Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency discusses 2025 HUD action plan, seeks clearer job-placement reporting

The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency met Tuesday, Feb. 11, to review economic development applications for the 2025 HUD action plan, set a tentative public hearing for Feb. 28 and ask providers to supply clearer data on job placements and program quality.

Agency staff told members that a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Feb. 28 and that each applicant will have a roughly 12-minute presentation and a Q&A slot. Staff said the agency will offer advance questions to applicants so they can incorporate answers into their presentations or be prepared for the Q&A session. Members were told staff will return in March for a deeper comparative review of the applications.

Members focused discussion on outcomes reporting for several job-training programs in the economic development category. Staff provided a short summary showing cost and placement figures and a larger, more detailed table of program outcomes for 2023. Staff noted the 2023 projects remain in progress, reporting through Dec. 31, and many programs have only expended about 75% of their 2023 funds; staff further said job placements are often realized toward the end of program periods, so current snapshots may undercount final placements.

Agency members repeatedly pressed for more rigorous follow-up on placements. Members said the current reporting captures initial employer and placement counts but does not show whether placements are full- or part-time, how long participants remain employed, or whether placements represent career-track jobs. Staff said HUD reporting requirements track individuals and initial employer placement but that the agency lacks a systematic six- or 12-month follow-up process across providers; staff offered to query partners for longer-term retention data and to provide additional employer-level breakdowns at the March meeting.

Members asked for standardized qualitative information as well as numbers: number of training hours, stipend rates paid to participants, program learning and improvements over time, and how providers adapt to higher barriers to employment since the pandemic. Several members requested that applicants explain assumptions behind projected placement numbers and to describe program evolution, staff turnover and how those factors affect outcomes.

Staff warned that, even if all applicants were funded at requested levels, the action plan likely will not have sufficient funds to cover every request. The agency’s economic development loan fund was reported at approximately $200,000 available now and projected to grow to roughly $260,000–$275,000 by the start of the program year (Aug. 1) if current payment flows continue; staff characterized that loan fund as useful for one or two new loans per year, not as a large recurring subsidy. Staff cautioned that treating that loan-balance as recurring action-plan funding would reduce capital available for future loans.

Members also discussed alternative training models. Staff and members noted a local industry-driven program that works with employers to design training and that program reports higher placement and lower cost per participant, though members observed that such programs may select participants more likely to succeed.

On federal funding risk, staff explained the agency’s current drawdown process for existing HUD grants and said they have not yet experienced voucher denials. However, the agency must finalize a 2025 action plan by HUD deadlines to remain eligible for CDBG and HOME funds: staff said a complete action plan must be submitted by June 15 and requires a 30-day public comment period; staff also said NISA will need roughly 20 days to finalize the plan. Members discussed possible continuing resolutions in Congress and court actions affecting executive orders, and staff recommended proceeding under the working assumption that HUD funding will be available to meet program deadlines while noting the federal budget remains uncertain.

Ending: Staff will circulate questions for applicants in advance of the Feb. 28 public hearing, return in March for a comparative review of the applications and said they will attempt to provide additional employer-level placement data and program-level narrative on training hours, stipends and program learning.