Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Reprogramming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ithaca committee reallocates $30,000 to community services after Catholic Charities withdraws request
Summary
The IRA committee approved reallocation of about $30,000 after Catholic Charities withdrew an immigrant-services request. The committee will top up 2-1-1/Learning Web and Historic Ithaca and hold $2,200 as a contingency for security-deposit staffing.
The Ithaca IRA committee voted to reallocate roughly $30,000 in HUD-related funds after Catholic Charities withdrew a fully funded immigrant-services request, approving a plan to top up two previously funded projects and reserve $2,200 for a security-deposit staffing line.
Speaker 1 opened the discussion saying the committee had “around $30,000 to reallocate” after Catholic Charities pulled one of its programs. Staff presented a chart of previous applicants and funded projects and suggested prioritizing projects that could absorb additional funds without creating new contracts.
After discussion, the committee agreed to fully fund two front-page public-service projects—2-1-1/Learning Web and Historic Ithaca—at about $27,800 total and to allocate the remaining $2,200 to a Catholic Charities security-deposit staffing line as a contingency if either of the top two organizations declined or could not account for the funds. Speaker 3 (staff) said Catholic Charities had indicated the funds could be used for their other two funded projects, but staff would verify capacity to spend before final allocation. “They did say that it could be used,” Speaker 3 said of Catholic Charities’ option to redirect the money.
Committee members debated whether to split the funds into many small awards or to top up larger awards. Speaker 1 and several members argued a larger top-up was administratively simpler and more likely to be spent quickly; Speaker 4 suggested establishing a backup (security-deposit staffing) to avoid returning for a small additional allocation if the primary recipients could not accept funds.
Staff confirmed the reallocation would be treated as a minor amendment under the committee’s rules because no single existing project would receive more than $25,000. Speaker 3 read the resolution language clarifying that reprogramming amounts below $25,000 to multiple existing projects qualify as a minor amendment.
The committee approved the resolution as amended by voice vote; staff will verify each recipient can absorb the additional funds before final administrative allocation and will list the change in the packet for the Common Council public hearing and vote. Speaker 3 reminded members the legal ad for the substantial-amendment notice had run and that public comment was open through Jan. 7, with a Common Council hearing scheduled for that date.
The action reassigns an existing allocation rather than creating a new contract; staff will apply the contingency plan if any of the three named recipients decline or cannot use the funds.
What’s next: staff follow up to confirm each recipient’s ability to spend, the formal posting of the amendment in the public record, and the Common Council public hearing scheduled for Jan. 7.
