Section 106 Review: Are we doing our homework?

[strider]

Yes, the last from the city almost sounds like a threat.  The city will still do emergency demolitions, just won't use those federal funds.  The problem is that only person who determines if something is an emergency is Kimberly Scott, the Department Chief.  That is one of the problems we have had with this entire issue all along.  The two houses that Mr Barker has admitted were paid for improperly were emergency demolitions according to MS Scott, but not per the professional engineers.  Everyone as been told that Ms Scott's decisions are not to be questioned by the Historic Preservation Commission nor Joel McEachin, head of the Historic Preservation department, this determined by Mr Jason Teal of the Office of General Counsel.

Since no one would listen to reason, since Ms Scott is being protected by Mr Teal, since the HPC is not doing it's job, we had to go after the funding for demolitions.  And look at what we have found.  Is this why Mr Teal has been protecting Ms Scott?  Is this why the HPC was told not to question her decisions?  Because they did not want this found out? Sort of indicates that the Office of General Counsel may indeed have know about this abuse all along.

So, City of Jacksonville, continue to allow Ms Scott to hold her position, continue to allow the Office of General Counsel to protect her and we will continue to show the public how badly Mr. Barker and Ms. Scott have been handling the millions of Federal funds they were entrusted with.

[sheclown]

And, we've only just begun...

http://www.youtube.com/v/rSIr5a4L8os?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0

...ain't that right Kim?

[JaxUnicorn]

And, we've only just begun...

http://www.youtube.com/v/rSIr5a4L8os?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0

...ain't that right Kim?

Ab-so-freaking-lutely Gloria!  Hold your breath folks....we pissed people are about to break the damn floodgates WIDE OPEN!  Oops...can't say those words at City Council...can I use those words on this forum? 

Great song too!!

[sheclown]

I received this on Thursday, October 17 via email.

Gloria DeVall

Preservation SOS



Hi Ms. DeVall,



The City of Jacksonville (the "City") through its Housing and Community Development Division ("HCDD") has received your email dated September 4, 2013 to the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").  In this email, you raise concerns regarding the City's use of Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP") funds in the demolition of properties at 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street in the Historic Springfield District.  The City has conducted a thorough review of the concerns raised in your email and provides the following information to address those concerns. 



Background on the 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street



Municipal Code Compliance Division's ("MCCD") records regarding the two above  referenced properties demonstrated that both 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street had a long history of continued code compliance violations and continued deterioration of each properties' structural integrity.

More specifically, records further showed that the owners of 129 E. 2nd Street and 253 E. 2nd Street failed to address code violations during the course of enforcement (as long as 21years for the 253 E. 2nd Street property) and/or to perform any repair work.  Subsequent separate independent structural engineer reviews and visual inspections by MCCD's code compliance officers later confirmed that continued deterioration of each property's structural conditions created imminently unsafe conditions which warranted emergency demolition actions.



Use of NSP Funds



The NSP program was established by HUD for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment.  Demolitions are one of the eligible activities that NSP funds may be used to advance this purpose.  NSP funds are paid on a reimbursement basis.



With regard to using federal funds (such as NSP) to reimburse the demolitions of properties within the Historic Springfield District, the National Historic Preservation Act requires that a Section 106 review (with the exception of certain disaster conditions) be conducted prior to the reimbursement of such federal funds.



Our investigation into the two referenced demolitions identified that the Section 106 reviews were not completed.  Since these Section 106 reviews were not completed and there were no available exceptions, these demolitions were not eligible for reimbursement under the City's NSP program.  MCCD has provided the necessary account numbers from its non-federal funding sources to reimburse NSP and the entries necessary to return the program funds to the City's NSP program funds are being completed.  HUD has been informed that we have concluded that these demolitions are not eligible for NSP reimbursement and that all accounting actions are being finalized to ensure that only MCCD's non-federal funding sources apply to these demolitions.



Proactive Improvements



Although your use of NSP funds concern has been completely addressed and is being finalized, I wanted to inform you that we are making the necessary process and procedural improvements within the City to improve and increase communication and training, ensure the proper use of federal funds and compliance with federal historic preservation requirements. 



The City is in the process of preparing its NSP Quarterly Performance Reports ("QPR") for both NSP1 and NSP3 for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2013.  Staff will pay particular attention to the quality of the information being included in those reports in attempt to address any concerns that you have raised regarding the level of detail available to the community.  These reports will be available on the City's website on or around November 1, 2013.



Thank you very much for your email.  We welcome feedback from the citizens that we serve and look forward to the positive changes that can be made to increase communication and transparency between the various divisions of the City and the community as a whole.



TAB



Terrance L. Ashanta-Barker, JD

Director of Neighborhoods

City of Jacksonville (Ed Ball Building)

214 North Hogan Street, 5th Floor

Jacksonville, Florida 32202



Office: (904) 255-7238 | Fax: (904) 588-0519

Email: tashanta-barker@coj.net



Connect with Mayor Brown and the City of Jacksonville!

Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr Blog Google

For general information, contact 630-CITY (2489).

View our calendar, sign up for newsletters or learn about volunteer opportunities.

*** Please note that under Florida's very broad public records law, email communications to and from city officials are subject to public disclosure. ***

It is November 4th.  Are these on the website?  If anyone has time, perhaps we could find them??

[sheclown]

City of Jacksonville Action Plan -- FY 2011 - 2012
page 11





http://www.coj.net/departments/neighborhoods/docs/housing-and-community-development/community-development/2011-12-action-plan-7-15-11-%281%29.aspx

[sheclown]

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                           March 20, 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT:   Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds

My Administration is committed to ensuring that public funds are expended responsibly and in a transparent manner. Last month, I signed into law the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," Public Law 111-5 (the "Recovery Act" or "Act"), an investment package designed to provide a necessary boost to our economy in these difficult times and to create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen America's middle class. The Recovery Act is designed to stimulate the economy through measures that, among other things, modernize the Nation's infrastructure, jump start American energy independence, expand high-quality educational opportunities, preserve and improve access to affordable health care, provide middle-class tax relief, and protect those in greatest need. It is not intended to fund projects for special interests.
In implementing the Recovery Act, we have undertaken unprecedented efforts to ensure the responsible distribution of funds for the Act's purposes and to provide public transparency and accountability of expenditures. We must not allow Recovery Act funds to be distributed on the basis of factors other than the merits of proposed projects or in response to improper influence or pressure. We must also empower executive department and agency officials to exercise their available discretion and judgment to help ensure that Recovery Act funds are expended for projects that further the job creation, economic recovery, and other purposes of the Recovery Act and are not used for imprudent projects.
To these ends, I hereby direct that for any further commitments, obligations, or expenditures of funds under the Recovery Act, the head of each executive department or agency shall immediately take all necessary steps, to the extent consistent with the Act and other applicable law, to comply with this memorandum.
Section 1. Ensuring Merit-Based Decisionmaking for Grants and Other Forms of Federal Financial Assistance Under the Recovery Act. (a) Executive departments and agencies shall develop transparent, merit-based selection criteria that will guide their available discretion in committing, obligating, or expending funds under the Recovery Act for grants and other forms of Federal financial assistance. Such criteria shall be consistent with legal requirements, may be tailored to the particular funding activity, and shall be formulated to ensure that the funding furthers the job creation, economic recovery, and other purposes of the Recovery Act.  To this end, merit-based selection criteria shall be designed to support particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding that have, to the greatest extent, a demonstrated or potential ability to: (i) deliver programmatic results; (ii) achieve economic stimulus by optimizing economic activity and the number of jobs created or saved in relation to the Federal dollars obligated; (iii) achieve long-term public benefits by, for example, investing in technological advances in science and health to increase economic efficiency and improve quality of life; investing in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits; fostering energy independence; or improving educational quality; and (iv) satisfy the Recovery Act's transparency and accountability objectives.
(b) No considerations contained in oral or written communications from any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding shall supersede or supplant consideration by executive departments and agencies of such projects, applications, or applicants for funding pursuant to applicable merit-based criteria.
Sec. 2.   Avoiding Funding of Imprudent Projects. (a) Funds under the Recovery Act shall not be committed, obligated, or expended by any executive department or agency, and shall not be used by any State or local governmental or private grantee or awardee, to support projects of the type described in section 1604 of Division A of the Recovery Act, which states that "[n]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used by any State or local government, or any private entity, for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool."

(b) In exercising their available discretion to commit, obligate, or expend funds under the Recovery Act for grants and other forms of Federal financial assistance, executive departments and agencies, to the extent permitted by law, shall not approve or otherwise support funding for projects that are similar to those described in section 1604 of Division A of the Recovery Act.

(c) In exercising their available discretion to commit, obligate, or expend funds under the Recovery Act for grants and other forms of Federal financial assistance, executive departments and agencies, to the extent permitted by law, shall not approve or otherwise support any project, application, or applicant for funding that is imprudent or that does not further the job creation, economic recovery, and other purposes of the Act. To this end, executive departments and agencies shall exercise their available discretion to decline approving or otherwise supporting particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding unless the department or agency has affirmatively determined, in advance, that the project, application, or applicant has a demonstrated or potential ability to: (i) deliver programmatic results; (ii) achieve economic stimulus by optimizing economic activity and the number of jobs created or saved in relation to the Federal dollars obligated; (iii) achieve long-term public benefits by, for example, investing in technological advances in science and health to increase economic efficiency and improve quality of life; investing in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits; fostering energy independence; or improving educational quality; or (iv) satisfy the Recovery Act's transparency and accountability objectives.
(d) Where executive departments or agencies lack discretion under the Recovery Act to refuse funding for projects similar to those described in section 1604 of Division A of the Act, or other projects that the executive department or agency deems imprudent or as not furthering the job creation, economic recovery, or other purposes of the Act, the department or agency shall consult immediately with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about the project and its funding requirements. Where legally permissible, the department or agency shall:

(i) delay funding of the project for 30 days, or the longest period permitted by law if less than 30 days, in order to ensure adequate opportunity for public scrutiny of the project prior to commitment of funds; and

(ii) publish a description of the proposed project (or project plan) and its funding requirements on the agency's recovery website as soon as practicable before or after commitment, obligation, or expenditure of funds for the project.

(e) Executive departments and agencies, including their respective Offices of Inspector General, shall monitor compliance with the prohibition in section 1604 of Division A of the Recovery Act, referenced in paragraph (a) above, by contractors, grantees, and other recipients of Federal financial assistance (recipients). If a department or agency believes that a recipient has not complied with section 1604, then the department or agency shall (i) promptly notify the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board; and (ii) take appropriate corrective action that may include, but not be limited to, disallowing or otherwise recovering improperly spent amounts, imposing additional requirements on the recipient to ensure compliance with section 1604 (and other applicable prohibitions and obligations), initiating a proceeding for administrative civil penalties, and initiating a proceeding for suspension and debarment.
Sec. 3. Ensuring Transparency of Registered Lobbyist Communications. (a) An executive department or agency official shall not consider the view of a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.,
concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act unless such views are in writing.
(b) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communication (in-person or telephonic) with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such particular project, application, or applicant is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing.
(c) All written communications from a registered lobbyist concerning the commitment, obligation, or expenditure of funds under the Recovery Act for particular projects, applications, or applicants shall be posted publicly by the receiving agency or governmental entity on its recovery website within 3 business days after receipt of such communication.
(d) An executive department or agency official may communicate orally with registered lobbyists concerning general Recovery Act policy issues; provided, however, that such oral communications shall not extend to or touch upon particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding, and further that the official must contemporaneously or immediately thereafter document in writing:  (i) the date and time of the contact on policy issues; (ii) the names of the registered lobbyists and the official(s) between whom the contact took place; and (iii) a short description of the substance of the communication. This writing must be posted publicly by the executive department or agency on its recovery website within 3 business days of the communication.
(e) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communications with any person or entity concerning general Recovery Act policy issues, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such issues is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. If so, the official shall comply with paragraph (d) above.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) The Director of OMB shall assist and, as appropriate, issue guidance to the heads of executive departments and agencies to carry out their responsibilities under this memorandum. Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Director of OMB shall review the implementation of this memorandum by executive departments and agencies and shall forward to me any recommendations for modifications or revisions to this memorandum.

(b) This memorandum does not apply to tax-related provisions in Division B of the Recovery Act.

(c) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or Executive Order to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(d) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and all OMB implementing guidance, and shall be subject to the availability of appropriations.

(e) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 5. Publication. The Director of OMB is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-20-09/

[sheclown]

[sheclown]

Section 110 of the Environmental Review states:

(k) Each Federal agency shall ensure that the agency will not grant a loan, loan guarantee, permit, license, or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the grant would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the agency, after consultation with the Council, determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.

http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm

[Scrub Palmetto]

^Regarding that last part, I get the impression many of our local decision makers truly believe the "circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created." I only hope the feds are in strong disagreement.

[ChriswUfGator]

^Regarding that last part, I get the impression many of our local decision makers truly believe the "circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created." I only hope the feds are in strong disagreement.

The "after consultation" part is the problem, they never did the reviews, consulted with the Feds, or followed any of the other procedures required before improperly spending the funds.

[sheclown]

Section 106 (16 U.S.C. 470f)

The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.

http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm

[sheclown]

Federal Funds for the fiscal Year 2011-2012

CDBG    6Million   ( Community Development Block Grant -- housing and community development)

HOME    2.2 Million    (Affordable housing -- home ownership programs)

HOPWA    2.8 Million  (Housing opportunities for persons with Aids)

ESG       296 k  (Emergency Shelter Grant )

CDBG-R 1.8 Million  (Job creation and transportation)

Homeless Prevention   2.7 Million 

NSP 1   26 Million (for use only in zip codes 32206, 32208, 32209, 32244, 32254) -- rehabbed 62 homes, built 25 homes and demolished 181 homes.

NSP 3   7 Million (for use in the Eastside & Springfield community exclusively)

For a grand total of 49 Million dollars in federal funds

http://www.coj.net/departments/neighborhoods/docs/housing-and-community-development/community-development/2011-12-action-plan-7-15-11-%281%29.aspx

[icarus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/us/blighted-cities-prefer-razing-to-rebuilding.html?pagewanted=1

[JaxUnicorn]

The City of Jacksonville's 2011-2012 CAPER (Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report) to HUD is available on the City of Jacksonville's website and on Page 42, located within Section IV, HOME Narrative Statements contains a NSP Summary (FY 2011/2012) that states:

Finally, in an effort to effectively address blight and foreclosure, NSP has contracted with Code Enforcement to demolish unsightly structures. For the fiscal year, 23 unsafe and ill-used homes were demolished.

I asked three questions regarding this statement:
1. Can you please provide me with the addresses of the 23 homes demolished?
2. Can you please explain how demolishing structures addresses foreclosure?
3. Can you please explain what is meant by an "ill-used" structure?

Attached is the email string regarding my questions and the answers from the City.  I forwarded the list of 23 properties to the State Historic Preservation Office in Talahassee and asked if the 20 properties that were over 50 years old had Section 106 reviews performed.  The SHPO's answer was NO.  The total current demolition liens against these 20 properties comes to a total of $79,831.38!   

This MUST be refunded to HUD.  This my dear Jacksonville friends....is only the very TIP of the iceburg!!

[strider]

Just to clarify things a bit.  I hope everyone reading this (including you, Ms Scott) understands that doing 106 reviews is a federal requirement and must be done before spending the money.  While it is very true that demolition is an eligible use for the NSP1 and 3 funds, the purpose of requiring 106 reviews is to determine if that demolition requested is truly needed and just doing a 106 review is not an automatic approval of that demolition.  In addition, clearances can require a 106 review as well, so acts like boarding, while certainly eligible uses for the funds, may also require a 106 review.  You can not go back after the fact and say, sorry, we forgot to do the 106 so here it is.  It does not work that way.  So, to date, based on various e-mails and phone conversations, the total the city seems to on the hook for is currently at least $ 584,290.00 and growing steadily. All thanks to Kimberly Scott and the Municipal Code Compliance Department.

Here's a question for you, if you worked for a regular corporation and you ran one of its departments so incompetently that it cost the company over a half a million dollars and potentially that much more in lawsuits, would you still have a job?