Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURAED-2024-02-13 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-6565 MEETING MINUTES ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY Economic Development Committee (EDC) 3:30 P.M., Tuesday, February 13, 2024 Common Council Chambers, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850 Present: Leslie Ackerman, Vice-Chair; Donna Fleming; Chuck Schwerin; Derek Adams Excused: Chris Proulx, Chair Vacancies: 1 Staff: Nels Bohn; Charles Pyott (virtual) Guests: Tom Knipe, City Deputy Director for Economic Development I. Call to Order Vice-Chair Ackerman called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M. II. Agenda Additions/Deletions None. III. Public Comments (3-minute max. per person) Knipe remarked that there has been a fairly recent increase in inquiries and demand for the Economic Development loan program and he anticipates that is likely to increase in the next year. The City, through The American Rescue Plan Act, funds a retail study and strategy. They've hired Michael J. Berne to work with them to address issues, identify opportunities, and provide them strategic data-based guidance and industry knowledge-based guidance on how they can ensure that they have a vibrant retail sector downtown through attraction strategy, as well as some more infrastructure types of investments that they may be able to make. He expressed excitement about that and thinks that with the vacancies that they do have and the continued strong interest in Ithaca, and this retail study and strategy, they're going to need those funds to support new business, relocations, and expansions in downtown, which that fund has been very helpful supporting in the past. He thanked us for having that on our list for consideration and provided that information in case it is helpful to us for our deliberations. He thanked the committee for our work and deliberations and offered to answer any questions about the Economic Development activities. He indicated that, at times, he has come to this committee and provided updates on what they're working on and sometimes there are very strong connections he has made between this Committee and the City's Office of Economic Development which he staffs. Adams asked when the retail study would be completed. Knipe responded that he would expect that it will be substantially complete by sometime mid-second quarter, April-May. They are actively engaged in research as well as focus groups and outreach to form a strategy, so it is probably just two or three months out. Approved/Adopted: 4/9/24 EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 2 of 15 IV. Review of Meeting Minutes (January 2024 minutes not yet available) V. 2024 HUD Entitlement Grant: Review of ED Funding Applications Discussion A. Review of Anticipated Funding Available & Full List of Applications Received Bohn explained the two funding sources: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). The HOME program is a housing-only program, and CDBG is able to do much of the housing as well but also economic development, public services, and public facilities. The couple of categories of housing that CDBG is not eligible for is new construction, unless you're a designated Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO), and it also can't provide rental subsidies to the tenant. But it is very good for rehab and for construction, renovation, and repair programs and, in some cases, for new construction when it's a CHDO. The two funding sources are summarized in two columns of what we think the funding is going to be this year, but the Federal budget has not been adopted yet and we don't know how much funding is going to be. This is basically last year's allocation with a slight decrease because, even when the funding is level across the nation, there are always new communities coming into the program which takes a little away from the existing communities usually. One of the notable sources here is that our CDBG award is really about $650,000, but we have various other income flowing in -- like any grant that was completed that we drew back funds on we rolled back forward, if someone makes some sort of unanticipated loan repayment, we'll put that into a pot. The program income that is most consistent is the loan repayments from the ED loan fund, so that's $160,000 we project over the next program year. That's put into that column. It's not set aside as safe money for the revolving loan fund as Tom was referencing. We have to make a decision of how much of that fund should go into the ED loan fund above or below that number of $160,000, so that funding is in there. Meanwhile, the Neighborhood and Investment Committee is also meeting on these applications. They've focused on the public service housing and public facilities, but they do look at the Economic Development activities because they need to understand the full context and how much money is available for every category for the applications. The question is always how much money we have available in the ED category and it's not a fixed number. Last year it was $375,000 allocated for Economic Development activities. So that's a bit of a marker to say last year that's how much was available. However, last year there were no public facilities funded, so there were no projects funded in that category. That would suggest that maybe $375,000 is a little too high this year if there is going to be a project funded in public facilities. Generally, the purpose of this meeting is to discuss and understand these projects a little better. There is going to be a public hearing coming up on the projects where we ask the applicants to come forward, give a little bit of a presentation, and provide an opportunity for questions from the members. Committee members are not required to attend but are welcome to attend and ask questions. The schedule for Economic Development projects is Friday, February 23rd at 8:40 a.m. Ultimately, this Committee is being asked to make a recommendation on which projects should be funded and then the IURA would consider that. Sometimes the Neighborhood Investment has an exactly similar idea as the ED Committee and sometimes there is a little variation, and a decision has to be made at the meeting. Some are clearly an Economic Development project. These have a number of human service/social aspects to them as well, and that's why the Neighborhood Investment Committee looks at them. Some of them have companion public service funding with them, so it's hard to separate them out sometimes. And the reason why we EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 3 of 15 separate them out is because Economic Development projects have to meet a couple of requirements to be eligible. It is mainly producing jobs, either creating new jobs or placing someone who is unemployed in a job, are the two main categories. The third one is to assist a micro-enterprise business that's owned by a low- or moderate-income person. This year, we don't have any projects that fit into that micro-enterprise program. Schwerin asked is it up or down from us or also a recommendation on level. Bohn responded that looking at reducing funding is almost always a part of the question. And usually, a question asked of the applicants -- what would happen if you received X percentage of your request, how would that impact the program, how would that impact the number of beneficiaries -- that's a very common question that's asked. Generally, the staff encourages the IURA to try to fund all 22 projects by whittling them down by percentages because we've found that once you go down a certain level you're not really receiving the same level of benefit, and each contract is a lot of work to go through, and if there are new projects they take extra staff time. It's a challenge to get 22 contracts going on a regular basis and move them through. This meeting is used as preparatory, and then we come back next month and maybe make recommendations. Or you can look at these and say I know exactly which ones are the strongest ones; those are the ones we should support. In the past, we tried to use different techniques like prioritizing, what are the most important ones, or try to say if one couldn't get funded, which one would we choose. The other different technique we're trying to figure out is how to whittle it down. We've got funding requests in the ED category of $423,000. It is very unlikely that there will be room for a full $423,000 in the budget because we'll see housing and public facilities probably coming in in requests; think there's at least going to be a $50,000 reduction, if not $100,000, as a starting point. Adams asked if 22 is generally the number of applications received in a year and is five the number of Economic Development projects that fall within that category. Bohn responded usually between 22 and 25 applications are received and Economic Development tends to be about five projects. Total funding requests are close to $2M and there is $1.2 million available, so it's going to have to be $600,000- $700,000. This is a common kind of framework. Ackerman added that public services, which is the most competitive in terms of number of proposed applications, also has a cap, so it becomes doubly competitive. There are more applicants and there's less money. Thankfully, from our perspective, we have only a handful and so we're usually less ruthless because we have fewer to weed out. We are also very familiar with most of the projects because they’ve been repeated. We have looked at, typically, is what has been the past performance. What did the return applicants say in the last year or two that they would produce and how much of that have they produced in terms of permanent placements? Bohn referenced the job placement summary included in the packet, which HUD uses for evaluation, as well as the year-by-year analysis listing a number of factors and metrics. Not all programs are created equal and not all programs have a choice of who they are enrolling in the program, so they are working with different frameworks. Also, generally speaking, the pandemic era was not a good time for these programs because they relied on one-on-one or group person-to-person training, and it was not a strong time for hiring either. Now, we are in a good time for job opportunities, and we should have high expectations for job placement with a pretty robust economy and a lot of help- wanted ads out there. The detailed report provided includes job readiness and placement programs since 2013. EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 4 of 15 Ackerman asked if before the next meeting we would have the recommendations from the Neighborhood Investment Committee. Bohn replied that the NIC meets twice a month to try to get their draft recommendation together. He believes we will have guidance from them but we may need to schedule a meeting that might time better with their meeting so we can hear what they have. Adams noted that the NIC meeting schedule for March works well. Ackerman recommended reviewing the applications and discussing to see what kinds of additional information may be needed either from the public hearing or Bohn following up with the applicants individually. She suggested the Black Hands application might be the most complicated to discuss. They are new. They did apply last year and were not funded. The others are repeats, so they should be quick and easy to discuss, and then come back to Black Hands. Fleming noted the cost per job placement is of the IURA funding they get. She asked about the overall efficiency of the organization. IURA might be providing a greater or less proportion of the total funding for the organization, so the cost per placement might not be representative. Bohn responded that the metric is based purely on what is the IURA funding or CDBG. In some cases, we see revenue from another source for stipends and others don't so he is not sure how that would impact outcomes. We do have match funding, we have a total project cost from each one of these, and we could take a look at what they are committing to this job creation relative to the overall project cost. Fleming stated she would find that interesting because that would give us an idea of which organization is most efficient overall. She asked if these are for permanent, full-time jobs. Bohn responded that, yes, they are intended as unsubsidized permanent jobs, which are full-time. Schwerin asked if the suggestion of $160,000 to recapitalize the loan fund should be thought of as a competitive project alongside the current applications. Discussion was had about the possibility of future applications and funding of the loan fund, which has not been fully funded in the past. Bohn explained the amount varies and is currently at about $70,000 available, and there is an inflow of about $13,000 per month from incoming loan payments. B. Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest No discussion. C. Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. – Expanded ReUse Training Opportunities Ackerman commented that the applicant has been operating for some time and is a regular applicant. With a few exceptions, they've generally met their placement goals, but they did have a year when they did not use the money. Bohn, referencing pages 20 and 21 of the summary, noted the applicant did not meet its goals by a large margin. He pointed out they were accessing 2020 funds in 2021 and 2022, so that was in the middle of the pandemic. And then they faced challenges with staffing and their organization, and they asked that a grant for job placement be converted to a working capital loan essentially to keep their workforce fully employed since they were facing a loss of employees and shrinkage as a result. That is why they show up as $0 in EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 5 of 15 2021, because they were not doing job placement. They are on the rebound and their program is very focused on using CDBG funds for paying stipends for people participating in their profile as well as some staff costs which is different from other programs. They do a paid stipend program for 500 hours or so, up to six months, and that is the main use of the CDBG funds. He questions their calculations. Ackerman questioned their individual retention rate. Bohn responded they had some good years but have not been stellar for a while. They are talking a large step up in the program to serve 20 and place them. That is a big increase. Last year they were at a goal of eight and met it with nine. Schwerin asked if that is a function of trying to expand another site or existing. Bohn responded they have had a history of hiring some of their participants internally. They've grown their workforce to over 35 employees; it's 45 now. Going forward, there are going to be a few that might be able to be hired full-time by Finger Lakes, but the majority should be hired out into the community and other work locations and different employers. That is their goal with that program. They were pretty productive with nine placements and only $61,000. This year they're asking for a pretty significant increase. Ackerman asked for any questions or comments on the program, or questions for the hearing. Schwerin noted the request is significant. Fleming noted they placed 13 but usually less than nine. Ackerman asked if the applicant addressed in the narrative why they think they can bump things up so much. We should follow up on that in the hearing. Bohn commented he thinks the logic somewhat on this application is there a scalability they want to hire an additional staff person and how many additional people do you need in the program to justify either part-time or full-time staff person be added to the program. Schwerin noted if they did place 20 that would be at an even lower per job cost. Ackerman noted this supervisor is a new position. Bohn commented when asked they indicated it's a very scalable program generally because the funds just would reduce the number of stipends they could pay at the number of participants, although that staff position becomes kind of the lumpy cost: $24,000 for CDBG and $24,000 for internal funds for that position. Ackerman wondered about the scalability in this particular case. She guessed they would still want to hire that additional staff person and then have fewer stipends after that, but it is not clear. Adams, referencing page 34 of the PDF in the packet, noted 100% of the Workforce Coordinator's time and the Supervisor's time, and also talks about stipends at 525 hours each and 18% fringe and benefit costs. Bohn noted it works out to 22 participants if they all get 525 hours, so he questions the calculations. Of 30 people, do they expect some of them to drop out? Bohn referenced the project budget table. Schwerin noted 30 is a 50% increase over the most they ever got and asked if that is because of demand coming out of COVID, and what's different about their marketing campaign that will attract 30 people. Bohn EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 6 of 15 responded that their argument is that they are one of the few programs to offer a stipend. Schwerin commented that is not new. Bohn responded that they have always had a limited number, so there is a little bit of analysis of whether they will be a good fit for the program going on. D. GIAC, Inc. – Hospitality Employment Training Program Ackerman noted this is another long-standing program. Bohn explained that they have been going through some staffing changes. Currently, they have a coordinator but not a director of the program. They are trying to bring back the capacity of that program in many respects. They've also asked for a much lower amount of funding than they've asked for in prior years, which is partly a result of their success, receiving some increased funding for the City to support the program, as well as the Tompkins County STPV (Strategic Tourism Planning Board). They've got some other funding sources which have allowed them to reduce their request to the IURA, which historically we have asked people to do, to try to make the program as financially self-supporting as possible without depending on IURA funding and CDBG funding. That's a major plus with this application. They struggled the last year or two with placements as well. They don't have the strongest track record for successfully placing. Their program is not a paid stipend program but more of a classroom kind of training program with a lot of one one-on-one support and soft skills and getting people ready for employment, not so much giving them credentials or work experience. They run in two cycles a year, about 15 people in each cycle. They are focusing on trying to give them enough skills and getting them to a level where they can be a very viable applicant for hospitality job or administrative job. And sometimes our funds are going for things like getting them new shoes or getting a driver's license for somebody. It's about soft skill kind of development in some respects, building their resume, building their confidence, you know, supporting them. Many of them are coming from an unemployed, first job ever kind of background. Adams noted that on the summary sheets we have the figures laid out and GIAC is the only one that doesn't have a 2022 reporting for placements. Is there a reason why? Bohn explained because these programs go on and never stop, sometimes, especially when they have some staff vacancies, they don't draw down all the funds. They keep working on their old grant and just executed a grant from 2022 in December, so they don't have any experience with that. We're trying to move to a new model where we close it out at the end of 12 months or 15 months and start over again so we can better track that. That's the reason why -- they had a good year in 2019 where they placed 16 people, but when we look back at it, that program went on for 18 months. But they weren't drawing on the funds. That has been historically a challenge with GIAC because they don't draw down their funds quickly in part because their payroll is really funded first by the City and then they then prove to us that they have that employee has been paid by the city and then we reimburse them for that expense and then they reimburse the city back. It tends to take extra months to go through that process. Because they are working in GIAC, they have this extra luxury of being able to be prompt with their payroll for their employees because the City will fund that money to them. Adams said then because it extends beyond the 12-month funding cycle they're not being double counted in years. Bohn responded that they're not being double counted but they can stretch into one year longer. Adams commented that this is two years. Bohn replied that we closed it finally but, typically, we're signing contracts with grantees kind of in October, November. We give access to the money in September. We try to go through the contracts first that have the most urgency for continuing their programs. GIAC is never in that case, so they're always near the end of our cycle. EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 7 of 15 Schwerin commented that he understands the reimbursement lag, but the job placements, presumably, should correspond to the actual year. People who are trained in 2022, regardless of whether when their funding came through. Bohn responded that it's tied to the IURA funding amount for that program year. Ackerman commented that the program year and the calendar year may not be the same. Bohn stated that, overall, they have been among our top producers for job placement if you look at their entire history. Adams commented that a five- to ten-year look would be more indicative of long-term trends, other than 2021 and 2022, which were pandemic years, it seems to have consistently over-performed the stated goal, and he was curious about what 2022 would actually be because maybe it was trending back in that direction. Ackerman commented that a counter to that in any is the are they exceeding the stated goal because the goal was quite low. When you look at the retention rate, or rather the number that completed training, in a couple of years that was excellent. But in a lot of years, especially recent years, that's been pretty poor completion, you know, 21 people and four completed. Fifteen enrolled and zero completed. Thirty-three enrolled and seven completed. 2019 was pre-pandemic, but, nevertheless, those are not knock it out of the park results. Adams, referencing his previous statement about overperforming, questioned how much different those percentages are across each of the people who are applying. That seems pretty standard. Ackerman noted that the other question which we don't have data on here is how long if those individuals keep that employment, because obviously we're hoping for a long-term impact on the individuals who participate. If you have a job and you lose it after 6 weeks, that's not a great impact. Bohn replied that we don't have any real info on that. We ask them to track it, but they realistically say they can to some degree. Historic Ithaca may do the best job at that because they try to visit their graduates at their workplace to confirm they're there. They have a better staffing ratio to be able to follow up. They tend to stay in closer contact with some of their graduates, again because it's a one-on-one kind of relationship that might help them, but historically it's hard to keep up. Once they've moved on, for the first six months, yes, you can find them. After that, it can be hard to track them, and a lot of the jobs are entry-level jobs, and they aren't always going to be likely to stay there. It's pretty, they're successful. So that's it's been a challenge and we're We always ask them about that and try to get as much information as we can, but, realistically, we don't have good solid data on retention. Adams commented that Historic Ithaca is the only application package he read through where they talk specifically about trying to visit people following 90 days after, then six and 12 months. Ackerman commented that they also usually have the smallest cohort, which makes it more feasible to do that. Schwerin said the word on the street was in hospitality nobody could find help, which suggests people didn't want to work in those jobs, which would reflect they weren't interested in being trained if they didn't want to work in those jobs. So, I'm not shocked that the numbers below because it was hard to build those jobs. They could have been filled if people were interested. They clearly did not want to be out there. EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 8 of 15 Adams commented that it might be a housing thing as well, as several people referenced in the question that's asked directly on the application. Being able to live in Ithaca and fill that same job aren't exactly the same thing. Ackerman asked for any other thoughts or comments or concerns. Bohn noted that they brought down their funding requests, but they have reduced their job placement goal to five. Fleming noted that the curriculum is not really all that hospitality- and restaurant-focused, other than the knife safety workshop. Bohn commented that originally their partners have more than likely been hotels often times as much as restaurants, so people-facing jobs, at a desk or at a restaurant. E. Historic Ithaca, Inc. – Work Preserve Job Training: Job Placements Bohn stated that, of all the programs, this one is the one that probably has intake of participants who have the most challenges and most barriers to employment because they're being referred by another agency that provides some financial support for them while they're there. They don't have to pay a stipend, so it's cost-effective in that way. But they have historically, in my opinion, had the candidates who have the most obstacles to gaining employment in a working world. It is more of a one-on-one intensive training operation. They provide hands-on training such as carpenter skills, retails skills, and basically put in place significant elements operating in that in that for-profit arena of the not-for-profit with the sale of potential materials, such as caning or restoration of furniture. They try to appeal to where the strength is for the applicants who come in, whether they are really more retail-focused or would they be better off working on some kind of hands-on activity. They also have received funds this most recent year from the Park Foundation, so they have significantly more funding in their program. They're expanding it to include kind of a greens job focus that she writes about in the application. He questions how that links together with the work preserve program. But they are fortunate to have some additional funding from the Park Foundation to grow the program which keeps their staff capacity up. They have historically asked for the exact same amount of funding for many years despite inflationary pressures. Schwerin noted they have not received it. Bohn agreed and noted their job placements have been low the last couple of years as well. Schwerin asked if Bohn remembered whether in previous years we didn't fully fund, but it looks like we fully funded their requests or we always funded it at this level regardless. Bohn stated that in the last couple of years anyway, they've asked for the same amount, and noted they have a companion application in the public service category. They have a work preserve job placement program and they have a work preserve public service program, because they realize some of the people they're working with are not likely to be placed in jobs and have to get to that level first, where they can be like an entry level applicant for the job placement. That is why they apply for two separate awards. From their perspective, it's all one program, but they can't make the case that some candidates are likely to be in a job placement scenario. They have to work with them much more to get up to that level. They've been consistently funded for both those programs most years, though there may have been some reductions when there was a lot of competition. Historically, they have been funded $67,500 since 2015. The year before that it was a little bit less, but I think that's what they asked for. EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 9 of 15 Fleming stated she thinks some of the argument on the committee side has been that their request is often less than the others. That's not true every year, but it feels like there's often more room to squeeze the other requests a little bit. But, also, the need of the organization and the program seems greater has been part of the argument too. Bohn responded yes, because a lot of the funding is going for staffing, it's not a stipend and not scalable the same way. It leads to staff changes if they don't have their funding from the program. In prior years hospitality, employment training and Finger Lakes ReUse have asked for higher numbers, more in line with the $137,000 that's been asked. I think HETP was at $100,000 or $110,000 for four years in a row and in 2021, $100,000. I believe those numbers were cut back a little bit. It's one of those questions -- do you ask for more and be happy with 80% or do you just apply for 80% number. They have not asked for more and therefore they haven't been cut back on a scaling analysis. Adams questioned if there's less flexibility when it comes to the public service portion of what they've asked for because that's capped at a hard 15%. Bohn confirmed, stating they have to compete for that $100,000 and there are more applications this year than last year. Adams commented that it's a little less competitive. Fleming asked why their job placement was so low last year and why they think they can play six this year. That seems optimistic. And it looks like if we take the $314,000 and divide by six, it wouldn't work out right. It's like $50,000 a placement. She questioned the overall efficiency of the organization, and she thinks the $315,000 includes other things. Bohn noted this is just one program and he thinks they're trying to isolate it as much as they can, but there's a little bit of an art to match funding. You want to show as much match money as possible to us to show that our funding is a smaller percentage of the total project. In reality, it's hard sometimes to sort these things out. They're probably counting in that project budget the stipend funds they are receiving from the other organizations that are sponsoring their participants in the program. That's funding that doesn't really go to them and they collect it but they're paying it out to the participants who received it. Also, there's this big expansion in their program this year with the Park Foundation funds for the green jobs initiative. It's not clear to him where sorting it. They could be calling that a match in theory, as part of a job training program. It's just that we're not paying for that part, so it would be an interesting question to explore but it's a tricky metric sometimes. And some of the programs that are going for this initiative or not. It is inefficient, we will. Schwerin stated that the crux of it is whether those matching funds are going to this initiative or not. It is inefficient. We've got these other funds which we can allocate however we want if internally this will give us that metric. Fleming stated she wants to know the total cost of their job placement program. Schwerin said they may have that internally but that isn't necessary what we're looking at. Ackerman noted they have part of the program expense broken down in personnel and it's hard to imagine that 50% of the Significant Elements store manager's time is spent on this program -- 50% of the entire year of a full-time position. I would speculate much less than that and, likewise, some of the other positions, too. Bohn noted, for example, the Significant Elements Manager total budget is $54,000, which is $10,000 allocated for CDBG and $54,000 is other sources, but only 50% of the time is spent on this program. They put the full salary budget in there, so they're also saying they're running the Significant Elements activity as a historic preservation organization at the same time. There is some creative matching here. EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 10 of 15 Ackerman stated that what the actual cost of running the program is really probably quite hard to tease out because if they didn't get any funding and cut out the work preserve program completely, most of these positions would remain because they would still have the store to run and would still have other programs. It wouldn't be a cut in expenditure of $315,000. Fleming commented that it is the same with these other programs like GIAC. She still wants to know how they think they're going to go from one to six job placements. Ackerman asked Bohn if the program year that reported six still has activities still ongoing so that number might go up, or if that is closed out. Bohn responded he believes that has been closed out. He commented that they tend to run their program a little closer to the actual calendar year, so that 2022 program was probably really carried out in 2022, which would have been part of the pandemic. F. Black Hands Universal, Inc. – Career & Resources Program Ackerman commented that Black Hands applied last year in two categories, and they did get funded in public service. The Economic Development Committee did not fund them for the economic development program, and she recollected that the rationale everybody wanted to support conceptually what the group was doing, but the proposed program wasn't really fleshed out or thought out well enough, it didn't seem like they were really ready to go, and the overall quality of the application indicated that they didn't have enough organizational infrastructure to make a solid go of it. We wanted them to work on the curriculum, the partner organizations, and so forth. She noted results from the program that was funded. Bohn, commenting on the reporting received from the applicant for the public service piece, stated that it is still hard to understand the curriculum and how the program works. It is more unique to each individual I think in the way that they're trying to place people. Of the five that were placed, two or three were placed with unions; two with Ithaca College, and one with Cornell -- maybe Cornell Dining. We are struggling to figure out what placement with the union means in terms of a job, because sometimes you move right into full-time work and sometimes you're just on the bench ready to be called when they need somebody. There's been a lot of demand for construction labor, so it's probably pretty likely that they're working, but we don't really know what that means in terms of usually we are seeing a place where there's an employer paying somebody on a regular basis. It is a different model with a bit of a job coaching and job matching kind of program that has been operating for the public service activity, which is pretty much focused on Harry Smith providing the one-on-one services. It doesn't appear that there is a lot of other engagement with other players in terms of the kind of trainings. When you look at the cost per job and the outcome, it's a pretty cost-effective program if you look at it from just placements. But it is not clear what is being delivered more or less in terms of curriculum or a schedule that you can follow. It doesn't seem to be like putting together a cohort of 15 in January and running through a six-weeks course. It is much more circumstantial to the individual who appears for the public service activity, as we understand it. There have been some improvements with the reporting and their vouchering, which was a big concern with staff with the program and encouraging them to take advantage of the resources of their full board because it appears to kind of be more of a one-person program than some of the others. That seems to be catching on. In fact, this application talks about utilizing their board secretary to do reporting to the agency and tracking of the participants, and making sure they're doing vouchering in a way that they can get repaid on a timely basis. It is recognizing that it's a challenge, but also trying to find a solution to do that. A public EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 11 of 15 service doesn't have a whole lot of reporting requirements other than telling us how many people participate in the program and were they low- or moderate-income. In this case, they volunteered to say we're going try to make job placements as well, which is not a permanent public service activity, and they've been successful doing that. Adams asked, recognizing this is a relatively new applicant, about sustainability from one year to the next since it is a one-person show. Ackerman replied that a question considered for all applications is the stability of the organization and, for a one-person organization, it is a concern. Adams noted three other applicants with over 10 years of history. Schwerin noted their match here is being used for other things and is not a significant part of the whole program. We can't tell the efficiency, but double or triple what they did in 2022. Fleming noted there are different descriptions and goals. One is a program to graduate 15 to 20 people to get jobs. Another goal is described as fixing up the community room at West Village, referenced in the Grant Summary, where this proposal aims to raise funds to create a beautiful functional well across community space. She referenced a letter of support from a Child Development Council about how something about this is great because they're going to provide childcare. Bohn commented that Black Hands Universal is working on a childcare initiative not related to this program so it does not seem to be appropriate for this program, and we should not put too much emphasis on that support letter for this application for job placement. He stated they are talking about talking about applying for CDBG funds that will be used for their construction instructor, their secretary, and their facility manager instructor, each at about $6,500 for a total of $20,000 for the staff positions. It is not clear who these people are or if they are all one person. Ackerman commented that it is still not clear, at the most basic level, what this program is going to do and what the deliverable is. Bohn responded that sometimes it's helpful to ask a question of the applicant to take me through your program from the perspective of a participant, such as how this is going to work, how often I show up, and what the training is. Schwerin asked if absent this funding would those placements not have been made? Bohn commented that a statement is included that they are going to work in this role whether or not we fund them. Ackerman noted they have committed funding from some other sources. Fleming noted that if they ran their program and they placed people, they should be able to provide a summary of the curriculum -- who trained who on what date, and what site visits they did. Fleming questioned the stated goal is to recruit 15-20 individuals of "non repeatedness" and fund employment; what is "non repeatedness?" Bohn commented that he believes they mean unique individuals who have not been in the program before, to avoid double counting. Ackerman raised a concern on the first page regarding the stated outputs not being in line with what they are going to do: 10 committed to placing in permanent employment, 5 micro-enterprises. There is no micro-enterprise support and no jobs that they're going to create. They may place people in jobs. Bohn commented that this is an issue that came up in their last year application. They said they're going to have outcomes in each one of those categories. He does not believe there is a micro-enterprise or any job creation resulting from this proposal. It's about job placement. That would be a good question to confirm. EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 12 of 15 Ackerman commented that there is some budget wonkiness, noting the project schedule, on page 8 of the application, doesn't make sense. Referencing 25% of the project budget, she asked where the money from April 2025 through November 2025 is going if the project finishes in February; she doesn't understand the multiple 27%'s that total 27%. Fleming mentioned that it appears that whatever curriculum there is, it's fulfilled in eight weeks. Bohn noted they are not saying there are ten job placements in eight weeks. Ackerman commented that perhaps the section is not completed and there are quite a few concerns. The completeness of the application kind of reflects the completeness of the programming, and it is very concerning how structured any of this is. Adams acknowledged that concern, and also wondered about what kind of training anybody has to fill this out. Schwerin asked if there is an opportunity to have a resubmission and tell us more about the curriculum. Bohn responded that it is tricky because you're giving somebody an added advantage versus others, and we should run that through the chair of the IURA or the full agency to say what information is appropriate to ask at this point. Schwerin commented that if a public hearing this question were asked, they'd have to answer it real time. Bohn noted that we're trying to make this application that that you're reviewed on rather than, as several years ago, we had a very loose approach. It would just get out of hand in terms of it was a fairness question and somebody got an extra chance to make their case essentially. We are trying to limit that, but he thinks the agency can decide in scenarios what additional information is appropriate to request. He thinks the NIC is asking for some clarification which made be done in Q&A or through another method. Bohn commented that a suggestion was made to the program that they involve their board members more in the application and they may have done that this year, but they may have run into time limits. Ackerman asked the committee about the question of supporting the request -- not amount, noting that last year we didn't feel like we were in a position to support it at all. Schwerin noted they were funded $12,000 in 2022. Bohn commented that was in a public services category. and he added that, technically, that program could be brought into the public service category as an eligible public service activity, though they didn't apply in that area. He believes it was made clear to them they could apply under either category. All these job placement programs are only eligible if the organization is CBDO, community-based development organization, which means that they have to have a mission statement that's community development, a non-profit 501(3)(c), and they have board membership that represents their geographic focus area. That board membership can't be controlled by the City; it has to be made up of low-income people or employers in the area that have some influence to create jobs. They did qualify 15 months ago for that. Ackerman asked if they are under the Village of Ithaca. Bohn responded that they have a fiscal agreement with the Village of Ithaca, but he believes they are their own 501(3)(c) or at least are a not-for-profit. Schwerin commented that maybe we are willing to do something in this category, but we're uncomfortable with the application. Ackerman acknowledged feeling conflicted. Fleming noted the applicant was given feedback last year and was denied. She suggested asking what the curriculum and what the program does, EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 13 of 15 and see how the questions are answered. Ackerman commented that the goals exactly, like the new enterprises. Adams commented he is not an immediate "no" for funding at all, even though he carries several of the concerns shared, but if he contextualizes that and say at the expense of other things for which we don't have the same kind of questions, he would lean more toward "no" in that situation. Schwerin suggested we do a token amount to see how they perform. Bohn commented that it is a pretty low amount right now, but that is always an option. Ackerman noted the applicant stated that if the program cannot receive the full funding, then they would find the way to fill the gap that would be created if funding was not reached. Fleming commented that they did that last year. Bohn commented that they did get access to some of the City funding that is delayed, partially for these kind of reporting issues that we've discussed already. They had got an award of money in the city budget from 2202. It took many months before they met the minimal requirements the City put on them for reporting and setting up a contractual agreement to access that. He believes they are spending from a $50,000 award and are using City funding, and that is why they are at $32,000 for matching funds from the City. He doesn't believe they were funded in this current year's 2024 City budget, and that's 2023 City budget funds. Ackerman commented that on the first page of the application, the total project cost is a hundred $125,000. But then on the budget, the total project budget is $75,500, but then itemized breakdown of that is $68,500, so one of the math works out. Bohn commented it appears closest to be $75,000, in that range. Ackerman added that also the $125,000 is so out of whack with the others that she is not sure if that was aspirational or a mistake. Bohn commented they would probably say applications aren't BHU’s strong suit, placing people in jobs is. Ackerman commented that if an organization can really implement the work but, if they're going to survive or be sustainable, accounting is kind of essential. Schwerin asked how important is it to do something with the funds this year. What if they're not sustainable but they perform this year? Didn't they meet their obligations? What if they're not in existence three years from now? How does that affect our decision to fund this year? Ackerman acknowledged the fairness of the question. Flemming commented that if five people got jobs this year, that's fine. Schwerin commented that if they performed this year, they did what we hoped they would do. Bohn pointed out one difference about this program from the current pre-apprenticeship program is they appear to be physically relocating the operation to West Village in a community room, whereas the current program has been operating on West Green Street in a space there. So, to that point about making improvements to the community room, it might be linked to the fact that their place of program delivery is going to be in West Village. We have struggled historically to find ways to assist the West Village and West Hill residents. We know that that's increasingly where a lot of lower-income people are able to find housing in West Hill, so that's a positive that they're locating it in the West Hill community. It's really hard to find projects that really fit, because West Hill is a neighborhood, not necessarily a low / mod neighborhood. There are parts of it that are very low income, but overall West Hill still is pretty affluent, relative to the rest of the city. He noted they are not asking for any funds for improvements for that space. Ackerman mentioned our options, noting no numbers are being recommended today, would be to fund to some extent, decline to offer any funding, or recommend a switch to public service. Bohn commented that EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 14 of 15 we would only want to push them into public service if we don't think they could meet the qualifications for a community-based development organization or if we don't think they would create a job placement. But their goal is job placement. It could be a valid argument because there's a lower level of reporting and expectations about curriculum maybe on public service. We're trying to keep pretty similar standards across the board. Schwerin noted they were funded in public service, and they created five jobs. Bohn stated the measurement to be presented to HUD is how many people they served, not how many jobs did they place, because they're in a public service category. So, you're looking at limited clientele benefit, which is really more an open measurement with some respects that it is, an outcome measurement. Fleming commented that she doesn't see them listed under public service applications. Bohn responded that they didn't apply this year. Fleming asked if site visits are made. Bohn replied yes. Schwerin asked why they didn't apply under the public service category this year. Bohn replied he believes they were encouraged to apply in that category, but that was before the application was received. They talked about a lot of different activities over the last 12 months, including daycare, something having to do with the building on West Hill, housing construction, recreation improvements, and job placement. They were working on a number of different initiatives, so it wasn't clear which one they were going to come in with. Ackerman commented that at next month's meeting we'll have some recommendations about neighborhood investment and can discuss how much we want to allocate to the four applicants. VI. Old/Other Business A. IURA Financials Review: January 2024 Bohn reported that currently $50,000 to $75,000 loan funds are available to loan out right now. One applicant is planning to submit their application in the next four days. A loan application is coming in to build a retail, vacant storefront. Ackerman asked for the application amount. Bohn responded it is not over $50,000. We have another restaurant currently operating in the city is interested in applying. John Guttridge has another food-based business he is working with which is interested in applying. He explained that the loan balance gets replenished at $13,000, but we're treating this $160,000 as the amount we think is going to be brought forward to August 1st to July. It is not cash in hand necessarily as cash is generated slowly through that period. If we don't have a sufficient balance, we could easily run out to a point where we can't make loans for a period of time. We're not highly capitalized right now. If we made one more loan, we'd be at zero and would have to wait for four months before we had money again. So, we are at a low point for our capitalization. He reported good news, that Liquid State, which was a borrower in 2017, would like to pre-pay their loan, so they are going to replenish our fund. They made it through most of the repayment schedule, so it's only $12,000, but that still helps replenish the pool. He thinks there is a strong argument to be made that if not the full $160,000, a very large component of it should be set aside for additional loans because there does seem to be so strong demand. There is flexibility to go above $160,000, too. Where we've gotten in trouble is that CDBG has a spend-down requirement. If you over capitalize your loan fund and you don't make loans, you can be viewed by HUD as not performing and spending the money quickly enough, in which case if that occurs for more than a year or two, they can actually reduce your future grant award. It is a balancing issue between having enough to make the loans you want to make but not much more. EDC Meeting Minutes February 13, 2024 Page 15 of 15 Adams asked if that is what is referred to in the document as we are not in compliance. Bohn replied that, yes, that is the spend-down ratio. That's a one-time-a-year check at the end of May or June first. B. Staff Report Bohn reported on the Grants Summary and financials, noting the loan report from M&T monthly payment received at $28,000, which is not all for the loan fund. About $16,000 goes into our loan fund. Of that some of my staff time, underwriters doing the work -- that's about $2,500 per underwriting. If we have a legal agreement, our attorney gets paid out of that. We net about $13,000 - $14,000 a month which goes into the pool. He noted the good news of the Liquid State payment reported earlier. We do have some loans in the pipeline. One application might be ready for our next meeting, but otherwise, it might get pushed back to the next month. Bohn welcomed members to attend the public hearing and explained the protocol for questions. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 5:10 P.M. — END — Minutes prepared by S. Dean, edited by C. Pyott/N. Bohn.