MINUTES OF A REGULAR RA MEETING

Minutes of a Regular Meeting

of the Board of the

Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster

January 26, 2010

Immediately Following The 4:30 P.M. Meeting of the

Lancaster County Housing Authority

202 North Prince Street, Suite 400

Lancaster, PA 17603

____________________________________

The members of the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster met Tuesday, January 26, 2010. The Board meeting was held at the office of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster, 202 North Prince Street, Suite 400.

Members of the Board in attendance were: Miriam Fletcher, Cindy Stewart, Ed Fisher, and James Shultz. Staff members present were: Matthew T. Sternberg, Executive Director; David M. Brazina, Deputy Executive Director; Aimee Tyson, Community Development Director; Michael Urenovitch, Community Development Program Manager; Teresa Danforth, Tenant Services Director; and Marian Joyce, Secretary.

Also present: Ken Smith and Tom Eiseman of Community Basics Inc.; Bill Koons and Stephen Proctor of Presbyterian Senior Living; Jack Howell of The Lancaster Alliance; and Cynthia Fuhrer of the Housing Development Corporation (HDC).

Ms. Stewart called the meeting to order at 4:39 p.m.

Public Comment: Jack Howell of The Lancaster Alliance addressed the Board in support of The South Square project; he recalled some of the early work the Alliance did with the Board as an incubator for the successful stadium project and encouraged the Board to problem-solve with the Alliance regarding funding for this current project. In answer to Board member questions, he stated that the target-date for construction is a year from now. He directed the Board to visit www.southsquare.org for further information. Ms. Fuhrer of HDC stated that the project will apply for Low Income Housing Tax Credits and responded to Ms. Stewart about availability of low income rental units.

Minutes of the December 15, 2009 meeting were approved. The motion was made by Ms. Fletcher, second by Mr. Fisher and unanimously accepted.

The Treasurer’s Report was unavailable because of a staff member’s absence due to a death in the family. Instead, the Board reviewed the 2009 and 2010 Program Administration Budgets. Mr. Sternberg noted that the Authorities had come in under budget the previous year. Mr. Brazina then did a comparison between the 2009 and 2010 Budgets. He answered Board questions and explained a few changes in proposed expenditures from the prior budget-year. The Board decided to wait until all the financials were available and to approve the 2010 budget at that time with the Treasurer’s Report.

Report of the Executive Director is attached hereto, and made a part hereof. Mr. Sternberg stated that he would comment in more detail as items came up on the Agenda.

Correspondence or Communications – None

Nominating Committee Report: Ms. Stewart recommended that, just as had been done at the Housing Authority meeting, the Board extend the terms of officers – on an interim basis – until a replacement is appointed for Mr. Murray. The motion was made by Ms. Fletcher, second by Mr. Fisher and unanimously accepted.

Old Business:

1) The Board briefly continued discussion from the previous meeting about formation of a rental housing finance committee. Mr. Sternberg reviewed what had happened so far. He had consulted with legal counsel who advised it could be set up as an administrative committee rather than a committee of the Board. Mr. Shultz and Mr. Fisher had expressed interest in serving in this capacity. So, an administrative committee was formed and already had a first meeting.
Ms. Stewart noted that another reason it was set up as an administrative committee was: there was action that needed to be moved on quickly before the next Board meeting. She expressed a concern about adding extra functions to the committee besides appeals. It was decided to bring this item back for discussion at the February Board Meeting.
Ms. Stewart suggested staff provide a list of pro’s and con’s of an administrative versus a board committee along with scope and vision for the committee’s role.

New Business:

1) The Board reserved funding for the Marietta Senior Apartments project. The motion to accept was made by Mr. Fisher, second by Ms. Fletcher and unanimously carried. Mr. Sternberg introduced Ken Smith and Tom Eiseman of Community Basics Inc. Mr. Smith described the 56-unit project for people aged 62 and over and answered questions from the Board about financing, and recruitment of lower income tenants. Mr. Sternberg noted that the rental housing finance committee had discussed both projects under consideration and supported staff recommendations. Ms. Fletcher recused herself from the final vote to avoid conflict of interest as President of Marietta Borough Council. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan 10 #1] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to authorize issuance of a Reservation of Funds letter reserving HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds and/or Community Development Block Grant funds in an amount not to exceed ONE MILLION AND 00/100 ($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS for the Marietta Senior Apartments Project.

2) The Board reserved funding for the Westminster Place at the Long Community project. The motion to accept was made by Ms. Fletcher, second by Mr. Fisher and unanimously carried. Mr. Stephen Proctor acquainted the Board with Presbyterian Senior Living, the 10^th largest non-profit provider of senior care in the U.S. He provided background on their relationship with the Long Community and Highland Presbyterian Church, and noted that only 20% of clients served nationwide have a church-connection but mostly reflect the surrounding community. Mr. Proctor described the 61-unit project which would not require any entry fee for residents. He gave details on the financing and answered Board questions about recruitment of lower income tenants. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan 10 #2] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

Mr. Shultz commented on behalf of the Rental Housing Finance Committee. He stated that all three proposals, in terms of location, and all three developers in terms of background, experience, skills and expertise, were exemplary. It was a difficult choice in recommending one over another.

3) After extensive discussion, the Board authorized the Authority to implement a Recovery Zone Facility Bond Program. Mr. Sternberg provided background on these bonds stipulated in the 2009 Stimulus Bill in order to help areas affected by unemployment and growing poverty to finance projects with tax-exempt debt at lower interest rates. Lancaster County was awarded over 14 million dollars. EDC Finance will work with developers to identify the projects, perform underwriting and the due diligence. The County Commissioners need an organization with authority to issue bonds and asked the Redevelopment Authority to take that on.

Mr. Sternberg stated that he had been working with the Commissioners to designate the Recovery Zone. It was decided to use existing growth areas from the County Master Plan which are widely accepted and understood by the community, as the Bonds must be issued by the end of this calendar year. At their next meeting, the Commissioners will consider designating combined Urban- and Village-Growth Areas (the latter suggested by The Planning Commission to get the funding to outlying areas particularly in southern Lancaster County) to achieve an equitable distribution of the funds.

He emphasized the action being authorized at this point is the go-ahead for the Executive Director to collaborate with other participants on the program, and is not a blanket approval of projects or financing. Each project would need to come back to the Board for individual review and approval.

Mr. Sternberg answered Board questions about how the Bonds would be implemented and clarified that the guidelines were provided by the IRS, and the primary focus is job-creation – it is not a housing tool. He answered Board concerns about legal risk and described the series of documents to be handled by Bond Counsel & EDC to make sure it is a legally vetted project before it gets to the Redevelopment Authority. Then the newly created Loan Committee would walk through a check-list of steps one more time to be completely confident that all financial structure and details were in place before the Authority became the conduit for the Bond. Lyle Hosler of EDC will also sit on the Loan Committee to explain and answer questions, so the committee is comfortable when they make recommendations to the Board.

Mr. Sternberg responded to Ms. Stewart’s question that it was not expected that there would be anything to prevent the Bond moving forward at the Loan Committee stage – the purpose of which is to enable the Board to have a look at the Bond before it comes to the table for final approval. The Loan Committee function is more an internal process to have an EDC representative lead the group through the documentation. Mr. Brazina noted that this Bond was only one of multiple funding sources. Mr. Shultz, as a member of the Loan Committee, summarized for the Board that all the analysis would be complete before the Bond documentation came to the Authority. However, his concern was to ensure that it was a good solid project rather than any concern about the legal aspect.

Mr. Sternberg confirmed that the Authority was not taking on a risk or obligation with the Bond. Rather, the Authority was just acting as a conduit because the Bond has to be issued by a qualified public sector entity in order to be tax-exempt. Also it has to pass though the Authority in order to ensure that the public standards are met but it is not the Authority’s obligation. Mr. Shultz asked for clarification on who was standing behind the Bond – whether it was the Federal Government. Mr. Sternberg stated that essentially the Bond was a loan from the Bond Buyer to the company doing the project. In this case, it would not be a public issue bond but a private placement bond; and it is 95% certain a bank will buy the Bond. So in effect, the Bond is an enhanced Loan Note but done in a way that qualifies it for tax-exempt status.

Board members stated that they now had a clear understanding of how it would work – that their main concern was ensuring that stimulus funds were spent wisely. Mr. Sternberg summarized by saying that the precedent, mechanisms and requirements for doing Bonds were long-established and very clearly set; the particular configuration and goals for the process via the stimulus were a little different but the actual technical mechanism is the same.

The motion to accept was made by Ms. Fletcher, second by Mr. Murray and unanimously carried. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan 10 #3] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to authorize the Executive Director to work in collaboration with the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners and EDC Finance Corporation to implement the Recovery Zone Facility Bonds program; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to authorize the Authority to be the issuer of the bonds for projects and activities approved by the Authority, EDC Finance Corporation and the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners.

4) After some discussion, the Board tabled a resolution on a revised Personnel Policies Handbook, pending its review by the Personnel Committee. The motion to accept was made by Ms. Fletcher, second by Mr. Fisher and unanimously carried. Mr. Brazina described the main two revisions proposed by counsel’s HR Specialist and noted the other changes were just language clarification. The motion to table was made by Ms. Fletcher, second by Mr. Fisher and unanimously carried.

5) The Board approved a contract amendment with CAP for operation of the Homeless Prevention Program. Ms. Tyson explained that this was a housekeeping issue to ensure that CAP was being paid for assessments they are now being required to do. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan10 #4] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to approve the Contract Amendment with Community Action Program of Lancaster County to allow for lead based paint assessments.

The Board adopted the subsequent six New Business items under one motion by Ms. Fletcher, second by Mr. Fisher and unanimously carried. Resolutions are as follows:

6) The Board approved a contract with the Borough of Columbia for a project entitled NORTH SECOND STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE II. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan10 #5] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to approve the execution of a contract with the Borough of Columbia for the rehabilitation of North Second Street from Walnut Street north to Cedar Street in an amount not to exceed TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($200,000.00) DOLLARS of Fiscal Year 2010 Community Development Block Grant funds.

7) The Board approved a contract with the Paradise Township Sewer Authority for a project entitled KINZERS PHASE V SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan 10 #6] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to approve the execution of a contract with the Paradise Township Sewer Authority for the construction of Phase V of a new sanitary sewer main along the south side of Route 30 in Kinzer in an amount not to exceed ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($121,000.00) DOLLARS of Fiscal Year 2010 Community Development Block Grant funds.

8) The Board approved a contract with the Borough of Quarryville for the NORTH CHURCH STREET WELL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan 10 #7] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to approve the execution of a contract with the Borough of Quarryville to make infrastructure improvements to the Borough’s North Church Street / Pump Station in an amount not to exceed SEVENTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($70,000.00) DOLLARS of Fiscal Year 2010 Community Development Block Grant funds.

9) The Board approved a contract with the Mount Joy Borough Authority for the RAPHO TOWNSHIP WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan 10 #8] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to approve the execution of a contract with the Mount Joy Borough Authority for the construction of a water system improvement project on Route 772 in Rapho Township in an amount not to exceed ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT AND 00/100 ($188,948.00) DOLLARS of Fiscal Year 2010 Community Development Block Grant funds.

10) The Board approved a contract with the Welsh Mountain Medical and Dental Center for the WELSH MOUNTAIN DENTAL SERVICES EXPANSION Project. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan 10 #9] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to approve the execution of a contract with the Welsh Mountain Medical and Dental Center for adding 6 new exam rooms and renovating their existing central area in an amount not to exceed TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($250,000.00) DOLLARS of Fiscal Year 2010 Community Development Block Grant funds.

11) The Board approved a contract with the YWCA of Lancaster to paint exterior wood surfaces and replace existing drainage pipes. (A copy of said Resolution [Jan 10 #10] is attached hereto, and made a part hereof).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster to approve the execution of a contract with the YWCA of Lancaster to paint exterior wood surfaces and replace existing drainage pipes in an amount not to exceed SEVENTY THOUSAND AND FIFTY-TWO AND 00/100 ($70,052.00) DOLLARS of Fiscal Year 2010 Community Development Block Grant funds.

Other Business:

Ms. Stewart announced that the next meeting of the Board of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Lancaster is expected to be held Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at the offices of the Lancaster County Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, 202 North Prince Street, Suite 400, immediately following the 4:30 p.m. meeting of the Lancaster County Housing Authority.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

Marian C. Joyce, Secretary