HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURAGOV-2012-06-22Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
Adopted 7/20/12
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274-6559 6559
MINUTES MINUTES
IURA Governance Committee IURA Governance Committee
3:30 PM, Friday, June 22, 2012 3:30 PM, Friday, June 22, 2012
3rd Floor Conference Room, City Hall 3rd Floor Conference Room, City Hall
Present: Chairperson Susan Cummings, Kathy Schlather, Eric Rosario Present: Chairperson Susan Cummings, Kathy Schlather, Eric Rosario
Staff: Nels Bohn Staff: Nels Bohn
Public: George McGonigal Public: George McGonigal
I. Call to Order I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cummings at 3:35 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cummings at 3:35 p.m.
II. Agenda Additions/Deletions II. Agenda Additions/Deletions
Cummings recommended adding discussions of: (1) the status of City surplus properties,
(2) options for extending the INHS land trust to non‐INHS properties, (3) the elimination
of existing tax extension payment plans for condemned properties, and (4) the
Neighborhood Housing Initiative bond issuance schedule. No objections were raised.
Cummings recommended adding discussions of: (1) the status of City surplus properties,
(2) options for extending the INHS land trust to non‐INHS properties, (3) the elimination
of existing tax extension payment plans for condemned properties, and (4) the
Neighborhood Housing Initiative bond issuance schedule. No objections were raised.
III. Public Comments – None III. Public Comments – None
IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 16, 2012 IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 16, 2012
Schlather moved, seconded by Rosario, to approve the minutes of March 16, 2012, with
two minor changes. Carried Unanimously.
Schlather moved, seconded by Rosario, to approve the minutes of March 16, 2012, with
two minor changes. Carried Unanimously.
V. New Business V. New Business
A. Adoption of Residential Anti‐Displacement & Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP) A. Adoption of Residential Anti‐Displacement & Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP)
Bohn provided a broad overview of the contents of the RARAP resolution and
accompanying plan. He remarked that the IURA has been complying with RARAP, but
no formal policy to comply with HOME requirement had been adopted to date.
Bohn provided a broad overview of the contents of the RARAP resolution and
accompanying plan. He remarked that the IURA has been complying with RARAP, but
no formal policy to comply with HOME requirement had been adopted to date.
Bohn indicated there had been some question among committee members about what
would happen under RARAP if an owner‐occupied housing rehabilitation project requires the
resident to leave her/his home ― the answer is that if it is an owner‐occupied home and the
owner agrees to participate in the rehabilitation program, the owner is not considered
displaced, since she/he is participating voluntarily.
Bohn indicated there had been some question among committee members about what
would happen under RARAP if an owner‐occupied housing rehabilitation project requires the
resident to leave her/his home ― the answer is that if it is an owner‐occupied home and the
owner agrees to participate in the rehabilitation program, the owner is not considered
displaced, since she/he is participating voluntarily.
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 2 of 12
Cummings indicated she believes RARAP has the potential to be very helpful in pursuing
IURA’s objective of preserving affordable owner‐occupied homes in the community.
She expressed alarm at the recent loss from the owner‐occupancy market of small
single‐family and duplex homes, to investors. Cummings noted it is always best when
community residents own their homes. At the very least, however, renters should be
genuinely vested in the community and not just passing through.
Cummings inquired into the purpose of bullet “b.” on the first page of the resolution,
which indicates the IURA is responsible for replacing “all occupied and vacant occupiable
‘low/moderate‐income dwellings’ that are converted to a use other than
‘low/moderate‐income dwellings’ or are demolished for a HOME‐assisted project.”
Bohn replied that particular requirement means the IURA cannot provide HOME or
CDBG assistance to a project if it would result in the demolition or elimination of low‐ to
moderate‐income housing unless it creates substitute units. A HUD‐assisted project
cannot shrink the total pool of affordable housing in the community. It ultimately has to
be able to demonstrate there are an equal number of affordable units in the community
before and after every project.
Cummings asked if it might be possible to strengthen the language of the RARAP plan.
Ideally, she would like to see the IURA establish the goal of expanding the supply of low‐
to moderate‐income housing. Bohn replied that could certainly be explored, although
he is not sure if the RARAP plan is strategically the best place for that.
Committee members further reviewed and edited the language of the RARAP plan.
Schlather asked if the IURA is obligated to find alternative accommodations within the
same city or county, when a person is displaced. Bohn replied the location just has to
be acceptable to the tenant.
Moved by Schlather, seconded by Rosario:
Residential Anti‐Displacement & Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP)
Whereas, 24 CFR §570.606 and 24 CFR §92.353 require grantees of CDBG and HOME
funds to comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA), and the government‐wide implementing
regulations found at 49 CFR part 24, and
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 3 of 12
Whereas, HUD Handbook #1378 consolidates applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements regarding relocation and displacement and provides practical guidance
materials for practitioners to comply with the URA, and
Whereas, the HOME program further requires Participating Jurisdictions (PJ), such as
the City of Ithaca, to adopt a Residential Anti‐displacement and Relocation Assistance
Plan (RARAP); and
Whereas, under a RARAP, the PJ must:
a. Identify the reasonable steps it will take to minimize the displacement of persons
from their homes as a result of a HOME‐assisted project.
b. Replace all occupied and vacant occupiable "low/moderate‐income dwellings"
that are converted to a use other than "low/moderate‐income dwellings" or are
demolished for a HOME‐assisted project.
c. Provide relocation assistance to low/moderate‐income households (including
families and individuals) displaced as a direct result of the conversion of a
low/moderate‐income dwelling or the demolition of any housing for a HOME‐
assisted project, and
Whereas, on April 13, 1994, the IURA adopted HUD Handbook 1378 “Tenant
Assistance – Relocation and Real Property Acquisition” as its Relocation Plan, and on
July 17, 2003, amended the Relocation Plan to incorporate specific procedures for
commercial relocation for the CDBG‐assisted Cornell/Ciminelli Downtown Mixed Use
Project, and
Whereas, the HOME‐assisted Breckenridge Place project sponsored by Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) displaced several businesses, and
Whereas, INHS consulted with the HUD Regional Relocation Specialist, John Laffan, to
ensure compliance with URA requirements, and
Whereas, Mr. Laffan indicated to IURA staff that there have been amendments to HUD
regulations since IURA adoption of its Relocation Plan, including a requirement that
PJs adopt a RARAP, and
Whereas, HUD Handbook 1378 contains guidance for adoption of a RARAP, and
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 4 of 12
Whereas, pursuant to 49 CFR 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(D), in the case of rehabilitation of housing
requiring temporary dislocation of the occupant during rehabilitation, an owner‐
occupant is not a “displaced person” under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, and a tenant is not considered “displaced”
provided certain protections are provided to the tenant, including:
• covering moving expenses to and from the temporary location
• payment of increased housing costs during the temporary relocation
• guarantee to return to original unit or a substantially equivalent unit
• limit on rental increase at the rehabilitated replacement unit, and
Whereas, at their June 22, 2012 meeting the Governance Committee considered this
issue and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby adopts the attached City of Ithaca Anti‐displacement
and Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP), dated June 22, 2012, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby amends and incorporates the RARAP into the IURA
Relocation Plan.
CITY OF ITHACA RESIDENTIAL ANTI‐DISPLACEMENT AND
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN
This Residential Anti‐displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP) is prepared
by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) in accordance with the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; and HUD regulations at 24 CFR
42.325 and is applicable to City of Ithaca CDBG and/or HOME‐assisted projects.
Minimize Displacement
Consistent with the goals and objectives of activities assisted under the Act, the IURA,
acting as the designated agent for the City of Ithaca to administer CDBG and HOME
programs, will take the following steps to minimize the direct and indirect displacement
of persons from their homes:
Stage rehabilitation of apartment units to allow tenants to remain in the
building/complex during and after the rehabilitation, working with empty units first,
wherever possible.
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 5 of 12
Arrange for facilities to house persons who must be relocated temporarily during
rehabilitation.
Adopt policies to identify and mitigate residential displacement resulting from
significant investment.
Support use of community housing land trusts, neighborhood conservation and
zoning regulations, and similar measures, to preserve opportunities for lower
income owner‐occupants to remain in revitalizing areas.
Support the establishment of counseling centers to provide homeowners and
tenants with information on assistance available to help them remain in their
neighborhood in the face of revitalization pressures.
Where feasible, give priority to rehabilitation of housing, as opposed to demolition,
to avoid displacement.
If feasible, when assisting a project at a development site with existing buildings,
limit demolition or conversion activities to structures that have not been used for
residential purposes or dwelling units no longer suitable for residential use. Give
priority to demolition or conversion of vacant dwelling units before demolishing or
converting occupied dwelling units, particularly lower‐income dwelling units with a
market rent that does not exceed Fair Market Rents.
Relocation Assistance to Displaced Persons
The City of Ithaca/IURA will provide relocation assistance for lower‐income tenants who,
in connection with an activity assisted under the CDBG and/or HOME Program[s], move
permanently or move personal property from real property as a direct result of the
demolition of any dwelling unit or the conversion of a lower‐income dwelling unit in
accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR 42.350. A displaced person who is not a
lower‐income tenant, will be provided relocation assistance in accordance with the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as
amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24.
One‐for‐One Replacement of Lower‐Income Dwelling Units
The City of Ithaca/IURA will replace all occupied and vacant occupiable lower‐income
dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than lower‐income housing in
connection with a project assisted with funds provided under the CDBG and/or HOME
Program[s] in accordance with 24 CFR 42.375.
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 6 of 12
Before entering into a contract committing the City of Ithaca/IURA to provide funds for
a project that will directly result in demolition or conversion of lower‐income dwelling
units, the City of Ithaca/IURA will make public by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation and submit to the HUD Field Office the following information in writing:
1. A description of the proposed assisted project;
2. The address, number of bedrooms, and location on a map of lower‐income dwelling
units that will be demolished or converted to a use other than as lower‐ income
dwelling units as a result of an assisted project;
3. A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the demolition or
conversion;
4. To the extent known, the address, number of lower‐income dwelling units by size
(number of bedrooms) and location on a map of the replacement lower‐income
housing that has been or will be provided.
5. The source of funding and a time schedule for the provision of the replacement
dwelling units;
6. The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit is designated to remain
a lower‐income dwelling unit for a minimum of 10 years from the date of initial
occupancy; and
7. Information demonstrating that any proposed replacement of lower‐income
dwelling units with smaller dwelling units (e.g., a 2‐bedroom unit with two 1‐
bedroom units), or any proposed replacement of efficiency or single‐room
occupancy (SRO) units with units of a different size, is appropriate and consistent
with the housing needs and priorities identified in the HUD‐approved Consolidated
Plan and 24 CFR 42.375(b).
To the extent that the specific location of the replacement dwelling units and other data
in items 4 through 7 are not available at the time of the general submission, the City of
Ithaca/IURA will identify the general location of such dwelling units on a map and
complete the disclosure and submission requirements as soon as the specific data is
available.
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 7 of 12
Contacts
The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), 607‐274‐6559, is responsible for tracking the
replacement of lower income dwelling units and ensuring that they are provided within
the required period.
The IURA is responsible for providing relocation payments and other relocation
assistance to any lower‐income person displaced by the demolition of any dwelling unit
or the conversion of lower‐income dwelling units to another use.
Carried Unanimously 3‐0
B. Annual Election of Committee Vice‐Chairperson & Recommendation to IURA for
Committee Chairperson
Moved by Cummings, seconded by Rosario:
2012 Selection of Officers ― IURA Governance Committee
Whereas, the 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 IURA Governance Committee is composed of the following members:
• Susan Cummings (Agency member)
• Eric Rosario (Agency member)
• Kathy Schlather
• David Whitmore, and
Whereas, at their June 22, 2012 meeting, the IURA Governance Committee discussed
this matter; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA Governance Committee nominates Susan Cummings to
serve as the Governance Committee Chairperson, and be it further
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 8 of 12
RESOLVED, that the IURA Governance Committee elects Kathy Schlather to serve as
the Governance Committee Vice‐Chairperson.
Carried Unanimously 3‐0
C. HUD Entitlement Program, Environmental Review for FY2012 Action Plan
Bohn noted a minor change was made to the resolution table entitled “2012
Entitlement Activities — Classification for Environmental Review.” The Finger Lakes
ReUse project was originally understood to be job training and designated “EXEMPT;”
however, upon further consideration, it was determined it should have been designated
“Categorically Excluded, Subject to Sec. 58.5” (because of the historic preservation
component of the program).
Cummings asked why “Catholic Charities Security Deposits” was also designated as
“Categorically Excluded.” Bohn replied he was not certain, but indicated he would find
out.
Bonn remarked that there are two parallel environmental review processes. While the
IURA serves as the Lead Agency for making determinations for State and City
environmental reviews, it is the Director of Community Development who serves as the
lead agent or Certifying Officer for conducting the national (National Environmental
Policy Act) environmental review process.
Moved by Rosario, seconded by Schlather:
Environmental Review for 2012 Action Plan
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) and the City of Ithaca have
adopted an Action Plan allocating funds to various activities to be implemented with
federal Entitlement Funds for the 2012 Program Year, and
Whereas, the use of such funds requires environmental review under both the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), and
Whereas, NEPA regulations require the designation of a Certifying Officer, responsible
to conduct the NEPA environmental review, and CEQRO requires classification of
actions as an initial step in the environmental review process, and
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 9 of 12
Whereas, each activity has been categorized as required under both sets of legislation,
in the attached table titled “2012 Entitlement Activities – Classification for
Environmental Review”, and
Whereas, all of the activities contained in the FY 2012 Action Plan, except for
Breckenridge Place, qualify as Type II Actions under CEQRO and are therefore not
subject to further environmental review, and
Whereas, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined on February
9, 2010, that the Breckenridge Place project will result in no significant impact on the
environment pursuant to CEQRO and SEQRA, and
Whereas, the IURA Governance Committee considered this matter at their June 15,
2012 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA has reviewed the attached categorization of FY 2012 Action
Plan activities dated June 19, 2012 for environmental review purposes and hereby
affirms that no further environmental review is required to comply with the City of
Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby designates the IURA Director of Community
Development as the Certifying Officer to conduct the NEPA environmental review of
the FY2012 Action Plan.
Carried Unanimously 3‐0
D. FY2010 HUD Monitoring
Bohn reviewed the FY2010 HUD monitoring report of the City of Ithaca’s CDBG and
CDBG‐R programs. The report was received by the City on June 1, 2012, and requested
the City to develop written procedures to comply with Section 3 – Economic
Opportunities – regulations. The IURA provided evidence of adoption of a Section 3
Plan along with written policies and procedures and HUD cleared the finding on June 6,
2012.
E. Change in Status of HOME Local Match Reduction
Bohn noted that, although the HOME Investment Partnerships Program generally
requires local communities to match funds at a 25% level, a considerable number of
communities are exempt from that match requirement based on their state of fiscal
distress. Ithaca has always qualified for the exemption under the fiscal distress criterion
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 10 of 12
(as has almost every other community receiving HOME/CDBG funds in upstate New
York), since the inception of the City’s program in 2004; so it was somewhat of a
surprise to be notified that Ithaca no longer falls under the threshold and will need to
start meeting a 12.5% match, effective October 1, 2012.
Bohn observed that Ithaca is in a better position than many municipalities in terms of its
ability to meet the match. Since funding of affordable housing projects with non‐federal
funds in past years can be counted towards the match (back through 2004), Ithaca can
count any HODAG assistance (e.g., IURA’s ∼$600,000 HODAG‐funded investment in
Breckenridge Place) or funds the City has invested in Cornell‐Tompkins County HOME
projects.
At some point, however, Bohn noted, the new requirement will begin to have a real
negative impact on IURA resources. In that case, Cummings remarked, it will become
increasingly important for the Agency to seek more funding sources.
Bohn added that the match is only permitted to come from public funds and IURA
program income cannot be used to fulfill the match requirement.
Cummings asked if IURA could count funds that the INHS has received towards its match,
if IURA funds an INHS project that receives money from another public source. Bohn
responded he would need to check into that.
Bohn noted that staff will now begin the process of identifying and tracking which projects
would qualify for the match.
F. FY Review of IURA Financials, May 2012
Bohn announced the IURA is on schedule for spending down projects on a timely basis.
He noted, however, that staff has experienced a technical problem with HUD’s
Integrated Disbursement & Information System (IDIS), for the Breckenridge Place
project. Since that project was slow in being committed for funding, and was then
funded for one year, but not for the subsequent year, the project is nearing the deadline
for the two‐year commitment requirement (7/31/12). Staff is now having trouble
getting IDIS to accept it; but they are working through the issue with HUD and trying to
identify the problem. Bohn noted that the IURA has met the requirement in practice,
but the project just needs to be officially logged in IDIS.
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 11 of 12
VI. Old Business
A. Update on City Financial Audit Schedule
Bohn noted the HUD requirement is to have the 2011 audit completed by 9/31/12 (nine
months after the end of the fiscal year). Although the City has not met that standard
since 2003, their objective is to comply with the deadline this year. The City’s auditors
are due to begin work on the audit the week of July 4th.
B. Follow‐Up on Flexible Saving Account Administrator
Bohn noted that a series of questions had been posed by committee members to staff
about the contract submitted by the Flexible Saving Account Administrator (SIEBA
Insurance Services). There was some confusion about what the reference to Census
data being collected signified. SIEBA clarified that the data merely consists of the
number of employees, their names, addresses, etc. There was also a question about the
language in the contract that states that SIEA may request additional information as
needed. In response, IURA’s SIEBA contact person indicated this has never been
necessary, in her experience. Finally, Bohn remarked, there was a question about
whether SIEBA shares its data with third parties. SIEBA indicated it does not.
Bohn noted that SIEBA confirmed that the price would be locked in for 2.5 years.
C. IURA Role in City Surplus Properties Disposition
Bohn reported that the 209‐13 Spencer Road and 203 Third Street surplus properties
had both been approved by Common Council for conveyance to the IURA. They are now
in the hands of IURA legal counsel for facilitating the completion of the process. The
RFPs would be discussed in July committee meetings 2012.
D. Extension of INHS Land Trust to Non‐INHS Properties
(Not discussed due to time considerations.)
E. Elimination of Existing Tax Extension Payment Plans for Condemned Properties
(Not discussed due to time considerations.)
VII. Staff Report
A. Upcoming HUD Monitoring: July 11‐13, 2012
Bohn indicated he would report on the HUD monitoring visit to the committee at the
next meeting.
IURA Governance Committee
6/22/12 Minutes
Page 12 of 12
B. HOME 2012 New Statutory Requirements
(Not discussed due to time considerations.)
C. Neighborhood Housing Initiative Bond Issuance Schedule
(Not discussed due to time considerations.)
VIII. Other Business
A. Next Meeting: July 20, 2012
B. Other
(None.)
IX. Adjournment — Adjourned by consensus at 5:00 p.m.
— END —
Minutes prepared by C. Pyott, edited by N. Bohn.