Section 106 Review: Are we doing our homework?

[sheclown]

"All the city can say is ooops." 


http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/4508537

[thelakelander]

Seems like the mayor would have something to say about this...........or not............

He's in London. Nevertheless, what has been the response of the Mayor's administration?

[strider]

So the neighborhoods chief admits the city made some mistakes... some money has been repaid? The "City" didn't make the mistakes. There was a live body or two making decisions and putting pen to paper authorizing said "mistakes".

To be accurate, the Division Head admitted to us that the Department Head of Municipal Code Compliance tried to use NSP3 funds to do two emergency demolitions and did so without the proper 106 review so they must reimburse the federal program those funds.  That total is  $27,490.00 for those two demolitions.  We have so far identified a potential $477,000 .00 in NSP1 funds used doing demolitions without the proper 106 reviews. Plus the issue is not limited to just demolitions, but other activities as well. Yes, the City handled the funds improperly. Barker and Scott are both serving at the pleasure of the Mayor.  In addition, the Office of General Counsel assigns someone to those departments, in this case, or at least until recently, that was Jason Teal.  Lots of people are responsible for how that 33 million plus of NSP funding is spent.  In the end, the ultimate responsibility must fall on the "boss".  In this case, the Mayor.  It will be up to him to fix the personnel problems.

Calling this a mistake is incorrect.  This city and that Department Head have been dealing with those federal funds for many years.  Did everyone suddenly have amnesia or is something much more sinister at work here?  Thirty Three Million in NSP funding.  In the end, how many millions will be due back to the NSP programs and how many more millions will have to be paid back from the CDBG funds used for the same things?  Once is a mistake, twice is stupidity and many times is gross misconduct. 

[ChriswUfGator]

+1

It's not a mistake, it's arrogance. They do whatever they please and are used to not having to answer for it.

Except this time they will.

[Gators312]

The question is how well does HUD like the City and its depts. 

Aren't they the ones who determine whether this was accidental oversight or pure negligence. 

If enforcement is in their hands they can be as punitive or forgiving as they so choose. 

[ChriswUfGator]

Fortunately the local office can only do so much, they have plenty of oversight and ultimately HUD answers to the auditor general like everyone else, if we have to take it that far anyway. An issue with misspending government funds can't be controlled at one office or even one agency, for obvious reasons.

[Springfielder]

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-misuses-federal-dollars-to-demolish/4MWEeUx3Tka-d1mATDqh_Q.cspx

ACKSONVILLE Fla.-- As the City tore down walls of historic Springfield homes, neighbors tore through the City Code Compliance Division's every move. They believe they found one major mistake. The demolitions were being funded with federal dollars.

"It's very frustrating because this money could have been used to mothball the houses to remove the Blight to make renovations there are many things that could have been done," said Gloria Devall, a neighbor and Springfield preservationist.

Action News obtained a letter from the City's Code Compliance Office to Devall. In the letter the City admits two homes
were demolished with "non-eligible" funds.

"They're going to be punished," said Devall. She says there are more than 50 homes she believes were taken down with the same "misused" money.

"Money is tight and that money could have really made a difference," she said.

Action News reached out to Terrance Ashanta Barker, the City's Director of Neighborhoods to find out why they misused the federal money. He admitted it was a mistake; one neighbor like Devall say they can never recover from.

"Once it's demolished, you can't go back," she said.

The City says they have already paid back the $30,000 for the two demolitions.

Isn't this about more like 50 houses that the city demolished using funds they shouldn't have...not just 2?

[JaxUnicorn]

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-misuses-federal-dollars-to-demolish/4MWEeUx3Tka-d1mATDqh_Q.cspx

ACKSONVILLE Fla.-- As the City tore down walls of historic Springfield homes, neighbors tore through the City Code Compliance Division's every move. They believe they found one major mistake. The demolitions were being funded with federal dollars.

"It's very frustrating because this money could have been used to mothball the houses to remove the Blight to make renovations there are many things that could have been done," said Gloria Devall, a neighbor and Springfield preservationist.

Action News obtained a letter from the City's Code Compliance Office to Devall. In the letter the City admits two homes
were demolished with "non-eligible" funds.

"They're going to be punished," said Devall. She says there are more than 50 homes she believes were taken down with the same "misused" money.

"Money is tight and that money could have really made a difference," she said.

Action News reached out to Terrance Ashanta Barker, the City's Director of Neighborhoods to find out why they misused the federal money. He admitted it was a mistake; one neighbor like Devall say they can never recover from.

"Once it's demolished, you can't go back," she said.

The City says they have already paid back the $30,000 for the two demolitions.

Isn't this about more like 50 houses that the city demolished using funds they shouldn't have...not just 2?

It is way more than 2.  There were 57 demolitions on 51 properties over 50 years old completed using NSP1 funds JUST IN ZIP CODE 32206!  And no Section 106 reviews were done.  PSOS has requested a list of ALL properties demolished using NSP1, NSP3 and CDBG funds and are awaiting the information.  Stay tuned.....

[Cheshire Cat]

"All the city can say is ooops." 


http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/4508537

Interesting.  Here is what I am seeing right now.  The city says it has already paid back thousands of misused dollars.  Now hold up here a minute.......They have paid back thousands in misused federal funds?  Alrighty then.  The city knew before they were approached by PSOS and others that they had "misspent" thousand of dollars in funding.  This translates to "They knew all along that procedure was not being followed and did nothing to correct it. Someone in authority was compliant here, so who was that?  Consider this for a moment, if the procedures were not being followed and the end result was that the city was paying for demolitions and someone was still "benefiting", it seems to me that in the end there was a financial vehicle in place for continued abuses that apparently remained well hidden and speaks to gross mismanagement and dare I say it, a potentially corrupt system. 

Here's the deal.  This will remain an "oops" and attempts will be made to frame this as a mistake, but the admission that the city has already paid back thousands is also an admission that they knew there was a problem and didn't do a damn thing about it.

What now needs to happen is a public request for the date of all reimbursements made to the feds and what those expenditures are.  With city officials and members of council backing off of this issue as quickly as they are, they are protecting something, someone or someone's.  Don't forget to make requests for all of the purchase orders for the jobs that the city reimbursed to get dates.  This all smells to high heaven and it will not be an "oops" if it ends up impacting future federal revenue streams.

The other factor that cannot be overlooked is the potential for a conspiracy to work the system when it came to demo's and if that happened that is an issue for the SAO and the FBI.

[JaxUnicorn]

Last night's City Council Meeting video is up.  Sheclown begins her public comments at 1:24:20 followed immediately by JaxUnicorn's (that's me) comments. 

http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%2010-22-13.wmv
And yes, even though the link says 2010, it is the 10/22/13 council meeting. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Kim, have you guys sent a written notice and complaint to the entire council? 

[icarus]

I find it hard to believe that the violation of the rules and procedures required of the NSP funds was knowingly or willfully committed by everyone in the chain of command.

I always try to believe the best of people and certainly have reason to believe the best of quite a few people in local government based on experience.

As a citizen, I have a few questions I would like answered:

1.) Who was responsible for implementing or putting in place the required procedures for the NSP funds?
2.) Was the historical commission aware of the requirements for Section 106 reviews? Although, I have a question as to who would have performed the reviews for residences outside the designated historic areas.
3.) I have a list of questions regarding reimbursements, accounting and purchase orders not just for the demolitions but for all of the uses of the NSP funds.  (my experience is that errors such as this are usually indicative of greater and deeper issues especially as it relates to use of funds.)
4.) What is HUD's position or that of its Inspector General?

Also, as an alternative scenario, is it possible that the individuals such as Ms. Scott pursued an agenda regardless of NSP funds and has the failure to follow procedure just become the saving grace in providing a way to challenge the behavior of an intransigent administrator.

Either way, I applaud the efforts of those involved in breaking this story.

[m74reeves]

a separate public records request inquired about a memorandum or letter of understanding b/t the Housing & N'hood Dept and Municipal Code to administer the demolition portion of the CDBG, NSP1, and NSP3 programs.

Evidentally, there is a LOU between the 2 departments for the CDBG program, which we received. For the NSP1 and NSP3, we received the following info:

Please see the attached email conversation (2008-2009 NSP Demolition & Clearance) containing a DRAFT copy of the MCC MOU for NSP1. Housing staff does not have an executed MOU, only the draft copy as attached to the email.

Regarding NSP3, "there was no supporting documentation found to support the need for an MOU" and staff is in the process of revising the NSP Substantial Amendments to remove that language.

Here's a cut and paste of the first part of the DRAFT NSP1 LOU (sorry, I don't know how to attach document):

LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT
AND
ENVIRONMENT AND COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION

The Environmental and Compliance Department, Municipal Code Compliance Division, hereafter referred to as the Recipient and the Housing and Neighborhoods Department, hereafter referred to as HAND, agree to adhere to the provisions of this Letter of Understanding as outlined below, regarding the use of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funding of $1,000,000 for Clearance and Demolition activities.

The funds will be used to remove substandard and/or unsafe properties and structures in the NSP targeted areas.  The Recipient, through various abatement activities will seek to remove or improve substandard and/or unsafe properties by performing abatement actions that include clearance, repair or demolition.

This agreement will become effective, upon its acceptance by all parties, for the period beginning the 15th day of February, 2009 and ending the 1st day of January, 2013.

   I.   PROGRAMMATIC

A.   NSP funds will be used to cover applicable costs for the demolition of one hundred and twenty-five (125) unsafe structures identified by City Code Enforcement within the targeted areas only.  The Recipient shall conduct the required one-page checklist and historic preservation environmental reviews for all properties slated for clearance and demolition activities.  The environmental reviews shall be provided to HAND.

Items in bold, my emphasis, natch. Oops, indeed.

[sheclown]

Thanks Reeves!

And speaking of those CDBG monies...from HUD's website:

Jacksonville's clearance and demolition dollars for the FY:

2003: $295k

2004: $375k

2005:  $483k

2006:  $436k

2007: $420k

2008: $512k

Still digging around for more recent years.

Ironically, one of the CDBG eligible activities is "historic preservation".  Some cities actually receive quite a substantial amount of money to restore historic properties.

9th and Main could be restored using CDBG money -- Anne Lytle school or the Drew Mansion.

[strider]

Last night's City Council Meeting video is up.  Sheclown begins her public comments at 1:24:20 followed immediately by JaxUnicorn's (that's me) comments. 

http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%2010-22-13.wmv
And yes, even though the link says 2010, it is the 10/22/13 council meeting. 

When watching these two passionate people speak to City Council, the thing that struck me the most was the lack of interest from the Council.  Only Councilman Lumb asked a question. When being told of the possible misuse of millions of federal funds, the most pressing thing to one them was the use of the words Pissed and Damn.  Because children could be watching.  Hmm, it's OK for the children to hear about possible corruption in our government but not a couple of words that they can hear in most movies and TV shows these days.  Good to know.