Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURANI-2019-08-09 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-6565 MINUTES ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY (IURA) NEIGHBORHOOD INVESTMENT COMMITTEE (NIC) 8:30 A.M., Friday, August 9, 2019 Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, NY In attendance: Karl Graham, Chair; Fernando de Aragón, Vice Chair; Tracy Farrell, Teresa Halpert; Paulette Manos. Excused: None. Staff: Anisa Mendizabal Guest(s): Jude Keith Rose, Child Development Center; Emme Edmunds, Neighbor to Neighbor. I. Call to Order Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. <Farrell arrived at 8:34 a.m.> II. Changes/Additions to Agenda Chair Graham moved discussion items forward on the agenda to better accommodate the meeting’s presentations. III. Public Comment None. IV. Review of Minutes – July 2019 De Aragón motioned to approve; Farrell seconded. Carried 5-0. V. New Business A. Action Item – Discuss and Recommend -2018 Project #8 –Temporary Ramp Program. Mendizabal stated that FLIC’s most recent Quarterly Report showed slow progress in installing ramps within the City per the FLIC 2018 Contract. She reached out to FLIC’s Executive Director, Jan Lynch, for a preliminary discussion and set a meeting for further strategizing. Staff turnover in the ramp installation role may have had an impact on outreach. Halpert suggested FLIC partner with a contractor who installs/renovates homes to provide first-floor bathrooms, as the residents of such homes may be in need of accessibility improvements. De Aragon wanted to know if FLIC currently partners with INHS. De Aragon also asked if there is a formal housing-type affinity group that could meet monthly for line staff, and if so, whether FLIC could plug in there as a source of information and referrals. Mendizabal responded that the Human Services Coalition hosts regular meetings of the Homeless and Housing Task Force and other Forums, which may be of interest to FLIC. De Aragon acknowledged that may be useful but also wondered about a more general group that discusses a wide(r) range of housing issues (maintenance, repair, accessibility, and myriad issues beyond affordability). Mendizabal knew of a few other groups that touch on housing but not in the expansive way that De Aragon articulated. The Committee recommended increased outreach, keeping a waiting list, and pausing installation of ramps in the County while in the process of identifying the requisite number of City beneficiaries, and partnering with other agencies until the end of the contract period. However, the Committee is not comfortable with a long-term/indefinite pause on ramping in the County, especially since there is a demonstrated need there. Action Item: The Committee instructed Mendizabal to research HUD Guidelines on this matter. Does the Participating Jurisdiction (PJ), which is the City of Ithaca, have any flexibility in this area? It was acknowledged that housing costs within the City tend to push individuals with fixed- or low-to-moderate incomes into the more affordable areas of the County. Response/Finding: Unlike HOME funding, the PJ does not have discretion to allow use of CDBG funds to areas outside of the City. However, only the initial ramp installations must be within City boundaries; the ramps are re-usable and may be placed elsewhere after an initial installation. B. Action Item – Discuss and Recommend -2018 Project #18 – Domestic Violence Shelter Renovation - Prioritize Roof (no resolution) Mendizabal explained that this funded was originally intended as “gap funding” to enable the Advocacy Center to complete the costs of a renovation planned to be completed with Dormitory Authority of the State of NY (DASNY) funding. However, DASNY has been very slow to release funds. Mendizabal reached out to Executive Director Heather Campbell, who is in regular communication with DASNY, but who stated there is still no expected date for release of funds. Campbell stated that roof replacement is now the top priority among the package of repairs and renovations the Advocacy Center anticipates being able to complete, and inquired whether they could utilize the IURA funding immediately for that project. Campbell stated that the Advocacy Center could provide proof of capital sufficient to complete the remainder of the roof project should the cost be in excess of what IURA has awarded. Staff has reviewed this question, and, given that roof replacement was one of many projects named in the original contract, has determined that, should the Committee recommend it, this use of funds would be acceptable. The Committee voiced unanimous support for this use of funds. C. Presentation with Q & A: Childcare Code Compliant Ground Floor Units Chair Graham welcomed Jude Rose from the Child Development Council. Ms. Rose discussed the Child Development Council’s (CDC) goal to expand capacity for provision of childcare in the area. Large childcare centers such as that existing at Cornell are difficult to bring online due to issues of scale, however, CDC has identified opportunities to expand childcare resources via in-home group childcare. There is a bit more economy of scale for these “medium-sized” daycare types. To that end, it would be helpful to have more childcare-ready units in the City. Outside of NYC, State law makes it difficult to license childcare facilities outside on second floors; there must be a stairway directly from the unit to the ground. Such stairways are more likely to exist in houses or duplexes, but often are missing in buildings that have ground floor retail, such as Vecino’s proposed Green Street development. If developers planned for and built in childcare-ready ground floor units, that would be a big win. There are difficulties with doing so. Rose cited an example of a site on the City/Town border, once a commercial building with residential within it. This project encompassed multiple jurisdictions, zoning ordinances, and other conflicts. IN NYS home- based childcare is not considered a business for zoning purposes. Someone must live on-site, but it need not be the childcare operator. Committee members were interested in costs for operators. Rose said that an example of egress window with a staircase that she showed in her presentation cost approximately $1,700. The commercial structure she cited needs $20-30K worth of upgrades to be childcare- ready. The Committee inquired whether CDC has talked about addressing the Tompkins County Landlord Association to see if they are interested in one-on-one (technical assistance) meetings to improve understanding/awareness of the issues around childcare provision. For example, landlords cannot legally prevent someone from operating in-home childcare, but they can discourage it; landlords cannot evict a resident who has in-home childcare, but they have been known to not renew a lease. Halpert pointed out that new NYS tenant protection legislation may now prevent that. Rose stated that in the past, CDC has helped in conversation with hesitant landlords. Two local architects that are aware of and committed to addressing childcare needs are Claudia Brenner and Noah Demarest. Dr. Mildred Warner, Cornell Professor of City and Regional Planning, worked with CDC in 2002 to develop a model that calculates the economic impact of childcare in Tompkins County—the direct, indirect, and induced effects of taking in revenue and making purchases related to childcare. Warner also worked on a universal application for childcare that was meant to be a “one-stop application” to identify all the ways people pay for childcare, much like the federal financial aid application (FAFSA) does. CDC has worked the childcare “benefits cliff” into its calculations and outreach. When people who receive DSS-subsidized childcare earn more in wages, their benefits are decreased, resulting in higher childcare costs that eat up the increased earnings they’ve achieved. Minimum wage increases are impacting benefits-eligibility, and some people have historically denied wage increases or promotions because they would be worse off. For the most part, people who receive childcare subsidies have an income that is below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). If their income goes above 200% of FPL, they no longer receive childcare benefits/subsidy. It doesn’t stagger off, it just disappears, Rose explained. Childcare providers receive a set payment rate from DSS for childcare, no matter how much the provider earns and no matter how many children they care for that are paid for via DSS payments. This rate, called the Regional Market Rate (RMR) is adjusted every few years. [Note: Ms. Rose forwarded current RMR; they are attached in this agenda packet]. The RMR is set at the 75th percentile of the cost of care in the region. Neither the cost providers charge nor the RMR tend to accurately reflect the true cost of care, which is why quality and wages often suffer, according to Rose. Families are paying on average $800-$1,000 per child per month. Infant care can be up to $2,200. CDC works with providers to set and enforce policies and payments. For example, providers often don’t add in costs of operating—such as the cost of their mortgage—they simple charge the DSS rate. Another common issue is that more staff is needed for younger children, and without planning, this is often not sustainable. Rose said she is interested in seeing the old Common Grounds building utilized for childcare. It’s sizeable and on four acres in an Opportunity Zone. CDC is positioned to work with the Southern Tier Regional Economic Development Council (REDC), can work with USDA mortgages, and is talking with developers at Carpenter Park about the possibility of a drop-in or other type of childcare center. The Committee wondered if CDC has reached out to area developers and/or affordable housing sites. Yes, and Lynn Truame at Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services has provided information and been very helpful. The Chair asked if Ms. Rose has met with Vecino. Yes, she has met with Molly Chiang. Mendizabal that since Vecino’s planned Arthaus development has proposed set-asides for formerly homeless youth, it would be interesting to have at least one code-compliant unit for parenting youth. Again, the Green Street Development came up and, if there is no conference center, it would be interesting to consider ground floor childcare. D. Presentation with Q & A: Program Update from Neighbor to Neighbor Chair Graham welcomed Emme Edmunds, newly appointed Co-Director of Neighbor to Neighbor (N2N). Ms. Edmunds spoke about the history of the program, formerly known as Love Knows No Bounds. N2N’s current contract states that the group will provide home rehabilitations for homeowners at or below 60% of AMI. This figure was based on LKNB’s past work and their 2018 application. As Ms. Edmunds explained, some factors limit N2N’s ability to identify suitable candidates for its projects: homeownership is expensive in Ithaca, so difficult for people at 60% AMI and below to own; N2N’s rehabilitation range is $10,000 per project and the rehabilitation needs identified must be completed for that amount (they cannot leave a portion undone, per HUD requirement). The latter is one of the reasons N2N has chosen to focus on roof replacement. Therefore, N2N is requesting that its 2018 contract be modified to include candidates with up to 80% AMI. Edmunds also acknowledged that there had been a lull in outreach due to leadership and other changes. She is jumpstarting those efforts now. She stated she has done qualitative research in the past, which has made her comfortable with talking to people, and also is “very friendly”, so recently walked around neighborhoods and knocked on doors asking residents if they “know [homeowners] who would need a roof.” She tells people about N2N’s mission to help people stay in their homes. This has helped in getting referrals from neighbors to other neighbors in need. N2N is also talking with other agencies, like INHS and GIAC, and has plans to talk to Southside Community Center, St. James AME Zion and other area churches for referrals. N2N’s focus has shifted from their own volunteers doing repairs to a 6-member volunteer board that subcontracts for roof replacement. She noted that in addition to furniture redistribution, the group would also like to take on building ramps and replacing front steps. <De Aragon departed at 9:40 a.m.> <Ms. Rose and Ms. Edmunds departed at 9: 50 a.m.> The Committee further discussed the two presentations. Graham spoke of the need for childcare. Farrell noted that while childcare is expensive, the providers aren’t well-paid. Halpert wondered if in-home daycare could occur in senior housing developments; there could be grandparents and older individuals who would be excellent care providers. She also noted that for presentation to landlords, groups like CDC should consider knowing and encouraging landlords to understand the codes involved. E. Action Item – Contract Amendment-2018 Project #1 – N2N Homeowner Rehab – Resolution. Manos pointed out need for a change in the N2N resolution—reference to LKNB needs to be replaced with N2N. {Note: Mendizabal has made the change in the text below.] Manos motioned to approve, Farrell seconded. Carried 4-0. 2018 Acon Plan Proect 1 Neighbor to Neighbor H omeowner Rehabilitaon: Modify Contract to Extend Qualifying Incomes to 80% AMI WHEREAS, the City-adopted 2018 HUD Entitlement Program Action Plan allocated $40,000 in CDBG funds to Project #1 – Neighbor to Neighbor (N2N) Homeowner Rehabilitation Program sponsored by the agency formerly known as Love Knows No Bounds (LKNB) to accomplish four home rehabilitation jobs on behalf of four homeowners in the City of Ithaca whose incomes are at or below 60% of Area Median Income, and WHEREAS, 24 CFR §570.208 (a) describes CDBG National Objectives requiring people of low-and moderate-incomes be the primary beneficiaries of the CDBG program, and WHEREAS, HUD defines moderate income as up to and including 80% of AMI, and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2019, N2N requested a contract modification to extend the income qualification of N2N beneficiaries from 60% or below of Area Median Income (AMI) to 80% or below of AMI, and WHEREAS, N2N requests such an extension in order to fully serve four income-qualified beneficiaries, and WHEREAS, in compliance with 24 CFR §570.208 (a), N2N shall appropriately ensure that funded activities to not benefit moderate-income persons to the exclusion of low income persons, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) is designated by the City of Ithaca as the Lead Agency to develop, administer and implement the HUD Entitlement grant program, including funds received through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, and WHEREAS, this matter has been reviewed by the Neighborhood Investment Committee of the IURA who recommends the following; now therefore, be it RESOLVED, the IURA approves the contract modification of the 2018 HUD Entitlement Program Action Plan Project #1 Neighbor to Neighbor Homeowner Rehabilitation to include beneficiaries whose incomes are up to and including 80% of AMI, and be it further RESOLVED, that the IURA Chairperson is authorized, subject to review by IURA legal counsel, any documents necessary to implement this resolution. VI. Other Business A. IURA Grant Summary Neighbor to Neighbor (N2N0and the Advocacy Center have been slow to spend down their funds. Staff met with N2N’s new co-director to orient her to key provisions of their contract and IURA procedures. N2N has identified two potential homes for rehab and will reach out to their roofing subcontractor, though it is unclear at this time whether they will be able to complete projects while the weather holds. Staff will reach out to the Advocacy Center now that the Committee has discussed and recommended use of IURA funds for the roofing portion of their rehab. B. Staff Report Mendizabal reviewed Action Items from previous meeting. VII. Motion to Adourn Adjourned by consensus at 10:01 a.m.