UVA student group critiques Charlottesville’s use of federal funds on behalf of PHAR

A group of students at the University of Virginia working with the Public Housing Association of Residents has put together recommendations for how the city could better use its allocation of funds from the Community Development Block Grant.

“In 2022, 226 people in the Charlottesville area experienced some form of homelessness,” said Talib Kante. “This is the highest number Charlottesville has seen since 2010. Yet it’s not just the unhoused folk who are experiencing these difficulties. Many residents are facing food insecurity and since the pandemic, the number of people requiring access to free food from soup kitchens and pantries has risen sharply.”

Kante said members of the Charlottesville community want local government to address poverty and he and his colleagues felt reform of how the city uses federal funding could bring about more efficiency. He said his group was contacted by a top official at the Public Housing Association of Residents to do research on their behalf.

“Joy Johnson of PHAR has brought to our attention her concerns with the Community Development Block Grant and the need to reallocate these funds,” Kante said. “We’ve spoken to other people like Todd Niemeier of the [Office of Human Rights] and Mr. John Sales of [the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority.”

In addition to being a CRHA resident, Johnson is also employed as the Section 3 Coordinator for the CRHA, a position intended to train public housing residents. Johnson and Sales are both members of the city’s Housing Advisory Committee, with Johnson being a beneficiary of affordable housing. She’s also the HAC’s chair.

*The students’ presentation included what they thought should be eligible under CDBG funds, and what should not. PHAR is a frequent recipient of these funds, as are other nonprofit groups*

Community Development Block Grants date back to 1974 through the Housing and Community Development Act of that year. The bill was intended to place more decisions in the hands of local officials who would be better positioned to decide what projects should be funded.

“The CDBG program emphasizes residents’ participation in decision making and to empower individuals to address their specific needs,” said Abba Kodiaga. “As Joy often says, CDBG money is poor people’s money which is why at least 70 percent of the CDBG funds should be used to benefit low and moderate income communities.”

Those are specific terms. Low income is generally defined as around 50 percent of the area median income and moderate is 80 percent. Kodiaga said the funding should be used exclusively to benefit individuals and households with extremely low or very low incomes.

The third speaker said the group worked closely with Johnson to review how funding has been spent over the years. Here’s information from the current year.

“The 2023 / 2024 allocation for Community Development Block Grants was around $410,000,” said Laura Kun. “The breakdown we have found on CDBG in city documents states that 15 percent of that budget goes toward public services, 20 percent goes toward administration and planning, and the remaining 65 percent is split evenly among the categories of housing, public facilities / improvements, and economic development.”

Kun said the group was most concerned with the 20 percent that went to administration. She said the money could go toward hiring members of the community to write grants, provide child care for task force members, and training for the task force.

“This 20 percent would ideally be used to maximize community involvement in some way rather than going toward the salary of just one or two individuals,” said the third speaker.

While the presentation to Council broke down funding into categories, the presentation did not include the specific recommendations for FY23 / FY 24 approved by Council on May 1, 2023, which includes $40,000 for PHAR for their “Resident-Centered Development” initiative. According to the minutes, this is listed under “Community Services.”

Under economic development, the Community Investment Collaborative received $25,000 for their microenterprise entrepreneur program. Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville / Albemarle received $64,477.89 for a program called Beginning Level Workforce Development program.

Under housing, the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program received $40,000 for their Critical Rehab Program. The Haven at First and Market Street received $45,000.

Under programmatic funds, $82,093.60 went to planning and administration. Another $89,896.51 went to help fund the City Council’s priority area for public facilities and improvements.

The fourth speaker critiqued the lack of training for previous task force members. A slide presented said two questionable uses of the funds were $74,000 in August 2022 for smoke detectors as well as $245,000 for a sidewalk project in the Ridge Street neighborhood.

“These examples that are shown on the slide are examples of ways that CDBG funds have been used to fund things that could have otherwise have been funded by the capital project or things that failed to achieve the goal of benefiting low to moderate income level residents,” said the fourth speaker.

*One of the slides from the presentation, a copy of which is not included in the materials for the City Council’s February 20 meeting*

What the presenters didn’t mention is that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has specific rules on spending money within a certain time period. As I reported in February 2022, the funding for the fire safety project had originally been recommended by the task force for a sidewalk on Franklin Street in Belmont, which at the time was approved by Council as being a priority neighborhood but later canceled in December 2021.

The Ridge Street projects were recommended by a task force and approved by Council in March 2021, as I reported at the time.

“We think it must be analyzed whether or not this was one of the most pressing issues at the time and whether it deserved over half of the CDBG budget,” the fourth speaker said.

Around that time, there was a public campaign for Council to address safety issues on Fifth Street Extended, which extends south from the terminus of Ridge Street. The improvements at Ridge Street had been intended to be part of a series of projects designed to reduce fatalities.

For the sake of expediency, here are two stories I wrote around that time that can provide context. I’ll update this story when the minutes are available.

Petition seeks changes to 5th Street to prevent further crashes, November 11, 2020
Council briefed on ways to slow down Fifth Street Extended, November 17, 2020

The next speaker called upon Council to limit spending to programs that only benefit those with very low or extremely low incomes.

“Home repairs, for instance, are an important project that we think the city should probably prioritize,” said Justin Gabrielle.

Again, the FY 23 / FY 24 allocation included $40,000 for Albemarle Home Improvement Program’s Critical Rehab Program. That information was not presented to Council.

Gabrielle said CDBG funding should not be used for parks, sidewalks, street repairs, and public works.

Students also critiqued the way priority neighborhoods are selected and chosen as well as how task force members are selected.

Council response

Mayor Juandiego Wade agreed that task force members could use more training.

“I was a member as a School Board rep for many years and I had some experience because I had a planning background but a lot of the things we were just thrown into,” Wade said. “That was a few years ago so I think it sounds like more training could be needed.”

City Councilor Michael Payne had been the lone vote against the use of funds for fire safety. He said some reforms had already been made.

“I think we’ve made some changes internally that are preventing that from happening again, hopefully,” Payne said.

Councilor Lloyd Snook pointed out that the closed session scheduled after the February 20, 2024 work session was for boards and commissions.

“We’re supposed to be appointing CDBG Task Force members,” Snook said. “There are in fact three vacancies but we have no applications for them.”

Snook also said sidewalks are an important issue for many and previous allocations reflect public input and also represent an alternate way to get them built in a city that has struggled with sidewalk prioritization and construction.

“So when we end up using CDBG funding for sidewalks, it is because the neighbors there have said that is important to us and so in a sense the CDBG funding for sidewalks is sort of the relief valve if you will,” Snook said. “It’s the other way that neighborhood priorities can get funded.”

Snook said that’s consistent with the purpose of the enabling legislation from 1974 for the Community Development Block Grant.

However, City Councilor Natalie Oschrin said when people who live and work in the city become less dependent on using their cars, the CDBG money will be irrelevant.

“As we move further into more consciousness about being a car driven culture to a bike / ped / bus culture, we’ll be able to spend more on sidewalks and other projects so that we don’t need that relief valve,” Oschrin said.

The next meeting of the Community Development Block Grant task force is to be determined according to the website.

To conclude this story, I wanted to track down some projects funded through CDBG. I began by seeking City Council minutes but did not get far. I don’t report from memory and require confirmation before I state information. Here’s a very small list:

In 2008, Council approved $20,947 for traffic calming on Tenth Street as well as $25,000 toward signage on Ridge Street. (minutes)
In 2009, Council approved $103,924 for AHIP for homeowner rehab (minutes)
I hit a snag here because the Council minutes for June 5, 2011 and June 20, 2011 do not identify what programs were allocated. Digital copies of agendas for meetings before 2014 are no longer available. My request was forwarded to the FOIA office, and I’ll see how much they’ll charge me to do that research. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to do my own research and maybe I’ll charge the city for the costs of reproducing work that never should have been deleted in the first place?

The Ridge Street projects were recommended by a task force and approved by Council in March 2021, as I reported at the time.

“We think it must be analyzed whether or not this was one of the most pressing issues at the time and whether it deserved over half of the CDBG budget,” the fourth speaker said.

For the sake of expediency, here are two stories I wrote around that time that can provide context. I’ll update this story when the minutes are available.

Petition seeks changes to 5th Street to prevent further crashes, November 11, 2020
Council briefed on ways to slow down Fifth Street Extended, November 17, 2020