2010-10-13-LEARY-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Steve Keene said that a Housing Authority development has units affordable at 30% of the area median income. He applies every year to the federal government and gets approximately $120,000, with two years to obligate and two years to expend the funds. State funding is available for the first time since 2000. All the projects are audited and assessed, and the money can only be used according to the plans and based on the state priorities. Steve LaFerriere said that while MWDC had originally said it was only interested in larger projects, it could consider this one with the understanding that there is a tradeoff between number of units and time. If the program was for six units, they would want to be out after two years. It was felt that the town probably doesn’t want to own and manage the property in the end. They need to figure out the program first and then decide who would do it. There was some discussion of the tax revenue implications of the different development approaches. Steve LaFierrie said that taxes are usually based on a reduced assessment due to the affordable deed restriction or there are payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT). He suggested looking at the various group in town and their core competencies and build them for future projects. Funding Maryann McCall-Taylor said there is a possibility of using housing funds from the Jefferson Union development to cover pre-development planning costs. It is money that was to go to LexHAB in lieu of a partial affordable unit. LexHAB has expressed a willingness to consider this and the option will continue to be explored. The developers will have to be approached as well. CPA wants the per unit cost down, but has not defined to what level. HOME funds can help but that is only $150,000 over three years. There could be a mix of affordability levels due to the funding sources. HOME funds would be at 65% and 50% AMI. Project based Section 8 vouchers from DHCD would be limited to 25% of the units. Les Savage said that as the decision had been to attempt to save the structure should there be a capital improvement request to address the structural needs? The beam needed to be shored up and the sills should be evaluated. The immediate funding needs were for building stabilization and additional pre-development funds to help with what is needed to get out an RFP. It was felt, based on figures from Salemi, that $20,000 would cover the structural stabilization and $30,000 would be needed for predevelopment planning.