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, June 8, 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 May 11, 2018 V. New Business 1. Action Item: Resolution – Recommend INHS as Sponsor for Urban Renewal Project at 402 S. Cayuga and disposition and development agreement to sell land for $29K 2. Discuss & Recommend – Allocation(s) of additional HUD Entitlement Funding, 2018 Action Plan VI. Other Business 1. IURA Grant Summary 2. Staff Report a. Action Items from May 11 Meeting b. 2018 Action Planning Process Updates c. Program Updates 3. Next Meeting: Friday, July 13, 2018 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, May 11, 2018 Common Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850 Present: Karl Graham, Chair; Tracy Farrell, Vice-Chair; Fernando de Aragón Staff: Anisa Mendizabal Excused: Teresa Halpert; Paulette Manos Guests: Leslyn McBean-Clairborne, Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC); Kathy Schlather, Human Service Coalition of Tompkins County (HSC) I. Call to Order Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 8:41 am. II. Changes/Additions to Agenda The Chair welcomed Leslyn McBean-Clairborne, Director of Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC) and added discussion agenda item(s) to precede approval of minutes. III. Public Comment None. IV. Discussion -- IURA Adopted 2018 Action Plan Mc-Bean-Clairborne said that the HETP program, which started five years ago, has been extremely successful, yet costs have gone up. For the past two years, including through discussions with Mayor Myrick, GIAC has been attempting to find a way to establish HETP as a regular program of GIAC, so that it will not be dependent on grant funding, such as CDBG funding from IURA. McBean-Clairborne recalled GIAC’s CDL (Commercial Driver’s License) Program, a very successful program that is no longer in operation, and pointed out that all but one of the employees of color at the Department of Public Works (DPW) came through the CDL program. The CDL Program is no longer in existence, and McBean-Clairborne does not want that to happen to HETP. She is looking for funding for HETP from other sources. GIAC/HETP has secured $6,000 from the TC Community Foundation. HETP has also been awarded a mini- grant from the Chamber of Commerce. She is awaiting news about whether an application to the United Way will be funded. She has had a meeting with the Governor’s Office regarding Regional Economic Development Council (REDC) funding. Some employers have been willing to contribute more to the internship portion of the program, but many are not there or are thinking about it. The paid internship is of great importance, because many people in the program are marginalized and low-income, and thus cannot do a “no pay” internship. Childcare, transportation and other needs continue to exist, even with a paid internship. McBean-Clairborne told the Committee that the level of funding in the IURA-adopted 2018 Draft Action Plan, $100,000, will not be enough to run the program as planned if HETP does not secure funding from other sources. Even $10,000 more would make a huge difference, she stated. At the 100,000 level, she will need to reduce the hours of the HETP Coordinator and the HETP Assistant. The barriers experienced by HETP participants, such Ithaca’s inaffordable housing costs and transportation costs incurred by living outside of Ithaca, are also experienced by people in human service roles. Graham asked if there is any indication from the City regarding its commitment to the program. McBean-Clairborne said that, yes, she has spoken with the Mayor previously about ways to secure HETP’s funding, and the Mayor has cited the IURA-managed HUD Entitlement Funding as a secure source. Graham commented that almost every year, the CDL Program is cited as one that people felt was particularly effective. “I’m sure you know the only reason we were unable to fund it is that HUD funding went down, while demands across the City remained.” Past experience with diminished funding levels and unknowns about what to expect federally has prompted the Committee to try to encourage groups that apply for IURA-administered funding to seek alternative means of support. This is no reflection on the worth of the programs. De Aragón asked if McBean-Clairborne worked with Workforce Development. McBean- Clairborne said that there are legal reasons they cannot direct funding to HETP. Mendizabal added that in her recent meeting with Julia Mattick of Workforce Development Board and Jodi LaPierre of Visit Ithaca, she learned that Workforce Development receives Strategic Tourism funding which is then leveraged to pay for Serve Safe and other certifications that HETP members can access. McBean-Clairborne said HETP will make its best effort to show Tompkins County Strategic Tourism Planning Board (STPB) that funding the infrastructure around tourism—a well-trained pool of hospitality industry talent—is a valuable investment. Farrell said, “The way I remember the CDL program was we were very in favor of it, and the woman who was running it was leaving, and perhaps we were not asked for funding, as I remember.” McBean-Clairborne stated that the person who ran the CDL program recently reached out to her to discuss restarting the CDL program. De Aragón recalled that federal transportation money supported the CDL program a few years, and Farrell added there was TCAT involvement, too.  Graham inquired whether there had been any discussions with NYS Assembly Member Barbara Lifton about funding. De Aragón asked about the Department of Labor. McBean- Clairborne replied that was part of the Workforce Development conversation. Farrell asked about the HETP internships. McBean-Clairborne said participants have three months to complete them—some participants do it faster, some take the whole three months, some need extensions. For example, one participant was hired within two weeks of starting his internship. Farrell wondered if there was a way to shorten the internship. McBean-Clairborne replied that on the flipside, sometimes people need all the allotted time in their internship. She also cited incidents where the intern was not being treated fairly and which required intervention and for the intern to be referred to another employer. Farrell wondered if some employers are only looking for intern after intern with no hires. McBean- Clairborne explained that this would be a situation HETP tries to avoid. De Aragón asked if any HETP students pay tuition for the program. McBean-Clairborne responded that HETP participants cannot afford it. De Aragón wondered if the program ever enrolled the children of families who have resources enough to help. McBean-Clairborne said that most people who come to the program are the people who are most in need, and HETP tries to serve those who have the greatest needed, because they do not have other options. Mendizabal inquired if past participants ever contribute to the program afterward and McBean-Clairborne affirmed that yes, that has happened. Graham told McBean-Clairborne that the Committee would discuss her request. McBean-Clairborne left at approximately 9:05 am. V. Discussion with Kathy Schlather, Executive Director of the Tompkins County Human Services Coalition – Community Needs for Case Management Services Graham welcomed Kathy Schlather, Executive Director of the Human Services Coalition (HSC) of Tompkins County. Graham told her that as the Committee was going through the 2018 applications and listening to presentations, it saw a lot of similarity in what applicants were trying to accomplish with their populations. Applicants often asked for funding for “intensive case management.” Schlather responded that she attended Public Hearing #1 and also noticed the similarity in requests among in the Public Service presentations. Schlather began by explaining that “case work” is very different from “case management.” Case work is, “I check in two times a month”; Case management is, “I have five people and I am responsible for their success.” However, the latter has fallen away from practice, because there is no funding for that. Schlather went on to say that the need is not “having [a staff member] to fill out forms” but someone who can help identify and secure housing, and, as importantly, retain it once it’s been secured. And, more likely, this is not one person tasked with this responsibility but five, “It’s someone the landlord can talk to,” she said, if the tenant is not complying with the lease and/or is not communicating. “Many times, people [tenants] do nothing when they get a notice of eviction” due to overwhelm, mental illness, or other reasons, “then it’s a crisis” because if the tenant does not respond or take action during the stated time period, they can be legally evicted. If a tenant is evicted, or if the tenant vacates without taking their belongings, they are starting all over again. The question often becomes: Is it that the tenant had no one who could help them? Or, is it they didn’t reach out during crisis? Or, is it that in order to avert the crisis, the tenant needed to be working with a support person regularly, or have a stronger support network. Once someone weathers a crisis and gets to a more stable place, support can dissipate, whether because there is no funding to sustain ongoing support, or because the person and/or the support person feel it is no longer necessary, or because people don’t want independence, not to be tied to services indefinitely, or for another reason combination of reasons. Schlather has observed that most people like relationship-building [with a support person]. There is a lot of turnover in these roles, she said, so sometimes clients seek out the staff members who they worked with in the past, even after they move on to another workplace. Or, there is a situation like at Catholic Charities, where people are literally lining up for services—staff does not have enough time to spend with people coming for help. If you talk with service providers, Schlather noted, they will say the clients’ issues are harder than they were 10 years ago. Clients have a multiplicity of issues. Farrell asked if Schlather thought that the new housing site proposed by Lakeview would help with the situation Schlather described. Schlather replied that at Lakeview’s current site, Lakeview is working with people with serious mental illness. The new site will be largely for those who are currently residing in Lakeview’s scattered sites. Youth coming out of foster care and people coming home from incarceration are among two populations who could benefit from consistent support. Schlather commented that organizations are feeling understaffed, and state funding is very restrictive. Graham commented that he was struck by organizations, such as OAR and Catholic Charities, that have worked to create housing for their clients. Given that there are housing development experts in town, is there space for knowledge and resource sharing, he wondered. Schlather responded that it is easier for organizations to find funding for the physical structure, than it is to fund the people in it. For example, low-barrier housing is concept which seems to be gaining support, “You can come up with the funding to build, but you need 24/7 staffing, and it’s hard to identify [funding].” Farrell noted that there are some concerns about housing that is super specialized; a mix seems good for people. Economies of scale were also discussed in regard to supportive housing. Small developments e.g. 3- or 4-bedroom residences need a staff person just as larger ones e.g. 8 units do. Housing for people with special needs and larger housing developments sometimes encounter resistance. Schlather feels another shelter is needed. Farrell asked if the current shelter, which was changed to include SRO units, should return to a shelter. Schalther said that in her opinion, it should stay an SRO. Somewhere like the Greenstar Space, with its open space, could more  suitable to shelter. The West End currently has a large share of special-needs housing. Zoning allows it, but how to attain the aforementioned mix of housing that promotes opportunity and benefit for all? The siting of housing may follow a path of least resistance; it goes where the housing provider can locate. In the community, there is conversation about creating housing for people who are currently using alcohol or drugs [a housing first or harm reduction approach]. Schlather shared that HUD funding does not allow sobriety to be a barrier to housing; this is not well-known. Regarding the County Housing grant [discussed last month], Jason Molino, the new County Administrator, has said there is a state law prohibiting counties from using county funding for housing or programs that are determined to “go directly” to individuals. V. Review of Minutes – Minutes for April 13, 2018 Moved by de Aragón moved. Seconded by Farrell. Approved as written. 3-0. V. New Business 1. Action Item: Resolution – Re-designate INHS as Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO) Graham asked if the Office for the Aging is considered an “LMI neighborhood organization in the service area.” Staff will report on this at the June meeting. Moved by Farrell. Seconded by De Aragón. 2018 IURA Designation of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) as a Community-Based Development Organization WHEREAS, the Board of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) seeks designation by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as a Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO), and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has designated the IURA to administer the City’s HUD Entitlement Program that oversees Community Development Block Grant funds awarded to the City, and WHEREAS, an eligible category of CDBG activities is a “Special Activity by CBDO”, that offers certain advantages, such as exemption from the 15% expenditure cap otherwise applicable to public service activities, authorization to carry out new housing construction (normally prohibited with CDBG funds), and discretion to allow income generated by a CDBG-funded activity to not be considered CDBG program income, and WHEREAS, the following four tests established at CFR Title 24 §570.204 must be met to qualify under a category of “Special Activity by CBDOs”: 1. The entity qualifies as a CBDO, including the 51% board membership test; 2. The CBDO will undertake an eligible project;  3. That the CBDO will carry out the funded activity directly or with an entity other than the grantee; 4. That the CBDO will not carry out a prohibited activity, and WHEREAS, a CBDO must maintain at least 51% of its governing body’s membership to be made up of any combination of the following: • Low- and moderate income residents of its area of operation • Owners or senior officers of private establishments and other institutions located in its area of operation • Representatives of low- and moderate-income neighborhood organizations located in its area of operation, and WHEREAS, a CBDO must have as its primary purpose the improvement of the physical, economic, or social environment of its geographic area of operation, with a particular emphasis on the needs of low- and moderate-income persons, and WHEREAS, the project undertaken by the CBDO must qualify as one or more of the following project types: • neighborhood revitalization; • community economic development; • energy conservation project; and WHEREAS, at its May 11, 2018, meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee evaluated INHS’s CBDO application and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA determines that INHS meets the requirements for eligibility as a CBDO, and that the Scattered Site Project Phase II Loan qualifies as an eligible CBDO activity, and be it further RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby designates INHS as a Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO) and its Scattered Site Project Phase II Loan as eligible for CDBG funding under the category of “Special Activities by CBDOs”. Carried 3-0. 2. Action Item: Resolution -- Election of Officers Moved by De Aragón. Seconded by Graham. Selection of 2018 IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee Officers WHEREAS, IURA By-laws provide that the committee membership shall elect its own committee Vice-Chairperson and nominate a candidate for committee Chairperson for consideration by the Agency, and  WHEREAS, per the Bylaws, an Agency member shall fill either the committee Chairperson or committee Vice-Chairperson position, and WHEREAS, officers of each committee serve a one-year term, but continue to hold office until their successor is selected or appointed, and WHEREAS, the current Committee Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons are Karl Graham and Tracy Farrell, respectively, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that Karl Graham be nominated as Chairperson of the IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee, and be it further RESOLVED, that Tracy Farrell be elected as Vice-Chairperson of the IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee. Carried 3-0. Discussion ensued about requirements of Committee members. Staff will provide information at the June Meeting. De Aragón departed at 9:45 a.m. VI. Other Business (Not discussed) VII. Motion to Adjourn Adjourned by consensus at 9:45 a. m. IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee Proposed Resulotion June 8, 2018 Designation of INHS as Sponsor to Undertake an Urban Renewal Project at 402 S. Cayuga St. ― Property Disposition WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) is the owner of vacant real property located at 402 South Cayuga Street (tax parcel # 93.-6-7), and WHEREAS, a prior conceptual agreement with Habitat for Humanity of Tompkins/Cortland Counties, Inc. (Habitat) expired because the project to construct four units of for-sale, affordable housing was deemed financially infeasible by Habitat, and WHEREAS, the IURA continues to seek redevelopment of the vacant property for owner- occupied, affordable housing in a manner supportive of surrounding neighborhood, and WHEREAS, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) has indicated interest to develop a project to develop new owner-occupied town homes at 402 South Cayuga Street which will be affordable to low-income homebuyers, and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2018, the IURA’s Neighborhood Investment Committee reviewed a preliminary concept plan by INHS to develop up to four townhouses at the project site and invited INHS to submit an IURA Sponsor Application for such a project, and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2018, the IURA recommended funding INHS’s proposal to develop 402 Sout Cayuga as part of its 2018 Action Plan, WHEREAS, on May 16, 2018, INHS submitted an IURA Sponsor Application to acquire 402 S. Cayuga Street, and WHEREAS, the project site is located within the Urban Renewal Project Boundary area, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) is only authorized to dispose of property to a specific buyer at a negotiated price if such buyer is designated as an eligible and qualified sponsor (Sponsor) to carry out an urban renewal project per section 508 of General Municipal Law and the sale is approved by Common Council, and WHEREAS, a proposed Sponsor is evaluated in accordance with adopted IURA land disposition procedures that seek to determine if the proposed Sponsor is qualified and capable of fulfilling the objectives of the project for property disposition, and WHEREAS, IURA evaluation criteria for Sponsors include: 1. Financial status and stability 2. Legal qualification to operate in the State of New York and to enter into contracts with regard to the disposition, use, and development of land in questions 3. Previous experience in the financing, use, development and operation of projects of a similar nature 4. Reputation and proof of fair, reputable and ethical business practices and a record devoid of convictions WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Urban Renewal Plan is to provide a mechanism for improving the social and physical characteristics of the project neighborhood, and WHEREAS, one objective of the Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) is improvement of the residential environment through redevelopment, rehabilitation, conservation, and new construction to assure every family in Ithaca a decent home within its economic means, and WHEREAS, the INHS development model incorporates modular construction to reduce the construction cost per unit, thereby increasing financial feasibility, and WHEREAS, INHS has successfully completed construction of over 50 affordable for-sale homes in Tompkins County, and WHEREAS, INHS employs a full-time Executive Director, Deputy Director, Finance Director, and Director of Real Estate Development, and has been designated a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO), and WHEREAS, the IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee considered this matter at its June 7, 2018 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby determines that Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. has satisfactorily demonstrated its qualifications and capacity to successfully undertake a project to develop owner-occupied, affordable housing at 402 South Cayuga Street, and therefore designates INHS as the “qualified and eligible sponsor” eligible to acquire tax parcels # 93.-6-7 (402 S. Cayuga St.) for the purpose of undertaking an urban renewal project, and be it further RESOLVED, that the IURA further determines that redevelopment of the vacant parcel at 402 S. Cayuga Street for construction of 2-4 owner-occupied, affordable homes will advance the objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan, and RESOLVED, the IURA hereby approves entering into a sales agreement for 402 S. Cayuga Street property subject Common Council approval and the following terms and conditions: Seller: Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Purchaser: Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. Sales price: $30,000.00 Outcome: Development of at least 2 new owner-occupied residences to be sold to households earning no more than 80% of area median income  Contingencies: (1) Approval of floor plans and exterior design plans to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood and reasonably maximize accessible design, and (2) Documentation of project feasibility, including financing, site plan approval, and issuance of a building permit, and be it further RESOLVED, that the IURA Chairperson, subject to advice of IURA legal counsel, is authorized to execute agreements to implement this resolution, including but not limited to purchase and sales agreements.  IURA Grants Summary April 2018 ON PROGRAM TRANSFERS TRANSFERS TOTAL # SCHEDULE HUD ENTITLEMENT ACTIVITIES SPONSOR BUDGET INCOME IN OUT BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPENDED % SPENT 2015 CDBG Activities 2521 complete 1.0 Hancock Street INHS 130,403.50 120,000.00 0.00 0.00 250,403.50 250,403.50 0.00 100% 2522 complete 2.0 Mini repair INHS 35,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 0.00 100% 2531 complete 6.0 Temporary Ramp Loan Program 2 Finger Lakes Ind. Center 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 2532 complete 7.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program3 GIAC 83,667.30 11,592.47 14,113.09 0.00 109,372.86 109,372.86 0.00 100% 2523 complete 8.0 Work Preserve Job Training Program Historic Ithaca 87,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87,500.00 87,500.00 0.00 100% 2524 NO 9.0 Spencer Road Sidewalks City of Ithaca 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 28,106.50 71,893.50 28% 2525 complete 10.0 2-1-1/I&R Service Human Services Coalition 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 2526 complete 11.0 Building for the Future7 Southside Community Center 23,577.00 0.00 0.00 2,349.24 21,227.76 21,227.76 0.00 100% 2527 complete 12.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 16,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,000.00 16,000.00 0.00 100% 2528 complete 13.0 A+ Tuition Assistance BJM Enrichment Program 17,410.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,410.00 17,410.00 0.00 100% 2529 complete 14.0 ReSET Job Training Expansion Finger Lakes ReUse 23,759.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,759.00 23,759.00 0.00 100% 2530 complete 15.0 CDBG Grant Administration IURA 134,329.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 134,329.20 134,329.20 0.00 100% 2912 complete Unallocated 2015 CDBG7 N/A 0.00 0.00 2,349.24 2,349.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% Total 671,646.00 131,592.47 36,462.33 4,698.48 835,002.32 763,108.82 71,893.50 91% 2016 CDBG Activities 2541 complete 3.0 LKNB Homeowner Rehab 18 Love Knows No Bounds 36,334.72 0.00 0.00 2,260.72 34,074.00 34,074.00 0.00 100% 2542 complete 6.0 Mini repair INHS 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 100% 2543 ok 8.0 Work Preserve Job Training & Placement 5 Historic Ithaca 45,750.43 0.00 21,749.57 0.00 67,500.00 59,284.43 8,215.57 88% 2544 complete 9.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program GIAC 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 100% 2545 ok 11.0 Heating System & Code Corrections DICC 22,489.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,489.00 21,099.00 1,390.00 94% 2546 complete 12.0 Advocacy Center Garage Renovation Advocacy Center 10,317.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,317.00 10,317.00 0.00 100% 2547 NO 13.0 Wading Pool Renovations GIAC 185,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 185,000.00 34,974.00 150,026.00 19% 2548 complete 1.0a Housing for School Success IURA 11,580.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,580.00 11,580.00 0.00 100% 2549 complete 14.0 A Place to Stay Case Management Catholic Charities 17,625.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,625.65 17,625.65 0.00 100% 2550 complete 8.0a Work Preserve Job Readiness Historic Ithaca 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 2551 complete 15.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 100% 2552 complete 16.0 211 Info and Referral HSC 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100% 2553 complete 17.0 CDBG Admin IURA 132,274.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 132,274.20 132,274.20 0.00 100% 1913 ok Unallocated 2016 CDBG 18 N/A 0.00 0.00 2,260.72 0.00 2,260.72 0.00 2,260.72 0% Total 661,371.00 0.00 24,010.29 2,260.72 683,120.57 521,228.28 161,892.29 76% 2016 HOME Activities 2755 ok 1.0 Housing for School Success IURA 77,104.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 77,104.40 43,288.42 33,815.98 56% 2756 ok 2.0 Security Deposit Assistance Program (including Inspections)10 Catholic Charities 44,000.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 44,026.00 43,651.00 375.00 99% 2757 ok 4.0 304 Hector Street INHS 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 96,380.00 3,620.00 96% 2758 complete 5.0 202 Hancock Townhouses 8, 9, 15 INHS 40,256.00 26,545.00 273,869.00 26,545.00 314,125.00 314,125.00 0.00 100% 2759 ok 7.0 Morris Ave Homes 14 Habitat for Humanity 33,884.60 0.00 41,115.40 0.00 75,000.00 53,481.17 21,518.83 71% 2760 complete 18.0 HOME Admin IURA 32,984.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,984.10 32,984.10 0.00 100% 2807 complete Unallocated 2016 HOME 11 N/A 1,611.90 0.00 0.00 1,611.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% Total 329,841.00 26,545.00 315,010.40 28,156.90 643,239.50 583,909.69 59,329.81 91% 2017 CDBG Activities 2561 ok 1.0 Chartwell House Tompkins Community Actio 14,305.00 7,695.00 0.00 0.00 22,000.00 0.00 22,000.00 0% 2562 ok 2.0 2017 Homeowner Rehab INHS 75,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75,000.00 0.00 75,000.00 0% 2563 ok 6.0 Mini Repair INHS 26,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,000.00 4,518.00 21,482.00 17% 2564 ok 7.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program GIAC 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 65,140.20 34,859.80 65% 2565 complete 8.0 Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 2566 ok 10.0 Work Preserve Job Training: Job Placements Historic Ithaca 67,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67,500.00 0.00 67,500.00 0% 2567 ok 11.0 Food Entrepreneurship CCE of Tompkins County 36,587.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.00 25,000.00 0% 2569 ok 13.0 DICC Heating & Roofing Replacement6, 7 DICC 21,931.00 11,218.76 2,350.24 0.00 35,500.00 35,205.00 295.00 99% 2570 ok 14.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 50% 2571 ok 15.0 Work Preserve Job Readiness Historic Ithaca 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 15,925.00 3,981.25 11,943.75 25% 2574 ok 18.0 Housing For School Success: Year #2 ICSD 13,280.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,280.00 10,005.09 3,274.91 75% 2575 ok 19.0 CDBG Admin IURA 128,882.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 128,882.00 61,042.81 67,839.19 47% ok 22.0 Economic Development Loan Fund IURA 0.00 56,886.24 0.00 0.00 56,886.24 0.00 56,886.24 0% complete 9.0 Harriet Gianellis Child Care Center Tompkins Community Action 0.00 84,200.00 0.00 0.00 84,200.00 84,200.00 0.00 100% ok Unallocated 2017 CDBG16 N/A 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 0% Total 644,410.00 160,000.00 52,350.24 50,000.00 806,760.24 305,521.01 501,239.23 38% 2017 HOME Activities 2767 cancelled 3.0 402 South Cayuga Street17 Habitat for Humanity 80,000.00 0.00 0.00 80,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 2768 ok 4.0 Housing Scholarship Program11 The Learning Web 63,980.10 0.00 1,611.90 0.00 65,592.00 19,784.55 45,807.45 30% 2769 ok 5.0 Security Deposit Assistance Catholic Charities 42,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,750.00 38,674.50 4,075.50 90% 2770 ok 21.0 828 Hector Street (CHDO) INHS 41,378.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41,378.00 1,328.80 40,049.20 3% 2771 ok 20.0 HOME Admin IURA 27,565.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,565.10 9,741.04 17,824.06 35% 2807 ok Unallocated 2017 HOME 12, 17 N/A 19,977.80 0.00 80,000.00 0.00 99,977.80 0.00 99,977.80 0% ok Recaptured Funds (HP)15 N/A 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 0% ok Unanticipated Program Income (PI)8 N/A 0.00 0.00 21,545.00 0.00 21,545.00 0.00 21,545.00 0% Total 275,651.00 0.00 108,156.90 80,000.00 303,807.90 69,528.89 234,279.01 23% 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: 1.040 NO Current Method: Total Unexpended CDBG funds: Line of Credit + CDBG Revolving Loan Fund: 1.697 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: 126,635 Total Unexpended HUD Entitlement Funds CDBG Activities 670,443.78 CDBG Program Income 64,581.24 CDBG Revolving Loan Fund Balance 487,387.75 HOME Activities 293,608.82 HOME Program Income Activites 0.00 Total Unexpended HUD Entitlement Funds 1,516,021.59 Page 1 of 1  KEY THEMES: Case Management Context & Challenges ISSUE HOW IT LOOKS Previously: More comprehensive approach to solving problems long term and relationship building to ensure success: “I have five people and I’m responsible for helping them Model/Standard achieve success.” of Service Provision Now: Staff at individual organizations work on discrete issues; crisis-orientation rather than long term “I work with numerous people and check in with them 1-2 times a month.” • Federal and State funding for case management services is limited and constrained • Departments of Social Services especially constrained in who can receive services – nonprofits try to fill the gaps Funding • Other funding sources for case management activities are not abundant: funders often prefer bricks-and-mortar projects or new programs to requests for ongoing operational or “overhead” (i.e. staffing) requests Local organizations may try to balance funding constraints and service demand by creating part-time client-facing staff role(s). Organizational • Pro: The organization is trying to be fiscally responsible and creative in addressing Problem-solving a need. Example • Con: Difficult for staff person to meet own self-sufficiency needs; position likely to turn over (see Staffing). Reasons case management/frontline roles tend to turn over quickly: • Modest pay and benefits • No benefits (part-time positions) • Limited opportunity for advancement Staffing o Promotion, pay increases, professional development or education o Shifting to a similar role in another organization • Burnout and secondary trauma o Not enough resources to effectively address problems seen (i.e. lack of affordable housing for clients) o Lack of robust support for staff in service roles Organizational The Advocacy Center identified lack of a career path as reason for staff attrition and Problem-solving created “lead” positions with more responsibility and supervisory experience to retain Example talent and sustain high-quality services by minimizing disruption due to turnover. Key Themes were compiled from May 2018 NIC discussion with Kathy Schlather and staff consultations.  Complex, interwoven individual and family needs. • Lack of affordable housing, employment, transportation • Current or past homelessness • Mental health • Dual diagnosis (mental health + substance abuse) • Chronic health concerns (need for ongoing health care) • Physical disability • Domestic violence • Incarceration (self or family member) Clients • Lack of other social support Life Stage-specific needs • Youth: Emancipation from foster care; education/career readiness and access; risk avoidance; family planning; prevention (health). • Adults: Helping children access opportunity; daycare; employment readiness and access, OR career advancement; viable transportation; prevention or health maintenance. • Seniors: Aging in appropriate place; economic and physical safety; health maintenance; accessibility. • Little formal “aftercare” or “retention” • Staff turnover affects clients o Rapport with agency may erode as staff moves on o New staff has no rapport/limited familiarity with service history; square one relationships are hard o Clients may seek out a case manager who has moved to a different organization, even if organizational mission is not the same • Staff turnover affects other service providers o Continuity relies on service providers’ having established working relationships o Organizational history and experience o Up-to-date on programmatic requirements and changes Continuity o Ease of communication of • Service is often crisis-driven Care o Clients come when there is a need (crisis) o Staff sees clients while they attempting to access a service/program o Hard for staff to prioritize time for clients who do not have immediate need • Ongoing contact is difficult to maintain o Primary contact is often phone and cell numbers change frequently o Transportation considerations  Home visits rare – staffing/time/resources  Clients may have to go out of way for non-crisis visit to service provider o Clients want to be able to live independently, not tethered to “service” Key Themes were compiled from May 2018 NIC discussion with Kathy Schlather and staff consultations.  Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties Bridging The Gap Case Management The purpose of case management services is to ensure you are getting the services and help to overcome obstacles in achieving your goals of self-sufficiency. Bridging The Gap will meet with you monthly (on average) to access your progress towards your goals until you are receiving your Section 8 voucher. ☐ Getting to know you What are three short term goals? What are three long term goals? What type of support systems do you have? ☐ Money Management Creating a budget; checking accounts; keeping pay stubs ☐ Community Supports Are you receiving the services to which you’re entitled? SNAP? Medicaid? What other support agencies do you use? ☐ Housing Has your Section 8 voucher been approved? Are you looking for new housing or staying in the current place? ☐ Health Management Do you have a health care management program? Determine eligibility. Complete PAM survey. ☐ Mental Health Do you want a referral to a mental health agency? ☐ Education Are you interested in college/GED? Energy efficiency programs. HEAP. ☐ Filing vital documents We will provide you an accordion file for our paperwork ☐ Volunteer opportunities We encourage our participants to “pay it forward.” We ask that you donate at least one hour of your time in the next 90 days giving back to the community that supports this subsidy for you.