A FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR THE
LANDSOWNE AWARENESS COMMUNITY COMMITTEE
East St. Louis Office of Community Development
City of East St. Louis
301 N Broadway
East St. Louis, IL 62201
Lansdowne Awareness Community Committee
1817 N 39th Street
East St. Louis, IL 62204
Joseph E. Hooker
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
I. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANSDOWNE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
In the summer of 1991, students at the University of Illinois in Champaign, participating in the Summer Program in Urban Planning and Design developed a neighborhood improvement plan for the Lansdowne neighborhood in East St. Louis, Il. The plan was developed with frequent input and feedback from neighborhood residents and community leaders. In order to effectively describe current conditions and assess the needs of the neighborhood, information was gathered from a number of sources. The students collected data from the decennial Census reports for the neighborhood, the City of East St. Louis and the County to develop a demographic profile of the neighborhood. Surveys were conducted of land use, building conditions, site conditions, street conditions, building occupancy, and property ownership in order to develop a physical profile of the neighborhood. Neighborhood residents were surveyed to to learn about their perceptions of strengths and weaknesses in their community.
The plan was designed to meet the following objectives:
* To arrest the ongoing process of physical deterioration in the neighborhood's housing stock and infrastructure.
* To stabilize the supply of safe, sanitary affordable housing for low and moderate income households.
* To create jobs for long-term unemployed neighborhood residents.
* To empower neighborhood residents in order to strengthen their sense of ownership and pride in their neighborhood.
II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANSDOWNE CDBG PROPOSAL
Utilizing information and some program ideas presented in the neighborhood improvement plan developed by the Summer Program students, and working with the Lansdowne Awareness Community Committee and neighborhood residents to develop a set of program priorities, a five year CDBG proposal was developed to address the goals described above.
III. A DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS AND HISTORICAL TRENDS IN THE LANSDOWNE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND AN ASSESSMENT OF RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
CENSUS DATA ON POPULATION AND HOUSING
* From 1960 to 1980, the neighborhood's total population is relatively stable due, in part to construction of large subsidized housing complexes.
* From 1980 to 1990, the Lansdowne Census tracts experienced dramatic declines of 35.9 and 34 percent in total population.
* From 1960 to 1970, Lansdowne experiences a 22.4% increase in occupied dwelling units, largely due to the construction of large subsidized housing complexes.
* From 1970 to 1980, there is a 16.7% decline in these units, comparable to the 20% decline for the city and in marked contrast to a 16 % increase for the County outside of East St. Louis.
* From 1960 to 1980, the percent of dwelling units which are owner-occupied declines from 73% to 39 % in the neighborhood, campared to declines of from 55.6% to 43.8% for the City and from 72.5% to 66.7% for the County outside of the City.
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS IN LANSDOWNE
* 57.6% of parcels are in residential use, while 38.1% are vacant.
* 170 of 986 single-family dwelling units are unoccupied, and 109 of those are unsecured.
* 23.7% of all single family units are in deteriorated or dilapidated condition.
* 9.1% of multi-family structures are in deteriorated or dilapidated condition.
* 26% of lots with single-family dwellings on them are unmowed and/or contain trash and debris.
* 85% of vacant lots show these signs of neglect.
COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY
* 44% of residents remained in Lansdowne to stay close to family members.
* 34% of residents cite their neighbors as a strength in the neighborhood.
* 38% of residents cite drug and alcohol abuse as a serious problem for the neighborhood.
* The second most cited problem is unemployment.
* 75% or residents rate streets as poor.
* 78% of residents rate curbs, gutters and manholes as poor.
* 73% rate drainage as poor.
* 59% rate sidewalks as poor.
* 50% or residents rate housing as either deteriorated or dilapidated.
* 4.4% rate housing as good.
* 63% rate recreation and parks as poor or non-existent.
* 50% rate drug and alcohol treatment programs as poor or non-existent.
* 50% rate job training programs as poor or non-existent.
IV. THE LANSDOWNE CDBG PROGRAM FOR YEAR ONE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS VOTE THEIR PREFERENCES FOR CDBG ACTIVITIES
* The improvement of a site for a neighborhood park.
* The development of mini-parks and community garden sites.
* The seal-up and demolition of abandoned buildings.
* The provision of grant money for home rehabilitation.
* The funding of the salary of a self-help Home improvement consultant.
THE PROPOSAL FOR CDBG ACTIVITIES IN YEAR ONE
* Do emergency street repair program focusing on manhole cover replacement and sidewalk and curb repairs in neighborhood core.
* Seal-up 50 abandoned buildings.
* Disburse 15 $5,000 home improvement grants.
* Develop a park site at 40th St. and Audobon Ave.
* Fund 1/2 of salary and benefits of full-time neighborhood planner.
V. THE LANSDOWNE CDBG PROGRAM FOR YEARS 2-5
(See budget summaries at end of report for costs for these years)
PROGRAM FOR YEAR ONE
* Demolish and remove 20 dilapidated buildings, targeting those in neighborhood core and those next to occupied buildings.
* Provide 15 home improvement grants to eligible homeowners.
* Replace or install sidewalks and curbs in neighborhood core.
* Fund 1/2 of neighborhood planner position.
* Fund an engineering study of neighborhood's subsurface infrastructure.
* Fund site selection and soft development costs of Community Development Center.
* Select a community organization to administer CDBG initiatives serving both the Lansdowne and Emerson Park neighborhoods.
* Create a for-profit worker-owned Landscape Cooperative.
* Create a Home Improvement Center.
* Construct two single-family detached housing units.
* Create a community-based Substance Abuse Education and Out-Patient Treatment Program.
PROGRAM FOR YEAR THREE
* Demolish and remove 20 additional abandoned buildings.
* Provide 15 Home Improvement grants of $5,000 each.
* Begin priority sewer replacement and repair, and replace additional sidewalk and curbing in Core area.
* Fund 1/2 of neighborhood planner position.
* Rehabilitate site selected for the Community Development Center.
* Continue funding for salaries and equipment for Landscape Cooperative.
* Continue activities at the Home Improvement Center.
* Construct a duplex housing unit.
* Continue funding of Community-based Substance Abuse Education and Out-patient Treatment Program.
* Fund 1/2 of salary and benefits of full-time Economic Development Specialist.
* Create a community-based Employment Center.
* Fund support staffing of Community Development Center.
PROGRAM FOR YEAR FOUR
* Demolish and remove 20 abandoned buildings.
* Provide 20 Home Improvement Grants of $5,000 each.
* Perform additional street repairs.
* Continue to fund 1/2 of neighborhood planner position.
* Continue to fund salaries and equipment cost of Landscape Cooperative.
* Continue activities of Home Improvement Center.
* Construct two single-family units and one duplex housing unit.
* Continue Substance Abuse Education and Out-patient Treatment Program.
* Continue Employment Center.
* Continue to fund 1/2 of salary and benefits of Economic Development Specialist.
* Formulate the structure of a for-profit worker-owned Home Health Care Cooperative.
* Create and fund a Home Literacy Program.
PROGRAM FOR YEAR FIVE
* Demolish and remove ten abandoned buildings.
* Provide 20 Home Improvement Grants of $5,000 each.
* Install additional street improvements.
* Continue funding 1/2 of neighborhood planner position.
* Continue funding of Landscape Cooperative.
* Continue activities of Home Improvement Center.
* Construct three single-family housing units, one duplex housing unit and a low density eight unit apartment building.
* Continue funding of Substance Abuse Educational and Treatment Program.
* Continue Employment Center.
* Continue funding of 1/2 of Economic Development Specialist position.
* Continue funding of Home Literacy Program.
* Fund additional support staffing.
* Fund a for-profit worker-owned Home Health Care Cooperative.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LANSDOWNE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANSDOWNE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
In the summer of 1991, students at the University of Illinois in Champaign participating in the Summer Program in Urban Planning and Design worked with residents and community leaders in the Lansdowne community in East St. Louis, IL. to develop a plan for the improvement of that neighborhood. The neighborhood is located in the northeastern corner of the City, as is shown in map M1. The neighborhood base map is shown in map M2.
The students worked closely with the members of the Lansdowne Awareness Community Committee, (LACC). The LACC is a neighborhood organization which has been involved with a number of neighborhood improvement projects over the past several years and which actively recruited the Department of Urban and Regional Planning to develop a comprehensive neighborhood improvement plan for Lansdowne.
One of the first steps in developing the plan was to formulate a detailed description of the strengths and weaknesses of the neighborhood. The students gathered information from U.S. Census reports regarding characteristics of the population, households and housing in the neighborhood. Information from the Census for 1960, 1970 and 1980 was collected in order to show significant demographic trends in the neighborhood. Neighborhood totals in various Census categories were compared to those totals for the City of East St. Louis and St. Clair County to provide a regional context for interpreting the data.
Census information was supplemented with data gathered during comprehensive land-use, building condition, site condition and street condition surveys of the Lansdowne neighborhood performed by the Summer Program students. In addition, neighborhood residents were surveyed by the students to gather information about their perceptions of the neighborhood. An open-ended-question format was used to ask residents to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the neighborhood. With the use of a close-ended-question format, residents were asked to rate the quality of specific physical features of the neighborhood and of various social and municipal services available to neighborhood residents.
Map M1, Location of Lansdowne Neighborhood
Map M2, Lansdowne Neighborhood Base Map
The Summer Program students, in consultation with local civic leaders, analyzed the data and formulated the Lansdowne Neighborhood Improvement Plan to address the most serious problems affecting the area. An initial outline of the plan was approved by neighborhood residents at an open community meeting conducted by the LACC at the Bethlehem Missionary Baptist Church on August 2, 1991. The approved plan was designed to meet the following broad objectives:
1. To arrest the ongoing process of physical deterioration in the neighborhood characterized by deferred maintenance of occupied buildings, abandonment of unoccupied buildings, and serious neglect of vacant lots and public infrastructure.
2. To stabilize the supply of safe, sanitary affordable housing for low and moderate income families in the community, and to ultimately increase the supply of such housing.
3. To create jobs for unemployed residents in the neighborhood.
4. To strengthen the sense of ownership and pride that Lansdowne residents have in their neighborhood
Students in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning have completed the final draft of the plan, and it is available through the Lansdowne Awareness Community Committee and the East St. Louis Office of Community Development.
II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANSDOWNE CDBG PROPOSAL
Late in the summer of 1991, Joseph Hooker, a master's degree candidate in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, under the supervision of Dr. Kenneth Reardon, began work on a proposal for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds for specific neighborhood improvement programs in the Lansdowne community. Early drafts of the Lansdowne Neighborhood Improvement Plan were relied upon to target problems and program strategies which would be fundable with Federal Community Development Block Grant moneys.
The Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), disburses federal funds to eligible local governmental units, called "entitlement communities", to pay for eligible community development activities. The primary objective of the program, as stated in the regulations for implementing Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, is the "development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income." 24 CFR @ 570.2.
During the time that Mr. Hooker began working on a proposal for the Lansdowne neighborhood, master's degree candidate Wendell Stills began working on a similar proposal for the Emerson Park neighborhood in East St. Louis. Both students had participated in the development of the Neighborhood Improvement Plan for Emerson Park during the Neighborhood Planning Workshop conducted by Professor Reardon during the fall of 1990.
In the early stages of developing these proposals, it was noted that the residents of the Emerson Park and Lansdowne neighborhoods faced very comparable problems as a result of the similar levels of poverty among the residents and deterioration in neighborhood housing and infrastructure. These similarities, along with the fact that the two neighborhoods are adjacent to one another, suggested the possibility that some CDBG-assisted programs might be developed to serve both neighborhoods. It was concluded that more ambitious programs effectively addressing problems faced by both neighborhoods could be undertaken with CDBG funds if economies could be achieved by eliminating duplication in administrative costs. Accordingly, these two students worked together to coordinate some of the neighborhood improvement strategies and to develop a unified mode of administering the implementation and management of CDBG-assisted programs in Lansdowne and Emerson Park.
During the time that these proposals were being developed, administration of the disbursement of CDBG funds in East St. Louis was officially transferred from City officials to Robert Batts of Equity Associates, an independent contractor, pursuant to an agreement worked out between the City and HUD. This arrangement resulted from the federal governments dissatisfaction with the administration of disbursement of the funds by City officials in earlier years.
In a letter dated September 11, 1990, Assistant Secretary Anna Kondratas of the Community Planning and Development division of the Department of Housing and Urban Development notified then Mayor Carl Officer that the federal government was contemplating discontinuing disbursement of CDBG funds to the City. The letter outlined HUD's concerns about past mismanagement of the disbursement of those funds by City officials. Three "areas of weakness" in the management of the funds were cited. They included "financial management", referring to the need for adequate supporting documentation to insure compliance with all federal, state and local requirements; "audits management," referring to the need to insure timely independent audits of the initiatives supported by CDBG funds; and "Contracting/procurement," referring to insuring that contracts for CDBG-funded are awarded and administered in compliance with HUD procurement standards.
Problems in these areas had been the subject of HUD inquires from as far back as 1986. Finally, after the City failed to meet certain specific condition's attached to the 1989 award of CDBG funds, HUD decided to discontinue CDBG awards to East St. Louis unless City officials were willing to permit outside management of disbursement of the funds. After the Federal agency gave the City several management options to choose from, City officials chose the option of hiring an independent contractor to administer the City's CDBG funds. Under a written agreement entered into by the City and HUD, the contractor would be paid out of the City's administrative budget, and would be directly accountable to HUD regarding compliance with CDBG requirements. In October of 1991, Mr. Batts was chosen to administer the program in the City.
In November of 1991, Professor Reardon contacted Mr. Batts to inquire about the feasibility of developing CDBG proposals for the Lansdowne and Emerson Park neighborhoods which would build on the neighborhood planning efforts of University of Illinois students during 1990 and 1991. Mr. Batts was provided with a copy of the Neighborhood Improvement Plan for Emerson Park, the report documenting the collaborative effort of the Emerson Park Development Corporation and the University of Illinois' Neighborhood Planning Workshop, to familiarize him with the comprehensive neighborhood planning efforts in the City. Mr. Batts indicated a willingness at that time to review any proposals that might be developed based on those earlier neighborhood planning efforts.
Proposals were developed by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stills , under the supervision of Professor Reardon, for a first year of CDBG-assisted activities in the two neighborhoods. The Lansdowne proposal is described later on in this report. The proposals were developed in consultation with community leaders and the neighborhood residents in a manner described in some detail in a later chapter, and were submitted by Professor Reardon to Mr. Batts. His response to the proposals was generally very favorable, and is described in some detail in a later chapter. After indicating that he would be willing to support significant funding for first year activities, Mr. Batts requested that proposals outlining CDBG-assisted activities in both neighborhoods for Years Two through Five be submitted. The Lansdowne proposal for these years is described in detail in Part IV of this report.
A DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS AND HISTORICAL TRENDS IN THE LANSDOWNE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND OF RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
I. CENSUS DATA ON POPULATION AND HOUSING
Students participating in the University of Illinois Summer Program in Urban Planning and Design collected relevant U.S. Census data on the Lansdowne neighborhood in order to develop a demographic and socioeconomic profile of the neighborhood. Data was collected at the neighborhood level by computing totals for the Census blocks and tracts which make up the Lansdowne neighborhood. The neighborhood level totals were compared to totals for the City of East St. Louis and St. Clair County in order to place this information in a regional context.
Only certain household and individual characteristics were available at the block level, the smallest geographic unit utilized by the Census Bureau. To develop a more complete profile of the neighborhood, block level data was supplemented with some additional characteristics available at the tract level, the next larger geographic unit utilized by the Census Bureau. Two census tracts, numbered 5004 and 5005, contain 100% of the Lansdowne neighborhood and some additional segments of surrounding neighborhoods. The addition of a relatively small number of households from surrounding areas was viewed as being statistically insignificant for analytical purposes.
Block level data was collected for the years 1960, 1970 and 1980 for the purpose of establishing historic trends for the neighborhood. Information from the 1990 census was not yet available when the data was collected. Data available at the census tract level was collected for 1980 alone because the configuration of the tracts which include the Lansdowne neighborhood changed significantly from 1960 to 1980. Tract level data was compared with 1980 data for the City and County.
Total population data was collected for the Lansdowne neighborhood and compared to total population figures for the City of East St. Louis and St. Clair County from the 1960, 1970 and 1980 Census. Table 1.1 shows the comparison of the changes in total population for those areas , and table 1.2 shows those changes as percentages.
1960 1970 1980 Lansdowne 6,053 6,187 6,147 East St. Louis 81,712 69,996 55,200 St. Clair County 262,509 285,176 267,531 St. Clair Co. -ESL 180,797 215,180 212,331
Percent Change in Population
1960-1970 1970-1980 Lansdowne 5.0% -1.0% East St. Louis -16.7% -26.8% St. Clair County 7.9% -6.2% St. Clair Co.-ESL 16.0% -1.3%
These population figures indicate that Lansdowne's total population has been relatively stable between 1960 and 1980, particularly when compared to the substantial loss in total population experienced by the City as a whole during that time period. Between 1970 and 1980, the neighborhood experienced a smaller percent decline in population than any of the other three areas surveyed, including St. Clair County outside of the City of East St. Louis. However, the neighborhood's smaller decline in population over this period of time is due in large part to the construction of two or three public housing complexes after 1970, including a very large senior citizen complex. Any suggestion that the relative stability in total population indicates that the Lansdowne community somehow avoided the economic decline of the remainder of the City between the years 1960 and 1980 is also controverted by income figures in the next section, and by the dramatic decline in the percent of dwelling units which are owner-occupied, as is illustrated in Table 1.8. in the housing section.
In addition, land-use and building occupancy surveys conducted in the neighborhood in 1991, described in some detail later on in this report, show that an unusually large percentage of the area's lots and buildings are vacant. This would suggest that 1990 census figures when, they become available, will show a significant decline in the neighborhood's population from the 1980 figures. Available 1990 figures for the Census tracts which contain the Lansdowne neighborhood, as reported in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Report for East St. Louis, corroborate this assumption. Census figures for 1980 are compared to those for 1990 for tracts 5004 and 5005 in Table 1.3 below.
Decline in Population Between 1980 and 1990
Census Tracts 5004 and 5005
Census tract 1980 1990 % Change 5004 5684 3640 -35.46 5005 5070 3343 -34.06
Given the similarity in percent of loss in population across both Census tracts, it is reasonable to assume that the Lansdowne neighborhood experienced a similarly dramatic loss in population during the 1980s.
Family median income data was collected at the tract level and compared to figures for the City of East St. Louis and St. Clair County. Because median values are involved, it is difficult to compute an average for a combination of both tracts. Instead, figures for each tract are shown in the table below. Tract 5004 had 1113 families counted in 1980, while tract 5005 had 1134 families.
Median Family Income
Lansdowne Census Tracts and Selected Areas
Median Income % of County Median Tract 5004 $8,327 43.3% Tract 5005 $9,454 49.1% East St. Louis $9,452 49.1% St. Clair Co. $19,239 N/A
These numbers show that family incomes for the City and the Census tracts containing the Lansdowne neighborhood lagged far behind those for the County as a whole. Any community development program which the neighborhood develops must include strategies for subsidizing the cost of improvement activities in the short run so that they are affordable to low income families. Long term strategies need to focus more on job creation to increase family incomes.
Families Living Below the Poverty Level
Another way of measuring the level of economic distress in a community is to collect data on the percentage of families living below the poverty level as defined by the Federal government. Data was again collected for the two Census tracts containing the neighborhood and was compared to figures for the City and the County. Those numbers are shown below in Table 1.5.
Families Living Below Poverty Level
Lansdowne Census Tracts and Selected Areas
Total Families Below % Families Families Poverty Below Poverty Lansdowne Tracts 2,247 1,027 45.7% East St. Louis 12,372 4,817 38.9% St. Clair Co. 69,142 9,721 14.1% St. Clair Co.-ESL 56,770 4,904 8.6%
These numbers demonstrate the degree to which poverty in St. Clair County is concentrated within East St. Louis. This data shows that Lansdowne is one of the poorer communities within East St. Louis. Strategies for subsidizing the cost of services to the residents of the neighborhood, coupled with job creation strategies designed to increase the income of neighborhood families are absolutely necessary.
Occupied Dwelling Units
Data regarding the number of occupied dwelling units was collected for the neighborhood, the City and the County for 1960, 1970 and 1980. These numbers are shown below in Table 1.6. Table 1.7 shows the percentage change in those totals between 1960 and 1970, and between 1970 and 1980 for each area, and for the County outside of East St. Louis.
Total Number of Dwelling Units
1960 1970 1980 Lansdowne 1,775 2,173 1,810 East St. Louis 25,919 23,609 18,895 St. Clair Co. 81,689 91,327 97,443 St. Clair Co.-ESL 55,770 67,718 78,548
Percent Change in Number of Occupied Units
1960-1970 1970-1980 Lansdowne 22.4% -16.7% East St. Louis -8.9% -20.0% St. Clair Co. 11.8% -6.7% St. Clair Co.-ESL 21.4% 16.0%
The City of East St. Louis experienced a substantial decline in the number of occupied dwelling units between 1960 and 1980. This is consistent with the large number of vacant lots and abandoned buildings that can be found today throughout many of the residential neighborhoods in East St. Louis, including Lansdowne. While Lansdowne actually experienced an increase in the number of occupied units between 1960 and 1970, this increase was largely due to the construction of a large senior citizen and two family housing complexes during that time period. Between 1970 and 1980, the neighborhood experienced a loss in the number of occupied units on the same level of magnitude as the City as a whole. Changes in both areas were in marked contrast to a steady, significant increase in the number of occupied units in St. Clair County outside of East St. Louis.
The large number of vacant lots and abandoned buildings in Lansdowne resulting from this decline in the number of occupied dwelling units, described in detail in the land-use section below, has a very detrimental impact on the economic viability of the neighborhood. The neglect by property owners which has accompanied this level of vacancy and abandonment has adversely affected the appearance of the neighborhood. Many vacant lots are overgrown with vegetation and filled with trash and other debris. Many abandoned buildings exhibit significant structural decay from fire damage and the combined effects of the weather and vandalism.
These conditions have a significant deterrent effect on private and public investment in the neighborhood. The resulting decline in property values has reduced the real estate tax base in the community. This in turn has resulted in cut-backs in the provision of municipal services to the area, which has accelerated the physical decline in the neighborhood.
In addition, vacant lots and abandoned buildings provide secluded locations for increased criminal activity and pose safety hazards to neighborhood children. These consequences also contribute to the lack of investor confidence in the neighborhood. Community development efforts in Lansdowne need to focus on stabilizing the number of occupied dwelling units in the area by facilitating the investment in the maintenance of occupied units.
Data was also collected regarding the number of owner-occupied dwelling units in 1960, 1970 and 1980 for Lansdowne, the City and the County. The total number of owner-occupied units and the percent of all occupied units which are owner-occupied are presented below for each area.
Total Owner-occupied Units
1960 1970 1980 Lansdowne 1,294 1,094 704 East St. Louis 13,634 10,738 8,269 St. Clair Co. 54,055 58,034 60,655 St. Clair Co.-ESL 40,421 47,296 52,386
Percent Dwelling Units that are Owner-occupied
1960 1970 1980 Lansdowne 73% 50.0% 39.0% East St. Louis 52.6% 45.6% 43.8% St. Clair Co. 66.2% 63.6% 62.3% St. Clair Co.-ESL 72.5% 69.8% 66.7%
The Lansdowne neighborhood and the City as a whole have experienced a marked decline in the numbers of owner-occupied dwelling units between 1960 and 1980. The percent of occupied units that are owner-occupied has also declined in both areas. The declines are particularly dramatic for Lansdowne. These trends are in marked contrast to changes in the rest of St. Clair County, which experienced a significant increase in the total number of owner-occupied units over that period of time, and only a modest decline in the percent of all occupied units which were owner-occupied.
The level of home ownership is often a significant indicator of a residential neighborhood's economic stability. This is because of the longer tenures of the occupants and the higher levels of investment in building maintenance generally associated with units which are owner-occupied as compared with units which are rental properties. The conversion of many owner-occupied units to rental properties, implicit in the numbers for the City and the neighborhood, means that more property owners are becoming "absentee landlords" with less of a stake in the economic fortunes of the area. Any comprehensive effort to reverse the trend of disinvestment or at least stabilize the neighborhood must involve strategies to raise the level of home ownership in the area.
II. A SURVEY OF PHYSICAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE LANSDOWNE NEIGHBORHOOD
When the students participating in the 1991 Summer Program for Urban Planning and Design at the University of Illinois became involved in the Lansdowne project in 1991, little information was available regarding current physical conditions in the Lansdowne neighborhood. The students conducted comprehensive surveys of land uses, building conditions, site conditions and street conditions in the neighborhood in order to describe these current conditions. Each one of the neighborhood's 1,825 individual parcels or lots was inspected by student survey teams regarding eleven different physical characteristics. A street by street survey of local infrastructure conditions was also conducted by the students. Tables, graphs and maps presenting some of the results of those surveys appear below.
B. Land Uses
A survey was conducted regarding the current land uses in the neighborhood. The table 2.1 breaks down those uses by individual lot.
Land Use No. of Lots Percentage of Total Residential 1,052 57.6% Single Family 986 54.0% Multi Family 66 3.6% Business Related 52 2.8% Social Service 10 0.5% Vacant Lot 696 38.1% Other 15 0.8% Total 1,825
The Land Use Survey shows that the neighborhood is dominated by residential uses, and that most residential properties consist of single-family dwellings. These single-family uses are shown in map M3 as yellow parcels. Another noteworthy feature of the neighborhood shown by this survey is the prevalence of vacant lots, which are shown on the land use map as white parcels. The highest concentrations of vacant lots are on the western edge and in the northeastern quadrant of the neighborhood.
To the extent possible, the CDBG community development program should be designed to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. In addition, strategies need to be developed to minimize the negative effects resulting from the high number of vacant building sites. Areas with large concentrations of vacant lots might be programmed for other uses or, where appropriate, might be set aside as dedicated open spaces, such as neighborhood parks or community gardens.
Map M3, Land Use in Lansdowne
C. Building Occupancy
Data was also collected regarding the occupancy status of all buildings in the neighborhood. Table 2.2 shows the occupancy status of all of the buildings in the neighborhood by type of use. Unoccupied buildings were catalogued as being "unoccupied and secured", meaning that their windows and doors were sealed, or as "unoccupied and unsecured" if doors or windows were missing and
not boarded up in order to prevent unauthorized entry into the structure. Map M4 shows the location of all buildings in the neighborhood according to occupancy status.
Occupancy by Land Use
Type of Use Occupied Unoccupied Unoccupied Total Secured Unsecured Single Family 814 61 109 986 Multi-Family 62 2 2 66 Business 41 4 7 52 Social Service 10 0 0 10 Other 8 4 3 15 Total 935 71 121 1129
The most striking aspect of the results of this survey is the significant number of unoccupied structures which are not secured. The north central and north east sections of the neighborhood have the larger concentrations of these buildings. These structures pose a safety hazard to area residents, and their insecure status makes them vulnerable to vandalism and damage from the elements. The community development program needs to have a strategy for securing those unoccupied structures which are salvageable and for demolishing and removing those which are not.
Map M4, Building Occupancy in Lansdowne
D. Building Conditions
Each building in the neighborhood received an exterior inspection by a student survey team for the purpose of rating its overall condition. Buildings which did not appear to need any maintenance or repair work were rated as "good". Those in need of minor repairs or maintenance were rated "fair". Those buildings needing major replacement of building materials were rated as "deteriorated", while those exhibiting evidence of major structural damage were rated as "dilapidated". In addition, buildings exhibiting fire damage were noted. Tables 2.3 and 2.4, and map M5 record the results of this survey.
Building Condition By Land Use
Type of Use Good Fair Deterior-ated Dilapi-dated Total Single Family 350 402 144 90 986 Multi-Family 29 31 5 1 66 Business 13 26 5 8 52 Social Service 5 4 1 0 10 Other 7 3 3 2 15 Total 404 466 158 101 1129
Building Conditions by Land Use
As Percent of Total Buildings
Type of Use Good Fair Deteriorated Dilapidated Single Family 35.5% 40.8% 14.6% 9.1% Multi-family 43.9% 47.0% 7.6% 1.5% Business 25.0% 50.0% 9.6% 15.4% Social Service 50.0% 40.0% 10.0% 0% Other 46.7% 20.0% 20.0% 13.3%
While most buildings in the neighborhood were rated as being in good or fair condition, a significant number of structures were rated as deteriorated or dilapidated. The portion of buildings in these worst
Map M5, Building Conditions in Lansdowne
two categories reflects an unacceptable level of deferred maintenance in the area, and is a symptom of disinvestment typical of declining areas. The CDBG Program will need to provide for rehabilitation strategies for deteriorated structures. The program will also need to provide for the demolition and removal of dilapidated buildings. Such a two-pronged approach is important for stabilizing the inventory of affordable housing within the neighborhood.
E. Site Conditions
Each lot in the neighborhood, whether vacant or the site of a building, was inspected to determine its level of upkeep. Lots were placed in one of five categories. "Mowed/improved" lots, (MI) were those which were mowed and which exhibited additional evidence of personal attention, such as the presence of yard sculptures, flower beds and garden plots. "Mowed" lots, (M) were those mowed properties which, while not exhibiting those additional features of "mowed/improved"lots, were in good condition. "Unmowed/clean" lots,(UC) did not exhibit any evidence of mowing, but did not contain trash or other debris. "Unmowed and trashed" lots, (UT) were unmowed and contained small amounts of trash or debris on them. Those rated as "excessive trash"(G1) were unmowed and contained large quantities of trash and other debris. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 and map M6 show the results of this site condition survey.
Site Conditions by Land Use
Type of Use MI M UC UT G1 TOTAL Single Family 178 546 143 81 38 986 Multi-family 14 39 7 5 1 66 Business 3 27 15 2 5 52 Social Service 2 8 0 0 0 10 Vacant 8 94 402 147 45 696 Other 2 5 4 2 2 15
Site Conditions by Land Use
As Percent of Total Sites
Type of Use MI M UC UT G1 Single Family 18% 56% 14% 8% 4% Multi-family 21% 59% 10% 8% 2% Business 5% 52% 29% 4% 10% Social Service 20% 80% 0% 0% 0% Vacant 1% 14% 58% 21% 6% Other 13% 33% 28% 13% 13%
While most lots fell under one of the two best categories, a significant number of properties exhibited evidence of serious neglect by their owners. Particularly disturbing is the fact that 27% of all of the vacant lots in the neighborhood are overgrown with vegetation and contain trash. An examination of the Site Conditions Map reveals a concentration of poorly maintained lots on the western edge, the northern border and in the northeastern quadrant of the neighborhood. Any serious effort at community improvement will need to focus on strategies for identifying the owners of and encouraging the clearing and mowing of these lots. In addition, it will be important to develop strategies for preserving any improvements realized in this area.
F. Street Conditions
In addition to surveying building and site conditions, students in the Summer Program made a visual inspection of all streets and sidewalks in the neighborhood. Students made note of sections of streets where the pavement was in poor condition and recorded where curbing or sidewalks were missing. In addition, other hazardous conditions such as missing manhole covers and street signs and clogged storm sewers were recorded. Their findings are depicted on map M7.
While many areas in the neighborhood have deteriorated or missing infrastructure elements, the western third of the neighborhood has particularly pronounced infrastructure improvement needs. The CDBG program will need to focus on investment for infrastructure improvements to compliment other neighborhood improvement efforts.
Map M6, Site Conditions in Lansdowne
Map M7, Street Conditions in Lansdowne
III. COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY
In order to formulate a neighborhood improvements program which will both effectively address the needs of neighborhood residents and receive their enthusiastic support, it is important to learn from the residents themselves what they perceive to be the strengths and weaknesses of their community. Students in the 1991 Summer Program conducted interviews of neighborhood residents to record their perceptions of the neighborhood.
Residents were asked a series of open-ended and close-ended questions regarding their assessments of the areas strengths and weaknesses, the condition of local housing and infrastructure, and the quality of various consumer, municipal and social services available to neighborhood residents. They were also asked to describe the goals which they believed should be addressed by a neighborhood improvement program. Residents representing 92 households in the neighborhood were questioned. Responses which are relevant to this program proposal for CDBG-assisted activities are described below.
Reason Residents Have Remained in the Neighborhood
Residents surveyed were asked to explain why they have chosen to continue to live in the neighborhood. The most common response was to remain close to family members. Forty-four percent responded in this manner. Others commented that they did not want to move because they had lived in Lansdowne all of their lives. Some residents mentioned that their ownership of their homes in the neighborhood kept them from moving elsewhere. A number of respondents remarked that they believed in the potential of their City and they wanted to remain to see improvements in their community.
Strengths of the Area
Few of those questioned were able to point to things that they would describe as strengths of the neighborhood. Thirty-four percent of the respondents indicated that the only positive thing about their neighborhood was their neighbors. Several residents cited the existence of various community organizations as important assets.
Major Social Problems
The most common social problem cited by residents was that of drug and alcohol abuse. Thirty-eight percent described drug-related problems such as the high crime rate as the primary problem facing the neighborhood. The second most common response regarding major problems facing the neighborhood was that of unemployment. Violent crime was cited by some respondents as a particular problem, as were the lack of youth activities and recreational facilities.
C. Street Conditions
Residents were asked in a closed-ended format to rate street conditions in the neighborhood. Their responses are shown in Table 3.1.
Rating Infrastructure of Lansdowne
Good Fair Poor Non-existent no opinion Streets 1.1% 23.1% 74.7% 0% 1.1% Street Lights, Signs 3.3% 23.1% 56% 17.6% 0% Curbs, Gutters and 0% 12.1% 78% 7.7% 1.1% Manholes Sidewalks 3.3% 22.0% 58.2% 15.4% 0% Drainage 4.4% 13.3% 73.5% 6.6% 1.1% Street Trees 3.3% 30.8% 45.0% 15.4% 3.3%
A substantial majority of the residents surveyed rated every facet of the infrastructure as being "poor" or "non-existent". This reinforces the notion that attention to infrastructure repair and replacement must be an integral part of this CDBG community development program.
A slight majority of residents surveyed rated housing in the neighborhood as either deteriorated or dilapidated. Over forty-six percent of those questioned rated area housing as deteriorated, while 4.4 percent rated it as dilapidated. Only 3.3 percent rated area housing as good, while forty-four percent rated it as fair. This response by neighborhood residents shows the effect which the number of deteriorated and dilapidated structures reported in the building condition survey described above has had on residents' perceptions. This negative evaluation of neighborhood housing in turn tends to discourage private investment in existing and new housing in the area. Strategies to encourage the rehabilitation of salvageable, deteriorated structures and the removal of those that cannot be saved must be an integral part of any CDBG program for the revitalization of Lansdowne.
E. Social Services
Residents were asked to rate various social services available to those living in the neighborhood. If they believed the service in question was not accessible to residents in the area, they were asked to respond "non-existent" The responses of those surveyed are shown in table 3.2 below.
Rating Social Services Available to Lansdowne Residents
Good Fair Poor Non-Exist No ent Opinion Health Services 24.2% 36.3% 18.7% 8.8% 11% Recreation/Parks 7.7% 20.9% 51.6% 11% 8.8% Day Care Centers 33% 24.2% 12.1% 2.2% 28.5% Drug and Alcohol Programs 14.2% 15.4% 31.9% 18.7% Educational Services 18.7% 34% 22% 6.6% 18.7% Family Services 27.5% 26.4% 14.2% 11% 18.7% Job Training Programs 9.9% 20.9% 29.7% 20.9% 18.6% Church/Religious Services 54.9% 18.7% 5.5% 1.1% 8.8%.
Residents generally did not believe that they were being served adequately by the social services listed above. They were particularly disenchanted with the quality of recreation and parks, drug and alcohol programs and job training programs. Over sixty two percent rated recreation/parks as poor or non-existent. Over fifty percent gave one of those two responses regarding drug and alcohol and job training programs. The community development program should address these deficiencies in the delivery of social services.
This data clearly shows that Lansdowne has been a neighborhood in decline, mirroring to a large degree the decline of the City of East St. Louis. The low level of household income in the neighborhood resulting from high rates of unemployment and underemployment among neighborhood residents contributes to the decline by limiting the amount of private money available to homeowners and owners of rental properties for basic maintenance of housing. The resulting disinvestment causes a decline in property values and a shrinking of the real estate tax base. This in turn reduces the amount of revenue available to local governments for essential municipal services, exacerbating matters further.
The conspicuous presence of deteriorated and dilapidated houses and trash-filled, overgrown vacant lots throughout the neighborhood seriously detracts from the appearance of the area and thereby poses a major impediment to private and public investment. The neighborhood's deteriorating infrastructure exacerbates this situation. Additionally, unsecured abandoned buildings and trash-filled lots endanger the safety of neighborhood children. The presence of abandoned buildings contributes to the area's high crime rate by providing a secluded setting for criminal activities.
According to neighborhood residents, the neighborhood is poorly served by municipal government and by social service agencies. This is particularly so with regards to the upkeep of the neighborhood's infrastructure, the provision of parks and recreation, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and the provision of job training.
The CDBG neighborhood development program encompasses strategies for subsidizing the stabilization of the inventory of affordable housing by providing low income property owners with the financial means for rehabilitating their properties. The program also provides a solid foundation for private investment in neighborhood housing by partially funding essential infrastructure improvements and by developing constructive uses of much of the area's ample supply of vacant land.
In addition, the CDBG neighborhood improvement program fills in gaps in the provision of social services in areas such as drug and alcohol treatment and job training so that neighborhood residents can more effectively integrate themselves into the regions job market. Finally, whenever possible, the program supports initiatives that will both address specific problems facing the neighborhood and create jobs for formerly unemployed neighborhood residents.
THE CDBG PROGRAM PROPOSAL FOR THE LANSDOWNE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR YEAR ONE
I. NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS VOTE THEIR PRIORITIES
On August 19, 1991, residents of the Lansdowne Neighborhood attending an open meeting of the Lansdowne Awareness Community Committee were asked to vote their preferences from among twelve categories of neighborhood improvement activities proposed in an early draft of the Lansdowne Neighborhood Improvement Plan so that high priority activities could be targeted for CDBG funding. Activities which received the most votes included the following:
* the organization of a volunteer community-wide clean-up effort to rid vacant lots of trash and other debris;
* the improvement of a site for a neighborhood park at the intersection of 40th St. and Audobon Avenue;
* the development of mini-parks or community gardens to preserve gains made by any lot clean-up efforts and to offer important new neighborhood amenities;
* the development of a cooperative to seal-up salvageable abandoned buildings and to demolish and remove those abandoned buildings which were beyond repair;
* the provision of grants and subsidies for below-market-rate loans for home repairs for low and moderate income families;
* the funding of a salary of a building trades craftsman to supervise self-help home repair and maintenance workshops for neighborhood residents.
II. EVALUATING THE RESULTS AND DEVELOPING THE CDBG PROPOSAL FOR YEAR ONE
In the process of evaluating the results of this poll of neighborhood residents, those most directly involved with developing the CDBG proposal made certain refinements regarding how CDBG funds should be utilized for neighborhood activities. Mr. Hooker and Dr. Reardon, in consultation with community leaders, decided that a community-wide clean-up effort should not be the subject of CDBG funding because of Clean East St. Louis's Operation New Spirit. Clean East St. Louis is a non-profit organization funded from the East St. Louis Community Fund for the purpose of organizing City wide clean-up and other community development efforts.
In addition, the feasibility of a worker-owned cooperative employing a significant number of neighborhood residents in building demolition activities came into question. Because of the limited geographic area involved, it was decided that this activity would not provide sufficient work for employees of such a cooperative. Instead, it was decided that any building seal-up or demolition activities in Year One and in future years would be performed by existing building de-construction contractors.
In order to arrive at a figure for the annual funding of CDBG-assisted activities in the Lansdowne neighborhood, a number of factors were considered. Robert Batts, administrator of the City's CDBG Program, indicated that East St. Louis would be awarded approximately two million dollars a year for the three year period that he would be administering the fund. The 1980 Census figures showed that the Lansdowne Neighborhood contained over eleven percent of the City's population in that year. In addition, City records reflected that neighborhood's like Lansdowne had largely been neglected by the city's Federally funded urban development activities in recent decades. Historically, these improvement efforts had been concentrated in the downtown and along the river front. In addition, by several measures which are described in some detail in Chapter Two, Lansdowne is one of the more depressed neighborhood's in the City. Considering all of these factors, it was decided that an annual figure of roughly $300,000 for CDBG-assisted activities in the Lansdowne neighborhood could be justified.
Among the other preferred activities, a proposal was developed for the first year of five year CDBG program and submitted to Mr. Batts. That first year proposal sets forth the following outline of activities and estimated costs:
1. An emergency street repair program focusing on replacing missing manhole covers throughout the neighborhood and on street and sidewalk repairs an area designated as the neighborhood core to compliment the rehabilitation of the neighborhood park in this area.
2. A building seal-up program targeting 50 buildings to be developed or demolished in the future.
3. A home improvement program offering $5000 matching grants to neighborhood property owners who can obtain at least $5000 loans from private lending institutions for housing rehabilitation.
4. Rehabilitation of the neighborhood park at 40th St. and Audobon Avenue.
5. The funding of 1/2 of the cost of a neighborhood planning position to coordinate planning and implementation of neighborhood improvement programs.
Initial reaction from some community members and from Robert Batts was favorable with several caveats. Residents at an open meeting of the LACC expressed some concern about the efficacy of a building seal-up program. They were skeptical that newly sealed up buildings would remain secured until they could be rehabilitated or removed, given the high level of vandalism in the neighborhood. The sentiment was that the immediate focus should be on the demolition and prompt removal of dangerous abandoned structures.
Mr. Batts expressed a reluctance to become involved in any kind of subsidized loan program, whether it involved matching grants or some other format. He was concerned about the expense associated with administering such a program and the difficulty that many low-income residents in the area would have paying back loans. He indicated that he would support an outright grant program for home improvements, avoiding the need to administer the involvement of private lending institutions.
Mr. Batts also indicated that it would be difficult to justify the expenditure of $140,000.00 for a park project. He did express a willingness to consider more modest funding of various facets of such a project.
The proposals for Years Two through Five accommodate these concerns. Specifically, the Home Improvement Program continues through those years as a grant program with no matching funds requirement, although leveraging of home improvement activities with private funds is reasonably anticipated among the more bankable grant applicants. In addition, the focus in these later years regarding abandoned buildings is strictly on the demolition and removal of non-salvageable buildings.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CDBG PROGRAM FOR YEARS TWO THROUGH FIVE
I. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FOR YEAR TWO
A. Activities Continued from Year One
1. Demolition of Twenty Substandard Buildings
In Year Two, twenty additional substandard housing units will be demolished as a "clearance activity" as defined in @570.201(d) of the HUD regulations, continuing a program started in Year One. Again, as in Year One, those remaining unsalvageable units which pose the greatest safety hazard to area residents, and those units which pose the greatest deterrent to private investment because of their visibility and proximity to occupied structures, will be given priority. Particular attention will be given to abandoned structures with serious structural damage, i.e. those with missing roofs or walls and structures gutted by fire damage. Occupancy and Building Condition maps prepared by the students from the University of Illinois Summer Program in Urban Planning and Design IN 1991 ,(Summer Program) will be utilized to locate candidates for removal in this year. (see maps M4 and M5)
Seriously damaged buildings in the Core Demonstration Area of the neighborhood, outlined in map M8, will be given priority. In particular, those unsalvageable structures near the intersection of 40th St. and Audobon Avenue, site of the neighborhood park developed in Year One, will be targeted for early removal. This area was given top priority for improvement initiatives in the Lansdowne Neighborhood Improvement Plan for several reasons. It is a centrally located residential area in the neighborhood. It is accessible by all of major collector streets in the neighborhood, including Caseyville Ave., Waverly Ave., North Park Blvd. and 40th St., giving it high visibility. The area contains an elementary school and Lansdowne Junior High School, which are focal points of neighborhood activities. Several prominent churches serving the community, including Pilgrim Green Baptist Church and Bethlehem Baptist Church are also located in this area.
Abandoned buildings which are dilapidated and located next to occupied residential buildings, particularly those in blocks with fewer vacant lots and abandoned buildings, will also be targeted for early removal. It is anticipated that a total of
Map M8, Core Demonstration Area in Lansdowne Neighborhood
seventy substandard units will be removed during Years Two through Five of the program, substantially reducing this threat to the health and welfare of the neighborhood. The average cost of removing these dilapidated structures is estimated to be $3000 per unit. The figure includes the cost of demolition of the structure, removal of building debris from the site, tipping fees at the landfill, the grading or leveling of the site, and the planting of grass seed on sites which will not be redeveloped for several years.
2. Provision of Home Improvement Grants
According to the Summer Program's Building Condition Survey, 144 single-family housing units in the neighborhood were in a "deteriorated" condition, meaning they needed major repair work but did not exhibit the significant structural decay of "dilapidated" units. The Home Improvement Grant Program will continue in Year Two to address the rehabilitation needs of these structures. Fifteen new $5,000 grants will be offered to qualified owners of neighborhood residential property.
Qualified owners will include low and moderate income home-owners, defined as those whose household incomes are at or below 80% of the median household income for the region as defined in HUD regulations. In addition, owners of rental properties who commit to renting to low and moderate income households, defined as households at or below 60 % of the median income for the region, will be eligible for assistance. This initiative will fund the rehabilitation of a total of thirty buildings by the end of Year Two. Rehabilitation of a total of ninety buildings will be funded over the entire five year CDBG program, substantially reducing the number of deteriorated housing units in the neighborhood.
Those low and moderate income property owners who secure these grants will be required to use these resources to bring their units up to local building codes. As in Year One, preference will be given to applicants who propose improvements to their buildings which are needed to maintain their structural integrity or to eliminate safety hazards. Improvements such as the replacement of seriously deteriorated roofing or the upgrading of antiquated electrical wiring to reduce the risk of fire are the focus of this initiative. Such home improvement efforts are important to the goal of stabilizing the supply of safe, affordable housing in the neighborhood.
In conjunction with the grant program, local banks and other lending institutions will be recruited to develop a loan pool to assist more "bankable" grant applicants so that re-hab projects can be undertaken with a combination of public and private funds. These local lending institutions will be encouraged to participate in this effort in order to satisfy their obligation to local residents as set forth in the Community Reinvestment Act. In addition, the East St. Louis Community Development Agency may encourage this lending activity by banks by providing loan guarantees for high risk loans. It is expected that in Year Two, half of the grants issued will be leveraged by loans from private lending institutions.
By the end of Year Two, it is expected that the resulting improvement in the appearance of neighborhood buildings will encourage other property owners to invest their own labor and privately borrowed money in the maintenance of their units, thereby helping to reverse the trend of disinvestment in the community.
3. Emergency Street Repairs
Replacement of sidewalks and curbing in selected areas of high neighborhood traffic and visibility will continue in Year Two. As was the case in Year One, improvement efforts will be concentrated in the neighborhood core. (see map M8). Particular attention will be given to the area in the immediate vicinity of the neighborhood park project on 40th street and Audobon Avenue in order to compliment that public improvement and the new housing construction targeted in that area over the five years of the CDBG Program. Outside of the core demonstration area, blocks with serious infrastructure repair needs that have high building occupancy levels and a low number of vacant lots will be given priority.
Audobon, between 38th and 40th streets, will be targeted for much needed sidewalk and curb replacement. This will involve laying approximately 500 linear feet of sidewalk on each side of the street at a cost of ten dollars a foot for a total of $10,000. At an estimated cost of nine dollars a linear foot, the new curbing will cost $9,000. New Sidewalks will also be installed along Linden Avenue, between 38th and 40th for another $10,000. Finally, the 250 feet of deteriorated sidewalk on each side of 38th St. between Audobon Avenue and Regent Place will be replaced at a cost of $5,000. (see map in appendix, p.x) These improvements will compliment new housing construction described below, and will help improve the appearance of the neighborhood's heavily traveled core.
4. Community Planning Assistance
While the members of the Lansdowne Awareness Community Committee and the Emerson Park Development Corporation and neighborhood residents have clearly shown their commitment to neighborhood improvement through various activities during the past several years, these organizations and their constituents do not presently have the staff to perform some of the technical tasks that all recipients of CDBG funds must perform. In addition, the City of East St. Louis has not had sufficient personnel to staff neighborhood improvement efforts for many years.
In Year Two, as in every year of the five year CDBG proposal, the cost of employing a full-time community planner will be covered by CDBG funds. This individual will coordinate and plan CDBG-assisted activities in both the Lansdowne and Emerson Park neighborhoods, under the sponsorship of their respective neighborhood organizations. Half of this expense, consisting of the planners salary and employee benefits, will be budgeted to the CDBG allocation for each neighborhood. In addition, pending the siting of the Community Development Center, a total of $2400 will be divided equally between the neighborhoods' CDBG shares for rent of temporary office space for the planner.
This individual will be involved with the general management, oversight and coordination of CDBG assisted programs in the manner described in @570.206 of Chapter 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Tasks will include the following:
a. Providing local officials and citizens with information about the programs;
b. Preparing program budgets and schedules and amendments thereto;
c. Developing systems for assuring compliance with program requirements;
d. Developing inter-agency agreements with contractors to carry out program activities;
e. Monitoring program activities for progress and compliance with program requirements;
f. Preparing reports and other documents related to the programs for submission to HUD;
g. Coordinating the resolution of audit and monitoring findings;
h. Evaluating program results against objectives.
i. Assisting residents and City officials in the development of non-CDBG funding sources.
j. Providing training for local leaders in the areas of strategic planning and program development, monitoring and evaluation.
B. Additional Activities in Year Two
1. Engineering Study of the Neighborhood's Existing Infrastructure.
@ 570.205 of the HUD regulations provides for the funding of "eligible planning, urban environmental ....activities" Year two funding will include moneys for an engineering study of the neighborhood's infrastructure. Special emphasis will be given to examining the adequacy of subsurface infrastructure, particularly the area's storm and sanitary sewer lines. A survey of community leaders and neighborhood residents in the summer of 1992 disclosed widespread dissatisfaction with the service being provided by these systems. In particular, the frequent flooding of neighborhood streets after rains was cited as a serious problem. In addition, no systematic survey of either the storm or sanitation sewer system has been undertaken in recent years.
An engineering consulting firm will be hired to perform the survey, which will include a "smoke" test and, where deemed necessary, a "T.V" test of existing sewer lines to identify those that are clogged or damaged. The engineering firm will then evaluate the results of the survey and, with the help of the Street Conditions Map prepared by students during the 1991 Summer Program, will target various portions of the sewer system for cleaning, repair or replacement. The total cost allocable to the Lansdowne neighborhood, estimated to be $10,000, will be covered by CDBG funds. .
Both public and private funding sources for the maintenance, rehabilitation or new construction of housing view sound infrastructure at and below street level as a prerequisite to investment. It will be extremely difficult to generate any sustained investment in the stabilization of the neighborhood's housing inventory without a significant commitment to addressing these kinds of infrastructure needs.
2. Selection of a Site for the Community Development Center
Section 570.201(c) of HUD regulations pertaining to CDBG funds provides for the funding of "acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or installation of public facilities and improvements", which are defined to include community centers. In Year Two, a graduate student from the University of Illinois will be hired to perform an inventory of non-residential buildings in the neighborhood so that a rental site can be selected for housing the various CDBG-assited activities which will serve both the Lansdowne and Emerson Park neighborhoods. The inventory will list those structures with sufficient vacant space which can, with minor alterations or upgrading, be utilized to house the Community Development Center. Leaders of the Lansdowne Awareness Community Committee and the Emerson Park Development Corporation will select a building from this inventory for the Center.
In addition, "soft" development costs, including legal fees for drawing up a lease arrangement with the building's owner, and architectural fees for designing needed modifications of the space to be utilized, will be covered in Year Two. The total cost of $10,000, including $2500 for the building inventory and $7500 for the "soft" development costs, will be allocated equally between funds earmarked for Lansdowne and those targeted for Emerson Park.
The Community Development Center will provide an office for both the Lansdowne Awareness Community Committee and the Emerson Park Development Corporation. CDBG-assisted activities to be located at the center will include a substance abuse education and out-patient treatment program; a for-profit, worker-owned landscape cooperative; a home improvement center; a community-based employment center; a community-based literacy program and a for-profit worker-owned home health care cooperative. These programs are described in some detail below.
3. Selection of a Locally-based 501c3 Service Organization to Sponsor Community Development Programs for the LACC and the Emerson Park Community Development Corporation
In Year Two, an organization will be created to oversee CDBG leveraged activities that will cover both the Lansdowne and Emerson Park neighborhoods. It is anticipated that the LACC and the Emerson Park Community Development Corporation will select a sponsor to serve as an umbrella organization from among existing City-wide organizations with a proven track record with neighborhood improvement programs, such as MECCO, the Lessie Bates Davis Neighborhood House, or Operation New Spirit. This group would work with the LACC and the EPDC to secure additional funds for community development and to manage the execution of community development initiatives.
Consolidation of administrative oversight over programs in both neighborhoods in an organization with a broader geographic scope will allow for better coordination of community development activities. In addition, by joining forces in this manner, the LACC and the EPDC will be able to compete for larger grants so that more ambitious neighborhood improvement initiatives can be funded.
4. Creation of a Landscape Cooperative
In Year Two, a worker-owned for-profit landscape cooperative will be developed as part of a joint venture with the adjacent Emerson Park neighborhood. Site condition surveys performed in Emerson Park and Lansdowne in 1990 and 1991 disclosed that many vacant lots and lots with buildings on them were poorly maintained. In 1991, 192 of a total of 696 vacant lots in Lansdowne were unmowed and had trash on them.
Operation New Spirit, a recently organized non-profit organization, is responsible for clearing publicly and privately owned lots in East St. Louis of trash and debris The clearing of these lots will create a real need for short and long-term landscaping strategies to preserve the resulting improvements in neighborhood appearance and safety. Preventing a return to conditions existing before the clean-up will be critical to any comprehensive effort to encourage and sustain private and public investment in the area.
A community based, worker-owned landscape cooperative will fill this newly-created niche in the local job market. The cooperative will also address two pressing objectives of the community development program, the need to preserve improvements in the appearance of the neighborhood, and the need to provide jobs for the long-term unemployed of both neighborhoods.
A business planning consultant will be hired as an independent contractor to develop a structure for the cooperative. Other start-up expenses such as legal fees and the purchase of needed equipment, will also be funded. The creation of the cooperative, which will employ ten formerly unemployed residents from Lansdowne and Emerson Park, will coincide with the creation of an umbrella community development corporation to coordinate CDBG funded activities in both neighborhoods.
Pending completion of site selection and development for the Community Development Center described above, local churches and social service agencies will be solicited as an inexpensive temporary site to rent for the headquarters of the cooperative.
A van will also be purchased to transport cooperative workers, tools and materials to work sites. An experienced landscape manager will be hired on a full-time basis to supervise the cooperatives staff. Local and regional businesses and state agencies will be solicited for the donation of new and used tools and equipment such as lawn mowers, roto tillers, chain saws, rakes and shovels. The cooperative will begin its operations midway through Year Two, employing ten formerly unemployed residents from the two neighborhoods at a wage of $6.00 per hour.
The cooperative will contract to mow privately and publicly owned vacant lots in the area and to plant grass seed and modest plantings such as bushes and flowers on publicly held lots that are expected to be vacant for an extended period of time, pending new construction. Other vacant lots will be transformed into permanent open spaces, either in the form of mini parks for passive recreation, or for community gardens for neighborhood residents.
Many of the vacant lots are tax delinquent properties held by the County and the City. Contracts with these units of government to maintain these properties will offer a reliable source of income for the cooperative in its early stages. The cooperative will also aggressively seek the business of local homeowners who are unable to care for their own properties. In particular, elderly homeowners will be solicited for their business, and a sliding scale will be developed to insure that the service is affordable to all who need it. Local businesses and government agencies such as the school Board and the East St. Louis Housing Authority will also be solicited for their business.
For the first year of its existence, starting midway through Year Two, 100 percent of the salaries of the supervisor and the employees will need to be subsidized with CDBG funds. In later years, income from contracts with private and public property owners , supplemented by moneys collected by the City in judgments collected against delinquent neighborhood property owners in nuisance suits, will cover expenses of the cooperative. In later years, the landscaping cooperative will expand to employ more local residents and service a wider geographic area.
5. Creation of a Home Improvement Center
A Home Improvement Center will be created in Year Two to service both the Lansdowne and Emerson Park neighborhoods. HUD regulations provides that CDBG funds may be used for a wide variety of "rehabilitation services". 24CFR @570.202(b)(9). A local resident who is experienced in the building trades and is knowledgeable about local building codes, will be paid on a full-time basis to be the director of the Center. The Home Improvement Center will be temporarily housed in some local social service agency building, pending its relocation to the Community Development Center site.
This individual will provide services such as rehabilitation counseling, energy auditing, preparation of re-hab work specifications and loan processing for local property owners. In addition, local homeowners will be provided with instruction regarding basic home maintenance and energy conservation activities. This person will also work with the community planner to conduct and periodically update neighborhood building and site condition surveys in order to prioritize re-hab loan applications and building demolition projects and target building code violators.
The director will supervise the dissemination of free rehabilitation project literature at the Home Improvement Center for neighborhood residents who wish to do their own home improvements. He or she will additionally run a tool library will also be located at the center, where various hand and power tools will be available for loan to neighborhood residents for a very modest fee. That individual will also periodically conduct seminars for interested residents and property owners on various types of re-hab projects, such as re-wiring, plumbing replacement and winterization.
Funding sources outside of the CDBG grant will include the Illinois Housing Trust and the State-wide Housing Action Coalition. Illinois-based tool manufacturers will be solicited for donations of hand and power tools for the library.
6. Construction of Two In-fill Housing Units
CDBG funds will be utilized to partially subsidize the construction of two new detached single-family housing units in Year Two. A suggested design for these three bedroom units, developed by students from the University of Illinois School of Architecture during the 1991 Summer Urban Planning and Design Program, is represented in figures 1 and 2. Each of the units will be two story structures with approximately 1340 square feet of living space. The CDBG subsidy will be in the form of a $10,000 set aside of funds for each unit to subsidize a down payment and a below market rate mortgage loan for eligible families in the area who will purchase the units.
The units will be offered to families with incomes between $18,000 and $22,500 who, without the assistance described above, would not otherwise be in a position to buy a home. Priority will be given to families in that income range who either need to vacate substandard rental housing in the area, or who will vacate safe, affordable rental units which in turn will be utilized, in a neighborhood relocation strategy, for housing families who need to vacate substandard housing.
The estimated cost of $60,000 for construction of each unit will be funded by other federal, state or private non-profit housing programs, and is estimated at $60,000 for each unit. Possible government funding sources for the cost of construction include the Illinois Housing Trust, the State-wide Housing Action Coalition or the federal HOPE program. Private foundations with a record of support for community development programs, such as the Enterprise Foundation, or the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) will also be solicited for funds for construction costs. In addition, the Metro East Lenders Group, a consortium of local financial institutions sensitive to the dictates of the federal Community Reinvestment Act, will be solicited to develop a loan pool for prospective low and moderate income purchasers of the newly constructed units in this and later years of the program.
The units will be constructed in the neighborhood core area described above. More specifically, they will be sited on the lot on the southwest corner of Audobon Avenue and the lot just west of that one, as is depicted in figure 3. (see also map in appendix, p.x) These lots have been chosen in part because one of the lots is vacant, while the other is the site of a dilapidated building which will be targeted for early demolition in Year One or early in Year Two. In addition, they are both held in trust by the County as a result of delinquent taxes.
It is anticipated that the County will donate these parcels to this project given the lack of private investment in new housing that is presently occurring in the area. The County's share of future property tax revenues which will be realized once the newly constructed units are occupied will more than offset the loss of what little revenue would be generated from the sale of these parcels under current market conditions.
This in-fill strategy will go a long way towards revitalizing this very visible, central area in the neighborhood. Filling in vacant lots in the core area will strengthen the fabric of the neighborhood. Increasing the concentration of occupied residences will eliminate sites for illegal dumping and other illegal activities and will reduce the sense of isolation experienced by neighborhood residents as a result of the prevalence of vacant buildings and lots. This program will also demonstrate the viability of constructing new affordable housing in the neighborhood, which in turn will demonstrate the viability of the neighborhood generally. In this manner, private investment in new and existing housing in Lansdowne will be encouraged.
In addition, this program will help reverse the recent trend of the conversion of owner-occupied units to rental units, documented by the Summer Program in its review of Census data. Stabilizing and ultimately increasing the level of home ownership in the neighborhood will increase the level of maintenance of neighborhood housing. The new owner-occupied housing will stabilize or enhance the value of properties in the vicinity of the new units, and owners of those surrounding properties will, in turn, be willing to invest more in the maintenance and improvement of their properties.
The relocation strategy outlined above, along with the site selection criteria for the new construction, will be coordinated by the umbrella community development corporation with the assistance of the neighborhood planner. The neighborhood planner will also assist this organization in developing grant proposals for securing funding from Federal and State agencies and non-profit organizations involved in housing programs in order to maximize the leveraging of CDBG funds with public and private dollars. In that manner, the program will increase both the rate of home ownership in the neighborhood, with the attendant gains in neighborhood stability, and the inventory of safe affordable housing for neighborhood residents. .
7. Initiation of a Community-based Substance Abuse Education and Out-patient Treatment Program.
Many residents in Lansdowne who were surveyed by students in the 1991 University of Illinois Summer Program in Urban Planning and Design stated that drug and alcohol abuse and addiction posed a serious threat to the safety and health of neighborhood residents. Substance abuse was seen as a major cause of crime and illness in the community. The salary and benefits of a full-time substance abuse program coordinator will be partially funded from CDBG funds as an eligible "public service." 24CFR @570.201(e). This individual will be a certified social worker with a background in the treatment of substance abuse in community settings. Other possible public funding sources include the East St. Louis Alcohol and Other Drug Task Force, the Illinois Department of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA) and state and local elementary and secondary education funds.
This individual will coordinate community-based educational programs in the local schools, churches and recreational centers. In addition, he or she will coordinate the delivery of out-patient substance abuse treatment services in both Emerson Park and Lansdowne. An office for this individual will ultimately be located at the Community Development Center site, headquarters for the neighborhood Landscape Cooperative and the community development corporation which will oversee programs in both Lansdowne and Emerson Park. In the meantime, local churches and other local institutions will be solicited for an inexpensive rental site.
Educational programs will focus on developing a community awareness among both school age children and adults of the extent of the problem of drug and alcohol abuse and addiction among neighborhood residents. In addition, these programs will educate neighborhood residents about the effects of such abuse and addiction on the individual users and their families. Instruction will also be provided on intervention techniques for families who wish to confront addicted family members with the need for treatment of their disease.
Outpatient treatment facilities will also be located at the Community Development Center after the site selection and development is completed in Year Three. In Year Two, the temporary office site for the Substance Abuse Educational Program will also be available for outpatient group and individual treatment. Residents surveyed by the Summer Program students in 1991 indicated that such treatment opportunities are largely absent in East St. Louis. The recent establishment of a 20 bed short-term residential treatment program at St. Mary's Hospital does not begin to meet the treatment needs of the East St. Louis community.
A major thrust of this community based initiative will be to establish self-help groups for neighborhood substance abusers using the 12 step models of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Currently there are very few of these types of groups in East St. Louis. Rooms will be provided in the design of the multi-use Community Development Center and at the temporary site for local meetings of such groups. Literature about treatment will be freely available at this location.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FOR YEAR THREE
A. Activities Continued from Year Two
1. Demolition of an Additional Twenty Substandard Units
Twenty additional dilapidated structures in the neighborhood will be removed in Year Three. Again it is estimated that removal costs will average $3000 per unit. In Year Three, however, it is anticipated that at least half of this expense will be covered by moneys recovered from both public and private owners of buildings removed in the first two years. These moneys will be recovered both voluntarily pursuant to contracts entered into between the LACC and the individual owners, and by court order, at the conclusion of civil nuisance suits. The City and the County can be expected to contribute to this one-half share of the expense from their general revenue funds for the removal of structures on parcels owned by these units of local government.
The legal staff of the City of East St. Louis will be solicited to vigorously prosecute nuisance claims against private property owners. The community planner will work with the legal staff to locate and prioritize particularly dangerous abandoned structures. the A trust fund will be established for moneys recovered in these lawsuits concerning properties in Lansdowne to supplement CDBG funds for demolition. In this manner, the CDBG contribution for building demolition will be reduced to $30,000.
2. Provision of Home Improvement Grants
An additional twenty home improvement grants of $5000 each will be dispensed in Year Three. Applicants will be given priority using the same criteria as in prior years. Low income home owners and landlords renting to low-income tenants will be given a preference, as will owners who propose improvements addressing serious structural problems or safety hazards. The emphasis will again be on stabilizing the inventory of housing units.
3. Street Repairs
High priority street and sidewalk repairs and street light replacements will continue in areas around the park improvement on 40th street and in blocks where re-hab matching grants have been made in order to compliment those efforts. The CDBG portion of expenditures for infrastructure improvements will be raised to $60,000 in Year Three, reflecting the need to compliment increased housing rehabilitation activity.
Over the past several years, the City of East St. Louis has accumulated approximately six million dollars in its allocation of the State's Motor Fuel Vehicle Tax revenues. In Year Three, the City is expected to be in a position to earmark a significant portion of that amount for infrastructure improvements, including storm and sanitary sewer repairs and replacements in the targeted areas in Lansdowne. To the extent that the engineering survey conducted during Year Two indicates a pressing need for it, funds in this year will be allotted to these subsurface repairs in the core region bounded by 38th St., 40th St. , Lincoln Avenue , and Regent Place.
The installation of 500 linear feet of curbing and sidewalks on each side of Lincoln Avenue between 40th and 42nd Streets, at a total estimated cost of $19,000, will begin in this year with any money left over from the initial sewer repairs. The focus in Year Three will shift from the elimination of hazardous conditions to the upgrading of both above surface and subsurface infrastructure with the goal of promoting more long-term investment by private property owners in the area.
4. Community Planning
The Lansdowne community development effort will again subsidize one half of the salary and benefits of a full-time community planner to coordinate the implementation of the CDBG programs. Rent of a temporary office site will continue to be subsidized for the first half of the year, until the Community Development Center is occupied.
5. Rehabilitation of Community Development Center
In Year Three, work will begin on the rehabilitation of the Community Development Center site. In selecting a contractor to perform this work, minimum HUD guidelines will be followed to insure that low-income individuals will be employed at the site. Local contractors from East St. Louis will be aggressively solicited with the goal of keeping the income stream generated by this project within the community.
The work is expected to include modest building modifications such as the construction of some new non-load-bearing walls and the upgrading of some wiring. The estimated cost of $25,000 will be allocated equally between CDBG funds and other funding sources such as the East St. Louis Task Force and the JTPA program. Lansdowne and Emerson Park will each be allotted half of the $12,500 in CDBG funds for this project. It is hoped that the project can be completed by the beginning of the third quarter of Year Three. At that time, the headquarters and offices for CDBG-assisted activities can be moved to that location. Rent of $1,000 per month will be paid to the owner of the site of the Center for the housing of these offices during the second half of Year Three. Half of this expense will be allotted to each neighborhood's share of CDBG funds.
6. Landscape Cooperative
During Year Three, it is anticipated that the Landscape Cooperative will be able to generate some income from lot maintenance contracts with private and public property owners throughout the City. At this early stage, it is expected that most income will be realized from the general funds of City and County government for maintenance of the many vacant lots held in trust by those two governmental entities in Lansdowne and Emerson Park. It is expected that half of the cooperative's operating expenses will be covered by such income, with the remaining half to be covered by CDBG funds.
7. The Home Improvement Center
This program will be continue to function in the manner described in Year Two. The program will move its location to the Community Development Center in Year Three. Once again, a part-time manager will conduct home improvement seminars and run the tool library. It is expected that a larger contribution from non-CDBG sources will be forthcoming from sources described in Year Two, given the growing visibility of this community based program. Local banks with significant investment in local housing can be expected to contribute to the funding of the center because of the stabilizing impact the Center's activities will have on property values in the neighborhoods.
8. In-fill Housing
The construction of additional new housing units will commence in Year Three. One duplex housing unit containing two three bedroom apartments will be constructed in the targeted core area in the vicinity of 40th and Audobon streets. Specifically, the large lot on the north side of Audobon Avenue just east of 38th St., as is depicted in figure 3, will be the site of this structure. This will continue the in-fill strategy started in Year Two. (see map in appendix, p. x)
This year's CDBG contribution will be $15,000, which as in Year Two will be set aside to subsidize a down payment and a below market rate mortgage loan for the ultimate purchase of this unit by any eligible local community organization or individual willing to rent to local families in compliance with Section 8 Federal Housing standards. Pending the receipt of income from the sale of the two newly constructed units of housing in Year Two, costs of construction will again be covered by funds from a number of possible public and private sources, enumerated above in the description of Year Two activities. It is possible that revenues generated from the sale of the two units of single-family housing constructed in Year Two could be applied to the appropriate program to cover the cost of the duplex, resulting in a net gain for this outside source of $30,000.
9. Community Based Substance Abuse Education and Out-Patient Treatment
Substance Abuse Education programs, coordinated by the Community Development Social Worker and carried on in the local schools, churches and local social service agencies, will continue during Year Three. It is anticipated that the office for the social worker will be moved to the Community Development Center site midway through this year. Therefore, a modest amount of funds will still need to be allotted for rest for the temporary headquarters until that time. Again, other government program funding sources will complement the CDBG funding.
After some successes in developing programs in Year Two, a larger proportion of funding can be expected to come from the institutional sources described in Year Two. Additional contributions can be expected from local and regional businesses and funds such as the United Way. The CDBG contribution for these programs in Year Three will be reduced to one quarter of the total cost.
B. Additional Activities
1. Utilization of the Community Development Center for Community-based Out-Patient Treatment
Midway through Year Three, out-patient drug and alcohol counseling will begin at the Community Development Center. With many of the organizational tasks of the first year of the educational focus completed, the Substance Abuse Program Coordinator will be able to devote more of his or her time to coordinating and leading group therapy sessions for those in treatment. In addition, counselors in existing local and regional substance abuse programs will be solicited to devote some of their time to conducting individual and group sessions at the Community Development Center. It is likely that many local residents in need of treatment, given the low income levels in the area, cannot afford the cost of transportation to treatment centers outside of the neighborhoods. This program will provide local residents with better access to area treatment resources.
2. Hiring an Economic Development Specialist to Assist in Developing local Job Creation Efforts.
Any comprehensive effort to achieve sustained improvement in the physical environment and in the lives of Lansdowne residents must have a significant focus on job creation. CDBG funds will cover half of the salary and benefits of a full-time Economic Development Specialist with the remaining half coming from other sources such as JTPA and public and private foundations focusing on economic development programs. Half of the CDBG share will be allocated to Lansdowne, with the other half being allotted to Emerson Park. This individual will assist the Landscape Cooperative in its efforts to become a self-sustaining enterprise with the capacity to expand its operations to other parts of the region.
He or she will conduct a regional market study assessing the level of demand for the services of the Coop in the City, and develop a marketing strategy aimed at both private and governmental clients. Eventually, as a result of gaining new clients in the region, it is anticipated that the Cooperative will double in size, employing twenty formerly unemployed residents from the two communities.
This person will also be assigned the task of assessing the feasibility of developing a worker owned home health care cooperative. Such an enterprise would be patterned after successful programs funded by the Community Service Society in New York City. It would train and employ formerly unemployed neighborhood residents to assist elderly and disabled residents in the community with household chores and with rudimentary health care in the client's home. Successful home care programs have frequently be proven far more cost effective than institutional settings for these clients, and are generally preferred by the clients themselves. Medicare and other existing funding sources for the care of the elderly could be tapped to cover the majority of the cost associated with providing these services in a neighborhood
The consultant will be asked to assess the demand for such services by analyzing Census Tract data reflecting the number of elderly individuals in the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods, and by evaluating the level of currently available services.
There is a strong consensus among business and government leaders in the region that job creation is an essential element of any comprehensive community development plan in East St. Louis. Other economic development proposals in the past decade, including plans for the improvement of the downtown or the river front, have met with little success. Other private and public funding sources can be expected to show a great deal of interest in the fresh approach offered by neighborhood-based job creation strategies. It is reasonable to anticipate that at least three quarters of the expense of hiring this consultant can be covered from non-CDBG contributions.
3. Create a Community-based Employment Center
The Community Development Center serving Lansdowne and Emerson Park will also contain facilities for a local employment center. This program will share a common reception area with other community-based programs in the building. In addition, a larger multi-purpose conference room will be available for group programs and seminars and a smaller interview room will be used for one-on-one sessions between job counselors and unemployed residents. Counselors will be recruited from existing local and regional programs, such as JTPA, to conduct local seminars and one-on-one consultations at the center.
The emphasis of the program will be on connecting local residents with local and regional job opportunities, and on developing and improving on job search skills such as resume preparation and job interviewing. The reception area will include a bulletin board for new job listings and for notices regarding seminars and the availability of counselors for individualized consultations. In addition, out-patient treatment activities for substance abusers will be coordinated with job-search programs for those substance abusers who are unemployed.
4. New Support Staff for the Community Development Center
The increased level of program activity will necessitate the addition of support staff who will be employed at the Community Development Center. The salaries and job benefits of two clerical workers will be subsidized with equal shares of CDBG and non-CDBG funds in Year Three. These secretaries will serve all of the programs permanently headquartered in the center. The cost for each employee, including salaries and benefits, will be $15,000 per year, and Lansdowne's share will cover half of that amount. One secretary will be assigned to the temporary headquarters of the Coop and one to the drug education program until both are moved to the Community Development Center.
III. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FOR YEAR FOUR
A. Activities Continued From Year Three
1. Demolition of More Substandard Units
Twenty additional substandard units will be demolished and removed from the neighborhood in Year Four of the CDBG Program. As conditions improve in the neighborhood, more and more owners of dilapidated abandoned structures can be expected to voluntarily contract with the LACC to defray the cost of removal of their structures. In addition, the City of East St. Louis can be expected to increase its nuisance ordinance enforcement activities in the area. It is reasonable to expect that two thirds of the expense of demolition and removal will be covered by non-CDBG funds during Year Four.
2. Home Improvement Grants
Twenty more home improvement grants of $5,000 each will be dispensed in Year Four. The same criteria described in earlier years will determine who will get those grants. By the end of this year, the rehabilitation of seventy homes will have been funded. In addition, as in earlier years, many successful applicants can be expected to secure additional funds to leverage CDBG moneys from the pool of funds developed among local lenders in Year Two.
It is reasonable to assume that the heightened level of rehabilitation activity will raise the confidence of non-participating property owners in the viability of neighborhood, encouraging additional privately funded rehabilitation projects. Many of these owners will be willing to invest sweat equity in their own homes, further improving the neighborhood's housing stock. At the same time, it is anticipated that local, regional and state agencies involved with the funding of infrastructure improvements will believe it is more worthwhile to spend dollars repairing sewers, streets and sidewalks in the neighborhood to supplement CDBG funds allotted for this purpose.
3. Street Repairs
An additional $40,000 will be allotted for street and sidewalk repairs which, for reasons alluded to above, can be expected once again to be leveraged with significant funds from local and regional governmental sources. The focus of improvements in this year will be the area just east of the core area described above. Lincoln Avenue between 40th and 42nd Streets will be resurfaced. New curbing and sidewalks will be installed along Audobon Avenue between 42nd and 44th St. New sidewalks will be installed along 43rd St. between Caseyville and Lincoln Avenues, and that portion of deteriorating roadway will be resurfaced. (see appendix, p.x)
4. Community Planning
Lansdowne will again share the expense of a full time community planner in Year Four to coordinate the implementation of local community revitalization programs and solicit funds from public and private sources to leverage CDBG money.
5. Landscape Cooperative
In Year Four, with the aid of the strategy formulated by the Economic Development Specialist hired in Year Three, the Landscape Cooperative will significantly expand its paying client base including both individual and institutional property owners in the neighborhood and in other parts of the City. The increase in non-CDBG money will allow for the expansion of the cooperative so that twenty formerly unemployed residents will now be employed. The expansion of the cooperative will also strengthen the capacity of the community development corporation overseeing joint Lansdowne-Emerson Park projects for developing alternative business enterprises for job creation.
The CDBG contribution for salaries and non-capital expenses for Lansdowne will be just slightly greater than in Year due to the cooperative's expansion. By Year Four, it is anticipated that a sufficient reserve for capital expenditures will have been developed to purchase a second van for the new cooperative.
6. Home Improvement Center
This program will continue to provide assistance to local homeowners who wish to begin their own home improvement projects through the expertise of the Home Improvement Director and the lending of tools from the tool library.
7. In-fill Housing
Two more units of single-family detached housing and one more duplex housing unit will be constructed in Year Four. The vacant lot on the northeast corner of the intersection of 40th St. and Audobon Avenue, and the adjacent vacant lots on 40th St. and Audobon Avenue will be the sites of this new construction. (see map in appendix, p.x) The corner lot will be purchased from the private owner, or condemned at an estimated cost of $10,000. It is reasonable to assume that the other two lots, tax delinquent properties held in trust by the County, will be donated to the project by the County at no cost, given the future real estate tax revenues that will be generated by this project.
CDBG funds will again be set aside to subsidize down payments and below market rate mortgage loans for eligible low to moderate income purchasers of the units. This subsidy will amount to $35,000 for all three structures. The cost of construction, estimated to be $210,000, will be covered by proceeds from the sale of the duplex constructed in year Three, and funds from the non-CDBG sources described in earlier years for housing activities.
8. Community Based Substance Abuse Education and Out-patient Treatment Program
This program will continue in Year Four in the manner described in previous years, coordinating community-based educational programs for adults and children on substance abuse and group and individual out-patient substance abuse counseling for area residents. It is reasonable to assume that a larger percentage of the funding of the salary and benefits of the director of the program will be funded from non-CDBG sources as the program becomes more established.
9. Community-based Employment Center
This program will continue to function in the manner described in earlier years in the Community Development Center
10. The position of Economic Development Specialist will continue to be funded equally by CDBG funds and non-CDBG funds. In year four, this individual will focus on developing buy-local strategies to encourage local institutions such as the school board and local businesses to purchase supplies and services from local vendors, in order to further expand the employment base in the community. In addition, attention will be given to assisting local businesses in securing loans from area banks to facilitate business expansion. The specialist will also develop an information center at the Community Development Center site where literature from state and federal programs established to provide assistance to new and established small businesses in low and moderate income areas will be made available to residents in the community. Finally, the specialist will help develop the EFNEP style home literacy program described below.
B. Additional Activities
1. Formulation of the Structure for the Home Health Care Cooperative
In Year Four, the economic development specialist will have completed a plan for the development to a worker-owned home health care cooperative.
2. Establishment of an EFNEP Style home literacy program
In Year Four, a program will be developed, closely patterned after the Expanded Food Nutrition Education Project run by the Department of Agriculture, to encourage parents of school aged children in the neighborhood to become more involved in the education of their children. Five community leaders will be hired on a part-time basis and will be given training in strategies to increase parental involvement with their children's school work.
The training will focus on familiarizing the workers with the expectations that the public school system has for out-of-classroom work at the various grade levels, and on strategies for teaching client parents effective ways to nurture the self esteem of their children in the classroom setting. The emphasis will be on developing an awareness among the clients of the need for consistent and frequent positive reinforcement of the child's achievements in school. In addition, parents will be educated on the need to interact with their children's teachers on a frequent basis.
These workers will also screen client parents for deficiencies in reading comprehension, and will provide those in need with encouragement and information regarding available adult-education literacy programs.
By enhancing the performance of neighborhood children in the classroom, this program will better prepare this generation for the challenges of the work place when they become adults. It will play an important role in breaking the cycle of dependency on AFDC that has gripped many of the households in the neighborhood.
In Year Four, $3,000 will be allocated to hire a community education consultant to assist the Economic Development Specialist with the development of the structure for the program. The ten employees of the program would be paid a total of $7,500 each per year in salaries and benefits, and the program would be headquartered in the Community Development Center. An additional $2,000 will be allocated for the purchase of published written materials on the subject of parent/child interaction regarding schoolwork and for office supplies.
CDBG funds would cover one quarter of the expense of the program, with the remaining funds coming from local, state and federal educational programs, and contributions from private non-profit foundations with a track record of funding initiatives in primary and secondary education. CDBG and non-CDBG funding will be divided equally between the Lansdowne and the Emerson Park CDBG-assisted programs.
IV. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FOR YEAR FIVE
A. Activities Continued from Year Four
1. Demolition of Ten Substandard Buildings
By the beginning of Year Five, it is reasonable to assume that home improvement initiatives as well as the self-help efforts by local residents will have largely stemmed the tide of ongoing deterioration and abandonment of housing in the neighborhood. Few non-salvageable buildings will remain in the neighborhood as a result of the removal of 80 dilapidated buildings in the first four years of the program. It is also anticipated that sufficient income from the demolition of buildings in prior years will have been received to completely cover the cost of this program during this year. Ten additional structures will be removed in Year Five.
2. Home Improvement Grants
Twenty additional grants of $5,000 each will be disbursed for housing rehabilitation projects in Year Five. By the end of Year Four, seventy CDBG-assisted residential housing rehabilitation projects will have been completed. It is anticipated that this level of rehabilitation activity, combined with the new construction of housing, will have generated a considerable amount of non-CDBG assisted rehabilitation activity among other property owners in the neighborhood. By the end of Year Four, it is reasonable to assume that the objective of stabilizing the existing supply of housing will have been achieved. The focus in Year Five will become improving the environment for the construction of new housing to meet the unmet housing needs of the greater East St. Louis community.
3. Street/Infrastructure Repairs
In Year Five, infrastructure repair projects west of the core area will begin. New sidewalks will be installed along Linden and Lincoln Avenue between 36th Street and North Park Drive. Similar improvements will be made along Audobon Avenue between 32nd and 36th Streets., and those two stretches of roadway will be resurfaced. (see map in appendix, p.x)
The CDBG contribution will again be $40,000, with a larger contribution expected from non-CDBG sources than in prior years. Local, regional, state and federal sources for the funding of infrastructure repair are expected to have greater confidence in the efficacy of investing dollars in the neighborhood as a result of the tangible achievements of earlier CDBG-assisted improvement efforts. In particular, it is reasonable to assume that the City will be willing to devote an even larger share of its motor fuel tax revenues to neighborhood infrastructure projects than in prior years of the program.
4. Community Planning
In Year Five, in the face of the significant achievements of the first four years of the neighborhood based CDBG-assisted program, it is expected that the government of East St. Louis will be willing to allot some general revenue funds to cover half of the expense of the neighborhood planner position. This position will ultimately assist in the development of neighborhood based activities in other portions of the City.
5. Landscape Cooperative
The Landscape Cooperative will be totally self sustaining by Year Five. Income from contracts with private and public property owners will cover all expenses of the enterprise. CDBG moneys will now be directed towards other neighborhood based cooperative job creation ventures.
6. Home Improvement Center
The staffing of the Home Improvement Center will continue at the level of earlier years in Year Five with the same amount of CDBG funding. By this time, income from modest rental fees on tools in the tool library will have made the replacement of old tools and the purchase of additional tools possible.
7. In-fill Housing
In Year Five, a duplex and three single-family detached housing units will be constructed on five adjacent vacant lots just northwest of the intersection of Audobon Avenue and 38th St. These lots are tax-delinquent properties held in trust by either the City or the County, and it is expected that each local government will be willing to donate these lots to this new construction effort, given the added tax revenues that this project will generate.
In addition, two large vacant lots owned by the County on the southwest corner of the intersection of Regent Avenue and 32nd St. will be utilized as the site for a low density, two story apartment building with eight two bedroom units to provide housing for low and moderate income residents pursuant to Section 8 Federal guidelines. The cost of construction is estimated to be $60,000 for each of the single-family units, $90,000 for the duplex and $300,000 for the apartment building. The CDBG contribution will consist of a set-aside of $10,000 each for each single family unit, $15,000 for the duplex and $35,000 for the apartment building to subsidize the down payment and below-market mortgage loan for eligible purchasers of the properties. (see map in appendix, p. x)
8. Substance Abuse Program
The community based substance abuse educational and out-patient treatment program will continue in Year Five from its headquarters in the Community Development Center Building. By the beginning of this year, the efficacy of this community based approach will be well established, and higher funding levels from non-CDBG sources, both public and private, can be expected. (see earlier years for description of these sources). The CDBG contribution will be reduced to zero in Year Five.
9. Community-based Employment Center
This program will continue in the manner described in previous years at the Community Development Center.
10. Economic Development Specialist
This position will continue to be funded at the level of funding from prior years. This individual will continue to assist neighborhood businesses with obtaining financing for expansion and with applications for assistance through governmental programs oriented to small businesses. Special attention will be given to developing the structure for the Home Health Care Coop described below.
11. Home Literacy Program
This program will continue in Year Five with the same levels of CDBG and non-CDBG funding until it becomes more established in later years. In Year Five, no allocation need be made for the development consultant, so the total expenditure will be $39,500 for employee salaries and supplies.
12. Support Staff
Fifty percent of the expense of salaries and benefits of support staff at the Community Development Center will again be funded from CDBG funds. An additional secretary will be added in Year Five to handle the anticipated increase in activities at the Center.
B. Additional Activities
1. Beginning of the Home Health Care Cooperative
Year Five will see the creation of the Home Health Care Cooperative which, like other neighborhood-based alternative job creation projects before it, will have both the Emerson Park and the Lansdowne neighborhoods as its base of operations. A certified social worker with experience in working with the elderly and disabled will be hired to run the cooperative. This individual's salary and benefits, totaling $30,000, will be subsidized at 50%, with Lansdowne's share amounting to 25 % of the total costs. Other programs with a job-creation focus, including JTPA and public and private foundations, will be solicited for the remaining 50% of the cost.
Five unemployed residents from both Lansdowne and Emerson Park will be trained and employed to provide assistance with the tasks of daily living for local elderly and disabled residents, such as grocery shopping, meal preparation, and house cleaning. In addition, rudimentary health care will be provided to these clients. The salary and benefits of these employees, at a wage rate of $6.00 per hour, will amount to about $82,000 per year. Again the CDBG share will be 50% and Lansdowne's share of CDBG funds will amount to 25%.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION
Overall management of the CDBG-assisted programs for both the Lansdowne and the Emerson Park neighborhoods will be the responsibility of the Community Development Planner, in consultation with the sponsoring umbrella agency chosen by neighborhood representatives in Year Two and leaders of the Lansdowne Awareness Community Committee and the Emerson Park Development Corporation. The Community Development Planner will report monthly to these groups at an open meeting at a location in one of the neighborhoods. Notice this meeting will be posted at least a week ahead of time at local schools and other public buildings, and will be published in the local newspaper. The Planner will report on the progress of the various ongoing programs, and will actively solicit comments from the participating community groups and the public regarding those programs.
The salaried directors of the various programs, including the Director of the Home Improvement Center, the Substance Abuse Program Coordinator, the Landscape Cooperative Supervisor, the Economic Development Specialist, and the Director of the Home Health Care Program , will each be responsible for supervising the day-to-day operation of those initiatives, and will prepare and maintain a monthly budget of operations which will be submitted to the Community Planner at the end of each month.
The Community Development Planner will prepare an annual report at the end of each fiscal year The report will summarize the following:
* The goals and objectives of the CDBG-assisted program for that year.
* A description of the programs which were implemented in that year or continued from prior years to address those goals and objectives, including itemized budgets for those programs.
* A breakdown on a program-by-program basis of expenditures of CDBG and non-CDBG funds for the year.
* An assessment of the efficacy of each program, comparing goals and objectives to results achieved at the end of the year.
In addition, each year an independent contractor will be hired to conduct an evaluation of the CDBG-assisted Community Development Program for the year in question. The evaluation will consist of an audit of the Program's finances, and a quality review, assessing to what degree the various activities funded in the program have achieved goals and objectives of the Program. This review process is designed to insure that only effective activities will be continued from year to year. The outside review process is a particularly important facet of this proposal given the history of mismanagement of the CDBG program in East St. Louis. Two percent of the budget for each year will be set aside to pay for this evaluation.
The Community Development Planner's annual report and the independent evaluation will be presented at a public meeting at the end of the fiscal year. Notice of the meeting's time and place will be published in the local newspaper and will be posted at various public buildings throughout the Lansdowne and Emerson Park neighborhoods at least two weeks prior to the meeting. The meeting will be chaired by a representative of the umbrella agency chosen to oversee the CDBG-assited Community Development Program in both the Lansdowne and the Emerson Park neighborhoods.
The Community Development Planner; representatives of the Lansdowne awareness Community Committee, the Emerson Park Development Corporation, and the firm conducting the independent evaluation of the Program; and the supervisor of CDBG funding for the City of East St. Louis will each make presentations to the public at this time. At this meeting, those in attendance will be solicited for their comments regarding the performance of the various initiatives in that year, and suggestions regarding activities for the following year.
YEAR TWO BUDGET SUMMARY
Activity CDBG Funds Other Funding Sources Demolition of dilapidated buildings. 20 $60,000 0 units @ $3,000 per unit 15 housing re-hab grants of $5,000 each $75,000 $40,000 Loans from private lenders street and sidewalk repairs $34,000 0 1/2 share of full-time Community Planner $17,500 0 salary and benefits* 1/2 share of rent for temporary office for $1,200 0 Community Planner* Engineering survey of subsurface $10,000 $10,000 City's infrastructure share of motor vehicle tax 1/2 share of cost of building inventory and $5,000 0 soft development costs for Community. Development Center* 1/2 share of Consulting fee for creation of $3,000 0 Landscape Cooperative, 100 hours @ $60.00 per hour* 1/2 share of full-time salary of coop $7,500 0 supervisor for 2nd half of Year Two* 1/2 share of salaries and benefits of 10 $41,000 0 full-time coop employees for 2nd half of Year Two* 1/2 share of rent of temporary site for coop $600 0 for 2nd half of Year Two at $200 per month* donated tools and equipment to the coop 0 $2,000 regional tool manufacturers 1/2 share of cost of van for coop* $10,000 0 1/2 share of fuel and maintenance expense $300 0 for coop van for 1/2 year* 1/2 share of full-time Home Improvement $7,500 $7,500 Center Director salary Illinois Housing Trust, State-wide Housing Action Coalition, (SHAC) Construction of two new housing units $20,000 $120,000 Private foundations, LISC, Metro East Lenders Group 1/2 share of salary, benefits of full-time $7500 $7500 East St. substance abuse counselor* Louis Alcohol and Other Drugs Task Force,(ESL Task Force) DASA 1/2 share of rent of temporary office for $1200 0 substance abuse counselor* 1/2 share of office supply expense for CDBG $2,000 0 assisted activities* Cost of independent evaluation of program $6,000 for Year Two Totals $309,300 $177,000
* total cost divided equally between Lansdowne and Emerson Park CDBG allotments YEAR THREE BUDGET SUMMARY
Activity CDBG Funds Other Funding Sources Demolition of dilapidated buildings, $30,000 $30,000 Revenues 20 units @ $3,000 per unit collected from private and public property owners 20 housing re-hab grants of $5,000 $100,000 $50,000 Private each lenders Street, sidewalk, and sewer repairs $60,000 $100,000 City's share of motor fuel tax 1/2 share of full-time Community $17,500 0 Planner salary and benefits* 1/2 share of rent of temporary office $600 0 space for Community Planner and Economic Development Specialist for 1st half of Year Three at $200 per month* 1/2 share of Re-hab expense of $6,250 $6,250 ESL Task Community Development Center* Force JTPA 1/2 share of full-time Landscape $7500 $7500 Revenues Cooperative Supervisor salary + from private and benefits* public property owners 1/2 share of 10 full-time Landscape $41,000 $41,000 same as Coop employees salaries and benefits* above 1/2 share of Fuel and maintenance $300 $300 same as above expense of Landscape Coop van* 1/2 share of rent for temporary $600 0 office for Landscape Coop for 1st half of Year Three at $200 per month* 1/2 share of full-time Home $7,500 $7,500 Illinois Improvement Center Director salary Housing Trust, and benefits* State-wide Housing Action Coalition 1/2 share of rent for temporary site $600 0 for Home Improvement Center for 1st half of Year Three at $200 per month* in-fill housing, construction of a $15,000 $90,000 Revenues duplex from sale of Year Two Units 1/2 share of full-time Substance $3,750 $11,250 ESL Abuse Program Coordinator salary and Alcohol and Other benefits* Drug Task Force, DASA 1/2 share of rent for temporary $600 0 office for Substance Abuse Education and Treatment Center for 1st half of Year Three at $200 per month* 1/2 share of full-time Economic $8,750 $8,750 JTPA, Development Specialist salary and Public and benefits* Private foundations with job creation emphasis 1/2 share of full-time clerical staff $7,500 $7,500 ESL Task salaries and benefits for 2nd half of Force, DASA, Year Three* JTPA, SHAC 1/2 share of office supply expense $2,000 0 for CDBG-assisted activities* 1/2 share of rent for Community $3,000 0 Development Center for 2nd half of Year Three at $1,000 per month* Cost of independent evaluation of $6,000 program for Year Three Totals $318,450 $360,050
* total cost divided equally between Lansdowne and Emerson Park CDBG allotments
YEAR FOUR BUDGET SUMMARY
Activity CDBG Funds Other Funding Sources Demolition of dilapidated buildings, $20,000 $40,000 Revenues 20 units at $3,000 per unit from public and private property owners 20 housing re-hab grants of $5,000 $100,000 $50,000 Private each lenders Street , sidewalk and subsurface $40,000 $160,000 City's infrastructure repairs share of motor vehicle fuel tax 1/2 share of full-time Community $17,500 0 Planner salary and benefits* 1/2 share of full-time Landscape Coop $5,000 $10,000 Revenues Supervisor Salary and Benefits* from public and private property owners 1/2 share of 20 full-time Landscape $54,600 $109,400 same as Coop Employee Salaries and benefits* above 1/2 share of cost of new van* 0 $10,000 same as above 1/2 share of fuel and maintenance $400 $800 same as above expense for Landscape Coop Vans * 1/2 share of full-time Home $7,500 $7,500 Illinois Improvement Center Director salary Housing Trust, and benefits* SHAC, LISC Construction of two detached $35,000 $133,200 revenues single-family housing units and one from sale of duplex earlier new housing units, private lenders 1/2 share of full-time Substance $3750 $11250 ESL Task Abuse Coordinator Salary and Force, DASA benefits* 1/2 share of full-time Economic $8,750 $8,750 JTPA, Development Specialist salary and private benefits* foundations 1/2 share of Home Literacy Program $10,000 $30,000 private expenses, including community foundations, education consultant fee, part-time local board of salary and benefits of 10 employees education and educational materials* 1/2 share of salary and benefits of $7,500 $7,500 full-time support staff Foundations and agencies listed for substance abuse, job creation , and housing initiatives 1/2 share of rent of Community $6,000 0 Development Center at $1,000 per month* 1/2 share of office supply expenses $2,000 for CDBG assisted activities* Cost of independent evaluation of $6,000 program for Year Four Totals $324,000 $578,400
* total cost divided equally between Lansdowne and Emerson Park CDBG allotments
YEAR FIVE BUDGET SUMMARY
Activities CDBG Funds Other Funding Sources Demolition of dilapidated buildings, 0 $30,000 Revenues 10 units at $3,000 per unit from private and public property owners 15 housing re-hab Grants of $5,000 $100,000 $50,000 private each lenders Street and subsurface Infrastructure $40,000 $200,000 City's Repairs share of motor vehicle taxes 1/2 share of full-time Community $8,750 $8,750 City's Planner Salary and Benefits* general tax fund 1/2 share of full-time Landscape Coop 0 $15,000 Revenues Supervisor Salary and Benefits* from public and private property owners 1/2 share of 20 full-time Landscape 0 $160,000 same as Coop Employees' Benefits and above Salaries* 1/2 share of fuel and maintenance 0 $1200 same as expense for two Landscape Coop vans* above 1/2 share of full-time Home $7,500 $7,500 Illinois Improvement Director salary and Housing Trust, benefits* SHAC Construction of three detached single $80,000 $270,000 Revenues family units, a duplex and an eight from sales of unit apartment building earlier units, private lenders 1/2 share of full-time Substance 0 $15,000 ESL Task Abuse Coordinator salary and Force, DASA benefits* 1/2 share of part-time Home Literacy $9,875 $29,625 Private Coop Employees' Salaries* foundations, local board of education 1/2 share of full-time Community $11,200 $11,200 Various Development Center Support Staff funding sources salaries and benefits* for initiatives listed above 1/2 share of full-time Home Health $7,500 $7,500 Private Care Coop Coordinator Salary and foundations and Benefits* JTPA 1/2 share of full-time Home Health $41,000 $41,000 same as Care Coop Employees' Salaries and above Benefits* 1/2 share of rent for Community $6,000 0 Development Center Cost of independent evaluation of $6,000 program for Year Five Totals $317,825 846,775
*total cost divided equally between Lansdowne and Emerson Park CDBG allotments
HTML by : Deb Samyn
Last modified: May, 1992
Document author(s): Joseph E. Hooker
HTML by : Deb Samyn
Last modified: May, 1992
East St. Louis Action Research Project