Section 106 Review: Are we doing our homework?

[JaxUnicorn]

Check out this news story from First Coast News.  The video is not up yet...

http://springfield.firstcoastnews.com/news/real-estate/136813-city-admits-error-demolishing-historic-homes

[JaxUnicorn]

Check out this news story from First Coast News.  The video is not up yet...

http://springfield.firstcoastnews.com/news/real-estate/136813-city-admits-error-demolishing-historic-homes

Here's the video!
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/332683/483/City-Admits-Error-in-Demolishing-Historic-Homes-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge

[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. ***

[vicupstate]

Based on this occurance in Greenville SC, if stimulus funds were used and rules were broken, there is a distinct of fines from the feds as well as reimbursement required.

An internal audit found that contractors and subcontractors made more than 5,500 reporting errors while working on school projects in Greenville County funded by $29.2 million in federal stimulus money, according to a school district document.

District Finance Director Jeff Knotts told GreenvilleOnline.com most of the errors were related to incomplete worker time sheets turned in by contractors and subcontractors in nine school construction and renovation projects.

During the audit process, all but 806 of the errors were resolved, he said.

Knotts described the errors as "procedural," but the audit says, "Any deficiencies or errors could result in the District being fined an/or required to reimburse the government for these stimulus funds."

The errors are violations of the Davis-Bacon Act, a federal law designed to ensure that workers on federally funded jobs are paid at least the local prevailing wage, according to the audit document.

Knotts said the records show that the workers were paid the prevailing wage.

The reason the timecards were incomplete, Knotts said, was that workers often spent part of their work week on other projects not related to the federally funded school projects, so those days were left blank.

[sheclown]

And sheclown, let me see if I understand this.


And the point of the 106 review is to determine if the money could be used to stabilize, repair and preserve rather than destroy?

I just wanted to clarify...a Section 106 review thru the State HPO does not determine the structural soundness or best use of funds. Any proposed project receiving federal funds that may "adversely affect" historic properties are supposed to submit a package to the SHPO. This would include anything addressing properties older than 50 years old...so both HUD funded repairs as well as demolitions would require the Section 106 review. They will review the historical and archaelogical significance of the property to determine whether the proposed project raises any concerns/issues or can proceed as proposed.  This is to be done PRIOR to expenditure of funds.

Of course, this review is only as good as what is submitted and when the city neglects to submit ANYTHING, well, you see what occurs.

The reason for the transparency requirement!

[sheclown]

Isnt alot of this happening in Gaffney's district?

Yes, a lot of this IS happening in Gaffney's district.  09/30/13 I had a meeting scheduled to speak to Gaffney about NSP funds being used for demolitions in Springfield.  Sheclown went with me.  At that meeting we presented all sorts of documentation that spelled out what is required to use federal funds to demolish a historic structure and how the City was not following that procedure.  Gaffney seemed appalled and we set up a meeting with the City Attorney, Terrance Ashante-Barker, Kim Scott, Calvin Burney, HPC staff, CM Daniels and a few others.  We then went to see CM Brown about mothballing.  Because the attendees requested to discuss both issues were the same, the Councilmen decided to combine the meeting - that meeting was to be held tomorrow at 2:00. 

For some unknown reason, this meeting has been cancelled.  And with no communication whatsoever to me or Sheclown, the two citizens who requested the meeting in the first place.  I left a message for CM Gaffney's assistant Tiffany early this morning and have yet to receive a return call.

Don't know what the heck is going on but I'll tell you what...you will either speak to us privately with a limited audience, or we will speak to EVERYONE!

[sheclown]

An audit needs to be immediately undertaken to look into MCCDs funding sources (what is federally funded and what is not -- especially considering Terrance Ashanta-Bakers reference in the email -- they will use money from the general fund -- I am not a public administrator, but it seems to me all money has some federal funds tied into it).  The city also needs to look at the expenditures, the procurement process -- what the money is being spent on and how.

[sheclown]

Wonder why Springfield gets all of this attention, while areas like Riverside allow vacant structures to rest in peace? We always have.

Perhaps it goes something like this.

Jacksonville is an "entitlement community" eligible for money because its community is poor and in need of help. Springfield and the remainder of 32206 add beautifully to these statistics as the average income is well below the city's average and the composite of racially diverse citizens. The city has to indicate how many minorities were helped. How many poor people were helped.

So it sends code enforcement officers out to hunt for ways it can spend federal dollars in this needy zip code.

That federal money which was intended to help stabilize poor neighborhoods instead was used to wipe out our history -- can you imagine what we could have done with this money?

Springfield and the remainder of 32206 is common fodder for the city to feed on from the feds and it gets very little in return for being so molested.
------------------

And one other very important point (one which will really bite them in the ass) -- many of these houses are taken against the wishes of the homeowner.

126 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street both were and there are plenty more.

Show me anywhere how this is an acceptable use of NSP funds.

[sheclown]

Our response to Mr. Barker emailed yesterday morning:

Mr. Ashanta-Barker,


Thank you for your response to Preservation SOS's concerns. We have been working on this issue for many months, years actually, and are thankful it is starting to get the attention it deserves. We also believe that the information provided to others about this issue should be completely factual so to that end, we would like to respond to some of your comments.


The current ordinances allow for the emergency demolitions when a structure constitutes an " extreme and imminent public safety hazard". You stated that a "separate independent structural engineer" supported MCCD's decision that both structures "created imminently unsafe conditions". I refer you to the definitions Atlantic Engineering provides in all their reports to MCCD. It states that to list a structure as "poor" means "majority of structure does not meet structural code requirements" while "extremely poor" means "collapse of structure is imminent.".


When we look at 129 East 2nd Street's case, we see that 18 hours prior to MCCD demolishing the historic structure both Preservation SOS and the Historic Preservation Commission requested that MCCD brace the remains of the front porch gable. When we look at Atlantic Engineering's report done for MCCD, we see that they state that the main structure is "poor" while only the front gable roof is in "extremely poor" condition. This supports the requests from PSOS and the HPC not the demolition of the entire structure.


Looking at 253 East 2nd Street's case is a bit more complicated. Atlantic Engineering's report states that the structure is in poor condition with the upper front porch and the east wall in extremely poor condition. So to determine if this structure meets the "extreme and imminent public safety hazard", we need to look further. The conclusions from Atlantic Engineering also state that the structure "should be properly repaired, braced and shored immediately to prevent collapse or it should be demolished..." Now we need to look at the ordinances again to see how we are to handle demolitions within a historic district.


307.113, in part, says: "In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions."


As we can see, the law states that the least intrusive means should be used when dealing with a historic structure. I believe we all can agree that as Atlantic Engineering stated it could be braced, to have followed the law and the recommendations of the independent engineer would have been to brace the extremely poor parts of the building.


Now, add in the fact that the Neighborhoods Department was about to use NSP3 funds to restore this structure, a fact MCCD was made aware of, and reasonable people can see the proper course of action was not the demolition of this structure.


As a point of fact, the purpose of having an historic district is to preserve those structures for future generations. The current owners of these structures do indeed have a responsibility to maintain these structures in good repair. However, by reading the various city ordinances one can readily see that the city itself also takes on some amount of responsibility for insuring these structures remain here for those future generations. That is why the ordinance codes do not only say demolish but give the authority to the city to repair and maintain those historic properties. One can see that at least within the Historic Districts or with landmarks buildings, the repairs needed to preserve the structures are not really any different than what the city does to keep the yards mowed (the maintaining of property). If the owner does not do it, the city gets it done. The authority to make repairs and to brace and even mothball these structures is already in the ordinances, it is policy not to use that authority. I will be happy to forward those various ordinances to you if you can't find them yourself.


From the information we have received, the funds were originally taken from an NSP account. We are not sure why you state they "reimburse". We would like a more detailed explanation of how those funds are used, distributed and how that reimbursement system works. In addition, we will need the new account information to insure that the new account will not have any federal funds from other sources.


There are at least eight additional historic houses for which NSP1 funding was used for the demolition and for which we have been told no 106 reviews were done. These will also have to be added into the funds the city owes back to the NSP program. We will need the detailed accounting of those demolitions as well. In addition, there was at least one million dollars allotted to MCCD under NSP1. We will need the 106 reviews for all the structures that met the 50 years requirement as well as the ones within the historic districts. The same applies to the NSP3 $ 400,000.00 allotted to MCCD for clearance and demolitions. Please remember that to do anything to these houses requires a 106 review, even if it is just a repair or boarding.


We find it extremely troubling that you, your predecessor, Ms Scott as well as other responsible employees did not know that 106 reviews were required. After all, Ms Scott has been in her position for about seven years. I would think people in her position, as well as yours, would make sure they were very familiar with the federal programs that have brought in over one million dollars to your department over the past few years.


We have a huge concern over your statement "Although your use of NSP funds concern has been completely addressed and is being finalized" because it is a huge issue that we have yet only begun to understand ourselves and one that we apparently just made you aware of. When intelligent people do rather dumb things, like ignore the federal requirements for spending federal funds, we need to now take a very close look at everything those people have been doing. From how decisions are made, to how contracts are awarded and how the policies are set in interacting with the public and those people effected by the decisions made by MCCD. We need to review the qualifications of everyone involved and in the department. We need to see that MCCD is openly communicating with the other departments and that they are being responsive to the needs and requirements of the federally and city protected structures. Changes are needed, not only to safe guard against abuse, but also to improve the function of MCCD to one that begins to actually have a positive effect on the city as a whole.


We need to see the reports from the previous NSP1 and NSP3 quarters and see that they have been fully updated to reflect the issues we have uncovered. We need to begin the process of making changes to the ordinances to insure these types of abuses of power are not done in the future.


We look forward to the coming meeting and hope that we can work together to make positive changes.


Sincerely,


Joe Markusic

Gloria DeVall

Preservation SOS

[strider]

One misstatement we made in the above is that it implies that the Neighborhoods Department only got a million four, in reality all of the NSP1 ($26,175,317.00 in total - 2009?) and 3 ($7,102,937.00 in total - 2011?), as well as a lot of CDBG funding goes through that department.  The million four was Municipal Code Compliance Division's (Kimberly Scott's) share of those millions the city got from NSP1 & 3.  It is not inconceivable that the city could be on the hook for literally Millions over this.  However, I suspect that most of the other Division Chiefs are better at following the laws than Ms Scott has proven to be.

[JaxUnicorn]

Strider, we shall see.  I certainly hope so....Code Enforcement is OUT OF CONTROL and PSOS has been saying that for years....

[thelakelander]

Maybe there was a scheduling conflict or someone of critical importance to this situation wasn't available to attend?

[sheclown]

Maybe there was a scheduling conflict or someone of critical importance to this situation wasn't available to attend?

We weren't notified and our phone calls have gone unanswered

[thelakelander]

Maybe there was a scheduling conflict or someone of critical importance to this situation wasn't available to attend?

must have been pretty critical if it shut down phone service and cancelled his email access to tell the other participants in the meeting.

I don't know. I don't speak for the guy.  I'm just of the opinion that a canceled meeting doesn't necessarily mean something sinister is taking place, as suggested by this post:

Why on earth would Councilman Gaffney cancel a meeting on this issue?

Is he involved in this somehow?

[Cheshire Cat]

Nice news piece last evening and Ann is the right reporter to have on this issue.  She doesn't play when it comes to getting the facts in a story.  Well done everyone.  Keep on digging for documents, there is more to be found.