Monthly Archives: August 2021

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has been making consistent efforts to update and reconstruct the alternate investment space. Pursuant to the SEBIs Consultation Paper on Introduction of the Concept of Accredited Investors (February Consultation Paper) published on 24 February 2021, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 (AIF Regulations) were amended on 3 August 2021 vide the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2021 (Third Amendment), which primarily introduced the concept of Accredited Investors and granted certain relaxations for Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) with Accredited Investors.

Further, in line with SEBIs vision to streamline the registration process and investments by AIFs, SEBI vide the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2021 (Fourth Amendment) dated 13 August 2021, further amended the AIF Regulations to give effect to the modifications approved during SEBIs Board Meeting dated 6 August 2021. The key changes across both these amendments are highlighted as follows:

1. Introduction of the concept of Accredited Investor

The Third Amendment, consistent with the recommendations under the February Consultation Paper, has introduced the concept of Accredited Investors:

(a) Who is an Accredited Investor?

The Third Amendment inserted the definition of Accredited Investors to the AIF Regulations, which means any person who is granted a certificate of accreditation by an Accreditation Agency, subject to meeting the financial parameters prescribed. In addition to the investors who are eligible for accreditation by meeting the prescribed thresholds, the Third Amendment also provides a list of persons who shall be deemed to be Accredited Investors, without requiring such investors to go through the accreditation process.

Comment: Unlike the definition of Accredited Investors under the Portfolio Managers regime, the Third Amendment lays down objective criteria to be met for an investor to qualify as an Accredited Investor and to avail the benefits / relaxations granted to such Accredited Investors. The rationale behind the introduction of the concept, as highlighted under the February Consultation Paper, is to recognise the class of investors who are well-versed with the risks of investments and have the knowledge as well as financial capacity to undertake the risk.

(b) Who will certify an Accredited Investor?

An Accreditation Agency will grant certificates of accreditation to the investors who are eligible as Accredited Investors. Accreditation Agency has been defined to mean a subsidiary of a recognized stock exchange / a subsidiary of a depository / any other entity as may be specified by SEBI from time to time.

Comment: While the framework and process for granting accreditation, including the process for applications, timelines and duration of validity of the accreditation, is yet to be put in place, the industry is hopeful that Accreditation Agencies will exercise flexibility in accrediting overseas investors and entities receiving foreign capital.

(c) What requirements must potential Accredited Investors fulfil?

As mentioned earlier, the Third Amendment categorises Accredited Investors into 2 (two) categories: (i) investors who meet the specified eligibility criteria and are granted certificates of accreditation by an Accreditation Agency; and (ii) deemed Accredited Investors.

The annual income / net worth thresholds which are to be met by entities to apply for accreditation are:

(I) Individual, Hindu Undivided Family, family trust or sole proprietorship:

(A) annual income of at least INR 2,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees Two crores); or

(B) net worth of at least INR 7,50,00,000 (Indian Rupees Seven crores and Fifty lakhs), out of which not less than half (i.e., INR 3,75,00,000 (Indian Rupees Three crores and Seventy Five lakhs)) is in the form of financial assets; or

(C) annual income of at least INR 1,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees One crore) and minimum net worth of INR 5,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees Five crores), out of which not less than half (i.e., INR 2,50,00,000 (Indian Rupees Two crores and Fifty lakhs)) is in the form of financial assets;

(ii) body corporate is a net worth of at least INR 50,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees Fifty crores);

(iii) trust (other than family trust) is a net worth of at least INR 50,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees Fifty crores); and

(IV) partnership firm (incorporated under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, each partner must independently meet the applicable eligibility criteria (detailed above) for accreditation, depending on their form.

Deemed Accredited Investors: Further, government, developmental or fund entities of the Centre and State, qualified institutional buyers under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018, Category I foreign portfolio investors, sovereign wealth funds and multilateral agencies, and other entities notified by the SEBI shall be deemed to be Accredited Investors, with no requirement to obtain a certificate of accreditation.

Comment: While the February Consultation Paper referred to a distinct set of thresholds for non-resident Indians (NRIs) and foreign entities, the Third Amendment does not differentiate between the criteria for resident Indian and NRIs / foreign entities. It is to be seen how the Accreditation Agencies apply the eligibility conditions laid down to entities / persons outside India.

(d) Relaxation in minimum investment value

The AIF Regulations have been amended to grant a relaxation to Accredited Investors from investing a minimum quantum of INR 1,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees One crore), a change that shall be well-received.

Comment: In line with the idea that Accredited Investors are sophisticated investors who require lesser regulatory protection, the minimum investment threshold applicable for investing in AIFs has been done away with for such Accredited Investors, thus allowing them greater flexibility to structure their investments.

2. Large Value Fund for Accredited Investors

To identify AIFs consisting of Accredited Investors only, the Third Amendment has also introduced the concept of Large Value Fund for Accredited Investors, which is an AIF / scheme of an AIF in which each investor (other than service providers / employees of the AIF and investment manager) is an Accredited Investor and invests not less than INR 70,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees Seventy crores).

The following relaxations in respect of Large Value Fund for Accredited Investors, have been granted:

(a) The AIF Regulations relating to filing of placement memorandum with SEBI at least 30 (thirty) days prior to launch of a scheme, and incorporation of SEBIs comments in placement memorandum prior to launch of scheme, will not apply to Large Value Fund for Accredited Investors.

Comment: This indicates that while the SEBI may continue to undertake the review and diligence of an AIF being set-up, in the event the first scheme of an AIF is a Large Value Fund for Accredited Investors, it may not examine the private placement memorandum (PPMs) of such Large Value Fund for Accredited Investors.

(b) Large Value Funds for Accredited Investors are permitted to extend their tenure beyond 2 (two) years, subject to terms of the contribution agreement, other fund documents and such conditions as may be specified by SEBI from time to time.

Comment: The relaxation is basis the assumption that the Accredited Investors have the required knowledge, advice and bargaining power to negotiate the terms of investment and accordingly, need not be bound by pre-decided tenure.

(c) Large Value Funds for Accredited Investors of Category I and II AIFs are permitted to invest up to 50% (fifty per cent) of the investable funds (as opposed to 25% (twenty five per cent)) in an investee company directly or through investment in the units of other Alternative Investment Funds. Similarly, Large Value Funds for Accredited Investors of Category III AIFs are permitted to invest up to 25% (twenty five per cent) of the investable funds (as opposed to 10% (ten per cent)) in an investee company directly or through investment in units of other AIFs.

Comment: The diversification requirement restricts the flexibility of AIFs formed for specific investment opportunities and platforms funds wherein the big-cheque investors come together with the Manager group to invest in pre-identifies assets. Relaxation to the diversification requirement should go a long way in allowing investors as well as the Managers the required room to structure larger, specific investments.

Comment: The concept of Accredited Investors has been prevalent in various other developing and developed jurisdictions, and introduction of the same in India is a step forward in the right direction. Pertinently, the idea of Accredited Investors was floated when the AIF Regulations were formulated. The rationale behind such accredited / qualified / professional investors (as variably described across jurisdictions) is that these investors have the required market knowledge / advice and a high-risk bearing capacity to take informed decisions. Therefore, entities providing financial products and services to this class of investors would be eligible to a regulation-light space, i.e., a lower standard of regulatory prescription from the regulators in terms of funds raising capital from such investors.

The changes prescribed by the Third Amendment, particularly for Large Value Fund for Accredited Investors, has immense potential to afford flexibility to platform structures and funds which are raising capital from Ultra High-Net-Worth Individuals (UHNI) / large ticket investors. Considering that many of these investors may be funds themselves, it will be interesting to see how these thresholds are applied and calculated for funds, and whether the commitment from investors can be taken into consideration for determining their accreditation status, or the asset base.

3. Merchant bankers role

The PPMs that accompany the application for the launch of a scheme of AIF shall now have to be filed with SEBI through a merchant banker. Further, the AIF Regulations now provide that SEBI shall communicate the required changes/ comments to the PPMs to such merchant banker, and it will be the merchant bankers responsibility to ensure that these changes are made before the launch of the Scheme.

This modification would come into effect from the 91st day from the date of publication of the Fourth Amendment, i.e., from 14 November 2021.

Comment: The recommendation to route PPMs for applications to launch a scheme of an AIF through merchant bankers may seem counterintuitive at first since it may potentially increase the cost and time taken to set up a new fund, among other considerations. The recommendations seem to equate products meant for High Net-worth Individuals (HNIs) (with a minimum investment bracket) to a general listing of a company. Further, there could be learning curve for the players of the merchant banking industry as well, who are not typically exposed to or acquainted with such fund structures but may pump synergy into the AIF industry.

4. Revision to definitions

(a) The Fourth Amendment has revised the definition of debt funds to include securitized debt instruments.

Comment: The expansion in the definition of debt funds to include securitised debt instruments, has provided the required clarity by the industry for investment by AIFs in instruments such as asset backed / mortgage-backed securities.

(b) The definition of investable funds has been revised to clarify that net of expenditure for administration and management of the fund is to be estimated for the entire tenure of the fund. Further, the Fourth Amendment has also clarified that tenure refers to the duration of scheme from the day of its launch till last day of the term as specified in the fund documents.

Comment: This clarification may materially impact the deployable corpus available to an AIF. Prior to this clarification, Managers would typically consider only the expenditures which would be borne from capital contributions while calculating investable funds of an AIF, and exclude the expenditures borne out of the income of the fund. This is especially important for credit funds, infrastructure funds and other funds which usually start earning income (in the form of interests or otherwise) from an early stage during the life cycle of the fund, and typically do not account for the expenditures which are taken care of from the income for the calculation of investible funds.

(c) The definition of units now includes fully or partly paid up units, wherein partly paid-up units means the portion of committed capital invested by the investor in Alternative Investment Fund or scheme of the Alternative Investment Fund.

Comment: While several AIFs have been issuing partly paid-up units, the clarity and codification of the same is a welcome change to clarify the same and settle the dust around issuance of partly paid-up units.

5. Minimum amount of grants by Accredited Investors to Social Venture Funds

Grants by Accredited Investors to social venture funds has been exempted from meeting the requirement of making a minimum grant of INR 25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs).

6. Investment conditions for Category I AIFs

(a) Prior to the Fourth Amendment, Category I fund of fund AIFs were permitted to invest in the units of other Category I AIFs of the same sub-category. The Fourth Amendment has expanded the range of investments by such Category I fund of fund AIFs to include Category II AIFs.

(b) Category I Venture Capital Funds must now invest 75% (seventy five percent) of its investable funds (as opposed to the earlier requirement of two-thirds of its investable funds) in unlisted equity shares or equity linked instruments of a venture capital undertaking, or companies listed or proposed to be listed on a SME Exchange or SME segment of an exchange. This threshold of 75% investment is to be met by the end of the life cycle of the Fund.

(c) The remaining conditions that not more than one-third of the investible funds of a Category I Venture Capital Fund should be invested in initial public offerings of unlisted entities, debt instruments of venture capital undertakings, preferential allotment of shares of a listed entity and equity shares of a financially weak company or sick company whose shares are listed, has been done away with.

7. Temporary Investments

Prior to the Fourth Amendment, the AIF Regulations stated that an AIF could make temporary investments out of the un-invested portions of the investible funds. In line with the market practice, the Fourth Amendment has codified that temporary investment can be made from the divestment proceeds pending distribution to the investors as well. Further, from the list of instruments for temporary investments, Collateralized Borrowing and Lending Obligation (CBLOs) has been substituted by Triparty Repo Dealing and Settlement (TREPS), considering that CBLOs have been discontinued from November 2018 and all CBLOs have TREPS.

The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views / position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at [emailprotected]

Read more from the original source:
ERGO Analysing Developments Impacting Business: Significant Changes to the AIF Regulations: Slow, but Steady Move towards a New Regime - Lexology

Police around the country have drastically increased their use of geofence warrants, a widely criticized investigative technique that collects data from any user's device that was in a specified area within a certain time range, according to new figures shared by Google. Law enforcement has served geofence warrants to Google since 2016, but the company has detailed for the first time exactly how many it receives.

The report shows that requests have spiked dramatically in the past three years, rising as much as tenfold in some states. In California, law enforcement made 1,909 requests in 2020, compared to 209 in 2018. Similarly, geofence warrants in Florida leaped from 81 requests in 2018 to more than 800 last year. In Ohio, requests rose from seven to 400 in that same time.

Across all 50 states, geofence requests to Google increased from 941 in 2018 to 11,033 in 2020 and now make up more than 25 percent of all data requests the company receives from law enforcement.

It should be a last resort, because its so invasive.

Jake Laperruque, Project on Government Oversight

A single geofence request could include data from hundreds of bystanders. In 2019, a single warrant in connection with an arson resulted in nearly 1,500 device identifiers being sent to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Dozens of civil liberties groups and privacy advocates have called for banning the technique, arguing it violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, particularly for protesters. Now, Googles transparency report has revealed the scale at which people nationwide may have faced the same violation.

Theres always collateral damage, says Jake Laperruque, senior policy counsel for the Constitution Project at the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight. Because of their inherently wide scope, geofence warrants can give police access to location data from people who have no connection to criminal activities.

"We vigorously protect the privacy of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement, Google said in a statement to WIRED. We developed a process specifically for these requests that is designed to honor our legal obligations while narrowing the scope of data disclosed."

Just this week, Forbes revealed that Google granted police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, access to user data from bystanders who were near a library and a museum that was set on fire last August, during the protests that followed the murder of George Floyd. Google handed over the GPS coordinates and data, device data, device IDs, and time stamps for anyone at the library for a period of two hours; at the museum, for 25 minutes. Similarly, Minneapolis police requested Google user data from anyone within the geographical region of a suspected burglary at an AutoZone store last year, two days after protests began.

Laperruque argues that geofence warrants could have a chilling effect, as people forgo their right to protest because they fear being targeted by surveillance. Just this week, Kenosha lawmakers debated a bill that would make attending a riot a felony. Critics noted that such a bill could penalize anyone attending peaceful demonstrations that, because of someone elses actions, become violent. Similarly, geofence data could be used as evidence of guilt not just by being loosely associated with someone else in a crowd but by simply being there in the first place.

Geofence warrants work differently from typical search warrants. Usually, officers identify a suspect or person of interest, then obtain a warrant from a judge to search the persons home or belongings.

With geofence warrants, police start with the time and location that a suspected crime took place, then request data from Google for the devices surrounding that location at that time, usually within a one- to two-hour window. If Google complies, it will supply a list of anonymized data about the devices in the area: GPS coordinates, the time stamps of when they were in the area, and an anonymized identifier, known as a reverse location obfuscation identifier, or RLOI.

Read the original here:
An Explosion in Geofence Warrants Threatens Privacy Across the US - WIRED

Department of Justice lawyers revealed Wednesday that the FBI improperly gave agents access to a suspects private online communications that only a few agents were authorized to see, sparking privacy concerns that investigators could be sharing too much information without permission.

Virgil Griffith, a young technologist who gave a public talk about cryptocurrencies at a conference in North Korea, was the subject of an FBI search warrant to obtain information from his Facebook and Twitter accounts in March 2020.

The data was uploaded to the FBIs internal data analysis program created by Palantir, a CIA-funded company that specializes in sorting through huge amounts of information and connecting the dots. And, according to a three-page DOJ letter, an FBI special agent who was not part of the investigation into Griffith but was working on a separate investigation into someone who had spoken to Griffith online accessed that data without permission from the FBI. A year later, three more FBI analysts started poking around the same evidence without approval.

When you have a system of this magnitude, there have to be safeguards in place to know whos accessing it and when.

Saira Hussain, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation

All that file sharing flies in the face of a general rule: law enforcement agents receive narrow search warrants to access specific private information. Judges try to limit unjustified government intrusions into personal lives, so typically, a separate investigation requires a separate search warrant, according to constitutional scholars.

When you have a system of this magnitude, there have to be safeguards in place to know whos accessing it and when, said Saira Hussain, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates privacy.

According to the DOJ, the cause of the mistake was simple: someone forgot to flip a switch.

When data is loaded onto the platform, the default setting is to permit access to the data to other FBI personnel, the DOJ explained, adding that those default settings were not changed to restrict access to solely the agents working on the case.

The DOJ and FBI are now assessing the damage. The court letter to U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel said they are now exploring to what extent this issuei.e., the loading of restricted data onto the platform without restrictionmight have impacted other cases.

Palantir issued a statement asserting that what happened was not a glitch, as The New York Post described when it broke the news on Wednesday.

There was no glitch in the software. Our platform has robust access and security controls. The customer also has rigorous protocols established to protect search warrant returns, which, in this case, the end user did not follow, the statement read.

But the company would not identify the software it provided to the FBI, describe its purpose, or say whether it is helping the government conduct its review.

The FBI has at least one publicly visible contract worth $19 million to Palantir for services that started in September 2017. Documents unearthed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, show that both the FBI and ICE have used FALCON, a customized version of a Palantir program called Gotham that quickly sorts incoming data and helps military and police.

Unless the FBI happens to catch, correct, and disclose that initial permissions error, Bureau personnel can make unrestricted use of the data.

John Davisson, attorney at Electronic Privacy Information Center

John Davisson, an attorney at EPIC, said the software disclosed by the DOJ appears to be something novel and different, and the FBI needs to disclose more about what it is and how its used.

Unless the FBI happens to catch, correct, and disclose that initial permissions error, Bureau personnel can make unrestricted use of the data, he told The Daily Beast. Thats a massive problem, and this case illustrates why.

The FBI did not respond to questions, leaving unclear whether the agency has reconfigured the programs default settings or determined how many times this has happened with other investigations.

The FBI is not known for upholding rigorous guardrails around sensitive information. It has frequently flouted rules meant to protect Americans privacy and searched through National Security Agency datasets on Americans without court orders, as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court revealed in an unsealed finding earlier this year.

Law enforcement agents were sifting through data obtained through warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for other cases on organized crime and health-care fraud, the court said. And the FBI was warned against this kind of behavior and told how it could jeopardize Americans protections against unreasonable searches and seizures back in 2018.

A 2013 report from the American Civil Liberties Union noted how the FBIs massive, digital Investigative Data Warehousewhich became supercharged by the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attackseventually came under fire from Congress when it demanded an audit. When the FBI refused to give auditors access, Congress paused funding temporarily but eventually the matter became largely forgotten.

Most privacy experts who spoke to The Daily Beast on Thursday commended the FBI for addressing the problem, but warned that this episode foreshadows more serious privacy debacles down the line.

Our privacy should not be dependent on the actions of individual prosecutors and FBI agents. While its good that the defendant in this case was notified and the government is taking steps to delete the data, the government is still ingesting huge amounts of data and Palantir makes this data widely accessible by default, said ngel Daz, a privacy expert who teaches at the University of California Los Angeles law school. There may be other cases where this same kind of wide data sharing goes on undetected.

We are deeply concerned about what happened here. We are investigating the situation and Mr. Griffiths potential legal remedies.

Brian E. Klein, defense attorney for Virgil Griffith

Aside from the potential privacy concerns for the American public in general, this slip-up could complicate the case that federal prosecutors have against Griffith if his defense team claims it somehow tainted the investigation.

We are deeply concerned about what happened here. We are investigating the situation and Mr. Griffiths potential legal remedies, said Brian E. Klein, his defense attorney in Los Angeles.

This is not the first time weve seen the FBI wrongly searching through peoples sensitive emails and data in ways that the Fourth Amendment prohibits, said Patrick Toomey, an attorney who specializes in national security matters at the ACLU.

A similar miscalculation by the FBI in New York ruined its 2018 case against Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad, a banker accused of dodging U.S. sanctions by hiding how Iranian money paid for a $500 million housing project in Venezuela.

In that case, the Manhattan district attorney obtained a ton of information with a search warrant and handed it off to the FBI. Instead of identifying the relevant stuff and ditching the rest, federal agents vigorously sorted through it allwithout getting their own search warrant.

U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan dismissed the case this past February. In her order, she ripped into FBI agents who uploaded raw email search-warrant returns into its BIDMAS database and searched this database hundreds of times, contrary to the Governments representations and almost certainly in violation of the Constitution. And she excoriated prosecutors who tried to bury the evidence.

This kind of unauthorized access poses a greater danger to the publics liberty now because law enforcement relies on such powerful surveillance tools and analytical software that can piece it all together, said Michael German, a former FBI special agent who is now scholar at the Brennan Center for Justice. And repeat mistakes could hurt future investigations, he warned.

If the judge doesnt feel confident the FBI will honor the limits they impose, theyll be less likely to grant them permission in the future, German said. The FBI has shown that it is ineffective in enforcing limits.

Link:
FBI Screwup Let Agents Access Information They Weren't Supposed to See - The Daily Beast

Pro-life activist David Benham, along with four other anti-abortion advocates, filed an amended complaint Monday against North Carolina officials after they were arrested last year for offering prayer to women while standing outside an abortion clinic.

Benham is president of Cities4Life, an organization that provides counseling to women on their way to abortion clinics by supporting them with prayer and guidance.

In April 2020, Benham and other representatives of pro-life groups were across the street from an abortion clinic in Charlotte, North Carolina to offer counseling and prayer to expectant mothers considering abortion.

As CBN News reported, police arrested the activists and cited them for violating COVID-19 restrictions and guidelines, even though they were following all the health and safety requirements including social distancing.

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

The plaintiffs are being represented by the conservative law firm, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

Denise Harle, senior counsel with ADF, told The Christian Post (CP) that the activists chose to amend their complaint (link) because the charges against them were later dropped - showing that their arrests were "improper."

"The dropping of the charges actually underscores why this amended complaint should prevail," Harle said. "What we've added in this amended complaint is Fourth Amendment claims, based on the unlawful stop, unlawful detention, and unlawful arrests, the fact that the city and the county dropped the charges against David Benham shows that those arrests were improper."

She added, "The fact that they're not even pursuing the charges is a pretty clear admission that there's no there, there. And that's exactly what we're bringing to the federal court in this amended complaint is that those arrests themselves were a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

Harle believes the arresting officers violated the First Amendment, which was "motivated by a targeting of free speech and animosity toward certain religious views."

"The government certainly is welcomed to protect public health, but if it is going to do that, it needs to do so in an evenhanded way that has a rational basis," she explained to the CP. "What it can't do is enact a law and then apply it unfairly only to select groups of people whose viewpoint the government disagrees with."

During a previous interview with CBN News, Benham said we need to love our neighbors and not let our pro-life views be silenced because of COVID.

"It's viewpoint discrimination. They're using this COVID emergency as an opportunity to grasp and silence our voices so we have a constitutional issue on our hands and we really have to stand against it," Benham said.

Watch Charlotte police arrest Benham below:

See original here:
'Those Arrests Were Improper': Pro-Life Activist David Benham Moves Forward with Lawsuit Against NC Officials - CBN News

The Unified Government Commission will hold a budget workshop and set the maximum mill levy at 5 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 25.

On the 7 p.m. Aug. 25 UG Commission agenda, the commission is scheduled to vote on an ordinance and resolution to accept $55,383,872 in federal American Rescue Plan funds to the city of Kansas City, Kansas, and $32,132,644 to Wyandotte County from ARPA funds. Much of the funding, $31 million for the city and $11 million for the county, will go toward replacement of local government losses due to COVID-19, according to the proposal.

About $11.74 million is proposed to be spent on immediate needs. Those immediate needs include $5.9 million for public health; $2.37 million for negative economic impacts; $1.6 million for disproportionately impacted communities; and $1.92 million for online processes and technology investment.

The UG has a few years to make decisions on how to spend the remainder of the ARPA funding.

Also on the 7 p.m. agenda is a resolution to allocate $1.85 million in local fiscal recovery funds received by Wyandotte County to be used to address and prevent housing insecurity and other negative economic impact from COVID-19 as part of the ARPA.

Several planning and zoning items also are on the 7 p.m. UG meeting agenda Aug. 25, including:

1201 N. 98th, change of zone from agriculture to planned commercial district for construction of Camping World. 8919 Leavenworth Road, change of zone from single-family and limited business district to planned general business district for a proposed gas station and convenience store, recommended for denial. 609 and 611 S. 75th St., change of zone from single family to twofamily district for an existing duplex. 617 and 619 S. 75th St., change of zone from single-family district to two-family district for an existing duplex. 7852 Leavenworth Road, special use permit for temporary use of land to park salt plow trucks, Loyd A. Clay. 2003 to 2005 N. 5th St., renewal of special use permit for live entertainment, Jeffrey E. Hollinshed. 5917 N. 123rd St., vacation of electrical utility easement. 4501 Douglas Ave., preliminary and final plan review for office warehouse with initial use a laydown area, Mike Sanders with Nampara Properties. 4605 Shearer Road, preliminary and final plan review for an office warehouse with the initial use a laydown area, Mike Sanders with Nampara Properties. 88 S. 7th St. Trafficway, ordinance rezoning property from single-family district to two-family district. 2716 and 2718 S. 53rd St., ordinance rezoning property from single-family district to two-family district. 3860 Bell Crossing Drive, ordinance rezoning property from single-family district to agriculture district. 5837 Leavenworth Road, ordinance vacating right-of-way. 415 and 417 Stine Ave., ordinance vacating an alley. 1110 Merriam Lane, ordinance authorizing aspecial use permit for continuation of a performance auto service shop. 3847 and 3848 N. 123rd St., ordinance authorizing special use permit for continuation of a short-term rental air BNB. 4449 Rainbow Blvd., ordinance authorizing a special use permit for a short-term rental air BNB. 734 S. 76th St., ordinance authorizing a special use permit to keep two cows on the property. 11827 Marxen Road, special use permit for a home occupation short-term rental air BNB. 3800 Weaver Court, ordinance authorizing a special use permit for continuation of a Homestead Montessori Farm school within a residence. Resolution designating UG depositories and eligible institutions for purposes of receiving UG funds for investment and receiving requests for bids for investment of its idle funds. A resolution adopting the fourth amendment to the downtown campus development agreement in the 5th and Minnesota area. The amendment reduces the square footage of the Reardon Center, prioritizes the distribution of CID proceeds and extends the deadline. A resolution approving the fourth amendment to the KC Foodie Park development agreement, extending planning and construction deadlines. This project is at the former Indian Springs property near 47th and State. A resolution approving two agreements on the Historic Preservation Fund Grants. The agreements are with the Kansas Historical Society and State Preservation Office. One grant to the Downtown KCK Historic Commercial District of $21,000, will include $12,500 from the state with federal grant funds, and a local match will come from the UG planning departments long-range planning budget, including in-kind contributions. Another agreement is for $30,000 for a Downtown KCK Historic Churches Multiple Listings Designation. Of that amount, $18,000 will be from the state with federal grant funds, and a local match will be from the UG planning departments long-range planning budget, including in-kind contributions. The Land Bank includes many properties to be considered at this meeting. The properties are on Hallock, Valley, Lafayette, Stewart, Lathrop, 75th, Freeman, 7th, Troup, Quindaro, Cleveland, Minnie, and 6th. To see a complete list of the properties, see the agenda at https://civicclerk.blob.core.windows.net/stream/WYCOKCK/aa6f9c8fe9.pdf?sv=2015-12-11&sr=b&sig=g2zYjO14v5kk5LaWoqCisHRIKpPNA0K8pOy%2FqCuaYGo%3D&st=2021-08-25T16%3A24%3A12Z&se=2022-08-25T16%3A29%3A12Z&sp=r&rscc=no-cache&rsct=application%2Fpdf.

The 5 p.m. special session and the 7 p.m. meeting will be conducted through a Zoom internet meeting, wit public access available through Zoom, telephone, and from the lobby of City Hall, 701 N. 7th St. The meeting will be shown on UGTV cable television and on YouTube.

The 5 p.m. session is on Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82359399700?pwd=aVNDNTZSdFQ5WmxMcXVXbGdHdzB4UT09.The passcode is 113265.The Webinar ID is 823 5939 9700.To connect by telephone, call 877-853-5257 or 888-475-4499.

The 7 p.m. Zoom meeting is at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85117594728?pwd=QnN3eXl0cGYwM2dHRjFMZ0l2SHl0UT09.The passcode is 702899.The Webinar ID is 851 1759 4728.To connect by telephone, call toll-free 877-853-5257 or 888-475-4499.

The UG 7 p.m. agenda is online at https://civicclerk.blob.core.windows.net/stream/WYCOKCK/aa6f9c8fe9.pdf?sv=2015-12-11&sr=b&sig=g2zYjO14v5kk5LaWoqCisHRIKpPNA0K8pOy%2FqCuaYGo%3D&st=2021-08-25T16%3A24%3A12Z&se=2022-08-25T16%3A29%3A12Z&sp=r&rscc=no-cache&rsct=application%2Fpdf.

See the original post:
Budget, ARPA funding to be considered Thursday by UG Commission Welcome to Wyandotte Daily! - Wyandotte Daily