Committee moves Southside Community Center into public facilities category; reviews multiple public-service proposals

The Get Together Urban Renewal Agencies Neighborhood Investments Committee voted to recommend that the Southside Community Center’s proposal be moved from the public services category into the public facilities category, a change that would make the project eligible for a larger pool of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.

Committee members said the Southside proposal — a multi-phase building project the applicants described as approximately $2 million in total scope — includes many capital and facility elements that fit the public facilities rules (rooftop solar, electrical relocation, adaptive interior work and similar items). Staff and committee members asked for additional budget detail and documentation of which outside funding sources are secured and which remain pending before final allocation decisions.

During discussion staff and at least one applicant spreadsheet indicated pledged or reported support including $250,000 from Senator Webb’s office, $200,000 from the city, $60,000 from the Park Foundation, and $25,000 from Cornell-affiliated sources; committee members asked staff to request commitment letters or clearer line-item identifications of what each external funding source would pay for.

Why the move matters: public services awards are capped and intended primarily to support program delivery; public facilities awards are drawn from a different pool without the same 15% public‑service cap and can fund capital work. Several committee members, including Steve, said the Southside project’s function as a potential climate-resilience hub downtown — with elevated finished floors, relocated electrical systems, solar panels and shelter kits — made it a strong candidate for the facilities category. "I think that this is something that the community actually needs," one committee member said in support.

Other public-service applicants reviewed by the committee:

- Finger Lakes ReUse — Request: about $25,944 to provide materials and delivery vouchers to Ithaca households in need; proposal aims to serve roughly 950 households citywide using a voucher model that staff described as approximately $240 per household for materials. Committee members asked for clarity on voucher expiration policy and whether vouchers are redeemable for specific items or limited by household type.

- Human Services Coalition / 2‑1‑1 — Request: recurring funding for information/referral and associated services. Committee members expressed support for the program’s role in referrals and housing navigation but raised a recurring question about funding ongoing operations versus one‑time pilot projects. Members also noted 2‑1‑1 is listed as a partner for a separate TCAT-led on‑demand electric van service (WeRide) and suggested a coordinated briefing with TCAT and the applicant to clarify roles.

- Catholic Charities ("A Place to Stay") — Request: $10,000 for case management and intensive supports for a four-bedroom transitional housing unit for women. Several members voiced support for full funding given the intensity of case-management needs.

- Learning Win (housing scholarship) — Request: about $36,000 to provide housing scholarship and supportive services; application proposed serving five young people. Some members expressed concern about per‑participant cost and the small number served, while others emphasized the high intensity and long-term benefits of each placement.

- Immigrant services (Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Cayuga) — Request: about $40,000 for immigrant integration services, with committee members noting the uncertain federal funding environment and asking whether employers or partner agencies have formal placement commitments for clients.

- Soar Kedrika (workforce/job readiness) — Request: $20,000 to add 15 adult participants to job‑readiness training; committee discussion focused on staffing needs and the distinction between readiness supports (public services) and job placement or employer‑driven activities (economic development).

Committee members and staff agreed that the Southside application can be moved into public facilities for reviewers to assess, and that reviewers should request clearer line-item budgets, evidence of secured funding, and, where applicable, commitment letters. Staff also noted that reviewers frequently scale awards and ask applicants to identify which components would be funded at different funding levels.

Next steps: staff will ask the Southside applicant for clarified budget line items, documentation of secured funding sources, and information about floodplain and engineering analyses; the committee directed staff to reassign the application to public facilities for formal review.