Loading...
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