HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURANI-2013-07-12
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274-655
Approved Minutes
IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee
July 12, 2013
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:37 AM by Chairperson Tracy Farrell with members Theresa
Halpert, Karl Graham and Fernando de Aragón present. Also present were staff member Sue Kittel
and Paul Mazzarella, Executive Director of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services.
II. Public comment
None.
III. Review of Minutes –May 10, 2013
On a motion by Halpert and second by de Aragón, the minutes were approved unanimously.
IV. New Business
a) Homeownership in the City of Ithaca—presentation
Mazzarella gave a brief power point presentation regarding affordable homeownership in Ithaca. He
noted that the trends in the City housing market are very different from the surrounding region of
upstate NY. The average sale price of homes within the Ithaca City School District from 2000 to 2008
went from less than $100,000 to about $200,000. The price of homes in the INHS target area, which is
essentially the flats, showed a change in average sale price rising from $88,000 in 2000 to $180,000 in
2012, with no dip in sale price as a result of the recent economic downturn. The total number of sales
of homes costing less than $150,000 in the City went from about 150 in 2000 to just 12 in 2012.
Mazzarella noted that the drivers of housing demand include population and employment. The total
population within the city rose less than 1% between 1990 and 2000, while Tompkins County had a
modest growth of 8% in the same time period. The number of households in the City rose 41.6%
during the same time frame, due to an increasing number of single person households. This is in
contrast with Tompkins County which had a 13.4% increase in the number of households during that
period. Mazzarella noted that in other places the percent increase in population growth roughly
equals the percent increase in number of households. He also noted that approximately 60% of INHS’
first time homebuyers were single people.
IN terms of employment, Mazzarella noted that Ithaca also does not follow regional or national
norms. He reported that Tompkins County had the greatest increase in private employment in any
area of the state since 2000. Since 2000, the increase in private employment has been: 2.5% in the
Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
United States; 4.5% in New York State; 8.6% in New York City; and 18.5% in the Ithaca metropolitan
statistical area. He contrasted this with Binghamton, which has sustained an 11.4% loss in private
employment since 2000.
Mazzarella also noted that Tompkins County is the biggest employer for both Schuyler and Tioga
counties. He remarked on the 15,000 in-commuters each day.
Finally Mazzarella provided the committee with an example of home financing to demonstrate the
need for significant subsidies to make homes affordable. The example is as follows:
For a single family home, typical costs
$250,000 development costs, including acquisition, construction,
architectural and other soft costs, etc.
$180,000 market value (sale price)
$70,000 shortfall for development of high quality, energy-
efficient market rate housing
To make the home affordable, a subsidy of another $50,000 or so is needed so that a low-
income buyer can pay the mortgage and taxes on the home, making the total shortfall to
construct one unit of affordable housing approximately $120,000.
The committee asked questions about the subsidy needed to construct affordable housing and
thanked Mazzarella for his presentation.
b) Neighborhood Housing Initiative Program—discussion
The Neighborhood Housing Initiative was discussed as a tool for creating affordable housing.
Mazzarella noted that it was a difficult program to use because the subsidy amount is determined by
formula at the very end of the project. This uncertainty about a final financial package for the
development could make the project risky. The Housing Initiative Guidelines specify that the subsidy
amount is limited to a maximum of $90,000 with an average anticipated to be $70,000 per unit and
the total is determined to be the lesser of the total development cost minus the appraised fair market
value after construction or $90,000 per dwelling unit. Project costs may include property acquisition,
predevelopment, demolition/construction, soft costs, interim interest, developer fee and selling
costs.
Mazzarella noted that INHS is not in the position to undertake a project in which the funding is
speculative. After some discussion, the Committee agreed to bring a resolution forward to the IURA
guaranteeing a minimum project subsidy to be paid through the Neighborhood Housing Initiative
supplemented by HOME funds, if needed. With this financing guarantee INHS will be able to move
forward with projects proposed at 214 Second Street and 314 South Plain Street.
In the meantime, the Committee directed staff to issue a Notice of Funding Availability for the
Neighborhood Housing Initiative with a rolling application deadline.
c) Environmental Review for the 2013 Grant—discussion
Kittel reviewed the project classification table with the Committee. The environmental review is
normally undertaken by the IURA but this has changed due to the recent MOU signed between the
City and the IURA regarding CDBG and HOME grant administration. The environmental review will
now be completed by the Common Council.
d) Other
Farrell raised the issue of unsafe buildings. She was made aware of a City initiative to address
abandoned, unsafe buildings in the City. Sue Kittel is staffing a policy discussion for the City and
Farrell will participate. The committee stressed their interest in not investing in properties which
were not publicly owned or transferred to an affordable housing developer. There was also discussion
of prioritizing CDBG and HOME funds for projects which cannot be undertaken through City capital
projects.
V. Old Business
a) Property Disposition—discussion of properties slated for disposition with no
proposals received—possible resolution
The committee revisited the property disposition and asked that Kittel draft a resolution to remove
previous stipulations required for purchase of 213-215 West Spencer Street and 701 Cliff Street, and
to allow the IURA to sell these properties through a realtor.
Property Disposition 213-215 West Spencer Street and 701 Cliff Street
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency has signed purchase and sale agreements with the City of
Ithaca for parcels at 213-215 West Spencer Road and 701 Cliff Streets and has undertaken a process
to return these vacant parcels to residential use, and
Whereas, there were no responses to the request for proposals issued for either of these parcels, and
Whereas, the Common Council stipulated that 213-215 West Spencer Street incorporate fully taxable
housing in the form of an architecturally compatible multi-unit residential development, including
affordable housing if feasible, and
Whereas, the Common Council stipulated that 701 Cliff Street be redeveloped as multi-unit
residential development (which includes a duplex) which is fully taxable, and
Whereas, with these stipulations the properties are not seen as feasible redevelopment sites, and
Whereas, the IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee considered this matter at their May 10,
2013 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby recommends that the City of Ithaca Common Council remove these
development stipulations for the properties at 213-215 West Spencer Street and 701 Cliff Street and
allow the IURA property to sell these two properties through a realtor with no stipulations as to final
use.
b) other
None.
VI. Motion to Adjourn
The meeting adjourned by consensus at 10:55 AM.