HousingPartnershipMinutes1995NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes
January 17, 1995
Members Present:
Chairman Richard Abuza, Clare Higgins, Laura Baker, David Murphy, Nola Reinhardt, Shelley Abend, Jody Blatt, Louise Jeffway, Chuck Johnson, Alex Ghiselin, Laura Baker. Bruce Fogel, Judy Cernak, Sonja Larson (Valley CDC) and Susan Delf (BroadBrook Coalition) also were in attendance. John Dunne and Sarena Neyman of the Valley CDC were guests. Also present;
Michael Vito, Mayor's Office; Peg Keller, Housing Program Coordinator.
Agenda
Call to Order:
Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m. There were no comments made during the public comment period.
Minutes:
C.Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 1994 meeting. The motion
was seconded by C. Higgins. The vote carried with two abstentions.
Election:
R.Abuza offered to continue serving as the chairperson if no other members were interested inthe position. No one else came forward so Richard remains the chair.
Housing Drawdown Requests:
a.) Informational Presentation from the Valley CDC for the South Street Project/
J.Blatt made the comment that a request had come before the Project ReviewSub-Committee but the information they had received was incomplete. She expressed herpreference that complete materials be submitted to the Project Review Sub-Committeebefore coming to the Partnership.
C.Higgins requested clarification on the process, asking that if more time is needed can therequest can go back to the Sub-Committee. R. Abuza responded in the affirmative.Members then took time to read the proposal that was circulated.
Highlights of CDC's presentation were as follows: pg. 2 -their intent is not to request a decision from the Partnership without our having adequateinformation- ( however) Valley CDC is asking for the $85,000 that remains in the drawdown for thisyear-in order to fill the remaining $255,000 funding gap they propose to:-request the drawdown-create a local loan consortium and garner additional funding-reapply to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board ( denied the first time)-approach local educational institutions for funding-renegotiate the interest rate with current funding sources-work with the contractor to narrow the work scope (if possible)-other funding sources have questioned the extent of the City's commitment-building needs extensive renovations/ codes have not been enforced in the past-not possible to redefine as a more limited project-Valley CDC acquired the property a year ago/ do not want to continue to rent the units inthe condition they are in-HOME funds specify rent amounts/ not to be repaid if certain conditions are met-only loan is $216,000 from the Mass.Housing Partnership-in working with the development consultant, all possible funding sources have beenidentified-Northampton not competitive location for private foundation awards/ not perceived asarea with high needs-original request to the City was for $200,000 ( not from drawdown) which was denied-possibly a commitment from the City for $135,000 will look serious enough to otherfunders-dollar expenditures could be phased/ i.e. this years draw down could pay for deleadingand structural work and next years allotment could do remaining work-Mass. Historic requirements are extensive, expensive and non-negotiable-value of housing to be produced is immeasurable due to the vulnerability of thecurrent tenants/ post-homeless, more amenities than SRO'sComments from Partnership Members included the following: -is it best to use our resources on a project that is so expensive? ( i.e. 2 million dollars shouldresult in more than 17 units)-is funding this project for this purpose the best way to get this building rehabbed?-suggestion made to discuss the Mass. Historic restrictions with Sen. Rosenberg's office-discussion ensued regarding costs per unit in prior projects utilizing Block Grant funds
pg.3 Questions asked: -what is the loan capability/ John responded that he wants to replace high cost debt withlow cost debt/ if the $85,000 was a loan, ( feasibility of that) would depend on the terms -is there a maintenance reserve/ reserve fund for replacement has been established since thebeginning -amount of additional debt/ the number is the exact amount of debt that can be carried/($216,000) At this point, Chairman Abuza asked the Partnership members what they desired with regard to process and L. Baker asked that the request be referred back to the Project Review . C. Higgins made a motion to that effect, thanking the CDC for their presentation. The motion was seconded by C. Johnson , vote passed in favor. C.Higgins requested that Mike Vito follow up on a point made by John Dunne regarding blockgrant commitments made by like-sized communities towards housing projects.b.) Request from Valley Programs, Inc. for the Cottage Kitchen Project Peg Keller circulated a letter from Rebecca Muller requesting $3,000 from the Housing Drawdown fund to be used for interim management costs being incurred for the Cottage Kitchen project. Discussion highlights were as follows: -special circumstances exist due to the property being secured at short noticeat a foreclosure auction-other funding sources will cover pre-development costs but not managementcosts-the closing for the construction and permanent financing is still planned for April orMay depending on the timing of the second submission requirement for the HUDSection 8 I Moderate Rehab grant ( which pays for the tenant subsidies and providesthe project income stream)-if the permanent closing is delayed, a possible need for further interim funds couldanseMembers discussed the process that this request had gone through. Project Review had reviewed the application and had a few questions that were supposed to be answered prior to this meeting, in order for them to put forward a recommendation to the full Partnership. Peg explained that time delays had become a factor. Laura Baker then stated that due to the small amount and nature of the circumstances she felt comfortable recommending that the request be granted.
pg.4
C.Johnson made a motion to approve the (no interest) loan request for $3,000 with thestipulation that an additional request for interim management funds not be made. Discussionfollowed about precedent and that these costs should be built into overall project costs wheneverpossible. The vote was acted upon favorably with two abstentions and one vote in opposition.
L.Baker reported that the Project Review Committee is currently composed of two people andthey would appreciate additional members.
Project Updates
Peg briefly summarized the following activities currently underway:
Emergency Sheltering Partnership/ is moving into phase 2 discussions regarding the long term solution to the Grove Street Inn overflow problem (now that the logistics of the cot program are in place). The 20 member leadership committee has spawned a volunteer network of 200+ people assisting this effort/ The hope is to expand this leadership body to incorporate business and financial community interests and incorporate the SRO/Homelessness Task Force to begin discussions of the bigger picture solution/ CDBG is funding a Planner position to pull together a document which lays out goals and implementation strategies/ to be completed in June 1995.
SRO Outreach Project Advisory Board/ is meeting more frequently than originally designed
in order to address a current funding shortage and to strategize for the future/ An informational piece will be coming out soon in the Hampshire Life which will depict the nature of the project and profile Lynn Blaisdell, the Outreach Coordinator. City support continues for this very important effort.
CDBG Monitoring/ it is time to monitor this years' block grant recipients and Peg will be working with the housing related entities. This will be the " check" to see if agencies are conducting the activities they said they were going to and enhance Peg's knowledge of what is happening out in the community at the agency level.
Sub-Division Plans/ the Planning Department has seen the re-emergence of sub-division activity/ Peg will contact the developers to see if they have any plans to incorporate affordable units into their schemes.
Housing Discrimination Project/ a new CDBG allocation has been awarded to the Housing
Discrimination Project of Holyoke to continue their work following up on complaints of housing discrimination received in Northampton. The contract also requires local workshops on Fair Housing law, Peg asked members for thoughts on the most effective ways to disseminate that information.
pg.5 Alliance for Sober Living/ is continuing to look for property to rent or buy for their next step housing units. Representatives from the organization came to the Partnership meeting in November asking for support and they may be in shortly with a specific request for drawdown funds. Smith Voe./ house disposition/ the Law Department is currently researching the process for disposition of this house and the Partnership may have a role in contemplating its' future development should it be the City's responsibility. This may result in a Request for Proposals and some allocation of drawdown funds. HUD Regs. and Consolidated Planning/ effort is underway to comprehend and implement the reporting changes which may be already outdated when they come on line. They are a product of the Cisneros HUD administration and may be altered significantly with the new leadership at the Federal level. Adjourn/ Due to the lateness of the hour, sub-committee reports were postponed until the next meeting. C. Johnson made a motion to adjourn, seconded by D. Murphy. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote in favor. R��«m�cLPeg �er/ Housing Program Coordinator
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes
February 21, 1995 Members Present: Chairman Richard Abuza, Clare Higgins, David Murphy, Alex Ghiselin, Sonja Larson,
Nola Reinhardt, Laura Baker, Judy Cernak, Louise Jeffway. Guests included George Goodwin,
George Ryan and Theresa Meckel of the Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity. Absent, Peg Keller. Presentation/ Habitat for Humanity
An informal presentation about the organization was given which consisted of the following highlights:
-major thrust is to create housing for low income families-projects include volunteer labor and materials and sweat equity which allows for lower costprojects and a low interest mortgage-government support in the areas of infrastructure only-Pinebrook Grove was the first project in Northampton/ duplex housing nine people
a three bedroom and a two bedroom-CDBG funds from the City were used for sewer and water hook-ups-500-700 people worked on that project-currently working on a new project in Amherst, also a duplex which will house nine people;
2 single mothers with children-they are in search of a new project-long term affordability is preserved by: (1) second mortgage is held by Habitat(2)can have deed restrictions giving the Town
the right to select the buyer for the first 20 yrs.
(Amherst project stipulates 50 yrs.)-homeownership is the main goal, with affordability being the second concern-cost of constructing a three bedroom unit / $45,000-appraisal was required for projects / $75,000 per unit $150,000 (approx.)-family selection criteria based on need, family stability, $500 down payment, 500 hours ofsweat equity and income within a range/ non-sectarian-do not want to generate large waiting lists to build false hopes or unrealistic time frames
pg.2 A general discussion followed regarding the possibility of the Oak Street parcel in Florence, the desire of Habitat to construct properties that will be compatible with the neighborhood and the need to develop community linkages and support through, for example, the local churches, to help counteract the negative perceptions that sometimes accompany affordable housing efforts. Richard concluded by saying that it is favorable that communication has begun, it remains to be seen exactly how the Partnership may or may not be involved in a specific undertaking but emphasized our desire to see permanent affordablility in the design of projects where we do play a major role. Continued dialogue is encouraged with Peg Keller serving as the contact point. Discussion/ Conflict of Interest Richard and Clare updated the members on the history which lead to the designation of members of the Partnership as special municipal employees. The City Charter creating the Partnership mandates that members shall represent certain entities and the public role is not necessarily to be objective. The role of the body is to bring different interests together and members are expected to bring their various areas of expertise to the table. He emphasized the point of this discussion which is for members to remember, however, not to vote on an issue where there may be the appearance of conflict. He also wanted to remind people of their responsibility to publicly declare, remind us which "hats" they do wear during certain discussions. Clare said this is particularly important when recommending to the Mayor, for example, the expenditure of funds. It may be less important during policy discussions. Clare said that during discussions and votes, people should step back and declare their potential conflicts if they exist. David reported that through his own research he has found that it is expressly this type of body that develops problems in the eyes of the State Ethics Commission due to the fact that because of the good intentions and the trust, the questions of conflict get overlooked. Nola raised the potential conflict inherent in the limited resources that are available and that we all represent groups that may be in need of those dollars. David reiterated the need to declare involvements, opinions and levels of expertise during discussions that may have the result of swaying stances of other members. Clare said it is as important to avoid the "appearance" of conflict as well as the conflict itself She said that an additional issue for her is the potential disadvantage experienced by an entity that does not have a seat at the table.
pg.3 Further discussion items: -people can participate to offer additional technical information but not to furtherthe discussion of pros and cons / when people are asked to remain for the deliberationof a project-participants should be invited to stay during the discussion to avoid the appearance ofconflict-our process is more open to scrutiny in the absence of firm criteria on which to basefunding requests-agency staff personnel should be encouraged to stay to answer technical questions/whether or not they have representation on the PartnershipClare made the following motion: " The Northampton Housing Partnership, when voting and making recommendations for funds, requests that the requesting party shall remain available for clarifying information during the course of the whole discussion." The motion was seconded by Alex. The vote was in favor with one abstention. Richard closed the discussion by reminding members to be vigilant in remembering that we are speaking for the groups we are charged to represent. Richard then asked members to declare their affiliations/ Clare -HCAC, Northampton Housing Authority Commissioner, City Council rep. to the Partnership Judy -employed by SIS, residential lending division David -employed by real estate and appraisal company Richard -residential apartment buildings property owner with his brother/ State appointee to the Northampton Redevelopment Authority I owns laundromat Alex -Zoning Board of Appeals rep. to the Partnership / Board member of ServiceNet and builder of residential single family homes / soon to be apartment property owner Sonja -CDC rep. to the Partnership Louise -private property owner of residential units/ Member Elm Street Historic District Commission Nola -Land Trust Board of Directors employed by Smith College/ Economics Professor Laura -employed by Hilltown Community Development Corporation/ Board member of the Community Trust, Inc. Richard noted that he had researched the Charter to see if any residency requirement was mentioned and found none.
pg.4
Sub-Committee Reports/
Project Review:
Nola reported that the CDC had presented additional information for the South Street project, as well as a new request. The request is now for $150,000 loan. They are pursuing other funding sources and can leverage some Housing Innovations Funds if they can locate additional monies. The unit mix has also changed, 6 three bedroom units and 12 one bedroom units. Other items discussed: -we do not have $150,000 and cannot commit into next years allotment due to uncertainty-this is all the money we have, why spend our money on $120,000 per unit project-our issuing this money automatically makes for increased costs due to the activation ofprevailing wage rates by using Federal funds-Historic register designation other major cost factor-is this a suitable environment for families-families have always lived there while it has been an undesirable physical environment-discussion of desirability of project should have taken place before the original allocation
of$50,000-David researched the costs of units selling in the last 180 days/one bedroom units $26,400 two 79,200
duplex with two, three $158,300 bedrooms triple decker $237,500
Richard said that everyone is welcome to attend the Project Review Committee meetings.
The process is in place and needs to be followed with regard to the place for the more detailed discussion.
Zoning/Government:
David reported that the rental/vacancy rate survey is being undertaken in conjunction with Smith College. The model is being designed by the Statistics Department as a student project and meetings will be held as necessary to facilitate that process.
Finance:
Judy reported that the report prepared by Martin Klein, the Umass student intern was reviewed. There was a general discussion of his findings, in conjunction with the work done by Laura Baker, with respect to the Community Reinvestment Act. Judy said that she has requested a graphic representation of banking activity in this area from the Mass. Bankers Association and
will make that information available to us upon receipt.
pg. 5 Preservation: Richard reported that the meeting was attended by himself and Peg Keller and a wide variety of issues were discussed including Partnership processes and conflict of interest. Clare updated the Partnership on the situation which has arisen regarding the conflict of interest question in the designation of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for the State Hospital property. Adjourn: After requesting that the official roster of Partnership members list member affiliations, Richard entertained a motion to adjourn which was seconded and approved unanimously. Respectfully submitted, -r��
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
MINUTES
March 21, 1995
Members Present: David Murphy, Nola Reinhardt, Bruce Fogel, Alex Ghiselin, Judy Cernak, Clare Higgins, Shelley Abend, Laura Baker. Also present: Peg Keller, Housing Program Coordinator. Call to Order: Following the Public Hearing conducted from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to solicit input on community housing needs in preparation of the Consolidated Plan submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Partnership continued its regular meeting. Acting-chair D. Murphy convened that portion of the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Approval of Minutes: The motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of February 21st with the amendment that L. J effway be added to the list of members present. The motion passed in favor. It was noted that January's minutes remain to be approved. Peg will add J. Cernak's name to the list of members present at the January meeting and that approval can take place in April. Sub-Committee Reports
Project Review: L. Baker reported that a meeting had taken place with only two members present (March 9th). Discussion did occur as Planning Director P. Kim was also in attendance but no recommendation on the Valley Community Development Corporation's request for a $150,000 loan for the South Street project is forthcoming for this meeting. A sub-committee meeting will be scheduled in the near future and a recommendation should be possible at the April Partnership meeting. Finance: J. Cernak reported that a meeting had taken place on March 7th. The discussion included the student intern report on the CRA monitoring analysis. Judy has also been able to contact Jeff McQueen of MHF A who will attend our April meeting to update us on their products. The downpayment assistance monies allocated by the CDBG program were also discussed. J. Cernak has circulated information about the availability of the remaining $16,000 to several banks to see if we can get the funds allocated. The funds could possibly be used in conjunction with other products banks may offer in addition to the Soft Second Program. She has also made connections between Jeanne Rinaldo (S.I.S.) and the Northampton Land Trust. Jeanne has been active with the Holyoke Land Trust and is willing to speak to us about bank involvement with deed restricted properties.
2
Members discussed further the CRA report and its implications for strategy. Highlights of the discussion included:
-it was difficult to compare CRA activities of area banks due to the variedinterpretations of CRA requirements
-the Statewide ratings criteria would be an additional evaluative tool-there is also a local analysis prepared by Umass-the May meeting of the Partnership could focus on a public presentation of what CRAis and invite local banks to participate
-the forum could also publicly acknowledge those banks conducting above averageefforts
-this process coincides with the formulation of the needs assessment for theConsolidated planning effort; we can be specific in our requests to the banksregarding how they can more effectively fulfill their CRA obligations in Northampton
During the discussion, B. Fogel made the following motion: "that the Northampton Housing Partnership go on record to oppose the proposed take over by Fleet Bank of Shamut" ... for reasons of loss of community accountability.
J.Cernak seconded, then withdrew her second as she could possibly be in conflict. C. Higgins
seconded the motion. Discussion followed. The vote was in favor with two abstentions.
Preservation: S. Abend reported that the sub-committee is moving forward on a program
design. There are a variety of options to be investigated. This area of need was given high priority in the CHAS last year and action needs to be taken. Discussions will take place with
Laura Baker about how to administer such a program (which she does for the Hilltown CDC)
and M.J. Adams of HAP who administers the MHFA Get the Lead Out Program regionally.
Fair Housing: P. Keller reported a good turn-out at the March meeting and activities are
planned for April Fair Housing Month. The Landlord/Tenants Rights manuals are printed and available for distribution.
Zoning: D. Murphy reported progress on the rental/vacancy rate survey. A collaborative
effort has been established with Smith College Math Department Professor Katherine
Halvorsen who has taken this on as a student project. The database is being designed now.
Adiourn:
There being no further business to discuss, a motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
3
Additional Note:
As a follow-up to the discussion of conflict of interest and member affiliations, B. Fogel
stated that he is a member of the Northampton State Hospital Citizen Advisory Committee and the Single Room Occupancy Project Advisory Board.
Respectfully submitted,
,f�<il{� Peg Keller Housing Program Coordinator c:\wp\minutes\nhp32 l 95
Purpose:
PUBLIC HEARING CONSOLIDATED PLAN MARCH 21, 1995
A Public Hearing, in preparation of a Consolidated Plan for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was held to determine housing needs and programs to address those needs.
The hearing, co-sponsored by the Northampton Housing Partnership and the Northampton Housing Authority, began at 7:00 p.m., and was held in the City Council Chambers of Northampton City Hall.
In Attendance:
John Dunne, Valley Community Development Corporation; Joyce Onafowokan; Christine Sass, Service Net; Peg Murray, Florence Savings Bank; Linda Conklin; Dorothy Green, Housing Discrimination Project; Ryan Hellwig; Risa Silverman; Sharon Simonton, Service Net/Grove Street; Carl Erikson, Lynda Erikson, Manna; Mary Chandler, Diane Beaulieu, Ann Cunellier, DMH; Bill Arcand; Kathy Final; Sarnea Neyman, Valley Community Development Corporation; Irene Lampson, Director, Council on Aging; Penelope Kirn, Director of Planning & Development; Peg Keller, Housing Program Coordinator and Partnership members: David Murphy, Nola Reinhardt, Alex Ghiselin, Clare Higgins, Laura Baker, Shelley Abend, Bruce Fogel, Judy Cernak.
David Murphy, Vice-Chair of the Northampton Housing Partnership opened the Public Hearing and introduced Jon Hite, Executive Director of the Northampton Housing Authority and members of the Housing Partnerhisp. He then introduced Penelope Kirn.
Penelope Kirn, Director of Planning and Development described the process being undertaken. This session is the second in a series of three Public Hearings to identify community needs and comment on a draft plan which will describe a strategy the City will undertake to address those needs. The draft plan will be followed by a thirty day comment period prior to submitting a final document to HUD (May 15, 1995). A calendar of activities was distributed.
Ms. Kirn presented an overview of eligible activities and the three national objectives which must be addressed to receive Block Grant funds (a handout was distributed).
Also reviewed and distributed was a summary of the City of Northampton's CDBG Program activities for Program Year 11 (July 1, 1994 -June 30, 1995). Ms. Kirn also presented the results of a survey that had been conducted at the agency and resident level geared towards soliciting input on community needs with regard to public services and housing.
2
The Hearing was then opened to comments from the floor. Community needs identified by those in attendance consisted of the following: •
•
•
•
•
•
Affordability
scattered site affordable housing advocacy for units with permanent affordability
1st Time Homebuyers
broadening range of 1st Time Homebuyer consumers subsidized interest rates need for 1st Time Homebuyer monies advocacy to assist -increases diversity of homebuyers identify new program resources
Transitional Housing
sober housing units for mentally ill/disabled housing for homeless teens and young adults/young parents -welfare reform impacts "structured environment" housing for "fragile women" small independent units (i.e. cottages) -not SRO design need for "life skills"
Single Room Occupancy
preservation and management of existing SRO units creation of new units safe SRO units for women need for support services
Emergency Shelter/Homelessness
emergency shelter for young adults repairs to Grove Street Inn and increased capacity emergency food provision -meals drop-in center need for support services
Family/Elderly Housing
need to advocate to change regs addressing mix of elderly/younger disabled with incompatible lifestyles housing for large families need for affordable unit creation and support lead paint compliance creation of lead free units (3 bedroom) large unit housing (3 bedroom+)
3
•Housing Rehab
preservation of existing unitsneed for repair/ for elders and others under 60
•Other
examine large vs. small lot zoning to create opportunities-elderly, large home movement cycleprovide services to educate re: fair housing laws
Upon hearing no further comments from those in attendance, the Public Hearing was closed by David Murphy, Vice-Chair of the Northampton Housing Partnership at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�n��
Peg·;�er Housing Program Coordinator
c: wp minutes houshear. 321
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes April 18, 1995
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Chairman, Shelley Abend, Laura Baker, Nola Reinhardt, Alex Ghiselin, Judy Cernak, David Murphy, Jody Blatt, Clare Higgins. AGENDA
Call to Order: Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at ----. There was no one present for the Public Comment Period. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS
1.Zoning Committee -David MurphyDavid reported on a recently held meeting with Katherine Halvorsen of Smith College's Math Department and Planning staff. Time to be spent on the project was delineated, and Mrs. Halvorsen is beginning to work on a draft of the survey to lay out what the programs may look like. Work will occur over the summer and hopefully a process will be formalized by the fall. The issue of confidentiality was discussed. The best way to address this may be to have the survey be housed at Smith, with the City receiving information results. 2.Preservation Sub-Committee -Shelley AbendShelley reported on the fact that notification was received by the owners of Hampton Gardens indicating their participation in the Federal incentive program to carry out rehabilitation activities and continue subsidized rents for an additional 50 years. Shelley will convey the rehab plans to the tenants for their input. The status of the expiring use issue was briefly discussed. Lead paint legislation will continue to be monitored. Additionally, the Mayor had asked for input regarding a local situation where an individual was receiving publicity for non-payment to a landlord. Laws will be examined to identify possible areas of revision which could alleviate this problem (at least in part). Richard then suspended the Committee reports in order to hear from Jeff McQueen, our guest speaker representing the Mass. Housing Finance Agency.
2
Mr. McQueen began his presentation by remembering his last visit here (1988-89) when there
was money for affordable housing. He said that things have changed. Highlights of his presentation included the following:
-in the eighties there was Federal money for infrastructure costs (not re-paid), Statemoney for closing costs and programs for interest rate buydowns -i.e. HOP Program-from 1986-90, 60 communities participated in programs which created 5,000 units of
affordable housing, 1800 were subsidized, affordable to low-income people-much more difficult now to produce units-MHF A continues to offer products to meet the demand ( 1 /2 State sales annually are to1st time homebuyers) -demand remains constant for affordable homes-Housing Finance Agency in every State / Federal law allows each State on percapita basis to sell a certain amount of revenue bonds annually which brings twomillion dollars into Massachusetts which is then loaned out-1 - 2 points below conventional bank financing-banks are squeezing profit margins and some are losing money on 1st timehomebuyer products
-MHFA money doesn't last long -$150 million to originate this year -released every60 days (40-50 million dollars) - 7 1/4 fixed rate, 2 pts, 7.4% with Opts, small downpayment (5%)
-now is a good time for 1st time home buyer activity -good deals to be found
-money loaned out through participating banks I we would work through local lendersto implement a program-Gov. Weld has replaced the Executive Director with Steve Pierce -policy changesremain to be seen
-run 12 programs, an informed buyer will come across MHFA's program options-development activity can be fostered by MHF A construction lending (new resource)currently being formulated for July 1 program
-income guidelines: family of 2 = $ 46,000
3 or more = $ 52,000 new construction loan = $143,000 (sales price) existing construction loan = $120,000 -construction lending starting up again (slowly)-resale of HOP units -now staff people no longer exist for follow-up, units are beingsold on open market and being lost
-initial program design was discussed -discount rate (appraisal compared to sales price
gets built into deed restriction (i.e. discount rate is 15%, must sell unit for 15% belowappraised value). Owner must contact State and notify desire to sell; State has 120days to locate an eligible buyer. New buyer does not have income eligibilityrequirements at end of 120 days. (Reduced price runs with life of mortgage)-MHF A commits to finance new buyers. Members discussed that the only
Northampton HOP units are at Pines Edge. A list of buyers probably exists at the
CDC but no administrative costs exist to cover these follow-up activities
3
Mr. McQueen noted that MHFA desires that these reselling units would be covered in the
local 1st Time Home buyer Counseling service.
David Murphy said that the local market has not changed to the extent that the units would sell out of the program. There is one unit as yet unsold, indicating a lack of demand for the units (not all the units at Pines Edge are HOP units).
Mr. McQueen continued that most units do appreciate slightly, which after the discount rate is
applied takes the seller back to the original purchase price ( or below). People are not forced to sell below the original purchase price.
Laura asked about deleading programs. Mr. McQueen said that past programs have not succeeded due to lack of incentive to delead. More loans have gone to cities where subsidies are more depended upon (where abatement certificates are required on large numbers of subsidized units). Uncertainty of laws, long wait for cheaper methodologies, wait for rehabilitation activity ( and delead in the process), all contribute to lack of incentives. -Information on the newly revised Get the Lead Out Program is available.
Judy Cernak suggested contacting Barbara Patterson for lists of potential HOP unit purchasers.
In response to a question from Nola, Mr. McQueen said a HOP unit could only be sold to an eligible buyer, not a Land Trust.
-EOCD manages Local Initiative Program for MHF A which allows developer torequest Comprehensive Permit locally for a project they (not the State any longer)provide subsidy for/ 20 such projects Statewide working better in Eastern
communities able to get higher prices for market rate units to balance low caps onsubsidized unit sale prices.-a list of participating banks was available-Judy said getting fund reservations is extremely difficult; Mr. McQueen said it should
be easier due to more money being released in the future
Richard asked if there are activities we should undertake as a board. Mr. McQueen responded that banks are pretty aware of what is offered, we should promote 1st time home ownership through any mechanism; i.e. banks, the Counseling Program, marketing (the products are
there). Banks are marketing the products well, it used to be MHF A was one of a few resources, today there are more options.
Laura asked what they could offer smaller projects. MHF A could use available money for
mortgage financing if they couldn't supply construction financing. Mr. McQueen described
the HOME Program. In August there will be a Request for Proposals for a funding round to
provide communities with the ability to finance closing costs assistance for interest rate
buydowns for mortgages. This should be considered in tandem with MHF A mortgages.
4
MHFA 1-617-854-1000 (ext. 1325 -Mr. McQueen) 253-3766 in Amherst
Mr. McQueen closed by saying he would be glad to provide assistance with specific project ideas or answer any additional questions.
(Return to Sub-Committee Reports)
3.Project Review -Laura Baker
Laura Baker reported on the request from the Valley CDC and the results of the SubCommittee's review process. The recommendation from the Sub-Committee to the Partnership
is to recommend that the request not be granted due to the fact that the amount of $150,000 is
not available to be lent and commitments based on future funds can not be made.
Laura noted that extensive discussion had occurred and a memo from the Mayor stated her
preference for funding smaller scattered site locations.
Nola and Laura relayed the following issues that came from their deliberation:
-how do we account for changes in people and opinions that may evolve over the lifeof a project-are we creating a contradiction in prioritizing small projects which will require largeramounts of local dollars-are we obligated to decide on dollar amounts less than what is requested in order toprovide at least partial funding -is that actually doing a disservice to the applicant bycomplicating their financial packaging-can we be more clear regarding how to handle more than one request per project
Richard thanked the Sub-Committee for their work and re-highlighted the issues with regard to the process, the responsibilities of the Sub-Committee and this specific request.
Discussion followed about the appropriate way to respond to the request, i.e., letter from the Mayor, etc. David Murphy made a motion to accept the recommendation (of the Project Review Sub-Committee) and based on that, not recommend any additional funding for the project at this time.
The motion was seconded by Judy Cernak. Further discussion followed.
Clare Higgins made a friendly amendment to remove the words "at this time" from the motion. David accepted the amendment. David then withdrew his motion altogether.
Nola made a motion that the Partnership recommend to the Mayor that the $150,000 loan to
the Valley CDC not be granted. The motion was seconded by ---
5 Further discussion followed. Shelley expressed her desire to explore the issues raised which included the process, the merits of this project and the clout (or lack thereof) of Partnership recommendations. Richard called for the vote. ---voted in favor of the motion ---abstentions Discussion continued about the merits of the project, process and re-affirmation of the value of the Partnership in the CDBG allocation process. The prioritizing of scattered site projects vs. large projects will be set aside as an agenda item for future discussion. ANNOUNCEMENTS -plans for CRA forum with bankers will continue-copies of the Needs Assessment for the Consolidated Planning process weredistributed-John Lawler distributed copies of his grant application to HUD's Supportive HousingProgram for 42 million dollars to end homelessness in our countyADJOURN A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitter, �¼l{cr-Peg Keller (not in attendance at meeting) a:\hpart495.min
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes
May 16, 1995
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Clare Higgins, Jody Blatt, Nola Reinhardt, David Murphy, Louise Jeffway. Also present, Peg Keller.
Members Excused: Judy Cernak, Bruce Fogel, Chuck Johnson.
Also Present: John Dunne, Valley CDC; Rebecca Muller, Service Net, Inc.
AGENDA
No quorum; therefore no official business was conducted. 1. 2.
Revising the Ordinance
Richard read the Partnership's charge as written in the City Council Ordinance. He
noted that the Partnership has been invited by the City Administration to revise the composition requirements with the goal of diversifying the membership. Discussion
followed regarding whether or not City residency should be a factor.
It was suggested that the quorum requirements should be changed to a percentage
(51 %) rather than a number (8/15).
Richard concluded the discussion by inviting anyone who is interested in revising the
Ordinance to contact him. Clare suggested waiting until the Northampton State
Hospital Citizen Advisory Committee language is resolved as it may be pertinent to
this body as well, with regard to mandated composition and conflict of interest issues.
Cottage Kitchen
Richard introduced the request from Service Net, Inc. (to convert the $75,000 loan to a
$59,900 grant) for the Cottage Kitchen project. He raised the issues of protocol, the
inability to review the request ahead of time and the fact that there was no quorum.
Richard and Peg explained that Rebecca was invited to present to the Partnership due to the fact that Project Review is not scheduled until May 23rd and HUD was
requesting closure on the information prior to the June Partnership meeting (June
20th). Because it is not a new request, but an administrative/financial revision, Penny
Kim had suggested the Partnership could make the determination without a full blown review process.
Partnership members expressed the general sentiment that the request should still go
2 before the Project Review Committee with a recommendation to the full Partnership. The members offered to attempt to schedule a Partnership meeting on May 30th to meet Rebecca's time table. Project Review will meet on May 24th (not the 23rd) to review the request. Results of the bid process which has now been completed will be distributed to members prior to that meeting. Sub-Committee Reformulation In view of the needs identified through the Consolidated Planning process and the desire of the Partnership to create requests for proposals for utilizing Block grant monies, that the existing sub-committee structure may need to be re-examined. Peg explained that perhaps it would be more productive for members to sign on to Ad-Hoc committees geared towards specific short term projects that reflect the needs assessment. For example, an Ad-Hoc group could design a Lead Paint Abatement Program, a First Time Homebuyer Program and draft Requests for Proposals for "grantees" to meet these program requirements. Discussion on reformulation issues will be continued at next month's meeting. Update on Community Activities -hold until next monthReport on Valley CDC Meeting with Mayor Richard reported on a meeting he had attended ( on behalf of the Partnership) which Valley CDC Director John Dunne and members of the CDC Board had requested with the Mayor. Community housing goals were discussed and Richard felt that the meeting marked the beginning of a better communication process. John expressed concern about how the South Street application was handled. Richard emphasized that the Partnership's goals and the CDC's goals are the same; to preserve and create affordable housing in the community. With regard to the Partnership's application review process; if requests are heard at the Project Review Committee (which theoretically is scheduled 3 weeks prior to the Partnership meeting) votes to be taken can be listed on the Partnership meeting agenda. John said that Sonja Larson, the CDC representative on the Partnership is unable to fulfill that responsibility at this time. The Partnership asked him to consider other arrangements to insure communication is facilitated.
3
ADJOURN
The meeting ended at 9:06 p.m. Richard agreed to call all Partnership members to inquire as to their desire to remain active members.
Respectfully submitted,
p��� Housing Program Coordinator a\hpar595 .min NEXT MEETING
June 20, 1995 7:00 p.m.
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes June 20, 1995
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Chairman, Clare Higgins, Alex Ghiselin, Louise Jeffway, Judy Cernak, Laura Baker, Nola Reinhardt. Also present, Penelope Kim, Planning Director, Peg Keller, Housing Program Coordinator. Guest, John Dunne.
AGENDA/
Public Comment Period:
John Dunne asked a question about the return of loan dollars through the Council on Aging's Home Repair Program. He thought that in view of the uncertain future of Block Grant monies that any potential dollars that can be returned to the City should be. Penny reviewed the program parameters which include deferred payment loans.
At that point, Richard asked for a moment of silence in recognition of the passing of Bart Gordon which occurred earlier in the day.
DISCUSSION/ Revisiting the Big Picture
Introduction/
Richard introduced tonights discussion by saying that in view of changes in the Federal Regulations and steps required in the planning and utilization of Block Grant funds, it was timely to discuss how these changes may impact the work of the Housing Partnership.
Consolidated Plan Update
Penny Kim reviewed the public process that had been undertaken in order to formulate the Plan. Sheets listing the areas of need and the resultant project strategy were distributed. (copies attached). Peg described the areas as being representative of every phase of the care continuum, from homelessness prevention and emergency shelter to permanent housing. She explained the process that was undertaken to arrive at the project goals and dollar allocations. The process included:
-an analysis of the housing market, trendsand demographic changes-public hearings/surveys-inventory of current resources-assess availability and accessibilityof population segments to services/( very low, low, moderate income elderly, disabled, singles,
large families, renters, owners, individuals with HIV/Aids and their families)
Peg summarized the community description, housing market and trends. Highlights of the community description summary included:
population has increased slightly ( 29,286 in 1980 to 30,767 in 1994 -large special needs population due to deinstitutionalization ofthe State Hospital, the draw and discharge from the VA Hospitaland discharge from the Hampshire County House of Corrections.-minority population has increased 7.8% in last decade361% increase in Asian population from 184 to 848116% increase in Hispanic population from 557 to 1,20167% increase in Afro-American population from 294 to 490-23% of all households ( total 11,151) are headed by person 65yrs. or older-39% of all households ( 4,337) are very low or low income- # of households have increased while size of households havedecreased-smaller households are comprising increasing numbers of elderly,single parent families, young families/ and tend to have lowerincomes-average household income is $36,330/ $27,427 for minorityhouseholds-general conclusion; numbers of low income and minoritypopulations will continue to increase
Highlights of the market analysis summary included:
-City composed of a very diverse housing stock-5,681 units are owner-occupied, 5,742 are rentals-56% of all units were built prior to 1950-SRO units have been decreasing over the years-rental units are virtually unaffordable to any very low or lowincome household-homeownership is unaffordable to 45% of all families in the City-house prices have increased 300% since 1980 ($129,997 in 1994)
City-wide Activities/
Penny described the other areas of need in addition to the housing sector. A list was distributed which delineated the agency allocations for basic services, language skills and youth services (see attached). Penny also circulated a chart showing Block Grant expenditures for housing projects since Year 5, 1989 (see attached).
Housing Needs Assessment/
Peg went into more detail regarding how the housing needs were prioritized and translated into dollar allocations. The Plan submission required that specific dollar amounts be included but they can act as guidelines as we further define priority projects and programs.
The five areas of concentration outlined for FY96 consist of:
-lead paint abatement-home repair-creation of three bedroom units-provision of shelter for populations at risk-first time home-buyer opportunities
Housing support services and advocacy for increased rental assistance will also be addressed.
Action Plan for the Partnership/
Penny circulated a draft agenda for discussion. It outlined an over-all charge for the Partnership which was stated as follows:
Providing a Forum for City-Wide Housing Policy
-Affordable Housing: Public and Private InitiativesFair Housing-Sheltering: the Care Continuum-CRA Monitoring
Discussion then ensued regarding how the identified projects would be tackled by the Partnership. It was suggested that ad hoc committees could be created to take one project from beginning to end. Transf arming the Project Review Cammi t tee into a Project Development Committee to manifest the proactive stance was suggested.
Two of the five areas involve currently operating programs which, it was decided, should continue as is for this year. If any revamping or redesigning is suggested as a result of Partnership review, the changes should be instituted next year and not now as that would be unfair to the present "vendors".
Penny and Peg stressed that it was no longer the Partnerships role to recommend specific funding amounts as much as to provide guidance on the needs of the community and recommend and monitor programs and projects that can meet those needs.
Talk of focussing on public education and community events to increase publicity on housing issues was mentioned. The overall goal of increasing inter-governmental communication on issues
regarding affordability was also raised.
It was decided that the Partnership would continue to meet during the summer and begin with a look at the currently operating First Time Homebuyer and Home Repair programs. Those two agenda items will be discussed at the July meeting and for now, the subcommittee structure will remain the same. The ordinance will be reexamined to allow the composition to be more diverse.
Announcement
Shelley Abend informed the members that the incentive program for property owners of expiring use properties has no Federal allocation in the budget. Members agreed that the Preservation SubCommittee should recommend to the Mayor that action be taken to lobby for the funds. Without the funds, property owners are free to pre-pay their mortgages and convert subsidized rental units into market rate units. This is a national phenomenon and affects Hampton Gardens locally.
Adjourn/
With business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, f���
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes
July 25, 1995
Members Present:
Richard Abuza, Chairman, Alex Ghiselin, Clare Higgins, Chuck Johnson, Jody Blatt, Judy Cernak, Nola Reinhardt. Also present, Peg Keller, Housing Program Coordinator, Wayne Feiden, Principal Planner and Sarena Neyman, First Time Homebuyer Director, Valley Community Development Corporation.
Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. A quorum was not present.
AGENDA
Downtown Plan/
Wayne Feiden reviewed the draft Downtown Plan with the members and highlighted areas pertinent to housing issues. He said that this is the result of a year and a half effort which will culminate with City Council acting on implementation zoning by the end of the year.
A public hearing will be held mid-September but comments may be submitted any time before that for incorporation into the Planning Board discussion. Review by the Partnership is required by the ordinance.
This is the third component in an overall comprehensive plan. The other two components are the Open Space Plan and the Reuse plan for the State Hospital property.
Some of the changes that were noted include the following:
expansion of the business district to provide opportunities for expansion without encroaching negatively on the residential neighborhoods encourage higher use levels of sites already commercially zoned allow more site development flexibility, i.e. enhance pedestrian scale and bringing buildings to the street line establishes a per centage of residential units in mixed use buildings discussion followed about the rail trail and plans for a South Street connector
Members thanked Wayne for his presentation and agreed to review the document in order to submit comments at a later date.
pg.2
First Time Homebuyer Program/
Peg reminded members that at the June meeting, it had been decided to discuss the two elements identified as priority needs which are already being addressed by currently operating programs, the Home Repair Program and the 1st Time HB Program.
Peg gave a brief history of the program which has always included the following components in some form or another:
administration of the Soft Second Program direct assistance ( closing and/or downpayment costs loan review/ via committee counseling and technical assistance / workshops information clearinghouse development of home ownership opportunities /via NACLand Trust
Discussion of the program followed. The items mentioned were:
last year had a higher level of activity, roughly half the numbers for this past year level of client activity is directly related to interest rates a flurry of activity is expected for this summer/fall using the Soft 2nd Program enables households with $23-24,000 to purchase a home affordable housing stock is available for purchase/ if you look Soft 2nd participants are: SIS, Bank of Boston, Shawmut and Fleet banks do not make any money on these loans/ CRA write-offs buyers seem to be able to succeed with their financial responsibilities; many times their mortgages are less than what they were paying for rent Soft 2nd is State money that seems relatively secure suggestion made to utilize remaining $'s in the downpayment assistance fund to earmark as match for potential homebuyers if they provide a% of their own funds and a purchase and sale agreement.
Summary/ Members present expressed support for the program as it currently operates and advocated for an increased scope which would include more pre and post purchase counseling, particularly post-purchase assistance.
pg.3
It was agreed that further discussion of program design revisions and how to use the remaining grant money (roughly $15,000) would occur at the Finance Sub-Committee level. Other topics to be considered will include: -realtor involvement i.e. resource book-value of regional brokerage support vs. individualbrokers-issue of need for rehab dollars as well as purchasedollars-need for community education re: "how to save"-linkage with self-help program re: construction/repairskills training-need for outreach to properties with subsidized units/tenants i.e. Housing Authority properties-need for bi-lingual communicators
Sarena said she appreciated the ideas and would continue to work with the Finance Committee to incorporate some of these elements.
Home Repair Program/
Richard summarized the work of the Preservation Sub-Committee to date and stated the following: effort undertaken to familiarize themselves with current program purpose is to evaluate needs of the community and see if they can be met through this program or another is this program operating effectively? Questions they developed were posed to the staff and Peg updated members on that response. In summary:
program in operation since 1987 run by the Council on Aging/ funded by CDBG and Elder Affairs expanded categories of eligible applicants from 65 and over to under 65 in 1990 and set aside allocations for: rental rehab elderly home repair barrier free owner occupants little activity was generated in the expanded categories so the program reverted back to elderly home repair and income eligible single family home owner occupants limited advertising has been conducted recently, program produces applicants by word of mouth approximately 33% of all requests received are from nonelderly 1/18 contracts in last years program was for a non-elder most of those (non-elders) are determined ineligible based on income
pg.4
Summary/
Program appears to be meeting the needs of the elders in need of home repairs. This program, by design has a limited scope and target population. If additional housing rehab activities are needed in the community it appears unlikely that this program could accomodate an expansion. Improved communication/interaction with the City Building Inspection Department is being addressed.
It was agreed that further discussion and recommendations will be the purview of the Preservation Sub-Committee and they will keep the Partnership apprised of its progress.
Plans for September Meeting/
Richard summarized that the City has requested the Partnership to re-evaluate its operation based on the needs identified in the Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD. This presents an opportunity to become more proactive and project oriented.
A draft of a revised Ordinance laying out the membership and quorum requirements, and perhaps a revised charge will be drafted and distributed to members for their review in August. There will be no Partnership meeting in August. The discussion of the revised ordinance will take place in September, along with a community activity update, and development of a strategy by which to accomplish the work that needs to be completed in this fiscal year.
Larry 0' Connor, representing the Board of the Land Trust has requested a meeting with the Partnership. He will be asked to be brief in view of the depth of the other agenda items, or asked to postpone.
Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Re�tted,
Housing Program Coordinator
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes September 19, 1995
Members Present: Richard Abuza, Clare Higgins, David Murphy, Alex Ghiselin, Nola Reinhardt. Also present, Larry O'Connor, Paul Lischetti, John Dunne, members of the Northampton Area Community Land Trust, Sarena Neyman, Land Trust staff person and Peg Keller, Housing Program Coordinator, City.
Call to Order:Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. There was no quorum present.
Public Comment Period
Chairman Abuza recognized Mr. O'Connor who gave a brief presentation and distributed two handouts. Mr. 0' Connor read a statement which requested that whenever the City of Northampton undertakes the development of housing on City owned property, that the property be transferred to the Land Trust in order to guarantee long term affordability of the property/project.
Richard responded that this seemed in line with the intent of the Partnership to encourage long term affordability wherever possible. Alex questioned if headway was being made with the banking community ( as far as financing for Land Trust projects ) . Mr. O'Connor said that progress was being made and a track record has been established. Time has been spent educating lenders and they seem more amenable to the concept. Sarena added, however, that stronger legal documentation is still needed during the negotiation process.
Mr. Lischetti noted that Fannie Mae (Federal mortgage program) has begun the practice of buying land trust mortgage loans. This does not happen regularly as Fannie Mae usually buys mortgages in volumes, however, they have endorsed the concept which sent a message to lenders nationally.
Clare asked for confirmation that the Trust was asking that the Planning Department, and/or Mayor commit to a policy of transferring any City owned land to be used for housing to the Land Trust. She went on to explain the role of the City Property Committee.
Mr. O'Connor responded that he was unsure of the exact strategy to undertake to reach this goal, whether it be through the RFP process or whatever, but they are requesting that developers work with the Land Trust to guarantee affordability. Sarena added that the Trust may come before the City at a later date to request funds for organizational support to assist them with project development.
pg. 2
Downtown Plan Update
Richard informed the Board that he had sent a letter to the Planning Board on their behalf with comments about the Downtown Plan. (Ordinance requires the Housing Partnership to submit comments). Members had been asked to review the document and submit comments after the presentation at the July meeting. David Murphy attended the public hearing on September 14th and commented on the Partnership's behalf.
Richard read aloud a sentence that invited further discussion about the impact of historic district designation on affordable housing and offered that the Partnership could be a place for such a dialogue. He noted that this issue could be followed up on within the work of the Preservation Sub-Committee.
Tasks for the Year
Richard introduced this topic by saying that the basic work of the Partnership is relatively unchanged from last year's format. The main difference is the move to be proactive through the issuance of Requests for Proposals, which has long been favored as an approach. Nola reviewed past efforts of the Project Review Committee and wondered if there were sufficient funds to issue general RFP's in addition to the ones addressing city owned properties. Richard and David confirmed that it has always been part of the task, to balance what can be accomplished with limited resources.
Members agreed that it made sense to pursue utilization of City owned properties first and if money is left over, to tackle additional projects. Clare emphasized the need to establish maximum subsidies per unit, in order to compare proposals equally.
It was the consensus of those present that the Project Review Commit tee should develop a plan for action on both the site specific and the generic RFP's. It is important to be ready to present proposals to the City Property Committee when they meet to determine the future uses of the City sites in question ( Verona Street, Oak Street, the Smith Voe. farmhouse).
It was decided to develop the program first and worry about the exact dollar allotments later. Nola pointed out that the allocation for development of three bedroom units and for sheltering populations-at-risk are open ended and not assigned to a specific sub-committee. How to address these areas needs to be discussed at future meetings; particularly with regard to getting the word out that these resources exist.
The tasks for the sub-committees are as follows:
Preservation/ Home Repair Expiring Use Lead Paint Abatement Program Landlord/Tenant Education and Assistance
Finance/ First Time Homebuyer Program CRA forum Banker/Realtor Outreach
Zoning/ Rental and vacancy rate survey Ordinance review
Project Review RFP's for City-owned properties Establish evaluative criteria for RFP responses Generic RFP's for other activities
Organizational Issues
pg. 3
Richard stated that in order to get work done we need to bolster our membership and attendance. We also need to have chairs of the sub-committees for better accountability. He discussed the current limitations in the Ordinance and outlined proposed changes. The revisions are geared towards "delinking" membership with specific organizations and/or boards, easing the quorum requirements and addressing conflict of interest issues.
Discussed ensued and Richard and Clare will meet to finalize a draft that will be circulated shortly. After review by the Law Department it will need to be introduced to the Ordinance Committee and ultimately adopted by the City Council. In the meantime, people should be on the look out for new members and current members need to make the commitment to attend.
Community Activity Update
Peg reported that things were happening in the community, housing issues are being discussed in many different forums and the Partnership needs to be plugged in to the process. It is imperative to take time each month to talk about what is happening in the community which is in the midst of an affordability crisis again. Peg gave updates on the following:
pg. 4
1.) Cottage Kitchen: under construction/ currently gutted to be completed end of January, renting February 2.) Alliance for Sober Living: Cooley Dickinson Hospital opted not to own the property/ Alliance will own it and needed to research what that entailed/ Property is being appraised and an offer will be made 3.) Grove Street Inn: has the longest waiting list it has ever had ( 30 to 50 people ) Staff has been reduced by three this year and the program is strained to say the least/Mayor is going to Boston tomorrow with Rebecca Muller (ServiceNet) to get the State to follow through on its commitment to fund the Franklin and Hampshire County shelters/ they have agreed but now need to commit the funds/ Inn is still seeing a high proportion of those 17 to 24 years of age with complex needs 4.) Emergency Cot Program: is set for 6 out of 7 nights a week/ with the waiting list at Grove Street and the 20 young adults sleeping in Pulaski Park, the Program will probably be filled to capacity upon opening November 1st. People are working to cover the 7th night/ a donation of beds to Grove Street freed up some cots for the cot program which was short about 20 cots/ A coordinator for the program will be hired in the next two weeks ( City Block Grant award ) 5.) Next Step Planning: this group is continuing to meet monthly and has established sub-committees; homeless youth, the cot program, community education and the community center. A town meeting is being planned to discuss homelessness in Northampton. 6.) Shelter Providers Forum: is a group assembled by Peg of people representing Jessie's House, Grove Street, Necessities Shelter, and HCAC. We are meeting regularly to identify the continuum of care that exists, where the gaps are and how to coordinate funding. 7.) SRO Outreach Project: the new coordinator, Nancy Martinez is getting oriented and is visible in the community. She has done outreach to the kids in Pulaski Park and has two interns and two volunteers that can assist her with outreach and office coverage. The program still has a funding problem ($4,000 deficit last year that the Center for Human Development will not absorb again this year� The Board is strongly committed to seeing the program continue, a funding strategy is being developed 8.) People First: is a new program initiated by a Rev. Jan Parker affiliated with a local church (not sure which one) who is providing services to folks in need during the evening and night-time hours. She has "office hours" in the vending machine room of Peter Pan bus terminal and appears to be effective and an asset to the effort.
pg. 5
Peg also mentioned that a group is meeting to address the affordability crisis in the area and is meeting with legislators to pursue rent control for Amherst and Northampton.
Peg summarized that things are getting critical in the housing area and the Partnership needs to keep aware and be proactive as far as guiding City policy. Peg offered to keep them apprised of what she is hearing in these other forums and requested that the Partnership make it a priority to discuss the "state of the community" at each and every meeting.
Adjourn
The meeting came to a close at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mar��� Housing Program Coordinator
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes October 17, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Abuza, Chair; Alex Ghiselin, Laura Baker, Judy Cernak, David Murphy, Louise Jeffway, Clare Higgins, Nola Reinhardt, Chuck Johnson. Also present, Peg Keller, Housing Program Coordinator and Wayne Feiden, Principal Planner.
AGENDA/
Call to Order
Chairman Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with the presence of a quorum.
Public Comment Period/
Downtown Plan Zoning Proposals:
Wayne Feiden explained the first package of zoning changes that are necessary to implement the goals and objectives outlined in the Downtown Plan. He said that the Plan has been adopted and now work has begun on the recommendations. The 28 proposed revisions have been divided into 4 groups: one to be reviewed in 2 weeks, one in December and the remaining into the early part of next year.
Any revisions that deal with affordable housing get referred to the Partnership by Ordinance. Wayne proposed that the first group of changes did not address affordable housing per say, and asked if the Partnership wished to review those particular changes.
The changes involved lot size averaging, off-street parking, the unit mix between commercial and residential, the required distance from parking and the primary use and editorial changes.
A discussion of lot size averaging followed. There was some question as to whether this attempt to limit density would have a negative impact on affordable housing. When numbers of units are increased, it tends to produce more affordable units. David suggested that this piece be allowed to go forward as is and if we want to pursue separate verbiage regarding affordable housing, then we should do that. Wayne said he would draft some language to address the Partnership's concerns and would distribute it for discussion.
Richard said that he felt this item does impact housing, and Louise questioned our endorsement of something that could potentially limit or remove units from the inventory.
pg. 2
In summary, Richard said it sounded like the Partnership needed more time to discuss the lot size averaging proposal, but that it had no problems with the other items in the first package.
Wayne briefly described the second package which includes the map changes and minimum lot sizes and live/work spaces in industrial districts. Most other items are not related to housing. He suggested we make comments by the end of November. Wayne was thanked for his attendance.
It was noted that David Murphy and Alex Ghiselin are charged with studying the proposals in detail for the Partnership. Other members interested in full copies of the text can get them from the office.
Ordinance Review
Richard reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinance which establishes the membership and operating procedures for the Partnership. The changes entail: -delinking membership slots with affiliations-addressing the attendance issue-changes an absolute number to a% for quorum
Discussion clarified the following: -the twelve month period (for absences) begins with the firstabsence-the Chair does have the flexibility to evaluate the excuses-the person becomes inactive the meeting after notification of thethird absence-after the third absence, the person needs to show up at the nextmeeting-Clare and Richard discussed the conflict of interest issue. Theconclusion is that not only clear conflict is a problem, but theappearance of conflict comes into play/ we have been too lax inthe past and Richard's desire to have affected people partake inthe discussion but not vote, is unrealistic in legal realms/ ifit impacts a representative, they cannot discuss the issue norvote-items B and C in the section of duties will be reinserted
The draft will now be forwarded to the Planning Director and Law Department for their comments. Clare will alert the Ordinance Committee of the City Council that this will be corning.
pg. 3
Approval of Minutes
In view of the fact that the Partnership has not had quorum at a meeting since April, Chuck made a motion to accept the minutes of the meetings of May, June, July, no meeting was held in August ) and September. Clare seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.
Community Activity Update
Peg reviewed the work that has been done recently on identifying the continuum of care for housing services in the City. She described the newsprint sheets which displayed the organizations and agencies involved in the delivery of services, the groups doing planning around housing issues and the resources that exist at each point in the continuum. The continuum is really an inventory of services in an attempt to identify the service and funding gaps in the service delivery system. ( the information on the newsprint sheets will be transferred to other written form and distributed at a later date).
Members discussed the continuum and how representatives of these other entities ( SRO Homelessness Task Force, the Next Step Planning Collaboration, Emergency Shelter Cot Program, SRO Outreach Project Advisory Board, Grove Street Inn Advisory Board, Jessie's House, etc. ) can input information to the Partnership.
Members were asked to think of potential new members for the Partnership to bring new perspectives and linkages to our process.
Sub-Committee Updates
Updates will be postponed until the November meeting.
Adjourn
Clare made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. It was seconded by David Murphy, vote unanimous.
Respectfully submitted, fL-Q Wt{,,{cv� 3 Peg Keller Housing Program Coordinator
Members Present:
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Minutes November 21, 1995
Richard Abuza, Chair; Nola Reinhardt, Bruce Fogel, Clare Higgins, Alex Ghiselin, David Murphy, Shelley Abend, Chuck Johnson, Louise Jeffway, Laura Baker. Also present, Peg Keller.
Call to Order:
Richard Abuza called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. A resignation letter from Jody Blatt was circulated. This will leave a vacancy from the Planning Board. Jody will be thanked for her service.
Ordinance Review:
Richard reviewed the draft and the proposed changes. The draft has been reviewed by Penny Kim and she had a few suggestions which have been incorporated. One of those involved separating out the active and inactive membership status and putting it into a by-law rather than in the ordinance itself. Due to the fact that a by-law will be added, sample by-laws will be examined to see if there are any additional items to be added. Richard and Clare will continue to work on the revised ordinance.
Sub-Committee Reports:
Preservation/ Shelley reported that work is continuing on the Lead Paint Abatement Program. It is being reworked to include relocation and inspection costs. More recently, the group has been monitoring the status of the expiring use properties and the Federal funding available for owner incentives to stay in the program.
She reminded members that there are 5 expiring use properties in Hampshire County, 2 of them are in Northampton. Both the Meadowbrook Apartments and Hampton Gardens were bought with HUD mortgages around 1975 and have come to the end of their 20 year rent restriction clauses. Title 6 (LIHPRHA) was created to prevent owners from pre-paying their mortgages and causing massive displacement nationally. The law has been under attack but did survive this year.
If the owners pre-pay, the units rents go to market rates. Title 6 offered owners an additional opportunity to buy-in for an additional 50 years. Hampton Gardens filed an application to make use of such an opportunity. It looks as though it's application will not be funded this year. Funding will go to projects slated for "priority approved" sales, i.e. to a tenants group or nonprofit organization.
pg. 2
Other items noted: -the owners of Hampton Gardens also manage it/ they may not sellif the management contract is lucrativethe existing tenants would get vouchers good for two years ifthe units went market rate ( 200 million Federal dollars havebeen set aside for that )the money for properties being sold may be to pay for thedifference between the loan amount and the marketeven if Hampton Gardens' switches to a sale status, they may notget funding nowMeadowbrook has not filed an application with LIHPRHA
Discussion followed. David said that there is no demand for other types of units, i . e . condos . He al so said that the amenities offered at the site may not be enough to yield higher rents. Laura said that even if rents go up to i.e. $450, some of the people there are paying less than $200 and would be displaced. She said it is better to balance it with subsidies.
Shelley said that the owners of Rolling Green in Amherst are going to pre-pay. She said there will be advocacy to retain the LIHPRHA funding. The Anti-Displacement Project is willing to do tenant organizing in the area.
Laura clarified that the HUD restrictions do not come with any money; the properties lose their rent restrictions, the owners do not lose any money (except for the Section 8 certificates that may be in the property) . The question arose as to how many rent restricted units vs. Section 8 certificates in the project. Shelley checked the LIHPRHA application and reported that 161 out of 182 are rent restricted, 21 are paying market rate.
Laura also pointed out that the loss of these units could adversely impact the overall number of subsidized units in the City and if that number drops below 10% of all units, the City's ability to receive Community Development Block Grant funds could be jeopardized.
Richard asked about a possible role for the Partnership: Shelley responded that we could search for a buyer, add our funds to stimulate a sale and broker the negotiation. The Housing Authority was mentioned as an option.
Upon further checking into the application, it appeared that the project contains 169 project based Section 8 certificates, so we assume that the owners would lose those if they prepaid. Shelley will check.
Richard said that the Mayor should be alerted about the possibility of dipping below the required 10% subsidized units City-wide.
pg. 3
Tenant education occurred several years ago when the scenarios were uncertain. The tenant organization is currently focusing on youth issues. HCAC has minimal ability to do organizing at this point. Nola suggested that the Jackson Street School network could be a player in tenant education and mobilizing. Shelley agreed to follow-up on the questions raised and keep the Partnership apprised.
Zoning/
David reported that the second package of zoning changes was now before the Partnership for review. This package includes the lot size averaging that was held out of the first package at the Partnership's request. David explained the concept which usually includes all buildings in an area when comparing unit numbers and lot sizes. The Planning Board is proposing to throw out the high number to make the comparison more equitable. Discussion followed. Points made included: -few number of instances involved-shortage of apartments now and few places to build, shouldn't webe encouraging the most number of units possible-we could provide a carrot for allowing more units; make themaffordable-lot sizes have a purpose, to control density
Laura made a motion to not support the Planning Board proposed change preferring to keep the existing application of lot size averaging and allowing such averaging to be allowed only when a percentage of the units are developed as affordable housing (percentage to be determined)
Chuck seconded the motion. Discussion followed regarding the difference between density and dimensions and the term (time period) of affordability. The motion was amended to include: 11
support of the existing by-law with the newly created units to be affordable for a period of 50 years II passed favorably with one opposed.
The recommendation will go to the Planning Board. No other elements in the second package were discussed.
Finance/
Chuck reported on the sub-committee's discussion of mortgage companies. These new players in the residential mortgage market are not regulated by the CRA and are less inclined to address goals of the community. He suggested that the Partnership should forge new lines of communication (although we have no real clout).
pg. 4
Chuck acknowledged that work is being done to get insurance companies regulated but that there is no movement that he is aware of to include mortgage companies. By way of a CRA update, it has survived and will require institutions to be more proactive and meet goals. This will not help much if the banks aren't doing the mortgage lending, that is why we need to address the mortgage companies. They sell everything on the secondary market. This is an important new development that should be monitored.
Project Review/
Nola reported that work has begun on formulating the generic three bedroom RFP. The committee is also addressing the City owned properties. Laura said they had questions about whether to have a project cap, unit cap, owner vs. rental. Members responded that it seemed like they were on track with what they were pursuing and would look forward to reviewing the draft. Peg reported that she and Penny attended the City Property Committee and updated them on the Partnership's interest in the Smith Vocational Farmhouse, the Oak Street property, Verona Street and the Grove Street Inn. Work will continue.
Rental Vacancv Rate Survey/ David circulated a copy of the draft questionnaire we received from Smith College. There were no suggestions for additions. Chuck said he received a survey asking many of the same questions from the Assessors recently.
Misc./
David mentioned that the Gothic Street neighborhood was opposed to the latest plan to place the Juvenile Court on their street. He said he told the neighbors he would bring it up to the Partnership.
Bruce apologized for his lack of attendance and said if his slot is needed he would offer to vacate it otherwise, he enjoys attending when he can.
ADJOURN
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
R�tf(��mitted,
Peg K�ler Housing Program Coordinator