; then public input in the order in
which signed; and finally those who wished to
testify, but did not register.
Mr. Nash reported that the CDAC had reviewed 34 1
funding requests totalling approximately $3.9
million, and had held three public meetings during
January: Mae Simmons Senior Citizens Center,
Central Senior Citizens Center, Rodgers Community
Center, with approximately 100 citizens
participating. The meetings were followed by a CDAC
tour of these proposed projects: Mae Simmons
Athletic Field Lighting Project; Affordable Housing;
Guadalupe Entrance Marker and Neighborhood
Improvements; Carlisle Area Paving; Housing
Rehabilitation; and Detroit Avenue Landscaping.
After completion of the tour, the CDAC, which is
composed of representatives of six sectors of the
City, as well as representatives of the disabled and
senior citizens organizations, met in two work
sessions.
Mr. Nash advised that requests received were in
excess of the funds available. He went on to relate
the request from the Carlisle residents to tour
their community and that the Committee recommended
paving of Urbana Place from 19th Street to 26th
Street and Urbana Avenue from 22nd Street to 24th
Street. Additionally, Carlisle residents discussed
completion of the water and sewer connections for
their homeowners and construction of a community
center for the area. After the tour and discussion,
the Committee recommended paving Urbana Avenue from
22nd to 24th Streets and 24th Street from Urbana
Place to Upland Avenue and completion of the water
and sewer connections through the Helping Hands
Program.
Mr. Nash went on to say that the Early Learning
Center, Inc. had requested $276,000 for construction
of a Day Care Center in the Central Lubbock area.
At this point Mr. Nash related the projects
recommended for funding by the CDAC as follows:
Project Neighborhoods
$ 165,000
Residential Rehabilitation
.750,000
Project Helping Hands
225,000
Housing Redevelopment
175,000
Sidewalks/Arnett Benson/
Chatman Hill
40,000
Paint -Up Program
35,000 '
Land Disposition
5,000
HOPE Program Property Mgt.
5,000
Administration
207,664
Field Services
300,614
Indirect Costs
100,000
Graffiti Removal
35,000
Carlisle Area Paving
79,393
Home Security Program
30,000
Neighborhood Support
33,000
Detroit Ave. Landscaping
35,690
Butler Park Outreach Prg.
30,500
Summer Recreation Satellite
51,200
Mae Simmons Athletic
Field Lighting
50,000
Guadalupe Strip Park
Security Lighting
22,000
Early Learning Centers
75,000
Drug Elimination Program
44,000
Contingency Fund
60,939
$2,555,000
The total Community Development Block Grant program
is $2,555,000.
Mr. Nash said that the recommended funding
represents an overall increase of 5%, or $124,000,
from the 1991-92 allocation and that several
projects were ranked as high priorities by the CDAC,
were not recommended for funding at this time. It
is the recommendation of the CDAC, however, that
these projects be reviewed by Council for funding
during the year, should money become available.
Mr. Nash advised that the Housing and Code
Enforcement Programs were reduced approximately
$125,000 in order to fund more parks and other
community improvements.
February 27, 1992
Page 153
According to Mr. Nash, during the neighborhood
meetings, three additional projects which were
proposed to the CDAC. These include:
1. Additional playground equipment at
Rodgers Park. The estimated cost is
$31,900 and was ranked as a high
priority with no funding.
2. Paving of Avenue G between 2nd Place
and 3rd Place. The project is
proposed to be completed through an•
Interlocal Agreement with the
County. The City's share of the
cost is $8,000.
Redevelopment of the Starlight Motel
and commercial center located at 500
E. 23rd. A Redevelopment Plan was
proposed at $10,000.
The current balance of the C.D. Contingency Fund is
$165,280.59.
Father David Cruz, representing the Carlisle
Community, commented regarding the recommended
allocation of 1/3 of the $2.5 million for
administration and related costs. He then urged
Council approval of paving of Urbana Place at an
amount of $127,756 in light of the fact that this is
part of the Frenship School District Bus Route, and
during inclement weather, it becomes impassible for
bus travel. He pointed out that this is the largest
street in Carlisle, and that the residents have been
notified that buses were stuck more than 20 times
during this past school year, and because of this,
Durham transportation will not allow their buses to
enter this road during or after inclement weather,
forcing the children to walk to the nearest paved
street for pickup.
Father Cruz urged Council to disregard the
recommendation of the CDAC for the paving of Urbana
Avenue and 24th Street and instead, to pave Urbana
Place. He pointed out that 60 Carlisle residents
had attended the public hearing, and that this was
95% of the total attendance at this hearing, or 1/2
of all hearing attendees.
February 27, 1992
Page 154
Father Cruz then gave his opinion that the CDAC
recommendation is not in compliance with the Code of
Federal Regulations of HUD regarding resident input.
He suggested that Council apply $79,300 recommended
by the CDAC toward paving of Urbana Place, and if
additional funds are necessary, that money be
allocated from the Contingency Fund.
Mayor McMinn then asked if the request for the
funding is to hold the $79,300 recommended by the
CDAC, until the summer when determination can be
made as to the availability of additional funding
and if additional funds do not become available, if
the request is to hold the $79,300 until funds
become available, with no work being done. Father
Cruz stated he would need to discuss this with the
residents.
Councilwoman Baker recommended that Council allocate
the $79,300 for "a Carlisle Paving Project' and when
contingency funds become available, that Staff work
with the Carlisle representatives and make the
decision as to which street will be paved. Mayor
McMinn pointed out that this would not tie the
residents to the pavement of only Urbana Place.
Father Cruz then deferred the suggestion to Pat
Romo, who commented that a contingency fund amount
is currently recommended by the CDAC and after
Council approval of the other programs, additional
funding for the Urbana Place paving could be
reviewed. She mentioned further that last year more
than $20,000 allocated for Carlisle was not needed
for street paving, and the actual cost of paving
Urbana Place, in their opinion, will be closer to
$80,000 than the projected $127,756.
Father Cruz then emphasized for the record that
Urbana Place is the priority paving project and the
request is that it be done this funding cycle, as
made clear by the residents at the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Patterson then asked how many children
are affected by the busing issue and Father Cruz
stated that reference in the past has been to 200
households, but that he does not have an exact
figure for the number of children. Councilwoman
Baker requested that the information regarding the
number of children affected, be presented by the
time the decision is made regarding the contingency
funds, and Father Cruz stated they would work on
this.
February 27, 1992
Page 155
Mayor McMinn then called on Paul Nash to clarify the
Committee's recommendation. Mr. Nash stated that
the public input was considered and said that the
Carlisle request was for Urbana Place, 19th to 26th
Street for $127,000 and affected 26 households. The
second request was for Urbana Avenue, from 22nd
Street to 24th Street which affected 19 households.
Knowing that both requests could not be funded, the
Committee decided to pave Urbana Avenue and
depending on the amount of available funds, to pave
24th Street, from Urbana Place to Upland Avenue,
which affected 13 households. The intent of the
CDAC, according to Mr. Nash, was to meet needs of
the most residents within the amount of money which
the Committee felt could be recommended. The CDAC
recommendation would benefit 32 households. Mr.
Nash advised that the Committee does not oppose the
request for paving Urbana Place, as long as there is
funding and stated further that the CDAC intent was
to work within the available funds.
Father Cruz then expressed concern that, in his
opinion, the CDAC process had to be circumvented for
them to be heard. Mayor McMinn stated that it might
not be possible for Council to allocate additional
money than what was recommended and Father Cruz
advised that the Carlisle residents will ask the
Federal Government to intercede if their request is
not approved.
Councilman Maloy asked when the funds become
available and the projects begin and Sandy Ogletree,';
Community Development Coordinator, answered that
they will be available from June 1, 1992 through May
30, 1993. Councilmembers Aderton, Maloy and Mayor
Pro Tem Patterson agreed that this request needs to
be authorized.
Quincy White, representing the Martin Luther King
Little League, requested authorization of funds for
renovation at Mae Simmons Park to provide proper
lighting and other renovations as recommended by the
CDAC. Discussion ensued regarding the beginning of
Little League Season and whether or not renovations
could be effected by that time. Staff advised that
due to requirements for environmental clearance,
amending the current program and other necessary
federal approval, this would not be possible.
Barbara, Jessica, and Amanda Flanders and Nora and
Yolanda Lares spoke on behalf of Arnett Neighborhood
requesting play ground equipment and handicapped
accessibility improvements at Rodgers Park.
Charles Saunders, representing the Afro American
Community Development Corporation, requested use of j
Community Development funds for economic development.
purposes.
Owen McWorther, representing the Neighborhood
Redevelopment Commission. expressed support for the
recommended funding of Housing and Neighborhood
Programs.
February 27, 1992
Page 156
James Miller, Carlisle resident, requested
consideration of additional paving improvements and
requested an update on previously authorized paving
construction. Larry Hertel, City Engineer, advised
that the project referenced had been delayed due to
weather, but that construction will resume next
week.
Abraham Spyes, an East Lubbock resident, commented
on problems regarding minority lending practices of
local banks and then asked that lateral movement
from one project to another of allocated CDBG funds
not be allowed.
Marvin Williams, Carlisle resident, commented on the
need for street lighting, for paving improvements,
and spoke of problems with some residents regarding
hooking onto City water and sewer services.
Cecil Puryear complained about allocation of funds
for anything but low income housing.
Louis Trejo, representing Arnett Neighborhood, spoke
in support of the recommended allocation for the
Detroit Avenue landscaping project.
Betty Anderson, President of the Early Learning
Centers, Inc., stated the need for future funding
for a Center in the Overton area, and urged support
of the recommended allocation of $75,000 for
expansion of present facilities.
Barbara Matthews, East Lubbock resident, asked why
other parks have lighted ballfields and Mae Simmons
Park does not and the answer given by Councilman
Phillips is that most of the other lighting has been
paid for by the little league organizations. She
then spoke about the need for upkeep of the property!
of the low income housing projects by the owners.
Bishop W.D. Haynes spoke regarding the need for
restudy of the Chatman Neighborhood Project property
in light of the unliklihood of it being developed as
residential due to the fact that the land faces the
cotton seed mills. His suggestion was that building
be considered on the rim of the Canyon. Also, he
requested allocation of funds for the facility at
East 23rd and Fir, for the purpose of singing
activities.
J.W. McCafferty, President of the Chapel Hill
Neighborhood Association, expressed disagreement
with the lack of Helping Hands and Weatherization
funding in his area.
Rev. G.E. O'Neal, pastor of Mt. Gilead Baptist
Church, requested that Council do additional
prioritizing of projects listed in the Economic
Development Plan and inform the citizens of Lubbock
in a public forum. He mentioned the problems
regarding the lack of pedestrian bridge at Lake k6.
Joan Ervin spoke regarding requested allocation for
a pavilion which had not been recommended for
funding. She expressed disagreement with the
compromise which had been reached regarding donation
of materials from the community and the commitment
of the Parks Department to provide construction
assistance and land.
February 27, 199
Page 157
Harold Chatman expressed appreciation for the
affordable housing program and urged the Council tc
seriously consider the Carlisle request for paving
Quincy White then commented favorably on the
community/City partnership regarding the East
Lubbock pavilion project, stating that the
compromise will allow completion of the project foi
this year's Juneteenth celebration.
There being no further testimony, Mayor McMinn
closed the hearing at 6:30 p.m. and called for
Council discussion and decision.
92-SIA-157-130
(13.) Consider authorizing the Mayor to execute the 1992-
93 Community Development Block Grant Application ar
all related documents.
RESOLUTION #3828
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized
and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a
Community Development Block Grant Application of 1992-1993 for the year
1992 and related documents, which Application is attached herewith,
which shall be spread upon the minutes of the Council and as spread upo
the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a part of this
Resolution as if fully copied herein in detail.
Passed by the City Council this 27th day of February, 1992.
/s/ B. C. McMinn
B. C. McMINN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
/s/ Ranette Boyd
Ranette Boyd, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Ls/ Sandy Ogletree
Sandy Ogletree, Community Development
Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Dennis W. McGill
Dennis W. McGill, Trial Attorney
A copy of the Community Development Block Grant Application is filed
with Resolution No. 3828.
The City of Lubbock's Community Development Program
is administered in accordance with the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 as amended and
with 24 CFR 570.303 of the Community Development
Block Grant Regulations. The Statement of
Objectives has been prepared as stipulated in those
regulations. A preliminary Statement of Objectives
was published in the Avalanche Journal on February
16 and the Statement of Objectives has been on file
with the City Secretary for review by all interested
parties.
February 27, 1992
Page 158
Following submission of the Statement of Objectives
the Community Development staff will begin
preparation of the Environmental Assessments and
other planning activities so that the Community
Development Fiscal Year will be able to start on
June 1, 1992.
Mayor McMinn then mentioned the assessment process
as an alternative to funding paving projects funded
by Community Development grant money. He expressed
appreciation for citizen, Staff and CDAC input. i
Mayor Pro Tem Patterson suggested that the $10,000
recommended for the Chatman Hill Redevelopment Plan
be approved. Councilwoman Trejo then commented on
the paving of Avenue G between 2nd Place and 3rd
Place, saying that due to an interlocal agreement
with Lubbock County, the project can be done with
$8,000 from Contingency Fund. According to
Councilwoman Trejo, this will complete all paving in
this area.
Mayor Pro Tem Patterson raised the issue of money
needed for the paving of Carlisle. Councilwoman
Baker suggested that Council consider taking the
$48,000 balance from the current $165,000
Contingency Fund balance. Councilman Maloy then
reminded Council that with the addition of $60,000
budgeted this year, the balance will be $226,000 in
the upcoming year and he suggested that Council
authorize paving Urbana Place as of June 1; approve
purchase of playground equipment for Rodgers Park;
and complete the three recommended items which did
not receive high priority by the CDAC.
Motion was made by Councilman Maloy to authorize
CDAC recommended allocations for $2,555,000 and
also, to approve an additional $48,000 for the
paving of Urbana Place from 19th Street to 26th
Street, $31,900 for playground equipment in Rodgers
Park, $8,000 for paving Avenue G from 2nd Place to
3rd Place (to be accomplished with an interlocal
agreement with Lubbock County), and $10,000 for
redevelopment of the Starlight Motel at 500 East
23rd Street. It was further stipulated that this
additional funding be taken from the current
$165,000 Contingency Fund Balance. Councilwoman
Baker seconded the motion. Motion carried: 7 Yeas
0 Nays.
February 27, 1992
Page 159
There being no further business to come before Council, motion was made
by Mayor Pro Tem Patterson, seconded by Councilwoman Trejo to adjourn
the meeting at 6:49 p.m. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays.
B. C. McMinrf, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ran tte Boyd, City Sect
Read and approved this the 12th day of March, 1992.
ATTEST:
cz,'taj
•,Ran tte Boy , City Sectetary
C
G. McMinrY, Mayor