Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAWHC 2024-10-02AWHC 2024-10-02 Final Page 1 of 5 AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING COMMITTEE October 02, 2024 Virtual (via Zoom) Present: Leonardo Vargas-Mendez (Town Board), Christina Dravis (Town Board), Michael Murphy (Village of Dryden), Craig Anderson (Planning Board), Charles Geisler, Martha Robertson Absent: Miles McCarty (Village of Freeville) Staff: Ray Burger (Director of Planning) (joined 2:48 p.m.), Gina Cassidy (Planning Department), Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) The meeting was called to order at 2:03 p.m. Review and Approval of Minutes from September 04, 2024 M Robertson brought attention to some misspellings that she found in the draft minutes. She also clarified that the NYS HOME Program has $1.7 million available for disbursement and can award a maximum grant of $170,000 per unit. On motion made by L Vargas-Mendez, seconded by M Robertson, the minutes of September 04, 2024, as amended by M Robertson, were unanimously approved. Webex Meeting re: HOME Funding Manufactured Home Replacements in Dryden M Robertson reported that she, C Geisler, and G Cassidy met yesterday with two representatives from NYS Homes and Community Renewal (HCR)’s NYS HOME Program, Stephanie Galvin-Riley (Director) and Marjorie McAllister (Assistant Director). In short, the best option might be to work with INHS for them to be the provider and the Town the sponsor. Both S Galvin-Riley and M McAllister know INHS very well, as INHS has lots of grants through HCR and several though the HOME Program. They were also familiar with Compass MHC. M Robertson suggested that the Committee have a conversation with INHS to see if they would be interested in a partnership. C Geisler added that a benefit of meeting in person with senior HCR people in the program was hearing of their interest in Dryden. They really lit up when INHS was mentioned, most likely due to their very good working relationship and their established reputation. He doesn’t know if there is a limit to INHS’ capacity, though, and advised that the Committee should signal their cooperative desire to INHS as soon as possible, given that the next funding cycle for the NYS HOME Program begins in spring 2025. C Geisler informed Committee members that he and C Anderson met with the occupant of one of the two Pleasant View homes discussed at last month’s meeting, and it did not seem as if they were actually interested in home replacement. But with the additional information provided by S Galvin-Riley and M McAllister, he believes that Committee members can better reach out to mobile home parks and the individuals therein. G Cassidy relayed the recommendation of S Galvin-Riley that the Town drum up business and have a waiting list established before submitting the NYS HOME Program application. A waiting list really demonstrates an area’s need. This program covers not only home replacement, but also down payment assistance and home repair. We should be mindful about asking for home repair, though, as the maximum for that is $30,000. If there are multiple problems, it might be better to just replace the unit. Any entity that applies may get more than one grant. They would consider up to three grants from the same entity, each for $1.7 million dollars. AWHC 2024-10-02 Final Page 2 of 5 L Vargas-Mendez concurred with M Robertson and C Geisler, stating that if the Committee is interested in pursuing this, it should approach INHS sooner than later. M Robertson likened the idea of building a waiting list to the CDBG grant application process where, when you apply, you need to have a competitive application. You must show that you actually have the need in your community. So we should contact INHS as soon as possible, be it through Kate de la Garza (INHS executive director), Ben Carver, or someone else at the top. C Geisler advocated that contact be made with the head of the organization (i.e., K de la Garza), given the potentially large scale of the program, so they can digest it over the winter. M Robertson then connected this to the Committee’s previous discussion about requesting County money for housing. The 2024 round is closed, but the next round will open in June or July. She advised that the Committee submit an application to the County for $10,000 to enable INHS to undertake the HOME application. The $170,000 per unit could cover demolition, foundation, installation, and delivery, but when you add up the costs, $170,000 per unit is probably not enough. We could ask the Tompkins Community Housing Fund to supply additional funds, or the homeowner may need to seek out such funds themselves. Overall, the program seems like a great program that the Committee should try to tap into this year or next. In answer to a question posed to him, C Geisler replied that a homeowner did not need to contribute anything to receive assistance, but there are a lot of ancillary expenses that go with replacing a home. By the end of the Webex meeting, it became clear that by “new” mobile home, they mean “newly minted” mobile home. It has to be directly off the assembly line, not one that is a year or two old, so we’re talking about something in the range of $150,000 and $200,000. All of these ancillary costs will either have to come out of the owner’s pocket, or, to echo M Robertson, we might need to get a supplemental grant from the Housing Trust Fund or some other source. C Anderson tacked on that the Pleasant View mobile home that he and C Geisler investigated did not have a foundation beneath it. If the owners decided to replace their home, they would need to find another place to live for at least a month, in order for the old house to be demolished and a foundation set below the new one. A container would also have to be rented to store their possessions. He did not know if these costs were included. G Cassidy recalled that S Galvin-Riley also stated that HOME funds could not be used towards flood insurance or homeowners insurance. M Robertson offered to reach out to K de la Garza about the HOME program but conjectured that INHS may want a partner in this. They have their hands full, but they are always looking for opportunities. M Robertson revisited the topic of the Pleasant View residents that were met with, saying that the process will be a long-term thing. Because the next application round for County funds does not commence until June or July 2025, decisions won’t be made and money moved around until early 2026. That won’t resolve the immediate issues at the two homes that were visited. G Cassidy informed Committee members that in order for units to be eligible for the HOME program, they had to have been built in 2006 or later. They cannot be earlier models. C Geisler was dismayed at this requirement, citing the real need is with earlier units. The one visited by C Gesler and C Anderson falls among this “earlier” classification, as they think it to have been built in 1995. M Robertson will email S Galvin-Riley to clarify the reason for the AWHC 2024-10-02 Final Page 3 of 5 2006 demarcation because it makes sense that those in most need of help have older houses. C Anderson surmised that 2006 is significant because that was the year they required foundations under manufactured housing; with a foundation already in place, a new house could be easier set. C Geisler believes that the Committee can begin to compile a list of candidates for the HOME program. C Anderson warned that, as that list gets going, Committee members will have to inform homeowners that the process will be a random draw of who goes first or second. M Robertson added that the family also has to be income-qualified; they can make no more than 80% AMI (area median income). Specifically referencing the two homes discussed at last month’s meeting, M Robertson inquired if they needed immediate attention. If so, are there other means of support? C Geisler responded that, if the Committee feels like it is in over its head or if INHS declines to do replacement on a grand scale, there are several other programs in effect that can fix or fund doors, window skirting, insulation, and heat pumps. NYSEG’s weatherization program applies to mobile homes. C Anderson felt that neither of the two homes needed immediate attention. One perchance has a small leak, probably around a plumbing pipe rather than in the roof. The other is aging. RFP Change re: Town Lands behind Town Hall L Vargas-Mendez introduced the topic by stating that the Town Board agreed to move forward with the RFP without the housing option. C Anderson reported that something transpired between the first Town Board meeting (held on 9/12/24) and the DRYC meeting (held on 9/25/24) that removed the housing option from the RFP, and he does not know what it is. He was present at both meetings. At the first Town Board meeting, Town Board members sanctioned a rewrite of the RFP; housing would be left in. At the DRYC meeting, C Anderson was informed that the Town Board had decided to exclude housing from the RFP. As background, the scope of the RFP was reduced from 20+ acres to the six or seven acres between Town Hall and DPW. Because there are no wetlands in that tract of land, no permits from DEC are required, and so the idea was to narrow the scope of the RFP to reflect this. This was confirmed by L Vargas-Mendez as happening at the 9/12 meeting. Nothing was said at this meeting, though, about removing the housing option. M Robertson inquired of L Vargas-Mendez and C Dravis if the decision to change the RFP (i.e., remove the housing component) was made without a vote by the Town Board. L Vargas-Mendez was confident that there was no discussion about removing housing from the RFP at the second Town Board meeting (held on 9/19/24). C Dravis, however, was uncertain, voicing that she thought the Town Board did decide to take out housing from the RFP because there wasn’t sufficient land for it. She proposed a review of the minutes and digital recording of the meeting. If housing was removed because there wasn’t enough land available, C Anderson would have voiced his opposition. L Vargas-Mendez recollected that there was something about leaving housing out, but there was no clear indication that that was the path the Town Board was going to take. The decision to reduce the scope of the RFP, however, was unmistakable. In his mind, housing was not something that was possible on six or seven acres of land. AWHC 2024-10-02 Final Page 4 of 5 M Robertson asked how many acres two ballfields and some parking would comprise. Four? L Vargas-Mendez explained that the map that showed the availability of 20+ acres was an old map. The map used for the RFP expanded the wetlands and thus reduced the amount of developable land. C Anderson elaborated that one of the applicants who came in for an interview was very straightforward, asking if we were certain that we wanted fields behind Town Hall and not just look for a piece of flat land elsewhere in town that would be cheaper to develop. Town Board members were not present at the interviews, and so have not heard things like this. Instead of spending years working on wetland approvals, the interview committee decided to go to the Town Board to seek a reduction in scope in order to get things done. Housing and a road to Cornelius’ property would still be retained in the RFP. Given the decision to remove housing, the Town is going to spend money only to find that what it wants is not going to fit in the space available. The focus has been narrowed from the possibility of several things to nothing but recreation. M Murphy agreed with this sentiment. M Murphy surmised that a better location for the ballfields would be near the geographical center of town to give residents on both the east and west sides of town equal access to the fields. He has heard previous criticisms of ballfield location near Town Hall as not serving those who live on the west side of town. M Robertson sensed that the Committee was being shoved to the side by the Town Board and was dismayed by the inaction of L Vargas-Mendez and C Dravis. As both Town Board members and representatives of the Housing Committee, it is up to you to push back at the Town Board level because a vote was not taken on this. This is absolutely not the spirit or the letter of what was voted on. In trying to recreate the timeline of events, L Vargas-Mendez said that, on September 15, Leslie Debo (DRYC chair) distributed a revised RFP via email that reduces the project scope to seven acres. The housing option is still present on this version. On September 25, the DRYC was held, at which C Anderson was informed that housing had been removed from the RFP. Asked by C Anderson why housing had been removed, Jason Leifer (Town Board liaison to the DRYC) responded that the Town Board decided not to do it. M Murphy wondered why an RFP is being sent out for a consultant to determine the best way to use the land, if it has already been determined that the land will be used for recreation. G Cassidy concurred. M Robertson addressed this by saying that somebody still has to design the fields, road, and parking lot. C Anderson added that the lot is topographically challenging. One of the interviewees even requested more detailed topo maps of the area. L Vargas-Mendez will reach out to L Debo for answers, stating that the Town Board has yet to vote on a new RFP. M Robertson offered that if there is space for a recreation center, there is space for housing. If a multi-use structure is built, there will be a contingent of residents that will decry it. Do we want to waste that kind of time? Do we want to waste that kind of money? Dryden United Methodist Church C Anderson and M Murphy informed Committee members that the Methodist Church is going up for sale. The church’s congregation is dwindling, and two of the major patrons have passed away. Financially, the church cannot continue forward, so the decision was made to revert the property back to its owner, the regional Methodist church (as the local municipal church does not own the property). This will occur next June or July. Because the regional church does not have a need for this property, they would probably end up selling it. AWHC 2024-10-02 Final Page 5 of 5 The church has approached both the Town and Village to see if either would be interested in purchasing the building. Although there is good space within, there is only five feet of property outside the building and no associated parking spaces. Because of this, it will be hard to sell, and so will go for a reasonable price. The space could potentially be rented out as a business space, performance space, or wedding venue or for childcare. But nobody has yet stated that they want the space. M Robertson recalled that a former chapel in Ellis Hollow was purchased and converted into housing. The exterior is beautifully maintained. M Murphy stated that the same is possible for the Methodist Church, but the parking issue remains. L Vargas-Mendez asked if the church was a historic building, to which he was given the reply that it was not. You can do pretty much what you want to do. They never classified it. G Cassidy envisioned a developer purchasing both the church and the former Rite Aid site and razing both structures to build new housing. Jeremy Thomas Update M Robertson reported that she had tried to reach out to Jeremy Thomas, Senior Director of Real Estate at Cornell. Since September 4, she emailed him three times but received no response back. Last night, she contacted Joel Malina, Vice President for University Relations at Cornell, about this. A few hours later, M Robertson received word from J Malina that J Thomas would be contacting her. Zoning Audit R Burger reported that the Town contracted for an audit of our zoning law. Nan Stolzenburg was hired to go through and analyze the zoning law and suggest improvements that could be made. This is the next step that follows the adoption of the Dryden 2045 comprehensive plan and will result in a zoning rewrite of some sort. N Stolzenburg submitted a draft to the Planning Board last week. A special meeting will probably be scheduled for a date in October to begin digesting the results of that audit. There being no further business, on motion made by M Robertson and seconded by M Murphy, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk