Response to Mayor, provided Amanda Hernandez, Assistant Director of Planning:
Regarding the Homebuyer Assistance Program - do we notify the Four Rivers Board of Realtors when these programs are available?
Yes, staff contacts a board representative a couple of times a year with an updated brochure about the program.
The report has a note at the top that states "Items highlighted in yellow will be updated after the review process" - when will that happen?
The day after the council meeting.
I see that for Home Ownership Counseling we expected 500 and 61 were served. Same question as above - do we notify/work with the Board of Realtors?
City staff has worked with the subrecipient (Austin Habitat for Humanity) to create marketing for the program. So far the program has not been marketed through the Board of Realtors but this can be started. Marketing has been through Community Impact Newspaper ads and Habitat social media. This program started as the pandemic started and offering virtual programs has not been as successful as hoped. In-person programs will start this weekend at the San Marcos library. Staff will continue to work to expand marketing.
Similar question for the faith leaders in our city regarding Housing Rehab. They get requests for assistance. Do they know we can help?
Yes; the rehabilitation program is run by Southside, which is widely known in San Marcos. The repair program is new and is only now starting. The City’s home rehabilitation and repair programs have been on hold until recently while the rehabilitation program was completely revamped and the repair program was created. The repair program is run in-house, and since applications are about to open it is now being marketed. Staff presented to the Neighborhood Commission in November and will present to the Inter Agency Council in December. In addition, CDBG staff are working closely with Neighborhood Enhancement staff to identify needs and to broadcast the availability of the programs to existing partners in the faith-based community. The programs have been marketed to potential clients through a utility bill insert, which would also have been received by the faith-based organizations.
Regarding Homelessness Outreach, why was no funding required?
CDBG is still basically a housing construction and rehabilitation program. Public services such as homelessness outreach can be funded but only up to 15% of the amount of the annual allocation. For the current program year 2021-2022, that 15% is $114,972. $60,000 was allocated to CASA and $45,000 to the Hays Caldwell Womens Center Family Violence Program, for a total of $105,000 allocated to public services. HUD sees the Emergency Solutions Grant as the primary funding source for homelessness services, not CDBG.
The HCWC transitional housing is WAY past breaking ground. These units are built (but may not be completely ready for move-in). Shouldn't that progress be noted?
Wording has now been changed in the document which will be sent to HUD to reflect that construction was underway during Program year 2020-2021. The wording in question was accidentally left in from a prior year.
When can we use some of this funding for the Dunbar school building that is not currently in use?
A specific use for the building needs to be found in order to support spending CDBG funding to rehabilitate it. This could certainly be considered for funding in Program Year 2022-2023. Staff is working to explore possibilities.
Didn't we spend more than $46,225 for Together for a Cause housing? Was the latest funding from another source?
No CDBG funding was allocated to Together for a Cause. Funding for Together for a Cause was as follows:
- General fund – former Coronavirus Relief reimbursement (from the $640,000) $150,000
- American Rescue Plan $100,000
Page 13 of the CAPER had yellow highlight on "Pending: census tract information" - when does that get filled in?
The following sentence was added to the CAPER in place of the census tract note after the deadline for Legistar submissions for the Council packet: “Two were in census tract 104, with 62.5% low to moderate income people, and the other three were in census tract 109.05, with 26%.”
Please advise of the programs noted in "The Price Senior Center provides City-staff managed recreation programs for the elderly" and I kinda take exception to the term "elderly" unless it's a HUD term. Otherwise, "seniors" is used by us and many others.
Based on this note, staff called the Price Center and this sentence has now been replaced with: “The Price Center is owned by the City and leased by a non-profit that provides recreational programs to all regardless of age.”
Elderly is a HUD term for people 62 and over. This is used for the sake of consistency with HUD reports.
The Charles S. Cock House is used as the "Charles S. Cock House Museum" by the Heritage Association not "The Charles S. Cock House contains the Heritage Association of San Marcos Museum."
This sentence has now been replaced with the recommended wording, in the draft that will go to HUD.
Page 20, the date of the PIT count is missing. Just "January, 2021" is shown.
Typo – should have been January 28, 2021. This has now been corrected.
Page 31 has 3 notations of information to be inserted.
No comments had been received as of the date the report was placed into Legistar for the Council packet. The yellow highlight is a reminder to fill in information on any comments received at the City Council meeting.
Page 34 - Looks like we are waiting on some attachments also.
Correct – these cannot be attached until they are final, and they will not be final until after the Council meeting.
