HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURAGOV-2012-10-19Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
Adopted 11/13/12
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274-6559 6559
MINUTES MINUTES
IURA Governance Committee IURA Governance Committee
8:30 AM, Friday, October 19, 2012 8:30 AM, Friday, October 19, 2012
3rd Floor Conference Room, City Hall 3rd Floor Conference Room, City Hall
Present: Chairperson Eric Rosario, Susan Cummings, David Whitmore, Kathy Schlather Present: Chairperson Eric Rosario, Susan Cummings, David Whitmore, Kathy Schlather
Absent: None. Absent: None.
Staff: Nels Bohn, JoAnn Cornish, Charles Pyott Staff: Nels Bohn, JoAnn Cornish, Charles Pyott
Guests: Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) Guests: Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS)
Public: None. Public: None.
I. Call to Order I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Rosario at 8:35 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Rosario at 8:35 a.m.
II. Agenda Additions/Deletions II. Agenda Additions/Deletions
None. None.
III. Public Comments – None III. Public Comments – None
IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 21, 2012 IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 21, 2012
Cummings moved, seconded by Rosario, to approve the September 21, 2012 minutes,
with 3 minor modifications. Carried Unanimously.
Cummings moved, seconded by Rosario, to approve the September 21, 2012 minutes,
with 3 minor modifications. Carried Unanimously.
V. New Business V. New Business
A. EPA Brownfield Grant Application, Procure Services of Barton & Loguidice, P.C. A. EPA Brownfield Grant Application, Procure Services of Barton & Loguidice, P.C.
Bohn indicated that initially he had thought action would be required on this agenda item,
when in fact the IURA has already approved the actual contract; so the Governance
Committee does not need to take any action at this time.
Bohn indicated that initially he had thought action would be required on this agenda item,
when in fact the IURA has already approved the actual contract; so the Governance
Committee does not need to take any action at this time.
IURA Governance Committee
10/19/12 Minutes
Page 2 of 10
Cummings asked if there were another source of funds the IURA could use to cover
consultants like this. Bohn replied, yes; however, the assumption had always been that
the IURA would use the Cherry Street Industrial Park (EMF site) sale revenue for this
kind of one‐time expense.
Cummings recalled that the committee once discussed establishing some kind of
dedicated fund for environmental consultants. Bohn replied that applying for grant
funds for a CDBG‐eligible activity, such as remediation of environmental contamination
in a low/mod income neighborhood, is a CDBG‐eligible expense, but only as an
administrative and planning expense that are already committed for IURA staffing
expenses.
Bohn went on to report that preliminary findings indicated the soil is in fact
contaminated with lead. Moreover, unfortunately some of that soil had already been
cleaned up by the EPA, so it has subsequently somehow been re‐contaminated. Barton
& Loguidice would be responsible for developing a clean‐up recommendation as part of
the EPA Brownfield Grant Application, which would include a series of alternative
analyses of different options, with different costs associated with each.
B. Stone Quarry Apartments, Proposed Affordable Housing Project at 400 W. Spencer Rd.
1. Comment on Proposed Zoning Variances
Moved by Cummings, seconded by Whitmore:
Comment on Stone Quarry Apartments Zoning Variance Application
WHEREAS, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) and PathStone
Development Corporation propose to construct 35 affordable housing units for
households earning between 30% and 90% of Area Median Income (AMI) at 400
West Spencer Rd., the current site of the Ithaca Dispatch taxi service and
formerly an automotive repair garage, and
WHEREAS, the project site is located in the R‐2a and B‐5 zoning districts, and
WHEREAS, the project proposes to construct 16 townhouse units and 19 units in
a multi‐family building that requires a use variance in the R‐2a zoning district
that limits residential densities to single‐family detached dwellings and duplexes,
and
IURA Governance Committee
10/19/12 Minutes
Page 3 of 10
WHEREAS, the project site is located within the Urban Renewal Project Boundary
Area, and
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Urban Renewal Plan is to improve the
social, physical and economic characteristics of the neighborhoods within the
Project Boundary Area, and
WHEREAS, the project further advances the following specific objectives of the
Urban Renewal Plan:
• “improvement of the residential environment through a program of
redevelopment, rehabilitation, conservation, and new construction to
assure every family in Ithaca a decent home within its economic means;
• assurance to all residents of the opportunity to choose from an adequate
range of housing types and neighborhoods;
• provision of a housing supply with a rental structure that would allow low‐
and moderate‐income families to obtain adequate housing without paying
an excessive portion of their income for rent,” and
WHEREAS, according to the 2011 housing demand market analysis prepared by
the Danter Company, LLC, there is an extremely low rental housing vacancy rate
in the City of 0.5% and a 5‐year demand for 1,350 rental housing units over the
next five years, including a market demand for 60‐65 units/year of low‐income
housing tax credit housing per year, and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Investment Committee has reviewed the project
plans and recommends an IURA funding commitment of at least $200,000 to
support the project, and
WHEREAS, the IURA Governance Committee has primary jurisdiction for external
agency communications, and
WHEREAS, the IURA Governance Committee considered this matter at their
October 19, 2012 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be
it
IURA Governance Committee
10/19/12 Minutes
Page 4 of 10
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby directs the IURA Chairperson to submit
comment to the Board of Zoning Appeals supporting approval of the use
variance application for the Stone Quarry Apartment project that will implement
the Urban Renewal Plan by replacing a nonconforming and inappropriate
commercial use in the neighborhood with much needed affordable housing that
will stabilize and strengthen the Spencer Rd. residential neighborhood.
Carried Unanimously 5‐0
2. Discuss Project Financing & Competitiveness for NYS Funding
Bohn noted the Stone Quarry Apartments project is one of up to five different
proposed local low‐income tax credit applications within Tompkins County, this
year, which will all be competing against each other.
Cummings remarked that the Stone Quarry Apartments project is a perfect use of
the site. She strongly recommended supporting it.
At this juncture, Reynolds recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project
and walked through the proposed financing plan, highlighting the following points:
• new construction pricing was recently revised for the project (the project
will appear the same, but cheaper internal construction materials and
methods would be employed)
• originally priced at appr. $10M, the project is now projected to cost $9M
($6M of actual construction costs)
• the objective for the financing is to increase the amount of leveraging as
much as possible
• the project is still targeted to a wide variety of income levels
• the applicant is working with the Veterans Administration to reserve 6 units
for homeless veterans
• financing sources will likely include: (1) a bank loan; (2) Low Income Housing
Tax Credit (LIHTC); (3) NYS Housing Trust Fund (although this is not
desirable, since it comes with a lot of operational encumbrances); (4)
Neighborhood Works funding; (5) IURA funding; (6) loans from both co‐
applicants, INHS and PathStone; and (6) assistance from Tompkins County.
• applicant wants to reach 80% financing threshold for NYS funds to gain
scoring points
• the current financing gap to achieve the 80% threshold is $370K, which is
what the applicant is now requesting from the IURA
IURA Governance Committee
10/19/12 Minutes
Page 5 of 10
Bohn stressed that the IURA needs to keep in mind that funding the project at the
$370K level would most likely preclude funding some other potential projects.
Committee members need to determine whether they believe the project is a high
enough priority for them to fund. Bohn noted that the loan would be initiated as a
HODAG loan, but would then be substituted for HOME funds. Another
consideration is that the IURA would not know until April 2013 whether the project
is fully funded or not. This may provide the IURA with a little more flexibility, since
the funding could be awarded over a longer period of time. Bohn noted that INHS
has firmly indicated that this project is their top priority.
Schlather asked if any other parties had approached the IURA, searching for
possible funding.
Bohn replied, yes, Lakeview Mental Health Services has also indicated they would
be interested. It was communicated to them, however, that their tax‐exempt
status would need to be clarified first; so they are still developing their proposal. It
was also communicated to Lakeview that the IURA funding timeframe would likely
not work out for them (although nothing was ruled out). Bohn observed that
Lakeview also has access to other funding sources, not available to typical
developers.
C. Review of IURA Financials, September 2012
Bohn remarked that IURA financials remain stable. As shown on the September 2012
Grants Summary, the Spend Down Ratio remains very low (although it does not reflect
the as‐yet‐unreceived 2012 funds, which will be included in the report when 2012 funds
become available from HUD).
Bohn noted that Diane’s Downtown Automotive is delinquent (for the first time in 6
months). It is hoped this is just a short‐term cash problem, rather than something more
serious.
Bohn noted the Finger Lakes Wine Center remains in a stasis mode, while it works with
another local institution to take over its operations.
Bohn noted all the lease payments are current, except Perfect Screen Printers, which is
not uncommon for them, but they ultimately always pay.
D. City/Cornell Opportunities
Discussion ensued about potential City‐Cornell opportunities for collaboration.
IURA Governance Committee
10/19/12 Minutes
Page 6 of 10
Cummings asked if there are any resources or services that Cornell University needs,
which might be focused on, for the City to explore as additional revenue opportunities.
Furthermore, it may be a good idea to explore to what extent the university employs
private sector companies that remain tax‐exempt (but which would in any other context
be taxable). Cummings mentioned Cornell Dining as one possibility.
Cummings suggested the Rochester, NY model for tuition assistance to its residents may
be worth exploring. Cornish suggested examining if Cornell could provide tuition
assistance for City staff. In short, it would be a good idea to identify any opportunities
for assistance from Cornell that it would not directly have to pay for.
Whitmore remarked that the City’s current budget problems should only serve to
underscore for Cornell that certain vital City services, such as firefighting, may very well
be at risk. These kinds of services may be things the university may be willing to provide
some financial support for, since it would also serve its own interests.
Cornish suggested the possibility of exploring whether the university would be willing to
fund the construction of a new fire department facility on its campus, which may permit
the City to sell Station Number 9 (East Hill/Collegetown). She added that the City also
performs a large number of building and fire code inspections for the university ―
another example of vital services the City provides the university.
Rosario remarked that he sits on the University Council, so he should be well‐positioned
brief the IURA on any further opportunities he may happen to identify.
(David Whitmore departed at 10:10 a.m.)
E. Strategic Planning in Response to Future Reduced Federal Funding of Domestic
Discretionary Programs
Bohn indicated he had expected to have more time to devote to this agenda item; but it
can probably just be deferred until the next meeting.
Cummings suggested attaching a list of potential funding opportunities to the next
meeting’s agenda.
IURA Governance Committee
10/19/12 Minutes
Page 7 of 10
VI. Old/Other Business
A. IURA Neighborhood Housing Initiative (NHI) Financial Assistance Program ― Finalize
Guidelines & Authorize Issuance of Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
Moved by Cummings, seconded by Schlather:
Neighborhood Housing Initiative Program ― Issue Notice of Funding Availability
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2012 and October 3, 2012, the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency (IURA) and the City of Ithaca Common Council authorized conversion of the
Neighborhood Housing Initiative (NHI) program to a financial assistance program
without any change to the goal or objectives of the program, and
WHEREAS, this program has the goal of acquiring non‐owner occupied residential
properties that negatively affect a neighborhood, renovating the property and
selling it to owner occupants at fair market value, and
WHEREAS, establishing the sale price at fair market value is intended to minimize
the amount of the public subsidy required to undertake the project, and
WHEREAS, the objectives of the program are to eliminate blighting conditions;
increase the number and percentage of homeowners in the City; convert rental
properties to owner‐occupancy status; and stimulate private sector investment in
neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, approximately $600,000 in NHI bond proceeds are available; and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) is responsible to implement the
NHI program by providing financial assistance to housing developers who commit to
undertake eligible projects to upgrade substandard, non‐owner‐occupied housing to
be sold at fair market value (minus any additional development subsidies the
housing developer secures to reduce the sales price) to a homeowners agreeing to
at least a 25‐year owner‐occupancy requirement, and be it further
WHEREAS, the IURA Governance Committee discussed this matter at their October
19, 2012 meeting and recommends the following; now, therefore, be it
IURA Governance Committee
10/19/12 Minutes
Page 8 of 10
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby adopts the 2012 proposed modifications to the
Neighborhood Housing Initiative Program description, dated October 15, 2012, and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the IURA authorizes staff to issue a Notice of Funding Availability
seeking funding proposals for use of NHI program funds in accordance with the NHI
program description.
Carried Unanimously 4‐0
B. HUD Correspondence
Bohn reported that the process of setting the City up on the Integrated Disbursement &
Information System (IDIS) account has been completed. HUD funds will now be
deposited directly into a City account and subsequently drawn down by the IURA.
Bohn remarked that HUD seems satisfied with the IURA’s response to its concerns. HUD
is now drafting a disbursement letter and working on granting the funds. The IURA is
preparing a draft Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the IURA, which
will be submitted to HUD for approval.
Bohn noted that HUD did not express any objections to the IURA’s counter‐proposal to
exclude existing/old funds from the funds required to be drawn down from the City.
C. Neighborhood Housing Initiative Committee (NIC) Vacancy
Bohn announced that Caleb Thomas is resigning from the committee and the Mayor is
asking for nominations to replace him. Since the Governance Committee is charged
with making nominations for other IURA committees, any recommendations committee
members may have would be welcome at this time.
The following potential candidates were suggested:
• Richard Guttridge
• Reverend Benson
• Alphonse Pieper
• An employee of Taitem
Engineering (Daniel Cogan
may know of someone)
• Gosa Tsgaye
• JoJo Alpern
• Elaine Foster
• Maureen Kelly
• Holly Gump
• Bob Sparks
IURA Governance Committee
10/19/12 Minutes
Page 9 of 10
It was mentioned that Paul Mazzarella and Scott Reynolds (INHS) may also have some
ideas for good candidates.
VII. Staff Report
A. Proposed Revisions to City Investment Incentive Program (CIIP) Policy
Bohn noted that the City is re‐examining the entire CIIP, which sunsets at the end of the
year. The new proposal has been reviewed by the Planning and Economic Development
Committee (P&ED), which it has endorsed. The consensus appears to be that the
current program is unworkable. The scoring system does not function properly and
developers end up being pressured to score on all the points.
The proposed new program would only include 3 criteria: (1) that a project be in a
density district; (2) that it increase the assessed value by at least $500,000; and (3) that
it be 3 stories or higher. The target areas would include brownfield areas, such as the
Emerson Power Transmission building, the former Ithaca Gun factory site, etc. The
proposal is now working its way to Common Council, and then the Industrial
Development Agency.
Cornish remarked that the City is also exploring other ways to address some of the same
issues the current CIIP was designed to address (e.g., affordable housing, living wage,
etc.).
Rosario remarked that he has some concerns with the proposal. He noted that there
have been some problems with the move towards greater density that have caused
problems in some neighborhoods. In addition, there are issues that have not yet been
fully resolved (which he had thought the Comprehensive Plan would be addressing).
Rosario noted that certain mitigation measures should definitely be a part of the
process; and it would be preferable if the Comprehensive Plan were completed, before
altering the CIIP process.
Cornish remarked that she appreciates Rosario’s comments. She noted, however, that
the current program will expire at the end of the year and there will be nothing in its
place.
IURA Governance Committee
10/19/12 Minutes
Page 10 of 10
Cummings remarked that she has some questions about the actual outline of the
density district itself. She would prefer to see a more precise delineation of where it
begins and ends. Some edges, for example, are extremely fragile and ill‐defined. She
would rather see the current CIIP extended and then revised when the Comprehensive
Plan is completed. Cummings also questioned the basis for offering economic incentives
for development in an already‐desirable district. She would rather see the program
applied to specific, discrete sections of the city, as part of a more finely targeted
approach.
Cornish remarked that many of these kinds of issues should be addressed through a
revised CEQR process.
B. Project Updates
None.
VIII. Other Business
A. Next Meeting: November 16, 2012
B. Other
None.
IX. Adjournment — Adjourned by consensus at 11:21 a.m.
— END —
Minutes prepared by C. Pyott, edited by N. Bohn.