HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURAED-2012-04-10Approved 5/8/12
Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274-6559
(607) 274-6558 (fax)
MINUTES
ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
Economic Development Committee (EDC)
3:30 PM, Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Common Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hall, Ithaca, NY
Present: Doug Dylla, Leslie Ackerman, Ayana Richardson
Absent: Martha Armstrong, Jennifer Tegan
Others: Sue Cummings
Staff: Nels Bohn, Sue Kittel, Charles Pyott
Guests: Eldred Harris
I. Call to Order
Chairperson Dylla called the meeting to order at 3:31 P.M.
II. Agenda Additions/Deletions – None
III. Public Comments (3‐minute maximum per person) – None
IV. HUD Entitlement Program, Development of Draft FY2012 Action Plan
A. Scoring & Ranking of Funding Applications
Dylla indicated the committee would be using the IURA EDC Scoring Matrix and the EDC
Funding Worksheet to help formulate its decisions.
B. Review of Projected FY2012 Program Income & Demand for Loan Funds
Ackerman inquired into how the available funding is broken down. Bohn responded
that The IURA only has a total of $160,000 in FY 2012 CDBG funding available for new
projects. Since the Neighborhood Investment committee is reviewing many public
service and housing funding applications, the EDC should expect that only a portion of
this $160,000 will fund economic development projects. Moreover, there is a cap on
“public service” category uses of approximately $109,000. Building Bridges, Work
Preserve, and Fingerlakes ReUse are all eligible only under the public services category,
while the Next Steps Program, Ithaca Food Works, Downtown Retail Corridor Support,
and Cinemapolis are eligible under other categories of CDBG funding.
IURA EDC Minutes
April 10, 2012
Page 2 of 4
Bohn noted that an additional $142,000 is projected to be generated from CDBG
program income next year. Bohn estimated that a practical maximum funding amount
for all economic development projects under consideration is approximately $190,000,
which would include reinvestment of funds in the Community Development Revolving
Loan program. He noted that the loan program has an unobligated balance in excess of
$400,000 currently.
Dylla asked if there were any alternative options for funding the Cinemapolis project.
Bohn replied there had been some initial interest in funding it through the revolving
loan fund; however, Cinemapolis’ operating history raises concerns regarding its ability
to repay another loan and their collateral is already pledged to a lender guaranteeing
their lease. A loan, however, could provide other benefits to Cinemapolis, such as
helping launch a fundraising campaign or provide a bridge for receipt of pledges. A
bridge loan of some kind would permit Cinemapolis to purchase some of the equipment
immediately; and it is certainly eligible, since at least 5 low‐ to moderate‐income jobs
are involved.
Kittel asked if there were any possibility of Cinemapolis being able to lease the
necessary equipment, to which Bohn replied that the applicant had in fact explored the
possibility, but leasing the equipment would only be possible as high‐cost financing,
which Cinemapolis cannot afford.
Dylla remarked that the IURA could conceivably create a package of funding (e.g., a
$15,000 grant and the remainder as a loan). Bohn confirmed that is a possibility. As the
loan would most likely be repaid from capital campaign donations, the loan term should
be 3‐5 years.
Bohn went on to remark that part of the Ithaca Food Works project may not be eligible
for CDBG funding, since it is not entirely clear how the project, prior to establishment of
the community kitchen, would successfully target low‐ to moderate‐income micro‐
enterprises, as required. He noted that “pre‐development” expenses are not an eligible
use of CDBG funds. As a result, Bohn noted, the IURA could provide funding for the
kitchen itself, but nothing else. He suggested that any funding should be contingent
upon raising match funding sufficient to construct and operate the community kitchen.
He added it may also be appropriate to fund the project through CDBG program income,
so if match funding is not secured, the funds will become available for business loans.
Sue Cummings cautioned that the more projects the IURA decides to fund, in this grant
cycle, the more its organizational capacity may be challenged.
IURA EDC Minutes
April 10, 2012
Page 3 of 4
Kittel added that committee members should keep in mind that, if every economic
development project were funded, it would subtract from other IURA committee
funding efforts.
Bohn indicated that committee members should also consider that working with
individuals and organizations the IURA has funded in the past provides it with
organizational efficiencies, compared to working with entirely new
individuals/organizations. Renewing an existing project is less organizationally
burdensome to the Agency.
Richardson noted she would support funding Work Preserve at the $34,000 level and
Finger Lakes ReUse at the $20,000 level as the committee’s top‐ranked projects.
Ackerman responded that the committee also needs to determine how to handle
funding Cinemapolis. Dylla replied he would favor funding one of the projectors as a
grant‐loan combination, as originally suggested.
Cummings asked if any other funding sources might be available for use, now or at some
point in the future. Bohn replied he would expect to see another round of Restore NY‐
like funding (approximately $500,000 per county) from the state’s Regional Economic
Development Councils. The funding rules would be fairly similar to Restore New York,
but the focus would be on bricks‐and‐mortar projects and would likely have a
downtown focus.
Ackerman asked if the Ithaca Food Works project would be eligible for that program, to
which Bohn replied, it might possibly be eligible, although the project is looking at
leveraging its funding, so he thinks it would require significant funding commitments to
be competitive. He noted, however, that the Neighborhood Pride grocery store might
be eligible.
C. Funding Recommendations
Richardson moved, seconded by Ackerman:
2012 HUD Entitlement Program Funding Levels
Work Preserve Job Training Program (Historic Ithaca) $30,000
Training in Technology & Construction (Fingerlakes ReUse) $20,000
Ithaca Food Works Kitchen Development (CCE) $25,000 (challenge grant)
Cinemapolis Digital Conversion (7th Art Corp.) $65,000 (grant/loan)
Downtown Retail Corridor Support (eLab) $12,000
Total: $152,000
Carried Unanimously 3‐0.
IURA EDC Minutes
April 10, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Dylla clarified that recommended assistance for Cinemapolis is $15,000 in grant funding
and a $50,000 short‐term, repayable loan from program income.
Ackerman observed that the Downtown Retail Corridor Support minimum funding level
was defined as $24,000 by the applicant, so funding it at the $12,000 level may or not
be realistic. Kittel indicated they could contact the applicant before the next full IURA
meeting. Bohn added that the Downtown Retail Corridor Support program’s eligibility
for funding may also need to be confirmed. The widespread business assessment
portion of the program does not appear to target low‐ and moderate‐income
participants, as required.
Bohn indicated it may also be helpful if the committee specifically ranked its
recommendations for the IURA. Ackerman suggested simply using the committee’s
existing cumulative rankings:
EDC
Ranking Project Name
1 Finger Lakes ReUse Job Training
2 Work Preserve Job Training
3 Ithaca Food Works Kitchen
4 IURA Economic Development Loan Fund
5 Cinemapolis Digital Conversion
6 eLab Downtown Retail Support
7 Kitchen Theatre Next Steps Job Training
8 Building Bridges
Kittel noted that it would also be helpful if she could receive some feedback from
committee members on the contents and format of the funding application forms, so
that the process may be improved for the next round of funding. Richardson suggested
modifying the forms so they conform more closely to how the IURA committees actually
evaluate and rate them.
VII. Next Meeting Date: 3:30 PM, Tuesday, May 8, 2012
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 4:45 P.M.
— END —
Minutes prepared by C. Pyott, edited by N. Bohn.