HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1971-11-13special PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
City of Ithaca
Special Meeting 18 November 1971 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chm. Putney, Messrs. Shaw, Doney, Austin, Hemming, Conley; Mr. Friedlander,
Planning Consultant representing Raymond, Parish & Pine, Inc. ; Mr. Meigs.
ABSENT: Mr. Burns.
The Board met this date to consider the submission of the Community Renewal Program
Study Design, prepared by the planning consultants in conjunction with the Board and staff.
Chm.. Putney reviewed the reason for this meeting, namely to review the Study Design
as the first stage of the CRP, which must be submitted to HUD in order to qualify the
city for receipt of initial CRP study grant funds amounting to 10% of the total approved
CRP budget less contingencies . The Board has worked closely with the consultant on this
phase.
Mr. Friedlander then explained and led discussion on the Study Design. He reviewed
Part :l, referring to the preliminary studies that have been done on past and present pro-
grams, and the CRP goals as listed on pp. 3 and 4. Mr. Austin asked what was meant by
point 4, P. 3 (clearance or rehabilitation of all substandard housing units) , and it was
explained that this was one area in which HUD and Federal programs are most active,
through Urban Renewal and Rehabilitation, and that programs of the latter nature might
prove most desirable in dealing with the problem of blight in this city since there do
not initially appear to be any slums or areas warranting the more drastic and less-well-
regarded treatment of total clearance. He stated that he had heard there were no such
programs actually funded and operating at this time, and furthermore that one of the
problems with any such effort was that relocation resources are required, but are so dif-
ficult to find that this has been a major point of concern in prior considerations about
undertaking such a program. Mr. Friedlander replied that these programs are currently
operating, and the CRP will attempt to evaluate this matter under points 5 and 6.
In presenting Part 2 of the Study Design, Meir. Friedlander noted that one area of
some importance to the implementation of programs resulting from the CRP had been un-
intentionally omitted from the list. This section, on Legal Tools for improvement action,
will be included from this point. In covering the other items, he pointed out that A,
Analysis of administrative factors and resources, will outline areas of responsibility
for execution of specific programs to be investigated or undertaken. Item 5, Analysis of
economic factors and resources, and #12, Preparation of cost estimates and determination
of financing, are closely connected since the latter depends on the economic outlook and
conditions indicated by the former. Item 7, Delineation of proposed project areas,
analysis of treatment, and preparation of proposals, is of major importance also, since
it involves policy decisions.
With regard to Item 11, Mr. Conley asked if priority area delineation might indicate
some sort of spot demonstration projects, and Mr. Friedlander stated that any area identi-
fied as needing action for improvement before the program completion date would be acted
on as soon as possible, including preparation of appropriate plans and programs.
r
Mr. Friedlander noted that programs identified during the CRP study, and undertaken as a
result, would require outlining proposals for continuing CRP-related activities, which
will be accomplished under Item 13, Development of proposals for continuing activities.
Continuing action is a main thrust of the CRP, both in planning and implementation; the
program is not complete when the final study report is approved at the end of the period
(Nov. 30, 1972) for which HUD has approved the contract grant, but must continue at least
until programs entered into as a result of the study are completed. Under the provisions
of the CRP legislation, continuing financial and planning assistance is available for
related work upon application to HUD. This could also include additional consulting
assistance from Raymond, Parish and Pine or another consultant.
Mr. Conley inquired if the scope of the CRP included areas not specifically identified
as parts of the program, such as police service, water and sewer, and other municipal and
social services. He felt that some analysis of these matters should be included in order
to gather data on which future projects, studies or participation in Federal programs might
be based. Mr. Friedlander replied that some data on these subjects could be obtained in
connection with Item 1, Analysis of existing programs, and 3, Analysis of social factors,
and that some questions and categories relevant to them could be included in the Family
Survey to be conducted in December.
Mr. Conley, seconded by Mr. Shaw, then MOVED that the Planning Board accept the CRP
Study Design as prepared by the planning consultants, Raymond, Parish & Pine, Inc. , with
the understanding that the required Work Item on Legal Tools would be accomplished and
included in the body of the study, and that the consultants may now bill the city for
completion of this phase of the work in accordance with the contract between consultant
and city, and according to instruction of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, which required that this phase be completed before the city might receive its first
installment of 10% of the Federal grant payment under the applicable City-Federal contract
#NY R-268 (CR)(G), The motion was carried unanimously.
In other business, the Board members present unanimously voted to postpone the
regular meeting for November to Tuesday, 30 Nov. at 7:30 P.M. in the Planning Board Room.
Respectfully submitted,
nathan C. Meigs
12.3.71 Planning Director
2