HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURA-2012-04-13Approved 6/28/12
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274-6559
(607) 274-6558 (fax)
MINUTES
ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
Common Council Chambers, City Hall
8:30 A.M., Friday, April 13, 2012 (Special Meeting)
Members: Chair Svante Myrick, Doug Dylla, Susan Cummings, Tracy Farrell, Ayana Richardson
Others: Common Council Liaison Chris Proulx
Staff: Nels Bohn, JoAnn Cornish, Sue Kittel, Charles Pyott
Public: None
I. Call to Order
Myrick called the meeting to order at 2:36 P.M.
II. Agenda Additions/Deletions
None.
III. Public Comment
APPLICATION SPEAKER NAME TITLE/AFFILIATION COMMENTS‐IN‐BRIEF
Building Bridges Kirby Edmonds Managing Partner,
Training for Change
Associates (TFC)
Wants to clear up some impressions Economic
Development Committee may have; program
would be nested inside larger planning process,
across many organizations; applicant has been
given reasonable assurances there would in fact
be jobs available for participants, after they
leave the program; also, while Cooperative
Extension is a major contributor/sponsor, only
some participants and program activities would
be sited within it
Next Steps Job
Training Program
Stephen Nunley Managing Director,
Kitchen Theatre
Wants to stress that program is more than job
training program; it is principally a mentoring
program, as well; in addition to its other benefits,
program serves to increase Kitchen Theatre
footprint in the neighborhood and surrounding
community, with concomitant positive economic
development impacts
Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
IURA Minutes
April 13, 2012
Page 2 of 9
IV. 2012 HUD Entitlement Grant ― Development of Draft 2012 Action Plan
A. Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) Recommendations
Farrell indicated the NIC recommends funding the following HOME projects:
APPLICATION FUNDING
RECOMMENDATION
Breckenridge Place $86,171
Homeowner Rehab $150,000
Security Deposits $37,500
Regarding the INHS Housing Trust application, Farrell noted, it seems fairly certain that bond money
would be able to pay for it, so the NIC is not recommending funding it at this time.
Farrell noted the NIC recommends against funding the Tompkins Community Action Weatherization
Assistance Program, given it would only benefits 9 units, it is an expensive project, and it does not
include enough requirements for landlords. (Some eligibility‐related concerns may also be
associated with it.)
Farrell also noted the NIC recommends against funding the Aurora St. Pocket Neighborhood project,
given it currently has no other committed funding in place.
Farrell remarked it is the last year of the GIAC rehabilitation project and the NIC is delighted with
the job that has been done. That being said, she noted, it did diminish the amount of funding
available for other CDBG projects.
The NIC recommends funding the following CDBG projects:
APPLICATION FUNDING
RECOMMENDATION COMMENTS/SPECIAL NOTES
INHS Mini‐Repair $25,000
Next Steps Job Training
Program
$26,667
(+$33,333 from
program income)
Applicant does really good job. Community benefit.
Applicant indicated it should be able to fundraise to
support the program in the future.
Building Bridges
Initiative $20,000
Very impressed with the number of people and
organizations involved. Appears considerably
different from every other job training programs.
Work Preserve Job
Training Program $30,000
2‐1‐1 Tompkins Call
Center $10,000 This is one of those valuable ‘linkage’ programs that
connects people to needed services.
IURA Minutes
April 13, 2012
Page 3 of 9
APPLICATION FUNDING
RECOMMENDATION COMMENTS/SPECIAL NOTES
Promoting Change $30,000 Likes intensive case management program; connects
with the Security Deposit program.
Immigrant Services
Program $15,000 Would assist appr. 80 immigrants to access services
and employment.
SewGreen Youth
Coordinator $4,375 Currently doing wonderful job. Small request.
Applicant asks for progressively less every year.
B. Economic Development Committee (EDC) Recommendation
Dylla remarked there were many strong applications this year. The EDC generated a scoring matrix
that includes seven different assessment criteria and the committee’s ratings were highly
consistent, from member to member.
The EDC recommends funding the following CDBG projects:
APPLICATION FUNDING
RECOMMENDATION COMMENTS/SPECIAL NOTES
Ithaca Food Works
Kitchen $25,000
Still very early in its development, but committee
felt at least some kind of funding should be
provided to assist future fundraising efforts.
Great project if it can be realized.
Cinemapolis Digital
Conversion $65,000 Very important, in terms of retaining jobs and
maintaining a downtown draw.
Downtown Retail
Corridor Support $12,000
Work Preserve Job
Training Program $30,000
Finger Lakes ReUse $20,000 Top ranked program
Dylla remarked the EDC does not recommend funding the Next Steps Job Training Program, given
that its cost per beneficiary is so high (6‐9 times other programs), that the number of beneficiaries is
low, and that IURA funding would constitute such a high percentage of the total funding.
Dylla noted the EDC also does not recommend funding the Building Bridges project, given the high
cost per beneficiary, as well as the comparatively nebulous and embryonic stage of its development.
Dylla also noted the possibility exists of funding the Cinemapolis project with E.D. loan funds.
IURA Minutes
April 13, 2012
Page 4 of 9
C. Adoption of IURA‐Recommended 2012 Action Plan
Richardson asked if the NIC generated rankings for each project, to which Farrell replied, no ― the
nature of the differences between the housing and job training applications made that difficult.
Instead, the NIC evaluated the applications from the perspective of who benefits from each project,
while attempting to fund as many different groups as possible.
Cummings asked which specific components of each application the EDC used for their rankings.
For example, it appears that the Kitchen Theatre was perceived by the EDC as a job training
program, but it was not considered for its wider impact to the community. Did the EDC in fact
consider positive impacts beyond the immediate job training‐related ones?
Richardson responded that a lot of things were examined, and, yes, broader impacts beyond the
immediate job training‐related ones were considered. In terms of the Kitchen Theatre application,
it was not that it was not deemed to have a wider impact, but that there were some serious
concerns with the cost‐benefit ratio associated with it. Additionally, the Kitchen Theatre did not
provide information in their application supporting wider economic impact.
Regarding the Finger Lakes Reuse project, Cummings observed the program would only directly
benefit a very limited number of City residents, so she wondered about the extent to which it is in
fact eligible for funding. Bohn responded that the program is eligible since the sponsor commits
that at least 51% of the beneficiaries would be City residents.
Cummings asked when the next round of grants would be launched. Kittel replied the RFPs would
be issued in October 2012.
Cummings asked what kinds of jobs would be saved if Cinemapolis succeeds in funding its digital
conversion, to which Bohn replied that 7 of the 8 at‐risk jobs are low‐income positions (3 are very
low‐income). He does not have a list of the job titles themselves, but they are standard movie
theatre jobs.
Regarding the Downtown Retail Corridor Support project, Farrell noted that NIC was concerned with
the lack of support from downtown businesses, at least in terms of what was presented in the
application.
Cummings inquired into the eligibility of the Downtown Retail Corridor Support project. Bohn
replied that the downtown assessment portion of the program would not be eligible as an eligible
microenterprise program must be targeted to assist only low/mod microenterprises. Cummings
asked how many businesses would benefit, to which Bohn replied 2‐4.
Cummings indicated she does not believe the quality of the proposed consultants for the Downtown
Retail Corridor Support project rises to the level of something she would like to see in this kind of
application. She would prefer the application included a more established, professional level of
consulting.
IURA Minutes
April 13, 2012
Page 5 of 9
Proulx remarked that ― from the perspective of identifying a project which would provide the
greatest economic multiplier effect ― he would recommend funding the Cinemapolis project. He
added that, in a year in which funding is scarce, he would not recommend funding the Finger Lakes
ReUse project, given it does not entirely benefit the City directly.
Farrell indicated she believes the Kitchen Theatre project should also be seen as having a multiplier
effect.
Regarding the Downtown Retail Corridor Support project, Richardson remarked, the EDC definitely
sees it as a having a multiplier effect.
Cummings indicated she initially voted against the Building Bridges project, but has subsequently
reconsidered, especially in light of Kirby Edmonds’ statements about the project being nested within
a larger economic development context.
Kittel observed that the Building Bridges project is an outgrowth of a large diverse community
meeting in October 2011. The meeting was essentially part of a larger planning initiative, focused
on economic and social justice. Several other initiatives have already grown out of it.
Farrell added that the Building Bridges program partly grew out of the Natural Leaders program.
She believes it would have a significant ripple effect, in terms of the combination of personal
development and connections to the wider community it would provide.
Dylla noted that Building Bridges could also return in the Fall and reapply for funding.
Myrick remarked he believes the Building Bridges project is a fascinating and promising project. Of
all the projects being considered, it would probably benefit the most from returning before the
IURA in the Fall.
Cummings Dylla moved, seconded by FarrellRichardson, to NOT fund the Building Bridges project.
Carried 3‐2
In Favor: Dylla, Richardson, Myrick
Opposed: Farrell, Cummings
Dylla Cummings moved, seconded by RichardsonFarrell, to NOT fund the Downtown Retail Corridor
Support project.
Failed 2‐3
In Favor: Farrell, Cummings
Opposed: Dylla, Richardson, Myrick
IURA Minutes
April 13, 2012
Page 6 of 9
Dylla remarked that the applicant indicated the Downtown Retail Corridor Support project would be
focused primarily on minority‐owned businesses and the comparable cost of the project per person
is substantially less than the Building Bridges project.
Cummings observed that some care needs to be given, from a legal perspective, to how a project
dedicates its funds. Funded projects should no be too restrictive.
Cummings went on to note there are two very different kinds of youth training programs being
reviewed today: Work Preserve, whose trainees come with a stipend, and Next Steps, whose
trainees do not. The reason, however, that the Next Steps program appears so expensive is that it
includes funding for the stipends.
Farrell remarked that it was her understanding that the Next Steps applicant recently indicated that
it would not need $2,000 originally requested. Nunley confirmed that those funds would not be
needed in the current program year.
Dylla recommended funding the Promoting Change project at the $25,000 level, rather than the
$30,000 level.
Regarding the Promoting Change program, Cummings observed, the Catholic Charities board
possesses some high‐powered names and significant fundraising capacity, so it should be well‐
situated to raise additional funds for the project and make up for any gaps in IURA funding.
Cummings remarked she would rather take funding from the Finger Lakes ReUse program, and put
the money towards Work Preserve.
Dylla moved, seconded by Richardson, to REDUCE the funding level for the Promoting Change project
to $25,000.
Passed 3‐2
In Favor: Dylla, Richardson, Myrick
Opposed: Farrell, Cummings
Myrick observed he can see why the Finger Lakes ReUse project was scored as highly as it was; it is
such a well‐rounded program and it provides job training in such comparatively promising fields in
the Ithaca area.
Farrell indicated perhaps there may be a way to require that the Finger Lakes ReUse Project benefit
a higher percentage of city residents. Bohn responded that the Agency could request or require
that the number of beneficiaries be city residents.
IURA Minutes
April 13, 2012
Page 7 of 9
Cummings moved, originally seconded by Farrell, to NOT fund the Finger Lakes ReUse project.
Failed 1‐4
In Favor: Cummings
Opposed: Dylla, Farrell, Myrick, Richardson
Proulx asked what happens to unallocated HOME funds, to which Bohn replied they will be rolled
over into the next funding round, but need to be committed within 2 years and expended within 5
years. He added there are no remaining HOME funds from last year’s grant cycle.
Farrell moved, seconded by Dylla, to approve the 2012 Action Plan:
2012 Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of funds to meet
community development needs through the HUD Entitlement program from the Community
Development Block Grant program (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnerships program (HOME)
funding sources, and
WHEREAS, the City submits an Action Plan each year to HUD to access the Entitlement Program
funding allocated to the City, and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community development
activities to be funded from the 2012 HUD Entitlement allocation, and
WHEREAS, the allocation level of the 2012 Entitlement Program, is as follows:
$703,124 CDBG
$486,909 HOME
$1,190,033 Total, and
WHEREAS, $142,000 in program income is projected to be received from loan repayments in
program year 2012, which funding is also allocated as part of the 2012 Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, additional funds of $966.30 remain from the 2011 HOME program and will be allocated
to an eligible project via this 2012 Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for development of
the 2012 Action Plan in accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby adopts the attached table titled the ‘IURA Recommended Action
Plan’, dated 4/13/12, and forwards it to the Common Council for review and recommends its
approval for allocating a projected 2012 HUD Entitlement award along with the additional funds
available, as listed above, and be it further,
IURA Minutes
April 13, 2012
Page 8 of 9
RESOLVED, that the Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities funded in the adopted
2012 Action Plan, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that upon authorization from the Common Council, the IURA agrees to administer and
implement the 2012 Action Plan activities in accordance with applicable regulations.
Carried Unanimously 5‐0
Note: IURA Recommended Action Plan, dated 4/13/12, is attached to the minutes.
Cummings inquired into the contractual requirements associated with funding IURA projects. She is
concerned with the extreme position Catholic bishops have recently taken, regarding access to
women’s reproductive health services. It is her understanding that, while HUD regulations protect
the inherent religious identity of grant recipients, grant recipients are not permitted to allow
religious tenets to influence their implementation of a grant contract. Cummings recommended
that the IURA formally request that the City Attorney ensure that no part of the final executed
Promoting Change funding contract would permit the infringement of reproductive freedoms.
Cummings moved, seconded by Dylla, to request that IURA legal counsel make every effort to ensure
no part of the Promoting Change funding contract promotes the infringement of reproductive
freedoms.
Carried Unanimously 5‐0
D. Review of Grant Process
Farrell recommended employing a ‘committee of the whole’, comprising the IURA and its
committees, for the next grant funding cycle. She believes this would be a more transparent and
efficient way of handling the entire process. Bohn responded that this sounds like a reasonable
approach to try, as long as the process is clearly communicated to potential applicants.
(Proulx departed at 4:12 p.m.)
V. Other Business
A. Approval of Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2012
Cummings moved, seconded by Farrell, to approve the March 22, 2012 minutes, with no
modifications.
Carried Unanimously 5‐0
IURA Minutes
April 13, 2012
Page 9 of 9
B. Review of IURA Financials ― March 2012
Bohn announced that all borrowers are current and in good standing. He noted Diane’s Downtown
Auto will be entering into its newly revised loan agreement, this week. Also, Bohn noted, INHS has
now repaid its $500,000 Housing Development Action Grant (HODAG) loan. The IURA has also paid
out the GIAC 3rd year funds to the City of Ithaca.
Bohn announced that the 2010 City financial audit is now complete and has been approved by
Common Council. Regarding the annual audit process as a whole, Bohn noted, he requested that
the Chairperson of the City Administration Committee (CA) retain the audit as a standing meeting
agenda item, to better ensure that progress remains on track to complete the 2011 audit by
September 30, 2012.
C. Other Business
Doug Dylla Resignation from IURA
Dylla announced his resignation from the IURA, given the exigencies of his schedule; he will,
however, remain on the EDC.
Sale of City‐Owned Properties
Cummings inquired into the status of the Cherry Street property, as well as the status of the Occupy
Ithaca movement’s request to temporarily use City‐owned land on Elmira Rd. Myrick replied that
subdivision and sale of a portion of the Cherry Street property is being considered by the Common
Council. The CA Committee recommends transfer of this property to the IURA for the purpose of
issuing an RFP for economic development use of the property. Myrick noted that the Occupy Ithaca
movement’s request was approved by the Public Works Department and is awaiting Board of Public
Works approval. It would not affect the proposed sale of the property at 321 Elmira Rd.
D. Cancellation of Regular April Meeting: Thursday, April 26, 2012
Myrick moved, seconded by Farrell, to cancel the April 26, 2012 IURA meeting. The next meeting
is scheduled for May 24, 2012.
Carried Unanimously 5‐0
X. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 4:30 P.M.
— END —
Minutes prepared by C. Pyott, edited by N. Bohn.