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 13, 2018 Common Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850 I. Call to Order II. Changes/Additions to Agenda III. Public Comment IV. Review of Minutes – Minutes for March 9, 2018 and March 16, 2018 V. 2017 HUD Entitlement Grant Program 1. Action Item: Resolution to Designate Finger Lakes ReUse as a CBDO 2. Action Item: Resolution to Designate GIAC as a CBDO 3. Action Item: Resolution to Designate INHS as a CHDO 4. Discussion of Proposals for 2018 Action Plan Funding & Recommendations VI. Other Business 1. IURA Grant Summary 2. Staff Report VII. 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.  Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-6565 DRAFT MINUTES IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) 8:30 am, Friday, March 9, 2018 Third Floor Conference Room City Hall, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850 Present: Karl Graham, Chair; Tracy Farrell; Vice-Chair; Fernando de Aragón; Teresa Halpert. Staff: Anisa Mendizabal; Nels Bohn Excused: Paulette Manos Guests: Diane Nier I. Call to Order Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 8:36 a.m. II. Changes/Additions to Agenda None. III. Public Comment Chair Graham welcomed Diane Nier, student of anthropology at TC3, as a guest observer. Introductions were made by Committee members and staff. IV. Review of Minutes – February 9, 2018 Farrell moved, Halpert seconded. Approved as written. Carried 4-0. V. New Business Farrell, referring to the “Funding Proposals Received” spreadsheet, asked if returned money changed the 15% admin. No—the cap was already applied. Numbers on chart are “real numbers.” (De Aragón arrived at 8:39) 1. Proposed Resolution – Action Plan 2016 Program Amendment #1 INHS requested a program amendment due to staffing change. Discussion about past performance and future anticipated performance of Mini-Repair Program. Farrell moved, Halpert seconded. Carried 4-0. 2. Review/Discussion of Proposals for 2018 Action Plan Funding #1 - #14 The Committee agreed to have preliminary discussion on half of the applications received (fourteen of twenty-eight) in order to identify questions and get a sense of the need for and viability of projects. No final decisions were to be made at this meeting. [Questions raised by the Committee are bolded] (1) Neighbor to Neighbor Home Rehabilitation Program -- Love Knows No Bounds: Housing Application Graham noted a difference in numbers on households to be served. Which is more accurate: Five or 6-8, as noted elsewhere? Farrell noted the project seems scalable. The Committee wondered if the organization, LKNB, will raise money to support the project. Bohn replied that the organization matches they match with their labor, though their application does not specify that. Mendizabal noted that the Continuum of Care has $50,000 in available funding and has reopened its RFP with a new deadline. LKNB could be eligible for this funding, though they have not applied as yet. Halpert asked where this project fits on the repair spectrum. Bohn explained that this year INHS not applying for rehab funding, which, in the past, has funded complete rehabilitations of 2-3 homes. The repairs LKNB aims to do are smaller than complete rehabs, but larger than the Mini-Repair Program would do. The application uses projects on the order of roof replacement as an example. Bohn also noted they are not eligible for HOME because this project proposes to do partial rehabilitations, therefore, it’s a CDBG project. De Aragón noted that if their goal is 5 houses only, they should be able to find them. Materials and labor is what they spend money for when they do roofs, which, according to Farrell is good to see (rather than staffing) in this ever tightening funding environment. Farrell, Graham and Halpert voiced favorability—the project fills a gap and fits Con Plan. (2) Chartwell House – Tompkins Community Action: Housing Application De Aragón noted the application requests 100% funding; yet, it’s something that is existing; it’s better to rehab and have the facility than not have it, or have to replace it. Farrell asked if some of the work specified could be broken up into phases. Graham replied that was the approach taken last year. De Aragón wondered, if TCAction were to complete this work, will it apply for funding next year? Bohn replied that if they phase the work, yes, 2 they would probably be back. If they got the full amount requested thing, probably not; they would be able to complete it. De Aragón asked, “Is this the full list of needed repairs or is more needed?” Bohn replied that it appeared to be whole list. Chartwell is an older building, constructed without HVAC. This application is a continuation of the work proposed last year. It did not receive full funding last year and TCAction did do the stairwells on its own, but didn’t note that outlay as a match. Graham and Farrell agreed that, as with last year, TCAction should be asked for their priorities. Bohn noted that the project might be HOME-eligible if they did the project, as HOME requires complete rehabilitations, but that would be challenge for the HOME budget. So, it would likely need to be funded through CDBG or CDBG Program Income. De Aragón reiterated this is a community asset of which we have few like it, if any, and it would be good to preserve it. Farrell commented that Chartwell is one of the communty’s few SROs and is in a walkable location, both reasons to ensure its viability. (3) Endeavor House Tenant-Based Rental Assistance—OAR: Housing Application Graham disclosed his employment with AFCU, which holds the mortgage of Endeavor House. Mendizabal disclosed her former employment with OAR. The Committee noted that the proposal seemed to mix several types of application. Committee members wondered if Endeavor House is classified as Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing. Farrell asked if the residents could qualify for Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). Halpert replied that if they all live as one household (sharing kitchen and bathrooms), probably not. Committee members noted the rent seems to going into a general pool, and perhaps the desire is for the rental assistance to go into that pool, perhaps to make the home solvent. HOME regulations would need to be investigated to see if this proposal would qualify. Bohn noted that unlike some other applications, this group counted as leverage their own money and other applied-for funding from the IURA. All agreed this is a population that IURA would like to serve. (4) 402 S. Cayuga – Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS): Housing Application Farrell noted INHS is identifying this project as a way to address the “missing middle” in Ithaca’s housing market: Two homeowner units 80% AMI and two at 100% AMI (which not funding-eligible). De Aragón questioned the alacrity of the schedule, while noting they are very capable. Graham suggested the manufactured component makes construction faster. Graham questioned the soft-cost and equity lines. Halpert noted that INHS owns a design from a previous attempt, which cuts down on cost. Bohn pointed out they also have NYS 3 equity. Bohn added that the proposal meets the CHDO set-aside for HOME funds. Hits the minimum for new construction. De Aragón voiced support. (5) Housing Scholarship Program – The Learning Web: Housing Application Graham noted the Committee’s familiarity with this project; Farrell commented on its scalability. (6) Security Deposits Assistance—Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties: Housing Application Another very familiar program, according to Graham. (7) Scattered Site Phase 2: New Construction – INHS: Housing Application. Bohn reported that the State has visited the County and the City recently and indicated there will be some funding available in high-need Counties such as Tompkins and Saratoga, so there may be some creative funding from the state. Farrell noted LIHTC made the proposal riskier, but State funding might be there. There was discussion of the unnamed location. Halpert said that INHS is working on increasing the supply of rental housing able to be accessed by those with Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). Bohn reported staff having heard of people not being able to find a unit and having to return the voucher, or having to live elsewhere. Halpert responded, “So building buildings that are HCV-eligible is useful?” Bohn: Very much. Also, LIHTC projects are required to accept HSV. Bohn pointed out there is also a longer timeline due to HOME. De Aragón noted that the uses are for professional services; such uses would not trigger Davis-Bacon. Bohn told the group that the set-aside is for homeless individuals. De Aragón wondered what would happen if received an award from IURA but did not get the other funding. Bohn stated that IURA funding is only released contingent on securing of other sources. We would know by this time next year. Their timeline suggests regular April timeframe for other pieces to be in place (they always try to apply for early round of LIHTC, because if not funded, it gets pushed into later rounds). If only Elm Street, they don’t have a financial model for that. The Committee wanted to know if the new site is exclusively for homeless individuals. Bohn responded that it’s a mix of units, but the homeless set-aside is there. Why no set- aside at Elm Street?, the Committee wanted to know. Renters there would likely like to return (it’s full). 4  The group indicated strong interest. Graham pointed out the project could represent a big change at Elm Street; the number of units would not change but the look is more like townhomes. A neighbor of the project has already come to Planning Board. (8) Security Deposit Assistance — Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties: Housing Application Staff reported PY2017 security deposits have been drawing down quickly, in part due to the Housing for School Success set-aside, which pays the full security deposit. (9) Ramp Loan Program— Finger Lakes Independence Center: Housing Application Again, the Committee voiced familiarity with the project. It is an expensive program, but for reasons that make sense: the number of steps dictates the length of the needed ramp and Ithaca’s housing stock tends to have front steps. Farrell noted the project is totally scalable. Bohn commented the ramps can be of particular service to renters—there is no cost to the landlord. Farrell commented that the ramps sometimes substantially lengthen the time that someone can remain in their housing. (10) Mini-Repair Program -- INHS: Housing Application The Committee reacted positively to INHS’ provision of match funding. The funding is for salary. They are asking for the same [approximately] the same amount as last year [$35, 000 last year; 32, 500 this year]. The number of beneficiaries would be fewer: 40 vs. PY2017’s 50. (11) Hospitality Employment Training Program (HETP)– Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC): Economic Development Application Graham disclosed that his employer, AFCU, is a paid vendor for financial assistance. Farrell noted scalability depends on staffing levels. Farrell liked the inclusion of outcomes. Halpert liked the numerous partners. The prevention of homelessness piece was discussed: GIAC provides referrals for those in need. Employment clearly needed for self-sufficiency. Another applicant doing the same thing might say “no” to this question. De Aragón commented on HETP’s longevity being about 4-5 years, “It seems to be stabilizing and getting good results.” The program is costly. Farrell remarked that lots of new hotels are opening and wondered when employers would begin to put some money toward this program. De Aragón commented it would be a conceptual leap to do that. 5  Other avenues to supporting the program could include Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA) promotion of it and advocating for hotels and the Chamber to allocate some money toward. Halpert noted that even a small match from the hotel occupancy tax would be helpful: “It makes perfect sense money go into to job training in the hospitality industry.” Such funding currently goes to advertising and beautification. De Aragón pointed out tax allocations require a process, which is not fast. Staff will discuss these ideas to HETP in the future and also talk to Tom Knipe, the incoming Deputy Director of Economic Development. The Committee questioned whether the Park Foundation was supporting HETP, or if it another other funding at all. (12) Finger Lakes ReUse Center Expansion: Economic Development Application Graham expressed some surprise, stating he thought they owned the site. Bohn stated, there’s a balloon mortgage payment. It’s a creative definition of “acquisition, but it seems to fit. The IURA’s $100,000 would pay off a portion of the mortgage; the development would lead to enough other funding to pay it off. Bohn reported that FL ReUse will not be applying for matches until Fall, so not spending down. Bohn suggested a UDAG-style funding plan could be structured. The Committee wondered how critical this funding would be to the applicant. Farrell wondered why the applicant did not wait until next year to which Bohn, replied that the because applications for funding they need are due this Fall and need they need to show commitment. (13) ReUse Volunteer Worker & Job Skills Training: Economic Development Application Farrell commented positively on the succession plan and number of job placements. Questions arose about why the funding was for a Challenge employee. De Aragón commented that the application involved many components and therefore seemed to lack focus. The Committee expressed interested in hearing from FL ReUse with regard to the number of placements and use of the Challenge employee. Is the volume of donations such that the workers could be supported now? Are the paid apprentices being counted in the 28 job placements? Are WEP/ “Community Work Experience Program” members going to be placed? How many of these placements are Challenge consumers? Is Challenge Industries intended to be the main placement site? Why isn’t Challenge matching with funding and why is their employee to be based at FL ReUse? (14) Reentry Hub: GroundWorks – OAR: Economic Development Application 6  De Aragón asked if there was a business plan with the project. Bohn: We don’t ask for one. The Committee discussed adding such a question. Graham reacted positively to the cooperative business model, especially for this population, and also noted that other elements of the application seem duplicative—there are many organizations in town that do some of this. Bohn stated that to be eligible for microenterprise, the microenterprise ultimately must owned by an LMI person(s). The cooperative business plan isn’t clear. Questions were raised about whether OAR qualifies as a Community-Based Development Organization. They are not eligible to do training piece under the Economic Development category without being CDBO. Halper noted the applicant might need time to work for the process of becoming one. Farrell wanted more detail in the form of a business plan, saying they could get help with that from AFCU or other places. Farrell wondered about the possibility of doing a planning grant. Bohn instructed Mendizabal to check CDBG Regulations regarding purchase of equipment. It’s possible that the use is ineligible. The Committee applauded the applicant for working on creative solutions, while acknowledging the CDBG regulatory issues that may apply due to how the proposal is configured. (15) Work Preserve Job Training/Job Placements—Historic Ithaca: Economic Development Application Graham noted the program’s familiarity to the Committee. Bohn reported there is a new Executive Director with experience, so the staff is back to full force. Farrell stated the applicant needs to bring in some other funding. A general discussion by the Committee ensued regarding long-term grantees and the desire to see them pursue other types of funding. The Committee will consider various ways of addressing this, including: asking grantees to come to a meeting to discuss this expectation, asking Staff to address it with grantees, outlining a policy for the next RFP, and so on. VI. Other Business 1. IURA Grant Summary (Not discussed) 2. Staff Report (Not discussed) 7  3. Next meeting date: March 16, 2018 (next week) to review Proposals #15 - #28 VII. Motion to Adjourn Adjourned by consensus at approximately 11:50 a.m. 8  Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-6565 DRAFT MINUTES IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) 8:30 am, Friday, March 16, 2018 Third Floor Conference Room City Hall, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850 Present: Karl Graham, Chair; Tracy Farrell; Vice-Chair; Fernando de Aragón; Teresa Halpert. Staff: Anisa Mendizabal; Nels Bohn Excused: Paulette Manos Guests: Diane Nier I. Call to Order Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. II. Changes/Additions to Agenda None. III. Public Comment None. IV. Review of Minutes None. Minutes from both March 2018 meetings will be reviewed in April. V. 2017 HUD Entitlement Grant Program 1. Discussion of CBDO Applications Mendizabal updated the Committee on the status of Community – Based Development Organization (CBDO) Applications. Historic Ithaca’s application has been reviewed and is in order. Finger Lakes ReUse submitted their application on time, but some clarifications are needed. Mendizabal has been in communication with Leslyn McBean-Clairborne, GIAC’s Executive Director. Pending action of the GIAC Board at its scheduled meeting last night, GIAC expects to be able to submit its CBDO application today. Applications for both organizations should be ready for April’s meeting. 2. Action Item: Resolution to Designate Historic Ithaca a CBDO Proposed Resolution IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee March 16, 2018 2018 IURA Designation of Historic Ithaca, Inc. as a Community-Based Development Organization 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 2 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 March 16, 2018, 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”. Farrell moved, Halpert seconded. Carried 4-0. 3. Review/Discussion of Proposals for 2018 Action Plan Funding #15- #28 The Committee resumed discussion of proposals submitted for funding under the 2018 HUD Entitlement Program Action Plan. [Questions raised by the Committee are bolded] (15) Food Entrepreneurship Program 2.0—Cornell Cooperative Extension: Economic Development Application Graham disclosed AFCU does business consulting with individual members of the program, but receives no compensation for it. Graham stated the program that prepares LMI people for careers and businesses, and the program has had some successes—caterers are getting jobs through departments at Cornell. Farrell and Halpert wondered about the number of beneficiaries expected; the application refers to only 1-2 new people, does that mean that everyone from the previous year (and pilot year) would be continuing on as beneficiaries? The application does not provide clarity on this matter. De Aragón said he interpreted the proposal as opening a business—meal kits-- so they will be hiring new people. Graham noted the structure of this program is not like HETP, a thirteen week class, but rather, more like supporting those they’ve worked with (microenterprises) to ensure progress. 3 Farrell said she assumes the people they’ve worked with don’t need the intensive training, but rather support. Bohn recapped his understanding of the application: They want to bring Phase I2 assistance to existing microenterprises (continued technical assistance) while training some new people. Both supporting existing microenterprises and starting new ones are eligible activities. The meal kit approach is a bit difficult—it should not be CCE owning the business—needs to be transferred over to another owner, microenterprise or LMI person. In his opinion, it’s high risk, starting a new business. (16) Targeted Urban Bus Stop Upgrades—TCAT: Public Facilities Application De Aragón disclosed a potential conflict of interest; he is an Ithaca Carshare Board member and his employer, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Counci,l also works regularly with TCAT. Farrell would like to see bus stop at State/MLK/Meadow. High need stop, it has no covering. Farrell stated she is not as familiar with the other stop. Graham was struck by the $70,000 for sidewalk work in conjunction with the actual project; which seemed like a lot. Farrell asked if the bus stop happen first and sidewalk later and also wondered if there a shelter on Elm now? Bohn responded not on the uphill side, no. Farrell and others asked what the ADA issues are and how is the current bus stop non-compliant? This site was discussed in last year’s application, which was funded, then later revised due to logistical problems created by delayed construction timeline. Another bus stop on Chestnut was chosen as a replacement. Mendizabal will review files for photographs of last year’s originally proposed site on Elm and the change that occurred per slowed construction process; will reach out to TCAT as needed. The Committee was interested in hearing a break-out of costs between the two stops. If can only be one, State/Meadow is a highly utilized stop. Or, Farrell suggested, because it is conjunction with the other infrastructure work, maybe it’s wise to do Elm Street now, rather than retrofit. (17) Final Phase Compliance for Heating and Roofing—Downtown Ithaca Children’s Center (DICC): Public Facilities Application Bohn reported that DICC has another request in to the Mayor. Halpert wondered, how can they be healthier year to year? De Aragón stated that regular building maintenance is a need. Farrell: Other organizations in town do try to save for these needs, however, in reality, it’s hard to make happen. Halpert replied that IURA should be the place of last resort. None of these nonprofits is getting rich; they are going to have needs. So, it is a good use of our tax funds. 4 Farrell commented that the application states DICC has full enrollment and wait list, which is a positive change from previous years. Graham sees the organization as a community asset and Farrell agreed—day care is important and expensive. De Aragón wondered if this funding would complete DICC’s repair process, to which Bohn responded in the affirmative. The Committee mentioned that if there is painting to do, it could be a community work day. Graham noted good general support from the Committee. (18) Domestic Violence Shelter Renovation—Advocacy Center: Public Facilities Application Farrell stated the organization was awarded a grant (which has been slow to come. Mendizabal noted that the request is for funding only to fill the gap that was created by rising construction costs during the time period that the DASNY funding has not been released. Farrell wanted assurance that should IURA decide in favor of this project, it should make sure the organization has the DASNY funding before releasing IURA funding. Bohn affirmed that is the protocol. Because of the scale of the house, Staff believes it doesn’t trigger Davis-Bacon. The application’s excellent leverage means a small amount of IURA money will lead to a final product. (19) S. Aurora Street Sidewalk Corridor Completion—City of Ithaca: Public Facilities Application De Aragón disclosed a potential conflict of interest due to transportation and sidewalks, which overlaps with his work at Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Coalition. Committee members concurred the project is expensive, and also noted that to anyone who has ever walked there, the need for sidewalks is obvious. The Committee wondered if this project could be paid for through sidewalk assessment, to which Bohn replied only $31,000 per year can be used for that district. Scalability questions arose. Now that we have the sidewalk fund, are there no other sources of funding? For example, can the City obtain a DOT grant similar to County what the County has? Bohn replied: City prioritized Route 79 because that is even more expensive. Question about the school district’s ability to contribute funding due to the adjacency of the project to South Hill Elementary. Farrell reiterated: The question is scalability. It’s an important project. We’ve given big money in the past, but this is hard because we have many other requests. Bohn pointed out this has the advantage of being construction diagram-ready 5 Farrell and Halpert wanted to know if other area institutions, such as Ithaca College, will commit money to the project? De Aragón stated the budget was problematic. Economies of scale come from have the equipment and people there all at one time. Here, there is no logical intermediate connection. Bohn explained the new development, Chainworks, is coming online. The Town will do the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Referring to the diagram, he indicated IURA could fund some sections, but these will not get a pedestrian to a signalized intersection. Graham stated the signalized intersection will be coming with Chainworks. De Aragon: The applicant could do pedestrian-activated crosswalk. De Aragón also noted there are other funding streams. They could make an argument that they would link South Hill Elementary School, the mulit-iuse trail, college connection. Farrell and De Aragón concurred that the budget was much larger than IURA normally would handle. (20) Immigrant Services Program – Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties: Public Services Application Discussion first centered around the the applicant ‘s budget pages, which caused confusion among the readers. The application referred to an uptick in needs, and the Committee wondered about this, given current federal policies impacting immigrants and refugees. Are more people coming? Or, is it that more people are coming and the applicant can’t be reimbursed for service costs from the federal government? Graham said he reads it as more people are worried, so coming to the program for consultation. Committee members made note that, once again, IURA is being asked to cover staffing. De Aragón said it would be good to have a check list—how many years IURA has been funding organizations and also which have received funding to support staff. We support many important projects, year after year. We’ve talked about tough love for staffing and continuous support. Maybe a future polite meeting is in order. (21) Supportive Transitional Housing Initiatives-- Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties: Public Services Application. It was noted that this is another application for a program offering life skills and/or intensive case management. So, there seems to be a need to offer life skills, etc., but so many organizations do it. Is there a different way to do this? In housing-related case management, as well, there seemed to be duplication. 6 Halpert felt that with decentralization (i.e. many organizations), you have an opportunity to reach more people. The Committee indicated strong interest in seeing reduction of fragmentation and seeing more partnership. Mendizabal spoke of a community housing identifier role that was ultimately not funded, perhaps for unrelated reasons (not enough housing to identify). Farrell felt that Bridging the Gap sounded very much like the Learning Web—participants are offered intensive case management. Funding is 100% staff, and she expressed mixed feelings about it. Halpert: Place to Stay and Bridging the Gap are co-mingled. Sounds like the are expanding Place to Stay staff role to Bridging the Gap. De Aragón reminded the group there’s a Public Service there’s a $95,100 maximum for funding Public Services due to the CDBG cap. Graham: Sounds like desire to support, but how? This is a vulnerable population. (22) Work Preserve Job Readiness: Job Placements -- Historic Ithaca: Public Services Application Farrell made not of the leverage indicated-- half of the funding is from IURA. Like the program a lot, we have supported it a long time. It’s staff funding we are providing. Therefore, not scalable. Farrell said, “A really tough question that comes into my mind is, does this work with tough population – does that have effect, for those who aren’t placed? “ (23) 2-1-1 Information and Referral Service—Human Services Coalition: Public Services Application Graham disclosed a potential conflict of interest: His employer, AFCU, is a client and provide s $12,000 in budget. De Aragón disclosed a potential conflict: 2-1-1 gets some of its funding through Federal Transportation Authority, as does his employer, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Coalition. Graham: This service helps make the connections we’ve talked about, coordination of Coordinated Assessment Team (CAT). De Aragón: It’s foundational. They bring a lot of value by leveraging volunteers. Mendizabal stated it would be interesting to see what other coordination they could do; they are well-positioned to do it. Halpert: Seeing big leverage is good. Fundamental service and they do a good job. (24) Pathway of Hope – Salvation Army: Public Services Application 7 The Committee discussed that the program would be starting in Ithaca from scratch, and the funding is for salary to provide intensive case management, though, as discussed previously in the meeting, many area organizations provide seemingly similar services. The large amount for travel expenses was discussed, and all agreed it would be good to know what the outcomes are at those places. This is a National program, but no funding from their National offices. There are resumes from staff people not based in Ithaca-- perhaps that why the travel—national people coming back and forth. (25) Leadership Employment and Development Skills (LEADS)—Women’s Opportunity Center: Public Services Application Total project cost is $105, 00 but half the cost for full-time facilitator appears to be substantially below living wage. De Aragón: The organization has been focusing on its store and childcare. Good that they see they are attempting to go beyond own model. Committee members would have liked to see letters of support to show the partnerships they describe. The goals are very worthy and the organization that has been doing good work. An option for scaling could be provision of stipends. (26) Housing for School Success – Ithaca City School District (ICSD): Public Services Application Graham discussed that his employer, AFCU provides financial counseling to HSS participants (parents). Committee members wanted to know where the program was in discussions with School District for funding. They could see funding with strong message to meet obligation. The Committee liked the seeing the preliminary outcome data, and underlined the need for feedback and data on whether it is working. With this information, the District might see it as economical to support. The Committee also wanted to see data comparing HSS outcomes to the general school population (children in like economic circumstances were the comparison group). (27) Youth Organizing Fellowship—Multicultural Resource Center: Public Services Application 8  The proposal is for support of salary (seemingly pieces of all staff salaries) and stipends. The population services is 200 people is for the conference (audience) and 8-12 youth organizers. The Committee wanted to know how were stipends paid last year. Mendizabal noted that an analysis of 990s shows this organization, along with Finger Lakes ReUse, has some financial challenges. De Aragón liked the idea of funding the stipends only. (28) Housing Case Manager—OAR: Public Services Application Graham disclosed that AFCU holds the mortgage of Endeavor House. Mendizabal disclosed that she was once an employee of OAR. Halpert noted that the applicant proposes to pay the case manager a living wage, which she supports. Tough population and a new program for the applicant (supportive housing). Graham: They saw a need and they filled it; they worked around with provisional plan. Farrell said she would like the County to step up with funding. Graham replied that the County has greatly increased funding through Alternatives for Incarceration. Halpert: I like it. De Aragón: It’s half the total amount available for Public Services. Will this person be working with only residents (4-10)? Or everyone? A member noted that Learning Web presentation years ago explained why the organization chose not to house participants together. OAR must have a reason they have chosen this co- living model. Is it scalable? If you look about the amount of money available in this category as salaries, you can see we could only fund 2, maybe 3 people. VI. Other Business 1. IURA Grant Summary (Not discussed) 2. Staff Report (Not discussed) 9 VII. Motion to Adjourn -- Adjourned by consensus at approximately 12:10 p.m. 10  Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-6559 To: NI Committee Members From: Anisa Mendizabal, Community Development Planner Re: Application to Designate Finger Lakes Reuse as a CBDO Date: April 11, 2018 The Board of Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc., has applied for Community Based Development Organization (CBDO) status for the 2018 Action Plan and have submitted a funding application for the Volunteer Worker & Job Skills Training job placements project. The following table compares the requirements for CBDO status against information submitted by Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc.: Requirement per 570.204(c)(1) Staff Analysis Organizational Purpose: YES Organized under state law to undertake The FL ReUse Mission Statement is “Enhancing community development activities Community, Economy and Environment through ReUse.” Additionally, the FL ReUse Articles of Incorporation identify the following purposes, “To partner with existing social service and educational programs to provide training in reuse industries,” and “To educate the public about the value of reusable materials and teach people how to transform materials for practical and creative purposes.” Board Composition: YES A. Maintain at least 51% of governing body either FL ReUse’s by-laws indicate there shall be no fewer LMI residents of area of operation, owners or than 3 and no more than 15 members. There are senior officers of private establishments and currently 11 members. 6 of the 11 members (55%) institutions in the service area, or meet CBDO composition requirements. representatives of LMI neighborhood organizations in the service area. B. No more than 33% of the governing body may YES be elected officials or employees/appointees of There is one City employee on the Board (9%). the City of Ithaca. Board Membership: YES Members of the board must be nominated and By-laws, Article IV, Section 4.1. Members elected approved by membership or permanent governing by the Board. body, except that up to 1/3 of the board may be appointed or be elected officials. Purpose of the Organization: SEE “CBDO RECOMMENDATION” BELOW Have as its primary purpose the improvement of Articles of Incorporation indicate primary purpose the physical, economic, or social environment of is improvement of community, economy, and its service area with particular emphasis on LMI environment of service area. There is no explicit persons statement regarding LMI persons. Organizational Status: YES Must be either non-profit or for-profit with only 501(c)(3) incidental monetary benefit for its members. Assets: YES Must not be subject to reversion of assets to the No such reversion clause included in By-laws or grantee upon dissolution, except for assets related Articles of Incorporation to specific grants. Contracting: YES Must be free to contract for goods and services See By-laws, Article V. from vendors of its own choosing CBDO Recommendation 24 CFR Part 570.204 (c) (3) allows for designation of CBDO’s who do not qualify under paragraph (c) (1) or (c) (2) when an organization is “sufficiently similar in purpose, function and scope” to entities qualifying as CBDOs under the prior paragraphs. Finger Lakes ReUse’s original 2007 Articles of Incorporation includes as stated goals provision of job training in reuse industries and educating the public to ways to transform reused goods for practical and creative purposes. Further, Finger Lakes ReUse’s Mission Statement specifies enhancement of community and economy as two of its three main reasons for being. Finger Lakes ReUse has operated a job readiness and job training program since 2012 and thus has served in a community development capacity for the past six years, developing, modifying, and ensuring the success of a job training program for a population that has not demonstrated success in other job training programs. Their provision of life skills along with employment skills is the work of community based development organizations. IURA staff believe, after reviewing its Mission Statement, By-Laws, and Articles of Incorporation that Finger Lakes ReUse meets the “substantially similar” test; however, there is a certain level of risk involved in approving their CBDO status since the organization’s Articles of Incorporation does not include particular attention to the needs of LMI persons. CDBG Public Service Cap Exemption One category of eligible CDBG activity is a “special activities by CBDOs”. Under certain circumstances, a CBDO is not subject to the 15% CDBG expenditure cap otherwise applicable to Public Services. To be exempt from the Public Service cap, the CBDO must both: (1) Undertake an eligible CBDO project, and (2) Carry out a service designed to increase economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons through job training and placement and other employment support services (e.g., child care, peer support programs, counseling, child care, transportation and other similar services). Eligible CBDO projects include any of the following: • Neighborhood revitalization, • Community economic development, or • Energy conservation project. According to HUD’s CDBG Desk Guide, a CBDO “community economic development” project must include activities that increase economic opportunity, principally for low- and moderate-income persons, or that are expected to create or retain businesses or permanent jobs within the community. HUD has emphasized that the provision of general job readiness training is not sufficient to qualify an activity as a CBDO Community Economic Development project; job placement must be the intended and actual outcome of such an activity. The Work Preserve Job Training and Placement program appears to satisfy this criterion; therefore, it is not subject to the 15%Public Services cap.  Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-6559 To: NI Committee Members From: Anisa Mendizabal, Community Development Planner Re: Application to Renew Designation of Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC) as a CBDO Date: April 11, 2018 The Board of Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC), Inc., has applied for Community Based Development Organization (CBDO) status for the 2018 Action Plan and have submitted a funding application for the Volunteer Worker & Job Skills Training job placements project. The following table compares the requirements for CBDO status against information submitted by GIAC, Inc.: Requirement per 570.204(c)(1) Staff Analysis Organizational Purpose: YES Organized under state law to undertake Constitution of GIAC, October 1991 identifies community development activities mission as ‘providing community with multi- cultural, educational, and recreational programs focused on individual and social development”. The Certificate of Incorporation states the organizations purpose is “to provide coordinated, balanced programs of a social, educational, cultural, recreational and health nature for the good of the greater Ithaca area” Board Composition: YES A. Maintain at least 51% of governing body either GIAC’s amended its by-laws in 2017 to indicate LMI residents of area of operation, owners or there shall be no fewer than 9 and no more than senior officers of private establishments and 15 members. There are currently 12 members. 7 institutions in the service area, or of the 12 members (58%) meet CBDO composition representatives of LMI neighborhood requirements. organizations in the service area. B. No more than 33% of the governing body may be elected officials or employees/appointees of YES the City of Ithaca. There is one elected official on the Board (8%). Board Membership: YES Members of the board must be nominated and As evidenced by list of Board of Directors and approved by membership or permanent governing constitution Article VI Section 1. body, except that up to 1/3 of the board may be appointed or be elected officials. Purpose of the Organization: SEE “CBDO RECOMMENDATION” BELOW Have as its primary purpose the improvement of Constitution Article II section 2. the physical, economic, or social environment of its service area with particular emphasis on LMI persons Organizational Status: YES Must be either non-profit or for-profit with only 501(c)(3) incidental monetary benefit for its members. Assets: YES Must not be subject to reversion of assets to the No such reversion clause included in By-laws or grantee upon dissolution, except for assets related Articles of Incorporation to specific grants. Contracting: YES Must be free to contract for goods and services By Laws, Article V describes contracting in from vendors of its own choosing compliance with this requirement. CBDO Recommendation GIAC has been designated a CBDO in the past and its current application is in order, as evidenced by the above analysis. Community development is one of GIAC’s stated aims, and it has functioned as a CBDO by providing job readiness and job training to the community since 2012. IURA staff believe, after reviewing its Mission Statement, By-Laws, and Certificate of Incorporation, that GIAC meets the CDBO requirements. CDBG Public Service Cap Exemption One category of eligible CDBG activity is a “special activities by CBDOs”. Under certain circumstances, a CBDO is not subject to the 15% CDBG expenditure cap otherwise applicable to Public Services. To be exempt from the Public Service cap, the CBDO must both: (1) Undertake an eligible CBDO project, and (2) Carry out a service designed to increase economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons through job training and placement and other employment support services (e.g., child care, peer support programs, counseling, child care, transportation and other similar services). Eligible CBDO projects include any of the following: • Neighborhood revitalization, • Community economic development, or • Energy conservation project. According to HUD’s CDBG Desk Guide, a CBDO “community economic development” project must include activities that increase economic opportunity, principally for low- and moderate-income persons, or that are expected to create or retain businesses or permanent jobs within the community. HUD has emphasized that the provision of general job readiness training is not sufficient to qualify an activity as a CBDO Community Economic Development project; job placement must be the intended and actual outcome of such an activity. The Work Preserve Job Training and Placement program appears to satisfy this criterion; therefore, it is not subject to the 15%Public Services cap. Proposed Resolution IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee April 13, 2018 2018 IURA Designation of Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. as a Community-Based Development Organization WHEREAS, the Board of Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc., (Finger Lakes ReUse) 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; 1  • community economic development; • energy conservation project; and WHEREAS, at their April 13, 2018, meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee evaluated FINGER LAKES REUSE, Inc. CBDO application and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA determines that FINGER LAKES REUSE, 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 FINGER LAKES REUSE, 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”. j:\planning\community development\entitlement grants\cdbg 2018\cbdos\cbdo - FINGER LAKES REUSE\reso nic hi cbdo 2018 3-16-18.doc 2 Proposed Resolution IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee April 13, 2018 2018 IURA Designation of Greater Ithaca Activities Center, Inc. as a Community-Based Development Organization WHEREAS, the Board of Greater Ithaca Activities Center, Inc., (GIAC) 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; 1  • community economic development; • energy conservation project; and WHEREAS, at their April 13, 2018, meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee evaluated GIAC, Inc. CBDO application and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA determines that GIAC, 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 GIAC, 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”. j:\planning\community development\entitlement grants\cdbg 2018\cbdos\cbdo - GIAC\reso nic hi cbdo 2018 3-16-18.doc 2  IURA Grants Summary March 2018 ON TOTAL # SCHEDULE HUD ENTITLEMENT ACTIVITIES SPONSOR BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPENDED % SPENT 2015 CDBG Activities 2521 complete 1.0 Hancock Street INHS 250,403.50 250,403.50 0.00 100% 2522 complete 2.0 Mini repair INHS 35,000.00 35,000.00 0.00 100% 2 2531 complete 6.0 Temporary Ramp Loan Program Finger Lakes Ind. Center 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 3 2532 complete 7.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program GIAC 109,372.86 109,372.86 0.00 100% 2523 complete 8.0 Work Preserve Job Training Program Historic Ithaca 87,500.00 87,500.00 0.00 100% 2524 NO 9.0 Spencer Road Sidewalks City of Ithaca 100,000.00 28,106.50 71,893.50 28% 2525 complete 10.0 2-1-1/I&R Service Human Services Coalition 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 7 2526 complete 11.0 Building for the Future Southside Community Center 21,227.76 21,227.76 0.00 100% 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% 7 2912 complete Unallocated 2015 CDBG N/A 2,349.24 0.00 0.00 100% Total 837,351.56 763,108.82 71,893.50 91% 2016 CDBG Activities 2541 ok 3.0 LKNB Homeowner Rehab Love Knows No Bounds 36,334.72 25,510.00 10,824.72 70% 2542 complete 6.0 Mini repair INHS 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 100% 5 2543 ok 8.0 Work Preserve Job Training & Placement Historic Ithaca 67,500.00 49,903.72 17,596.28 74% 2544 complete 9.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program GIAC 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 100% 2545 ok 11.0 Heating System & Code Corrections DICC 22,489.00 21,099.00 1,390.00 94% 2546 complete 12.0 Advocacy Center Garage Renovation Advocacy Center 10,317.00 10,317.00 0.00 100% 2547 NO 13.0 Wading Pool Renovations GIAC 185,000.00 0.00 185,000.00 0% 2548 complete 1.0a Housing for School Success IURA 11,580.00 11,580.00 0.00 100% 2549 complete 14.0 A Place to Stay Case Management Catholic Charities 17,625.65 17,625.65 0.00 100% 2550 complete 8.0a Work Preserve Job Readiness Historic Ithaca 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 2551 complete 15.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 100% 2552 complete 16.0 211 Info and Referral HSC 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 2553 complete 17.0 CDBG Admin IURA 132,274.20 132,274.20 0.00 100% Total 683,120.57 468,309.57 214,811.00 69% 2016 HOME Activities 2755 ok 1.0 Housing for School Success IURA 77,104.40 43,288.42 33,815.98 56% 10 2756 ok 2.0 Security Deposit Assistance Program (including Inspections) Catholic Charities 44,026.00 43,651.00 375.00 99% 2757 ok 4.0 304 Hector Street INHS 100,000.00 96,380.00 3,620.00 96% 8, 9, 15 2758 complete 5.0 202 Hancock Townhouses INHS 314,125.00 314,125.00 0.00 100% 2759 ok 7.0 Morris Ave Homes 14 Habitat for Humanity 75,000.00 53,481.17 21,518.83 71% 2760 complete 18.0 HOME Admin IURA 32,984.10 32,984.10 0.00 100% 2807 complete Unallocated 2016 HOME 11 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% Total 643,239.50 583,909.69 59,329.81 91% 2017 CDBG Activities 2561 ok 1.0 Chartwell House Tompkins Community Action 22,000.00 7,695.00 14,305.00 35% 2562 ok 2.0 2017 Homeowner Rehab INHS 75,000.00 0.00 75,000.00 0% 2563 ok 6.0 Mini Repair INHS 26,000.00 0.00 26,000.00 0% 2564 ok 7.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program GIAC 100,000.00 35,885.98 64,114.02 36% 2565 complete 8.0 Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 100% 2566 ok 10.0 Work Preserve Job Training: Job Placements Historic Ithaca 67,500.00 0.00 67,500.00 0% 2567 ok 11.0 Food Entrepreneurship CCE of Tompkins County 36,587.00 6,428.66 30,158.34 18% 2568 ok 12.0 Urban Bus Stop Signage & Amenities TCAT 25,000.00 0.00 25,000.00 0% 2569 ok 13.0 DICC Heating & Roofing Replacement6, 7 DICC 35,500.00 35,205.00 295.00 99% 2570 ok 14.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 30,000.00 7,500.00 22,500.00 25% 2571 ok 15.0 Work Preserve Job Readiness Historic Ithaca 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 0% 2572 complete 16.0 2-1-1 Info and Referral Human Services Coalition 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 2573 ok 17.0 A Place To Stay: Supportive Services Catholic Charities 15,925.00 0.00 15,925.00 0% 2574 ok 18.0 Housing For School Success: Year #2 ICSD 13,280.00 6,388.79 6,891.21 48% 2575 ok 19.0 CDBG Admin IURA 128,882.00 45,822.53 83,059.47 36% ok 22.0 Economic Development Loan Fund IURA 56,886.24 0.00 56,886.24 0% complete 9.0 Harriet Gianellis Child Care Center Tompkins Community Action 84,200.00 84,200.00 0.00 100% ok Unallocated 2017 CDBG16 N/A 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 0% Total 856,760.24 249,125.96 557,634.28 35% 2017 HOME Activities 2767 cancelled 3.0 402 South Cayuga Street17 Habitat for Humanity 80,000.00 80,000.00 0.00 100% 2768 ok 4.0 Housing Scholarship Program 11 The Learning Web 65,592.00 16,385.32 49,206.68 25% 2769 ok 5.0 Security Deposit Assistance Catholic Charities 42,750.00 32,804.50 9,945.50 77% 2770 ok 21.0 828 Hector Street (CHDO) INHS 41,378.00 1,328.80 40,049.20 3% 2771 ok 20.0 HOME Admin IURA 27,565.10 9,687.29 17,877.81 35% 2807 ok Unallocated 2017 HOME12, 17 N/A 99,977.80 0.00 99,977.80 0% ok Recaptured Funds (HP)15 N/A 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 0% ok Unanticipated Program Income (PI) 8 N/A 21,545.00 0.00 21,545.00 0% Total 383,807.90 140,205.91 243,601.99 37% Page 1 of 2  IURA Grants Summary March 2018 ON TOTAL # SCHEDULE HUD ENTITLEMENT ACTIVITIES SPONSOR BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPENDED % SPENT CDBG Spend Down Ratio (must be less than 1.5 by June 1st of each year (60 days prior to program year): CDBG Spend Down Ratio = total unexpended CDBG funds/most recent annual CDBG award YES Pre-2017 Method: Unexpended CDBG Grant funds on Line of Credit: 1.222 NO Current Method: Total Unexpended CDBG funds: Line of Credit + CDBG Revolving Loan Fund: 1.904 Maximum Unexpended CDBG Funds to Satisfy 1.5 CDBG Spend Down Ratio 966,615 Amount Required to be Expended by 6/1 to Meet CDBG Spend Down Ratio of 1.5: 260,650 Total Unexpended HUD Entitlement Funds CDBG Activities 787,452.54 CDBG Program Income 56,886.24 CDBG Revolving Loan Fund Balance 496,699.01 HOME Activities 302,931.80 HOME Program Income Activites 0.00 Total Unexpended HUD Entitlement Funds 1,643,969.59 Page 2 of 2