Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURANI-2018-03-16 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-6565 MINUTES IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) 8:30 am, Friday, March 16, 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 8:30 a.m. II. Changes/Additions to Agenda None. III. Public Comment None. IV. Review of Minutes None. Minutes from both March 2018 meetings will be reviewed in April. V. 2017 HUD Entitlement Grant Program 1. Discussion of CBDO Applications Mendizabal updated the Committee on the status of Community – Based Development Organization (CBDO) Applications. Historic Ithaca’s application has been reviewed and is in order. Finger Lakes ReUse submitted their application on time, but some clarifications are needed. Mendizabal has been in communication with Leslyn McBean-Clairborne, GIAC’s Executive Director. Pending action of the GIAC Board at its scheduled meeting last night, GIAC expects to be able to submit its CBDO application today. Applications for both organizations should be ready for April’s meeting. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 2 2. Action Item: Resolution to Designate Historic Ithaca a CBDO Proposed Resolution IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee March 16, 2018 2018 IURA Designation of Historic Ithaca, Inc. as a Community-Based Development Organization WHEREAS, the Board of Historic Ithaca Inc., (Historic Ithaca) seeks designation by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as a Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO), and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has designated the IURA to administer the City’s HUD Entitlement Program that oversees Community Development Block Grant funds awarded to the City, and WHEREAS, an eligible category of CDBG activities is a “Special Activity by CBDO”, that offers certain advantages, such as exemption from the 15% expenditure cap otherwise applicable to public service activities, authorization to carry out new housing construction (normally prohibited with CDBG funds), and discretion to allow income generated by a CDBG-funded activity to not be considered CDBG program income, and WHEREAS, the following four tests established at CFR Title 24 §570.204 must be met to qualify under a category of “Special Activity by CBDOs”: 1. The entity qualifies as a CBDO, including the 51% board membership test; 2. The CBDO will undertake an eligible project; 3. That the CBDO will carry out the funded activity directly or with an entity other than the grantee; 4. That the CBDO will not carry out a prohibited activity, and WHEREAS, a CBDO must maintain at least 51% of its governing body’s membership to be made up of any combination of the following: • Low- and moderate income residents of its area of operation • Owners or senior officers of private establishments and other institutions located in its area of operation • Representatives of low- and moderate-income neighborhood organizations located in its area of operation, and WHEREAS, a CBDO must have as its primary purpose the improvement of the physical, economic, or social environment of its geographic area of operation, with a particular emphasis on the needs of low- and moderate-income persons, and 3 WHEREAS, the project undertaken by the CBDO must qualify as one or more of the following project types: • neighborhood revitalization; • community economic development; • energy conservation project; and WHEREAS, at their March 16, 2018, meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee evaluated Historic Ithaca, Inc. CBDO application and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA determines that Historic Ithaca, Inc. meets the requirements for eligibility as a CBDO, and that the Work Preserve Job Training: Job Placements project qualifies as an eligible CBDO activity, and be it further RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby designates Historic Ithaca, Inc. as a Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO) and their Work Preserve Job Training: Job Placements project as eligible for CDBG funding under the category of “Special Activities by CBDOs”. Farrell moved, Halpert seconded. Carried 4-0. 3. Review/Discussion of Proposals for 2018 Action Plan Funding #15- #28 The Committee resumed discussion of proposals submitted for funding under the 2018 HUD Entitlement Program Action Plan. (15) Food Entrepreneurship Program 2.0—Cornell Cooperative Extension: Economic Development Application Graham disclosed AFCU does business consulting with individual members of the program, but receives no compensation for it. Graham stated the program that prepares LMI people for careers and businesses, and the program has had some successes—caterers are getting jobs through departments at Cornell. Farrell and Halpert wondered about the number of beneficiaries expected; the application refers to only 1-2 new people, does that mean that everyone from the previous year (and pilot year) would be continuing on as beneficiaries? The application does not provide clarity on this matter. De Aragón said he interpreted the proposal as opening a business—meal kits-- so they will be hiring new people. Graham noted the structure of this program is not like HETP, a thirteen week class, but rather, more like supporting those they’ve worked with (microenterprises) to ensure progress. 4 Farrell said she assumes the people they’ve worked with don’t need the intensive training, but rather support. Bohn recapped his understanding of the application: They want to bring Phase I2 assistance to existing microenterprises (continued technical assistance) while training some new people. Both supporting existing microenterprises and starting new ones are eligible activities. The meal kit approach is a bit difficult—it should not be CCE owning the business—needs to be transferred over to another owner, microenterprise or LMI person. In his opinion, it’s high risk, starting a new business. (16) Targeted Urban Bus Stop Upgrades—TCAT: Public Facilities Application De Aragón disclosed a potential conflict of interest; he is an Ithaca Carshare Board member and his employer, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Counci,l also works regularly with TCAT. Farrell would like to see bus stop at State/MLK/Meadow. High need stop, it has no covering. Farrell stated she is not as familiar with the other stop. Graham was struck by the $70,000 for sidewalk work in conjunction with the actual project; which seemed like a lot. Farrell asked if the bus stop happen first and sidewalk later and also wondered if there a shelter on Elm now? Bohn responded not on the uphill side, no. Farrell and others asked what the ADA issues are and how is the current bus stop non-compliant? This site was discussed in last year’s application, which was funded, then later revised due to logistical problems created by delayed construction timeline. Another bus stop on Chestnut was chosen as a replacement. Mendizabal will review files for photographs of last year’s originally proposed site on Elm and the change that occurred per slowed construction process; will reach out to TCAT as needed. The Committee was interested in hearing a break-out of costs between the two stops. If can only be one, State/Meadow is a highly utilized stop. Or, Farrell suggested, because it is conjunction with the other infrastructure work, maybe it’s wise to do Elm Street now, rather than retrofit. (17) Final Phase Compliance for Heating and Roofing—Downtown Ithaca Children’s Center (DICC): Public Facilities Application Bohn reported that DICC has another request in to the Mayor. Halpert wondered, how can they be healthier year to year? De Aragón stated that regular building maintenance is a need. Farrell: Other organizations in town do try to save for these needs, however, in reality, it’s hard to make happen. Halpert replied that IURA should be the place of last resort. None of these nonprofits is getting rich; they are going to have needs. So, it is a good use of our tax funds. 5 Farrell commented that the application states DICC has full enrollment and wait list, which is a positive change from previous years. Graham sees the organization as a community asset and Farrell agreed—day care is important and expensive. De Aragón wondered if this funding would complete DICC’s repair process, to which Bohn responded in the affirmative. The Committee mentioned that if there is painting to do, it could be a community work day. Graham noted good general support from the Committee. (18) Domestic Violence Shelter Renovation—Advocacy Center: Public Facilities Application Farrell stated the organization was awarded a grant (which has been slow to come. Mendizabal noted that the request is for funding only to fill the gap that was created by rising construction costs during the time period that the DASNY funding has not been released. Farrell wanted assurance that should IURA decide in favor of this project, it should make sure the organization has the DASNY funding before releasing IURA funding. Bohn affirmed that is the protocol. Because of the scale of the house, Staff believes it doesn’t trigger Davis-Bacon. The application’s excellent leverage means a small amount of IURA money will lead to a final product. (19) S. Aurora Street Sidewalk Corridor Completion—City of Ithaca: Public Facilities Application De Aragón disclosed a potential conflict of interest due to transportation and sidewalks, which overlaps with his work at Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Coalition. Committee members concurred the project is expensive, and also noted that to anyone who has ever walked there, the need for sidewalks is obvious. The Committee wondered if this project could be paid for through sidewalk assessment, to which Bohn replied only $31,000 per year can be used for that district. Scalability questions arose. Now that we have the sidewalk fund, are there no other sources of funding? For example, can the City obtain a DOT grant similar to County what the County has? Bohn replied: City prioritized Route 79 because that is even more expensive. Question about the school district’s ability to contribute funding due to the adjacency of the project to South Hill Elementary. Farrell reiterated: The question is scalability. It’s an important project. We’ve given big money in the past, but this is hard because we have many other requests. Bohn pointed out this has the advantage of being construction diagram-ready 6 Farrell and Halpert wanted to know if other area institutions, such as Ithaca College, will commit money to the project? De Aragón stated the budget was problematic. Economies of scale come from have the equipment and people there all at one time. Here, there is no logical intermediate connection. Bohn explained the new development, Chainworks, is coming online. The Town will do the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Referring to the diagram, he indicated IURA could fund some sections, but these will not get a pedestrian to a signalized intersection. Graham stated the signalized intersection will be coming with Chainworks. De Aragon: The applicant could do pedestrian-activated crosswalk. De Aragón also noted there are other funding streams. They could make an argument that they would link South Hill Elementary School, the mulit-iuse trail, college connection. Farrell and De Aragón concurred that the budget was much larger than IURA normally would handle. (20) Immigrant Services Program – Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties: Public Services Application Discussion first centered around the applicant ‘s budget pages, which caused confusion among the readers. The application referred to an uptick in needs, and the Committee wondered about this, given current federal policies impacting immigrants and refugees. Are more people coming? Or, is it that more people are coming and the applicant can’t be reimbursed for service costs from the federal government? Graham said he reads it as more people are worried, so coming to the program for consultation. Committee members made note that, once again, IURA is being asked to cover staffing. De Aragón said it would be good to have a check list—how many years IURA has been funding organizations and also which have received funding to support staff. We support many important projects, year after year. We’ve talked about tough love for staffing and continuous support. Maybe a future polite meeting is in order. (21) Supportive Transitional Housing Initiatives-- Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties: Public Services Application. It was noted that this is another application for a program offering life skills and/or intensive case management. So, there seems to be a need to offer life skills, etc., but so many organizations do it. Is there a different way to do this? In housing-related case management, as well, there seemed to be duplication. 7 Halpert felt that with decentralization (i.e. many organizations), you have an opportunity to reach more people. The Committee indicated strong interest in seeing reduction of fragmentation and seeing more partnership. Mendizabal spoke of a community housing identifier role that was ultimately not funded, perhaps for unrelated reasons (not enough housing to identify). Farrell felt that Bridging the Gap sounded very much like the Learning Web—participants are offered intensive case management. Funding is 100% staff, and she expressed mixed feelings about it. Halpert: Place to Stay and Bridging the Gap are co-mingled. Sounds like the are expanding Place to Stay staff role to Bridging the Gap. De Aragón reminded the group there’s a Public Service there’s a $95,100 maximum for funding Public Services due to the CDBG cap. Graham: Sounds like desire to support, but how? This is a vulnerable population. (22) Work Preserve Job Readiness: Job Placements -- Historic Ithaca: Public Services Application Farrell made not of the leverage indicated-- half of the funding is from IURA. Like the program a lot, we have supported it a long time. It’s staff funding we are providing. Therefore, not scalable. Farrell said, “A really tough question that comes into my mind is, does this work with tough population – does that have effect, for those who aren’t placed? “ (23) 2-1-1 Information and Referral Service—Human Services Coalition: Public Services Application Graham disclosed a potential conflict of interest: His employer, AFCU, is a client and provide s $12,000 in budget. De Aragón disclosed a potential conflict: 2-1-1 gets some of its funding through Federal Transportation Authority, as does his employer, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Coalition. Graham: This service helps make the connections we’ve talked about, coordination of Coordinated Assessment Team (CAT). De Aragón: It’s foundational. They bring a lot of value by leveraging volunteers. Mendizabal stated it would be interesting to see what other coordination they could do; they are well-positioned to do it. Halpert: Seeing big leverage is good. Fundamental service and they do a good job. (24) Pathway of Hope – Salvation Army: Public Services Application 8 The Committee discussed that the program would be starting in Ithaca from scratch, and the funding is for salary to provide intensive case management, though, as discussed previously in the meeting, many area organizations provide seemingly similar services. The large amount for travel expenses was discussed, and all agreed it would be good to know what the outcomes are at those places. This is a National program, but no funding from their National offices. There are resumes from staff people not based in Ithaca-- perhaps that why the travel—national people coming back and forth. (25) Leadership Employment and Development Skills (LEADS)—Women’s Opportunity Center: Public Services Application Total project cost is $105, 00 but half the cost for full-time facilitator appears to be substantially below living wage. De Aragón: The organization has been focusing on its store and childcare. Good that they see they are attempting to go beyond own model. Committee members would have liked to see letters of support to show the partnerships they describe. The goals are very worthy and the organization that has been doing good work. An option for scaling could be provision of stipends. (26) Housing for School Success – Ithaca City School District (ICSD): Public Services Application Graham discussed that his employer, AFCU provides financial counseling to HSS participants (parents). Committee members wanted to know where the program was in discussions with School District for funding. They could see funding with strong message to meet obligation. The Committee liked the seeing the preliminary outcome data, and underlined the need for feedback and data on whether it is working. With this information, the District might see it as economical to support. The Committee also wanted to see data comparing HSS outcomes to the general school population (children in like economic circumstances were the comparison group). (27) Youth Organizing Fellowship—Multicultural Resource Center: Public Services Application 9 The proposal is for support of salary (seemingly pieces of all staff salaries) and stipends. The population services is 200 people is for the conference (audience) and 8-12 youth organizers. The Committee wanted to know how were stipends paid last year. Mendizabal noted that an analysis of 990s shows this organization, along with Finger Lakes ReUse, has some financial challenges. De Aragón liked the idea of funding the stipends only. (28) Housing Case Manager—OAR: Public Services Application Graham disclosed that AFCU holds the mortgage of Endeavor House. Mendizabal disclosed that she was once an employee of OAR. Halpert noted that the applicant proposes to pay the case manager a living wage, which she supports. Tough population and a new program for the applicant (supportive housing). Graham: They saw a need and they filled it; they worked around with provisional plan. Farrell said she would like the County to step up with funding. Graham replied that the County has greatly increased funding through Alternatives for Incarceration. Halpert: I like it. De Aragón: It’s half the total amount available for Public Services. Will this person be working with only residents (4-10)? Or everyone? A member noted that Learning Web presentation years ago explained why the organization chose not to house participants together. OAR must have a reason they have chosen this co- living model. Is it scalable? If you look about the amount of money available in this category as salaries, you can see we could only fund 2, maybe 3 people. VI. Other Business 1. IURA Grant Summary (Not discussed) 2. Staff Report (Not discussed) 10 VII. Motion to Adjourn -- Adjourned by consensus at approximately 12:10 p.m.