HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURANI-2015-06-12
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274-655
DRAFT MINUTES
IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee
June 12, 2015
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:34 by Chair T. Farrell. Present were: T. Farrell, K. Graham, T.
Halpert, L. Truame (staff) and N. Bohn (staff). F. deAragon & J. Cornish (staff) arrived at 8:36.
II. Public comment
None.
III. Review of Minutes – April 2015
K. Graham moved, T. Halpert seconded. Approved as written.
IV. New Business
1. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing report – discussion
T. Farrell invited initial thoughts about the report and its contents to be followed by a focused
discussion of the identified impediments. K. Graham asked about the process for submitted the
report to HUD. L. Truame & N. Bohn suggested that NI discuss and make Action Plan
recommendations to the IURA, who would then discuss and make a recommendation to Council.
Council would adopt the Action Plan that would be submitted to HUD. The report, however, would
be sent to HUD now that the NI has begun to review it, with a cover memo letting HUD know of the
timeline for submission of the Action Plan.
There was a general discussion of the broad scope of the report and the amount of data included in
the document, which the Committee found generally helpful and interesting.
The Committee then reviewed the identified impediments, in the order presented.
#1. Discrimination on the basis of disability. The Committee had questions about the testing results
and wondered if the discrimination discovered was related solely to service animals. The Committee
recommended additional testing in future to identify whether discrimination on the basis of disability
not related to the need for a service animal is prevalent in the city. T. Farrell noted that the testing
sample size is so small that the percentages reported can’t help but sound alarming. J. Cornish
wondered if we could get data on the number of accessible units in the city from the Building
Division. L. Truame will look into it. T. Halpert noted that people who need affordable units will not
be financially able to restore a unit to its pre-accessible state if the landlord installs the necessary
Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
accommodation but requires restoration of the unit at move-out. She wondered if the City could
create an incentive program to support the conversion of existing units to be accessible. This
suggestion was supported as a potential Action Plan item. T. Halpert indicated that on average 22%
of the rent charged for a unit in Ithaca goes to property tax. N. Bohn noted that a tax incentive to
support accessibility improvements may not be allowed under State law. L. Truame will look into it.
#2. The City lacks a comprehensive Language Assistance Plan. J. Cornish indicated this would be an
easy impediment to address since L. Moskowitz has done a lot of work on this already.
#3. Responsibility of sub-recipients to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. L. Truame distributed a
copy of an FAW response from the HUD Entitlement page on the HUD Exchange which clearly
indicates that while the entitlement community should involve its sub-recipients in its own efforts to
further fair housing, the responsibility to AFFH belongs to the entitlement community, not the sub-
recipient. L. Truame suggested that the city may want to require sub-recipients to attend fair housing
training, since that would allow them to better “flag” discriminatory activities should they hear of
them from their program participants. The Committee supported the suggestion.
#4. Source of income discrimination. T. Halpert questioned whether the refusal to accept Section 8
might be related to the inadequacy of the DSS security deposit letter. J. Cornish noted that landlords
can charge higher rents when not restricted by Section 8 limits. T. Farrell wondered whether Section
8 is supporting our worst-condition properties at this point. N. Bohn noted there are other factors
involved with Section 8, such as specific required lease provisions, that landlords may object to. The
Committee is hesitant to suggest amending the local law to add source of income without more
information about why landlords are no longer accepting Section 8. J. Cornish suggested a
conversation with the Landlord’s Association about what the issues are, which would also allow us to
communicate to them what the impacts on the community are. K. Graham noted that the
demographics of the city are changing because of the lack of affordable rental housing. J. Cornish
agreed that this was a significant over-arching problem. A follow-up conversation with the Landlords
Association was supported by the Committee.
#5. Need for landlord education. T. Halpert pointed out there are ways to reached landlords for
education, such as through the Certificate of Compliance mailing. She suggested the City make
attendance at a fair housing workshop mandatory as part of CofC renewal.
#6. Policy barriers. N. Bohn noted that the Analysis of Impediments did not identify policy barriers to
the development of affordable housing, but instead suggested ways to incentivize it. J. Cornish
suggested it would be easy to add the City’s anti-discrimination clause to the zoning ordinance. L.
Truame noted that affordable housing can’t be developed locally without public subsidy and that
securing that subsidy has such a long timeline already that City policies really don’t extend it; it seems
our review policies actually have a greater impact on market-rate development. L. Truame noted
that we are working on an inclusionary zoning proposal and will note that in our response to HUD.
We have also discussed the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance to allow ECHO cottages and
make it easier to create accessory units.
#7. Existing anti-discrimination law. The Committee agrees we should be able to enforce whatever
law we have on the books. This will require a conversation with the County and the City Attorney.
#8. Need for more emergency shelter and temporary housing. The Committee pointed out that the
increase in sheltered homeless households was largely related to the change in management at the
shelter. L. Truame stated her opinion that an increase in sheltered homeless and a decrease in
unsheltered homeless does not indicate a need for more transitional housing (the residents of which
are classified as sheltered homeless), but rather the need for more permanent affordable housing so
that those sheltered homeless families can move into permanent units. The Committee thought we
should reference the BJM housing stability program as something the City is developing to reduce
family homelessness.
#9. Impact of the student renter population on the availability of family housing. T. Farrell pointed
out that Collegetown is defacto Cornell’s dorm, but it is taxable. T. Halpert pointed out that many
graduate students actually have families with children. T. Farrell noted that INHS has said they have
trouble renting their affordable 3-bedroom units. J. Cornish responded that she has heard many
families are slightly over-income and can’t get into those units. The Committee wants more data
about the need for affordable family units – what income levels are really in the most need? L.
Truame will attempt to get information about IHA’s public housing family units – what is the demand,
what incomes levels, what size units – and the Committee would like to invite Joe Bowes in for a
discussion about INHS’ experience with larger units.
#10. General need for affordable housing. There was a wide ranging discussion on creative ideas to
increase affordable options. The Committee agreed that the City needs a strategy to encourage and
support mixed-income neighborhoods and combat gentrification.
Next steps: L. Truame will work up a draft summary of the committee’s discussion today, which we
will refine into a draft Action Plan at our next meeting and then forward to IURA for their
consideration.
V. Old Business
1. SSCC security camera project, recommend award of contract – resolution
Moved by: F. DeAragon, Seconded: T. Halpert
Award of Contract for Southside Community Center Security Camera System
WHEREAS, the Southside Community Center (SSCC) was awarded funding in the 2013 Entitlement Grant cycle
for acoustic improvements to the SSCC gymnasium (2013 CDBG project #14) and
WHEREAS, the amount of funding reserved for that project was inadequate to execute the project based on
the single proposal received for the work, and
WHEREAS, the Southside Community Center Board and staff requested that the unexpended balance of funds
originally allocated to the acoustic improvement projects be instead allocated to the installation of a security
camera system at the SSCC, and
WHEREAS, the SSCC’s request was approved by the IURA at their March 26, 2015 meeting with the condition
that IURA staff conduct the appropriate procurement process for the system and submit the proposed system
to Steven Nann, Building Maintenance Supervisor, for his review and approval prior to award of the contract,
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s procurement policy for projects with a budget of $25,000 or less, IURA
staff has solicited three proposals for the SSCC security camera system, and
WHEREAS, only two proposals were submitted in response to this solicitation, and
WHEREAS, those two proposals were forwarded to Steven Nann for his review and approval, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Nann has indicated his preference for the proposal submitted by Teledair, while requesting
certain follow-up information from the company, and
WHEREAS, the requested information has been submitted by Teledair and approved by Mr. Nann, and
WHEREAS, the award of the contract for this work to Teledair was recommended by the IURA’s Neighborhood
Investment committee at their June 12, 2015 meeting; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby approves the award of the contract for the installation of the specified
security camera system at the Southside Community Center to Teledair, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the IURA Chairperson, upon the advice of the IURA Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute
all necessary and appropriate documents to implement this resolution.
Carried unanimously
2. BJM Housing Stability Program – update
L. Truame gave an update on recent discussions with the Ithaca Housing Authority, which have been
very positive.
Addition to the agenda:
There was an informal discussion of the Old Library projects.
VI. Motion to Adjourn
Meeting adjourned by consensus at 10:36.