HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURANI-2015-03-13
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274-655
DRAFT MINUTES
IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee
March 13, 2015
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:33, with members T. Halpert, K. Graham, and T. Farrell,
Chair, present. Staff members N. Bohn and L. Truame, and Director of the Southside
Community Center, K. McLaurin, were also present. Committee member F. de Aragon arrived
at 8:36. Staff J. Cornish arrived during the meeting (see below).
II. Public comment
None.
III. Review of Minutes – February, 2015
Minutes were not distributed; will be reviewed at the next meeting.
IV. New Business
1. Southside Community Center – discussion of gym acoustics project vs other physical
needs
T. Farrell recapped the situation: because the gym acoustics project came in so far over
budget, the committee wanted to hear from SSCC whether that project was still their highest
priority or whether there were other physical plant projects that might be a higher priority for
them.
K. McLaurin, Director, indicated that a security camera system would be a higher priority for
the SSCC. There have been some nuisance crimes in the area, and the front door of the SSCC
was kicked last year. Staff and the board believe that security cameras would provide a
deterrent to this type of activity and would give the public more confidence in the security of
the facility, which is particularly important because of the after school programs they operate.
The cameras would cover the doors of the SSCC, the area in front of the building, and the
adjacent park (used in the after school program).
K. Graham asked about the condition of the foundation, the wet basement, and its effect on
the gym floor. K. McLaurin agreed that was an issue; however, Steve Nann, the City’s Building
Maintenance Supervisor, has included that work in his department’s budget for the year.
In response to questions from the committee, K. McLaurin indicated that the estimate they
had received last year for the desired system was $9,000. There would be little to no ongoing
Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
cost, as the images gathered by the cameras are stored on a hard drive, which is purchased up
front; there is no cost for cloud storage.
T. Farrell inquired about next steps in the process. L. Truame indicated the NI would previde a
recommendation to the IURA about re-programming the funds that had been allocated to the
gym acoustics project to the security camera project. Since the cost is less than $25,000, this
would be a minor program amendment and would not require public hearings.
Moved by T. Halpert, seconded by K. Graham:
WHEREAS, the Southside Community Center (SSCC) was awarded funding in the 2013
Entitlement Grant cycle for acoustic improvements to the SSCC gymnasium (2013 CDBG
project #14) and
WHEREAS, the amount of funding reserved for that project from the 2013 Entitlement Grant
was $17,000, which was based upon the estimated cost of the acoustic improvements, and
WHEREAS, when the work was put out for proposals in February 2015, a single response was
received, placing the project at a cost of $43,528, and
WHEREAS, rather than pursue additional funding for the project, the Southside Community
Center Board and staff have requested that the unexpended balance of funds originally
allocated to the acoustic improvement projects be instead allocated to the installation of a
system of security cameras at the SSCC, the purpose of which is to deter nuisance crime
activities around the exterior of the building, including in the adjacent park, and to increase
the public confidence in the security of the facility, and
WHEREAS, at their March 13, 2015 meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee
considered this request and agreed that this would be an appropriate use of the funds, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby approves the reallocation of funds for 2013 CDBG Project
#14 from acoustic improvements in the Southside Community Center gymnasium, to the
acquisition and installation of a system of security cameras at the exterior of the Southside
Community Center, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the final amount of funding allocated to the security camera project will not
exceed the unexpended balance of funds originally awarded to the acoustics project, and will
be established based upon a newly secured, firm, quotation for the work, which will be
submitted for review and approval to Steve Nann, Building Maintenance Supervisor for the
City of Ithaca, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the IURA Chairperson is hereby authorized, subject to advice of IURA legal
counsel, to execute any and all necessary documents to implement this resolution.
Carried unanimously.
2. INHS CBDO Certification – resolution
Moved by K. Graham, seconded by T. Halpert:
2015 IURA Designation of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services as a
Community-Based Development Organization
WHEREAS, the Board of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) 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
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 February 13, 2015, meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee
compared INHS with CBDO eligibility requirements as documented in the attached
materials and staff review of bylaws and organizational documents and recommended
the following; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA determines that INHS meets the requirements for eligibility as
a CBDO, and that the 210 Hancock Street redevelopment project qualifies as an eligible
CBDO activity, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby designates INHS as a Community-Based Development
Organization (CBDO) and their 210 Hancock project as eligible for CDBG funding under
the category of “Special Activities by CBDOs”.
Carried unanimously.
3. 2015 funding round – discussion of applications received
Public Services:
1. Community Drop-in Center. The program appears to be a pre-school; the limited hours
reduce its benefit as a day care and as a drop-in facility. Medium priority.
2. 2-1-1 Information and Referral. K. Graham disclosed that AFCU receives referrals from 2-
1-1 for their free tax prep service; however he does not benefit financially from those
referrals. Percentage of funding sought from the City has decreased over the years. Low
cost per beneficiary, high leverage. Discussed whether there could be any reduction in
cost associated with reducing hours, if low-use hours could be identified. High priority.
3. Building for the Future (SSCC computer center). F. deAragon noted that the cost per
computer seems to be quite high and wondered whether the program could be funded at
a lower level by using standard off-the-shelf computers. K. Graham liked the “build it
yourself” aspect as a training opportunity. This would be a one-time funding request, not
a program that would require annual operating support. Scalable by decreasing number
of computers, even if they didn’t shift to less expensive off-the-shelf models. High
priority, but will look for cost savings.
4. Immigrant Services. Strong need, well run project looking for ongoing support at a modest
level. High priority.
5. A+ Tuition and Saturday Academy. Unclear to the committee how the two aspects of the
proposal relate to one another. Strong evidence for the effectiveness of the A+ program.
T. Halpert felt there was a clear equity issue involved that could be addressed by use of
our funding, which seemed appropriate. It was unclear what the $10,000 Saturday
Academy budget represented. Who will benefit from that portion of the proposal? Only
the ten A+ scholarship kids or all A+ kids? Is the idea to bring Saturday Academy into A+ or
sponsor A+ kids to participate in Saturday Academy (on Saturdays)? LT will e-mail the
applicant and advise them to clarify this during their presentation. High priority for A+
tuition; unclear about Saturday Academy.
J. Cornish joined the meeting during discussion of the above item.
6. Career Pathways. Cost per beneficiary is high. Appears to be an expansion of an existing
program. Not scalable due to high component of budget that is salaries. Committee felt
they could not support a new job training program given the demand on public services
funding this year. Low priority.
7. Youth Farm Project. F. deAragaon’s children attended the program in the past. He feels it
is a great program with multiple learning components. The program is diverse and
diversity is emphasized. Committee noted this is a different type of work than our other
job training programs and would likely appeal to a different segment of the population.
Possibly scalable. High priority.
8. ReSET Tech. Very large request for the available pot. Not scalable due to high percentage
of cost that is salary. Program is currently operating without our funds. Might be able to
transition to CBDO program in future. Committee agreed this is a good program but we
can’t realistically fund it this year with this level of competition. Low priority.
9. Learning by Doing. Not scalable. Again, committee felt that this year, with the level of
competition in this category and the relatively large request for this program, we could
not fit it in under the cap. Low priority.
Housing:
1. 210 Hancock. Briefly discussed how it could be funded at the requested level given the
available pots of funding. High priority.
2. Mini-repair. Committee felt the program really needed to increase the number of
unduplicated clients. Encourage them to do some outreach and to consider removing the
elderly/disabled requirement (qualifying participants by income level only). CDBG is fully
funding the salary of the person who operates the program; they should be encouraged to
seek other funding so that we can decrease that proportion. High priority, but with
questions about potential modification.
3. Catholic Charities Security Deposits. Question about funding requested: $500 * 70 =
$35k, not $36k. Costs related to determination/verification of income and unit
inspections can be funded by HOME. Committee would like to receive reports from
Navigator to better understand outcomes and whether our funds are successfully being
retained by renters when they leave. High priority.
4. Housing Scholarships. Questions about the amount of funding still available from prior
years. Could this year’s request be reduced because of those funds? Should we see more
beneficiaries if the full amount is again awarded? Scalable if needed. High priority.
5. Housing First. N. Bohn conveyed TCA’s report on Housing First activities made at a recent
C of C meeting. The number of unsheltered in the Jungle has decreased to 5 due to the
availability of these funds. Program seems to be working as envisioned. The committee
questioned the availability of units to house incoming applicants, and the number of
beneficiaries being doubled this year without a corresponding increase in costs of the
program. LT will convey the committee’s questions to TCA so they can be addressed at
the public hearing. High priority, with questions.
6. Rescue Mission Security Deposits. The wisdom of funding another security deposit
program, rather than just increasing the amount awarded to the Catholic Charities
program, was questioned. L. Truame questioned the ability of the Rescue Mission to
administer the program with their current staffing (application indicates the program will
be managed by D. Siebert, who is located in Syracuse). Low priority.
7. The Flatiron. L. Truame explained her concerns about the budget and questioned the
applicant’s understanding of the funding sources that were included. N. Bohn observed
that some of the rent levels included in the pro-forma exceeded the allowed limits under
the HOME program. The committee liked the proposal and supported staff working with
the applicant to come back in future with a more feasible proposal. Low priority.
8. Temporary Ramp Program. Very simple to monitor and administer; low cost high benefit
program. High priority.
L. Truame left the meeting at 10:45. N. Bohn continued taking minutes.
Economic Development
1. HETP. The committee reviewed the HUD CBDO job placement requirement and HETP’s
2013-2014 outcomes. Committee felt comfortable that HETP would place at least three
participants in permanent jobs, based on historic performance and increased number of
participants this year. It was suggested that the public benefit requirement for job
placement be specifically included in the funding contract and that the applicant be
strongly encouraged to diversify their sources of funding in the future. High priority.
2. Work Preserve. The committee reviewed 2013-2014 outcomes. Two of 34 secured
permanent job placement. Committee agreed it seems uncertain that Work Preserve
could satisfy the required three job placement based on historic performance. Historic
Ithaca has been made aware of the necessity of placements for CBDO activities and may
be restructuring now to emphasize placement. It was suggested they recruit some
participants who have a greater likelihood of placement to match up with referrals. The
program provides a clear community benefit and may additionally provide an economic
development benefit. It was suggested that the funding contract explicitly state job
placement requirement. Consider reducing funding to $70k, which would require only two
job placements. High priority, but with questions.
3. Spencer Road sidewalks. Need to connect new affordable housing project to sidewalk
system is high, and LMI neighborhood would benefit from the project as well. High
priority.
4. Visiting Nurse Building Renovations. Public benefit is not clear – client services are usually
delivered out in the community. High cost with little match funding. Low priority.
V. Old Business
1. Draft HOME Affirmative Marketing Policy – update. L. Truame updated T. Farrell prior to
start of meeting, but left before the item came up on the agenda. INHS has reviewed the
proposed policy and it is consistent with what they are already doing. We will not finalize the
policy until we have the results of the Fair Housing Survey.
2. Fair Housing Survey and Analysis of Impediments – update. Field work on testing is
complete, waiting on analysis. There appear to have been cases where illegal discrimination
occurred, as well as discrimination that was not illegal (ie., source of income and student
status).
VI. Motion to Adjourn
Adjourned by consensus at 11:00.
Respectfully submitted, L. Truame, Community Development Planner