IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee

Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-6565 AGENDA IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) 8:30 am, Friday, April 7, 2017 Third Floor Conference Room City Hall, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850 I. Call to Order II. Public comment III. Review of Minutes – March 10, 2017 & March 17, 2017 IV. 2017 HUD Entitlement Grant Program 1. Review of funding applications received ‐ discussion V. Other Business 1. IURA Grant Summary 2. Staff Report 3. Next meeting date: May 12, 2017 VI. Motion to Adjourn If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the IURA at 274‐6559 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.  Approved: X/X/17 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-6565 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY (IURA) Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) 8:30 AM, Friday, March 10, 2017 Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall, Ithaca, NY Present: Karl Graham, Chair; Tracy Farrell; Vice‐Chair; Fernando de Aragón; Teresa Halpert Staff: Nels Bohn; Charles Pyott Excused: Paulette Manos Guests: None I. Call to Order Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. II. Public Comment None. III. Review of Minutes – January 13, 2017 Moved by Farrell, seconded by Halpert. Unanimously approved as written. Carried Unanimously 4‐0. IV. 2017 HUD Entitlement Grant Program 1. Community‐Based Development Organization (CBDO) Certification Applications A. Historic Ithaca, Inc. Bohn referenced members to the evaluation memo and explained the application is very similar to Historic Ithaca’s 2016 application. The aspect of the application with potentially the greatest risk associated with it is that Historic Ithaca’s 501(c)(3) articles of incorporation do not explicitly list community development as a goal of the organization; they reflect more of an historic preservation focus. The organization’s strategic plan, however, does include many specific community outreach and development activities, including job training and placement. He noted in past years the IURA has found HI to meet the “substantially similar” test for meeting the CBDO organizational purpose requirement. Moved by Farrell, seconded by de Aragón: 2017 IURA Designation of Historic Ithaca, Inc. as Community‐Based Development Organization (CBDO) WHEREAS, the Board of Historic Ithaca Inc., (Historic Ithaca) 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 2  WHEREAS, at their March 10, 2017, meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee evaluated Historic Ithaca, Inc. CBDO application and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA determines that Historic Ithaca, Inc. meets the requirements for eligibility as a CBDO, and that the Work Preserve Job Training: Job Placements project qualifies as an eligible CBDO activity, and be it further RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby designates Historic Ithaca, Inc. as a Community‐ Based Development Organization (CBDO) and their Work Preserve Job Training: Job Placements project as eligible for CDBG funding under the category of “Special Activities by CBDOs”. Carried Unanimously 4‐0 B. Greater Ithaca Activities Center, Inc. (GIAC) Graham disclosed that Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU) has staff who are paid to provide financial education services to GIAC’s Hospitality Employment Training Program (HETP). Bohn noted that in recent years GIAC struggles to meet CBDO board membership requirements. The GIAC application identifies five of nine board members meeting the CBDO qualifications. He explained that the GIAC bylaws require a minimum of 11 board members, so 6 qualifying board members are required to meet the 51% CBDO board composition requirement. He noted that GIAC is actively recruiting board members. Farrell recommended that the applicant be asked for additional information regarding Board members being recruited prior to making a CBDO determination. Halpert suggested the Committee consent to approving the application, contingent on Bohn and Graham being satisfied with the GIAC board’s composition. De Aragón recommended Bohn report back to the Committee at its next meeting. No objections were raised. 2. Review of 2017 IURA Funding Applications Bohn indicated Committee members should disclose any potential conflicts of interest regarding the applications, at this time. De Aragón disclosed he is an Ithaca Carshare board member. His employer, the Ithaca‐ Tompkins County Transportation Council, also works regularly with TCAT. He is co‐chair of the Latino Civic Association of Tompkins County, which is donating funds to the Food Entrepreneurship program. 3 Graham reiterated his aforementioned potential conflict of interest with HETP. In addition, AFCU may be providing financial and entrepreneurial services to the Food Entrepreneurship program; and it also provides funding for the 2‐1‐1 program’s tax preparation activities. Bohn indicated Committee members should identify any questions and issues they may have regarding the applications for the IURA Board. Farrell observed the Economic Development applications ask applicants if they operated the same program in prior years and what the outcomes were. She suggested other types of applicants should be asked the same questions. (1) Lakeview Ithaca ― Lakeview Health Services: Housing Application De Aragón observed there appears to be a budget table missing from the application. Bohn replied he will ask the applicants to provide it. Bohn indicated the IURA could conceivably commit HODAG funds to the project, contingent on it being funded with HOME funds within a couple of years. HOME or HODAG funds could also potentially be disbursed as a repayable loan. Alternatively, the IURA could fund the project through a combination of HOME and HODAG funding sources; however, that would tie up those HODAG funds for one or two years. Farrell indicated she would be in favor of funding the project, although the IURA should ask the applicants if funding the project as either a loan or a grant would affect their funding applications to other potential funders. Halpert noted affordable housing is a high priority for the IURA. De Aragón suggested, if the applicants only need to show local financial support, perhaps the IURA could only fund $150,000, rather than $250,000. (2) Chartwell House ― Tompkins Community Action: Housing Application Bohn explained that he had encouraged the applicants to apply, but he had been expecting to see some matching funding. He noted since it is a rehabilitation project, it would be eligible for either CDBG or HOME funding. De Aragón noted it is a large amount of money; perhaps the project could be divided into several smaller projects (e.g., HVAC portion would probably be the most critical). Graham agreed. Farrell agreed. She remarked it is important to help preserve the building, since it is one of the few SRO facilities in the city. 4 Bohn indicated the IURA could ask the applicants what their funding priorities are. (3) Homeowner Rehab ― Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS): Housing Application Bohn noted the IURA funds the program almost every year. There always appears to be a need for homeowner rehab services in the city. Halpert asked what the consequences would be if the IURA skipped funding the program for one year. Bohn replied the IURA has done that before. INHS appears to be adept at identifying other funding sources. Farrell remarked the program both serves to keep homeowners in their homes and preserve the city’s housing stock. It is also scalable, since funds go towards construction and not administrative overhead. It seems an effective way for the IURA to spend its money. (4) 402 S. Cayuga Street ― Habitat for Humanity: Housing Application Graham indicated he strongly supports the project. Halpert asked if there were any way to make the project long‐term affordable, like INHS projects. Bohn replied that Habitat employs deed restrictions with its projects; and it expects the duplexes will sell at an affordable price. (5) Housing Scholarships ― The Learning Web: Housing Application Bohn noted the IURA skipped funding the program in 2016 as unexpended funds were sufficient to carry the program through October 2017. The applicant will need the funding to continue the program. Farrell noted the project appears to be scalable, to some extent. Bohn replied the IURA should ask the applicants to what extent that may be the case. (6) Security Deposit Assistance ― Catholic Charities: Housing Application Bohn explained that IURA staff asked the applicants to include funding for five Housing for School Success program beneficiaries this year, so the requested funding amount is a little higher than last year. De Aragón observed this application appears to be one of the most scalable. (7) Mini‐Repair ― INHS: Housing Application 5 Bohn noted this program could potentially be something INHS could find funding for itself, though it aligns closely with IURA objectives to maintain homeownership as it assists low‐ income homeowners age in place. Farrell asked how many program beneficiaries are repeat beneficiaries. Bohn replied, he believes none within any given year; however, over the years a certain proportion could be expected to be repeat beneficiaries. He added the program caters primarily to elderly, independent‐living single people. Farrell and Graham both expressed support for the program. Farrell suggested possibly funding it at a lower level this year. (8) Hospitality Employment Training Program (HETP) ― GIAC: Economic Development Application Farrell noted the program appears somewhat scalable. Bohn explained the application establishes an entirely new cohort of beneficiaries this year, for administrative jobs. Farrell expressed uncertainty about how many cohorts the program would be training. Bohn replied the IURA could ask the applicants for clarification on that point. Farrell indicated the applicants should probably be at a point in the development of the program where they can rely more on other sources of funding. Graham observed it does appear to have been improving in that respect, from year to year. Bohn noted the program has done well in terms of job placements, which is important. It is particularly good at intake and recruitment and placement. De Aragón expressed support for the program, which seems to be working well. (9) Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion ― Finger Lakes ReUse: Economic Development Application De Aragón indicated he would like to see if the applicants will receive funding from other sources, before committing IURA funds. Bohn replied that the project is probably the furthest from securing other funding sources, of all the applications. Farrell suggested funding only a portion of the project. Halpert remarked that for the IURA to fund even only 1% of the project would represent a considerable amount of this year’s available IURA funds. 6 Bohn noted it would be very helpful if the IURA could ascertain from the applicants what the anticipated timeline is for securing the other funding sources. De Aragón wondered if the IURA’s funding $100,000 of the project would genuinely make a significant difference in facilitating the entire project. (10) Gianellis Child Care Center ― Tompkins Community Action: Economic Development Application Halpert observed that creating childcare is actually relatively low on the IURA’s list of Priority Needs. Bohn agreed, but noted that job creation is a high priority. Bohn explained that the funding could be in the form of a repayable loan, which is a desirable way to utilize program income. He added that, while the application only lists 3 jobs created, the project would actually probably create 21 jobs. (11) Work Preserve: Job Placements ― Historic Ithaca: Economic Development Application Bohn explained that the application is paired with another application for job readiness, like last year. It is not entirely clear if either part of the program could function independently of the other. It receives referrals from other local organizations for people who need considerable more job‐readiness training than most, so it is beginning from a baseline that requires a large amount of time and labor. The program has been reasonably successful, although it is a fairly expensive program, weighed against the outcome. Farrell observed the funding request goes mostly towards salary costs, so it is not scalable. Halpert noted the program benefits people who are very difficult to employ, which is impressive. (12) Food Entrepreneurship ― Cornell Cooperative Extension:‐ Economic Development Application Halpert expressed strong support for the application. Bohn noted the program should be viewed as augmenting its beneficiaries’ income, not serving as their exclusive source of income, in most cases. Working with low‐income entrepreneurs can be particularly challenging, but the applicants certainly appear have identified how to solve many of those kinds of problems. Graham expressed support for the application. Farrell expressed some ambivalence about the application. 7  De Aragón expressed support for the application. The applicants appear to have lined up a considerable number of resources to ensure the program’s success. De Aragón noted, if the applicants plan on returning to the IURA for more funding in 2018, they should be asked to develop a robust program evaluation process. (13) Urban Bus Stop ― TCAT: Public Facilities‐Infrastructure Application Farrell expressed reluctance to fund the project. De Aragón suggested the applicants modify their application to target it to a more limited area of the city. Bohn remarked he has been searching for ways to benefit residents of the West Village and lower West Hill, since there are considerable numbers of low‐income people in those areas of the city, and yet CDBG funding has generally not reached them in the past. He added the City Sidewalk Improvement Program’s 2017 workplan includes Chestnut Street and Elm Street, which are also a focus of the application, so there would be some advantage to coinciding the two projects. (14) Heating & Roofing ― Downtown Ithaca Children’s Center (DICC): Public Facilities‐ Infrastructure Application Farrell expressed support for funding a portion of the project. De Aragón agreed; perhaps the roofing portion of the project would make the most sense to fund. (15) Conley Park Pavilion ― Daniel Krall: Public Facilities‐Infrastructure Application Farrell expressed support for the application. (Farrell departed at 10:31 a.m.) V. Other Business 1. IURA Grant Summary Report: February 2017 (No discussion.) 2. Staff Report Bohn reported the final set of interviews was conducted for the vacant Community Development Planner position, with two candidates rising to the top. Bohn reported there is a growing financial question as a result of the draft 2018 Federal budget, which appears to eliminate CDBG funding and some HOME funding, representing 40% of the IURA’s budget. 8  3. Next Meeting Date It was agreed to schedule a special Committee meeting on Friday, March 17, 2017, to review the remaining funding applications. VI. Motion to Adjourn The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:43 a.m. Prepared by C. Pyott, edited by N. Bohn. 9  Approved: X/X/17 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-6565 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY (IURA) Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) 8:30 AM, Friday, March 17, 2017 Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall, Ithaca, NY Present: Karl Graham, Chair; Tracy Farrell; Vice‐Chair; Fernando de Aragón; Teresa Halpert Staff: Nels Bohn; Charles Pyott Excused: Paulette Manos Guests: None I. Call to Order Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. II. Public Comment None. III. Review of Minutes – March 10, 2017 (Not reviewed.) IV. 2017 HUD Entitlement Grant Program 1. Review of 2017 IURA Funding Applications (cont.) ―Public Services Applica ons (16) Immigrant Services ― Catholic Chari es of Tompkins/Tioga Bohn explained that the applicant indicated if there is a decreased flow of refugees as a result of the President’s recent Executive Order, the organization would receive less funding from other sources. Bohn suggested the IURA ask the applicant to provide its best estimate of the level of activity and demand for the program in 2017‐2018. (Since the vast majority of the program’s clients do not originate from the five countries cited in the Executive Order, the long‐term impact may not be so significant.) This particular program is the single IURA‐funded program most closely associated with the City of Ithaca’s sanctuary city status. While U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security funding to sanctuary cities may be most at risk, it is not inconceivable HUD funding for this program could be affected. (But, if so, the IURA would most likely be able to reprogram the funds.) Farrell suggested IURA consider decreasing the program’s funding, if it is anticipated its level of activity/demand would decrease. (De Aragón arrived at 8:41 a.m.) Graham noted the vast majority of the funding request is for staff salaries. He wondered what the impact to the program would be if the IURA did not fund it. Bohn recalled the program once operated without a case manager; however, it would obviously be seriously impacted by a loss of funding for the program director. Farrell indicated it appears the Committee is leaning towards recommending the IURA fund the program. There were no objections. (17) Easy Access Low‐Income Carsharing ― Ithaca Carshare Bohn explained the program has actually been operating successfully for several years; however, its funding source, the Federal Transit Administration, recently re‐classified the program as an ineligible use of its funds, so the applicant is seeking other funding sources. De Aragón recused himself from discussion and consideration of the application, since he serves as Chair of Ithaca Carshare’s board of directors. Farrell observed the program’s staffing costs seem high, given there would only be 38 beneficiaries. Bohn responded the applicant indicated to him that the program requires a significant amount of additional time/labor to work with its target population. He believes the largest category of program participants is people over the age of 65. The IURA could conceivably fund the program’s non‐staff expenses and ask the applicant to fund those costs through other means. He believes the applicant indicated it would simply reduce the number of program participants, if the funding were reduced. Halpert observed the program targets people up to 150% of the poverty level, which could be modified, if there were less funding. Halpert expressed confusion with how some of the information is presented in the application (e.g., how its compares program participants with non‐participants). She would like to see more information about how the program helps keep people out of poverty. 2 (18) ReSET Job Training Program Apprenticeships ― Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. Bohn noted the IURA has asked the applicant, over the last several years, if it would qualify as a Community‐Based Development Organization (CBDO). Unfortunately, its board membership has never qualified. The IURA did not fund the program in 2016, although it continues to operate. Farrell noted the program is scalable. Graham agreed; the IURA may be able to reduce its funding amount. Bohn cautioned that IURA staff prefer not to fund any given program below $10,000/year, since staff’s administrative and program monitoring burden becomes disproportionately high at that level. Bohn noted that the program overlaps to some extent with both the Hospitality Employment Training Program (HETP) and Historic Ithaca’s Work Preserve Job Training program. It is a well‐ run program, although many of the job placements tend to within the organization. (19) Work Preserve Job Training: Job Readiness ― Historic Ithaca, Inc. Bohn noted a key question for this application is the extent to which the sister program could operate effectively without this one. Farrell observed that both Historic Ithaca’s applications ask for funding which would be applied almost entirely to staff salaries. Although the organization does have some matching funding, she wondered to what extent other Tompkins County funding sources could be tapped. Graham remarked that the organization’s staff is clearly integral to the success of the program. He suggested the Committee tentatively recommend funding the program, but wait until the application review process has progressed further (and proposed funding allocations/priorities become clearer) to make a final recommendation. (20) 2‐1‐1/Informa on & Referral Service ― Human Services Coalition (HSC) Graham disclosed his employer, Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU), is the program’s largest client for the tax preparation portion of the program. Farrell remarked the program is the connecting link to all other programs and services in the area, so it is clearly important. She suggested perhaps the IURA ask the applicant if it could function with less IURA funding than requested (e.g., $10,000), since it appears to have several other secure funding sources. Graham responded that sounds reasonable. No objections were raised. 3 (21) A Place to Stay: Suppor ve Services ― Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Bohn explained the program appears to have functioned well. In theory, he added, the applicants could secure other sources of funding, since the program is well‐established and has been operating well. Graham suggested reducing the IURA funding. Farrell agreed and recommended $10,000. Halpert remarked she likes the program and it also serves a different population from other IURA‐funded programs. (22) A+ Tui on Assistance ― BJM Enrichment Program Halpert observed the Ithaca City School District (ICSD) is paying $27,000 towards the program; she wondered what the implications would be if the IURA declined to fund it. Halpert noted the funding request is virtually all for staff costs. Farrell recalled that the IURA did encourage the applicant to re‐apply, when it did not secure IURA funding last year. Halpert noted the applicant could possibly increase the fees it charges for the most financially secure families. De Aragón observed the program is scalable, so perhaps the IURA could only commit funds to pay for five children. Bohn indicated the IURA should ask the applicant exactly how the fee structure functions (i.e., which participants pay the $458 annual tuition fee mentioned in the application and whether the families the IURA would be funding would be paying anything at all to enroll). (23) Big Brothers Big Sisters Northside Community Outreach ― Ithaca Youth Bureau (IYB) Graham observed the majority of IURA funds would be applied towards salaries. The program serves 75 people, which is a considerable number. Bohn responded it only operates on Saturdays, so it may not have the same impact as other programs though it is targeted to a low‐income population. Farrell indicated she would not be in favor of funding the program. Graham agreed. Bohn noted the program is arguably not as critical or effective as many of the other funding applications the IURA has received. De Aragón suggested encouraging the applicant to apply again next year. 4  (24) Housing for School Success: Year #2 ― Ithaca City School District (ICSD) Bohn explained that the Ithaca Housing Authority (IHA) agreed to take over the Tenant‐Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) portion of the program, which the IURA funded in 2016‐2017. The application is only asking for funding for the Beverly J. Martin Elementary School social worker, who is a critical component of the program. He was surprised ICSD did not provide any matching funding for the program at all. He added that all current program beneficiaries have been stably housed and appear to be meeting their commitments, which indicates the program is operating successfully. Graham remarked that both the Committee and the IURA Board expressed a strong commitment to the program last year, when it was conceived. Bohn agreed. He noted that IHA would most likely withdraw from the program, without the social worker component. De Aragón indicated he would like to see some kind of comprehensive program evaluation by the end of the coming program year. Farrell agreed. (25) Security Deposit Assistance Delivery ― Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Bohn noted if the IURA had more funding available, it would be in a better position to fund this application. Farrell and Graham both agreed. (Farrell departed at 10:14 a.m.) V. Other Business 1. Next Meeting Date: April 7, 2017 (rescheduled to correspond to IURA Board meeting) VI. Motion to Adjourn The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:20 a.m. Prepared by C. Pyott, edited by N. Bohn. j:\community development\admin files\minutes\nic\2017\nic minutes 03‐17‐17 ‐ draft nb.doc 5  LAKEVIEW ITHACA - Development Budget HOUSING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BUDGET SOURCES ‐ PERMANENT AMOUNT AMOUNT % OF TOTAL FUNDING SOURCE TITLE SECURED* UNSECURED BUDGET 1. FY 2017 CDBG/HOME $250,000.00 1.24% 2. LIHC Equity $10,118,988.00 50.39% 3. NYS HCR Supportive Housing Opportunity Program $3,125,000.00 15.56% 4. NYS HCR Community Investment Fund $1,500,000.00 7.47% 5. NYS Office of Mental Health $4,737,198.00 23.59% 6. NYSERDA $50,000.00 0.25% 7. Tompkins County Community Housing Development Fund $300,000.00 1.49% 8. 0.00% TOTAL SECURED & UNSECURED FUNDING $0.00 $20,081,186.00 100.00% TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $20,081,186.00 100% LEVERAGE OF SECURED FUNDING PERCENTAGE 0.00% * Supporting documentation is required for amounts listed as secured. USES PROPOSED PROPOSED PERSONNEL EXPENSES: POSITION TITLES TOTAL CDBG/HOME OTHER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 A‐TOTAL PROPOSED PERSONNEL BUDGET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PROPOSED PROPOSED NON‐PERSONNEL EXPENSES: LINE ITEM/TYPE TOTAL CDBG/HOME OTHER Acquisition ‐ Land & Buildings $1,250,000.00 $1,250,000.00 Acquisition ‐ All Other $0.00 Construction $250,000.00 $13,177,430.00 $13,427,430.00 Construction Contingency $627,451.00 $627,451.00 Hazmat Abatement $16,368.00 $16,368.00 Architectural & Engineering Fees $939,920.00 $939,920.00 Other Professional Fees $162,000.00 $162,000.00 Construction Financing Costs $247,000.00 $247,000.00 Permanent Financing Costs $95,000.00 $95,000.00 Developer Fee $2,191,754.00 $2,191,754.00 Capitalized Operating Reserve $178,294.00 $178,294.00 Capitalized Replacement Reserve $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Soft Cost Contingency $103,869.00 $103,869.00 Total of All Other Costs (list separately individual line items exceeding $50,000) $0.00 Builders Risk and Liability Insurance $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Legal $125,000.00 $125,000.00 Construction Interest $350,000.00 $350,000.00 Soft Costs ‐ taxes, market study, survey, soilborings, appraisal $67,100.00 $67,100.00 Working Capital $120,000.00 $120,000.00 Partnership Expenses $55,000.00 $55,000.00 B‐TOTAL PROPOSED NON‐PERSONNEL BUDGET $250,000.00 $19,831,186.00 $20,081,186.00 (A+B) TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET $250,000.00 $19,831,186.00 $20,081,186.00  LAKEVIEW ITHACA - Rent Schedule FY2017 HUD Entitlement Program Application for Funding RENTAL CONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION CONSTRUCTION Projected Rent Schedule (in $) Monthly Monthly Adjusted Adjusted Utilities # of Units Contract Monthly Annual Affordable Unit Types Allowance/ Rent/Unit Rent/Unit Rent/Type (Example: 2 BR/1.5 Bath ‐ 60% AMI) Unit 1 BR/1 Bath ‐ 50% AMI 40 640 45 685 307200 1 BR/1 Bath ‐ 60% AMI 10 695 45 740 83400 SUBTOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS: 50 390600 Market‐Rate Unit Types (Example: 1 BR/1 Bath) SUBTOTAL MARKET‐RATE UNITS: TOTAL RENTAL UNITS: 50 390600 Net Monthly Annual $/NRSF per Commercial Revenue Rentable Commercial Commercial Year (Example: 1st floor daycare) Sq. Ft. Revenue Revenue Office/Retail 7120 3.792 2250 27000 TOTAL COMMERCIAL REVENUE: 7120 27000  IURA Grants Summary February 2017 ON TOTAL # SCHEDULE UNEXPENDED HUD ENTITLEMENT ACTIVITIES SPONSER BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPENDED % SPENT 2013 CDBG Activities 2467 ok 23.0 Ithaca Falls Overlook Site Cleanup IURA 25,000.00 0.00 25,000.00 0% Total 25,000.00 0.00 25,000.00 0% 2014 CDBG Activities 2491 ok 2.0 Homeowner Rehab INHS 123,260.00 110,236.38 13,023.62 89% 2497 ok 11.0 Lake Street Bridge City of Ithaca 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 0% 13 2911 complete Unallocated 2014 CDBG IURA 21,749.57 21,749.57 0.00 100% 2502 complete 7.0 ED Loan Fund IURA 150,000.00 150,000.00 0.00 100% Total 325,009.57 281,985.95 43,023.62 87% 2014 HOME Activities 2482 ok 5.0 Housing Scholarship Program Learning Web 58,958.90 49,109.69 9,849.21 83% 15 2805 complete 2014 HOME unallocated N/A 273,869.00 273,869.00 0.00 100% Total 332,827.90 322,978.69 9,849.21 97% 2015 CDBG Activities 2521 complete 1.0 Hancock Street INHS 250,403.50 250,403.50 0.00 100% 2522 ok 2.0 Mini repair INHS 35,000.00 28,187.64 6,812.36 81% 10 2531 complete 6.0 Temporary Ramp Loan Program Finger Lakes Ind. Center 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 11 2532 ok 7.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program GIAC 109,372.86 105,875.75 3,497.11 97% 2523 ok 8.0 Work Preserve Job Training Program Historic Ithaca 87,500.00 80,699.01 6,800.99 92% 2524 ok 9.0 Spencer Road Sidewalks City of Ithaca 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 0% 2525 complete 10.0 2‐1‐1/I&R Service Human Services Coalition 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 2526 NO 11.0 Building for the Future Southside Community Center 23,577.00 18,677.76 4,899.24 79% 2527 complete 12.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 16,000.00 16,000.00 0.00 100% 2528 complete 13.0 A+ Tuition Assistance BJM Enrichment Program 17,410.00 17,410.00 0.00 100% 2529 complete 14.0 ReSET Job Training Expansion Finger Lakes ReUse 23,759.00 23,759.00 0.00 100% 2530 complete 15.0 CDBG Grant Administration IURA 134,329.20 134,329.20 0.00 100% Total 837,351.56 715,341.86 122,009.70 85% 2015 HOME Activities 2511 ok 1.0 210 Hancock Street INHS 206,922.50 197,922.50 9,000.00 96% 12 2512 complete 3.0 Security Deposit Assistance Program (including Inspections) Catholic Charities 74,000.00 74,000.00 0.00 100% 2517 ok 4.0 Housing Scholarship Program Learning Web 24,600.00 0.00 24,600.00 0% 14, 17 2514 complete 5.0 Housing First TCAction 15,131.00 15,131.00 0.00 100% 2516 complete 16.0 HOME Grant Administration IURA 36,866.10 36,866.10 0.00 100% 2806 ok Unallocated 2015 HOME 12, 14, 16 N/A 71,115.40 56,115.40 15,000.00 79% Total 428,635.00 380,035.00 48,600.00 89% 2016 CDBG Activities 2541 ok 3.0 LKNB Homeowner Rehab Love Knows No Bounds 36,334.72 0.00 36,334.72 0% 2542 ok 6.0 Mini repair INHS 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 0% 2543 ok 8.0 Work Preserve Job Training & Placement 13 Historic Ithaca 67,500.00 0.00 67,500.00 0% 2544 ok 9.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program GIAC 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 0% 2545 ok 11.0 Heating System & Code Corrections DICC 22,489.00 0.00 22,489.00 0% 2546 ok 12.0 Advocacy Center Garage Renovation Advocacy Center 10,317.00 0.00 10,317.00 0% 2547 ok 13.0 Wading Pool Renovations GIAC 185,000.00 0.00 185,000.00 0% 2548 ok 1.0a Housing for School Success IURA 11,580.00 6,129.35 5,450.65 53% 2549 ok 14.0 A Place to Stay Case Management Catholic Charities 17,625.65 4,374.37 13,251.28 25% 2550 ok 8.0a Work Preserve Job Readiness Historic Ithaca 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 0% 2551 ok 15.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 30,000.00 7,500.00 22,500.00 25% 2552 ok 16.0 211 Info and Referral HSC 20,000.00 17,336.32 2,663.68 87% 2553 ok 17.0 CDBG Admin IURA 132,274.20 17,486.36 114,787.84 13% Total 683,120.57 52,826.40 630,294.17 8% 2016 HOME Activities 2755 ok 1.0 Housing for School Success IURA 77,104.40 21,695.49 55,408.91 28% 17 2756 ok 2.0 Security Deposit Assistance Program (including Inspections) Catholic Charities 44,026.00 11,937.00 32,089.00 27% 2757 ok 4.0 304 Hector Street INHS 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 0%  IURA Grants Summary February 2017 ON TOTAL # SCHEDULE UNEXPENDED HUD ENTITLEMENT ACTIVITIES SPONSER BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPENDED % SPENT 2758 ok 5.0 202 Hancock Townhouses 15 INHS 314,125.00 122,065.19 192,059.81 39% 16 2759 ok 7.0 Morris Ave Homes Habitat for Humanity 75,000.00 0.00 75,000.00 0% 2760 ok 18.0 HOME Admin IURA 32,984.10 3,638.46 29,345.64 11% 2807 ok Unallocated 2016 HOME N/A 1,611.90 0.00 1,611.90 0% Total 644,851.40 159,336.14 485,515.26 25% ok CDBG Spend Down Ratio (must be less than 1.5 by 6/15 of each year): 1.229 CDBG Spend Down Ratio = total unexpended CDBG funds/most recent annual CDBG award Total Unexpended HUD Entitlement Funds CDBG Activities 812,730.38 CDBG Program Income Activities 3,497.11 HOME Activities 543,964.47 HOME Program Income Activites 0.00 Total Unexpended HUD Entitlement Funds 1,360,191.96 Notes: 1. Funded activities not shown have been completed. 12. 30K of Recaptured PI funds from HOME 2010/5 project #205 213 Cleveland Ave. were returned by INHS and has been used to fund the 2015 HOME Security Deposits Assistance Program instead of the HOME entitlement funds originally assigned to project. The expended amount for the Security Deposit Asst includes the 30K of the entitlement fund that were transferred to HOME Unallocated and will be assigned to a project at a later date. 13. $21,749.57 balance in 2014 Unallocated transferred and allocated to 2016 Work Preserve Activity per 2016 Action Plan 14. The expended amount for the #5/2015 Housing First #303 activity includes $14,843.00 that was deobligated from project and reallocated (transferred in) to 2015 HOME unallocated. These funds have been allocated to the 2016 Morris Ave Homes activity per the adopted 2016 action plan and will be reflected on Committee Report when 2016 funding is available. 15. $273,869.00 balance in 2015 CDBG Unallocated transferred and allocated to 2016 202 Hancock Townhouses Activity per the 2016 Action Plan 16. A total of $56,115.40 was transferred and reallocated from 2015 HOME Unallocated. $41,115.40 was allocated to the 2016 Morris Homes Activity per the 2016 Action Plan & $15,000.00 was allocated to a 2010 HOME Activty 301 Madison. The full $15,000.00 was allocated and spent within the month of September for this project. SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY CENTER 305 SOUTH PLAIN ST. ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 Ph.(607)273-4190 Fx.(607)273-2517 WWW.SSPRIDE.ORG Wednesday, March 28th 2017 Dear Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, Southside community Center, Inc. would like to thank you for your patience in regards to our past due balance and our decision pertaining to the continuation of our lease at 530 West Buffalo Street. At this time we would like to continue our lease for Recycle Ithaca’s Bicycles and offer a payment proposal for the past due balance of $2,184.35 (per the Statement dated 3/22/2017). Enclosed you will find a check for $1,310.61. We will pay the balance of $873.74 by April 15th, 2017. Additionally we will stay current on our rental agreement in the following months. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, Nydia Blas Acting Executive Director