Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURANI-2018-03-09 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-6565 MINUTES IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) 8:30 am, Friday, March 9, 2018 Third Floor Conference Room City Hall, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850 Present: Karl Graham, Chair; Tracy Farrell; Vice-Chair; Fernando de Aragón; Teresa Halpert. Staff: Anisa Mendizabal; Nels Bohn Excused: Paulette Manos Guests: Diane Nier I. Call to Order Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 8:36 a.m. II. Changes/Additions to Agenda None. III. Public Comment Chair Graham welcomed Diane Nier, student of anthropology at TC3, as a guest observer. Introductions were made by Committee members and staff. IV. Review of Minutes – February 9, 2018 Farrell moved, Halpert seconded. Approved as written. Carried 4-0. V. New Business Farrell, referring to the “Funding Proposals Received” spreadsheet, asked if returned money changed the 15% admin. No—the cap was already applied. Numbers on chart are “real numbers.” (De Aragón arrived at 8:39) 1. Proposed Resolution – Action Plan 2016 Program Amendment #1 INHS requested a program amendment due to staffing change. Discussion about past performance and future anticipated performance of Mini-Repair Program. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 2 Farrell moved, Halpert seconded. Carried 4-0. 2. Review/Discussion of Proposals for 2018 Action Plan Funding #1 - #14 The Committee agreed to have preliminary discussion on half of the applications received (fourteen of twenty-eight) in order to identify questions and get a sense of the need for and viability of projects. No final decisions were to be made at this meeting. (1) Neighbor to Neighbor Home Rehabilitation Program -- Love Knows No Bounds: Housing Application Graham noted a difference in numbers on households to be served. Which is more accurate: Five or 6-8, as noted elsewhere? Farrell noted the project seems scalable. The Committee wondered if the organization, LKNB, will raise money to support the project. Bohn replied that the organization matches they match with their labor, though their application does not specify that. Mendizabal noted that the Continuum of Care has $50,000 in available funding and has reopened its RFP with a new deadline. LKNB could be eligible for this funding, though they have not applied as yet. Halpert asked where this project fits on the repair spectrum. Bohn explained that this year INHS not applying for rehab funding, which, in the past, has funded complete rehabilitations of 2-3 homes. The repairs LKNB aims to do are smaller than complete rehabs, but larger than the Mini-Repair Program would do. The application uses projects on the order of roof replacement as an example. Bohn also noted they are not eligible for HOME because this project proposes to do partial rehabilitations, therefore, it’s a CDBG project. De Aragón noted that if their goal is 5 houses only, they should be able to find them. Materials and labor is what they spend money for when they do roofs, which, according to Farrell is good to see (rather than staffing) in this ever tightening funding environment. Farrell, Graham and Halpert voiced favorability—the project fills a gap and fits Con Plan. (2) Chartwell House – Tompkins Community Action: Housing Application De Aragón noted the application requests 100% funding; yet, it’s something that is existing; it’s better to rehab and have the facility than not have it, or have to replace it. Farrell asked if some of the work specified could be broken up into phases. Graham replied that was the approach taken last year. De Aragón wondered, if TCAction were to complete this work, will it apply for funding next year? Bohn replied that if they phase the work, yes, they would probably be back. If they got the full amount requested thing, probably not; they 3 would be able to complete it. De Aragón asked, “Is this the full list of needed repairs or is more needed?” Bohn replied that it appeared to be whole list. Chartwell is an older building, constructed without HVAC. This application is a continuation of the work proposed last year. It did not receive full funding last year and TCAction did do the stairwells on its own, but didn’t note that outlay as a match. Graham and Farrell agreed that, as with last year, TCAction should be asked for their priorities. Bohn noted that the project might be HOME-eligible if they did the project, as HOME requires complete rehabilitations, but that would be challenge for the HOME budget. So, it would likely need to be funded through CDBG or CDBG Program Income. De Aragón reiterated this is a community asset of which we have few like it, if any, and it would be good to preserve it. Farrell commented that Chartwell is one of the communty’s few SROs and is in a walkable location, both reasons to ensure its viability. (3) Endeavor House Tenant-Based Rental Assistance—OAR: Housing Application Graham disclosed his employment with AFCU, which holds the mortgage of Endeavor House. Mendizabal disclosed her former employment with OAR. The Committee noted that the proposal seemed to mix several types of application. Committee members wondered if Endeavor House is classified as Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing. Farrell asked if the residents could qualify for Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). Halpert replied that if they all live as one household (sharing kitchen and bathrooms), probably not. Committee members noted the rent seems to going into a general pool, and perhaps the desire is for the rental assistance to go into that pool, perhaps to make the home solvent. HOME regulations would need to be investigated to see if this proposal would qualify. Bohn noted that unlike some other applications, this group counted as leverage their own money and other applied-for funding from the IURA. All agreed this is a population that IURA would like to serve. (4) 402 S. Cayuga – Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS): Housing Application Farrell noted INHS is identifying this project as a way to address the “missing middle” in Ithaca’s housing market: Two homeowner units 80% AMI and two at 100% AMI (which not funding-eligible). De Aragón questioned the alacrity of the schedule, while noting they are very capable. Graham suggested the manufactured component makes construction faster. Graham questioned the soft-cost and equity lines. Halpert noted that INHS owns a design from a previous attempt, which cuts down on cost. Bohn pointed out they also have NYS equity. Bohn added that the proposal meets the CHDO set-aside for HOME funds. Hits the minimum for new construction. De Aragón voiced support. 4 (5) Housing Scholarship Program – The Learning Web: Housing Application Graham noted the Committee’s familiarity with this project; Farrell commented on its scalability. (6) Security Deposits Assistance—Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties: Housing Application Another very familiar program, according to Graham. (7) Scattered Site Phase 2: New Construction – INHS: Housing Application. Bohn reported that the State has visited the County and the City recently and indicated there will be some funding available in high-need Counties such as Tompkins and Saratoga, so there may be some creative funding from the state. Farrell noted LIHTC made the proposal riskier, but State funding might be there. There was discussion of the unnamed location. Halpert said that INHS is working on increasing the supply of rental housing able to be accessed by those with Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). Bohn reported staff having heard of people not being able to find a unit and having to return the voucher, or having to live elsewhere. Halpert responded, “So building buildings that are HCV-eligible is useful?” Bohn: Very much. Also, LIHTC projects are required to accept HSV. Bohn pointed out there is also a longer timeline due to HOME. De Aragón noted that the uses are for professional services; such uses would not trigger Davis-Bacon. Bohn told the group that the set-aside is for homeless individuals. De Aragón wondered what would happen if received an award from IURA but did not get the other funding. Bohn stated that IURA funding is only released contingent on securing of other sources. We would know by this time next year. Their timeline suggests regular April timeframe for other pieces to be in place (they always try to apply for early round of LIHTC, because if not funded, it gets pushed into later rounds). If only Elm Street, they don’t have a financial model for that. The Committee wanted to know if the new site is exclusively for homeless individuals. Bohn responded that it’s a mix of units, but the homeless set-aside is there. Why no set-aside at Elm Street?, the Committee wanted to know. Renters there would likely like to return (it’s full). 5 The group indicated strong interest. Graham pointed out the project could represent a big change at Elm Street; the number of units would not change but the look is more like townhomes. A neighbor of the project has already come to Planning Board. (8) Security Deposit Assistance — Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties: Housing Application Staff reported PY2017 security deposits have been drawing down quickly, in part due to the Housing for School Success set-aside, which pays the full security deposit. (9) Ramp Loan Program— Finger Lakes Independence Center: Housing Application Again, the Committee voiced familiarity with the project. It is an expensive program, but for reasons that make sense: the number of steps dictates the length of the needed ramp and Ithaca’s housing stock tends to have front steps. Farrell noted the project is totally scalable. Bohn commented the ramps can be of particular service to renters—there is no cost to the landlord. Farrell commented that the ramps sometimes substantially lengthen the time that someone can remain in their housing. (10) Mini-Repair Program -- INHS: Housing Application The Committee reacted positively to INHS’ provision of match funding. The funding is for salary. They are asking for the same [approximately] the same amount as last year [$35, 000 last year; 32, 500 this year]. The number of beneficiaries would be fewer: 40 vs. PY2017’s 50. (11) Hospitality Employment Training Program (HETP)– Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC): Economic Development Application Graham disclosed that his employer, AFCU, is a paid vendor for financial assistance. Farrell noted scalability depends on staffing levels. Farrell liked the inclusion of outcomes. Halpert liked the numerous partners. The prevention of homelessness piece was discussed: GIAC provides referrals for those in need. Employment clearly needed for self-sufficiency. Another applicant doing the same thing might say “no” to this question. De Aragón commented on HETP’s longevity being about 4-5 years, “It seems to be stabilizing and getting good results.” The program is costly. Farrell remarked that lots of new hotels are opening and wondered when employers would begin to put some money toward this program. De Aragón commented it would be a conceptual leap to do that. Other avenues to supporting the program could include Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA) promotion of it and advocating for hotels and the Chamber to allocate some money toward. 6 Halpert noted that even a small match from the hotel occupancy tax would be helpful: “It makes perfect sense money go into to job training in the hospitality industry.” Such funding currently goes to advertising and beautification. De Aragón pointed out tax allocations require a process, which is not fast. Staff will discuss these ideas to HETP in the future and also talk to Tom Knipe, the incoming Deputy Director of Economic Development. The Committee questioned whether the Park Foundation was supporting HETP, or if it another other funding at all. (12) Finger Lakes ReUse Center Expansion: Economic Development Application Graham expressed some surprise, stating he thought they owned the site. Bohn stated, there’s a balloon mortgage payment. It’s a creative definition of “acquisition, but it seems to fit. The IURA’s $100,000 would pay off a portion of the mortgage; the development would lead to enough other funding to pay it off. Bohn reported that FL ReUse will not be applying for matches until Fall, so not spending down. Bohn suggested a UDAG-style funding plan could be structured. The Committee wondered how critical this funding would be to the applicant. Farrell wondered why the applicant did not wait until next year to which Bohn, replied that the because applications for funding they need are due this Fall and need they need to show commitment. (13) ReUse Volunteer Worker & Job Skills Training: Economic Development Application Farrell commented positively on the succession plan and number of job placements. Questions arose about why the funding was for a Challenge employee. De Aragón commented that the application involved many components and therefore seemed to lack focus. The Committee expressed interested in hearing from FL ReUse with regard to the number of placements and use of the Challenge employee. Is the volume of donations such that the workers could be supported now? Are the paid apprentices being counted in the 28 job placements? Are WEP/ “Community Work Experience Program” members going to be placed? How many of these placements are Challenge consumers? Is Challenge Industries intended to be the main placement site? Why isn’t Challenge matching with funding and why is their employee to be based at FL ReUse? (14) Reentry Hub: GroundWorks – OAR: Economic Development Application De Aragón asked if there was a business plan with the project. Bohn: We don’t ask for one. The Committee discussed adding such a question. Graham reacted positively to the cooperative business model, especially for this population, and also noted that other 7 elements of the application seem duplicative—there are many organizations in town that do some of this. Bohn stated that to be eligible for microenterprise, the microenterprise ultimately must owned by an LMI person(s). The cooperative business plan isn’t clear. Questions were raised about whether OAR qualifies as a Community-Based Development Organization. They are not eligible to do training piece under the Economic Development category without being CDBO. Halper noted the applicant might need time to work for the process of becoming one. Farrell wanted more detail in the form of a business plan, saying they could get help with that from AFCU or other places. Farrell wondered about the possibility of doing a planning grant. Bohn instructed Mendizabal to check CDBG Regulations regarding purchase of equipment. It’s possible that the use is ineligible. The Committee applauded the applicant for working on creative solutions, while acknowledging the CDBG regulatory issues that may apply due to how the proposal is configured. (15) Work Preserve Job Training/Job Placements—Historic Ithaca: Economic Development Application Graham noted the program’s familiarity to the Committee. Bohn reported there is a new Executive Director with experience, so the staff is back to full force. Farrell stated the applicant needs to bring in some other funding. A general discussion by the Committee ensued regarding long-term grantees and the desire to see them pursue other types of funding. The Committee will consider various ways of addressing this, including: asking grantees to come to a meeting to discuss this expectation, asking Staff to address it with grantees, outlining a policy for the next RFP, and so on. VI. Other Business 1. IURA Grant Summary (Not discussed) 2. Staff Report (Not discussed) 3. Next meeting date: March 16, 2018 (next week) to review Proposals #15 - #28 VII. Motion to Adjourn -- Adjourned by consensus at approximately 11:50 a.m.