Board of Aldermen 05-28-2019 Page 4
READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the minutes of the Board of Aldermen
meetings of May 14, 2019, May 16, 2019, and May 20, 2019, accepted, placed on file, and the
readings suspended.
COMMUNICATIONS REQUIRING ONLY PROCEDURAL ACTIONS AND WRITTEN REPORTS
FROM LIAISONS — None
PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS
EVENING
Fred Teeboom Thank you my name is Fred Teeboom | reside at 24 Cheyenne Drive. | am here to talk
about R-19-126 on your agenda for final action, the CDBG Funding. Now | became involved it seemed
to be defunding when | got contacted by Lynn Barry who is now 87 years old; she was 86 at the time.
She has a simple hot water line leak in a mobile home that would have taken maybe a $20.00 sharp
knife fix or maybe a $100.00 or $200.00 repair bill and she wound up with an $1,100.00 mortgage on a
single sole possession mobile home. And like | said, 86 years old, she used to have her own business,
many years a tax payer and here she wound up with a mortgage because she wanted some help for
emergency repairs.
That prompted me to take a closer look at CDBG funding; in all the years involved in Aldermanic
business I’ve never really been concerned about CDBG funding. But this business with Lynn Barry
prompted me to get involved. So my first question is, how many of you have read the February 7™
communications that mention in the second paragraph of R-19-126 which gives the background on the
funding? Has anybody really looked at that? | didn’t think so; I’m not sure anybody on the first
committee did either because | asked that question before. Well | looked at the data, there’s not all that
much but it is background on the funding. | had written a letter to the Board of Aldermen dated 23 April
about that, about my concerns about CDBG funding, and | had also compiled, it took me about a day to
do it, compiled a detailed spread sheet of the funding profile. | just wondered how much was requested,
how much was awarded, what the award was for, how many people it served, what the budget is and
what the compensation is to the extent that could be determined from these submittals in the February
7, data.
Now the first thing that struck me was that the City Administration takes 32% of the funding right off of
the top, 32%. Now the City is not supposed to collect more than 20%, HUD Regulation. I’ve been in
touch with HUD, the regional office, at levels well above the level that the City HUD Program Manager
deals with. | am going to ask that they investigate this. What the City did, they broke their cut as | called
it, their Administrative cut into 2 parts. One part is $135,000.00; the other one $115,000.00 by far the
largest amount for the CDBG funding, 32%. | don’t think that’s appropriate. | am going to ask for a
review on that. No one ever questioned it and | reviewed the minutes in the Committee; nobody in the
Committee questioned it. Some of you, most of you on the Committee are here.
The next thing that struck me and I’m not going to go through all of them because that’s not my purpose
here, is an item as #2 on the Resolution, the Resolution at the sequential numbering of the funding 1 —
11 if you look at it; #2 Entrepreneurship For All. Now they are being awarded $40,000.00 for support of
micro enterprises. Seems ok; it’s a new application but their executive director earns $185,000.00 a
year in annual compensation. | presume that is benefits and salary, but $185,000.00. Their Program
Manager, who | guess is the next person underneath the Executive Director, he makes $145,000.00 a
year. | know that because the applications ask for the Chief Managers to provide their compensation.
Of all those that applied, only Entrepreneurship For All supplied this information; even though it is
required in the applications. No one in the Committee asked this question. So | question with that kind
of compensation provided to the managers of these non-profits, do they really need CDBG money?
