Loading...
HousingPartnershipMinutes1997NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes January 21,1997 Members Present: Richard Abuza, Clare Higgins, Yvonne Freccero, Laura Baker, Chuck Johnson, Alex Ghiselin, Nola Reinhardt, Peg Murray, Shelley Abend. Also present, Peg Keller, John Dunne, Don Bianchi, Peter Frothingham and Penny Kim. Members Absent: Louise Jeffway. AGENDA/ 1.Public Comment Period/ Richard called the meeting to order at7:10 p.m. Peg introduced Don Bianchi, a Northampton residentworking at the Hilltown CDC with the 1st Time Homebuyer Programand real estate development, interested in joining thePartnership. 2.conflict of Interest Declaration/ Richard began the discussionby stating that once a year members are asked to speak to otherboards and committees they are members of to determine anypotential areas of conflict with the work of the Partnership. Richard-VP of Abuza Brothers, landlord, member of the Northampton Redevelopment Authority, wife employed by an affiliate of ServiceNet, Inc. Laura-ex-officio member, works at Hilltown CDC, Board Member of Community Trust, Inc. which receives CDBG funds Clare-City Council appointee, works for HCAC which receives CDBG funds, Housing Authority Commissioner Yvonne-Broadbrook Coalition, Next Step Shelley-HCAC Housing Director, receives CDBG funds Peg M.-no conflicts Alex-member ZBA, general contractor Board member of ServiceNet, Inc. 3.Discussion of Partnership reorganization/ Richard prefaced thediscussion of a memo distributed to members by Penny and Peg bysaying that in view of the Planning Departments tight budget andthe demands on staff time, Penny was asking members to rethinkPartnership activity. 2 Penny reviewed the tasks ahead for Peg and the content of the memo. She expressed her hope that the Partnership could play a lead role in developing a local response to what is happening in the larger picture of housing and homelessness. The Mayor has asked the department to develop a local plan to address housing issues by the end of April. In that context, she and Peg were asking for a re-evaluation of the best use of Peg's and the Partnership's time. Highlights of the discussion that followed: -with a small group of active, knowledgeable people, 1,2 or 3person sub-committees may not be as productive as doing thework as a whole-the Fair Housing Committee has been disbanded due to a lack ofattendance, but the City needs to have a Committee-Penny and Peg would like the Partnership to host/facilitatelarger community forums to develop a community wide plan/ Pennydesires press coverage and a change in location for meetings topromote public exposure for topics of community wide concern-she is looking to decide on an approach to develop the plan-suggestion made. to keep the existing committee structure butnot meet as regularly/ only when needed-the community education component of the Partnership's work hasdefinitely been lacking-there was consensus to merge the Fair Housing committee backinto the Partnership-there is concern about losing the Project Review Committee'sability to scrutinize funding applications and have questionsanswered outside of the full Partnership meetings-agreed that smaller groups are needed to draft RFP's-desire to have staff address details and Pship address largerpolicy issues-expanded role of Pship soliciting community input could resultin more work-question/ members agreed to do more creative educationalthings, but how do we continue existing level of work summary/ Members agreed to try the following approach: -Pship would function as the Fair Housing Committee resolving todiscuss fair housing issues quarterly and strive to recruittenants as membersPreservation would continue to meet as neededFinance work would be incorporated into the Partnership as awhole 3 Project Review/ ok for staff to review and screen, get additional infor. and questions answered, then bring to larger group/ use Committee for RFP's, specific projects Alex noted that in tackling public education, it is important to define parameters and needs for affordable housing. Clare said that community education will be needed for the Vernon Street and Verona Street projects. It was decided to continue the dialogue with housing providers and work on the plan and community wide forum. Penny agreed to flesh out her thoughts on what she sees the forum accomplishing. This will be provided for the next meeting. 4.Zoning Ordinance Revision Proposal/Wayne submitted a memo describing a change going before CityCouncil allowing accessory apartments to be included in the URAand NB districts. Currently, that use is allowed in every otherresidential zone. The Housing Partnership had supported thiseffort initially, but those two zones were omitted. Chuck made a motion to support the revision, seconded by Shelley, vote unanimous. s.Election of Chair/ Richard asked for nominations from thefloor. Chuck made a motion to reappoint Richard as Chair,seconded by Alex, Clare moved to close the nominations, voteunanimous. Note/ Richard announced that Louise has decided to resign� John Dunne announced that he will be approaching the Partnership for funds to do some scattered site development in the near future. 6.Adjourn/ Chuck made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Shelley.Vote unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes February 18, 1997 Members Present: Richard Abuza, Peg Murray, Yvonne Freccero, Clare Higgins, Don Bianchi, Alex Ghiselin, Shelley Abend, Nola Reinhardt. Also present, Peg Keller, John Dunne. Members Absent: Laura Baker, Chuck Johnson. AGENDA 1. Call to Order Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Richard welcomed Don Bianchi to the Partnership. Don gave a brief history of his experience. He is currently the Real Estate Program Manager for the Hilltown Community Development Corporation. Prior to that he did project development work at HAP and prior to that managed the revolving loan fund for Institute for Community Economics. He is currently a Board member and President of Community Trust, Inc. a local lending institution. 2.Update on Lead Paint/Fair Housing Workshop Richard reported that the workshop co-sponsored by thePartnership with the Housing Discrimination Project and HAPwas well attended with 56 people turning out. The workshop washeld February 12th and the invited universe were propertyowners of 2 unit properties. Richard said that the audienceasked good questions and awareness of these pertinent issueswas increased. Richard represented the Housing Partnership andthis effort addressed one of the goals of the Partnershipwhich is community education and outreach to landlords. 3.Update on Partnership Assuming Functions of Fair Housingcommittee Peg distributed copies of the Fair Housing Plan and members reviewed the tasks outlined. Members encouraged Peg to talk with Amherst about their process of merging the duties into the work of the Partnership. Peg will find the statutory requirements for the functions of the Fair Housing committee. Clare agreed to sponsor the ordinance change that will accomplish the merger. 4.Recap of last months discussion on committee reorganization Peg summarized the decisions made last month and updated members on the progress made on the project directions identified in September. Highlights of her comments were: 2 -Fair Housing/ will no longer be a standing committee due toattendance problems-Partnership will discuss fair housingissues at least 3 times a year and work closely with theHousing Discrimination Project to monitor complaints andcontinue workshops and outreach efforts-plan a communitywide forum on the Impediments Analysis and theimplementation results of local strategies-requiresordinance change Project Review. Preservation will continue to meet but on anas needed basis as opposed to monthly. The work of theFinance committee will be accomplished by the wholecommittee.-Members agreed that efforts in the arena of communityeducation have been lacking-plans will be made for morepublic dialogue on such topics as the impacts of Federal andState policy changes and the resulting impact on localhousing, Fair Housing, and Expiring Use issues.-community forums will be held with press coverage in adifferent location than the Hearing Room-information will continue to be gathered from local housingproviders, with John Dunne and Rebecca Muller still to beheard from-Peg will assemble the Housing Plan requested by the Mayorwith information garnered by the Partnership's dialogues withhousing providers, the public hearing process for the CDBGprogram allocations, discussions at the SRO/HOMELESSNESS TaskForce and the Next Step Collaboration, the HUD ConsolidatedPlan Process and the results of the Mayor's Summit onHomelessness. Peg then updated members on the projec� directions identified in September. -HER, Inc./ Partnership members felt strongly that steps betaken to assist HER, Inc. in order to maintain those SROunits on Green Street. $5,000 of CDBG funds have beenallocated for sewer line repair which negatively impacted thefinancial operation of the program. They have negotiated apayment plan with the city Solicitor and will be getting a$10,000 grant from Fleet Bank to assist with their arrears.Members of the Board of HER, Inc. still want to own thebuilding and with the exception of some unforeseen mishapsrecently, the operation is running smoothly. (Crisisaverted.) -Habitat/ Office of Planning and Development staff have beenworking closely with members of Pioneer Valley Habitat. Weinvestigated a parcel on Coles Meadow Rd. that contained too 3 many wetlands. We are now pursuing another property on Prospect Ave. A problem in addition to the difficulty being encountered with finding a site, is that Habitat does not have any funds for acquisition. It is difficult for them to fundraise without a site identified; too nebulous for investors. We have told them that the CDBG funds can only be used to fill a gap in financing, so they will be pursuing other additional investment partners. Meanwhile, the search for a site continues. Necessities/ Peg has been in contact with staff. They are indeed looking for a site and have given Peg some characteristics they desire/require. -Hampshire Heights/ Peg has continued the dialogue with theHousing Authority regarding the three houses on Spring Streetand an allocation of CDBG funds has been made for the thirdhouse. Peg and Jon Hite will attend a workshop on the HUDSuperNofa so Jon can become more aware of that fundingsource. No specific strategy for modernization at HampshireHeights has been formulated. -Creation of 3 bdm. units/ the Partnership continues to workwith John Dunne as he identifies properties to buy, rehab andsell through the State's HOME Homeownership Program. TheSpring Street rehab will get three 3 bedroom units back intothe inventory. The Gables unit (3 bedrm.) will be marketedsoon. More work is needed in this area. Work continues on the development of the Vernon Street site which will also be three bedroom units. Partnership members are invited to the neighborhood meeting which will be held March 12th. s.Presentation on Ice House Project/ Wayne Feiden Wayne attended the meeting to talk to the Partnership about a parcel of land off of Spring Street he is proposing the City acquire to meet several goals. Highlights of his comments are as follows: -Goals/ water supply protection95 acre parcel contains drinking water well/ weshould own surrounding land for protectionconservation land/ linkage to trail systemrecreation use/ potential for playing field(s)and use of pond for swimming, fishing, skatinghousing/ good portion could be used for housing/only affordable housing due to lack of frontage onSpring Street 4 Players/ Board of Public Works, Rec. Department, Conservation Commission BPW and ConCom have some funds to contribute Plan/ City buys entire parcel, turns section over to Partnership for housing development/ city subsidy becomes the land itself/ there will be development costs associated with road, sewer and water Status/ possible land swap for easier access is being discussed with an abutter/ hurry up and wait time line/ -get Council approval in March -late March sign P & s-goes to bankruptcy court-entire parcel would be accepted byCity Property Committee/ thendivided up-Partnership asked to develop RFPestablish criteria, evaluateresponses and recommend directionto City Property and City Council Funds/ need $50,000 -70,000 CDBG funds for acquisition Partnership members then asked questions and viewed the map outlining the portion of the parcel designated for housing development. A motion was made by Yvonne expressing the Housing Partnership's support of the City's intent to acquire the Ice House Parcel with the view towards increasing the stock of affordable housing in the City. The motion was seconded by Peg Murray. Vote unanimous. 6.Review of Project list Members then reviewed the list of real and potential projects that will be utilizing CDBG funds this fiscal year. Nola asked John for an update on Evan Daniels' properties. Joh said he is currently investigating 15 units that could be purchased for affordable housing, which he could accomplish with HOME funds and $375,000 from CDBG. 7.Adjourn/ The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller Housing Program Coordinator NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes March 25, 1997 Members Present: Richard Abuza, Clare Higgins, Laura Baker, Yvonne Freccero, Peg Murray, Don Bianchi, Nola Reinhardt. Also present, Peg Keller, John Dunne, Sonja Larson, Scott Girard. Call to Order Richard called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He welcomed Joel Feldman who has submitted an application to the Mayor for membership on the Partnership. Joel introduced himself as a local resident and Legal Director for the Housing Discrimination Project in Holyoke. Meeting Date/ Members determined that April 15th would be the next meeting date. Introductions/ Members and guests introduced themselves. Scott Girard is the President of the CDC's Board of Directors and Sonja Larson is the new Housing Director. They were present to continue the series of dialogues the Partnership is having with area housing providers to ascertain trends and the possibilities for new collaborations. In response to the questions devised by the Project Review Committee, reps from the CDC responded as follows: 1.agency goals and mission/ to develop and preserve affordablehousing in Northampton, Amherst, Easthampton, Hadley.Agency is approaching 10 years of operation with a history ofactively developing affordable housing in the community, inaddition to 30 units outside the community through the Self­Help Program and 8 in Amherst. Affordable housing continues to be an important goal for the agency. Initial focus was on homeownership, they now own and manage 3 SRO's and 40 units of rental housing. Sees homeownership emphasis increasing in the future as it impacts the middle class. 2.funding streams/ traditionally available funds were forrental. Those are now drying up and becoming increasinglycompetitive/ little political will exists for low and moderateincome rental housing/ we are experiencing another housingboom and housing prices will impact the middle class/ unlike15 years ago, there are more resources available/ politicalwill appears when teachers, firefighters and businessrecruitment is/are impacted 2 3.Local impact of state and Federal policy changes/ operatingsubsidies from the Federal level days are over/ affordablehousing such as Hampton Gardens will disappear, public housingoperating subsidies will disappear/ existing affordablehousing will become less affordable/ we need new ways topreserve and create/ as affordable housing disappears, thequality and availability of what remains will also be less/ *this is a critical time with the confluence of a housing boomand the termination of housing resources 4.State situation/ State is already following Federal lead asfar as curtailing resources/ less money is flowing from theState and it will be harder to find in the next few years/programs will reappear when there is a middle class outcry/some of the vehicles developed in the B0's will resurface/some program frameworks still exist with no fund allocations,i.e. HOP Program. 5.Future role of agency/ stay focused on their currentendeavors/ don't plan on discontinuing any components due tothe unmet housing needs in the community/ half of the peoplecannot afford housing here/ there is not enough housing forpeople below median income levels/ 6.Trends/ gaps/ trend is demand and interest from outside thecommunity/ households are getting bigger and many multi-unitbuildings are being converted to single families. 7.Ideal continuum/that in the same neighborhood, housing would be available to people with a range of incomes, this is disappearing in Northampton/ on verge of losing economic diversity in neighborhoods/ focus should not be on emergency homeless shelters, need instead to address roots of problem 8.Collaborations/ work with 7 different State level quasi-publicagencies, many local financial institutions, the City, otherhousing organizations, Smith College/ look forward to morecollaborations with Housing Authority, is supportive of theirinvestigation of housing development capacity, but moreentities will increase competition for limited funds. Discussion followed. Highlights include: -Scott frustrated by inability to buy a house/ his children arenot leaving home, no place affordable for them to move on to-applicants for the unit at the Gables 35-40 for a three bedroomunit for less than $100,000-when asked about support needed from the City, John said$ towrite down cost of housing units/ for acquisition, construction 3 -John also would like political support to "carry the message"and a predictable base line of operating funds-zoning and a transfer tax were discussed/ as possible actionfrom the Partnership/ also important for Pship to pursuelegislative priorities-the type of housing most in need, 3 bedroom homeownership units-SRO stock is threatened with housing boom-projects with rental subsidies/ i.e. with the Maples, they aretaking steps now to avoid an expiring use scenario/ to be debtfree when the subsidies expire-do not see more women in SRO's, 3 years ago there werevacancies in the market rate SRO units, none now-Smith College should be as concerned about housing for theiremployees as they are about housing their faculty-when asked about new ways to use resources, John said thatpeople need to look at the tasks, let players decide how towork together, more dollars need to be brought to the table-need to be able to move quickly to buy property, there is abidding war on every property now, regardless of its condition John, Sonja and Scott were thanked for their comments. Block Grant Request/ The representatives from the CDC then asked for the approval to use the $60,000 earmarked earlier this year as a result of the 3 bdm RFP for use on a property located at 65-67 N. Main Street in Florence. Members discussed the project. This is part of the State HOME Program which obligates funds for 4 units. John proposes to do this property and one of Evan Daniels' on Walnut. Members discussed the fact that the aversion to housing in Florence seems to relate to SRO housing as opposed to affordable home ownership. Members also discussed the history of this property in relation to Dr. Brummer's office being located there and issues before the Zoning Board. Clare made a motion to approve use of the $60,000 earmarked for the CDC to acquire the property located at 65-67 N. Main Street. The motion was seconded by Yvonne. Laura attached a friendly amendment as follows contingent upon subsequent approval of an affordability mechanism prior to the sale of the property to a homeowner(s). Further discussion yielded that this project meets the criteria established for this program, scattered site, 3 bedroom units, accessible to shopping and public transportation and one of the units will be handicapped accessible. Vote was all in favor with one abstention. It was decided that the April meeting would be devoted to a discussion of long term affordability mechanisms. The model developed by the CDC with guidelines established by the Project Review Committee will be mailed out ahead of time for perusal. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller DRAFT HOUSING PROVIDER DISCUSSION FORMAT 1.Primary $Cal/mission of the organization 2.What has been the traditional funding stream for theorganization and its programs?what is the current funding picture -funding picture in the future/ trends, predictions -·3.What do you predict the impact of changes at the Federal levelmay be on the City's stock of affordable housing? 4.If State involvement and funding follows the Federal lead, what would the impact be? 5.What components of your organizations operations will you strive to continue in the future and what components will youconsider terminating? 6.What does your organization see as unmet housing needs in the community? What are the gaps in the continuum of housingoptions? 7.If you were to design an ideal continuum what would it look like, what would the components be? 8.Who are the entities with which your organization presently collaborates? Who does your organization wish to collaboratewith in the future? NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes April 15, 1997 Members Present: Richard Abuza, Laura Baker, Shelley Abend, Joel Feldman, Yvonne Freccero, Peter Frothingham, Alex Ghiselin, Don Bianchi, Nola Reinhardt, Clare Higgins, Chuck Johnson, Peg Murray. Also present Sonja Larson (CDC Housing Director, John Dunne (CDC Executive Director), Paul Lischetti (Northampton Area Community Land Trust), David Bloomberg (Attorney working with the Valley CDC), Mayor Ford and Peg Keller (Housing Program Coordinator). Call to Order/ Richard called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Members introduced themselves. 1.CDBG Request from Valley CDC/ Sonja Larson described the property at 5 Walnut Street that the CDC is proposing to purchase for rehab and sale to a first time Homebuyer. This is the second project in the "Valley Homes" program funded with CDBG and HOME which will create 4 affordable units in Northampton. The property is a two family requiring substantial rehab. It will be sold to an owner occupant with a restricted apartment that will be rented to a person at 60% of median income. Funding will require a $75,000 bridge construction loan with $60,000 from the HOME program and $60,000 from CDBG. The rehab will take 6 months and marketing will begin now. CDC will provide counseling to the owner with regard to being a landlord. In response to a question about why the rental property, Sonja explained that the design of the building/ a unit over a unit, the (poor) marketability of a design of that type as two condos and the plus of additional rental income allowing for a lower income purchaser, all figured in the decision. Nola said what about demolition and new construction/ John said HOME does not fund new construction. He said the cost of new construction is $80-100 sq. ft. and rehab would be $65. With regard to the existing tenants, the CDC will abide by the Federal Uniform Relocation Act and pay the rent differential for up to 48 months. Tenants will be given the opportunity to move back after rehab. Nola suggested they try to add a half bath and Don said the CDC's development fee is too low. It should be more in the line of 10% rather than 5. 2 Sonja described the HOME affordability restrictions/ there are two options: a deed rider with recapture, resale provisions lasting 1-15 years/ the $30,000 diminishes 5% each year/ the sellers get their downpayment and some equity if sell in the 1st 15 years/ John said it is permissible to add our own restrictions to the HOME restrictions for our CDBG fund usage. Laura summarized by saying that creating three bedroom units was a priority, one rental and one homeownership unit is a good model, this is a good location with close proximity to a commercial district, it is in an area where we have not directed many funds, and although the construction costs seem high to her, they have been examined by Alex and Don who feel they are in the ball park. With the acquisition cost being low for this market ($75,000 has been assigned to this building as part of a larger package of property acquisitions), the total development costs are reasonable. Chuck made a motion to recommend to the Mayor that $60,000 of CDBG funds be utilized for the acquisition of 5 Walnut street, seconded by Clare. Don added a friendly amendment that before closing, a revised chart showing sources and uses be reviewed by the Project Review Committee, an affordability analysis be done and that the after-rehab appraisal not exceed the HOME restriction of $140,000 for a 2 family. Friendly amendment was accepted and the vote was unanimous. Chuck thanked the CDC'for responding to the Partnership's request to develop three bedroom units. 2.Mayor's comments/ The Mayor attended the meeting to discuss affordable housing projects. Highlights of her comments are as follows: -the message from Washington is that entrepreneurialefforts are required to accomplish projects, aspublic resources diminishis there a way to have the community feel more senseof ownership as in neighborhood based planningeffortsshe liked the feel and scale of the School st. projectthat the CDC did with the Land Trust and the neighborhoodparticipation around the Vernon Street projectshe likes the owner occupant with rental unit model 3 -can the City offer support to engage the banking community-she has a concern when project costs change along the way,and feels that when we put the first$ in, (CDBG), we havea right to demand certainty-she expressed her concern to the CDC about the highcost of doing South St. and wonders about the number ofpeople that can be served when a few of the projects takeso many of the scarce dollars available-the high cost of doing units means doing less unitsher preference is that we hold the costs down inorder to do more units Discussion followed with members making the following comments: -costs of doing projects have risen over the years-we have prioritized the larger units which will require moredollars-units cannot be produced with even the $30,000 cap we have beenoperating under-why should we spend less and create inferior units-remediation of slum and blight costs more, than just meetingthe other goal of CDBG programs which is to serve low andmoderate income people/ the costs of the units go up but wemeet more than one CDBG goal- we added additionat cost to the South st. project by requestingthey include three bedroom units-the inherent nature of the process is that project costs change-costs are high because usually private buyers are not requiredto delead, relocate tenants, etc.-acquisition costs in this town are simply higher, we haveconsistently underestimated costs of doing business here, i.e.Habitat's inability to find land-we were allocating $20,000 per unit, now we are allocating$30,000 and that is only 1/2 of what is needed. Members agreed to give the Mayor more information about their deliberations regarding funding proposals, if that would help. Members thanked the Mayor for her interest and appreciated her attendance and overall support of the Partnership's role in the community. 3. Long Term Affordability/ Laura said that in order for a sub-committee to havesubstantive discussion about appropriate affordabilitymechanisms it needed direction on whether the goals of thePship are to preserve affordable housing stock and guaranteelong term affordability (in perpetuity) or to help low ormoderate income families acquire wealth. 4 Members responded that both were goals of the Partnerships'. Nola said that the handout disseminated clearly points to the Land Trust model as the strongest tool for long term affordability. Members discussed whether and or how much equity could be earned. John said it is easier in rental projects but harder with homeownership and feels that people should get something out of the process. Richard suggested that an ad hoc group grapple with creating some models for our use and to report to the larger group. Peg Murray and Nola, Laura, Don, Alex and Richard, will be that ad hoc committee and will meet May 6th. 4.CDBG Process/ Peg Keller distributed the draft of the FY98 CDBG plan for review and comment. Most of the areas of need to be addressed are similar to previous programs. The draft plan will be created in May for submission to HUD. 5.Adjourn/ The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. The motion was made by Chuck, seconded by Don, vote unanimous. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes May 20 1 1997 Members Present: Richard Abuza, Laura Baker, Don Bianchi, Alex Ghiselin, Joel Feldman, Peg Murray. Also present, David Reed, Union News, David Murphy, Peg Keller. Members Absent: Clare Higgins, Yvonne Freccero, Nola Reinhardt, Peter Frothingham, Shelley Abend. Call to Order/ Richard called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. David Murphy attended the meeting to address the Partnership during the public comment period. Public comment/ David Murphy (former Partnership member and local realtor) described a scenario he is involved in that points up the need for flexibility in creating multi-family units in neighborhoods where increased density is acceptable. He described the location of a single family home that a potential purchaser wants to convert to a two family. This would require a variance from the Zoning Board. David said it seems ironic that the purchaser has to go through the permitting process to create an additional housing unit which is needed in the City and would require no public funds. Members discussed how lot size averaging helps but not in this case and the possibility of an accessory apartment. Members thanked David for his comments and agreed to refer them to the other Planners in the Department. Peg will check with Paulette to see if this scenario is happening with some frequency and if the zoning ordinance needs adjustment. AGENDA/ 1.Long Term Affordability Mechanisms/ Gables condo Unit The ad hoc committee that formed after the last meeting to determine some model mechanisms focused on the one proposed for the Gables unit. Changes were made and the CDC revised the document accordingly. Members recapped what those changes were and checked the new document to see how it had been revised. Laura summarized the revisions which included: extending the 20 year time period to 50 years (allowable by law) and requiring recapture of the entire $25,000 in the case of resale to a non-eligible purchaser. The rationale being that with the future of Federal funds in question, we need to be able to reinvest our dollars later. 2 Members discussed the balance needed between economic empowerment and the provision of shelter. The Partnership agreed with the documents contents generally but will forward the following suggestions: -pg. 1 change the family of 4 to family size to make itconsistent with the Hope 111 program-pg. 2 reconsider the 80% of median to be i.e. 70% or the same%of median income that the initial buyer is now to make the unitmore affordable in the future and to remove the incentive to sellthe unit for the 80% figure ( added profit of the differencebetween 70% and 80%)- regarding the resale price, the HOME formula is the base priceplus other costs, rather than tying the resale price to a% ofincome Members discussed the desire to have that cookbook of affordability mechanisms that was mentioned previously. Peg Murray noted that Tom Growhoski has offered to have a dialogue with the Partnership about mechanisms, and Joel suggested the Lawyers Clearinghouse. Peg said she should send a memo to the City Solicitor to assess her desire for involvement in this issue. 2.Hampton Gardens/ Expiring Use Property/ Peg updated the members about events that had transpired over the last few days regarding rumors that Hampton Gardens was going market rate. Peg said that she spoke with the Vice-President of Spear Management today who said that they have no such plans for the near future. Members agreed that this occurrence will happen sometime, it is only a question of when. Don advocated for strong legal assistance in this matter. Joel noted that political will is as important, maybe more so. Members discussed the possible role of the Anti-Displacement Project and the need to educate the tenants. Peg stated that Spear Management has repeatedly said they are not interested in selling the complex. Much of the work that could be done would be based on the potential that an owner will sell, which does not seem to be the case here. Peg said that ADP will be pushing for the City to support a Home Rule petition to control rents at government owned complexes and may approach City Council for this action. It will be important for the Partnership to have a position on this; Peg will get a copy of what was passed in Amherst (which needs to be approved by the state legislature). 3 Members discussed the irony of our working so hard to create 2-3 units and here we have 169 in danger of being lost. Members have been aware of the possibility of this event for 4-5 years and now it may be an actuality. Members committed to taking a leadership position as this evolves. Next steps are to find out the status of Federal funds for buyouts, get the information on the Amherst Home Rule petition and start networking nationally to avoid reinventing the wheel on this. Work will occur through the Preservation Sub-Committee. As a first step, Peg will be meeting with the Mayor and representatives from Spear Management within the next week to ascertain the facts. 4.community Activity Update/ Peg updated the members on the following: -Vernon Street is still happening/ Smith Voe finalized the coststo build Peter Frothingham's design. It will be a duplex, one 2bedroom and one 3 bedroom/ we will be using CDBG funds for theexcavation and foundation. It will be a two year project. Asecond neighborhood meeting will be held in June. -Verona street is awaiting approval for funds for theengineering and capping of the fill/ hopefully this will beincluded in the City's budget for FY98. -Ice House Parcel will be going through bankruptcy court and anabutter will be bidding against the City. One abutter inparticular is unhappy with the proposed development in his backyard and is opposing the affordable housing. We will know bythe end of next week whether the City will own the land andwhether or not a housing component will be included. Single Site Search is intensifying in order to find a central location for the Emergency Shelter Cot Program for next years program. Purchase of a property may be an option now that operating monies have been identified. Laura warned about creating another program with funding requirements while Grove Street is still underfunded. -Cot Program Stats were reviewed. The number served this pastyear was 185 up from 175 the prior year (76 the first year). -HUD grant Northampton is the lead applicant for what may be athree county request for funding for homeless services. 4 Peg is coordinating a three county effort to pull together an application to address gaps in the continuum of care and several agencies have come together to hire an outside consultant to actually write the application. Specific projects will be fleshed out in June, the deadline being July 8th. Needs in common for Hampshire Franklin and Hampden (sans Springfield) are personal economic empowerment/job training/transition to work, supportive services to SRO housing, transitional housing for homeless youth, supportive services at emergency shelters. The United Veterans of America is also involved and may apply for a support services piece. This is an exciting undertaking and will hopefully bring some dollars into Western Mass that traditionally go to Boston. s.Other Business Peg read a letter from Yvonne sent to Richard outlining her desire that the city's Boards and Commissions be more proactive with encouraging applicants to include affordable housing in their applications. Richard said that he would be glad to work with her on drafting a letter to all the appropriate Boards emphasizing the need. Yvonne also expressed her concerns about the "truly have nots" and hoped that we could expend resources assisting greater numbers of people at the far left of the continuum. Laura discussed how Grove Street staff says that the greatest need in the community is affordable permanent housing. Peg said that it might be timely to revisit the discussion about where to direct limited resources. 6.Adjourn The meeting concluded at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes June 17, 1997 Members Present: Richard Abuza, Shelley Abend, Yvonne Freccero, Alex Ghiselin, Laura Baker, Joel Feldman, Nola Reinhardt, Clare Higgins, Peg Murray. Also present: Caroline Murray, Drew Astolfi, Jennifer Errick, Anti-Displacement Project; Diane Andes and Vincent McCarthy from Spear Management; Kitty Callaghan, Western Mass. Legal Services; David Reid, Union News; Greg Kerstetter, Gazette; John Dunne, Valley CDC; 15 residents of Hampton Gardens; Peg Keller, Housing Program Coordinator, City of Northampton. 1.Public comment Period Chairman Richard Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He described the purpose of the public comment period and explained that the business before the Partnership this evening was to discuss and act on a home rule petition regarding rent control for governmentally involved housing.· The public comment period would therefore be used to hear comments regarding this issue, then the Board members would conduct its own deliberation. The following people made comments: Jim Walenko, Hampton Gardens resident Ed citron, Hampton Gardens resident Regina Brick, Hampton Gardens resident John Rosa, Hampton Gardens resident Tep Pho, Hampton Gardens resident Alice Caron, Hampton Gardens resident Michael Brick, resident All residents spoke about how much they enjoy living at the complex and that they hope they do not have to move. Most of those that made comments have lived there for 5 years or longer. Caroline Murray stated that the situation at hand is a crisis, the home rule petition proposed will not affect private housing, only government owned subsidized housing. Drew Astolfi said that the crisis that is hitting now is a result of action at the Federal government level, the vouchers that will be offered at the time of pre-payment are only short term and there is a big question about whether people will be able to continue to live there in the long term. 2 2. Board Discussion about the Petition Richard described meetings that had taken place earlier around this issue, recently and dating back several years. Upon learning 2-3 weeks ago that Spear Management may pre-pay their mortgagewhich could result in the eventual loss of 169 subsidizedapartment units, the Preservation Sub-Committee met with someCity Councilors, some residents and the Anti-Displacement Projectto identify ways to proceed. A Preservation Sub-Committee meetingfollowed. Discussion centered around a home rule petition as oneavenue to pursue. Clare then gave an update of the process and the time table surrounding the home rule petition. Highlights of Clare's comments are as follows: -the owner has expressed an interest in prepaying their mortgageand not renewing the Section B contracts for rental assistance-we are concerned about the loss of those units-this scenario is not a result of any one entity's fault, butrather a phenomenon created by the Federal Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD)-the will no longer exists at the Federal government level toprovide resources for rent subsidies-the Anti-Displacement Project and tenants have put forth thisstrategy which would enable Boston, Amherst, and Cambridge (andus) to impact local rents and eviction practices in certaintypes of housing-this petition is a request from the municipality to thelegislature to give us power in an area we do not normally havepower-in the Title lX Act of 1994 which eliminated rent control,governmentally involved housing was specifically exempted fromthat act-otherwise, rent control is illegal in Massachusetts-Chapter 40 o allows it under certain circumstances-we ask for the power from the legislature and they review it-the reason for the tight time table is because the legislaturegoes out of session July 15th-the City Council needs to take this up on June 19th beforetheir summer meeting schedule is implemented-usually actions such as this require two readings at theCouncil. To pass this order, a simple majority of 5 votes isrequired for passage, it take 6 votes to agree to suspend therules to eliminate the 2 readings-should local passage on the order occur now, then approved atthe State level, a local ordinance would need to be written toimplement the home rule petition, which would allow for morepublic discussion 3 -there are not many tools available to resolve this dilemma,this being one tool-other discussions are occurring with the owner about otherrefinancing strategies that would retain the affordability.-the home rule petition would not solve the problem alone Partnership members then began asking questions. Nola asked about the definitions. Clare will review them. Yvonne asked if we can choose not to use this later if other more appropriate tools become available, Clare said yes, the City Council can decide not to implement it. She said that this gives us the permission to set something up, should we so choose; it does not say we have to do it. Richard explained the situation with the vouchers. The rental assistance is currently project based. If Spear Management prepays, the vouchers change to a Preservation Program with "enhanced vouchers", which will be offered for a year, with no guarantee of renewal. These vouchers also become mobile and can be taken from the complex by the tenant, which could eventually deplete the subsidies on site. The enhanced nature of the voucher also addresses those elderly and disabled with moderate incomes. Caroline Murray noted that it has been stated by HUD that the enhanced voucher will revert to a regular voucher after one year and no longer assist moderate income households. Attny. McCarthy noted Spear's commitment to retaining the affordability of the units if at all possible. Clare noted that Northampton is in the Springfield standard Metropolitan Statistical Area for purposes of establishing fair market rent levels. As a result, the ceiling for FMR's are lower than the actual real estate market rates. There is a big difference between rents in Hampden County and Hampshire County. Therefore, the enhanced vouchers are good, but the regular mobile Section 8 vouchers are difficult to use in Northampton and will probably have to be used out of town (resulting in displacement). PETITION DISCUSSION/ Clare then walked all present through the actual document. As part of the process, the Boston, Cambridge and Amherst versions were compared and contrasted and the most general sections were pulled out for a local draft. Several questions were asked. Don suggested the meeting be again opened for public comment now that everyone has a better understanding of the document. One question was asked about public housing properties being excluded, the answer, they are governed by other sets of regulations. 4 Yvonne asked what the "negatives" are in adopting this. Richard referred to a letter received from a new organization called HARP (Hampshire Association of Rental Properties), which said that the public should have more time to discuss such an important matter. Clare said that the time table makes her uncomfortable too but we do not always have ideal time frames in which to react. Nola raised the point that private property owners would be/are reacting to the line in Section 3 #3 that addresses non­governmentally owned units and is this necessary to accomplish our goal of protecting expiring use properties. Joel confirmed that it does not add anything that does not already exist regarding tenants rights around evictions. The rationale for inclusion would be to allow for mediation to occur prior to court. Nola felt that removal of that reference would make it more palatable to the City Council and City residents. Other comments made: -is the MRVP eviction process/ safeguards the same as Section 8- yes-how is governmentally involved housing different from otherhousing/-for a 40 year commitment the owner can opt out after 20years/ there was no way to predict 25 years ago what the marketwould be now-why doesn't the City buy it?-the City cannot afford to pick up all the services andprograms dropped by the State and Federal governments-adoption of this tool would give us more time, some options-owner is not interested in selling at this time-the deletion of that Section 3 could be addressed on the floorof Council-a sunset provision was mentioned, but reactivation wouldrequire State legislature approval again Richard then spoke about how additional time was needed for public dialogue and the Partnership had not done the best job it could have to anticipate this occurrence and prepare adequately. He said that the membership of the Partnership had lost its diversity as far as differing points of view and felt additional recruitment was needed. Other comments made: -the Partnership has been monitoring the situation and workingon possible courses of action for yearsmost do not want rent control, preferable solution is increasedsupply of affordable housing and increased incomes 5 - withdrawal of Federal funds is putting us in this situation/ wewill have more time for lengthy deliberation later/ when itcomes time to decide if we will use the tool and determine howit would work (assuming approval at the State level)-by not voting now, that is taking an action/ an option will belost Attny. McCarthy then made the following comments: -it would cost $150,000 to $200,000 to administer this-the impact on real estate development opportunities would benegative-Section 5 is not in the interest of landlords to have an extralayer of mediation which would cost more money-the criminal penalties are insulting-the section that allows for reimbursement of legal expensesfrom a landlord that challenges the ordinance is offensive,particularly with no corresponding relationship-the panic that has been generated is artificial-there are no funds for a non-profit purchase anyway-the City has taken no action on issues at Hampshire Heights Caroline Murray said that they sent a letter encouraging the sale of the property years ago and got no response; efforts have been occurring for awhile to "save" Hampton Gardens (not all of a sudden). Anna Marie Russo (Hampshire County Human Services Department) said that this is an opportunity for us to take a stand. Kitty Callaghan (Western Mass. Legal Services) said that in section 3 #3 the last part of the sentence overreaches the purpose and suggested it be deleted. Diane Andes (Spear Management) said that they should not be penalized for wanting to retain ownership of the property. Mr. Spear built it, managed it, takes pride in the complex and she does not understand why that is perceived as being negative. Nola Reinhardt (Partnership) said that she is impressed with Hampton Gardens, she is aware and complimentary of the diversity of the residents, hopes that this relationship does not become adversarial and that the home rule would not have to go into effect. Don Bianchi (Partnership) said he does not see this as personal, but only a tool to use if necessary. Richard Abuza (Chair) said he is deeply distressed regarding the lack of opportunity for public dialogue around the home rule petition. 3.Votes on the Petition/ Nola Reinhardt made a motion to call for the vote, seconded by Yvonne Freccero. Richard passed the gavel to Clare Higgins, as he felt uncomfortable with the process and time table for action. 6 With no further discussion, Clare asked for the vote to determine if the vote should be taken. The vote was unanimous. Don Bianchi moved to approve Northampton Housing Partnership support of the petition, Yvonne Freccero seconded the motion. During discussion, Nola Reinhardt proposed a friendly amendment to strike the last sentence in Section 3, number 3, page 3, which began ... " except those subsidized units shall be considered governmentally-involved housing accommodations for the purposes of Section 5 hereof, only;". Shelley Abend seconded the motion for the friendly amendment. After further discussion, the vote was taken to recommend to the City Council that the portion of the sentence as described above be stricken from the petition. The vote was unanimous of those voting. ( Richard Abuza, Clare Higgins, abstained ). Don Bianchi then made a motion to approve the petition as amended (with the friendly amendment to strike the last part of the sentence in Section 3, number three, page three), seconded by Yvonne. There was no further discussion. A roll call vote ensued: Alex Ghiselin-yes Peg Murray-yes Yvonne Freccero-yes Nola Reinhardt-yes Shelley Abend-yes Don Bianchi-yes Richard Abuza- abstained Clare Higgins-abstained (she will vote at the Council) Note/ Joel Feldman -has not yet been formally appointed to the Partnership and therefore not a voting member. Peter Frothingham -has been appointed by not yet sworn in by the City Clerk, not in attendance/ not voting Chuck Johnson -absent Laura Baker -ex officio, no longer a City resident, non-voting 4.Adjourn There being no time to discuss additional items, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. The motion to adjourn was made by Nola Reinhardt, seconded by Shelley Abend, vote unanimous. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes July 15, 1997 Members Present: Richard Abuza, Joel Feldman, Don Bianchi, Clare Higgins, Peg Murray, Nola Reinhardt, Yvonne Freccero. Also present, Peg Keller, Sonja Larson, Valley CDC. Members Absent: Shelley Abend, Laura Baker, Alex Ghiselin Chuck Johnson has resigned. AGENDA 1.Public Comment Period/ Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Members discussed their thoughts about the public forum that was conducted about the home rule petition. Members are anxious to hear information about other strategies that people referred to at the forum. Some were disappointed that not more was heard from the business community. Members agreed that additional dialogue to discuss affordable housing and ways to achieve it is needed. It was said that a meeting with the Chamber is in keeping with the sessions we have held in the past with housing agencies to learn more about possibilities for new collaborations and new resources. Peg will set up a meeting for September with representatives of the Chamber. 2.Hampton Garden Expiring Use Update/ Clare reported that the home rule petition passed the City Council at first reading with a vote of 5 to 3 with 1 abstention. There may not be a full quorum at this weeks' meeting for the second reading. Clare may support tabling it until the full Council can vote. Members returned to the discussion of the forum. Some commented that they felt the Partnership's position on the issue was not made clear. Some felt that the point/counter point format that was chosen was confusing. Some felt it was necessary to communicate to the City Council that it was indeed supported by the majority of the Partnership. The Partnership will continue to monitor the situation. 3.Housing Rehab Program/ Sonja Larson of the Valley CDC described the program design for the newly created housing rehab program. Peg Keller and the Preservation Sub-Committee had spent time developing the program 2 concept. We have since contracted with the CDC and HAP to run a pilot program which will combine housing rehab with lead paint abatement. Sonja said that this will allow the CDC to offer more of a continuum of services. Direct financial assistance will be available to very low and low income property owners. Code violations addressing health and safety concerns will be addressed with the overall goal being to preserve and enhance the existing housing stock in the City. Publicity launching the program will appear in August. Intake will be done at the CDC with referrals to HAP for the lead piece and to the Board of Health for septic system repairs (the City has its own funds for that) and everyone over 60 years of age will be dealt with at the Council on Aging through the existing Home Repair program. At the CDC, the intake will be conducted by the 1st Time Homebuyer Counselor. Priorities for selection will be based on level of income, (prioritizing households with 50% of median income); use of program as last resort; and major systems failing or in danger of failing. A clear procedure for marketing and ranking the pool of responses will be developed, rather than a first-come first-served approach to usage of the program. Affordability restrictions will be placed on rental units and the deferred payment loans will be repaid to the city at time of property resale or refinancing. Direct mail outreach to 1st Time Homebuyers in need of rehab funds is being considered. Targeting of neighborhoods is another way to direct the funds. Sonja asked the Partnership to let her know if there are additional criteria that should be utilized in the program design for project selection. 4.Partnership Membership outreach/ Members returned to the discussion of the need to dialogue with the Chamber and discussed the composition of the Partnership membership. Richard also suggested contacting HARP, the new organization of landlords in the area. It was noted that Mayor Ford should write Smith College and have them appoint a member, since Chuck Johnson is no longer with us. Tenant outreach was also noted. Richard offered that a new chair should be selected in January and people should be thinking about that now. He explained that it has been difficult for him to try to represent a perspective that he alone may hold and act as a chair simultaneously, as the Partnership has lost its diversity of viewpoints. 3 Clare expressed her appreciation for Richard's taking the chairmanship for the last three years and agreed that we could do better work with a more diversified base. She noted that we also need a mechanism to pass the gavel when that becomes necessary. She said that it is a good time to do some recruiting as affordable housing issues are coming to the forefront again. s.Project Updates/ Peg updated members on the Vernon Street project, the Verona Street Project and the Ice House Parcel. Charts showing the CDBG funds available for use this year were distributed. It was noted that there is some information out in the community regarding the tenants in the properties owned by Evan Daniels' buildings. It was stated that the Partnership should have a policy regarding awarding funds to applicants who will abide by the Federal Tenant Relocation Act and that displacement should not occur. It should be made clear to applicants that no funds will be awarded until relocation issues are resolved. Members inquired about the status of the Walnut St. project and South Street. It was agreed that John Dunne would be invited to the next meeting to update the Partnership on the projects his agency is implementing. Peg will write a letter. Don agreed to do some research on the Federal Relocation Act and the Barney Frank Amendment and discussion will be held at the Project Review Committee level for draft policy formation. Peg stated that she had been unable to contract with the Housing Discrimination Project due to the fact that funding availability was up in the air in the department. Members said that if it looked like we were not going to be able to award funds this year at all for fair housing work, that we would need to identify alternative ways to accomplish the work. Peg will update at the next meeting. Adjourn/ The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes August 19, 1997 Members Present: Don Bianchi, Clare Higgins, Alex Ghiselin, Peg Murray, Joel Feldman, Laura Baker, Yvonne Freccero, Shelley Abend, Nola Reinhardt. Also present, Wayne Feiden, Planning Director, Peg Keller, Housing Coordinator, David Reed, Union News. Members Absent: Richard Abuza. Call to Order In the absence of the Chair, Peg Keller called the meeting to order. She introduced Wayne Feiden, who reviewed the highlights of the plan for Florence Center. 1.Florence Plan Wayne explained that this plan is part of an overall comprehensive plan for the entire City. The process involves adoption by the Planning Board and then the City Council followed by the implementation of recommendations beginning with the zoning changes. The zoning changes will come back to the Partnership for review. Wayne hopes to have comments for the Planning Board meeting on Sept. 5th to be followed by a Florence meeting on Sept. 8th, Planning Board formal adoption on September 11th and City Council adoption on September 25th. The deadline is not locked in stone but he does not want to lose the current momentum. Don asked about the ramifications of the plan with regard to public policies, allocation of funds, permitting, etc. Wayne said it will have an impact. Wayne described the General Recommendations section which will hopefully provide a long term vision relevant for many years. He reviewed the housing highlights that are pertinent to the Partnership. Items Wayne noted: strong community desire for economic development, business expansion and retention and preservation of existing residential neighborhoods -no expansion of commercial and industrial zoning districtsprotect residential neighborhoods from commercial encroachmentencourage mixed use housing in commercial areas He did say that a major issue was government subsidized housing and the sense that the community bears an unfair burden with regard to the presence of SRO's. 2 He differentiated between affordable housing and mixed use housing, saying the concern is fair share of SRO's and lodging homes. He said they are willing to have them, but are concerned about additional units. Members then discussed what is permitted by zoning. The question was raised that if the policy is to not allocate City funds to additional SRO units in Florence, how do we document the saturation factor. Wayne described the inventory that was researched and map (and included in the plan). Laura stated that there are legitimate reasons why areas get saturated, i.e. near public transportation, etc. Peg and Wayne talked about doing a City-wide inventory and that a methodology will need to be developed to ascertain the saturation factor. Clare said that a perceived burden needs to be compared to numbers lost over the years. Don wondered about the balance between current vocal opponents and those who will need housing in the future. Wayne said the goal is to fit this piece into the City's comprehensive plan without conflict. Given the desire to meet the needs for affordable housing when we can, how do we do this with the resources available, and what are our rules for CDBG allocation; are all things to be worked out. Laura said that if you scatter locations to avoid burdening a neighborhood, then people being housed are without services. Members asked about the definition of "burden". Yvonne asked what impact the planning document would have on the creation of new assisted housing units. Members felt that the plan currently stated that this would be problematic for the community. It was noted that the existing physical structures that were suitable for SRO's might be a self-limiting factor on the creation of new units. Clare stated that we need to be very careful in City documents that propose or actually refer to affordable housing for low income people as a burden and that we cannot close off a section of the City due to a perceived burden. Alex said that the plan needs to reflect neighborhood input, however. Wayne read the vision statement and the term unwanted uses was also troublesome, seeming to equate SRO's with hazardous waste sites. Peg K. noted that in view of the fact that the issue of neighborhood saturation is a heated one, (Hawley Street citing of the Cot Program) it makes sense to take more time developing a position. Clare said we need to know the location of programs and to clarify what is allowed under zoning. 3 It was agreed that members would take more time reviewing the plan with regard to these issues and forward comments to Peg by next Wed. to be incorporated into a Planning Board mailing. 2.CDC Project Updates John Dunne, of the Valley CDC had been invited to give us updates on the Gables condominium project, the New South Street project, Millbank, the HOME projects in Florence and on Walnut Street, and others in the works. Due to the fact that he submitted two requests for funds to the Project Review Committee last week, project updates will be held until next month. 3.Requests for CDBG funds 134 South Street/ Mr. Dunne said this project involves the creation of five homeownership units at this location. Three will be created in an existing building and a duplex will be constructed behind it. Three of the units will be 3 bedrooms and two will be 2 bedrooms. They will be sold to homeowners in the 70-80% of median income range. Joel mentioned that the neighbors are appealing the Planning Board permit which gave the current owner the ability to construct 8 townhouse units. John said the neighbors want the land and will be contributing financially to acquire it. He said he has a purchase and sale agreement and plans to construct early next year. John noted that with 5 units and 4 funding sources it takes alot of time to get it all together. Nola asked about the affordability component. John said that the HOME program comes with restrictions, and anything else we would want additionally will be worked out. Don said he should present us with a model and John said the Partnership should engage someone to develop it. He noted how we went back and forth on the agreement for the Gables and problems arise when legal documents are drafted by amateurs. After discussion, members agreed to pursue hiring someone to give us a menu of mechanisms that we can adapt accordingly to particular projects. Joel offered to contact the Lawyer's Clearinghouse. He said that if we have determined what our long term affordability goals are, it should not be difficult for someone to draft the language. Don said the policy has to relate to marketing. Laura expressed frustration about revisiting this issue time and time again. Clare asked John to ask his Board to outline their goals for affordability. 4 Laura then reported on the recommendation of the Project Review Committee which was to ask the Mayor to "approve the request for $60,000, for the creation of 5 homeownership units at 134 South Street, contingent upon commitment of the HOME funds and construction financing in terms and amounts satisfactory to the Partnership". Discussion followed about whether it should be a grant or a loan, noting that any loan to the CDC would be completed at the time of the unit sales to the homeowners. Discussion continued about whether we were concerned about our pre-sale protection for the $60,000 or long term protection with future homeowners. Long term affordability questions were again raised. Clare recommended that it be approved as a grant and that the long term affordability mechanism be worked out in the future. The decision of the members was as follows: to commit $60,000 to the project with a requirement that in two months, John Dunne come back to the Partnership to report on the status of the other funding sources and that we should send a letter of support to the HOME Program. Clare made the following motion: "To recommend to the Mayor that we commit $60,000 of CDBG funding to the 134 south street project, subject to demonstration of other funding commitments and an acceptable long term affordability agreement." The motion was seconded by Alex, vote unanimous, Laura Baker abstained ( as an ex-officio member). 96 Pleasant Street John reported that he is trying to purchase this 32 unit SRO for permanently affordable SRO housing. He described the Mass. Housing Partnership's Permanent Plus program that is designed to fund smaller projects with only two funding sources, that require little rehab. He estimated that $40,000 would be required for possibly some upgrading and the installation of a kitchen. He requested $100,000 to assist him with the acquisition. He also proposed reducing the total number of units from 32 to 20; eliminating the market rate units and preserving the units that carry the Section 8 subsidies. He proposes to create an annuity fund that will allow the units to remain affordable after the HAP subsidy contract expires in 7 years. If he can put aside $25,000 annually during the Section 8 contract period, he should have $300,000. 5 In his 5 years of managing SRO's now totalling 60 units, he thinks projects work better with smaller numbers of units. He said that the CDC will continue to own this building, so any long term affordability arrangement will work. Laura stated that preserving SRO units at an affordable rate for the long term is a great thing. The issue is the reduction in the number of units. The pro forma seems to work better with 32 rooms, rather than ground floor commercial space, as proposed. The annuity also works better with the 32 rooms. Don wondered about the agency's capability to add ownership and management of an additional SRO to their portfolio and suggested maybe a smaller group form to hammer out management concerns. After further discussion, Clare made the motion "to recommend to the Mayor that the request for $100,000 of CDBG funds be approved to act as a local match to the MHP Permanent Plus program; that any room number reduction be related to an increase in tenant amenities; that a room reduction analysis and management plan be submitted to the Partnership; that no displacement of tenants in good standing occur, and that these plans and conditions be reviewed and determined to be satisfactory to the Housing Partnership prior to issuance of funds." Yvonne seconded the motion, vote was unanimous. Mr. Dunne agreed to submit the information required to the Project Review Committee as soon as it is available. It was also noted that the Committee will need to define what is "satisfactory to the Partnership". We also need to discuss if our policy for use of CDBG funds is to be the first money in to leverage other sources, or do we want the package all together before we commit. Project Review will discuss. 4.Adjourn The meeting was adjourned with a motion from Alex and a second from Joel, at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes September 16, 1997 Members Present: Joel Feldman, Don Bianchi, Richard Abuza, Peg Murray, Jack Hornor, Nola Reinhardt, Shelley Abend, Alex Ghiselin, Yvonne Freccero. Also present, Wayne Feiden, Planning Director; Michael Owens CDBG Administrator; Peg Keller, Housing Coordinator; John Dunne, Valley CDC; Judson Brown, Gazette. AGENDA/ 1.Call to Order Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Members introduced themselves to the new Partnership member, Jack Hornor and the new Planning Department staff member, Michael Owens. Jack described his background and interest in the Partnership. 2.Florence Plan Wayne reminded members that when he came before the group last month, concerns were raised about the statements in the draft plan that referred to "fair share". He said that a new draft has been formulated incorporating comments he received from Partnership members. He said that the comments perceived as negative in the first draft have been revised to be positive and the point that residents clearly are concerned about new SRO's (as opposed to existing SRO's or other affordable housing) has been clarified. Discussion followed about the definition of "existing" and what is allowed by zoning. Yvonne asked about including incentives for the private developer to provide affordable housing, as currently the new units being created are at the high end. Wayne said that in the last three years three incentives have been introduced into the ordinance: -zero lot line development/ requires less frontage/lowers price-density bonus which allows 15% more units with 15% affordable-allowance for co-housing developments which are usually belowmarket rateWayne said that no one has taken advantage of these in that time. He said we need a developer who would want to do it and it would need to work in the financial pro forma. He said that the land that has been developed has been on large tracts where the density bonus would not be needed. The number of zoning districts that permit accessory apartments by right has also been increased. Richard noted that as a board charged with an educational component, we need to pave the way for housing development that is not traumatic for a neighborhood and that consideration of the neighborhood be taken into account when placing programs. 2 He said it should be done proactively. Discussion followed about the total community's fair share and the fact that as a county seat, services are located here so people naturally will be drawn here. Shelley noted that service providers are limited in where they can locate housing due to insufficient funds. She said that she wished the community would respond more constructively by lobbying for increased funding to enable providers to distribute locations more equitably. Richard asked the members if they could endorse the statement before them. Don said he finds it difficult to sanction anything that limits the Partnership's ability to create affordable housing; Yvonne agreed. Joel asked about their (Don and Yvonne's) specific concerns and how they see the statement limiting the ability to do that. Don replied that the concept of fair share implies that this is undesirable housing, that he can see a situation where more SRO's are needed and programs that are well run and well managed should have the City's support to locate anywhere; he feels this statement would preclude that happening. Wayne said the Partnership needs to decide whether the statement it makes is based on consensus and/or advocacy. Jack asked about the definition of· fair share. Shelley said this discussion is alot about class. Richard said that some people are reacting to change and fear of the unknown. He said that there are several ways the Partnership can respond. Nola said that a "no" vote would not reflect the parts of the plan that are supported. Others said it is clear to them the intent behind the statements and they cannot support that intent. Richard suggested a sub-committee form to draft a statement and to circulate it to the members prior to the Planning board meeting next week. Nola made a motion to form a sub-committee and empower them to draft a statement. It was seconded by Peg Murray and the vote was unanimous. The sub-committee of Alex, Peg M. Yvonne and Don will meet Saturday morning. Peg K. will distribute the draft early next week. 3.Valley CDC/ Project Update John Dunne attended the meeting to update members about the current work of the CDC. He began with some background for the benefit of new staff and members: -CDC 10 years old/ originally a project of Casa Latina-cover areas of Easthampton, Hadley, Northampton and Amherst-private non-profit with staff of 7- operating budget of $600,000own and operate 100 units of housing in Northampton and havedeveloped 50 other units in single family housing projects- provide assistance to first time Homebuyers 3 Project updates/ Millbank -failed condo project with 3 buildings/ bought 10 out of 18 units from FDIC with the rights to develop 24 more units on adjacent land/ they were then sued by 4 owners to prevent the additional development in 1988/ so for the amount of the initial investment, 10 units of affordable rental housing were secured at $50,000/unit. Does plan to do 24 more units at some point/ New South street -Open House planned for October 24th/ construction is almost completed. new foundation/ completely rebuilt/ six 3 bedroom units and twelve 1 bedroom units. The $50,000 loan for tenant relocation will have been spent. With all the different funding sources, the $214,000 is the only remaining debt/ CDC will manage the property and plans are to put their office in the basement. Tenants are expected to move in to the building the 1st of November. Tenant selection will be/ those that were relocated, Jessies House families, waiting list for all others (screen applications, check references, etc.) Project is two months ahead of schedule and under budget. Gables -bought from MHFA through a special program that involves a cost write-down/ 3rd bedroom was added/ trying to sell to 1st time homebuyer/got extension from lender to April 1st. Unable to sell due to: narrow window of income eligibility condo is not a popular housing style for young families complexity of deed restrictions Of the two families most seriously interested so far, they balked at the deed restriction. He said in a worst case scenario, our money will be returned and the unit will be sold at market rate. N.Main Street -original intent was to sell a 2 family condo to a first time homebuyer with the HOME and CDBG funding/ HOME changed their minds/ current plan is to rent both units once Dr. Brummer moves out/ bottom unit currently rented to family needing a handicapped accessible unit/ could sell to one homeowner with rental unit/ so far/ one 4 bedroom unit of affordable housing has been created. If property stays rental, Land Trust model may work well for permanent affordability. Walnut Street -part of a group of properties that the CDC had optioned. HOME funds have been secured for this property. Building will be empty; CDC moving one to South Street and Fleet moved the other/ 134 South Street - a technicality prevented the closing on 9/15. CDBG funds aren't needed yet as the owner is financing the acquisition. 2 women living there will be staying. 3 units will be rented. Members discussed the time table. 96 Pleasant Street -John says he cannot do anything, the Mayor has not agreed to release the funds to him. 4 State Hospital Property -is working with a private developer on plans for the State Hospital. Federal Street House -John wondered what the process is, as he is looking for a site. In summary, John said that the market is changing and this requires the organization to have the approach of acquiring properties when the opportunity arises and work out all the pieces later. 4.Other Business Nola said that it is important to continue the dialogue with area housing providers that we started in the spring, and to meet with the business community about their ideas on creating affordable housing. Peg K. gave an update on the Hampton Gardens Task Force that will begin meeting at the end of the month that includes representatives of the Partnership, Council, tenants, owners and the business community. Shelley said that it is important for the Partnership to play a role in these community-wide discussions and community education should be on the agenda for next month. Nola said she would like the Partnership to go on record and say that the house on Federal Street should not be razed ( in view of the shortage of affordable housing in the community). s.Adjourn The meeting concluded at 9:15 p.m. The motion to adjourn was made by Shelley, seconded by Don, vote unanimous. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Minutes October 21, 1997 Meml:>ers Present: Richard Abuza, Jack Hornor, Peg Murray, Yvonne Freccero, Laura Baker, Alex Ghiselin, Nola Reinhardt, Joel Feldman. Also present, Peg Keller, and Stephen Chaput, 96 Pleasant Street Property Manager. Meml:)ers Absent: Shelley Abend, Clare Higgins, Don Bianchi. AGENDA/ 1.Public Comment Period/ There was no one present to address thePartnership at this time. 2.Sub-Committee Reports/ Preservation Richard reported on the sub-committees' progress with the Home Repair Program, the LeadSafe Northampton Program and the newly created Housing Rehabilitation Program. The Lead program completed 6 units during the pilot program this past year and outreach was conducted to many additional families and landlords. The lead abatement piece is now combined with the intake occurring at the CDC in conjunction with the housing rehab program. After advertising, the CDC has selected 5-6 households for the first round of the housing rehab program. Specs will be written up over the winter and construction will occur next spring. Since many of the projects that this sub-committee has prioritized over the last several years are being addressed/ expiring use, housing rehab, lead paint, outreach to the landlord community, the committee is investigating new project ideas. Discussion followed about the aging population and the prospect of having elders donate properties for use as affordable housing. Reverse mortgages were mentioned and accessory apartments as an income stream for elders was noted. Richard said the Preservation Sub-Committee will discuss these ideas further. Project Review Laura and Peg reported that the Alliance for Sober Living had requested $5500 to update the heating system at 18 Summer Street. The HCAC Weatherization Program was mentioned as providing funding for heating systems also. Peg said she would research this as an option for people/organizations in the future. Otherwise, this application is going through the process. 96 Pleasant Street/ Laura reported that an application for funds has been submitted by Stephen Chaput of Real Estate Management Inc. for the purchase of the building. The Committee reviewed the application and asked the Mayor for guidance about whether or 2 not she is willing to expend funds on this project at this time. Peg reported that the Mayor is willing to expend some funds for a proposal that meets the goals of the Partnership. Laura said we also need to know from Mr. Chaput, what will happen to the affordability of the units when HAP contract expires in 8 years. Due to the fact that we have two proposals (this one and the Valley CDC's), Laura said we should identify our preferred scenario and see who can provide it. Stephen Chaput was asked to comment and he said that a large amount of funding is required to cover the $80,000 annual amount provided by the subsidy. In excess of one million dollars (at 5%) is necessary to provide $75,000 for a building valued at $425,000. Laura described how the proposal from the CDC works by providing large amounts of money up front, with little debt. savings are then accumulated during the remaining life of the HAP contract which can keep the rents low beyond that time period. Joel felt that it was important to make a recommendation to the Mayor regardless of her other funding priorities in order to state a position on this application. Nola said that the preservation of SRO units is a priority, both proposals are lacking; the CDC proposes a reduction in the number of units and Mr. Chaput's does not address long term affordability. She wondered how we could state our position other than saying we support the retention of the 32 units with long term affordability as a goal. Peg Murray responded that we should make it clear to the applicants what we need. Richard said we should make it clear to the Mayor that the preservation of these units is important to the Partnership. Peg M. also requested more information about the amount of funds available for us to disperse. Peg M. made a motion "to pursue the goal of preserving the 32 units as affordable housing with the inclusion of a long term affordability mechanism." Jack seconded the motion. During further discussion, it was noted that our preferred scenario shall be communicated to each applicant and other CDBG regs that come into play should be stated such as upon resale, some mechanism to retain the affordability should remain with the property. The vote was unanimous in support of the motion. Richard complimented Mr. Chaput on the role he has played in improving the management of the property. Peg K. will send letters to the applicants and encourage them to progress with their application submissions. She did relay that the Mayor's priority for funding is for Hampton Gardens at this time. 3 2.Other Issues Smith College Parking Lot Richard reported that a residential structure located at 50 West Street has been purchased by Smith College. The plan, evidently, is for the building to be demolished for construction of a parking garage. It contains 7 units of affordable housing. It was determined that Nola Reinhardt would meet with Ruth Simmons to see what the plans are. Members discussed following up with a letter asking the College about replacing the units at another location, etc. Open House for New South Street Richard reported that an open house and dedication for the CDC building will be held Oct. 23rd at 4:30 p.m. Nola asked about the long term affordability agreement we have in place for our $100,000 contribution. Peg will check on this. Federal Street House Peg asked all members to drive by the house at 45 Federal Street which is now owned by the City. It needs to be demolished or moved to accommodate compensatory drainage storage for the new high school ball fields. An option may be to move the property up to the lot on Vernon Street since the Smith Voe project is on hold. Peg asked for help visualizing whether or not this house may be appropriate for that site, or if anyone has ideas about another site. List of City owned properties Yvonne asked again for a list of properties to be used as a resource. Peg will pursue. Market Square Peg reported that a property at 24-26 Market Street, developed 12 years ago by Janet Gezork and Austin Miller, is in danger of losing the 6 housing subsidies they have there. It is a mixed income and mixed use property with HAP subsidies. It is a mini-expiring use situation with many of the same elements of Hampton Gardens. Peg and Wayne have been advocating on their behalf with the Mass. Development Financing Agency (formerly Mass. Government Land Bank) to refinance the project at a rate that will enable them to retain the HAP subsidies which have not had a rental increase through the Mass. Rental Voucher Program for 7 years. This project embodies many neighborhood integration goals and makes sense to preserve. 3.Project Priority Recap/ Peg reviewed the wish list from 1993, noting that many of the issues (such as lead paint abatement, outreach to the landlord community, creation of 3 bedroom units, housing rehab, expiring use) are being successfully tackled. She noted the progress on the project priorities identified last fall. 4 -Her. Inc./ SRO preservation/ project seems to be back on trackfinancially/ CDBG funds used for resolution of a sewer back-upto assist with fiscal emergency-Habitat/ still looking for project opportunities-Necessities/ no word from their Board about progress on a newfacility -Hampshire Heights/ meeting with the Housing Authority scheduledfor action plan development-creation of 3 bedroom units/ the Gables, N. Main Street, WalnutSt., New South Street, the Housing Authority property-housing rehab/ program launched with HAP and the CDC-long term affordability models LTAMs The major areas in need of additional work include: -Hampshire HeightsFair Housingprivate sector incentives for aff. housing development/dialogue with developers and ChamberLong term aff. modelspermanent housingSROs/ creation of new, maintenance of existingcommunity education Members discussed the idea of a Developers Forum which would assemble private sector developers to ascertain what incentives they need to create affordable units. Questions and format will be developed in December, forum to be held in January. Kack, Yvonne, and Peg M. will pull this effort together. Jack offered his services in the area of community education. It was suggested that a letter go to the Planning board asking for their assistance in being pro-active with developers. Nola brought up the situation at the Jackson Street School which is finding itself approaching a percentage of minority enrollment that would deem the school racially unbalanced. She said this has resulted from the clustering of affordable housing and this should be considered in placement plans for new units. Peg K. suggested Erin Kemple be invited to the November meeting to discuss the Housing Discrimination Project's plan for implementing fair housing outreach and education for this fiscal year in Northampton. Now that the Partnership is serving as the Fair Housing Committee, this issue needs to be addressed. s.Adjourn/ The meeting, which convened at 7:10 p.m. concluded at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller NORTHAMPTON HOUSXNG PARTNERSHIP Minutes November 18, 1997 Members Present: Richard Abuza, Don Bianchi, Yvonne Freccero, Peg Murray, Jack Hornor, Joel Feldman, Laura Baker, Clare Higgins. Also present, peg Keller, and Erin Kemple, Housing Discrimination Project, David Reid, Union News, Stephen Chaput, 96 Pleasant Street. Members Absent: Shelley Abend, Nola Reinhardt, Alex Ghiselin. AGENDA/ 1.Public Comment Period/ Richard called the meeting to order at7:10 p.m. There was no one present to address the Partnership. 2.Erin Kemple/ Housing Discrimination Project Peg introduced Erin Kemple, Director of HDP. Peg reviewed that the Partnership has the Fair Housing responsibility for the City and asked Erin to come and discuss the work plan from the CDBG contract for this fiscal year. Erin began with some background regarding HDP. Comment highlights: -private non-profit organization addressing fair housingtake and process complaints from people and do follow-uplast two years have focused on education and outreach to stopdiscrimination before it startsthey do trainings for housing providers and community residentsshe said that we are required to create an Impediments Analysisas part of our Consolidated Plan reporting to HUD and fundingthe activities identified in the Analysis is an eligible CDBGexpense-Northampton has been committed and pro-active for a long time/not a newly expressed interest due to mandate from Feds Erin walked members through the Scope of Services in the contract and members made comments. Some of those were: -HARP (Richard's newly formed property owners association) cannow play a role in information dissemination for HDP/ membersdiscussed the workshops held this past year and noted thatturnout increases when joined with an additional topic/ Richardsaid getting the info. out to a broader base should be thisyears focus with the topic of tenant selection highlighted.workshops with homebuyers are occurring with HAP/ Peg M. saidthat getting applicants into the bank is problematic/ internalmechanisms exists for self testing financial institutions/ wewill be venturing into the fair lending realm this yearmembers discussed data collection/ the Home Mortgage DisclosureAct does not reveal reasons for denials/ i.e. credit history,etc. 2 -the Federal Reserve/ Boston did a study in the early 1990'sthat showed with all components equal, discrimination wasevident -Laura also suggested that lenders of color canenhance the applicant flowErin has found that sometimes MHFA loans are not encouraged inreal estate transactions due to the delay on the commissionpayment and the extra paperwork involved-Laura suggested the HCAC tenant and landlord handbooks beupdated and redistributed. Erin stated that sponsorship of events by the Housing Partnership would give credibility to the effort and lower suspicion. She is working on a series of regional seminars that she will be seeking sponsorship for. She also asked for ideas for fair lending approaches ( the idea of a bank sponsoring an event for other lenders was suggested). She also asked for thoughts on additional places appropriate for material distribution or trainings and for names of business leaders. Ideas mentioned: -add the SRO's-Head Start parent groups-Bridge Street School parents group-Early Intervention directors meet monthly-school principals meet monthly-Richard's laundromat-N. Housing Authority Section 8 landlord list Testing was discussed. Laura noted that it is a critical component that no one else in the area conducts. Education only goes so far. Erin said that they have a three year grant from HUD that funds the testing component, so there is not much billed to our contract. It is difficult to carry out if the apartment is no longer available, which happens in Northampton. She said the landlord is not contacted prior to a test, but is prior to going to court. The par�iculars of the case determine whether recourse is pursued with HUD, MCAD or the court system. Richard said the Partnership should see the quarterly reports from HOP in order to understand the number and nature of the complaints from our community. It was also noted that our CDBG contracts should contain references to the Fair Housing laws. Peg asked about the response from area media when they were approached last year. Erin said the Gazette did not agree to a meeting or to running an op ed piece. The Union News did both. She said they will be approached again in reference to April being Fair Housing month. Richard asked her to begin the effort before April to give us time to take action if she is refused again. Erin was thanked for attending and for the good work of the organization. 3.Project Updates/ Developers Forum 3 Jack reported for the committee consisting of himself, Peg M. and Yvonne. They are doing data collection to support the case that affordable housing is needed. He got information from the Franklin Hampshire Realtor Association about the prices of homes sold in the last three years. They were going to pursue info. about rentals but Peg K. said she has to do it for other purposes. Members then discussed the rental vacancy rate survey being undertaken with Smith College. Jack said that January will be too soon to -hold the forum with the developers. Discussion followed about additional incentives that might be made available to developers. Don suggested lower mortgage interest rates for those developing affordable housing. Peg K. will call David McKutcheon who is proposing a townhouse development off of Bridge Road and the developer from Central Mass. doing aff. housing, to attend a meeting of the Partnership. 96 Pleasant Street Peg K. reported that Mr. Chaput had asked to come before the Partnership to ask for a response to his request for $100,000 to take to his meeting with representatives from the Mass. Housing Partnership on Thursday. Mr. Chaput addressed the Partnership and explained the Perm Plus program that he is investigating with MHP. Highlights: -the minimum# of apartments that would have to be keptaffordable for the life of the MHP loan is 20% = 7 unitswe would want to restrict a higher number of unitswe asked Mr. Chaput to describe what happens to the peoplepaying low rents when the HAP subsidy expires/ Mr. Chaputresponded that this answer does not exist/ he said if there isan opportunity to reapply for subsidies at any time, he woulddo thatmembers asked for an operating budget that shows how the incomewill cover the debt service/ to know if the income will besufficient for the property to be able to continue to house anSRO population/ what will the rent structure look like at theend of the HAP contracthe needs to tell us what will happen with the end of thesubsidymembers asked to see whatever operating pro forma is created bythe MHP staff 4 -Mr. Chaput felt he did bring the Partnership an affordabilityplan/ and at the end of the contract with HAP he would even outthe rents to carry the building/ we asked then what happens tothe tenant that cannot pay that rent/ he says there is noanswer and we said there is a need for a guarantee in order tojustify expenditure of public funds-Richard spoke to the Mayor about the importance of this projectand that it needs to be evaluated on its own merits-it was agreed that if MHP develops a pro forma Peg will send itout and assemble a meeting of the Project Review Committee assoon as possible/-members expressed a willingness to communicate to MHP throughPeg on Thursday that we are interested in supporting the bestproposal for this property. Jack thanked Mr. Chaput for his efforts to date. Smith College Parking Garage Richard reported that Nola had spoken to Ruth Simmons and the Trustees have approved the site for the parking garage. Through Richard and Nola and Clare, the message has been conveyed that they have a responsibility to the existing tenants and to the City to ·address this situation. Ruth Constantine has agreed to come talk with the Partnership to discuss possible avenues to pursue in the future in order for Smith to honor this responsibility and create a proactive housing strategy. Members discussed how this might happen. More discussion will follow. 4.Adjourn/ The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1997 Members Present: Richard Abuza, Don Bianchi, Yvonne Freccero, Peg Murray, Jack Homer, Clair Higgins, Alex Ghiselin, Nola Reinhardt. Also present: Michael Owens, David Reid of the Union News, John Dunne, Mike Lehman, Joanne Cambell, Sonia Colon, and Wendy Foxman of the Valley CDC. Members Absent: Shelley Abend, Laura Baker, Joel Feldman. Agenda: Public Comment: Richard called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00pm. John Dunne introduced those persons attending the meeting from the Valley CDC. Presentation: Florence Zoning Proposal Richard introduced Wayne F eiden of the Office of Planning & Development. Wayne proceeded to review the background of the proposed zoning changes which are part of the Florence Plan. The changes were submitted to the City Council last week. Wayne noted that the Partnership would have 30 days to review the proposed changes and make comments and/or recommendations. Wayne then proceeded to review those sections of the proposed zone changes that may effect the housing stock and/or housing production within the City. Topics included allowing artists to reside in their studios within industrial districts, definition of a dwelling unit, residential uses on the second floor of retail establishments, dimensional regulations, lot size averaging, frontage requirements for townhouse developments, minimum lot sizes and parking requirements for various housing types. The Partnership recommended that OPD consider revising parking requirements for SRO' s to bring them more in line with the requirements for elderly and disabled housing. Project Updates: Verona Street: Wayne Feiden of the OPD gave a brief history of the Verona Street site including previous CDBG allocations to purchase the property, current plans for capping the former landfill and a recent City Council vote dedicating the area for affordable housing production. Wayne then spoke about the plan for reaching out to the neighborhood to hold a design workshop to determine what will be developed at the site. The issue of the existing house at the site was also discussed including 1 its current condition and potential for rehabilitation. Wayne requested that the Partnership provide some guidance in terms of what they believe is the best use of the property regarding affordable housing. Wayne also requested participation of the Partnership at the design workshop to be held with neighborhood residents sometime in January or February of next year. Partnership members agreed to participate in the design workshop and felt that use of the site for affordable housing was certainly appropriate. It was felt that the type of development and reuse of the existing house were unknowns at this time and would be addressed at the workshop. Partnership members familiar with the site and a proposed development of affordable housing there ten years ago noted that it may be an uphill battle in getting neighbors to accept the concept of affordable housing. It was stated that a development similar in character and unit density of Meadowbrook Apartments should be avoided. Partnership members inquired if a rehab cost estimate was available for the existing house at the site. No estimate was available, however, the house is in decent condition but must be addressed soon as it is quickly deteriorating. Partnership members asked that the City provide an estimate as to the time it will take to cap the former landfill and determine if this area will be permanently fenced off or will be available as open green space. Wayne stated he would look into these issues with the Board of Health. Wayne also stated that a decision regarding the existing house would need to be made by next March or April. Discussion also related to the type of housing mix appropriate for the site including only affordable housing vs. mixed income housing. At the conclusion of the discussion the Partnership named a Subcommittee to work on the above issues. Members of the Subcommittee include Richard, Alex and Peg. Vernon Street: Wayne Feiden of the OPD gave a brief history of the Vernon Street site and reviewed the fact that the project fell apart after the City's contractor was unable to get the foundation in for September 1997. Wayne noted that Peg Keller is researching other options for the parcel including moving the Federal Street house, which the City owns, to the Vernon Street location. At this time the City is generating computer images superimposing the Federal Street house on the Vernon Street lot to determine if the structure fits the character of the neighborhood. Wayne noted that Smith Voe students will be seeking a project for Sept 1999 and that the only exception to this project going forward would be if the Federal Street house was determined to be appropriate for V emon Street. Gables Update/ Long Term Affordability Deed Rider: Sonia Colon of the Valley CDC reviewed the current situation with the Gables condo unit. CDC has been unable to sell the unit for a variety of reasons, one being the current form of the deed rider. Apparently interested buyers are discouraged from pursuing a sale after their lawyers review the deed rider. The Partnership feels the deed rider, in its current form, does not serve the intended purpose of a long term affordability mechanism. The current document is complicated and contains confusing and unclear language. Sonia reports the other obstacle in selling this unit is the limited market for families interested in purchasing a condominium. Partnership members 2 asked what the cost of maintaining the unit was for the CDC. John Dunne stated it was about $700 a month. The Partnership requested that the CDC provide a copy of the HOPE program deed rider and a revised deed rider for the Gables condo to Peg Keller ASAP. The Partnership will then review both documents and will attempt to reach a resolution at the earliest possible opportunity. The Partnership stated that for the Gables unit a simple agreement that achieves long term affordability will be the goal. The Partnership also stated that the Long Term Affordability Sub Committee would continue to meet to address this issue. Members felt that Don's memo was an excellent starting point as it laid out the concepts and goals of the subject in a comprehensive and understandable manner. 96 Pleasant Street: Mike Lehman of the Valley CDC proceeded to explain the revised project scheme for 96 Pleasant Street and reviewed the 21 year operating pro forma. Mike also reviewed the differences between the current proposal and the previous proposal of the Valley CDC. Basically the current proposal preserves all 32 SRO units, proposes a 750 s.f. building addition at the rear to create common areas for tenants, calls for 20 hours of on-site management per week and calls for the SRO outreach project to provide 12 hours per week of on-site assistance to tenants. The Partnership asked if the proposed building addition would require zoning relief. John stated that "yes" it probably would require zoning relief. The Partnership asked if funds had been secured for tenant services. John stated that no funds had been secured and that the CDC would look to a variety of sources to accomplish this component of the proposal. The Partnership asked if the private donor funding had been secured. John stated that "no" this source of funding had not been secured. Regarding long term affordability John stated that without subsidies the lowest rent possible would be $200 per month. He believes the CDC can get site control for the amount referenced within the proforma. The Partnership then referred the proposal to the Project Review Sub Committee. 134 South Street: Mike Lehman of the Valley CDC reviewed the proposal for 134 South Street. The changes from the previous proposal include a reduction in the number of units, no Get the Lead Out funding, and a revised budget keeping the per unit project costs under $125,000. The proposal requests $80,000 in CDBG funds for the project. John asked ifthere was still a commitment of $60,000 to this project. The Partnership informed John that this commitment was part of the previous proposal which has been withdrawn by the CDC. The Partnership then referred this proposal to the Project Review Sub Committee and asked that Peg Keller contact John's state funding source to inform them that the City has great interest in the project and is actively reviewing the proposal. Smith College Dialogue: Nola reported that she had met with Ruth Simmons of Smith College to discuss the proposed West Street parking garage. Ruth reported that the College is going forward with the project and 3 hopes to begin construction next June/July. Ruth is open to discussing replacement of the lost housing stock and believes the purchase price Smith paid for the property could be the amount given back to the City for production of new units. Ruth stated that the College had no interest in designating an individual to serve on the Housing Partnership. Ruth is planning on attending the next meeting of the Partnership in order to discuss ways the College can compensate for the lost housing on West Street. The Partnership stated they would discuss the context of that discussion over the next thirty days. Developers Forum: Jack reported that progress has been made in terms of identifying issues for the developers forum and provided some notes on topics discussed to date. He requested that Wayne Feiden be asked to attend the next Partnership meeting to discuss the planning for this forum. Hampden Gardens: Richard reported that the Mayor's Task Force continues to meet on a regular basis and that no final plan for preserving affordability at Hampton Gardens had been reached to date. At which time a final plan has been formulated the Partnership will be brought into the mix for input along with tenant groups etc. Adjournment: There being no further business Richard adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:30pm. Respectfully submitted Michael Owens 4