HousingPartnershipMinutes1998NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes January 20, 1998
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Jack Horner, Joel Feldman, Don Bianchi, Clare Higgins, Peg Murray, Yvonne Freccero, Nola Reinhardt. Also present, John Dunne (Valley CDC), Stephen Chaput (Real Estate Management), Michael Lehman (Valley CDC), Phillip Robinson and Joan Archambault (Honor Court), David Reid (Union News), Drew Astolphi (Anti-Displacement Project), Peg Keller (City), Ruth Constantine, Ann Wright and Bill Brandt of Smith College.
Call to Order/ Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and opened the floor for public comment.
1.Public comment Period/
- 96 Pleasant Street/ 4 tenants came forward to speak on behalfof Stephen Chaput's request for funds to purchase the SRO. Allspoke highly about his management capability and said that he isa friend in addition to being a great manager. Richard thankedthem for their comments.
-Home Rule Petition/ Drew Astolphi spoke on behalf of theHampton Gardens Organizing Committee urging endorsement of theproposed petition by the Partnership. He said that it has beenreintroduced at the City Council and referred to the Partnershipfor our review. It contains two changes from the initial version,the eviction protections were removed and it strengthened theincentives for property owners to enter into agreements with theCity to maintain affordability.
He hopes for passage in a timely way in view of the fact that Meadowbrook is also coming up. He encouraged the members to reach out and educate the new City Councilors about the issue. Richard thanked him for his comments and said the Partnership will be discussing how to proceed at the next meeting.
2.Discussion with Smith College/ Richard welcomed therepresentatives from Smith and thanked them for agreeing toparticipate in a dialogue about their involvement in the area ofaffordable housing. The impetus for the meeting came from Smith'splan to demolish a building containing 7 affordable housing unitsfor the construction of a parking garage for the college.
Peg Keller gave an overview of the work of the Partnership over the last several years and the areas in greatest need of attention. Smith reps were asked if there were any areas in which they could see the College becoming involved. Some of the discussion was as follows:
2
-Richard/ market forces, if left alone, will not produce thediversified community that we desire/ loss of existing units ismore precious than dollars to create new ones/ we try to manageexisting resources-Nola/ Partnership has seen how difficult it is to create newhousing/ Habitat has been trying for years {unsuccessfully) tofind land on which to develop affordable housing/ amount ofsubsidy required to rehab or produce new unit of $20-30,000 is nolonger enough-one tact, developing interest in the private sector-encourage local property owners that have owned for a long timeto sell units to non-profit entity to preserve affordability-Richard asked Smith reps to give a sense of how they want towork together, time line, constraints, resources, etc.
Ms. Constantine responded that they are aware of the severity of the loss of the 7 units/they are interested in hearing ideas and strategies from us as to ways to mitigate that loss/ the building will come down. She mentioned that they have asked the Valley CDC for ideas as well. Any approach will be from their educational mission. They are interested in housing for their students, not drawn to creating housing for the community at large. However, proposals they do find compelling, they would consider investing. They are looking for connections.
Don asked if they gleaned anything from the presentation in which they would be interested. Ms. Constantine said only indirectly. They invested in the New South St. project because their piece leveraged so many other resources.
Clare offered that an operating stream to an organization to allow them to do the work would be desirable. Many possibilities exist in the community for educational collaborations.
It was noted that most of the students are housed on campus. There is a lottery for seniors that allow them to go off campus and the Ada Comstock and graduate students are in the community. A need for 2-3 bedroom housing for Ada's has been identified. Ms. Wright noted that there are approx. 260 Ada's.
Peg M. asked about moving the Cot Program to the campus for an educational experience. Ms. Constantine responded that they have no spare buildings. When asked about raw land, it was reported that they have the Ft.Hill campus on Lyman Street and occasionally they receive a bequest which they sell for market rates. They usually are not in a position of holding much noncampus related property.
3
Nola said that it would be interesting to pursue paid internships with non-profits working on housing issues, but the immediate issue is how to work together to replace the 7 units.
Ms. Constantine said that we and the CDC have more expertise and they would like our ideas. In answer to a question about their parameters, she responded that they could give money outright, which would be more likely than Smith building 7 units of housing. They would consider a $20,000 subsidy amount for units created or exceed that amount as a loan. She said that she thinks the $80,_000-100,000 range is feasible. Upon knowing the parameters, she needs to consult with the Trustees which meet in February and May, although she can communicate with them monthly if necessary.
With regard to time table, she said the units will be lost in the next 6 months. The units being lost are 6 efficiencies and 1 one bedroom. It was agreed that the Partnership would develop some recommendations and present them to Smith College representatives in the near future. All were thanked for coming.
3.Project Review/ Funding Requests
134 South Street Don reported that this proposal from the Valley CDC was restructured from the one that was reviewed and approved last fall. He introduced Mike Lehman to describe the project. Mike said that the earlier project was rejected by the HOME Program but now the project is being divided into two parts and HOME funds are only being requested for the new construction in the rear. (the per unit project costs for the rehab of the existing units in the front building exceeded HOME's limits).
The MHFA Get the Lead out Program has also run out of funds so the CDC is asking for lead paint abatement funding from CDBG. John Dunne noted that there is a lot of subsidy in the project due to the high cost of acquisition. Don said the Committee feels that $100,000 of CDBG funds to create 5 units of affordable housing is a good use of public resources. There are some concerns: 1. affordability mechanism/ we are working on a model to protect our investment and still provide Valley with the ability to market the unit, 2. the proposed selling prices for the units are high and the deed restrictions will complicate the sales.
Nola said that the private donor listed in the funding sources should be encouraged to increase their subsidy to lower the unit sales prices and make a more viable project. John said that the location of these units is more desirable than the Gables, so he does not anticipate problems.
4
Nola said she does not want the Partnership to have to revise the affordability mechanism later if they cannot sell the units.
Don made the following motion: "to recommend to the Mayor that she approve $100,000 in a grant or loan to the Valley CDC for the project at 134 South Street, contingent on the following: -review of final rehabilitation cost breakdown,-concurrent closing of the HOME Program funds, the privatedonor contribution and the construction loan,-an affordability mechanism satisfactory to thePartnership"
The motion was not seconded. Further discussion followed. John said he needs a strong letter of commitment. Clare said the funds can be committed but not released until other sources are committed. Peg said it needs to be a deferred payment loan rather than a grant. John explained that a deferred payment loan would be negated when the units are sold. Don made a new motion II to recommend to the Mayor that $100,000 be committed to the Valley CDC in �he form of a deferred payment no interest loan be made for the project at 134 South Street contingent on the following: -review of final rehabilitation costs breakdown-an affordability mechanism satisfactory to the Partnership,-closing of the HOME funds in the amount of $60,000,-firm commitments of other necessary funding"
The motion was seconded by Nola, no further discussion. Vote infavor was unanimous.
It then became clear that the private donor listed in the sources and uses chart is Smith College. It was decided that further discussion needed to occur regarding whether or not to recommend to Smith that they get involved in this project and to what extent. Discussion will occur at next month meeting.
Honor Court Phillip Robinson and Joan Archambault described their project. The house at 34 Barrett Street was purchased a year ago through a HUD foreclosure. The plan is to house 7-8 men at that location. Residents will have stayed at least 6 months in the program. The house is being gutted and will contain 4 bedrooms. The Building Inspector has toured the property and everything is on track. Rents will be set at $270 inclusive. Clare made a motion to "recommend that the Mayor approve as a no interest deferred payment loan the amount of $25,000 for rehabilitation of the property at 34 Barrett street to be repaid upon sale of the property or if the use of the property changes, for the maximum allowable term under the law". ( term to be identified prior to signing the loan agreement). Jack seconded the motion, no further discussion, vote unanimous.
5
96 Pleasant Street Don reported that the committee had met with Stephen Chaput and that he is now working with the Mass. Housing Partnership as an additional potential funding source. Don said that issues have been identified and worked on and the committee is trying to gather information to see what is required to increase the number of affordable units and duration of the restriction beyond what was initially proposed.
Mr. Chaput distributed the latest pro forma from the Mass. Housing Partnership which is for a 20 year time period. The pro forma predicts additional years of affordability beyond the expiration of the HAP contract in 7 years. The restriction from MHP is in exchange for funds 10 units are restricted for use by those with less than 50% of median income. Don asked Mr Chaput to come back to the committee level to review the pro forma in detail and strategize how to keep the highest number of units affordable for the longest time period possible.
4.Long Term AffordabilityDon also reported that the Long Term Affordability Sub-Committeeis working on revising the Gables Deed Rider. Richard said thegroup has the authority to work that out with Valley CDC. Donsaid that additional work needs to occur on the boilerplate forfuture projects but progress is being made.
s.Election of ChairRichard stated that he is willing to remain as chair for the sakeof continuity to see some efforts to completion, however it is upto the members. He said he advocates for the selection of a vicechair. Clare made a motion to elect Richard chair, seconded byJoel, vote unanimous. Richard nominated Don as vice-chair,seconded by Jack, vote unanimous.
6.Developers ForumYvonne reported that the Developers Forum sub-committee hasdrafted a letter that she would like feedback on from themembers. They would also like ideas about who should be invited.Plans are to have the discussions in mid-March.
7.AdjournThe meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes February 17, 1998
Members Present: Peg Murray, Yvonne Freccero, Clare Higgins, Joel Feldman, Laura Baker, Don Bianchi, Richard Abuza. Also present, David Reid (Union News), Stephen Chaput (Real Estate Management), Drew Astolphi (Anti-Displacement Project), Fran Vokeman (City Councilor), Michael Lehman (Valley CDC), Peg Keller (City Staff).
Excused/ Jack Horner
1.Public comment Period: Chairman Abuza called the meeting toorder at 7:30 p.m.
-Drew Astolphi from ADP reported that people living at HamptonGardens participating in the Organizing Committee are beingthreatened by the Management. He said that people have been toldthey cannot move to certain units unless they get off thecommittee. He said staff stand outside their meetings and takenotes about what tenants are in attendance. He said the activityhas gotten bad in the last week and they have hired a lawyer. Heasked if there was anything the Partnership could do such as senda letter. Richard thanked him for his comments.
2.Project Review/ Request for funds
Don reported that the Committee had been prepared to make a recommendation to the Partnership regarding the application of Stephen Chaput for the purchase of 96 Pleasant Street. He said that the applicant is not in support of the recommendation, so another sub-committee meeting would be held to see if an agreement can be reached.
3.smith College/ Discussion of Funds
Nola summarized the previous discussion by saying that the College is willing to contribute a pool of funds to housing activity in the City and is looking for input from the Partnership as to how to go about doing that. Smith has asked the CDC for ideas too. Nola received a call from Ruth Constantine saying that the Union News story stating that the funds had been committed to the 134 South Street project was incorrect.
When asked, Michael Lehman confirmed that there was not a firm commitment from Smith. Other comments made by members: -attempts have been made for years to get Smith involved-Smith is not interested in placing a representative on thePartnership as a member-it is hoped that a long term commitment could be discussed
2
With regard to Smith's involvement with the 134 South Street project, Clare stated that she thinks we should use CDBG funds to fund the project at the total level of subsidy required and take more time to discuss use of the Smith resources.
Richard said that he had communicated with Ms. Constantine who indicated that there was no urgency to our input and it was acceptable to her that we work through our process.
Laura noted that funds from Smith could be used for activities that are not Block Grant eligible. Smith would not be bound by Davis Bacon or State wage rates, either. Discussion followed about possible uses, such as Hampton Gardens, operating funds for shelters, etc.
It was decided that a sub-committee should form to identify creative ways to utilize the Smith funds. Also, a meeting with the Mayor should be held to hear her thoughts on this topic.
Regarding the 134 South Street project specifically, members of Project Review wanted more subsidy in the project to write down the unit purchase prices. The size of the units, the fact that there will be three units in the existing house, the deed restrictions and the small segment of the population that will meet the income requirements, speak to the need for as low a purchase price as possible to insure marketability.
Michael said that the numbers do not work for a rental project. The suggestion was then made that the Partnership contribute $160,000 to the project rather than the $100,000 requested. Michael said he is less concerned about the proposed unit sales prices as proposed. He said that in conjunction with the Soft Second loan product, people should be able to afford the price.
He said that the project will be phased, to avoid risk and if all the pieces do not come together, a mixed income approach will be considered.
Clare said that if we want to have a full discussion of what to do with Smith funds, we need to fund the project fully now and if we replace those funds with Smith dollars later then that is acceptable.
Nola suggested looking at the total amount of CDBG funds remaining ($310,000) evaluate other possible projects and prioritize them.
3
Michael Lehman said that the CDC is down to the wire and needs to proceed. It was agreed that a small group would approach the Mayor about a revised request for $160,000. It was noted that there is an existing recommendation for $100,000 about which we have not heard (from the Mayor). It was concluded that this is a good project and we support the need for $160,000 worth of subsidy. Discussion followed about increasing the amount of CDBG contribution to $170,000 in order to further write down the ultimate unit sales prices.
Joel made the following motion: "to have a number of members meet with the Mayor to articulate our recommendation, which is to fund the 134 South street project over two fiscal years; $100,000 in this fiscal year and $70,000 in the next, if the second installment is needed." Yvonne seconded the motion, vote was unanimous. Nola, Don, Laura and Richard will attend the meeting to discuss the 134 South Street project and the potential uses for the Smith College funds.
4.Home Rule/ Discussion
The Home rule petition has been reintroduced at the City Council. Some revisions were made from the original file, the eviction protections were removed because they are covered in other documents, and the potential for exemption for those with affordability agreements with the City has been added.
Joel encouraged the process to move forward, as many units are potentially impacted. Don felt that our position did not have to wait for the conclusion of the negotiations with Spear Management because other properties were impacted as well. Richard asked Clare what the Partnership's role is this round regarding community education. It was noted that the new City Councilors should be brought up to speed. The letter from the AntiDisplacement Project to HARP (Hampshire Association of Rental Properties) was discussed.
Drew clarified that it was not ADP's request that the Partnership wait on their deliberation until after the meeting between HARP and ADP. Clare suggested that the regularly scheduled meeting in March include a public hearing, then the Partnership would make a decision. She clarified that the petition is not going to the Ordinance committee (it is not an ordinance), so only the Partnership has formal review outside of the Council.
Peg stated that she had heard from community members who preferred a panel type of forum to allow for a variety of viewpoints to be expressed. No one picked up on this idea.
4
Therefore, the public hearing will be held the 17th. Peg will book the Council Chambers. The business part of the meeting for NHP will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room and the public hearing will be down in the Chambers at 7:30 p.m.
s.Developers Forum/ letter finalized, small group will meet withthe invitees on March 12th. Yvonne reported that whatever islearned from the interaction will be forwarded to thePartnership, but it was felt that a small group setting (ratherthan with the full Partnership) would be more conducive to frankdiscussion.
6.Gables Deed Rider/ the Long Term Affordability Mechanism subcommittee has been working with the CDC to merge the Hope 3 deedrider with ours in order to simplify the process. Work willcontinue and conclude shortly. Work on the generic boiler plateshas advanced and will continue.
7.Adjourn
The meeting concluded at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully, Peg Keller
Members Present:
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes March 17, 1998
Richard Abuza, Joel Feldman, Jack Horner, Clare Higgins, Peg Murray, Yvonne Freccero, Nola Reinhardt, Don Bianchi. Also present, Peg Keller, Stephen Chaput, John Dunne, Michael Lehman, Dave Reid, Bill Dwight.
Member absent: Laura Baker.
AGENDA/
1.Call to Order/
Richard called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. No public comment was heard.
2.Project Review committee Report/ 96 Pleasant Street
Don reported on the status of the application from Stephen Chaput for $100,000 of CDBG funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 96 Pleasant Street. He said the Committee is recommending the proposal for two reasons: to preserve 32 rooms as SRO housing for 20 years, and to preserve 20 of those rooms for very low income as a hedge against future rent increases. The agreement obligates Mr. Chaput to seek and accept project based subsidies in the future, should they be available and he is required to contribute $4,800 dollars annually to a reserve to cover subsidies for an additional three years beyond the HAP contract.
Don said that the members feel it is in the City's best interest to make this agreement. Richard asked for further discussion. Mr. Chaput mentioned that he wants it documented that the Partnership will have no intervention in the budget arrived at through his application and award process with the Mass. Housing Partnership and that management will have discretion within those appropriate budget line items. Don said that MHP has yet to underwrite the loan and the operating reserve will be within their (MHP's) control, so it was reasonable to have the Partnership agree to that stipulation. The exact proposal with several stipulations was circulated to the members prior to the meeting.
Mr. Chaput offered to report to the Partnership periodically about the status of the financial operation of the property. Richard said that would be helpful. Don summarized that this is a deferred payment loan and that this offer of funds is good for 90 days. He said that the agreement will be reviewed by the City Solicitor.
2
Clare made a motion to "recommend to the Mayor that this request for $100,000 in the form of a deferred payment loan for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 96 Pleasant Street by Mr. Stephen Chaput be approved with the conditions outlined in the proposal". Jack seconded the motion, no further discussion, vote was unanimous. Clare noted to Mr. Chaput that the final decision rests with the Mayor.
2.Proposed Zoning Revisions/ Members reviewed the packet ofproposed zoning changes that were presented by Wayne Feiden,Planning Director, several months ago. Clare noted that thePartnership had approved the lot size averaging previously. Thechange to the minimum lot size in the more urban residentialdistricts was supported as a way to increase affordable housingsupply in developed areas.
Discussion followed around the issue of mixed work and living space in the industrial areas proposed. Clare felt that additional discussion needs to occur about the code issues, but the Partnership should endorse the proposal on the premise that it creates more affordable housing. Peg Murray suggested that action on the Keyes Street rezoning should wait until after the court case.
Richard summarized that there is general support for the zoning changes that impact affordable housing options. Clare made a motion to support the revisions, seconded by Nola. The vote was unanimous, a report will be forwarded to the Planning Department.
3.Report on Meeting with the Mayor re: 134 south street andSmith College involvement/Don reported that he, Nola, Richard and Laura met with the Mayor. She had already agreed to approve $160,000 for the project, so the issue became the additional $10,000. She agreed to the expenditure of the $170,000 over two fiscal years with the condition that the $10,000 be applied to reducing the ultimate sales prices of the units. It will be left to the CDC to determine how that amount will be apportioned to the units.
With regard to the contribution from Smith College, the Mayor suggested that it be used to seed a fund to be utilized for affordable housing efforts. Members then discussed the formation of a trust for this purpose. Peg Murray agreed to work with Peg Keller to research models. Richard will follow-up with Ruth Constantine and communicate that we will be back in touch when we have specifics. Peg will also talk to John Musante and the city Treasurer to discuss formation of a trust. The Mayor suggested working with the Community Foundation of Western Mass and look for additional funds. Jack said that if there is a fundraising component he could assist after June.
3
Don suggested that the Long Term Affordability Mechanism Subcommittee tackle this also.
4.Report on the Developers ForumJack reported that there is interest among local developers todiscuss this issue with members, but only one was able to attendon the 12th. Members did learn a lot about what a developerconfronts when developing a project, and what hinders thedevelopment of affordable units. Members will convene a secondround of meetings_ and provide a full report to the Partnership atthat time.
s.Discussion of Public Hearing Format/Richard and members discussed how to organize the public hearingon the Home Rule Petition to be held at 7:30 p.m.
6.Adjourn/
This portion of the Partnership meeting was concluded at 7:25 p.m. in order to conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers about the Home Rule Petition.
7.Public Hearing/ see minutes of public hearing attached.
s.Partnership Meeting reopened at conclusion of Hearing
The Partnership meeting was reopened at 8:10 p.m. in order to deliberate about the Home Rule Petition and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Richard began by reading a letter from the Chamber of Commerce requesting that the Partnership co-sponsor a forum with them to discuss the issue. Richard decided to hold the response to this until each member had an opportunity to comment on the petition.
Peg Murray/ in favor of the petition to use only under extreme circumstances, it does provide leverage, impacts a large number of units and a small number of property owners
Yvonne Freccero/ in favor, no news on progress in other directions, need this as a tool to move forward
Nola Reinhardt/ supports the petition, not the ultimate solution to affordable housing problem in Northampton; this has been a time bomb that should have been anticipated 20 years ago, we needed to do more to prepare, this does not address the lack of affordable housing or the mismatch between incomes and the cost of housing.
4
Info. she received from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission states that Western Mass. will see high growth in the coming years, which will make the situation worse. We need to move ahead with other solutions in addition to the Home Rule.
Don Bianchi/ supports the petition, he read the preamble, we struggle to create a handful of units so we must act to avoid losing 169, the scale of that potential loss is huge, it is much less costly to preserve existing units than to create new ones, this does provide an incentive for owners to negotiate, supports the approach of creating housing with rent restrictions.
Joel Feldman/ supports petition, without any action rents will increase and people will be evicted/ if we do not act we are saying that is OK, we can't preserve the diversity at Hampton Gardens unless we act, units have been under rent control for the last 20 years and· have not deteriorated, his experience in Boston does not show that rent control leads to property deterioration either, he is not aware of progress made in the negotiations with Spear, we need the rent control to preserve a higher number of units than an agreement would.
Jack Horner/ supports petition, as evidence of City's effort to handle the urgency of this situation, this gives us a tool, he selected this community for its diversity
Clare/ described the revisions that had been made from the earlier version, the elimination of the eviction protections and the potential for exemption if an agreement is reached with the City. She noted that this is not something that could have been foreseen 20 years ago, if the market had not inflated the landlords would remain involved, the Federal government has created the situation.
Richard/ as a member of the Hampton Gardens Task Force, apologized for his inability to speak to the progress, which is confidential except through the Mayor, as designated spokesperson for the effort. Richard then made several comments about the lack of scrutiny that occurred around the proposal and that the process has been based on inaccurate myths. He offered to author a minority report to be submitted to the Council in addition to a majority report. Members said that spelling out specific details of implementation could occur later in the process, and should not preclude forward movement at this time.
Don made a motion to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Home Rule petition as drafted. Jack seconded the motion, no further discussion, vote 7 in favor, 1 opposed.
5
Clare said we have a week and a half to submit the reports to Council. Peg will draft the majority report based on the Partnership's comments, anyone having additional comments can feel free to submit them directly to Council members.
With regard to co-sponsoring an event with the Chamber, the consensus was willingness to participate in an event to accomplish further opportunities for community education and comment, but no wish to co-sponsor (in view of the fact that a vote has already occurred). The Chamber should schedule it and if they use a panel format, several members said they would be willing to express the views of the Partnership in that manner. The point was made that the invitation from the Chamber came after the Partnership meeting at which it was decided to hold the public hearing this evening.
ADJOURN/ There being no further business to discuss, Jack made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Don. The meeting concluded at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller
PUBLIC HEARING NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP March 17, 1998 Minutes
Purpose/ Northampton Housing Partnership held a Public Hearing on this date in the city council Chambers to solicit public comment on the Home Rule Petition introduced at the City council on January 15, 1998
Call to Order/ Housing Partnership Chairman Richard Abuza called the hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. He described the charge of the Housing Partnership, established ground rules for how the hearing would be conducted and introduced the Partnership members.
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Peg Murray, Yvonne Freccero, Nola Reinhardt, Clare Higgins, Joel Feldman, Don Bianchi, Jack Horner.
Attendance: 20 members of the public were in attendance, see attached sign in sheet.
comments were as follows:
Drew Astolfi/ Anti-Displacement Project/ effort began 10 months ago, since then, 52 news articles, television coverage, 3 Partnership meetings, 1 City Council informational hearing, 1 City Council vote, 1 public hearing at the high school, 1 meeting with the Chamber, 2 rallies, 2 petitions, meeting with HARP (Hampshire Association of Rental Properties) have been held/ the current invitation from the Chamber is an effort to stall the passage/ enough is enough, move this forward to the City Council, urged passing it tonight.
Bill Dwight/ sponsoring City Councilor/ ready to move forward, ready to act, sufficient knowledge base in the community to proceed.
Roy Martin/ citizen/ encourage taking it to City Council without further delay.
Jim Wolejko/ Hampton Gardens Organizing Committee/ frustrated with delay, thought they had enough support last round, then it died, please vote in favor and send it to city Council for Thursdays meeting.
John Andrulis/ Housing Authority Commissioner/ rent control leads to housing deterioration, seen/read about examples in England, Canada and New York City/ leads to slums, it could happen here. Short term good long term brings serious danger, the problem of people having low incomes won't be solved with rent control.
2
Anna Marie Russo/ citizen/ studies she has read do not show deterioration, she supports the petition and the right of the neighbors to have affordable housing. She looked in the paper tonight and saw rents of $500 -$785 for 1 bdm., $580 -$900 for 2 bdms., $650 -975 for three bedroom apts. Salaries do not allow for access to those apartments. Do not delay.
Syndi Steele/ Hampton Gardens resident, spoke in favor of moving the petition forward
Frances Volkmann/ City Councilor/ will welcome the receipt of the petition, will support it and hope that it does not have to be invoked/ hopes we can provide employment with a living wage (as overall alternative) /sees this as an insurance policy.
Karen Bellavance-Grace/ citizen/ she has heard about the arguments against affordable housing due to the (perceived) negative impact on property values, she chose to live in Ward 1 and feels government intervention to strive to insure service sector workers being able to live in the community in which they work, is justified/ her business and family would suffer if this housing were lost/thanked the Partnership for having this forum.
Michael Lehman/ citizen/ as a taxpayer, wants a bigger bang for his tax payer buck to have subsidized housing last as long as possible/
Cristina Rosa/ Hampton Gardens resident/ spoke through a translator and said she has lived at the complex two different times, things have gotten worse since she lived there before.
John Dunne/ reason to go forward to the City Council, good tool to have during negotiations with owners.
Adjourn/ Richard Abuza asked for further comments, hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller
______________ 6\b(:� -li'\ � �
__.
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes April 14, 1998
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Jack Horner, Yvonne Freccero, Peg Murray, Don Bianchi, Carl Geupel. Also present, Peg Keller and David Reid, Union News.
AGENDA
1.Call to Order/ Richard called the meeting to order at 7:10p.m. He welcomed the new member, Carl Guepel. Members introducedthemselves and declared their other organizational affiliations.
Membership Update/ Shelley Abend and Alex Ghiselin have resigned. Shelley is expecting twins and is taking a leave from work. Alex has recommended someone from the Zoning Board to replace him. Peg will follow up. Laura Baker has also submitted a letter of resignation, although from an ex-officio position since she no longer lives in town. All members will be greatly missed and will be thanked for their contributions over the years.
Home Rule Petition Update/ Members reported that the final Council vote will be delayed 2 weeks until the full Council is in attendance. Copies of Richard's minority report were distributed.
Smith College Update/ Peg Murray has spoken with the Auditor and Treasurer's offices regarding setting up a housing fund within the City accounts. Members described for Carl, the background behind this effort. Peg was thanked for her efforts and will continue when we know how the Mayor would like to handle the Smith contribution.
Single Site committee of Next step/ Yvonne reported that the committee is pursuing several options including a modular unit . . for next years Hampshire Interfaith Cot Program. She is also examining a list of tax delinquent properties. The question of owning vs. renting remains. Yvonne likes the concept of a multiprogram effort in one building. Don said that there are State funding programs for a purpose such as this. He mentioned DHCD's Housing ·Innovations Fund and the Consolidated Facilities program. He said sources can be combined for acquisition and rehab.
Nola asked about Feiker School. Yvonne responded that it has been looked at, although would probably cost too much to renovate for temporary usage.
Richard spoke about needing to articulate the need for rental housing, which is not as politically acceptable as homeownership.
2
Members agreed to investigate all City owned properties not only for potential use by the Cot Program but for affordable housing generally. Yvonne concluded by saying it is hoped that we can generate incentives for private developers to create homeownership units and reserve CDBG funding for rental units.
Members revisited the need to contact other Boards about being proactive with developers to add affordable units to their new developments. Members also expressed a desire to meet with the city Property Committee of the City Council. Peg K. is beginning to research linkages and set aside programs that exist in other communities. Peg K. will write letters to the Boards.
Housing Drawdown Update/ Peg Murray explained the chart that she has devised in conjunction with the CDBG office that shows the status of projects and funds. Don suggested adding number and type of units. She also described a project control cover sheet that could present information at a quick glance.
Vernon street Update/ Peg K. summarized the results of the neighborhood meeting at which property abutters gave their blessing to move the Federal Street house to that location. They did request to see a site plan that addressed parking and house siting once the project sponsor is identified.
Verona Street/ Peg K. reported on the results of that neighborhood meeting and the next steps involved. Don suggested that the RFP for a developer not lock in a number of units to allow for some site development flexibility. He said verbage such as "compatible with existing neighborhood density" should suffice. He spoke about the Partnership being the advocates for those in need of affordable housing in the future, and how that needs to be balanced with concerns of a neighborhood.
Fair Market Rents/ Nola spoke to the issue of landlords not being able to receive market rate subsidy reimbursements for assisted units due to Northampton being included in the Springfield Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. Members agreed that we should investigate what the legislative procedure would be to change this.
Long Term Affordability Agreement/ Don and Peg have finished work on the boilerplate document we will offer developers for homeownership units. It is modeled after the State's HOME Program deed rider. It will be circulated for discussion prior to the next meeting. Peg K. thanked them for their diligent and thoughtful work on this project that is critical to our charge.
3
Members briefly discussed the apartments above Everybody's Market, and how Peg K.'s time might be increased.
RFP for Regional Section 8 administration/ Peg K. informed the group that Hampden Hampshire Housing Partnership and the Northampton Housing Authority are responding to a State issued RFP for Section 8 admin. Members felt they were unable to recommend one agency over the other for a letter of recommendation. Short of interviewing consumers, it is difficult for members to ascertain who might offer a better program. Peg will research if possible.
Adjourn/
The meeting concluded at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes May 19, 1998
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Yvonne Freccero, Peg Murray, Don Bianchi, Jack Horner, Nola Reinhardt, Clare Higgins. Also present, Michael Lehman, Valley CDC, Peg Keller.
AGENDA/
Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Joel and Carl have been excused.
Public Comment
Michael Lehman of the Valley CDC invited the members to the 10th year celebration of the organization to be held May 21st.
Project Updates
South Street Michael confirmed that the Valley CDC has withdrawn from the project and the property has reverted back to the former owner. He said costs became too prohibitive to continue. Peg asked for an official letter for the file.
96 Pleasant Street Mr. Chaput has not expressed a willingness to proceed in light of the recent vacancies at the property. It was suggested that the date be checked on the Mayor's approval of funds, as there was a 90 day expiration period.
Discussion of the Vacancies in the SRO's Members discussed the phenomenon and highlighted the following: -there is still a dip in the elderly population accessing publichousing, therefore vacancies that exist in public housing arebeing filled by younger disabled-some of the private SRO's experiencing vacancies are not veryaffordable-some are not in· great condition physically-not all the SRO's are experiencing vacancies/ which is worthunderstanding
Members then discussed their stance on the general issue of SRO preservation and the fact that 129 Pleasant st. is coming on the market (58 units of SRO housing). It was expressed that we need to address rehab and subsidy funds for private owners. Tax breaks were suggested but property taxes are regulated at the State level.
2
Peg distributed copies of information about the Community Preservation Act which is a statewide effort to lobby for a local option real estate transfer tax. Don suggested contacting the Vermont Housing and Land Trust to investigate this further.
Members then discussed the Northampton State Hospital property and the type of housing that will be created there. Clare reported that the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Planning Board will have most of the responsibility for overseeing the housing piece but the Partnership can participate in the community planning process that will occur when the developer is selected.
Nola noted that what is built there will dictate what we should spend other funds on off-site. Clare said applications for tax credits or for Federal funds will involve the Partnership.
Long Term Affordability Mechanism
Don summarized the general framework of the boiler plate model we are trying to create for homeownership projects. He said we are proposing to adopt the State HOME program deed rider which seems to be clear and r�asonable, with some minor revisions.
Discussion followed regarding the time period the document should be in effect, the amount that should be subject to recapture, the definition of eligible purchaser and eligible purchase price. Peg will send out copies of the document for comments. Issues that remain are the time period of 15 years, (does it start over with each subsequent purchaser, or is it null after 15 years), the need for a tight time line for turnover, how is the marketability impacted in the 2nd vs. the 14th year, etc.
Don said that the purpose of the document is to prevent speculation. Clare felt that the owner should be allowed to rent the property in the last 5 years if that became necessary. The issue of economic empowerment was raised. Clare noted that low income families are not those who tend to flip properties for a fast profit. Richard said that a lot of work has been done, members should review the document. He said that another model could be developed that allows for more appreciation and economic empowerment.
Fund Requests
Peg updated members of a request from the Alliance for Sober Living for funds to replace windows, the roof, purchase a key system and structural repair. She asked members how they felt about more than one request from an applicant.
3
(We already gave them a $50,000 grant for acquisition and $8,500 for a heating system. Members noted that they were aware there was some risk in that it was a newly formed volunteer Board undertaking the project. Members felt they should build in a capital reserve and that a formal rehab estimate should be assembled prior to our funding them. This way the full scope of the work needed will be known and a capital reserve can be developed accordingly.
Richard called for a vote after hearing consensus from members to grant the request. Clare made a motion to recommend to the Mayor that she fund the request of the Alliance for Sober Living (for $23,707) for property improvements, Don seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Members also requested that a conversation be held regarding their long term needs.
With regard to the application for funds for lighting for Hampshire Heights, it will be reviewed by the Project Review Committee.
Peg discussed a property that seems to be potentially available to the City for redevelopment. The location was discussed and members gave the go ahead to pursue development as affordable housing. It was noted that there is a boarded up property on Crescent Street. Peg will research.
Richard's Idea
Richard described his idea which involves setting up an organization/mechanism through which older property owners wishing to divest themselves of multi-family properties, can do so at a reduced rate, earn a tax credit, and the property can be made permanently affordable. Members thought it was a valid proposal that should be pursued. Clare said we need to determine the critical mass required to operate the program, the money needed for core capacity, it could be a public private partnership. It was noted that there will be a massive transfer of wealth in the next 20 years. A dialogue with the CDC was suggested to ascertain what they think they might need to implement this idea.
Adjourn
Due to the lateness of the hour, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes
June 17, 1998
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Don Bianchi, Yvonne Frecerro, Peg Murray, Carl Geupel, Nola Reinhardt, Jack Horner. Also present, Peg Keller, Celia· Miller (SMOC). Excused: Joel Feldman, Clare Higgins.
Call to Order/ Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. No one was present for the public comment period.
Guest/ Richard introduced Celia Miller to the Board. Members introduced themselves. Celia described her job and project. Highlights included: -she is working under a statewide grant secured from HUD underthe auspices of the Southern Middlesex Opportunity Council. Thefocus was to create regional teams to do employment counselingand housing search for homeless people. Celia works full-timedoing the employment piece for Northampton. Housing search isaccomplished through the shelters themselves.she is looking for job opportunities for people she is workingwith, who possess a wide variety of skills and knowledge/ sheis hoping to educate as many people as possible who can thencreate job linkages.she works through Grove Street, Jessie's House, Necessities,Honor Court, Cherry street, Safety Net, the Florence Inn, theCot Program and the SRO's.she works with individuals to develop employment plans and runsgroups every Monday morningthe grant supplies some funding for tools, education andtransportation
Richard asked what some obstacles might be to someone getting work. Celia responded- lack of self esteem, isolation, criminal histories, irregular work histories. She said people are not always uneducated. Transportation is a big problem. Bus service drops off when the students are not in school sessions.
Discussion followed. Celia also noted that there are not many job openings here to begin with and that most are discovered through networking. She is currently working with people who have backgrounds as a nurse, a chef, heating and plumbing, janitorial, builder, tile work, etc. She asked members to think about possible opportunities they may be aware of.
2
Richard summarized that hearing Celia speak does break stereotypes and he encouraged her to contact the Chamber to advise them of the skill pool she is trying to place. It was reported that efforts of this kind were having difficulty accessing the Chamber officials.
Peg described the continuum of economic development assistance that has been developed. Two years ago the HUD Business Incubator project was funded which is using Cafe Habitat as a model for training opportunities. This level is for the segment of the homeless population that is interested in developing their own small businesses. The Transition to Work Project just funded by HUD getting underway this fiscal year is geared towards job readiness training in the shelter system. This curriculum will focus on developing basic skills to achieve economic empowerment.
Celia's job will interface with these two programs, providing one on one assistance and follow-up, a critical component to success. Richard said it is important to have a place to be contacted by potential employers, voice mail with mail boxes, would be a valuable service for homeless people. All thanked Celia for attending.
Project Updates
96 Pleasant Street Peg reported on her conversation with Mr. Chaput held earlier in the day. He said unless he can rectify his current vacancy problem and identify regulations that prevent people from breaking his lease and going elsewhere, he will not be purchasing the building. Don noted that the private sector is having difficulty maintaining affordable housing and covering operating expenses. He said it continues to point to the need for the City to build the capacity of non-profits to play this role.
Verona Street Peg reported that the contract is proceeding for the demolition of the three existing structures. The capping plan for the landfill is also moving ahead. A contract will be signed soon for the Wetlands analysis. A communication to the neighborhood will be issued shortly. A scenario of 3-5 units in no more than 4 structures seems likely.
Vernon Street The Request for Proposals is still being developed. The neighborhood gave their blessing for the house at 45 Federal Street to be moved to the 70 Vernon Street lot. They asked that a
3
site plan be shown to them once the developer is selected and the site analysis done, as they are concerned about driveway access and parking.
Hampton Gardens Some members expressed frustration about the lack of information they have had about the agreement reached with the property owner. Richard and Don said they were under a gag order during most of the negotiation but it could now be discussed. Richard outlined the basic project parameters. Nola reiterated that the Fair Market Rents will make it problematic for families to relocate to other apartments in Northampton, should they desire to move from Hampton Gardens.
HUD SuperNofa Application Peg reported on her progress facilitating the Three County Continuum for HUD homeless assistance funding. Regional dialogues have taken place to identify needs in the area. The results of those meetings were reported out to the larger group, then projects that have been proposed were ranked based on the prioritized needs. The application is due August 4th and will include about 2.5 million dollars worth of projects. Implementation is underway for the 1.4 million dollar award we received last year.
Review of Hampshire county care continuum
Peg reviewed the newsprint sheets that were compiled during the Hampshire County regional dialogue discussion that was held for the HUD SuperNofa Funding. Peg asked members to digest the information on needs to help decide how to target CDBG funds this coming fiscal year.
Nola said that the past priority of creating larger units (3 and 4 bedrooms) for families does not seem to be the top need anymore. Peg agreed that more information was needed in order for the Partnership to set priorities for funding. Peg said the discussion will be continued at the next meeting. (sheet summarizing the needs is included).
Other Business/ Long Term Affordability Agreement Peg circulated the HOME document that is used at the State level. She has not yet incorporated the revisions that will retrofit the format for our purposes. She asked members to review this agreement and bring comments to the next meeting.
4
Partnership Status Discussion followed about the need for increased staff time and the importance of bringing closure to such tasks as the affordability agreement, which has been discussed for many years. All agreed that the number of members needs to be increased. Peg relayed that the Mayor is desirous of filling the remaining vacancies with representation from the business community.
Reforming the sub-committees was suggested. The basic charge of the Partnership was discussed in terms of the level of detail that is expected from the Board. Some feel that general direction at a policy level is appropriate, others feel more inclined to delve into project pro formas, etc. It was suggested that information circulated ahead of time would allow more decision making to occur at meetings. More discussion followed.
Adjourn Due to the lateness of the hour, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller
Members Present:
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes July 21, 1998
Richard Abuza, Clare Higgins, Carl Geupel, Peg Murray, Jack Horner, Joel Feldman, Yvonne Freccero, Anna Marie Russo.
Call to Order/ Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Members welcomed new member Anna Marie Russo, a former employee in the Hampshire County Human Services Department, now masters student at UMass in Regional Planning.
Public comment Period/ Peg Murray explained that she has been participating in the fundraising effort known as Shelter Sunday. They are looking to create an allocation committee and wondered if any Partnership members would be willing to sit on the committee. Members discussed the option of having an informal liaison vs. a formal representative that would act on behalf of the Partnership. Jack volunteered to attend the meetings at which policies will be developed and he will report back to the Partnership as things progress.
Hampton Gardens Agreement/ Peg Keller had circulated the outline of the agreement that has been reached between the City and Spear Associates, owners of Hampton Gardens. Richard described the basic elements of the agreement. There is a targeted affordability focus for a range of population segments for a 15 year period. The actual term will be for as long as the affordability fund lasts.
Joel suggested th�t the tenants need to be educated about the agreement and the Northampton market. He said as part of our role as community educators, we should go to the complex and outline what the agreement entails for the residents.
The question of who monitors the agreement and billing mechanisms were raised. Peg K. and Richard responded that this all needs to be worked out and will occur after more pieces fall together, such as Spear securing funding from MHFA, the City securing a Section 108 Loan Guarantee from HUD and an award from the State's HOME Program.
The first piece, to create an Affordability Fund, is the business of this meeting. Peg said she will try to get Gerry Joseph of Community Builders, the City's consultant during the negotiations with Spear, to come to a Partnership meeting to explain the agreement in detail.
2
Housing Trust Fund Ordinance/ There have been three pieces to this process to maintain affordability at Hampton Gardens; the agreement with Spear, the resolution to create a fund and the ordinance to create the fund. The way the resolution was structured was discussed. With regard to monitoring the compliance with the agreement, Carl said that the owner will be required to declare whether or not they are in compliance and would be inclined to tell the truth or risk tax penalties.
Clare said that the Trustees of the Trust will promulgate regulations to accomplish the purposes established in the ordinance. She said the details of particular projects may differ, so the ordinance will tend to be more general.
Yvonne then asked what the relationship of the Trust would be to the Partnership. This prompted a discussion of the purpose of the Partnership and its role in the community. The issue was raised as to whether the· creation of yet another "board" was increased bureaucracy and a duplication of effort.
Clare described how she felt the functions of the two efforts are different; the Partnership being at a policy level and the Trust being a monitoring agent for long term investments. Members felt that the overlap occurred in the area of project review and setting housing goals for the City. The Powers and Duties section sounded similar to Partnership functions. Clare said the Partnership could produce an annual report setting priorities that would guide the Trust activities.
Clare noted that the Trust would remain out of the political realm should a Mayor with different philosophies be elected. Jack Horner proposed an amendment that would have applications to the funq be reviewed by the Partnership.
The actual motion was as follows " the Housing Partnership, having reviewed the proposed ordinance, expressed the view that the Trust, shall as part of operations, refer all proposed projects for funding, to the Northampton Housing Partnership for review and recommendation." The motion, made by Jack Horner, was seconded by Yvonne Freccero. During further discussion, members wondered if they could select their own members, or should they be selected by the Mayor.
Clare then revised Jack's motion to include a new section called "Procedures". The vote taken was in favor, with one abstention and the Chair did not vote.
Don made a motion to remove the phrasing about the mayoral appointment and replace it with "the Housing Partnership will appoint 2 members". This motion died for lack of a second.
Clare suggested adding language that allows the Mayor to appoint based on nominations by the Partnership. This motion was seconded by Anna Marie. During further discussion it was noted that a new member should be appointed if they are no longer a member of the Housing Partnership. Richard agreed that it should be communicated to the Ordinance Committee that the Composition section be revised to require Housing Partnership members to be active members and that there should be a mechanism for termination and reappointment of a Partnership member in case of vacancy. Jack Horner made the motion to that effect, seconded by Yvonne. The vote was in favor with 2 opposed and 2 abstentions.
Don's motion was revisited and discussed further (to have the Partnership appoint their own members). The vote was 3 in favor, 2 opposed and 3 abstentions, therefore, the motion did not pass. It was felt that members could informally nominate candidates for the Mayor's review and approval.
co-Housing/ Don noted that a co-housing development is occurring in the City and it would be good to have a dialogue with the core families and developers to see if some units could be made affordable with the use of Block Grant funds. Peg said she would follow-up.
Jack again mentioned the Hampton Gardens education issue. Members agreed that tenants need to understand the ramifications of the change in status and what they can expect with the voucher system. It was noted that the Housing Authority will be involved.
Adjourn/ The meeting concluded at 9:00 p.m. with an agreement to discuss organizational issues at the next meeting.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes September 15, 1998
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Jack Hornor, Joel Feldman, Yvonne Freccero, Peg Murray, Don Bianchi, Nola Reinhardt, Clare Higgins. Also present, Peg Keller.
Members Absent: Carl Geupel, Anna Marie Russo.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. There was no comment from the public.
Members did ask about the status of the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance that went before City Council with some amendments proposed by the Partnership. Peg K. reported that the Ordinance Committee did pass one of the two amendments along, and the second one was brought up at the Council meeting. Both suggestions were incorporated into the final language.
Discussion of organizational Issues
Richard thanked Yvonne and Peg M. for the work they did in preparing a format for sub-committee activity. Peg reviewed the mission statement and goals and objectives from 1992. The responsibilities were discussed, with needs assessment functions being identified as a priority.
Yvonne said that these charges should be updated and revised prior to any membership drive. Jack suggested a nominating process for leadership, job descriptions and a protocol for recruiting be developed.
Richard reminded members about the sub-committees of the past; Preservation, Project Review, Finance, Zoning and Fair Housing. Don noted that he likes the pro-active approach, saying that the Project Review Committee function is reactive.
Joel noted that the Fair Housing function was not listed as a current task and suggested it could stand alone or be a part of the work of all the committees.
Don suggested that this committee depiction yields a flow; the needs assessment brings information in, it goes out through education and outreach and translates into projects. Jack suggested that committees could do their work, the information would be circulated ahead of time, so all the info. is not repeated at the full Partnership meeting.
2
Members felt that more financial information updates would help keep track of expenditures during the year. Increased press coverage and a monthly column were also discussed.
Richard summarized that all members agreed that reorganization is needed, that community education is a priority and proposed using this approach (chart enclosed) for a trial period.
Membership was discussed further. Jack suggested a Nominating committee, Joel suggested potential members come and observe, Clare reminded members that these are Mayoral appointments and this process should be discussed with her.
Other points made included; the Chair should be on the Administrative Committee, some members may serve on the full Partnership only, i.e. City Council reps. Members will sign on to the Committee of their choice, Peg K.'s attendance at subcommittee meetings, will not be required. Groups will meet before the next meeting to further discuss the tasks of each committee.
Assignments were as follows: Yvonne-Needs Assessment Richard- Administrative Jack-Education and Outreach Peg-Admin. or Project Review Don-Project Review with interest in Needs Assessment Clare-City Council liaison Nola-Needs Assessment Joel-Administrative Carl-may have an interest in Project Review Anna Marie-may have an interest in Education and Outreach
It was determined that the deadline for a full Partnership mailing was the 2nd Wednesday, committee information will be needed by Friday before. For the October 20th meeting, members would like to receive the info. by the 16th, need submissions by the 13th.
Misc. Updates
Peg K. updated members about various housing projects in the community. The Cot Program is still looking for a site for this season, the Housing Trust is ready for donations, John Dunne has left the Valley CDC, Habitat for Humanity has been selected to do the Vernon Street project, analysis of the Verona site continues.
Adjourn The meeting concluded at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes October 20, 1998
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Carl Geupel, Don Bianchi, Joel Feldman, AnnaMarie Russo, Peg Murray, Yvonne Freccero, Nola Reinhardt, Jack Horner. Excused, Clare Higgins. Also present, Peg Keller.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. No one was present for the Public Comment period.
AGENDA
Members expressed interest in discussing the Valley CDC, the Hampton Gardens Agreement, how to be proactive around properties that become available through tax default and whether or not subcommittees of the Partnership need to be posted.
1.Valley CDC
Peg updated members about the situation at the Valley CDC since John Dunne resigned. It was suggested that the Partnership may have a public relations role with regard to the importance of the organization to tpe City and region. Richard will follow-up. AnnaMarie offered to be a liaison for any networking efforts.
2.Sub-Committee Reports
Jack reviewed the notes from the Education and Outreach meeting he attended with AnnaMarie. The "actions required" were discussed.
Yvonne and Nola reviewed the actions taken at their meeting of the Needs Assessment sub-committee and their conversations with Don about the Needs Fulfillment sub-committee (which has not met).
Joel reported on the Admin. sub-committee meeting attended by Richard and Peg M.
Members spent time discussing which responsibilities belonged with which groups, but felt generally that the directions being pursued were on track to fulfill the Partnership's charge.
Nola made a motion to "adopt the new structure as a mode of operation recognizing that this is a work in progress." The motion was seconded by AnnaMarie, vote was unanimous, with the Chair abstaining.
2
Extensive discussion followed regarding the status of the subcommittees and whether or not they had to meet at City Hall and be posted. Members felt it would be easier to get together at other locations (i.e. the Haymarket, someone's home) and should be allowable since no decisions are actually made. Peg K. will research this and get an opinion from the City Solicitor before the next meeting.
A subsequent motion was made to "rescind the first motion and for the minutes to reflect that groups (sub-committees) have been approved as ad hoc working groups". The vote was 6 in favor, one opposed, with the Chair abstaining. This will allow time for the legal opinion to be rendered regarding the exact status of the sub-committees.
Jack Horner agreed to begin to work on developing educational pieces on the topics of Expiring Use and the need for affordable housing in the community.
3.Misc.
Members reviewed the letter from the Market Square Associates shich outlined how they are no longer able to maintain affordable units in their project. Members expressed dismay and wondered if there were any solutions to this problem. Discussions will continue.
4.Adjourn
The meeting concluded at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes November 17, 1998
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Chair; Carl Geupel, Peg Murray, Jack Hornor, Yvonne Freccero, Clare Higgins, Nola Reinhardt, Joel Feldman, AnnaMarie Russo, Don Bianchi. Also present, Peg Keller, staff and Janet Gezork and Austin Miller, of Market Square Associates.
CALL TO ORDER
Richard Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. There was no one present for the public comment period.
1.Miscellaneous Updates
Peg Keller reported on the progress of various projects. Hampton Gardens - a meeting was held two weeks ago in Framingham with representatives of Spear Associates to finalize the agreement. The basic format has not changed, various details are being hammered out. Members asked when they could see and discuss the agreement. The issue of the fair market rents and the differences between vouchers and certificates were raised. Peg said she will ask the Mayor whether or not the agreement can be circulated.
Vernon street -Habitat for Humanity is currently working on 12 Cahillane Terrace, so not much progress has occurred on Vernon Street. Activity there will pick up in the spring.
Verona Street -The Finance Director told Peg that money will be borrowed for landfill activities that will include the capping of the pit at the end of Garfield Ave. Work could begin next year. This puts the time table for the development concept formulation and RFP process ahead. Peg will begin working on this soon.
2.Guest Presentation
Janet Gezork and Austin Miller, developers and owners of Market Square on Market Street were welcomed. Members introduced themselves. Richard prefaced their remarks by saying that in striving to preserve the affordable housing stock in the community we are hoping to learn from their process and identify any role the Partnership may play in retaining the affordable units in their property.
Ms. Gezork and Mr. Miller described their project and its current status. Highlights of their comments include: -the State and Federal government are pulling back theaffordable housing programs
2
-the programs that remain are few and hard to use-the projects that were developed 15-20 years ago are allexpiring-there are no new tools to use for private owners to maintainthe affordability of the units-the percentage of units overall that are being preserved isvery low compared to the units being lost-their project was developed in 1984-85 for 1.3M with 12 apts.and 5,000 sq. ft. of commercial space/ 6 apts. were subsidizedthrough the State's 707 rental assistance program-the original deal was made with the Mass. Government Land Bankfor a 7 year period/ Land Bank had a housing focus at that timeand required that the project have affordable units-they refinanced after the 7 years/ 1990 the State shut down the707 program, replacing it with the Mass. Rental Voucher Programwhich was not awarded rent increases for 7 years. Rentsactually decreased. The subsidy commitment went from 15 yearsto an annual allocation, with the ability to opt out each year.-the subsidies were no longer project based after 1990-the commercial space was condominiumized and sold, in order tosoften the loss of rental income-the owners always thought the lack of rent increases would notlast-they wanted to refinance this past January with the Land Bank,who no longer has a housing focus, rates were too high- a Fleet, Land Bank collaboration would require refinancingagain in three years, with $30,000 associated costs-those rates were higher than commercial lenders, so theyrefinanced with a local lender but the rates are still too highto allow them to continue to have the subsidies-the 7 parties involved in the original investing have neverreceived a return (which they were promised)the Land Bank's argument was that they were willing to lend inthe beginning to make the project feasible, but now that it ismarketable they feel their financing is no longer needed.Encouraging the project to seek conventional financing isunderstandable except that the high rates end up causing theloss of the affordability about which Land Bank does not seemto care.
Members then discussed ways CDBG funds might be used to continue the affordability. The price tag for covering the gap to retain the affordability is $6,000 annually.
-Members asked if the Mayor had ever finalized a commitment fromSmith College that was offered when they tore down the housefor the parking garage
3
-it was suggested that the funds might be used to write downsome debt, cover costs to refinance (retro-actively)or pay forsome rehab (the property does not need much). A state line itemearmark was also suggested.-DHCD set aside some funds for properties stressed by the lackof sufficient MRVP funding but no funds were allocated becauseall the MRVP properties were categorized as being stressed.-Peg agreed to give the CDBG regs regarding eligible activitiesto Austin to see if some of the items mentioned above areallowable expenses.-Janet and Austin said they are willing to look at optionsand said the subsidy expires in October of 1999, so we have alittle time- Members expressed a strong willingness to assist with thepreservation of those units
Peg asked the guests who have both been in the field for many years, for their commentary regarding the future of affordable housing. Mr. Miller replied that the state and Federal HOME Program, Low Income Housing Historic Tax Credits and the State's Housing Stabilization Fund are the only real viable programs for the development of housing. He suggested that we focus on small projects and he stressed the need for professionals to put the deals together due to the complexities of the funding sources.
Members and guests discussed the need for non-profit entities such as CDC's to provide this professional capacity. The trend now is away from long term subsidies in favor of big money up front. With regard to providing incentives to private developers to include affordable units in their developments, he said that this is hard to counteract, given the strong incentive that comes with a strong market to go conventional. It was also said that because it is so difficult for private developers to have financial incentive to develop affordable housing, the task falls more to non-profits and CDC's.
Richard thanked them for coming and said we will work together to find a solution.
Miscellaneous Updates (cont'd)
Cot Program -Yvonne reported that the program is underway at 123 Hawley Street and already operating at full capacity. She described the new counseling component that will be offered at ServiceNet each morning from 8-10:00 a.m. to provide shelter guests with job and housing search assistance and daily living skills development. The sessions will be run by volunteers in the community after they receive training from professional staff. This is a very exciting addition to the program.
4
Housing Trust -Peg reported that the Mayor will be making appointments to the Trust shortly. Members asked about the fundraising efforts to date and offered to assist the Mayor with that effort. It was stated that maybe she could attend the next meeting to give updates on the Trust fund, the Hampton Gardens Agreement and her progress with fund solicitation from Smith.
3.working committees
Richard reported that the opinion from the City Solicitor was that sub-committees of the Partnership need to be posted, meetings held in public places and are subject to the open meeting law. She has prepared a formal opinion and will be submitting that to Peg shortly.
Members then discussed the educational pieces that should be submitted to the Gazette.
Don asked members to review the revised project review criteria that the Needs Fulfillment ad hoc group has submitted. Feedback should be given to Don.
Peg Murray and Richard asked for copies of the Open meeting law.
4.Adjourn
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller, Housing and Community Development Planner
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes December 15, 1998
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Chair, Carl Geupel, Peg Murray, AnnaMarie Russo, Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Nola Reinhardt, Neti Andersen. Also present, Laurie Loisel, Gazette, Karen Leveille, HAP.
CALL TO ORDER
Richard called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He introduced new member Neti Andersen. Members introduced themselves and described other affiliations they may have.
1.Proposal for 9� Pleasant street
Karen Leveille, Real Estate Officer for the Hampden Hampshire Housing Partnership described HAP, its history and the proposed project. Highlights of her comments are as follows: -32 unit SRO, proposal is to acquire and rehabCDBG request is for $170,000plan is to convert 2/3's of the first floor to commercial spaceand to install 6x6 bathroom enclosures and kitchenettes in eachroom/ unit number to be reduced from 32 to 29building constructed in 1910 as luxury apartments/ conversionto commercial is back to original use composition/ two linearspaces mirroring each other/no plan yet for commercial tenantshave applied to Mass. Historic for funds to restore the facadeshould hear on award in Januaryapplications for other state funding due January 14thmanagement structure in other property they manage,"residential manager" per floor, to oversee tenant activity/separate from office functions
Don then explained that the January 14th deadline necessitates the Partnership to take at least preliminary action on approval tonight, so the City's commitment can be included in the State app. He noted that there is a permanent lender involved who will do more extensive underwriting, altering our responsibility. He feels the Partnership should focus on the long term affordability structure and the underwriting issues can be dealt with later.
Don's goal for tonight's discussion is to get some direction on the LTAM and identify conditions for closing. Richard asked for a description of the LTAM (long term affordability mechanism) proposed.
2
Karen said knowledge of the funding sources will facilitate that discussion. The loan from the Mass. Housing Partnership is the permanent financing, although the Housing Innovations fund lasts the longest. The financing is structured for a 10 year term. That was done purposefully so the mortgage amortization would end about when the subsidy expired.
The project based Section 8 subsidy that exists for 20 of the 32 units ends in the year 2005. There is the potential loss of Section 8 rents in the 7th year. The renewal picture appears favorable, however. She knows of some Section 8 Mod Rehab projects (like this one) that have expired that continue to get renewed on an annual basis. For projection purposes, the Section 8 rent will reduce to a market rate rent in the 7th year.
At the Needs Fulfillment Sub-committee's suggestion, she said she investigated the creation of an internal subsidy mechanism. The concept is to put aside money in the early years to enable rents to continue to be below market when the subsidy expires. The proforma indicates an ability to put aside $5,000 each year in the first 4 years and from year 11 out when the MHP mortgage is paid off, $14,400 per year. This amount would enable 5 people to be subsidized at $150.00 per month and 15 people at $30.00 per month.
In a trend projection for the year 2006, the proforma shows a $348 market rate rent for 9 units, 15 units having a shallow subsidy at $318/mo. rent and 5 units at a deep subsidy of $198/mo. rent. Richard asked about the affordability restrictions required by the other funding sources.
Karen responded that the HIF funding carries a 40 year restriction for income and rent, requiring at least 50% of the units be rented to people earning 80% or less of median, with one half of those less than 50% of median income with rent figures being no more than 35% of income.
Don said our proposal is more restrictive, for all 20 units to be rented only to those earning less than 50% of median. Karen explained further that in the year 2006, the individual receiving the $30/mo. subsidy could earn no more than $10,900 and the individual receiving the $150/mo. subsidy could not earn more than $6,800. Those receiving no subsidy could earn $12,000.
Karen expressed reluctance to narrow the window of eligibility any further and prefers a mixed income environment. She said HAP would not be receiving any profit as HIF requires that any profits go back into the project. The operating reserve gets capitalized early on to cover vacancy loss, etc. The state does not allow for unrestricted cash flow.
3
Carl offered that the commercial rents could contribute to the in-house subsidy. Karen said that the amounts described would be a minimum and if there were more funds that could be added, they would be.
In response to a question about displacement, Karen answered that HAP wants to avoid that by moving people around in the building. She said that as units are vacated by attrition, that will provide the opportunity to move people within the building. 2 rooms will be added from the loss of the communal bathrooms on the upper floors, 5 rooms will be lost on the first floor with the conversion to commercial space.
Richard noted that it will be more costly to do the rehab around the building occupants. He said temporary relocation may be less costly.
Don summarized that this project has major benefit to the community in that SRO units will be preserved, both market rate and subsidized. He said that he hoped the Partnership could make a recommendation to approve the funds with the conditions that the commitment of adequate funds to accomplish the project would close at the same time as the CDBG funds, that HAP would make a commitment to apply to continue the Section 8 subsidy, should it be available, that a satisfactory LTAM is agreed upon, and that the Partnership (through the sub-committee) review and approve the management plan, the rehab scope, the cost estimates and the relocation plan.
He added that no displacement of tenants in good standing should take place, that the purchase price be realistic and that zoning issues (if any) be identified and resolved. He stated that it is the Partnership's role to be creative because the MHP piece will be out in 10 years.
Richard expressed his support that the particulars of the deal be worked out at the sub-committee level. He summarized that the $170,000 will be dispersed over two fiscal years; Peg Keller said $392,000 is currently available.
Jack Horner made a motion to "recommend to the Mayor that she approve a deferred payment loan in the amount of $170,000, over two fiscal years, to be made to HAP for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 96 Pleasant Street, contingent upon identification of the maximum feasible affordability provisions in the judgement of the Needs Fulfillment Committee, and other reasonable underwriting considerations and requirements and any other pertinent issues that may be identified, including subcommittee review of the management plan, the rehab scope and cost estimates, the appraisal and the plan for tenant relocation during construction.
4
The motion was seconded by AnnaMarie. With no further discussion, the Partnership voted unanimously in favor of the motion. It was agreed that the Mayor could amend any of the conditions through negotiation with the applicant.
2.Miscellaneous Updates
Gerry Joseph will be attending the January meeting to discuss the Hampton Gardens agreement and the State Hospital project.
Don asked that time be allowed at the next meeting to discuss the project review criteria.
Richard reviewed the opinion offered by the City Solicitor, which stated that all sub-committee meetings have to be posted and held in a public place.
He said elections for a new chair will be held in January. Richard has held the position for 5 years.
AnnaMarie reported on a meeting she attended with "Friends of the Valley CDC" and gave an update on activities there. She mentioned that the group would like a Partnership member to be on their board. Discussion followed.
Peg Keller gave updates on the Verona Street project, the Vernon Street Project, the State Hospital parcels, Hampton Gardens and Grove Street. Don asked Neti about tenant reaction to the transfer of certificate administration from Hampton Gardens to the Housing Authority. She said there is much confusion about the utility allowance increase.
Nola asked that a letter be sent to the City Property Committee alerting them to the Partnership's desire to see properties that come into the City's ownership through tax title foreclosures be considered for affordable housing. Peg agreed to do so.
The need for membership recruiting and orientation was mentioned.
3.Adjourn
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting concluded at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Peg Keller