Agenda | City of Ithaca

10Ith(6

08 E. Green St.haca, NY 1485

607) 274-6565

I. C II. A

III. R IV. N

A

B

V. C

A

B

C

VI. O

A

B

C

VII. Ad

plea

50

all to Order

Additions to/

Review of Me

New BusinesA. Restore N

Buildings . Other

ommunity LA. Priority B

including . Restore NGrant & D

. Loan Pipe

Old/Other BuA. NYS Smal. IURA Loan. Staff Repo

djournment

If youase contact the

IthacaUrbanRenewaAgency

ITHAC

ECONO3:3

Common

/or Deletion

eeting Minut

s NY4 – RequeRehabilitati

Loans usiness Loanrelease of a

NY3 – RequeDischarge Moeline Report

usiness l Cities CDBGn & Lease Paort

u have a disabile CITY OF ITHACA C

aly

A

CA URBAN R

OMIC DEVELO

30 P.M., TuCouncil Ch

ns from Agen

tes: March 2

st from PPMon Project –

n Fund – Req security lienst from Italtortgage Lien

G ― Policy Cayment Repo

lity and requireCLERK’S OFFICE at

AGENDA

RENEWAL A

OPMENT COuesday, Aprhambers, Ci

nda

27, 2018 (Spe

M Homes, LLC– Resolution

quest from Dn and partiahai, LLC to Rn on 130‐132

Change to CDort: March 2

e accommodatt 274‐6570 at l

AGENCY (IU

MMITTEE (Eril 17, 2018ity Hall, Ith

ecial Meetin

C to Modify

Delante, LLCl loan payofRecharacteri2 E. M.L.K., J

DBG Program2018 – Revie

tion in order toleast 72 busine

URA)

DC) 8 aca, NY

ng)

the Propose

C for Loan Moff – Resolutioze a RestoreJr./State St.–

m Income Guew

o fully participaess hours prior

ed Seneca/C

odification on e NY Loan as– Resolution

uidelines – R

ate, to the meeting

Corn St.

s a

Report

g.

Approved: X/X/18

108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-6565

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY

Economic Development Committee (EDC) ― SPECIAL MEETING ―

3:00 PM, Tuesday, March 27, 2018 Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, NY

Present: Chris Proulx, Chair; Doug Dylla, Vice-Chair; Leslie Ackerman; Heather Harrick;

Charles Hamilton Excused: None Vacancies: 1 Staff: Nels Bohn; Charles Pyott; Anisa Mendizabal Guests: James Trasher, CHA (consulting engineer) Andy Breuer, Hueber-Breuer (general contractor) Jeff Rimland, Ithaca Properties, LLC (developer) Jeff Githens, Ithaca-Peak Development, LLC (developer) Tom Knipe, Deputy Director for Economic Development, City of Ithaca Ari Lavine, City Attorney, City of Ithaca Tim Logue, Director of Engineering Services, City of Ithaca Michael Thorne, Superintendent of Public Works, City of Ithaca Svante Myrick, Mayor, City of Ithaca I. Call to Order Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M. II. Agenda Additions/Deletions None. III. Continuation ― Green Street Parking Garage Site Redevelopment RFP A. City Staff Input Regarding Structural Assessment of Green Street Parking Garage & Proposed Downtown Conference Center Proulx explained several issues were raised at the last Committee meeting about the project’s parking capacity and the City’s parking demand, as well as the structural condition of the garage. He asked City staff to update the Committee on those two particular issues.

IthacaUrbanRenewalAgency

IURA EDC Meeting Minutes March 27, 2018

Page 2 of 16

Logue responded that the City commissioned a study (“Green Street Parking Garage, East & West End Study,” December 7, 2016) by Stantec to investigate the structural condition of the garage. The conclusion was that the City would need to perform significant and expensive repairs to preserve the garage. The study presented a range of scenarios, depending on the intensivity/expense of the repairs and what lifecycle for the garage is sought. Repairs would cost $5-10M to extend its lifecycle 5-30 years. Needless to say, the City would prefer not to spend ‘good money after bad’. In addition, many components of the garage cannot be easily inspected, so there are numerous unknown factors involved; and there is no guarantee the City would obtain a set number of additional years from any repairs. Logue added there is also the opportunity cost associated with simply maintaining the garage in its current form vs. seeking the highest and best use of the site. Regarding the parking supply and demand question, the City does do not currently have conclusive quantifiable data on current demand (although there have been a few studies and parking counts over the past few years). Thorne added that the City will conduct a comprehensive parking demand study, but that remains in the planning phase. Logue noted the occupancy rates of the three garages are approximately: (1) 70-80% for the Green Street Garage; (2) 85% for the Cayuga Street Garage; (3) and at least 85% for the Seneca Street Garage. Thorne added there are many new projects being constructed and planned, so the City expects parking demand to increase accordingly. Proulx inquired about the Green Street Garage’s current capacity. Logue replied he is not exactly certain, but he would guess approximately 380 spaces. Bohn explained the City recently modified its parking fee structure to incentivize commuters to make greater use of the Cayuga Street Garage; and it has seen approximately 80 more parkers there ― but the downtown garages are effectively moving towards full occupancy. In 2017, Cayuga Street Garage was at 52% occupancy, but is now at 62%. There are approximately 400 total spaces still available in the three garages. Harrick asked how many spaces would be generated under the current development proposal. Bohn replied: 411. Harrick asked if the Cayuga Street Garage is managed by the City. Bohn replied, no. While pricing is set by the City, it is managed by a private entity. Harrick asked who would be responsible for managing the parking for the project. Bohn replied that would need to be negotiated. Proulx noted another issue is the distribution/configuration of the new parking spaces (i.e., how many would be dedicated to commuters vs. project residents vs. visitors).


Page 3 of 16

Harrick noted she would like to see continuity in terms of how the public is able to access and use downtown parking (e.g., signage, mobile phone app). Ackerman suggested signage would be very important to ensure visitors are aware of the garages. Although 400 available spaces is not inconsiderable, people need to be aware of them. Thorne cautioned the occupancy figures being cited today are all averages ― they do not represent peak usage periods, when there are no spaces. Proulx noted another concern that has been raised is the availability of loading spaces. Logue replied the City recognizes the importance of loading spaces to the downtown area. Harold’s Square will produce a small deficit in loading spaces. On the other hand, the City Centre project will create a new loading space. The City is also open to converting on-street parking spaces into loading spaces. Proulx noted Logue cited a number of scenarios for repairing the Green Street Garage. The development team estimated a complete repair of the garage at $17M. Logue replied some of the repair options do reach up to $18M. Hamilton asked if a fair market value for the site has been established yet. Bohn replied, no. Appraisals have only been conducted for portions of the site. Lavine noted in addition to the actual costs of garage repairs there are costs associated with the City’s legal arrangements with Ithaca Properties, LLC (Jeff Rimland), since the garage deck serves as the roof of its office space, which would become unleasable while repairs are made. The legal costs could be several hundred thousand dollars. Regarding the conference center, Knipe explained discussions on the subject have been taking place for many years. The City collaborated with the Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA) to hire Hunden Strategic Partners to conduct a feasibility analysis for a downtown conference center (“Ithaca Conference Center Market & Feasibility Study,” April 14, 2017). The general consensus from the study is that building a conference center of a minimum size would generate demand for a variety of group events downtown. The opportunity to increase local tourism revenue is largely limited to that kind of function. City staff discussed the current development proposal with some local hoteliers, who concluded the proposed conference center would need to be somewhat larger for the City to see a significant benefit. Any conference center would also need capital funding, operating funding, and an organizational framework to be viable. Hamilton asked how large an ideal conference center would need to be. Knipe replied it would need a 10,000 square-foot ballroom, 5,500 square feet of meeting spaces, and 3,000-4,000 square feet of pre-function space ― a total of approximately 30,000 square feet. The current proposal only provides 20,000.


Page 4 of 16

Ackerman asked how many people an ideal conference center should be able to serve. Knipe replied, meetings of 500-600 people. Bohn remarked he drafted a document (“Project Modifications Mutually Agreed Upon Between the IURA and Ithaca-Peak, LLC”), which should serve as an agreed-upon starting point for future negotiations. B. Establishment of Mutually Agreed Upon Modified Project Elements & Public Benefit Goals Trasher noted that at the last Committee meeting the development team proposed allocating 9% of the total number of units as affordable, at 90% Area Median Income (AMI). The developers now propose 10% of the units as affordable, at 75% AMI. Githens explained (as noted in his March 20, 2018 letter to Bohn) that the development team initially met extensively with Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) on how to determine the best approach to meet the City's affordable housing needs for the project. The development team concluded that, because of the financing challenges, size, and difficulty of the site, it would identify a fixed percentage of proposed units as affordable. The developers ultimately arrived at a 9% figure at 90% AMI, since they saw that as the optimum target, correlating to their understanding of the largest underserved demographic in the community. Since the last Committee meeting, however, the development team was asked to lower the target to 75% AMI, which it would be willing to do. Affordable units would also be distributed across multiple unit types, rather than restricted to the studio unit type, as originally proposed. This modification to the project would ultimately lower the project’s rental revenue ― so the development team would seek to off-set the loss through grants, tax breaks, and other funding sources. Ackerman asked how many more affordable units would be provided under the revised proposal. Githens replied, 38 to 40.4, out of a total of 405. Harrick asked who would be responsible for managing the affordable units. Bohn replied that would be another part of the negotiations. The IURA, Tompkins Community Action, and INHS could all potentially handle the certification and income-verification process. Hamilton noted the development team mentioned seeking additional funding sources; he asked how much that would be, and whether the developers would be open to increasing the number of affordable units if the City/IURA were to procure additional funding. Githens replied that designating 10% of the units as affordable would cost the project $1.55M in revenue, so that is the figure they would seek, in order to maintain the minimum threshold of 6.5% return in Year One. Hamilton asked if the project would be able to include 20% of its units as affordable housing, if the City/IURA were able to procure twice that $1.55M amount. Githens replied, possibly. There are some restrictions in terms of what would be possible (e.g., going above 50 units in project like this, in a single location, could be problematic, since there may not be enough demand).


Page 5 of 16

Proulx asked Bohn if the project would qualify for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Bohn replied, no. The units would have to be priced at 60% AMI. Harrick asked if the project would be canceled if the developers could not get the additional funding. Githens replied, possibly, although there may be other ways of making up the difference. If/when the development team is formally designated as the preferred developer/sponsor, they would be able to more quickly determine what would be feasible. Harrick asked if the funding gap is typical of the development team’s other projects. Githens replied, no. It is unique, given the cost and complexity of rebuilding the parking deck. Proulx asked if there is anything in the “Parking” section of the “Project Modifications” document the development team objects to. Githens replied, no. Dylla asked if secure bicycle parking would be included in the project. Githens replied, yes, although he is not sure how much. Dylla remarked he would personally rate the conference center as a low priority, compared with all the other priorities. Ackerman noted the conference center was originally a key benefit of the project, but it is difficult to gauge its importance after today’s discussion. Trasher noted the development team provided the IURA with more detail about the conference center than was probably necessary. The important thing to remember is the space has been identified and the details could be worked out. Proulx asked if the development team could increase the number of units and affordable units, if the conference center were not part of the project. Githens replied, not necessarily. Increasing the number of units may risk the project’s residential capacity becoming too large. The developers do not want to ‘over-densify’ the residential component in proportion to the other components. If the conference center were excluded, the developers would probably prefer to reprogram that space as retail space. Proulx inquired into street-level active uses for the project. Bohn replied the development team raised a concern about whether the leasing office would qualify as street-level active use, which the Planning and Development Board would need to determine. The ultimate goal is to enliven Green Street, which many of the project elements would do. Hamilton asked how the purchase price and other financial elements of the project would be calculated. Bohn replied the fair market value would be identified, then all the public benefits would be monetized and subtracted from that, during the negotiation process.


Page 6 of 16

Proulx observed one item not included in the “Project Modifications” document is the issue of local construction labor. According to the last Committee meeting minutes, Breuer indicated he believed 75% of construction labor could be local labor. Bohn replied that is not strictly a modification, since the applicants checked the local labor box in their proposal as something they would employ. 75% local labor would be a very desirable threshold for a public benefit. He added the City/IURA definition of local labor is that the laborers themselves actually have to live locally. Breuer remarked it may be harder to meet the local labor threshold if it is defined by the location of the laborers, but Hueber-Breuer is a regional company and he believes 75% would be relatively close to what would be feasible. C. Designation of Ithaca-Peak Development, LLC as Qualified & Eligible Sponsor to Undertake Urban Renewal Project at 120 E. Green St. & Authorization to Enter Into Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Sponsor Hamilton remarked he would only support approving the resolution if the “Project Modifications” document indicates the project should include a minimum housing affordability period of 30 years. No objections were raised. Hamilton moved, seconded by Dylla:

Property Disposition: 120 E. Green St. ― Designate Ithaca-Peak, LLC as Qualified & Eligible Sponsor for Urban Renewal Project

& Authorize Exclusive Negotiation Agreement

1. WHEREAS, on October 4, 2017, the City of Ithaca Common Council authorized transfer of the Green Street Parking Garage property located at 120 E. Green Street (tax parcel #79.-4-5.2) to the IURA, via an option agreement, for the purpose of structuring a proposed property sale and development agreement with a preferred developer to undertake an urban renewal project subject to approval by the Common Council, and

2. WHEREAS, the project site contains a municipal parking facility with approximately 415

active parking spaces, an 11,000 SF cinema and a walkway connecting Green Street with the Commons; and

3. WHEREAS, the Common Council further directed the IURA to seek out the following programmatic elements to be included in the project: • A conference center; • Housing units specifically designed to appeal to a diverse demographic, including a

substantial number of units to be affordable to low and/or middle income households; • Street level active uses along Green Street;


Page 7 of 16

• Retention of the Cinemapolis movie theatre and a public walkway between Green Street and the Commons;

• At least 450 parking spaces open to the public, of which at least 90 will be available for short-term parking; and

4. WHEREAS, on November 22, 2017 the IURA issued a public Request For Proposals (RFP)

soliciting developers for the project, and

5. WHEREAS, as of the RFP submission deadline of February 23, 2018, one proposal was received from Ithaca-Peak Development, LLC (Ithaca-Peak), a yet to be formed joint venture between McKinley Development Companies, LLC d/b/a Peak Campus and Ithaca Properties LLC (managing member Jeffrey Rimland), and

6. WHEREAS, Ithaca-Peak submitted a proposal for a $122,894,000 project including the following elements: • 405 new housing units at a variety of unit sizes, of which 38 workforce studios will be

priced at rents affordable at 90% AMI and occupied by persons earning 100% AMI or less. Units are targeted for graduate students, faculty and staff and your professionals.

• Street-level active uses fronting along Green Street, including a 900 SF retail space, 6,000 SF of residential amenity space, and a conference center main entrance at grade level;

• A total of 434 off-street parking spaces, including 420 newly constructed parking spaces and 14 existing at-grade parking spaces;

• Retention of the 11,000 SF Cinemapolis movie theatre and the public walkway between Green Street and The Commons;

• A 18,000-20,000 SF conference center; and

7. WHEREAS, the IURA Economic Development Committee sought modifications to the proposed development project that have been negotiated with the Ithaca-Peak, and

8. WHEREAS, the project site is located within the Urban Renewal Project Boundary area and

is an appropriate location for a mixed-use project, and

9. WHEREAS, the IURA is authorized to sell property to a specific buyer if such buyer is designated as an eligible and qualified sponsor (Sponsor) pursuant to section 508 of General Municipal Law and the sale is approved by Common Council, and

10. WHEREAS, a proposed Sponsor is evaluated in accordance with adopted IURA land

disposition procedures that seek to determine if the proposed Sponsor is qualified and capable of fulfilling the objectives of the urban renewal project for property disposition, and

11. WHEREAS, IURA evaluation criteria for Sponsors include:


Page 8 of 16

• Financial status and stability • Legal qualification to operate in the State of New York and to enter into contracts with

regard to the disposition, use, and development of land in questions • Previous experience in the financing, use, development and operation of projects of a

similar nature • Reputation and proof of fair, reputable and ethical business practices and a record

devoid of convictions; and

12. WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) is to improve the economic, social and physical characteristics of the project neighborhood, and

13. WHEREAS, the following specific objectives of the Plan are advanced by the proposed

project: • expansion and diversification of the economic base of the community to provide the

employment opportunities needed by its residents and to strengthen the tax base”, and

• 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;

• provision of the full range of neighborhood and community facilities and services necessary to meet the residents’ needs, through new construction or improvement of existing facilities and programs;

• provision of adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation; and

14. WHEREAS, the Ithaca-Peak project team has development experience and financial resources necessary to successfully develop and operate the proposed project and satisfies other criteria for designation as a Sponsor for an urban renewal project; and

15. WHEREAS, the proposed project has potential to improve the economic, social and physical

and characteristics of the project neighborhood, and

16. WHEREAS, a designation of a Sponsor is an initial formal step in the process to undertake an urban renewal project that may lead to a Disposition and Development Agreement for the Sponsor to acquire and redevelop the project site, and

17. WHEREAS, a subsequent step in the urban renewal process is a 90-day Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between the potential purchaser (Sponsor) and seller (IURA) to finalize a term sheet to define the project and resolve seller contingencies and pre-identified negotiation issues enumerated in the RFP, and

18. WHEREAS, the term sheet will specify project elements included in the project, performance milestones, schedule, post-construction project management of parking, purchase terms and obligations of the seller and purchaser, and


Page 9 of 16

19. WHEREAS, the IURA Economic Development Committee considered this matter at their March 13th and March 27th 2018 meetings and recommends the following; now, therefore, be it

20. RESOLVED, the IURA hereby finds that Ithaca-Peak Development, LLC satisfies IURA

sponsor criteria - including qualifications, capacity and experience - to be designated a “qualified and eligible sponsor” to undertake an urban renewal project to undertake an in-fill, mixed-use project at 120 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY, upon registering as an legal entity to conduct business in New York State, and be it further

21. RESOLVED, the IURA hereby finds that to ensure the proposed urban renewal project

satisfies IURA criteria that an urban renewal project be consistent with the Urban Renewal Plan, and improve the economic, social and physical characteristics of the project area, the proposed project submitted by Ithaca-Peak shall be amended to incorporate the attached project modifications mutually agreed upon between the IURA and Ithaca-Peak, LLC, dated 3/27/18, and be it further

22. RESOLVED, the IURA hereby designates Ithaca-Peak, LLC as a “qualified and eligible sponsor” (Sponsor) eligible to potentially acquire tax parcels #79.-4-5.2 through negotiations for the purpose of undertaking an urban renewal project to develop an in-fill mixed use project located at 120 E. Green Street, Ithaca, subject to registering with the New York State Department of State as a business entity; and be it further,

23. RESOLVED, that the IURA Chairperson, subject to review by IURA legal counsel, is

authorized to execute a 90-day Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the Sponsor for the purpose of structuring a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement to convey tax parcels #79.-45.2 to the Sponsor to undertake a specified urban renewal project, and be it further

24. RESOLVED, any Disposition and Development Agreement shall be subject to approval by

both the IURA and the Common Council.

Carried Unanimously 5-0

Project Modifications Mutually Agreed Upon Between IURA & Ithaca-Peak, LLC

Project: Green Street Garage Redevelopment Urban Renewal Project, 120 E. Green Street Applicant: Ithaca-Peak, LLC Following are mutually agreed modifications to the development proposal submitted by Ithaca-Peak, LLC to the IURA on 2/23/18 for the purposes of further defining the intended urban renewal project that will be the subject of negotiations to potentially convey the project site to the developer for a specified urban renewal project:


Page 10 of 16

Affordable Housing Goal: Maximize affordable housing within the project consistent with project financial feasibility defined as a 6.5% return on project cost Minimum public benefit outcomes:

• 10% of rental housing units shall be priced at rents affordable to a household earning 75% of Area Median Income (AMI) as determined by the U.S. Department of Urban Development (HUD).

• Affordable units shall be occupied by households earning 80% or less of AMI. • Affordable housing shall be provided across multiple unit sizes, including studios, one-bedroom and

two-bedroom sizes in rough proportion to the unit size mix for the entire project. • Affordability period: 30 years

Parking Minimum public benefit outcomes:

• Reconstruction of two decks of parking at the east and west sections of the Green Street Parking garage, including at least 60 car lifts resulting in total deck parking capacity for approximately 411 vehicles;

• 9 parking/loading spaces at grade under the western deck; • City control and management of at least six (6) at-grade parking spaces facing City Hall during hours

of operation; and • A minimum of 90 deck parking spaces shall be made available for combined hotel and short-term

public use. • A an additional minimum number of deck parking spaces shall be made available for public use for

monthly and/or short-term parking equal to the number of monthly parking passes issued for the Green Street Parking Garage as of March 27, 2018 (approximately 150 spaces).

• Active participation in the Transportation Demand Management program to reduce downtown parking demand.

Note: the City has not consented to establishment of sixteen (16) on-street parking spaces on Green Street as shown in the 2/23/18 proposal. No increase in on-street parking is anticipated at this time. Loading/Deliveries The project shall be designed to provide reasonable access for deliveries, services and loading for City Hall and all Commons properties that possess legal access rights across the access way located between City Hall and the Green Street Parking Garage, including, but not limited to, Harold Square. Conference Center There is no commitment by the City to lease conference center space in the project. Either a conference center or an alternative street-level active use along Green Street is acceptable. There is no requirement for inclusion of a conference center in the project. Street-Level Active Use The 5,959 SF ground floor area fronting on Green Street designated for “Amenities” shall conform to the zoning ordinance requirements for active street-level active uses on the Commons and Secondary Commons to encourage high levels of pedestrian activity, enliven the streetscape, and create well-lit spaces with ample visibility into the storefront area. Per the zoning ordinance, active uses include, but are not limited to, the following:


Page 11 of 16

1. Retail store or service commercial facility. 2. Restaurant, fast-food establishment, or tavern. 3. Theater, bowling alley, auditorium, or other similar public place of assembly. 4. Hotel. 5. Bank or monetary institution. 6. Confectionary, millinery, dressmaking and other activities involving light hand fabrication, as well as

sales. Additional uses may be permitted if the Planning and Development Board determines them to be an active use and grants special approval for the use. The Planning Board may also grant a special approval of a non-active use if a property owner is able to show that the physical structure is not easily adaptable to be used as one of the above listed active uses. Pedestrian Circulation Between Public Parking and The Commons It appears the only stairs and elevator circulation serving public parking are located in the existing center section of the garage. A second public pedestrian connection leading to The Commons at the eastern end of the garage shall be incorporated into the project. Currently, the Green Street Garage is only served by on elevator car, which recently was inoperable for an extended time period due to patrons exceeding the load capacity, which resulted in patrons without disabilities unable to return to their car. The elevator core was designed to accommodate a second car. A second elevator car shall be incorporated into the project to serve public parking patrons. Public Amenities - Roof Terrace Amenity Public access to the level 7 roof terrace amenity, or semi-public access to a food/beverage vendor on the roof terrace, is highly desirable. Such access would offer the public interesting and unique views of the city and outdoor space, and be viewed as a public benefit if incorporated into the project. If roof terrace access is not made available, alternative public amenities should be incorporated into the project to enhance the physical and cultural characteristics of the project area, such as public art, public walkway and streetscape improvements. Proposed Purchase Price of Project Site The proposed purchase price contained in the proposal is $0.00 in recognition of a projected $17MM cost to reconstruct the parking garage. The final proposed purchase price shall be based on the Fair Market Value of the project site as determined by an appraisal minus the net present value of public benefits delivered by the project. Regarding parking, only parking spaces available to the general public on a first-come, first-serve basis, or parking spaces provided pursuant to a pre-existing city parking agreement shall be considered as delivering public benefits. Parking spaces reserved for project residents are not considered to deliver public benefits to offset the property sales price. Regarding housing, the net present value of affordable housing shall be derived from the difference between market rents and 75% AMI rents over the affordability period. If any local affordable housing subsidies are delivered to the project, such assistance shall be considered in the calculation of the project’s public benefit deriving from provision of affordable housing.

― END ―


Page 12 of 16

IV. Community Loans A. e2e Materials, Inc. (CD-RLF #27) ― Recognize Loan as Uncollectible Bohn explained the IURA has already received principal and interest payments of $35,000. It was a relatively risky loan at the time it was issued. Ultimately, e2e could not obtain the licensing agreement it was seeking. Dylla moved, seconded by Ackerman:

e2e Materials, Inc. (CD-RLF #27) ― Recognize Loan as Uncollectible WHEREAS, on November 22, 2010, the IURA issued a $100,000 loan at 9% interest to e2e Materials, Inc. (“e2e”) for machinery and equipment for a prototyping facility for a proprietary, molded bio-composite material located at 239 Cherry Street, and WHEREAS, the IURA loan is secured through a shared lien on machinery and equipment that was valued at $284,000 in 2010, and WHEREAS, e2e met its job creation goals, but has struggled to commercialize their technology, and WHEREAS, the last loan payment was received on May 30, 2017, and WHEREAS, the outstanding balance on the loan is $35,349.65, and WHEREAS, in June 2017, e2e management informed the IURA that they will suspend loan payments until new shareholders acquire the company in August, and WHEREAS, in September 2017, e2e management informed the IURA that rather than have new shareholders acquire the company, it intends to sell its technology via a licensing agreement to a manufacturing partner that will pay a royalty based on future commercial production utilizing the technology, and WHEREAS, e2e plans to pay off its IURA debt obligation from royalties to be received from a licensing agreement expected to begin generating revenue in 12-18 months, but in the interim loan payments will remain suspended, and WHEREAS, following sale of their technology, e2e plans to cease physical operations in late January 2018, and WHEREAS, there is significant risk that the proposed licensing agreement will either not be executed or that royalties received from the licensing agreement will not be sufficient to repay the IURA debt; and


Page 13 of 16

WHEREAS, e2e is a pre-revenue company that lacks revenues to repay the IURA debt at this time and requires continued use of machinery and equipment to demonstrate the commercial value of their technology to execute a license agreement, and WHEREAS, the IURA Economic Development Committee reviewed this matter at their October 10, 2017 meeting and March 13, 2018 meetings and recommends the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby writes off the outstanding principal balance of $35,349.65 due from e2e Materials, Inc. and recognizes the debt as uncollectible, and be it further RESOLVED, that staff is hereby directed to work with the shared lien holder and borrower to seek liquidation of the collateral in an orderly manner after physical operations of e2e cease.

Carried Unanimously 5-0

B. IURA Loan & Lease Payment Report: February 2018 Bohn reported all the loan payments (except e2e Materials) and lease payments are current. C. Loan Pipeline Bohn announced a loan application will be coming in from The State Theatre, which is trying to expand its concessions sales. D. Staff Report Bohn reported that Ithaca received the Restore NY Round 5 award for the rehabilitation of the 100s West and 310 W. State Street projects. V. FY18 HUD Entitlement Program: Review of Economic Development Funding Applications

• Hospitality Employment Training Program (HETP), Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC) ― Job Training with Job Placement

• Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion, Finger Lakes ReUse (FLRU) ― Job Creation • Volunteer Worker & Job Skills Training, Finger Lakes ReUse (FLRU)― Job Training with Job Placement • Re-Entry Hub: Ground Works, Opportunities, Alternatives, & Resources (OAR) ― Microenterprise

Assistance • Work Preserve Job Training: Job Placement, Historic Ithaca ― Job Training with Job Placement • Food Entrepreneurship Program (FEP) 2.0, Cornell Cooperative Extension ― Microenterprise Assistance Bohn explained that funding for economic development applications all needs to come out of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC) reviewed all the economic development applications and recommended $235,000 be dedicated to them, except the Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion project, which would be funded from other sources.

http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/8130


Page 14 of 16

Harrick noted the IURA has funded most of the programs currently being considered, year-after-year, but she wondered if perhaps it should actively seek to fund new ones. Bohn responded there is no single standard for selecting which programs to fund, but the IURA should certainly examine the past performance and organizational capacity of each applicant. Bohn noted when he reviewed the Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion application it appeared to be essentially the same project that was proposed in 2017. It proposes to expand the site’s retail space, but would only be eligible for all the funding it is seeking if it is connected to an affordable housing project. It would not be possible for FLRU to spend the requested funds by this time next year, but it will be important for it to have an IURA funding commitment to obtain other funding. NIC recommended the IURA should commit Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) funding to the project in 2018 and simply substitute it with CDBG funding in 2019, assuming it receives all its other funding. Ackerman remarked she very much likes the concept of the Re-Entry Hub: Ground Works project, but she is not sure how well-developed the details are. She is also not sure if the timeframe appears feasible, given the challenges of working with the population it would be serving and the lack of prior organizational experience in implementing a project like it. Also, the program goals were not entirely clear to her. Proulx agreed. The applicant also discussed collaborating with HETP, which would be desirable, but that is the kind of relationship that would need to be better defined and developed. Dylla agreed. Bohn noted the applicant has in fact started collaborating with at least one local organization he knows of. Bohn added there is also a regulatory question about the project. The three main CDBG economic development categories are: (1) job training; (2) job placement; and (3) micro-enterprise assistance. Micro-enterprise assistance consists of two sub-categories of its own: technical assistance to individuals; and direct financial assistance to existing micro-enterprises. Since the program does not have defined LMI beneficiaries operating existing micro-enterprises, the program would need to conform to the technical assistance model. Dylla suggested helping the applicant develop a business plan. Bohn replied that would be very helpful, since the program needs to be well-researched to be feasible. On the other hand, the IURA has a policy of examining applications as they are submitted, not engaging in the potentially protracted process of helping applicants improve their applications. Proulx observed the applicant is undertaking an entirely new project with its Endeavor House project, which raises the question of whether it has the capacity to operate another new program.


Page 15 of 16

Proulx noted it is not possible to fully fund the four remaining applications. The Committee now needs to begin prioritizing which ones it believes have the most merit. Most of them appear scalable, so they should be able to function at some level with less funding than requested. Harrick indicated she likes the work the Food Entrepreneurship Program (FEP) is doing. Since it has only just launched, she would not want to undercut it until the IURA can at least see the results from its first year of operation. Proulx added that FEP is also the only direct economic development activity and it targets a distinct population not served by the other programs. Ackerman recommended taking the most funding away from HETP and the FLRU Volunteer Worker & Job Skills Training program, since they are asking for the largest funding amounts and both organizations have the greatest capacity/resilience to make up the loss. Mendizabal added it is not clear from the application how the job placements would actually work for the Volunteer Worker & Job Skills Training program (i.e., would job placements be at Challenge Workforce Solutions, or elsewhere). Proulx suggested not funding the volunteer coordinator position for the Volunteer Worker & Job Skills Training program and reducing funding for stipends, which would bring IURA funding down to $50,000. He remarked FLRU’s financial capacity also concerns. Perhaps the IURA should simply encourage FLRU to focus on its core objectives and programs. Proulx noted his concern with the Work Preserve Job Training program is that the funding-to-job-placement ratio is quite high, compared to the other programs ― although it admittedly works with a far more vulnerable population. For HETP, Proulx noted he would like to know whether the IURA is subsidizing training that employers would have otherwise have provided themselves to qualified individuals. The other two programs more clearly work with individuals struggling with employment. Bohn responded that GIAC has demonstrated that it is effective in recruiting participants who would not ordinarily be comfortable or prepared to access conventional job training programs. On the other hand, GIAC does not seem to be getting more employers to directly fund the program. Hamilton asked if the Committee should simply impose a straight-line funding reduction in proportion to the length of time each program has been funded by the IURA, given the limited funding available. Proulx replied he would prefer to identify which programs have the most impact.


Page 16 of 16

Mendizabal remarked the Committee should also consider the social cost of decreasing funding for programs serving the most vulnerable populations. Ackerman noted the IURA could reduce the most funding from HETP, the second-most from the Volunteer Worker & Job Skills Training program, and a lesser amount from Work Preserve Job Training. The IURA could also slightly reduce FEP funding, considering its population is least at risk and much of the funding goes towards existing Cornell Cooperative Extension salaries. Ackerman formally recommended the Committee reduce FEP funding by $10,000, FLRU funding by $30,000, GIAC funding by $30,000, and maintain Work Preserve Job Training funding at the requested funding level. Proulx recommended the Committee reduce HETP funding to $75,000. Every program would then be funded at roughly the same level. VI. Review of Meeting Minutes: January 9, 2018 & March 13, 2018 Ackerman moved, seconded by Dylla, to approve the January 9, 2018 and March 13, 2018 minutes with no modifications.

Carried Unanimously 5-0. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 5:43 P.M.

— END —

Minutes prepared by C. Pyott, edited by N. Bohn.

1

Proposed Resolution IURA Economic Development Committee April 17, 2018 Approve Modification to Restore NY4 Project – Seneca/Corn Street Buildings Rehabilitation Whereas, PPM Homes, LLC requests to modify their Restore NY4 project to address feasibility issues, and Whereas, on February 9, 2017, the Empire State Development awarded a $500,000 Restore NY4 grant to the City of Ithaca for the Seneca/Corn Street Buildings Rehabilitation project sponsored by PPM Homes, LLC, and Whereas, the funded project included rehabilitation of the existing buildings located at 109 N. Corn Street and rehabilitation and vertical addition to the building located at 413-415 W. Seneca Street, and Whereas, subsurface and structural investigation at 413-415 W. Seneca Street revealed the need for expensive structural modifications that rendered the original project economically infeasible, and Whereas, PPM requests approval for a modified Restore NY4 project for reconstruction at 413-415 W. Seneca and exclusion of the 105 N. Corn Street building from the Restore NY4 project, and Whereas, the modified project proposes to demolish the existing building at 413-415 W. Seneca Street and reconstruct an 11,500 sq. ft., three story building with 15% commercial space and ten residential rental units, and Whereas, two ground floor commercial spaces of the live/work units will front on W. Seneca Street, and Whereas the following table compares the proposed modified project to the original project:

RESTORE NY4 SCORING CRITERIA Original Project Modified Project

Commercial Investment $4,094,000 $4,001,000 Revitalize Urban Center Rehabilitate 2 vacant

buildings Reconstruct 1 vacant building

Improve Local Housing 6 units (12 beds) 10 units (16 beds) Leverage PACE financing YES YES Leverage NYSERDA YES YES

2

Whereas, the modified project achieves similar public benefits and Restore NY4 scoring criteria, and the sponsor confirms project readiness for the modified project, and Whereas, a modification to the RestoreNY4 project requires approval by the Common Council and Empire State Development, and Whereas, the IURA administers the RestoreNY4 award on behalf of the City, and Whereas, the IURA Economic Development Committee has compared the proposed modified Restore NY4 proposal against the original proposal for RestoreNY4 scoring and community benefits, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby recommends Common Council approval of the modified Restore NY4 proposal submitted by PPM Homes, LLC for 413-415 W. Seneca Street for submission to Empire State Development. j:\planning\community development\restore ny\restore ny4\resolutions\reso iura edc modify restore ny4 project 4-17-18.doc

December 6th 2017 Nels Bohn 108 E Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Restore NY Project To Whom It May Concern, PPM Homes LLC is requesting to change the proposed project at 413/415 West Seneca Street. During the recent structural investigation phase several conditions were discovered:

⠂During a deep soil boring investigation it was found that the soil is fairly soft at this location and most likely pilings would have to be used to shore up the existing structure.

⠂During an exploratory subsurface investigation it was found that essentially half of the existing building had no footer whatsoever under the load bearing walls.

⠂During an additional subsurface investigation it was found the other half of the building had a footer that was undersized to bear any additional weight. These above conditions were not known at the time of the original proposal and to make the additional necessary structural modifications would make the project as proposed economically unfeasible, so we would like to submit a modified proposal for reconstruction of the site. The new proposal would increase the amount of residential units and we also feel that it may better fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Kyle Waller General Manager PPM Homes LLC 116 W Buffalo Suite 1A Ithaca, NY 14850 Enclosure: Building Plans #2016020

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

p: 607.216.8802 | WWW.STREAMCOLAB.COM©STREAM Collaborative Architecture + Landscape Architecture DPC

C:\

Use

rs\J

aco

b M

arn

ell

\Do

cum

en

ts\2

01

60

20

- 4

13

-41

5 W

est

Se

ne

ca_

jaco

bS

4Z

DL.

rvt

A1PERSPECTIVE

02/28/2018

2016020

413-415 WEST SENECA STCity of Ithaca, NY

PPM HOMES

1PERSPECTIVE - NE

PRELIMINARY



3/16" = 1'-0"

C:\

Use

rs\J

aco

b M

arn

ell

\Do

cum

en

ts\2

01

60

20

- 4

13

-41

5 W

est

Se

ne

ca_

jaco

bS

4Z

DL.

rvt

A2EAST ELEVATION

02/28/2018

2016020


PPM HOMES

3/16" = 1'-0"1ELEVATION - EAST

PRELIMINARY



3/16" = 1'-0"

C:\

Use

rs\J

aco

b M

arn

ell

\Do

cum

en

ts\2

01

60

20

- 4

13

-41

5 W

est

Se

ne

ca_

jaco

bS

4Z

DL.

rvt

A3WEST ELEVATION

02/28/2018

2016020


PPM HOMES

3/16" = 1'-0"1ELEVATION - NORTH

2016

020

- 413

-415

Wes

t Sen

eca

- 3 st

ory

singl

e ex

it

PPM Homes413-415 W Seneca St - 3 Story Single Exit Concept

City of Ithaca, NY

PRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

p: 607.216.8802 | WWW.STREAMCOLAB.COM

20160201

329 W. Seneca St. 518 W. Seneca St.

Neighborhood Character

2016

020

- 413

-415

Wes

t Sen

eca

- 3 st

ory

singl

e ex

it


City of Ithaca, NY



20160202

Site Plan

Site Plan

1” = 20’-0”

2016

020

- 413

-415

Wes

t Sen

eca

- 3 st

ory

singl

e ex

it


City of Ithaca, NY



201602033/32” = 1’-0”

3/32” = 1’-0” 3/32” = 1’-0”

Existing Use Bedrooms Proposed AreaLive/Work Unit 1A 1 bed 888sf Living with 853sf Workspace

Live/Work Unit 1B 1 bed 807sf Living with 700sf Workspace

Unit 2A 1 bed 628sf

Unit 2B 2 beds 841sf

Unit 2C 2 beds 924sf

Unit 2D 2 beds 1147sf

Unit 3A 1 bed 628sf

Unit 3B 2 beds 841sf

Unit 3C 2 beds 924sf

Unit 3D 2 beds 1147sf

Totals 16 beds 11,526sf (gross)

2016

020

- 413

-415

Wes

t Sen

eca

- 3 st

ory

singl

e ex

it


City of Ithaca, NY



20160204

/irst /loor Plan

1/8” = 1’-0”

/irst /loor Plan1/8” = 1’-0”

/ NIT 1A

/ NIT 1B

/ NIT 1A

/ NIT 1B

2016

020

- 413

-415

Wes

t Sen

eca

- 3 st

ory

singl

e ex

it


City of Ithaca, NY



20160205

2n/ / 3r/ /loor Plans

1/8” = 1’-0”

2n/ / 3r/ /loor Plans1/8” = 1’-0”

/ NIT 2A/3A

/ NIT 2B/3B

/ NIT 2C/3C

/ NIT 2//3// NIT 2A/3A

/ NIT 2B/3B

/ NIT 2C/3C

/ NIT 2//3/

2016

020

- 413

-415

Wes

t Sen

eca

- 3 st

ory

singl

e ex

it


City of Ithaca, NY



20160206

Page 1 of 2

Proposed Resolution IURA Economic Development Committee April 17, 2018 Loan Assistance to Delante Inc. dba Madeline’s Restaurant (PB‐LF #7) Whereas, on April 4, 2018, Delante Inc. (Madeline’s) requested approval for a loan modification, and Whereas, the owners have determined that Madeline’s business model is no longer viable and seek to sell business assets of Delante, Inc. to a new restauranteur who will assume the lease and open a different restaurant, and Whereas, on November 30, 2015, the IURA issued a loan of $150,000 to Delante Inc. (Madeline’s) for a $470,000 project to refinance existing debt, acquire new fixtures and equipment, and renovate the Madeline’s restaurant located at 215 E. State/MLK Jr. Street, and Whereas, the IURA loan is secured by a 2nd lien on business assets, a 2nd mortgage lien on property located at 106‐112 S. Cayuga Street and personal financial guarantees of the owners, and Whereas, Madeline’s satisfied its obligation to create 3 full‐time equivalent employment positions, and is current on loan repayments, with an outstanding principle balance of $120,342.80 as of March 31, 2018, and, Whereas, an Asset Sales Agreement was executed on March 1, 2018, subject to IURA consent, at a sales price of $420,000, and Whereas, the net proceeds from the asset sale is insufficient to fully pay all existing and projected financial obligations, the borrower proposes the following use of proceeds: $248,000 payoff bank SBA loan

61,000 partial payoff of IURA loan $50,000 payoff of revolving credit used to fund Madeline’s $17,000 accounts payable due to vendors $4,000 legal and closing fees $40,000 set aside toward $84,000capital gains tax due 4/19

$420,000 Total, and Whereas, the borrower proposes to continue to make monthly loan repayments of $1,954.31 to the IURA until the loan is repaid in full, and Whereas, following the asset sale, the approximately remaining $60,000 balance of the IURA loan would be secured by a 2nd mortgage lien on 106‐112 S. Cayuga Street behind Tompkins Trust Company and personal financial guarantees of the owners, and Whereas, the current collateral value of the 2nd mortgage is estimated by staff to be sufficient to secure the remaining IURA loan balance, and Whereas, the personal financial guarantees provide supplemental loan security, and

Page 2 of 2

Whereas, the orderly transition to a new restaurant at 215 E. State/MLK Jr. will maintain street level vitality downtown, and Whereas, the IURA Economic Development Committee reviewed this matter at their March 17, 2018 meeting and recommend the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby approves the loan modification as requested and consents to the asset sale (and release of the UCC‐1 security filing on business assets of Delante Inc.) that will pay down the IURA loan by at least $61,000 and continue current monthly loan payments until the IURA loan is repaid in full; and be it further RESOLVED, that the IURA Chairperson, upon the advise of IURA legal counsel, is hereby authorized to execute all necessary and appropriate documents to implement this resolution.

j:\planning\community development\loans\pb‐lf\loan #7 ‐ madelines\resolutions\madeline's ‐ resolution ‐ iura edc loan modification 4‐17‐18.doc

1

Proposed Resolution IURA Economic Development Committee April 17, 2018 Restore NY3 – Recharacterize Restore NY3 Loan to Italthai LLC as a grant WHEREAS, on January 31, 2018, Italthai, LLC requested that the $900,000 Restore NY3 loan to Italthai, LLC be forgiven and recharacterized back to its original grant status, and WHEREAS, in 2009 the City of Ithaca (City) received a grant award of $1.15 million from the Empire State Development Corporation through the Restore NY program to complete upper story redevelopment of the Plantation Building and the Petrune building (located at 126‐128 and 130‐132 E. MLK/E. State Street). WHEREAS, $900,000 of assistance was earmarked to Italhhai, LLC (managing member Sunit “Lex” Chutintaranond) in the form of a grant to fill a financial gap in a $2.5 million redevelopment of the Plantation building at 130‐132 E. MLK Street, and WHEREAS, the City authorized the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer and implement the Restore NY III grant, and WHEREAS, a City/Italthai LLC Restore NY pass through grant agreement was developed to provide for payment of a $900,000 grant to ItalThai LLC upon completion of the project, which agreement was partially executed by the City on January 10, 2011, and WHEREAS, in 2011 specialized tax credit legal counsel, Cannon, Heyman & Weiss, informed Italthai LLC that injecting Restore NY funding from the City into the project as a grant would reduce the eligible tax basis of the project thereby decreasing the amount of tax credits available to investors and resulting in a financial gap for the project, and WHEREAS, a critical component of the financing plan for the $2.5 million project was to leverage federal and state historic tax credits generated by the project into investor equity of at least $550,000, and WHEREAS, injecting Restore NY3 financial assistance into the project in the form of a loan instead of a grant does not reduce the eligible tax basis, and WHEREAS, as the project financing relied on attracting at least $550,000 in equity through historic tax credits, ItalThai LLC did not execute the Restore NY pass through grant agreement and requested that Restore NY funding from the City be provided in the form of a $900,000 loan at 0% interest with no payments due until the end of a 30‐year loan term as a means to maximize equity attracted through historic tax credits, and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2011 the City and ItalThai LLC executed an agreement to loan $900,000 in grant funds awarded to the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, at that time, ItalThai LLC indicated they intended to seek City approval in the future to forgive this loan upon satisfactory completion of the project in recognition of the project’s public benefits and that the City had originally agreed to provide Restore NY3 funds in the form of a grant to the developer, and

2

WHEREAS on January 13, 2013 the Italthai LLC loan was assigned from the City to the IURA, and WHEREAS, it has now been over seven years since the mixed‐use project has now been successfully completed with a new ground floor restaurant, 16 FTE new jobs created, 8 new housing units created of which two are occupied by low‐and moderate‐income households at affordable rents, and WHEREAS, the project has upgraded safety for the Commons through installation of fire sprinklers and an upgraded water supply in the building and converted a vacant underutilized building into a vital storefront with upper story housing, and WHEREAS, the project ultimately cost $3 million, with a $500,000 cost overrun that was absorbed by the project sponsor, and WHEREAS, the original project financing was underwritten with Restore NY funds provided as grant funding, which resulted in a projected 5% cash‐on‐cash return before cost overruns, indicating that the developer will not receive a windfall profit if the loan of Restore NY loan is forgiven, and WHEREAS, both the Restore NY and federal and state historic tax credit programs have minimum 5‐year compliance periods that expired in 2016, and WHEREAS, every other recipient of Restore NY‐assisted projects in the City of Ithaca have received Restore NY assistance in the form of a grant, and WHEREAS, Italthai LLC has submitted a legal opinion letter concluding that discharge of the mortgage and recharacterization of the loan as a grant would not create any liability to the IURA regarding applicable historic tax credit provisions, and WHEREAS, at their April 17, 2018 meeting, the IURA Economic Development Committee reviewed this matter and recommends the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby grants the request from Italthai, LLC to recharacterize the Restore NY3 loan as a grant thereby forgiving the $900,000 RestoreNY3 loan and discharge the mortgage securing the loan, and be it further RESOLVED, that discharge of the mortgage is subject to payment of Itathai LLC of all IURA legal fees in this matter, and be it further RESOLVED, that the IURA Chairperson, subject to review by IURA legal counsel, is authorized to execute any and all documents to implement this resolution.

j:\community development\restore ny\restore ny3\130‐132 e state\post award\reso iura italthai loan to forgive loan 10‐27‐11.doc

108 E. Green Street Ithaca, New York (607) 274-6559 To: File From: Nels Bohn, Director of Community Development RE: Restore NY III – funding assistance from City of Ithaca to ItalThai LLC Redevelopment of Plantation Building ‐ 130‐132 E. MLK Jr./E. State Street Date: May 19, 2011

The City of Ithaca received a grant award of $1.15 million from the Empire State Development Corporation through the Restore NY program to complete upper story redevelopment of the Plantation Building and the Petrune building (located at 126‐128 and 130‐132 E. MLK/E. State). $900,000 of assistance was earmarked to ItalThai, LLC (managing member Sunit “Lex” Chutintaranond) in the form of a grant to assist a $2.5 million redevelopment of the Plantation building. Initially, a City/ItalThai LLC grant agreement was developed and executed on January 10, 2011 to provide for payment of $900,000 to ItalThai upon completion of the project. A critical component of the financing plan for the $2.5 million project was to leverage federal and state historic tax credits generated by the project into investor equity of over $550,000. Specialized tax credit legal counsel, Cannon, Heyman & Weiss, informed ItalThai, LLC that grant funding reduces the tax basis of the project thereby reducing the amount of tax credits available. Injecting Restore NY III financial assistance in the form of a loan does not reduce the tax basis. As ItalThai LLC required at least $550,000 from syndication of historic tax credits, ItalThai requested that Restore NY Grant funding from the City be provided in the form of a loan rather than a grant. The initial grant agreement was superseded by a $900,000 loan agreement at 0% with no payments due to the end of the 30‐year term. It is anticipated that ItalThai LLC may seek forgiveness of this loan after the 5‐year historic tax credit compliance period has been completed in recognition that the City agreed to provide Restore NY III funds in the form of a grant to the developer and the numerous public benefits provided by the project, including but not limited to increased sales tax, increased property tax, 18 FTE new jobs, 8 upper story housing units of which 2 are affordable units, redevelopment of a vacant downtown building and installation of fire sprinklers to protect the building and arrest the spread of fire from adjoining buildings. Additionally, the project ultimately cost $3,000,000, a $500,000 cost overrun that the developer absorbed. Attached is the initial, fully executed $900,000 grant agreement between the City and ItalThai LLC that has been superseded by the 4/26/11 $900,000 loan agreement.

j:\community development\restore ny\restore ny3\130‐132 e state\post award\mem file restore ny3 italthai grant to loan 5‐19‐11.doc

IthacaUrbanRenewalAgency

IURA EDC MinutesOctober 11, 2011

Page 3 of 12

using the income approach to value. However, since the appraisal was performedbefore the project was completed, much of the basis for the appraisal was hypothetical.Bohn remarked that the building’s appraised value could appraise out at about $1.3$1.5 million were it re appraised today, still well below the project cost.

Armstrong moved, seconded by Richardson:

Resolution of Recommendation to the City of Ithaca; Restore NY III – FundingAssistance from City of Ithaca to Italthai, LLC Redevelopment of Plantation Building –

130 132 E. MLK, Jr./E. State Street

WHEREAS, The City of Ithaca received a grant award of $1.15 million from the EmpireState Development Corporation through the Restore NY program to complete upperstory redevelopment of the Plantation Building and the Petrune building (located at126 128 and 130 132 E. MLK Street).

WHEREAS, $900,000 of assistance was earmarked to ItalThai, LLC (managing memberSunit “Lex” Chutintaranond) in the form of a grant to assist a $2.5 millionredevelopment of the Plantation building at 130 132 E. MLK Street.

WHEREAS, Initially, a City/ItalThai LLC grant agreement was developed and executed onJanuary 10, 2011 to provide for payment of $900,000 to ItalThai upon completion of theproject. See Exhibit A.

WHEREAS, a critical component of the financing plan for the $2.5 million project was toleverage federal and state historic tax credits generated by the project into investorequity of over $550,000. Specialized tax credit legal counsel, Cannon, Heyman &Weiss,informed ItalThai, LLC that grant funding reduces the tax basis of the project therebyreducing the amount of tax credits available. Injecting Restore NY III financial assistancein the form of a loan does not reduce the tax basis. As ItalThai LLC required at least$550,000 from syndication of historic tax credits, ItalThai requested that Restore NYGrant funding from the City be provided in the form of a loan rather than a grant. Theinitial grant agreement was superseded by a $900,000 loan agreement at 0% with nopayments due to the end of the 30 year term. See Exhibit B.

WHEREAS, it is anticipated that ItalThai LLC will seek forgiveness of this loan, which hadinitially been a grant, after the 5 year historic tax credit compliance period has beencompleted in recognition that the City agreed to provide Restore NY III funds in the formof a grant to the developer and the numerous public benefits provided by the project,including but not limited to increased sales tax, increased property tax, 18 FTE new jobs,8 upper story housing units of which 2 are affordable units, redevelopment of a vacant

IURA EDC MinutesOctober 11, 2011

Page 4 of 12

downtown building and installation of fire sprinklers to protect the building and arrestthe spread of fire from adjoining buildings.

WHEREAS, additionally, the project ultimately cost $3,000,000, a $500,000 cost overrun,a cost that the developer ItalThai, LLC (managing member Sunit “Lex” Chutintaranond)was forced to personally absorb.

WHEREAS, the project is not financially viable if the developer would have to repay the$900,000.00 grant that has been converted to a loan, nor will any additional financingbe available to developer within the 30 year loan period if said $900,000.00 loanremains in place as a lien against the project.

Now therefore, it is hereby,

RESOLVED, that the IURA recommends that the City of Ithaca provide a memorandum ofunderstanding agreement to the developer, that the $900,000.00 loan shall convert to agrant 7 years from the date of the Memorandum of Understanding, conditioned uponthe developer Italthai, LLC and Sunit “Lex” Chutintaranond, having met all conditionsunder the Restore NY III funding program and all conditions under federal and statehistoric tax credits.

Carried Unanimously 5 0

B. Community Development Revolving Loan Fund – Request fromWildfireRestaurant, Inc. for Loan Modification to Establish Employment Goal at 16 FTE Jobs(CD RLF #26)Bohn indicated the applicant believes it has reached a plateau of 16 FTE employees thatthe restaurant will not exceed in the foreseeable future. The original loan called for 24FTEs, as projected by the borrower, which Wildfire remains obligated to report on. Atthis point, Bohn noted, the applicant contends that reporting on 24 FTEs represents anunnecessary administrative burden to the borrower and the IURA as the restaurant isalready open for lunch and dinner 6 days a week with frequent late eveningperformances in the upstairs lounge. As a result, the applicant is now requesting amodification of the loan agreement to require 16 FTEs. This reduction would have anadded benefit of triggering a lower interest rate, from 4% to 3%.

Bohn indicated the applicant’s financial outlook is not particularly good, at this point.The restaurant opened in an economic recession and is burdened with a considerablenumber of minimum fixed costs, even when the number of customers being served islow (although the Wildfire lounge is generally performing better than the restaurant).Bohn remarked the applicant has been making a good faith effort to create theprojected jobs, but the sales levels do not support additional hiring. He added that the

nelsb

Highlight

LOAN REPAYMENTS DUE TO IURAMarch 2018

Orgin

al

Loan

Year

Final

Due

Date

% Month

y

Pymt

Paid Loan

Balan

ce

Statu

s

Date

Pymt

Rec'd

GOSCCascade Plaza 665,000$ 2004 2025 2 3,364.13$ 3,364.13$ 278,043.54$ Current 03/01/18

Entitlement LoansDiane's Downtown Auto-revised 5/3/12 80,000$ 2006 2026 4 449.85$ 494.85$ 37,556.31$ Current 03/16/18

Cedar Creek(90K HOME/10K HODAG)2 100,000$ 2008 2038 5 N/A N/A 156,639.75$ Int. Only Pmts. subject to cash flow N/A

Breckenridge Place 400,000$ 2012 2053 1 N/A N/A 466,823.55$ Int. only pmts. due subject to cash flow N/A

TOTAL ENTITLEMENT LOANS 580,000$ 449.85$ 494.85$ 661,019.61$

CD-RLF

e2e Materials 100,000$ 2010 2018 9 -$ -$ 35,349.65$ Account Delinquent from July 2017-Will be Written Off

once Resolution is Approved 05/30/17

Ithaca Coffee Roasting Facility 100,000$ 2013 2033 2.5 537.42$ 537.42$ 83,061.60$ Current 03/12/18

LAG Restaurant (The Rook) 40,000$ 2016 2022 2.5 600.72$ 600.72$ 28,496.52$ Current 03/05/18

210 Hancock6 120,000$ 2016 2048 3.5 565.87$ 565.87$ 125,420.69$ Current 03/02/18

Tompkins Communication Action (Harriet Giannelis) 84,200$ 2018 2039 2.5 175.42$ -$ 84,200.00$

Current-Interest Only Period began 2/1/2018, however invoice not sent until 3/20/2018 for both March & April.

Full Pmt was received 4/5/2018. Pmt will be reflected on April statement. N/A

Sunny Days 50,000$ 2014 2019 2.5 888.37$ 888.37$ 23,182.41$ Current 3/1/2018

TOTAL CD-RLF LOANS 494,200$ 2,767.80$ 2,592.38$ 379,710.87$

CD-RLF Priority BusinessState Theatre1 458,500$ 2009 2019* 2 1,741.96$ 3,571.01$ 358,138.26$ Current 03/27/18

Delante5 150,000$ 2015 2023 2.5 1,954.31$ 1,954.31$ 120,392.80$ Current 03/15/18

Liquid State Brewing Company 70,000$ 2017 2024 3.5 1,004.69$ -$ 66,783.87$ Current 02/27/18

Urban Core 200,000$ 2017 2037 3.5 583.33$ 583.33$ 200,000.00$ Current-6 months interest only beginning October 2017 03/01/18

Finger Lakes Massage Group 150,000$ 2015 2023 3.5 2,152.91$ 4,305.82$ 114,724.33$ Current 03/01/18

TOTAL CD-RLF PRIORITY BUSINESS 1,028,500$ 7,437.20$ 10,414.47$ 860,039.26$

CDBG

210 Hancock6 130,404$ 2016 2048 2 N/A N/A 134,341.69$ Permanent loan phase commenced 12/1/2017/Payments

in permanent phase are subject to cash flow N/A

Non-CDBGCayuga Green 847,083$ 2007 2038 6.25 5,193.47$ 5,505.90$ 717,879.37$ Current 03/05/18

Italthai (Restore NY grant) 900,000$ 2014 2044 0 N/A N/A 900,000.00$ N/A N/A

Ithaca Downtown Assoc (Canopy Hotel)4 1,375,000$ 2016 2037 3.05% 7,660.18$ 7,660.18$ 1,362,472.05$ Current 03/01/18

The Lofts on Six Mile Creek 260,000$ 2014 2029 6 2,242.00$ 2,242.00$ 217,417.02$ Current 03/05/18

TOTAL NON-CDBG 3,382,083$ 15,095.65$ 15,408.08$ 3,197,768.44$

HODAG Breckenridge Place 600,000$ 2012 2043 2 2,217.72$ 2,217.72$ 535,236.74$ Current 03/02/18

TOTAL HODAG LOANS 600,000$ 2,217.72$ 2,217.72$ 535,236.74$

Stone Quarry Apartments, LLC3 370,000$ 2014 2045 2 N/A N/A 398,577.81$

Permanent loan phase commenced 11/1/2015. 2% Interest compounds annually. Interest payments subject

to cash flow. N/A

210 Hancock6 206,923$ 2016 2048 2 N/A N/A 202,832.61$ Permanent loan phase commenced 12/1/2017/Payments

in permanent phase are subject to cash flow N/A

TOTAL HOME 576,923$ 601,410.42$

TOTAL IURA LOAN PORTFOLIO 7,457,109$ 31,332.35$ 34,491.63$ 6,647,570.57$

Notes1. State Theatre's loan has a balloon payment due in March 2019 2. Cedar Creek's first Interest Only payt. due 1/1/11 - yearly payt. subject to available cash flow3. Permanent phase for Stone Quarry began 11/1/2015. Permanent phase interest rate is 2%. Interest compounds annually. Interest payments in permanent phase are subject to cash flow. Balloon payment of principal and all interest owed due in 2045.4. Canopy Hotel closed on 8/10/2016. Interest only pmts are due for the first 15 months. Interest rate is adjustable every five years. P&I payments begin 1/1/2018. 5. Delante Loan was disbursed 2/3/2016. First 6 months Interest Only payments due beginning 3/1/2016. Interest Rate 3.5%. 6. 210 Hancock loans (3) have a maximum 24 month const period where interest at 2% and 3.5% will compound annually. No principal or interest payments are due during the construction period. Interst rates will remain constant in Permanent phases.7. Urban Core Loan was disbursed 8/29/2017 for closing on 8/30/2017. First 6 months Interest Only payments due beginning 10/1/2017. Interest Rate 3.5%.

HOME

LEASE PAYMENTS DUE TO IURA

March 2018

Project Month

ly

Fee

Quarte

rly

Fee

Yearly

Fee

Statu

s

Date

Last

Payt.

Rec'd

Cherry Street Industrial Park

Moro Design

Quarterly Lease - Jan., April, July, Oct. 465.00$ Current 01/23/18

Yearly Maintenance Fee - July 300.00$ Current 07/24/17

Evaporated Metal Films


Precision Filters


Cayuga Green

Allpro Parking - air rights lease

Monthly Lease 2,830.95$

Past Due-owes March 2018 (Note: Pmt for March was rec'd 4/2/2018. Will be reflected on April's

Statement) 03/05/18

(rate change 1/1/2018)

Cayuga Green-Parcel A ground floor

Monthly Lease-rate change on 2/1/2018 6,536.00$


Statement) 02/05/18

Cinemapolis

Monthly Lease-rate change on 5/1/18 3,140.80$


Statement) 02/05/18

Qrtly Maint Fee- Jan., April, July, Oct. 278.00$ Current 02/05/18 (Maint Fee rate change on 7/1/18)

Other Leases

Southside Community Center-RIBS

Monthly Lease -New rate 7/1/18 443.85$ Current 03/01/18

Farmer's Market/Steamboat Landing

Quarterly Lease - June, Aug., Oct., Dec. 8,322.50$ Current 12/29/17

IURA Grants SummaryMarch 2018

ON TOTAL

# SCHEDULE HUD ENTITLEMENT ACTIVITIES SPONSOR BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPENDED % SPENT

2015 CDBG Activities2521 complete 1.0 Hancock Street INHS 250,403.50 250,403.50 0.00 100%

2522 complete 2.0 Mini repair INHS 35,000.00 35,000.00 0.00 100%

2531 complete 6.0 Temporary Ramp Loan Program 2 Finger Lakes Ind. Center 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100%

2532 complete 7.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program3 GIAC 109,372.86 109,372.86 0.00 100%

2523 complete 8.0 Work Preserve Job Training Program Historic Ithaca 87,500.00 87,500.00 0.00 100%

2524 NO 9.0 Spencer Road Sidewalks City of Ithaca 100,000.00 28,106.50 71,893.50 28%

2525 complete 10.0 2‐1‐1/I&R Service Human Services Coalition 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100%

2526 complete 11.0 Building for the Future7 Southside Community Center 21,227.76 21,227.76 0.00 100%

2527 complete 12.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 16,000.00 16,000.00 0.00 100%

2528 complete 13.0 A+ Tuition Assistance BJM Enrichment Program 17,410.00 17,410.00 0.00 100%

2529 complete 14.0 ReSET Job Training Expansion Finger Lakes ReUse 23,759.00 23,759.00 0.00 100%

2530 complete 15.0 CDBG Grant Administration IURA 134,329.20 134,329.20 0.00 100%

2912 complete Unallocated 2015 CDBG7 N/A 2,349.24 0.00 0.00 100%

Total 837,351.56 763,108.82 71,893.50 91%

2016 CDBG Activities2541 ok 3.0 LKNB Homeowner Rehab Love Knows No Bounds 36,334.72 25,510.00 10,824.72 70%

2542 complete 6.0 Mini repair INHS 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 100%

2543 ok 8.0 Work Preserve Job Training & Placement 5 Historic Ithaca 67,500.00 49,903.72 17,596.28 74%

2544 complete 9.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program GIAC 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 100%

2545 ok 11.0 Heating System & Code Corrections DICC 22,489.00 21,099.00 1,390.00 94%

2546 complete 12.0 Advocacy Center Garage Renovation Advocacy Center 10,317.00 10,317.00 0.00 100%

2547 NO 13.0 Wading Pool Renovations GIAC 185,000.00 0.00 185,000.00 0%

2548 complete 1.0a Housing for School Success IURA 11,580.00 11,580.00 0.00 100%

2549 complete 14.0 A Place to Stay Case Management Catholic Charities 17,625.65 17,625.65 0.00 100%

2550 complete 8.0a Work Preserve Job Readiness Historic Ithaca 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100%

2551 complete 15.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 100%

2552 complete 16.0 211 Info and Referral HSC 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100%

2553 complete 17.0 CDBG Admin IURA 132,274.20 132,274.20 0.00 100%

Total 683,120.57 468,309.57 214,811.00 69%

2016 HOME Activities2755 ok 1.0 Housing for School Success IURA 77,104.40 43,288.42 33,815.98 56%

2756 ok 2.0 Security Deposit Assistance Program (including Inspections)10 Catholic Charities 44,026.00 43,651.00 375.00 99%

2757 ok 4.0 304 Hector Street INHS 100,000.00 96,380.00 3,620.00 96%

2758 complete 5.0 202 Hancock Townhouses 8, 9, 15 INHS 314,125.00 314,125.00 0.00 100%

2759 ok 7.0 Morris Ave Homes 14 Habitat for Humanity 75,000.00 53,481.17 21,518.83 71%

2760 complete 18.0 HOME Admin IURA 32,984.10 32,984.10 0.00 100%

2807 complete Unallocated 2016 HOME 11 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 100%

Total 643,239.50 583,909.69 59,329.81 91%

2017 CDBG Activities

2561 ok 1.0 Chartwell House Tompkins Community Action 22,000.00 7,695.00 14,305.00 35%

2562 ok 2.0 2017 Homeowner Rehab INHS 75,000.00 0.00 75,000.00 0%

2563 ok 6.0 Mini Repair INHS 26,000.00 0.00 26,000.00 0%

2564 ok 7.0 Hospitality Employment Training Program GIAC 100,000.00 35,885.98 64,114.02 36%

2565 complete 8.0 Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 100%

2566 ok 10.0 Work Preserve Job Training: Job Placements Historic Ithaca 67,500.00 0.00 67,500.00 0%

2567 ok 11.0 Food Entrepreneurship CCE of Tompkins County 36,587.00 6,428.66 30,158.34 18%

2568 ok 12.0 Urban Bus Stop Signage & Amenities TCAT 25,000.00 0.00 25,000.00 0%

2569 ok 13.0 DICC Heating & Roofing Replacement6, 7 DICC 35,500.00 35,205.00 295.00 99%

2570 ok 14.0 Immigrant Services Catholic Charities 30,000.00 7,500.00 22,500.00 25%

2571 ok 15.0 Work Preserve Job Readiness Historic Ithaca 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 0%

2572 complete 16.0 2‐1‐1 Info and Referral Human Services Coalition 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 100%

2573 ok 17.0 A Place To Stay: Supportive Services Catholic Charities 15,925.00 0.00 15,925.00 0%

2574 ok 18.0 Housing For School Success: Year #2 ICSD 13,280.00 6,388.79 6,891.21 48%

2575 ok 19.0 CDBG Admin IURA 128,882.00 45,822.53 83,059.47 36%

ok 22.0 Economic Development Loan Fund IURA 56,886.24 0.00 56,886.24 0%

complete 9.0 Harriet Gianellis Child Care Center Tompkins Community Action 84,200.00 84,200.00 0.00 100%

ok Unallocated 2017 CDBG16 N/A 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 0%

Total 856,760.24 249,125.96 557,634.28 35%

2017 HOME Activities

2767 cancelled 3.0 402 South Cayuga Street17 Habitat for Humanity 80,000.00 80,000.00 0.00 100%

2768 ok 4.0 Housing Scholarship Program11 The Learning Web 65,592.00 16,385.32 49,206.68 25%

2769 ok 5.0 Security Deposit Assistance Catholic Charities 42,750.00 32,804.50 9,945.50 77%

2770 ok 21.0 828 Hector Street (CHDO) INHS 41,378.00 1,328.80 40,049.20 3%

2771 ok 20.0 HOME Admin IURA 27,565.10 9,687.29 17,877.81 35%

Page 1 of 2

IURA Grants SummaryMarch 2018

ON TOTAL

# SCHEDULE HUD ENTITLEMENT ACTIVITIES SPONSOR BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPENDED % SPENT

2807 ok Unallocated 2017 HOME12, 17 N/A 99,977.80 0.00 99,977.80 0%

ok Recaptured Funds (HP)15 N/A 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 0%

ok Unanticipated Program Income (PI)8 N/A 21,545.00 0.00 21,545.00 0%

Total 383,807.90 140,205.91 243,601.99 37%

YES Pre‐2017 Method: Unexpended CDBG Grant funds on Line of Credit: 1.222

NO Current Method: Total Unexpended CDBG funds: Line of Credit + CDBG Revolving Loan Fund: 1.904

Maximum Unexpended CDBG Funds to Satisfy 1.5 CDBG Spend Down Ratio 966,615

Amount Required to be Expended by 6/1 to Meet CDBG Spend Down Ratio of 1.5: 260,650

Total Unexpended HUD Entitlement Funds

CDBG Activities 787,452.54

CDBG Program Income 56,886.24

CDBG Revolving Loan Fund Balance 496,699.01

HOME Activities 302,931.80

HOME Program Income Activites 0.00

Total Unexpended HUD Entitlement Funds 1,643,969.59

CDBG Spend Down Ratio (must be less than 1.5 by June 1st of each year (60 days prior to program year):CDBG Spend Down Ratio = total unexpended CDBG funds/most recent annual CDBG award

Page 2 of 2

WYORK :TEOF ORTUNITY.

ANDREW M. CUOMO Governor

March 29, 2018

Mr. Nels Bohn City of Ithaca 1 08 E. Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850

Dear Director Bohn:

Homes and Community Renewal

RUTHANN E VISNAUSKAS Commissioner/CEO

RE: Policy Change to CDBG Program Income Guidelines

Ithaca Urban R•n•w•l Agency

APR 0 2 2018

RECEIVED

This letter is to announce a change in policy regarding retention of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program income by current and past recipients of the CDBG Program administered by New York State since the start of Program Year 2000.

CDBG program income includes any proceeds generated by the use of CDBG funds, regardless of whether the grant that generated the program income is open or closed, and must be used in compliance with CDBG rules. Under CDBG program income rules at 24 CFR 570.489(e), the State can choose to allow recipients to retain and reuse the program income subject to all CDBG requirements, or to require it to be returned to the State and reallocated under the State's Method of Distribution. In the past, the Housing Trust Fund Corporation (HTFC), the funding mechanism for the Office of Community Renewal, allowed Recipients to retain and reuse the program income for additional CDBG activities, including after grant closeout, subject to annual reporting.

Under 570.489(e)(3)(ii)(A), the State may require recipients to return program income if it determines that recipients are unable to utilize funds in full compliance with program requirements or the funds are "unlikely to be applied to continue the activity within the reasonably riear future." Compliance questions related to the accumulation, reuse and reporting of program income by local recipients has resulted in audit findings that the State is required to address. Due to these audit findings, HTFC will require all past and present local recipients of the State's CDBG Program (since the year 2000) to return any uncommitted program income in their possession on March 31, 2019 or received after that date.

To transition to this new CDBG program income requirement:

1. Local recipients must report all program receipts in their possessjon by May 31, 2018 using the attached Certification Form.

2. Local recipients may use any program income currently in their possession (or received prior to 3/31/19) for CDBG eligible activities, if the funds are committed by March 31, 2019.

a. Local recipients may commit program income to activities only after notifying NYS Office of Community Renewal (OCR) staff of the intended use of the funds and demonstrating that the use will meet a National Objective and all CDBG requirements.

b. 'Commitment of funds' is achieved only when either the local recipient legislative body has formally allocated funds to a specific project in the public record, or the local recipient has executed a written agreement with a business, homeowner or other eligible person committing funds to a specific activity and approval from OCR. '

Hampton Plaza, 38-40 State St. , Albany NY 12207 I www.nyshcr.org

c. If the local recipient has an open CDBG project, CDBG program income must be used for eligible CDBG activities before drawing new CDBG funds under the open grant.

3. Any program income in a local recipient's possession that has not been committed in writing for eligible CDBG activities and approved by OCR by March 31, 2019 must be returned to HTFC no later than April 30, 2019.

a. Receipts that are not defined as program income may be retained by the local recipient if approved by OCR (see the attached Fact Sheet.)

b. Canceled commitments must also be returned. 4. Any proceeds defined as CDBG program income that are received for any open or closed CDBG grant on

or after April1, 2019 must be returned to HTFC at the end of each subsequent state fiscal year (by April 30).

a. However, all Revolving Loan Fund receipts must be returned to HTFC immediately upon receipt.

To summarize, the transition timeline to this new CDBG Program Income policy is:

May 31, 2108 April 1, 2018- March 31, 2019 April 30, 2019 April 30, 2020 & annually

Certification & Program Income Report due to OCR Commit PI to eligible projects (with OCR approval) PI Report (thru 3/31/19) & remit uncommitted PI to HTFC Annual (4/1 - 3/31) PI Report & all PI returned to HTFC

Attached to this letter you will find:

• A fact sheet providing additional detail on the CDBG program income policy and use requirements; • A report on all CDBG awards that your community has received; and • A form and certification for identifying all program income in your possession.

Please review the attached report and all program income payments you have received, identifying the total program income in your possession. Complete the enclosed certification identifying all the program income that you currently have on hand, then sign and return to OCR by May 31, 2018. As noted, you will have until March 31, 2019 to commit these program income funds, or to return them to HTFC.

If you have questions regarding this policy or instructions, you may contact Jason Purvis, CDBG Program Director at [email protected] or (518) 474-2057.

Sincerely,

Christian M. Leo President Office of Community Renewal

Hampton Plaza, 38-40 State St., Albany NY 12207 I www.nyshcr.org

New York State CDBG Program Program Income Policy Fact Sheet

Contact: Jason Purvis at [email protected] or (518) 474-2057

\Definition of CDBG Program Income! Program income is defined by HUD to include any "gross income received by a State, a unit of general local government, or a subrecipient of the unit of general local government that was generated from the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, regardless of when the CDBG funds were appropriated and whether the activity has been closed out. .. " 24 CFR 570.489( e)( 1 ).

~ Typical sources of program income include:

• Proceeds from the disposition by sale or long-term lease of real property purchased or improved with grant funds;

• Proceeds from the disposition of equipment purchased with grant funds; • Gross income from the use or rental of real or personal property acquired by the unit of

general local government with grant funds, less costs incidental to the generation of the income;

• Gross income from the use or rental of real property owned by the unit of general local government that was constructed or improved with grant funds, less the costs incidental to the generation of the income;

• Payments of principal and interest on loans made using grant funds; • Proceeds from sale of loans or obligations secured by loans made with grant funds; • Interest earned on funds held in a revolving fund account or earned on program income

pending disposition of the income; and • Funds collected through special assessments made against properties owned and

occupied by households not of low and moderate income, where special assessments are used to recover all or part of the grant portion of a public improvement.

~ For the State CDBG program, the rule provides for an annual threshold of $25,000 (2000 -2011) or $35,000 (2012 - present) before receipts by local recipients must be counted as program income.

• If the total amount of receipts by the local recipient exceeds $25,000 (2000 - 2011) or $35,000 (2012- present) during a given fiscal year (for the New York State Program, the State fiscal year is April 1 -March 31 ), all funds received, including the initial $25,000 (2000- 2011) or $35,000 (2012- present), are considered program income.

• If the total receipts by a local recipient in the State's fiscal year do not exceed $25,000 (2000 - 2011) or $35,000 (2012- present), then those funds are considered miscellaneous revenue and may be retained by the local recipients and moved to its general account. This transfer may occur only at the end of a State's fiscal year when total annual receipts are determined and approved by New York State Office of Community Renewal (OCR).

• Note: All revolving loan fund (RLF) receipts are considered program income, regardless of the amount received annually, and are not eligible for this exclusion.

Page 1 of 3 (3/2018)

[Proceeds That Are NOT Program lncomel The following proceeds are not considered program income under CDBG rules:

• As noted above, if the total amount of funds received (excluding RLF's) does not exceed $35,000 received during a State fiscal year (April1- March 31), the funds are considered miscellaneous revenue and may be retained by the local recipients and moved to its general account. This transfer may occur only at the end of a State's fiscal year when total annual receipts are determined and approved by OCR.

• Proceeds from the sale of real property purchased or improved with CDBG funds if the proceeds are received more than 5 years after expiration of the grant agreement with the State.

• Community economic development, neighborhood revitalization and/or energy conservation projects activities by nonprofit organizations qualified under Section 105(a)(15) of the Housing and Community Development Act.

);> Local recipients must consult with OCR staff regarding any proceeds that are received related to the Program which might not be classified as program income, or to prorate proceeds that are generated from an activity which is only partially assisted with CDBG funds.

[Requirements for Use of CDBG Program Income before March 31, 20191 Program income currently held or received by local recipients may be committed to a CDBG activity or activities prior to March 31, 2019, subject to the following conditions:

• The activity must be eligible under the current State Annual Action Plan. • Use of the funds is subject to all CDBG requirements, regardless of whether the activity that

generated the program income has been closed out. • The local recipient must request approval of the use from OCR prior to making any

commitment. · • Commitment means either that the local recipient legislative body has formally approved

funds for a specific project in the public record, or the local recipient has entered into a written agreement with a business, household or other eligible person that is the intended recipient of the funds committing to a specific activity.

• The commitment cannot be subject to contingencies that could result in cancelation of the activity. If the activity is canceled subsequent to the commitment, the funds must be returned to the Housing Trust Fund Corporation (HTFC).

);> Expenditure of the funds is not required by March 31, 2019 as long as the commitment requirements are met.

);> 24 CFR 570.489(e)(3)(ii)(C) states that "the State must require units of general local government, to the maximum extent feasible, to disburse program income ... before requesting additional funds from the State for activities."

• If the local recipient has any open CDBG grant, program income must be disbursed before drawing any new grant funds. Use of program income under an open grant means either that the local recipient will increase the activities being funded under the current grant within the same contract term, or funds will be de-obligated at the end of the contract term. Extensions to the term of the open grant in order to expend additional program income funds will not be approved.

Page 2 of 3 (3/2018)

• However, if the funds received have been legally designated by the local recipient to a RLF, disbursement of such funds can only be for activities permitted by the RLF.

~ Please note that OCR cannot award new CDBG funds to a local recipient that has accumulated program income sufficient to fund the proposed new activity.

\Disposition of Program Income Received Starting April 1, 20191 Beginning April 1 I 20191 all program income received by local recipients must be returned to the HTFC as follows:

• For all receipts legally designated for local RLF's, the funds should be returned immediately to the HTFC.

• For all other receipts from CDBG activities, the funds may be accumulated in a separate local' account and returned to the HTFC at the end of the State fiscal year, along with a Program Income Report.

~ No funds received after April 1, 2019 may be directly disbursed to activities by the local recipient.

\Reporting Instructions! Recipients must file a CDBG Program Income Report annually at the end of each State fiscal year. The Report must identify all receipts, including funds received that are not program income (i.e., less than $35,000 during the State fiscal year.)

Recipients must file the Program Income Report for the 2018-2019 fiscal year ending March 31, 2019. The OCR will be updating the report format to reflect the changes in policy. The Report will identify all funds obligated to eligible activities as well as all funds returned to the HTFC. The Report will be due April 30, 2019 along with remittance of program income not committed.

Beginning April 1 I 2019, all program income received must be returned to the HTFC at the end of the State's fiscal year. The Program Income Report must be completed only to identify the sources of program income being transmitted to the HTFC.

\Return of Funds Instructions!

~ Please contact Jason Purvis, Program Director at [email protected] or (518) 474-2057 for instructions on how to return Program Income

~ Funds may only be returned by the local recipient, and not by any subrecipient or beneficiary

Page 3 of 3 (3/2018)

City of Ithaca NYS CDBG Projects 2000-Present

Munici(!alit~ Project Year Descri(!tion Number

City of Ithaca 57 4C0230-00 2000 City of Ithaca Comprehensive Program

City of Ithaca 574C0162-01 2001 City of Ithaca Comprehensive Program

City of Ithaca 574C089-03 2003 City of Ithaca Comprehensive Program

City of Ithaca 574ED474-03 2003 City of Ithaca Economic Development Program

CERTIFICATION OF CDBG PROGRAM INCOME

I certify that---.....,...,..-----,-.....,....,....----,----- has $ __ __, ___ , ___ . __ (Community Name)

in uncommitted NYS CDBG Program Income.

If you have a zero balance in CDBG program income, please indicate that above. Do not leave blank. Failure to return this form by May 31, 2018 will result in the immediate suspension of all OCR funds until the form is received.

(Please initial both sections)

I understand that all NYS CDBG Program Income must be committed prior to requesting new CDBG awards from the Office of Community Renewal.

I understand that any NYS CDBG Program Income that has not been committed and approved by the Office of Community Renewal by March 31, 2019 must be returned to the Office of Community Renewal by April30, 2019.

Chief Elected Official Signature Title

Printed Name Date

If you have questions regarding this policy or instructions, you may contact Jason Purvis, CDBG Program Director at [email protected] or (518) 474-2057.

Please complete and return to the Office of Community Renewal by May 31. 2018:

by mail:

Office of Community Renewal 38-40 State Street

4th Floor Albany, N~w York 12207

ATTN: Jason Purvis

Or by email:

[email protected]

Documents

Agenda | City of Ithaca