Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-09-CPC-min1 Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee Thursday, November 9, 2023 Remote Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 948 2897 5841 4:00 PM Committee Members Present: Marilyn Fenollosa (Chair); Jeanne Krieger (Vice-Chair), Kevin Beuttell, Robert Creech, Lisa O’Brien, Robert Pressman, Mark Sandeen, Melinda Walker. Administrative Assistant: Thomas Case Other Attendees: Sandhya Beebee, Liaison, Capital Expenditures Committee (arrived at 4:09 PM); Margaret Heitz, Housing Partnership Board; Charles Hornig, Housing Partnership Board; Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Paul Linton, Housing Partnership Board; Wendy Manz, Chair, Housing Partnership Board; Sarah Morrison, Executive Director, LexHAB; Linda Prosnitz, Affordable Housing Trust; Lisah Rhodes, Capital Expenditures Committee; Elizabeth Rust, Director, Regional Housing Services Office; Elaine Tung, Chair, Affordable Housing Trust; Betsey Weiss, Vice-Chair, Housing Partnership Board (arrived at 4:19 PM). Ms. Fenollosa called the meeting to order at 4:04 PM. FY25 CPA Funding Request – AHT Pre-Funding – Ms. Tung requested $3.2 million for AHT pre- funding so that the Trust can respond in real-time to affordable housing development, acquisition, and preservation requests in the Town of Lexington. Ms. Tung gave a presentation on the current state of affordable housing in Lexington, its overall affordable housing needs, the AHT’s accomplishments to date, and the AHT’s anticipated funding requests in the coming years (see AHT’s FY25 CPA Application Presentation for more information). Ms. O’Brien asked how the AHT decided on the $3.2 million request. Ms. Tung replied that the AHT used anticipated requests for funding, but settled on a lower number due to the newness of the Trust. Ms. Tung explained that AHT anticipates not having enough funding for all upcoming requests. Ms. O’Brien asked about the $6 million line item for Vine Street under the AHT anticipated requests for funding. Ms. Tung replied that this figure had been acquired from LexHAB. Ms. O’Brien also asked about the possibility of private funding of the AHT. Ms. Tung explained that the AHT had received a grant of $10,000 for a housing needs assessment, but that the AHT can only apply for funding from the CPA. Ms. O’Brien commented that 10% of CPA funds are automatically allocated to the Community Housing bucket to ensure its funding and remarked that while the AHT may advocate that 25% of CPA funds be allocated for community housing, the CPC is applicant-based and can only approve funding for projects they have been presented with. Ms. Tung acknowledged that the CPC is application-based but conveyed that 2 there will be a lot of housing applications in the near future and commented that the Community Housing bucket has received less funding than the other buckets in the past. Mr. Creech expressed his view that the idea that there should be a community housing funding makeup creates a false impression that the CPC has been denying funding for housing, and asked that argument not to be used in the future. Mr. Creech also commented that $3.2 million is not a lot of money in terms of construction and asked how the AHT plans to fund projects without additional funding sources. Ms. Tung replied that the AHT would leverage the funds and Ms. Kowalski explained that an affordable housing project typically requires multiple sources of funding and that CPA is the most common source for funding in Massachusetts. Ms. Prosnitz added that developers like to see local support for affordable housing projects so they can leverage and access other funding, which AHT funds would help accomplish. Ms. Tung explained that the AHT is able to provides the seed monies to developers to then be able to acquire the necessary funding for affordable housing project. Mr. Creech requested documentation on the process of AHT funded projects and asked about the AHT’s financial obligation for the Lowell St. project’s 48 units with some affordable housing. Ms. Tung explained that there is a higher financial payoff funding an all-affordable housing project at Lowell St. because of subsidies only available for all-affordable projects. Mr. Creech expressed skepticism about the desire for all-affordable housing, as opposed to mixed-income housing, among town residents. Ms. Tung commented that the AHT’s projected contribution for the Lowell St. project is based on Town consultants estimating about $110,000 per unit. Mr. Creech asked how a developer can make money on an affordable housing project. Ms. Tung explained that the developer will be eligible for federal and state subsidies as well as tax credits. Mr. Pressman commented that the idea that the disparity in Community Housing funding is only due to a lack of applications is an inaccurate narrative. Mr. Pressman shared that on 8/2/2011, the Select Board were considering housing options for the Busa Land, presented by the Housing Partnership Board which included two units each with 5-7 units on the site, and which was not selected. Mr. Pressman shared that in May 2011, a committee appointed by the Select Board, to develop options for the Vine Street property, suggested 5-6 units; when Town Manager Carl Valente approached the Select Board to ask if they would like him to submit an application to the CPC, the Select Board opted to not submit an application. Mr. Pressman shared that for six years, the Housing Partnership Board asked the Select Board for design funds for Vine Street, but that this request was not funded. Mr. Pressman shared that when the Housing Production Plan was presented at a Select Board meeting in May 2011, with plans to move forward on Busa and Vine Street, the Select Board voted to receive the plan and did not ask for an action plan. Mr. Pressman shared that when the Town acquired the property for the Community Center, the Housing Partnership Board submitted a letter to the Select Board with multiple ideas for housing at the site, but the Select Board never identified a time for the housing to be considered. Mr. Pressman shared that a similar instance occurred when the Town acquired land at Wright Farm. Mr. Pressman added that that the Town has submitted 61 3 applications for Historical Resources for building infrastructure but there are only five times when the Select Board had advocated for affordable housing. Ms. Krieger asked what percentage of an affordable housing project would the AHT’s contribution cover. Ms. Prosnitz explained that AHT contributions can be around 25% of the cost but stressed that each project is unique and the ultimate goal for all projects is to leverage as much funding from other sources as possible. Ms. Prosnitz added that the AHT would identify the total cost prior to committing funds. Ms. Fenollosa asked if the AHT’s funding is an investment in a developer’s cost. Ms. Prosnitz explained the developer’s procedure when applying for AHT funding and added that AHT funding includes an affordable housing restriction so that the Trust’s and Town’s investment would be protected. Ms. Tung commented that the Town’s current affordable housing investments involves paying full price for one or two units at a time, whereas the Trust will allow the Town to leverage a smaller amount of money for a greater number of affordable housing units. Mr. Sandeen brought attention to the Housing Feasibility Study organized by Ms. Kowalski, noting that it shows the possibilities the Town has to address affordable housing and commenting that the study helps answer many questions regarding the AHT’s capabilities. Mr. Sandeen also highlighted the increase in affordability gap in the past few years between what a median-income household in Lexington can afford and the median house price in Lexington. Mr. Sandeen also noted how striking it is knowing how long a family has to wait to access affordable housing and emphasized that the need is likely undercounted due to the number of families who opt to seek housing elsewhere instead of waiting potentially up to 10 years. Ms. Walker shared details on an affordable housing project in Newton to serve as an example of the several different funding sources for all-affordable housing projects. Ms. Walker also expressed her view that needing to mix affordable housing with market-rate housing is an outdated idea, adding that all-affordable housing is also more financially advantageous. Mr. Creech asked Ms. Walker to share the link for the Newton project and noted his concern for quality of life in all-affordable housing projects compared to mixed-use. Mr. Creech asked Ms. Prosnitz what the AHT’s estimated costs represent. Ms. Prosnitz explained that their estimated costs are for the entire cost of a project and not just construction. Mr. Sandeen asked Ms. Kowalski if she could share a copy of the Housing Feasibility Study as well as a recording of one of the study’s presentation sessions. Ms. Kowalski said she would do that, shared a copy of the study in the Zoom Chat, and noted that the final report is expected in December. Ms. Prosnitz added that the Lowell St project would be on Town-owned land, which would lower the overall cost for a project. Ms. Fenollosa asked Mr. Sandeen if the Select Board is willing or plans to search for funding for the AHT from sources other than the CPC. Mr. Sandeen shared that the Select Board has placed 4 a high priority on affordable housing and so there may be a willingness to seek alternative funding, but commented that he could not make a prediction either way. Ms. Fenollosa asked if the Select Board would seek AHT funding from the General Fund. Mr. Sandeen shared that the Select Board has not had a conversation pertaining to alternative funding as of yet. Ms. Fenollosa expressed concern that the Select Board is placing a large responsibility on the CPC to be the sole funder of the Town’s affordable housing priorities and expressed interest in greater dialogue between the Board and the CPC to better understand where the funding will come from. Mr. Sandeen commented that he would be happy to share Ms. Fenollosa’s message to the Select Board. Ms. Heitz asked if other applicants for CPA funding are also asked about additional funding sources. Ms. Fenollosa explained that the CPC’s application includes a question about additional and supplemental funding for projects. Ms. O’Brien added that Recreation also utilizes CPA funding for specific types of capital projects in a way that is different from a pre-funding request. Ms. Rhodes added that Recreation capital projects are also vetted by the Finance Department to determine which projects are best funded via CPA, Enterprise Fund, etc. Mr. Pressman commented that there is an expectation for Recreation to receive funding from the tax levy and added that since the CPA was adopted, Recreation capital projects, when applicable, have been funded solely by CPA. Mr. Pressman commented that capital projects funded by the Enterprise Fund have all been at the golf course. Mr. Sandeen commented that the Select Board in the past has also allocated ARPA funding for affordable housing and has considered allocating Town-owned land as a contribution for affordable housing. Ms. Fenollosa commented that the CPC cannot make any decisions at this time as they have not met with all applicants, but conveyed that affordable housing is a priority for the CPC. Ms. Fenollosa thanked Ms. Tung for her presentation and for the information and comments from her and the AHT’s advocates. FY25 CPA Funding Request – LexHAB Affordable Housing Support, Restoration, Preservation & Decarbonization- Ms. Morrison requested $478,865 for LexHAB’s affordable housing support, restoration, preservation, and decarbonization in FY2025. LexHAB’s request includes $90,700 for the preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of seven CPA funded units; $108,100 for the preservation of 19 non-CPA funded units; $91,000 for the rehabilitation for decarbonization for five CPA funded units; and $115,740 for the support of six CPA funded and 13 non-CPA funded units. Ms. Morrison gave the CPC a presentation detailing the specifics for each element of the project (see LexHAB’s FY25 CPA Application Presentation for more information). Mr. Hornig left the meeting at 5:21 PM. Ms. Fenollosa thanked Ms. Morrison for her presentation and commented that all projects are required to be vetted by Town Counsel, noting her uncertainty for painting’s eligibility. Mr. 5 Pressman commented that in the past, Town Counsel approved painting when serving the purpose of preventing the deterioration of a structure, and shared that appliances are approvable when part of a full renovation. Mr. Pressman added that appliances not part of a full renovation need to show the age and condition of the current appliances. Mr. Pressman also asked for clarification on the aim of the support of community housing pertaining to LexHAB’s rent subsidies. Ms. Morrison explained that LexHAB’s rents are very low but are not sustainable if LexHAB were to try and expand their capabilities. Mr. Pressman shared that he views the support funding request as a way for LexHAB to serve people at lower incomes and still have the ability to perform their normal operations and other projects. Ms. Morrison added that this funding would be one way to ensure LexHAB’s financial stability going forward. Mr. Pressman expressed agreement with Ms. Morrison and commented that he thought LexHAB’s request is very modest. Mr. Linton left the meeting at 5:40 PM. Mr. Creech asked if the support for community housing pertaining to rent would be an annual request. Ms. Morrison commented that it could be, but that it would be dependent on a number of factors, including new funding streams accessible once LexHAB becomes a 501(c)(3). Ms. Morrison expressed concern that support for community housing pertaining to rent may not be sustainable and also shared LexHAB’s priority of diversifying its funding sources. Ms. Beebee asked about the status of LexHAB’s transition to a 501(c)(3) and asked how LexHAB’s costs might change once the transition is complete. Ms. Morrison shared that the petition is currently at the state legislature and that LexHAB testified about the transition during the summer. Ms. Morrison also shared that LexHAB is working on a memorandum of understanding with the Town in preparation of the transition. Ms. Morrison explained that development cost will go down after the transition due to LexHAB’s ability to receive state, federal, and private funding, in addition to local funding. Ms. Beebee asked about LexHAB’s role in development of affordable housing projects identified by the Town. Ms. Morrison shared that the transition would allow LexHAB to do more development and has worked with the AHT and the Town on their role in affordable housing development. Ms. Krieger expressed the importance of maintaining the current affordable housing inventory in the Town. Ms. Walker asked how many units there are at the Muzzey Condominiums and asked if the Section 8 vouchers consists of the federal government paying the difference between what the tenant can pay and the fair market value. Ms. Morrison confirmed there are 12 total units, some of which are covered by Section 8 vouchers, which subsidizes the rent. Ms. Morrison also noted that among LexHAB’s 80 total properties, there are only 13 Section 8 units and one unit with a Massachusetts Rental Voucher. Ms. Walker expressed concern for the legality of funding rental assistance. Ms. Morrison commented that she does not view this request as rental assistance but rather a make-up of the lost funds from LexHAB’s own rental 6 subsidizing. Mr. Sandeen commented that there may be new access to other sources of funds when LexHAB transitions to a 501(c)(3). Ms. Fenollosa thanked Ms. Morrison for her time and restated that the CPC could not make any decisions until they have heard from all applicants, but noted that the CPC has supported LexHAB in the past and continuing to support LexHAB will remain a priority of the Committee. Ms. Heitz, Ms. Kowalski, Ms. Manz, Ms. Morrison, Ms. Prosnitz, Ms. Rhodes, Ms. Rust, Ms. Tung, and Ms. Weiss left the meeting at 6:03 PM. Minutes- After a motion duly made and seconded, the Committee voted by a roll call vote to approve the minutes from the Public Meeting on 10-26-2023 (8-0). Committee Business- The Committee discussed the 2023 Needs Assessment Report. The Committee planned to hold a public hearing for the Needs Assessment on December 14, 2023, with public notices being made on November 30th and December 7th. The members responsible for sections of the Report agreed to send their sections to Mr. Case by November 20th, to be collated and redistributed to CPC Members. The Committee discussed the meeting schedule and planned to meet on the following Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 4:00 PM via Zoom to meet with the LHA, Recreation Department, Town Clerk, and Town Manger to discuss their CPA applications. The Committee also agreed to meet in person on November 30, 2023 at 5:00 PM in the Parker Meeting Room to discuss the entirety of the CPA applications and the Committee’s funding abilities. Ms. Fenollosa shared with the Committee that on November 17th at 2:30 PM, there would be a ribbon cutting ceremony for the new playground and swing set at Kinneens Park, which was funded by the Community Preservation Act funds. After a motion duly made and seconded, the Committee voted by a roll call vote (8-0) to adjourn at 6:14 PM. The following documents were used at the meeting: 1) FY25 CPA Funding Application - AHT Pre-Funding 2) AHT’s FY25 CPA Application Presentation 3) AHT Letter of Support – HPB 4) AHT Letter of Support – LexHAB 5) AHT Letter of Support – LHA 6) Town of Lexington – Affordable Housing Study 7) West Newton Armory Affordable Housing Development Description 8) FY 2025 CPA Funding Application – LexHAB Affordable Housing Support, Restoration, Preservation, and Decarbonization 7 9) LexHAB’s FY25 CPA Application Presentation 10) Draft Minutes 10-26-2023 11) REVISED Draft Minutes 10-26-2023 Respectfully submitted, Thomas Case Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee APROVED: 11/30/2023