[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6303982,"mediaKeyId","2469564-8b191c80db14c7d3c0b0e415dfcc8147","parentId",2469564,"title","Committee approves minutes and schedules follow‑up for next meeting; staff to compile budgets and commitment letters","audioSeconds",6816,"startMs",86000,"endMs",6902000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2469564-8b191c80db14c7d3c0b0e415dfcc8147&start=86&end=6902","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2469564-8b191c80db14c7d3c0b0e415dfcc8147/thumbnail_86000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6303982/New-York/Committee-approves-minutes-and-schedules-followup-for-next-meeting-staff-to-compile-budgets-and-commitment-letters","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6303982-3064357b67879c2805f3f39e14157fd8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770457108&Signature=gYESlY0ZKTWNXwRx~vmx5TJGTu5n7SRMzZjlI2FTM9Y8XJp0qFvvb1RevoeHLq7i3oYJmcQxqUOiODcOIvP3x1FZfAAZoOdQ2IMAfa59pAPdmYntv9ZESXa2bZLhmtYAuFdDNJvfBwuhA0iF4dJJlScRkDKyflWsWAdhpwSsDAzCrEauO7WnJ0FjJBhApIVTwIwBENn3WeF4z1qG0b0HpbrvgCCqycdlVwFvnjXAJGdSjnZgU1ZUMkmaqrrTWORs~VLLLdWiB0tOzyQup94r8lseQUTivgdHwjZkULE5UcretSq-N~dH6AHZkjOMmTYq7cqCzm~wXv~bjH4Lf7bMdA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ithaca City","date","2025-03-02T21:44:47Z","article","The Getragette Urban Renewal Agencies neighborhood investments committee approved minutes from prior meetings (February and October) by voice vote and set a schedule for follow‑up work. Staff was directed to compile applicants’ Excel budgets, request commitment letters for secured funding and return with clarified materials before the committee’s next meeting in early March.

Why it matters: The committee will need standardized budget spreadsheets and evidence of secured match to evaluate which projects to fund in a year with constrained CDBG resources. Staff also flagged that contingency planning will be necessary if HUD funding levels differ from expected allocations.

Decisions and process notes: Committee members agreed to request specific information from several applicants, including detailed line‑item budgets, documentation for secured funding (commitment letters), clarification of project eligibility under public‑service vs public‑facilities vs economic‑development categories, and confirmation of project sites (for housing or facility projects).

Recusals and conflicts: Committee practice was restated: committee members should recuse themselves and leave the table if they have a direct conflict. Darren recused and left the table for Bike Works discussion because of a board affiliation; Fernando disclosed a family relationship with a Southside executive director but remained at the table and did not recuse from that item.

Ending: Staff will prepare an updated review matrix and send follow‑up questions to applicants; the committee will use the updated documents to begin funding allocations at its next meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2/21/25 IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","At the start of the meeting the committee approved minutes for February and October and agreed on follow‑up tasks and next steps to prepare for allocation decisions at the next meeting.","taxTitle","Ithaca City, Tompkins County, New York","taxId",52738,"location","New York","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6303987,"Committee reviews public‑service and facilities applications; votes to shift Southside Community Center resilience project to public‑facilities review",1428,1412000,2840000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2469564-8b191c80db14c7d3c0b0e415dfcc8147&start=1412&end=2840","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2469564-8b191c80db14c7d3c0b0e415dfcc8147/thumbnail_1412000.jpg","/articles/6303987/New-York/Committee-reviews-publicservice-and-facilities-applications-votes-to-shift-Southside-Community-Center-resilience-project-to-publicfacilities-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6303987-e6de481b33eb775287f81bf347671cdc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770457108&Signature=NacjDVxg1diIiSMBbhny36cmIjtKPqpW5R7UMUuu80lObVmGa~ntEEgCn4t~BOwd~grYIZgJiBzQh9nGwLL6OQ-lmZp0zoWkJzesNJ5AJBtioBTsxJ2FXIQAFJ8PVWv45k3MAGrBnV3o5va~xLb-Pl8vcn~4Ojsknp1gsu6U4DY2eO556EyPmYFbhOKcfyrOboK03yWery08pAla~SkJBlhgj5CBUk5LmcdAyIybfxVuM7esDGY1OkZaTjv~~H4KBpk0Gt3TT6bBhFl2on1tAPSqYHbn67h1QnHQR-amqaG10CUdCaiDiHmMIs~dkxL8WRjy~IOBf5nUcyf9YCuJYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Getragette Urban Renewal Agencies neighborhood investments committee spent most of its meeting reviewing public‑service and related public‑facilities applications for the upcoming CDBG program year. After discussion, the committee agreed to recommend that the Southside Community Center’s resilience hub application be moved from the public‑service to the public‑facilities category so it can access the broader CDBG public‑facilities pool (which has no per‑project cap).

Why it matters: Moving the Southside project into public facilities would allow the applicant to compete for larger grants to cover building improvements and infrastructure (solar, electrical upgrades and structural work) that the committee identified as mostly facilities‑eligible rather than strictly public‑service items like emergency kits.

Southside Community Center resilience hub: Committee members described the project as a multi‑phase public‑safety/resilience proposal that aims to make a downtown facility usable as a shelter or hub after extreme weather or other emergencies. Members raised questions about scope, flood‑plain siting, whether the basement is functional, and which budget lines represent secured versus proposed funding. Staff reported a mix of secured amounts (letters or commitments cited for $250,000 from a state office and $200,000 from the city in the application attachments) and pending grants; the committee requested clearer budget spreadsheets and commitment letters showing which funders are underwriting specific components if the application moves to public facilities.

Other applicants summarized: committee members reviewed a range of public‑service requests and generally favored smaller, scalable awards in this year’s constrained budget. Highlights from the discussion:
- Finger Lakes Reuse: Continued materials‑access program to subsidize household supplies and vouchers; committee sought clarity on voucher expiration, what items are eligible, and the delivery component. The application requested funds primarily for household materials with a small staffing share.
- Human Services Coalition (2‑1‑1): Members acknowledged 2‑1‑1’s referral and housing‑navigation roles and questioned whether portions of the application represented ongoing operating costs rather than discrete new projects; committee asked for clarification on travel/mileage line items and scalability.
- Catholic Charities: Two requests were discussed (place‑to‑stay supportive housing staffing and a security deposit assistance component). Members supported case‑management funding but asked for confirmation of program sites and lease status and how security‑deposit work coordinates with voucher acceptance and landlord inspection requirements.
- Learning Web: Committee noted that a housing scholarship request proposes a relatively high per‑participant cost (five participants in the program) and asked for justification of staff expenses relative to outcomes.
- Immigrant Services (Catholic Charities program): Members supported the program but asked whether federal policy changes could affect service levels and requested information on employer commitments for placement assistance.
- SORT Ithaca: Job‑readiness and green‑jobs starter‑kit funding; committee asked whether parts of the project might qualify under economic‑development funds and whether the kit components are eligible.
- Bike Works: Funding requested for community bike access, a pop‑up outreach trailer and a point‑of‑sale tracking system; a committee member recused (Darren left the table) because of a board affiliation; members asked for clarifying documentation of secured local grants and details about service populations (who uses bikes as primary transit) and outreach plans.
- Service InUnity (recovery‑to‑work): Members requested detail on whether payments to program participants are direct wages, stipends, or contractual placements and asked for clarity on fiscal sponsorship/organizational status and the current share of secured funding.
- West Haven Farm: A subsidy for weekly produce boxes for low‑income households; members asked whether the project is operating as a CSA subscription model, what portion of request represents operating costs versus distribution to low‑income households, and for clarification about other funding partners and whether the applicant is a for‑profit farm or nonprofit operation.
- Beyond the Box / Ultimate Reentry Opportunity: A reentry employment navigation and employer‑engagement program; members asked clarifying questions about which project components are direct services to low‑ and moderate‑income (LMI) residents (eligible for CDBG public‑service funds) and which are employer training or research (less clearly eligible).

Process notes: For several programs the committee asked for standardized Excel budgets, commitment letters for secured match, clarification on whether proposals are scalable, and confirmation of eligibility lines (public service vs public facilities vs economic development). Staff will send follow‑up questions and request additional documentation where needed.

Ending: The committee will reconvene to start allocating limited funds; the Southside move to public‑facilities review was the clearest procedural outcome from the discussion.","The committee reviewed multiple CDBG public‑service funding applications and recommended moving Southside Community Center’s resilience hub request into the public‑facilities category to allow access to larger funding pools; members also discussed scale, secured match, and eligibility for several other applicants.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6303991,"Committee recommends CBDO designation for Black Hands Universal; organization also seeks career-resources funding",1162,107000,1269000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2469564-8b191c80db14c7d3c0b0e415dfcc8147&start=107&end=1269","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2469564-8b191c80db14c7d3c0b0e415dfcc8147/thumbnail_107000.jpg","/articles/6303991/New-York/Committee-recommends-CBDO-designation-for-Black-Hands-Universal-organization-also-seeks-career-resources-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6303991-1aa62f1255c51f3ba898876eee9a190c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770457108&Signature=D6gYdfpAG6SExht9uCQLsliVHcnTIX5Gclq3FtxeopTBSHgGoVYGm0ptIQCTKMIBByxmexOzFiclbZmbbbrAKd3GqNqyR-cjOehHR3o56OWIadyZ9LZ-d0VCxoT95tyAi1evkJDxQWxrVB865fjgSom0DxI5-47ZUd8yOg1cC93MJxbk3Rb-6RGCDh6wF9gOKZBnUhFRnxSXiQ0x7wikHs4izq8X-XU1-iCEl4Gj32KDN1BKlsWoP5jRHYz4kznsHvfW88a87vVIwlw9QXBkS7JZ1~GodCWpKTuqvWZy2nhLxCCbFLG0gv3Nz2beECwydwH4iZy8ZPjo86oZCcmiAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Getragette Urban Renewal Agencies neighborhood investments committee unanimously recommended designating Black Hands Universal as a CBDO, a status that would allow the group to receive community development block grant (CDBG) funds that are exempt from the 15% cap on public-service awards.

The committee’s recommendation came after staff described application issues and unanswered questions about the organization’s governance and financial transparency but concluded the applicant met the minimum thresholds for CBDO designation. Committee members discussed that Black Hands Universal is not currently a 501(c)(3) and that the organization’s tax filings and audit history were not supplied with its application; staff said those gaps do not automatically disqualify the applicant but do raise monitoring and exposure concerns.

Why it matters: CBDO designation would let Black Hands Universal apply for CDBG funds in ways that organizations lacking that status cannot, including some award pathways that exceed the usual public‑service cap. Committee members emphasized that designation is a threshold decision and that contract terms can add monitoring and reporting requirements to address transparency concerns.

Discussion and context: Committee members asked whether the organization was pursuing 501(c)(3) status and whether Internal Revenue Service (IRS) review would identify potential conflicts of interest among board members. Staff said the IRS process and the organization’s steps toward tax‑exempt status were not fully documented in the file; staff recommended using contract conditions and escrow protections to reduce risk while the organization pursues longer‑term governance changes.

The committee noted prior program support for Black Hands Universal and past recommendations tied to earlier years’ funding cycles. Staff also summarized that when the CBDO designation was first considered last year, the committee expressed a desire to support the organization despite application weak spots; this time staff concluded the application met the ordinance’s minimum criteria.

Votes and next steps: The committee moved and seconded a resolution to recommend CBDO designation for Black Hands Universal. The motion passed; the transcript records the committee’s announcement of a unanimous approval but does not include a roll‑call tally. Staff will include standard contract conditions and may request further documentation if the designation passes through the agency’s administrative steps.

Career-resources request: Committee members also reviewed a separate Black Hands Universal application for a career-resources/apprenticeship program seeking staff and participant supports. Members said the organization’s recent programming enrolled participants in past cycles but raised questions about capacity and whether earlier implementation learnings were incorporated into the new budget and deliverables. Committee members requested clearer detail on participant recruitment, training versus placement components, and how this request connects to the organization’s other, larger proposals.

Ending: The committee’s recommendation advances the CBDO designation to the next administrative step. Staff will return any further documentation that the agency requires as the designation and any subsequent funding requests move through review.","The Getragette Urban Renewal Agencies neighborhood investments committee recommended designating Black Hands Universal as a community-based development organization, clearing the way for greater CDBG public-service funding flexibility. Committee members also discussed a separate career-resources request from the group.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee approves minutes and schedules follow‑up for next meeting; staff to compile budgets and commitment letters

Committee reviews public‑service and facilities applications; votes to shift Southside Community Center resilience project to public‑facilities review

Committee recommends CBDO designation for Black Hands Universal; organization also seeks career-resources funding