Salem Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Minutes of Meeting
Monday, May 14, 2007
A regular meeting of the Salem Affordable Housing Trust Fund was held on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in the 3rd floor Room 313 at 120 Washington Street.
Members present were Kathleen Burke, Councilor Lucy Corchado, Mary Dennesen, Mary Lauby, Michael Northcutt, Leonette Strout, Jennifer Raitt, and Councilor Matthew A. Veno. Also present were Lynn Goonin Duncan, Director of DPCD and Julie Quinn, Housing Coordinator.
Members absent were Mayor Driscoll, Councilor Jean Pelletier, Heather Picard and Chad Colarusso.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Salem Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board meeting held on March 29, 2007 were presented for approval. Jennifer moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Michael and approved, (9-0).
Discussion of Housing Needs
The Trust discussed the housing need information from the Five-Year Consolidated Plan and the FY07 Action Plan. The needs specified in these plans include:
· Rental affordability and preservation
· Affordable housing preservation
· Housing for extremely low income households
· Public Services for low and moderate income residents
· Elderly housing
Concerns about the data
Julie clarified that most of the info was from the 2000 Census. And that documents went through public review process.
Leonette expressed concerned that the 2000 figures may be outdated, especially the income data. She was concerned that the extremely- low and low-income population have grown or changed since 2000 based on what she has observed through her involvement with Salem Harbor CDC. She noted that more and more people could not afford the rents in the CDC’s rent restricted units.
Jennifer noted that the Metro Area Planning Council (MAPC) has projected data and updated data available through their data center, available online at www.datacommon.org. She noted that if the Trust is looking specific information if not available on the datacommon website, she could put in a request.
Councilor Veno asked if there was more updated information on the Subsidized Housing Inventory List (state maintained list of the number of affordable units in each municipality) showing the number of affordable units and Salem’s affordable unit percentage (40B percentage).
Julie explained that the Subsidized Housing Inventory List is updated when new units come on-line.
Lynn Duncan explained that the state uses the 2000 Census total households number as the denominator for the 40B percentage. She continued that DPCD staff tracks the 40B percentage by updating the total housing unit number each summer, as requested by City Council, to include new units built. She explained that the purpose of this update is to see where Salem stands so when the 2010 Census comes out, the City is prepared for the total unit increase.
Councilor Corchado asked if the Trust should be tracking whether or not affordable units (rent restricted units) are being rented at the appropriate levels. She wanted to know how verifies that new tenants qualify for these restricted units.
Jennifer noted that the funding source is the monitoring agency (for example, the Department of Housing & Community Development or MassHousing) – on an annual or quarterly basis, all overseen by deed restriction that lay out the tenant income and rent restrictions that the owner must follow.
Lynn added that there is no central location to monitor this, nor could the City or Trust act in this monitoring role. She noted that the role of Trust is more related to setting policy and deciding how to expend funds.
Additional Potential Areas of Need
Jennifer noted that the elderly population deserves a closer look. Otherwise, she felt the data was sufficient to assess need.
Mary Dennison then pointed out that there are different levels of affordability and that some people do not make enough money to afford some “affordable” units. She noted that this points to a need for more diverse affordable housing opportunities – including those for lower-income people.
The Trust agreed that additional areas of need may be identified once the MAPC data was examined or upon finding more updated sources of information.
Landlord Program
Leonette asked if the City had many responses to the Landlord Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program RFP.
Julie replied that there had been no responses. She discussed the Landlord Program and the RFP process, including advertising in the newspaper, targeted mailing and on website. She expressed concern that the application process might be too cumbersome and that the Housing Coordinator will look at how to do it better then try again. She noted that this was to be a pilot program with enough funds for only one or two projects. She noted that the Housing Coordinator could bring the revised program before the Trust to get their input.
Leonette suggested making the RFP available in Spanish.
Lucy suggested doing some outreach to the Point Neighborhood Improvement Association, a group of landlords.
Mary Lauby suggested holding a public forum to explain the application process to interested parties.
Discussion of Next Steps
Preliminary Planning
The general consensus of the Trust was that they needed to establish long-term goals and short-term objectives. Additionally, the Trust discussed the need to carefully allocate the existing funds in the Trust and establish a plan to build its balance as well as to find other methods to further the Trust goals without spending money.
The Trust discussed Habitat for Humanity’s project at 1 Harrison Ave. Councilor Corchado noted that Habitat had a request before Council to waive the building fees. Some Trust members liked the idea of offering to pay these fees should Council deny this request and others were not sure that funds should be spent before the Trust had seen all the opportunities available.
Councilor Veno noted that if Council passed this waiver, it would be the second waiver for and affordable housing project and that was a good pattern to establish. He noted that whether Council would approve the request depended on the cost of those fees.
The Trust agreed that Julie would notify them when Habitat submitted the estimated fees and the Trust would take action if necessary upon receiving that info. A number of Trustees were hesitant to commit funds to any project before the Trust had a chance to define its priorities and see all of the opportunities available.
Jenny noted that she wanted to see all of the opportunities are out there before committing to one group, noting that the group goals are not yet aligned.
Mary Lauby, Kathleen and Marry Dennesen all agreed.
Councilor Veno noted that it was reasonable for this group to say that they are in the process of developing a strategy and that the Trust does not want to rush forward without looking at big picture.
Councilor Corchado suggested that at other municipal housing trusts would be helpful.
Hiring a Consultant
The Trust discussed the option of hiring a consultant to develop an action plan and strategy for the Trust Fund. The general consensus of the Trust was that the scope should be very limited and well defined since there is already so much information available. The scope may include some focus groups or discussion with local stakeholders.
Jenny noted that the planning phase of the Trust should be short because there is already a lot of planning that has been done and a lot of information available. She further suggested that each Trustee at the next meeting discuss two or three priorities as a starting point for putting together the scope for a consultant. She also wanted to clarify how the consultant’s work would be different from the work done to generate the Action Plan and Consolidated Plan.
Lynn noted that DPCD does not have sufficient staff resources to create an action plan and funding strategy for the Trust. She also noted that a consultant would bring expertise on housing similar housing issues.
Kathleen noted that sometimes it is helpful to be shown things you already know in a different light. She further noted that the Trust needs to decide what is important and which goals it’s going to select. She suggested the development of a one-year plan.
Leonette asked if the consultant could fund raise. She also asked if they could help the Trust focus. She further noted that the Trust should meet with organizations to assess their immediate needs.
Lynn replied that the consultant would not fund raise, but would provide options to the Trust of how to capitalize the fund and how the Trust could move forward in a more focused manner. She noted that a consultant might suggest options that do not cost money, like the development of an accessory apartment ordinance.
Jenny noted that the Trust could start working on short-term and long term-goals. She noted different areas the Trust could focus on – zoning and planning, advocacy and education or creation of affordable units. She noted that the Trust should discuss which way they want to go to help guide the consultant. She suggested that CPA would be a good short-term goal. She also pointed out that even if CPA passes or some other mechanism is enacted to capitalize the trust, it will be a while before the Trust sees and money. She noted that she was not sure that a consultant is the way to go.
Mary Lauby noted that she liked the idea of consultant to help focus the Trust and create a work plan and common goals. She further noted that she wants to get more info, talk to people and visit affordable housing sites. She further suggested that the Trust wait until new Housing Coordinator is on board to start the consultant hiring process.
Community Preservation Act (CPA)
Trust members expressed a strong desire to get involved with the CPA. The Trust decided that Julie would email a web link for the CPA Coalition for them to learn more about CPA and how other communities have used those funds.
Councilor Veno stated that he thought working to support CPA would be a good way for the Trust to get on the map without spending any funds and that advocacy would be a good role for the Trust. He noted that City Council is planning a public hearing and trying to get the CPA Coalition’s Executive Director, Stuart Saginor, to come back to speak and answer questions. He continued that he did not have the date of the public hearing yet, but that he thought it would be early in June.
Mary Lauby suggested that the Trust put together some pre-hearing publicity.
Councilor Veno described Salem’s proposed CPA as a 1% property tax surcharge with exemptions (including low-income, senior housing and first $100,000).
Lynn noted that the Parks and Recreation Board has been working on CPA. Park and Rec. made the recommendation to City Council, went on record in support of CPA, and hosted the first public hearing. She described the three funding priorities for CPA: Open Space, Historic Preservation, and Affordable Housing. She noted that Salem has strong advocates on all three of these issues whereas other communities do not. She further noted that the state matches city CPA funds (currently at 100%, but that could decrease a bit in the future).
Mary Lauby suggested a slogan of “bring your taxes and fees back.”
Julie agreed to notify Trust members when the public hearing has been set.
Review of Draft Trust Documents
Deferred to later meeting.
Adjournment
There being no further business a motion was made by Councilor Veno to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Councilor Corchado and approved, (8,0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
____________________________
Julie Quinn, Housing Coordinator
Salem Affordable Housing Trust Fund
AHT05142007
| 
