03/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Keller had no reservations about extending the program to the disabled but he did question extension to all low-income homeowners regardless of age, it being his under- standing the original intent was to help the elderly. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel not to extend the home repair program to low-income homeowners under 62 but to continue under the present program (homeowners over 62 and the disabled). Councilman Williams wondered about the rationale on which the Housing Committee based its recommendation to broaden the program to include low-income homeowners. Ms.Cushman said it was to further the dispersal of low-income housing in line with policy adopted by the Council. She added that the original $150,000 of revenue sharing funds granted last year had been used exclusively for the elderly and the Housing Committee felt the second $150,000 to be allocated this year should cover a broader group. Councilman Murray was opposed to continuing under the present program. He felt it should be expanded to be consistent with the Housing Committee's major concern that the second year's $150,000 be used for home repair an~ maintenance for all low-income families. Discussion continued on allocation of both last and this years' $150,000 revenue sharing funds with Ms. Cushman answering Councilman Bradley that if this request was denie~ the $150,000 would then be intact and the Housing Committee probably would solicit other proposals. She said it would not be transferring funds earmarked for the elderly. In response to Councilman Keller, Ms. Cushman said there was no reason the funds could not be used to continue the existing program as stated in the motion. Councilman Bradley asked if the home repair program could be funded later through com- munity development funds if it was not funded in the manner proposed now. Councilman Murray answered that that was one option, but in that process there would be more specific designation in terms of geographic location, priorities, amounts to be spent in certain areas, etc., plus particular emphasis on priorities to low-income people. However, the development budget would be extremely limited for extensive needs and he felt the home repair program would be better as a compl~ment to community development rather than being funded through it. Councilman Hamel didn't think it was out of line to continue the present program, giv- ing aid primarily to the elderly and handicapped, and called for the question. Councilman Murray commented that this recommendation would recognize the Joint Hous- ing Committee's goals in terms of serving those who would not likely be served under the present program. Mr. Hamel said he understood that all the needs of the elderly were not met even now. Vote was taken on the motion as stated, to allocate the funds but to continue the home repair program only for those older than 62 and the disabled. Motion carried, Council members Keller, Williams, Bradley, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray and Haws voting no. Comm 2/26/75 See action below Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Haws to amend committee action to extend the home repair program to the low-income families as originally proposed by the Joint Housing Committee. Councilman Murray said the committee action denying this program to all low-income families would contradict previous actions in distributing these funds, especially as it applied to the housing dispersal program. He noted previous funds were denied by the housing committee because the program was limited to the elderly and not extended to all low-income families. The intent of the committee drafting the housing dispersal program, he said, was to hold down the cost of housing for low-inQome families. And on the basis of priorities set by the joint housing committee the budget committee set up the housing fund, its major use to assist low-income families. He thought the rec~rd was clear as to the purposes for which funds were to be used, and to approve the comm1ttee action restricting the home repair program to the elderly only would be a serious con- tradiction and not easily explained. /17 3/10/75 - 13