Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURANI-2015-02-13 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-655 DRAFT MINUTES IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee 8:30 AM, February 13, 2015 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 8:34, with members T. Halpert, F. deAragon, K. Graham, and T. Farrell, Chair, present. Staff members J. Cornish and L. Truame were also present. Staff member N. Bohn arrived at 8:35. II. Public comment None. III. Review of Minutes – November, 2014 Moved by F. deAragon, seconded by K. Graham, approval of November 2014 minutes as submitted. Carried unanimously. IV. Additions to the Agenda 1. HUD CBDO Finding, Los Angeles. Discussion. L. Truame distributed a HUD Finding memo and explained that staff had stumbled across it the day before the meeting and realized that it could affect the committee’s assessment of CBDO activities. The purpose of the memo is to reinforce HUD’s position that job training activities carried out by a CBDO must include job placement: “specific jobs, for specific people, with specific businesses”. There was a general discussion of the memo and the cited CDBG regulations, including how the public benefit test would apply and how this would affect the HETP and Work Preserve programs. Staff indicated that they would be following up with our HUD consultant, Harry Sicherman, after the committee meeting, but that it appeared we would need binding commitments to hire graduates of the programs. T. Halpert asked about CITAP and whether the City could include hiring graduates of these job training programs as a condition of receiving the tax abatement. N. Bohn pointed out that HUD seems to be saying that job training is a Workforce area, not a CDBG area. A suggestion was made that perhaps we could partner with Workforce on these activities, funding them at a lower level under the public services category. L. Truame indicated that she would report back to the committee by e-mail after speaking with H. Sicherman. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 2. Request for extension of NLI grant. Discussion, recommendation. L. Truame provided the committee with copies of an e-mail requested received from Margo Hittleman of the Natural Leaders Initiative project, requesting an extension to spend down their funds and outlining the reasons for the request. The committee unanimously recommended that the request be approved. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Governance Committee for action so that a formal resolution can be presented to the IURA at their February meeting. V. New Business 1. HOME Policies – discussion and resolutions: A. Definition of Income Policy T. Halpert asked why an asset test was not included in the calculation of income for TBRA programs. N. Bohn pointed out that Section 8 does have an asset test, so that anyone receiving assistance for, for example, the security deposit program, who also had Section 8, would need to meet the asset test. It was also noted that our other TBRA programs (TCA’s Housing First and the Learning Web’s Housing Scholarships) serve homeless populations. T. Halpert moved, F. deAragon seconded: In compliance with the provisions of §92.203 of the 2013 HOME final rule, it shall be the policy of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to define “annual income” for the purpose of determining income eligibility as follows: • For all Tenant Based Rental Assistance projects and activities, “annual income” means adjusted gross income as defined for purposes of reporting under Internal Revenue Service Form 1040 series for individual Federal annual income tax purposes. • For all other HOME projects and activities, including new construction, rehabilitation, rental, homeowner, and homebuyer assistance projects, “annual income” means the definition of income found at 24 CFR 5.609 (also known as the “Park 5”definition), except that when determining the income of a homeowner for an owner-occupied rehabilitation project, the value of the homeowner’s principal residence shall be excluded from the calculation of Net Family Assets, as defined in 25 CFR 5.603. Carried unanimously. B. Affirmative Marketing Policy T. Farrell asked which of our projects this would apply to. L. Truame responded primarily INHS’ projects, and they are already required to conduct Affirmative Marketing by other funding sources on many of their projects. F. de Aragon suggested we meet with INHS to compare our proposed policy with what they are doing now. K. Graham noted that a smaller organization may have difficulty complying with such a detailed policy and wondered whether that might cause monitoring difficulties for the IURA. T. Farrell questioned the inclusion of item #2 under Compliance Assessment, as Ithaca’s demographic and poverty data is so skewed by students. N. Bohn suggested holding off on identifying specific disadvantaged groups we want to track until we have the results of the Fair Housing study. The committee concurred. Consideration of the policy was tabled until staff has met with INHS and we have received the results of the Fair Housing Survey. C. MBE/WBE Policy T. Farrell asked what efforts we currently undertake with regard to MBE/WBE. N. Bohn explained that opportunities are primarily through subcontracting on construction projects where the requirements for outreach are passed along to our subrecipients. The proposed policy would apply to the IURA’s own procurement process as well as to our subrecipients. J. Cornish asked what was involved in becoming a certified MBE/WBE. N. Bohn responded that there is a good deal of paperwork involved and it is unclear in our particular market whether there is a notable advantage to certification. L. Truame noted that the intent of the proposed policy is to provide outreach and an opportunity for involvement in the part of MBE/WBEs; it is not a hiring preference of any kind. K. Graham moved, T. Halpert seconded: The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), acting on behalf of the City of Ithaca, will administer its HOME and CDBG Programs in a manner that will further the purposes of federal, state, and local affirmative marketing and equal opportunity requirements. Toward this end, the IURA will: 1. Conduct affirmative marketing and outreach to Minority Business Enterprises (MBE) and Women’s Business Enterprises (WBE) utilizing the New York State MWBE Directory listings for MWBEs in the Ithaca area, in conformance with 24 CFR Part 85.36(e). 2. Include the HUD required Section 3 clause in all covered contracts. Section 3 applies to: a. Projects for which HUD’s share of the project cost exceeds $200,000; and b. Contracts and/or subcontracts awarded on projects for which HUD’s share of the project cost exceeds $200,000 and the contract and/or subcontract exceeds $100,000. 3. Require HOME and CDBG Program sub-recipients and contractors to take affirmative steps to use MBE’s and WBE’s in CDBG and/or HOME funded projects. The IURA will provide guidance and information to assist contractors in complying with the MBE, WBE, and Section 3 marketing and outreach, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 4. Compile an annual record of MWBE and Section 3 participation in the HOME and CDBG Programs for submission to HUD and conduct an annual review to assess the effectiveness of efforts to encourage participation by MBEs, WBEs, and Section 3 Businesses. 5. Post MBE, WBE, Section 3, and small business outreach information, including information about the MBE/WBE/Section 3 Business application process, on the IURA website at: www.IthacaURA.org Carried unanimously. 2. CHDO & CBDO Certifications – discussion and resolutions: A. INHS CHDO. INHS’ submission was reviewed and discussed. T. Halpert moved, F. deAragon seconded: Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) has been designated by the City of Ithaca as the Lead Agency to develop, administer and implement the HUD Entitlement grant program, including funds received through the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) program, and Whereas, grant recipients under the HOME program are termed Participating Jurisdictions (PJs), and Whereas, PJs must reserve not less than 15% of their HOME allocation for investment in housing to be developed, sponsored, or owned by Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), and Whereas, each PJ must identify annually CHDOs that are capable of carrying out projects to address priority housing needs identified in the Consolidated Plan, and Whereas, a CHDO is a specific type of community-based nonprofit organization as defined in 24 CFR §92.2, and Whereas, a PJ may use HOME funds to provide special assistance to CHDOs, including: • Project pre-development loans; • Operating assistance; • Use of HOME project proceeds; • Capacity-building assistance; and Whereas, on January 31, 2015, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) submitted materials documenting their qualification and requested renewal of their designation as a CHDO and CBDO by the IURA, and Whereas, at their February 13, 2015 meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency compared submitted materials against CHDO criteria and recommends the following; now, therefore be it Resolved, that the IURA, acting in its capacity as the Lead Agency for the Participating Jurisdiction of the City of Ithaca, hereby renews its designation of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. as a CHDO for the 2015 Action Plan. Carried unanimously. B. Historic Ithaca CBDO L. Truame reviewed the submission and the staff recommendation, highlighting the issue with Historic Ithaca’s original Articles of Incorporation and the “substantially similar” test , as discussed in the memo. K. Graham moved, F. deAragon seconded: WHEREAS, the Board of Historic Ithaca Inc., (Historic Ithaca) seeks designation by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as a Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO), and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has designated the IURA to administer the City’s HUD Entitlement Program that oversees Community Development Block Grant funds awarded to the City, and WHEREAS, an eligible category of CDBG activities is a “Special Activity by CBDO”, that offers certain advantages, such as exemption from the 15% expenditure cap otherwise applicable to public service activities, authorization to carry out new housing construction (normally prohibited with CDBG funds), and discretion to allow income generated by a CDBG-funded activity to not be considered CDBG program income, and WHEREAS, the following four tests established at CFR Title 24 §570.204 must be met to qualify under a category of “Special Activity by CBDOs”: The entity qualifies as a CBDO, including the 51% board membership test; 1. The CBDO will undertake an eligible project; 2. That the CBDO will carry out the funded activity directly or with an entity other than the grantee; 3. That the CBDO will not carry out a prohibited activity, and WHEREAS, a CBDO must maintain at least 51% of its governing body’s membership to be made up of any combination of the following: • Low- and moderate income residents of its area of operation • Owners or senior officers of private establishments and other institutions located in its area of operation • Representatives of low- and moderate-income neighborhood organizations located in its area of operation, and WHEREAS, a CBDO must have as its primary purpose the improvement of the physical, economic, or social environment of its geographic area of operation, with a particular emphasis on the needs of low- and moderate-income persons, and WHEREAS, the project undertaken by the CBDO must qualify as one or more of the following project types: • neighborhood revitalization; • community economic development; • energy conservation project; and Whereas, at their February 13, 2015, meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee compared Historic Ithaca, Inc. with CBDO eligibility requirements as documented in the attached materials and staff review of bylaws and organizational documents and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA determines that Historic Ithaca, Inc. meets the requirements for eligibility as a CBDO. Carried unanimously. C. GIAC CBDO. L. Truame reviewed the issues with GIAC’s board composition that are described in the committee packet. After discussion, Rise Nelson Burrows was approved as meeting the “senior officer” category test. T. Halpert suggested we indicate that Christine Christian’s position is equivalent to Assistant Pastor. After discussion, Christine Christian was approved as meeting the “senior officer” category test. L. Truame recapped the potential issue with counting JR as both a representative of an LMI community organization and an elected official. The committee felt comfortable continuing to count JR in both categories since we have no specific guidance from HUD on this point. Staff was asked to communicate to GIAC the importance of soliciting the involvement of more individuals who are LMI residents of the City. Prior to the vote, K. Graham disclosed that he has a familial relationship with the Executive Director of GIAC. T. Halpert moved, F. deAragon seconded: WHEREAS, the GIAC, Inc., seeks designation by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as a Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO), and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has designated the IURA to administer the City’s HUD Entitlement Program that oversees Community Development Block Grant funds awarded to the City, and WHEREAS, an eligible category of CDBG activities is a “Special Activity by CBDO”, that offers certain advantages, such as exemption from the 15% expenditure cap otherwise applicable to public service activities, authorization to carry out new housing construction (normally prohibited with CDBG funds), and discretion to allow income generated by a CDBG-funded activity to not be considered CDBG program income, and WHEREAS, the following four tests established at CFR Title 24 §570.204 must be met to qualify under a category of “Special Activity by CBDOs”: 1. The CBDO will undertake an eligible project; 2. That the CBDO will carry out the funded activity directly or with an entity other than the grantee; 3. That the CBDO will not carry out a prohibited activity, and WHEREAS, a CBDO must maintain at least 51% of its governing body’s membership to be made up of any combination of the following: • Low- and moderate income residents of its area of operation • Owners or senior officers of private establishments and other institutions located in its area of operation • Representatives of low- and moderate-income neighborhood organizations located in its area of operation, and WHEREAS, a CBDO must have as its primary purpose the improvement of the physical, economic, or social environment of its geographic area of operation, with a particular emphasis on the needs of low- and moderate-income persons, and WHEREAS, the project undertaken by the CBDO must qualify as one or more of the following project types: • neighborhood revitalization; • community economic development; • energy conservation project; and Whereas, at their February 13, 2015, meeting, the Neighborhood Investment Committee compared GIAC, Inc. with CBDO eligibility requirements as documented in the attached materials and staff review of bylaws and organizational documents and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA determines that GIAC, Inc. meets the requirements for eligibility as a CBDO. Carried unanimously. 3. 2015 funding round update. L. Truame recapped contacts made to date, applications that staff believe will be forthcoming, and the schedule of upcoming meetings. N. Bohn updated the committee on the local Housing Trust funding: Cornell remains committed in principle, but has not identified a source of funds for their portion of the Trust. A final decision from Cornell is expected in the next few weeks. Both the City and County commitments are contingent upon Cornell’s commitment. T. Farrell encouraged N. Bohn to talk with Carmine Guidi about applying for Housing Trust money for his Second Wind Cottages project. 4. Request for extension of NLI grant. V. Old Business 1. NI Committee vacancy. No updates at this time. 2. Update on SSCC gym acoustics project progress (CDBG 14/2013). L. Truame has solicited proposals for the project (it falls below the cap for open bidding) and conducted a pre-bid walk-through with the architect. Only one contractor attended the pre-bid walk-through. L. Truame verified with Scott Andrews that City procurement requirements would have been met by the solicitation of proposals, even if only one bidder provides a proposal. S. Andrews indicated that this was true. Proposals will be opened February 24, 2015, and we hope the work will occur in April. T. Farrell asked N. Bohn for ED update. N. Bohn discussed progress on the clean-up at Ithaca Gun and the potential for the Inlet Island site to move forward with clean-up once Ithaca Gun is complete. Completion of the Ithaca Gun site would allow the City to designate that area as parkland, thus allowing the de-parking and ultimate redevelopment of the Inlet Island site. VI. Motion to Adjourn Adjourned by acclamation at 10:02. Respectfully submitted, L. Truame, Community Development Planner