HomeMy WebLinkAboutAWHC 2024-11-06 AWHC 2024-11-06 Page 1 of 6 AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING COMMITTEE November 06, 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), Gina Cassidy (Planning Department), Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) The meeting was called to order at 2:02 p.m. Review and Approval of Minutes from October 02, 2024 C Geisler provided some minor clarifying edits to pages one and two of the draft minutes. In seeking to rectify the wording around the supplemental grant from Tompkins County’s Housing Affordability and Supportive Infrastructure Grant Program, C Geisler sought the advice of M Robertson, who replied that the county’s small grant (with a maximum of $10,000) is currently not available, but it comes up on a calendar basis and so will probably be next available in April 2025. However, because of the small amount, it’s not meant to help individual residents; rather it would be used as seed money to write a grant in order to get the real money. On motion made by L Vargas-Mendez, the minutes of October 02, 2024, as amended by C Geisler, were unanimously approved. Update: HOME Funding Manufactured Home Replacements in Dryden G Cassidy provided a correction to her statement last month that the HOMES grant would not cover replacement of units built before 2006. After seeking clarification with HOME administrators, HOME will not repair units built before 2006, but will replace them. Progress on Future INHS Collaboration C Geisler regarded last month’s meeting with Stephanie Galvin-Riley and Marjorie McAllister as a real milestone, given their strong encouragement for us, both as a Committee and as a Town, to engage HOME funding through a partnership with INHS. He wondered whether any Committee members have followed up with Kate de la Garza (or anyone else at INHS) to explore this partnership opportunity because, at its root, the HOME program is about partnerships. M Robertson responded that she had emailed K de la Garza. In her reply, de la Garza sounded receptive to the partnership, but postponed any true discussion until after the New Year since the next round of HOME funding doesn’t begin until July. So this HOME funding stream is clearly on their radar and we let them know that we are interested in it. M Robertson expressed her unease at how much effort is going into helping out one or two families. Should we be spending our time in this way, or should we be trying to find new ways to really build quantities of new housing units? Is INHS going to take a more strategic approach? AWHC 2024-11-06 Page 2 of 6 C Geisler acknowledged the relevancy of her concerns, stating that the partnership by no means needs to be limited to mobile homes, but the Committee needs to do some real thinking about that. He left October’s meeting under the impression that the Committee would use the time between now and the submission of those applications to do some creative imagining on scope and purpose. He also thought that a consultant would be hired to consolidate our ideas for the NYS HOME Program proposal. C Geisler believed the early start to be needed, but now K de la Garza is saying to pause. In answer to an incidental question, the municipal role as an organizational partner was distinguished from its role as regulatory agency over that organization. Dryden’s relationship with INHS concerning the Freese Rd project is regulatory in nature; that is their project. Dryden’s relationship with INHS concerning the CDBG grant is a partnership; Dryden was the applicant and sponsor, but when the grant was obtained, INHS undertook all of the work (e.g., vetting families and houses and getting the repairs done). R Burger added that one of the attractive features about partnering with INHS for the CDBG grant was that they also had a bunch of other money streams coming in that they could apply to homes that did not fit the CDBG model. He might reach out to Delia Yarrow (INHS Director of Homeownership), who is the liaison with the CDBG grant, to see if there are Dryden residents who would benefit from the HOME Program and what the Town could do to support INHS getting a grant to help those specific mobile homes. Returning to C Geisler’s opening question, M Robertson offered to respond to K de la Garza to ask to be kept in the loop, as the Committee would like to be the beneficiary of INHS’ work, and to inquire how Dryden could be of assistance in any way. Report on October INHS Workshop on Mobile Home Financing for Purchase or Rehab C Geisler reported that INHS held workshops in Trumansburg (October 26) and Ithaca (November 2) on how to finance mobile home purchase or rehab. Although the workshops were information-rich, attendance was unfortunately low. He related highlights from the presentation. ● Compass MHC contains 151 units, about 13 of which have been replaced, all through NYS HOME. That is no doubt why the Director and Vice Director of NYS HOME are so big on INHS. They have seen them in action, have had a lot of collaboration, and are totally charmed by Compass. ● INHS noticed that NYS HOME was completely about replacement and not about brand new mobile homes, so they asked HCR if they could outright buy four new mobile homes and put them into Compass, in addition to everything else that has been done there. INHS has not received an official confirmation yet, but they believe that they are going to get those four mobile homes at some point in the coming year. C Geisler raised this latter point because S Galvin-Riley and M McAllister seemed very interested in fresh ideas. They were very flexible and wanted feedback and ideas from us, in addition to encouraging us to work with INHS. If it works in Compass, HCR might allow the Town to approach them for a similar project, as it seems that Compass is being used as a test case. If we are in partnership with INHS, it will make our proposal all the more credible. M Robertson cited that there was a big difference in that INHS owns the Compass park. Are we working with any owner of a park who would be interested in doing any of this? C Geisler acknowledged her point, but envisioned that the Town could work outside of the box. AWHC 2024-11-06 Page 3 of 6 ● Presenters went over both state and federal lending options for mobile home repair, as well as financial assistance for what would otherwise be called a mortgage if it wasn’t a mobile home. They went over FHA, VA, USDA, Fannie Mae (state level), Freddie Mac (state level), SONYMA (State of New York Mortgage Agency), and Tioga State Bank. C Geisler noted that, up to this point, we haven’t been interested in USDA because it only applies to new homes. But if this new incentive comes along on the coattails of INHS that allows us to use HCR money for new homes, USDA becomes relevant. INHS could not praise Tioga State Bank enough. It goes out of its way to directly accommodate low-income households, walk-ins, or nonprofits that are their advocates. In addition, Habitat for Humanity makes loans for the rehabilitation of mobile homes in the states of Colorado and Washington. Should the Committee choose to include mobile homes in the mix of things that are worked on under the title of Affordable Housing in the future, C Geisler noted that there are more funding outlets than just CDBG and the standard ones often sought. ● The Ithaca Board of Realtors is now listing mobile homes. ● Delia Yarrow stated at the end of the workshop that, of all the affordable housing options at our disposal, far and away the most cost effective is the mobile home unit. A lot of the grants that support energy improvements and new energy systems that would go into mobile homes actually raise the assessed value of the park for the park owner. So how can we approach mobile home park owners to incentivize them to make really good investments compared to other available alternatives? In answer to a question about who pays property tax on the value of a resident-owned mobile home in a mobile home park, C Geisler stated that this is at the discretion of the county and so it varies widely throughout the country. In Tompkins County, it is much easier for the Department of Assessment to assess a handful of park owners than the scores of mobile home owners, so that is what they do. They assume the owner will pass along these expenses to the owners and renters in other ways. M Robertson wondered why the park owners need to be incentivized if they are passing the taxes on. C Geisler referenced John Kaufman, a lawyer who owns Pleasant View, who wrote that a lot of seemingly advantageous things that fall under the rubric of affordable housing were not advantageous to mobile home park owners. NYS HOME Waiting List After last month’s meeting, Committee members thought it a good idea to create a mobile home replacement list eligible for NY HOME assistance. Upon reflection, however, C Geisler wondered if he and, by extension, the other Committee members have the capacity and time to undertake this. During the tabling session for mobile home weatherization benefits last month, Committee members talked to 10 residents of the park. Harrison Hensley (Community Energy Educator, Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County) does not seem to have done any follow-up, which he said he would do. If he is busy with other obligations, it falls back in our lap to help those interested to fill out their applications. C Geisler recommended that the Committee pause and think more carefully about preparing a waiting list. If a robust list did develop, would a lottery be held? How are we going to allocate the benefits and work through this? C Geisler will continue his attempts to follow up about this with H Hensley, but given that winter is here, he does not know if weatherization can even be done now. AWHC 2024-11-06 Page 4 of 6 Other than going back and knocking on those 10 doors to find out if people have applied without our knowing or if they need help at this point, there’s not much else that the Committee can do. M Robertson expressed trepidation about strangers who are retired college professors walking into a manufactured home park and asking residents if they needed help. She has knocked on a lot of doors in manufactured home parks and can name only a few that looked like they did not need some kind of repair. She suggested that the Committee should instead talk to Pathstone, a group out of Rochester that has made some progress on resident- owned cooperatives. They have some way of actually reaching people and helping to facilitate park residents in organizing themselves. Maybe we should get Holly Hutchinson back in so we can learn some lessons from her. There are gaps here, and, for better or for worse, the messenger is just as important as the message. C Geisler saw this mirrored in the attendance at the INHS workshops discussed earlier. The presence of deeply seasoned professionals was not enough to draw people in. L Vargas-Mendez felt that the Committee should return to the question of its strategic work on housing. In what things should we probably be involved in some way? He agreed that a large part of the Committee’s work with affordable housing is in mobile homes, whether located within parks or not. A large number of these are in need of repair or replacement. So what can we do as a Town to help families get their housing into a better condition? Secondly, what partnerships can we engender to get us to that goal? The idea of working with Cornell Cooperative Extension was a good idea, but there is not much that we can do if they do not have the capacity to follow up on the projects that we helped out on. M Robertson advanced that if the Town partnered with INHS for the NYS HOME grant, a big part of INHS’ job would be to build a waiting/prospect list as they have done for CDBG. Update on Re-Zoning M Robertson commented that re-zoning may be the only way the Town actually makes progress on housing supply. R Burger relayed that the audit report has been completed, and the last Planning Board meeting was devoted to a discussion of that report. The Planning Board is at the point of figuring out next steps. The re-zoning map will probably be at the very end of the process. The Planning Board has an open invite to the Town’s various committees to feed ideas into the process. C Anderson referred members to the Dryden 2045 comprehensive plan update, which recommends some areas for higher density due to possible access to water. A lot of these areas are around the Village, but there is one section on Peruville Rd that could tap into Lansing water . This would be a topic that the Committee could nudge the Planning Board on. Big picture items (e.g., expansion of sewers past NYSEG and up to Hanshaw Village) could also be pushed on the Planning Board. Water and sewer is key to achieving higher density and building out housing. The Planning Board has a lot on their plate, so other boards’ recommendations will go a long way. R Burger advised that January might be a good target for the Committee to submit any recommendations to the Planning Board regarding housing issues. G Cassidy emailed the audit report to Committee members for them to discuss at their December meeting. M Murphy offered that for there to be more housing in the Town, work on expanding water and sewer must be prioritized by the Planning and Town Boards. M Robertson inquired where this water and sewer will in fact be situated. We cannot invest money in speculation. Is AWHC 2024-11-06 Page 5 of 6 there interest among developers? To this, M Murphy suggested finding a location agreeable to a developer, who might commit to building if water was there. Likewise, C Anderson advocated that the Committee isolate a handful of places that might be good for water and/or sewer expansion, and approach the Town Board with these endorsements. G Cassidy identified that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan talks about nodal development. Many of the nodes that were put forth as places for growth have water and/or sewer. So we wouldn’t be starting from scratch. M Robertson agreed, saying that we should really be supporting and promoting that. On the topic of infrastructure, C Geisler related an experience whereby he heard how sidewalks have added an improved quality of life to a community in Wisconsin. The sidewalks allow kids to be able to use their bikes to visit parks, baseball games, and each other’s homes; without these sidewalks, they stay at home, looking at their screens and devices rather than getting outdoors. Sidewalks in the NYSEG area might consolidate the community there, making it safer for pedestrians and kids alike. M Murphy added that Trumansburg received a nice grant for a sidewalk, tied into the INHS project there. Varna’s sidewalks have also connected its community. Town Lands C Geisler posed the question of whether the access road to Cornelius’ potential development would come out of the delineated wetlands or the acreage set aside for recreational fields. R Burger explained that there is no connection between the recreational field project and the right-of-way. There is a promise in the agreement for Dryden to build a road at the request of Cornelius. The right-of-way could be done as drawn on the plat (though other Committee members disagreed with this), but there is the alternative of putting the road in another location; either way, the Town is on the hook for an access road to the Cornelius property. M Robertson queried as to the status of the RFP. How much land is usable? What is the plan? G Cassidy responded that the project scope has been limited to about 7.28 acres, and the plan is just to develop ballfields. The housing component has been officially dropped. A consultant has been hired. Members then speculated about the size requirements of a ballfield. M Robertson asked about the project timeline; members did not know the answer. C Geisler wondered if the Town could mitigate some of its wetlands to open up more space for other uses. Failing that, are there alternative recreation areas that have been considered? He recalled that some people felt that a more centralized location for the playing fields in or close to the Village would be preferable. L Vargas-Mendez replied that there has been no conversation at the Town Board level about other land use options, as they are waiting for the design report to come back from the consultant. C Anderson surmised that the wetlands will not be mitigated due to cost. For every one acre of current wetland that is disturbed, three acres of new wetland will have to be created at a cost of about $100,000 per acre. As no one could give definitive information on the project’s current status, L Vargas- Mendez said that he will follow up about it with the appropriate people and distribute any response to the rest of the Committee. M Robertson was compelled to say that, with the struggle to find locations for housing development that is dense and appropriate and on infrastructure, this is a failure by the Town. AWHC 2024-11-06 Page 6 of 6 C Anderson added that other committees thought this to be a shame as well. The focus is too narrow. Cornell Housing Plans M Robertson reported that Jeremy Thomas (Senior Director of Real Estate at Cornell) is planning on attending the Committee’s meeting on December 4, but can only do so starting at 3 p.m. Committee members will review both the Dryden 2045 update and the zoning audit report in the hour preceding his virtual arrival. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk