Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-21 Community Preservation Act Study Committee MinutesTOWN OF READING L-LJ 'j CLER k D" , MASS. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT STUDY COMMITTE 112' 0 0 MINUTES OF MEETING June 21, 2001 With a quorum being present, the meeting was called to order at 8:00 PM by the chair, Kim Honetschlager. Members present were Kim Honetschlager, Paul Dustin, Richard Howard, Patricia Lloyd and Richard Schubert. Also in attendance and representing the Reading Housing Authority were; Don Allen, Chairman and John Hixon, Executive Director. General Committee Business • Due to the starting time of the meeting it was decided to dispense with the reading of any previous minutes, and to defer such action until the next meeting of the Committee. • Previously the Chairwoman, Kim Honetschlager, had signified her intent to step down as the Chair of the Committee (CPA Study). Her letter of resignation was submitted to both the Board of Selectmen, and Committee members. Accordingly following a vote, Paul Dustin was elected Chair and Pat Lloyd, was elected Vice Chair. Presentation by The Reading Housine Authority Don Allen made a presentation to the Committee (CPA Study) riding the background of affordable housing and the current status of affordable housing in Reading. His material was presented in a series of handouts with support from John Hixon. The material was both general in nature; e.g., providing terminology definitions and specific to Reading; with charts showing the present Reading inventory of affordable housing units and other relevant data. These handouts are identified below and are provided as attachments to these minutes. 1. General Laws of Massachusetts - Excerpts from Chapter 4013: Section 20 r (4) page handout of general information regarding Ch 40 2. RHA Internal Memo, dated June 5, 2000: "What is Affordable Housing" 3. RHA Memo: Table of "Rents and Purchase Prices Affordable to Massachusetts Households" 4. RHA Memo, dated June 15, 2001: "Reading Housing Authority Inventory as of June 15, 2001 RHA Information Sheet; "The Reading Housing Authority" Mass. Dept. of Housing Community Dev.; (Draft) Housing Inventory for Reading 5. RHA tabulation of (4) Scenarios to increase Reading's percentage of affordable housing 6. RHA tabulation, "Combined First Time Homebuyers Program and Multi Family Purchase" 7. RHA Memo, dated June 15,2001; "Reading Housing Authority, Steps to Increase Affordable Housing" 8. RHA Memo; "Summary of CPA assistance in providing Affordable Housing" 9. Boston Herald article, dated Wednesday June 20, 2001: "Penalty eyed for missing affordable housing goal" 10. RHA Tabulation (4) pages including; "Existing Affordable Housing, " 1990 Household Incomes" Reference should be made to the above documents for the information, data, and any conclusions contained therein. Adjournment The committee voted to adjourn at 9:30 PM. Paul C. Dustin Acting Secretary h Page l „G.L. - Chapter 4013, Section 20 ragr. 1 vi L GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ~'owv LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING. Chapter 4013: Section 20. Definitions. Section 20. The following words, wherever used in this section and in sections twenty-one to twenty- three, inclusive, sha eren meaning c ear y app ntext, have the following or moderate income housing", any housing subsidized by the federal or state government under ogram to assist the construction of low or moderate income housing as defined in the applicable /~:"Lyo federal or state statute, whether built or operated by any public agency or any nonprofit or limited dividend organization. "Uneconomic", any condition brought about by any single factor or combination of factors to the extent that it makes it impossible for a public agency or nonprofit organization to proceed in building or operating low or moderate income housing without financial loss, or for a limited dividend organization to proceed and still realize a reasonable return in building or operating such housing within the limitations set by the subsidizing agency of government on the size or character of the development or on the amount or nature of the subsidy or on the tenants, rentals and income permissible, and without substantially changing the rent levels and units sizes proposed by the public, nonprofit or limited dividend organizations. "Consistent with local needs", requirements and regulations shall be considered consistent with local needs if they are reasonable in view of the regional need for low and moderate income housing considered with the number of low income persons in the city or town affected and the need to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or of the residents of the city or town, to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, or to preserve open spaces, and if such requirements and regulations are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and l~ 1 unsubsidized housing. Requirements or regulations shall be consistent with local needs when imposed by a board of zoning appeals er comprehensive hearing in a city or town where (1) low or moderate A income housing exists which is in excess of ten per cent of the housing units reported in the latest federal decennial census of the city or town or on sites comprising one and one half per censor more of the total land area zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use or (2) the application before the board would result in the commencement of construction o such housing on sites comprising more than three tenths of one per cent of such land area or ten acres, whichever is larger, in any one calendar year; provided, however, that land area owned by the United States, the commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, the metropolitan district commission or any public authority shall be excluded from the total land area referred to above when making such determination of consistency with local needs. "Local Board", any town or city board of survey, board of health, board of subdivision control appeals, planning board, building inspector or the officer or board having supervision of the construction of buildings or the power of enforcing municipal building laws, or city council or board of selectmen- -A 1- 1 /,)7mn USING CHAPTER 40B TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SUBURBAN AND RURAL CONEVIUNITIES Executive Summary In 1969, Massachusetts enacted a law (Chapter 4013) intended to help address the shortage of affordable housing statewide by, reducing barriers created by local approval processes and local zoning restrictions. Summary of the Statute Chapter 40B provides two tools to facilitate the development of subsidized housing ("by the federal or state government under any program to assist the construction of low or Awe moderate income housing as defined in the applicable federal or state statute.'. It requires all communities to use a streamlined review process, called the comprehensive permit (CP) process, for proposals to develop such housing if requested by the developer, including requests for zoning and other local regulatory waivers. In most communities where less than 10% of the year-round housing meets the statute's definition of low and moderate income housing, a State Housing Appeals Committee can overrule the local decision, if adverse, unless the proposed development presents serious health or safety concerns that cannot be mitigated. The Committee has upheld the developer in the vast majority of appeals. ;Quoting Units The State defines low and moderate income housing, for the purpose of determining whether a community has met the 10% standard, as housing developed with a state or federal subsidy, in which at least 25% of the units are reserved for households with incomes not exceeding 80% of median and which restricts rents or home prices for a specified time period (generally at least 15 years). In rental projects: all "subsidized" units count, even if not affordable. If a 100-unit development with 25 affordable units and 75 market rate units receives a subsidy that assists the entire project, all 100 units count. In homeownership projects, only the affordable ownership units count. DHCD maintains an inventory of all subsidized units by community. C`urreritly about 86% of the "subsidized" units in the Statewide Inventory are "affordable" and 14% are unrestricted (market rate) units. Statutory Goals and Achievements The goal of Chapter 40B was to increase the supply of low and moderate income housing in the State, particularly outside cities. After 30 years, Chapter 40B has led to a significant level of affordable housing development, though we lack the detailed project-level data needed to determine how much of overall increase in subsidized units in suburban and rural areas is directly due to Chapter 4013. • DHCD statistics indicate that the number of subsidized units statewide rose by almost 118,000 units between 1970 and 1997 (from 85,621 to 203260). Approximately 14,600 units were built in communities that previously had no subsidized housing. The share of the State's affordable housing located outside the largest cities has risen. Whereas the state's 15 largest municipalities, with 32% of the 1990 population, had 69% of the subsidized units statewide in 1972, that share had fallen to 37% by 1997. The number of communities with no subsidized housing fell from 173 to 54 (mostly very small rural communities). Most of the state's subsidized housing development since 1970 has been built without needing to use the CP process. A 1998 study by Professor Sharon Krefetz of Clark University found at least 636 CP applications have been filed since 1970, of which just over half have ultimately gone forward, resulting in the development of 20-25,000 units in at least 171 municipalities. In other words, about 21 % of all units added in between 1970 and 1997 used the CP process. However, observers estimate that closer to half the suburban units added between 1970 and 1986 used the CP process. In addition, most believe 40B has played a role in the development of almost all suburban projects that didn't use the CP process, because the possibility of using 40B led many towns to negotiate. Most CP projects (60%) have been initiated by private developers. Acceptance of 40B is growing While most communities actively fought CP applications in the early Years, many have now come to accept the reality of the CP process and understand the advantages of negotiating with a developer even before a CP application is filed. The perrentage of CP applications denied outright has averaged less than 20% since 1990, compared to 66% in its first years. The trend toward negotiated approvals has also reduced the number of cases being appealed- have already met the 10% standard regularly use the CP process both to up cities that affordable spy p approval of housing initiatives and to shape both the physical design of the project and the way its meet community housing goals (e.g. Cambridge, Somerville and Boston). Strengths and Limitations of the Statute The flexibility of the statute has been important to its success. By not setting specific land use formulas (e.g. density rules) and by leaving questions regarding levels served, income mix, rents and sales prices and financial feasibility generally to the state _id federal subsidy agencies, the statute has remained workable as land use rules and housing subsidy programs have changed, without needing legislative changes. However, a number of other factors limit the utility of the statute and the likelihood that affordable housing will be built in suburban and rural areas. • The power of delay Some communities have used hearing delays and litigation to defeat developers by dragging things out until market conditions change, subsidy commitments expire, or the cost of holding a property becomes too high. • The availability of subsidy funds and the nature of such subsidies When subsidies are scarce, less funding is available to build affordable housing. In addition, federal and state programs generally target scarce subsidy funds to communities using formulas that make it difficult for suburban and nual towns to qualify. • High local market costs and limited land availability Density bonuses alone do not work in all communities. In some suburban communities and in many rural areas, market rents and housing prices are too low to cross-subsidize affordable units. In other communities with high land costs and housing values, developers may decide it is simpler to build market rate housing. 2 Lack of local support Local support improves the use of 408. Communities without local leaders or a local entity pushing for affordable housing are far less likely to have affordable housing, unless the market conditions are strong enough to attract a private developer. Lack ofpenalties or incentives for localities Currently, there are no penalties for communities that continue to keep housing out nor are there rewards for communities that support such housing (until they reach the 100/, threshold). The 1990s and Trends for the Future Development activity under Chapter 40B in the 1990s has more limited due to major cuts in conventional subsidy programs, a shift to shallow subsidies, and a weak housing market for the first part of the decade. The shift to shallow subsidies has been changing the types of projects developed and the role of municipalities in approving these. More projects are using shallow subsidy program with fewer rules imposed by the state or federal government, leaving the details to be negotiated between developers and Zoning Boards of Appeal (ZBAs). Over 40% of the CP applications filed since 1990 have used the Local Initiatives Program (LIP), a state program with fewer regulations than older programs. housing without conventional state or federal housing ubsidies to use the CP process. 1However LIP can only be used for iendly CP ad 15 applications: developers must obtain a letter of support from the chief elected official before it can submit a CP application. In addition, absent a major local subsidy, LIP only works in communities which have both local support for affordable housing and a housing market that is strong enough that market rate units, combined with density bonuses, permit internal cross-subsidies. I Potential New Strategies In addition to increasing subsidy finIds' developers, local officials and suggested a number of directions they believe the State might explore to encourage affordable housing in rural and sub urban areas.. In the months ahead, CHAPA hopes to develop specific recommendations in the following four areas: 1. How do we create greater local will and provide incentives to develop affordable housing? 2. How do we address local concerns that often block affordable housing development? 3. How can we encourage communities to better serve priority housing needs, including assisting households earning below 501/o of median income. 4. How can we make the CP process work better for developers and reduce delays in the CP process? emu/ 3 MEMO FOR RHA BOARD USE ONLY TO: BOARD MEMBERS FROM: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 99A DATE: JUNE 5, 2000 RE: ALL BOARD MEETING ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHAT IS AFFORDABLE MOUSING? Affordable housing includes both subsidized units, which usually result from state or federal grant programs, and other housing initiatives such as "linkage, which are usually oriented to "moderate" income families. In order to receive federal or state grants for construction of "affordable housing", units must be affordable to households whose incomes are at the very-low or low range for the Boston Metropolitan area. Under inclusionary zoning in many towns, the units considered to be "affordable" are affordable to "moderate" income households, who have incomes above 50% but below $0% of the Boston area median income. These are the income levels that are considered by the State's Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) when looking at a community's total for affordable housing. By State/Federal definition, the following are the income levels for the affordable housing provisions: Very low income households at or below 30% of Boston SMSA median income Low income households above 30% but below 50% of Boston SMSA median income Median income households above 50% but below 80% of Boston SMSA median income Based on February 1, 2000 data the annual incomes qualifying for affordable housing are: Income 1 person 2 persons 3 person s 4 persons persons 6 persons Boston Median $45,850 $52,400 $58,950 $65,500 $70,740 $75,980 Income to income 22,925 26,200 29,475 32,750 35,370 37,900 Moderate Income 36,680 41,920 47,160 52,400 56,592 60,784 The median income for the Boston metropolitan area is determined by the Regional Economist for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and is adjust annually. The current median income for the Boston PMSA is $65,500 and is adjusted for household size. O Currently, the statistics for Reading as published by DHCD show that are 8095 housing units in Reading, with 375 units considered to be "affordable". Under State, mandate, all communities are required to have a minimum of 10% of the community's housing set aside as affordable. DHCD shows that Reading only has 4.63% of its housing stock considered as affordable. In planning for affordable housing in the Town of Reading, all boards must be aware that the sale or rental of affordable units must be affordable to families with incomes at the appropriate levels. This is especially important as you look at the inclusionary provisions for affordable housing units for sale to prospective "affordable' home buyers. This would take into consideration the current lending rates, insurance, real estate taxes, condo fees, etc., an affordable homeowner could assume only a maximum 28% debt to income ratio. For a condominium, based on a purchase price with 10% down payment a 30 year mortgage at 8% and real estate taxes at 1.25% of the purchase price, and a $200 per month condo fee, a moderate income households cannot assume more than the following 1 person family $80,000 2 person family 102,000 3 person family 118,000 4 person family 134,000 5 person family 146,000 I believe that these statistics are important to consider when talking with the other Boards in town. * Much of this information has been garnered from reports prepared by Massachusetts Housing Partnership. 0 rr ~.C Section 2 - Housing Certification and Discretionary Grant Funds For example, in the Boston area, this would translate into: 1) ownership properties assessed at $297,000 or less 2) rental units - $1,638 monthly rent or less Executive Order 418 focuses on creating ownership and rental units that are assessed or valued at, or under, these levels. See Attachment B to determine which metropolitan or non-metroporiitan area your community resides. Rents and Purchase Prices Affordable to Massachusetts Households Median Affordable 15001. Of Afford2ble )=amity Rent Area Median Purchase Income (30x of Income Price" or median) Metropolitan Area Barnstable-Yarmouth $47,700 $1,193 $71,550 $215,000 Boston 565,500 $1,638 $98,250 5297,000 Brockton $57,700 S1,443 $86,550 $261,000 Fall River (Providence- Fall River Warwick RI- MA PMSA) S49,800 $1,245 $74,700 $225,000 Fitchburg-Leorninster $53,100 $1,328 $79,650 .5240,000 Lawrence $60,800 51,520 $91,200 $215,000 Lowell $64,900 $1,623 $97,350 $294,000 New Bedford $43,600 $1,090 $65,400 $196,000 Pittsfield $47.500 $1,188 $71,250 $214,000 Springfield 547,500 $1,188 $71,250 $214,000 Worcester $54,400' $1,360 581,600 S246,000 Non-Metropolitan County Barnstable County $48,000 $1,200 572,000 $216,000 Berkshire County $44,300 $1,108 $66,450 $199,000 Dukes County $53,200 $1,330 $79,800 $240,000 Franklin County $46,000 $1,150 $69,000 $207,000 Hampden County $51,900 51,298 $77,850 $234,000 Hampshire County $51,400 S1,285 $77,100 $232,000 Nantucket County $62,300 $1,558 593,450 $283,000 Worcester County $48,100 $1,203 $72,150 $217,000 Assumes 10% down, 8.5% loan for 30 years, 33% of income for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance, rounded to nearest $1000. ( D73 6 READING HOUSING AUTHORITY INVENTORY As Of June 15, 2001 RHA Owned or Controlled Units: No. of Units 80 6 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 8 10 18 Location Tannerville Oakland Rd. Parker Place Schoolhouse Condos Main St. Summer Ave Gazebo Circle Condos Wilson St Pleasant St Bancroft Ave Gazebo Circle Condos Longwood Place Type of Housing Elderly & Disabled Family Housing Family Housing Elderly Housing Family Housing Family Housing Family Housing Family Housing Family Housing Provided for D.M.R. 1" Time Homebuyers (RHA Deed Restrictions) Elder Assisted Living (RHA Oversight) Rental Subsidy Programs: 1 Mass Rental Voucher 125 Section 8 Voucher/Certificates n.+ Programs: Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Opportunities The family signs a contract which requires certain behaviors (work, education, counseling etc) As family income increases, the rent increases (based on 30% of their income) are placed in an escrow that can only be used for certain allowed purposes such as education, home purchase, etc. The average that a successful participant receives at end of program is about $7,500.00. This program has the best success record in the state. An oversight committee is shared with Wakefield. Elderly Resident Services Includes such varied programs as the Tannerville Brunch & Caf6 & Seasonal functions programs: Shopping Programs: Foot Clinics: Counseling: Family relations assistance; Art classes. YMCA member. Affordable Housing Development RHA is working with Peter Sanborn Place/United Church Homes on an addition of 50 assisted living units to Peter Sanborn Place. RHA serves on the Community Preservation Act Study Committee and will participate in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund administration. We are working to create additional first-time homebuyer and rental housing opportunities. t-, N +-J a~ D NO Ln U- . Ln 00 Ln Ln ~OR1TYa C) ` C: O w ca NO ,.a cti O AC J k Q D` its ON s ~~YOb3b *~P 00 ^ CL) . ca > as N E-- C410 4a 4-J •CV N (V 4-1 cr x o o -o 4-0 ~ >N y o~„ c CL ate 1- 41 (p (V 40 -v ru r_ u b4 4-- > aci U U ui 'a c = c, tn a~ as Lj o t~ m V "a cn cv S; as w O i~. s= V -`2 _ E > v s~ °h s `o o r -E > CL bb CL `a c u' ' n n 'C V a' ' n '•C~s 'O a a~i cam, p 4-4 o E~-•~w 0 AAAAAAAAAAAAA 3 H vt L T Q j r-d t~ 4.0 E p E N f2 O OZ3 L _ O_ L y 'C3 O 'O ' C 1 Ll t3 Cn L °C3 0 aJ O _ .O_ N Q) v o 0 10 O O H A-A .10 p v 10 p 4-J m O j 44 O 4 2 c: y t4 pp a° _ •E m V- f, O O 4-A E cv cc E O O 4. p O> • b 0 vii O O C x O .f] T3 L7 'Q .Q ,O C Q' H O 2 t4 L 0 a a O L L2 • w U O co ,fl cL 4! tSS v cC w ► H :3 CD O ~ ~ IV CO 4.1 cv N C O t'"c ba La Q i-d a ~ M 41 xc 3c O i N p . C A W O o =S co 4-1 JU) Zi ~ `C3 ~ V bA L1'f N Qa ti~ T3 at N tOC ~ M 0 bA ~..1 y E bO 0= a _ 422 W co CL (a a~ O a f to O O = ar a O j C1. --o o C7 > caQTJ° o°_'c W tC L 3 t'C 4., a by to aJ a O a _ i H •A H O r-L C W) W c 2 ti > i > a GM s.t ~q C L ,no cc N r a V L N N L f - W. CA ' ~ o `v aN L -O N 0 N Q 0 c L3 C co O R ~ 4-+ s~i .a Ems- "0 ti; W L LZ. „ I'd ba L ~-d H a1 L N T3 h H to H w L 3: Z L t a4-JC >r Z p = O tv - to O t 4-1 - + c. bA d' +4y p ~ s~ o V O W C L N O 0 a• - Ln p w Q (v t3 4-1 bA =5 tR Ls . CO d E O i C r ¢ O 4-J q h i . c C O O E- 3 w a -0 a r t E i x i - to L i-d V) w W . . ,T . Etg ° O ~ 3 ' - ° X:) H C O ~ r C V p V L O 03 O r (V 'C7 !3 1~ d] CI- 0 X rx A co cu L r~l .O O p R! Q co c o • p L2 f-1. o u . Q U ~ s U ~ a (V Cl a, ~ a c M V =.3 E 0 •cs O E v V N bt1 L cz C- O y bA ~N [p tt) aJ tG L M a) M cc CL CL a) Cx F- O m m a... > tv 05!23/2081 13:~5a ~a1~aL~G'~ w jM 1 Y ►e V V O~ s. o~ v~ A i~ 4i~ I{ p/Tq~ ~QJ. Q M Il L tl~ N N C`~ I N I F7 + 1 1 30 it 1 { ~ + I r r r 3-' r_3 ~ ~ S Y Q ts~ LL V- T 0 NN N O rj cp T ~ 1 N~ 0 s N o r T t5o I J C~ Y a a ~ r dde~ ~a 17 i 33 i m w w O .41 A s LT. r 1 ' CO 1 ty. d a Visit T F"- Z; . i 1 1'§ 1 1 -i al h~ 5 7 i VO 10 k O y k~ p Ne,\ Requirement of Chap. 40B of Mass G L - Affordable housing = 10% of all dwelling units Reading, Mass Analysis Methods to Achieve Required 10% Affordable Housing Current Base @ 5/31/01: Total Housing Stock-Estimate 8,450 Affordable per chapter 40B 404 Current affordable percentage 4.78% Scenario No. 1: RHA acquires existing housing units and converts to affordable: Housing Inv. Current Construct Purchase when Scenario Inventory New Units Existing Units completed Total housing inventory 8,450 0 441 8,450 Affordable housing included in total 404 0 441 845 Percentage of affordable housing 4.78% #DIV/0! 100.00% 10.00% a.:..6 cosh. per ~tnaf purcha ed...:: € ,t~tt ; l atat cost of ii* i tQ::;i :t~ 2 O;tl : Scenario No. 2: RHA constructs new housing which are all affordable: Total housing inventory Affordable housing included in total Percentage of affordable housing Esf .mated . cC?st::..:.. . Housing Inv. Current Construct Purchase when Scenario Inventory New Units Existing Units . completed 8,450 490 0 8,940 404 490 0 894 4.78% 100.00% #DIV/0! 10.00°/a mario No. 3: Linkage - All new units built in town require 20% of units be affordable' Housing Inv. Current Construct Purchase when Scenario Inventory New Units Existing Units completed Total housing inventory 8,450 4,400 0 12,850 Affordable housing included in total 404 881 0 1,285 Percentage of affordable housing 4.78% 20.02% #DIV/01 10.00% of scsnan Q;f utld ~s $6 E, J. 0 ; J. Scenario No. 4: Double Amt Linkage - All new units built in town of Housing!! require 10% of units be affordable: Housin Inv g . Current Construct Purchase when Scenario Inventory New Units Existing Units completed Total housing inventory 8,450 8,450 0 16,900 Affordable housing included in total 404 845 0 1,249 Percentage of affordable housing 4.78% 10.00% #DIV/01 7.39% 6/21/2001 Achieve 10% afford. housing L °J _ Combined First Time Homebuyers Program and Multi Family Purchase _ Donated Land - - Basis: - Purchase Buildable Lot for placement of Donated Single Family Home: Costs: _ Purchase Price of Land-Donated $0 Legal costs of acquisition $2,500 Cost Appeals (Consrvation /Comp Permit) $45,000 Cost of Foundation $15,000 Cost of Moving Home $30,000 _ Site Work, Utilities, Landscaping, etc $10,00 0 Contigincy 5% _ j $5,125 Construction Loan - 1 1/2 year 10.00% $16,144 Total Costs of acquisition & development $123,769 Income from First Time Homebuyers Program: Receipt of 1/2 of cost of Razing from donator $5,000 Mortgage for 80% Boston Med. Income buyer: Median Income for 4 person family $67,000 80% to qualify as low income $53,600 j Percent usable for housing costs 31.00% 1 Funds available for Housing costs $16,616 Less estimated R/E taxes & Insurance ($3,000) 1 Buyer Funds available for Mortgage $13,616 Mortgage which could be supported by above amount. Rate 6.75% Term - Years 30 Supportable Mortgage $173,293 Less 5% down payment -optional $0 Buyer Purchase Price $173,293 Funds available to RHA for reinvestment in Multiple Family Rental Properties $54,524 Advantage: Enables 1 single lot to provide 2 to 3 units of affordable housing. Least social impact on neighborhood since home is owned, not rented. Expands the RHA owned units program. Problems: I Time :Storage of donated house if permitting, appeals etc cannot be implemented in a timely manner. Availbility of multifamily for 2nd part of program. How to fair) determine who gets the home. Reading Housing Authority Steps to increase Affordable Housing June 15, 2001 Affordable 1 st time homeowner Finances 2- two or three family homes Inventory at Year 2000 Completed 2001: 75 Pleasant St Pleasant & Wilson Revised at 6/1 /01 'Two Year Plan: Peter Sanborn Place (LIP Program) 2 RHA, 1 st buyers Prgm-Governers Dr RHA Historic house & Land -West St Proposed Spence farm (per PRD) Revised Total &XD Total Chap 40B Inventory Affordable Percent 8,448 400 4.73% 2 2 2 8,450 404 4.78% 50 50 0 6 0 3 88 9 8,588 472 5.50% j READING HOUSING AUTHORITY 22 Frank D. Tanner Drive : Reading, Ma 01867: 781- 944-6755 Summary of CPA assistance in providing Affordable Housing. Annual Affordable Annually available funds of $100,000.00 Units Provided In order to purchase existing units and have them self-supporting RHA needs a $20,000.00 subsidy per unit. 5 Construction on donated land - $10,000. subsidy per unit 10 Construction on purchased land - $50,000 subsidy per unit 2 Moving donated house to donated land & purchasing 3 rental units-Subsidy of $5,000 to $10,000 per purchased rental unit. (would need 3 donated lots) 12 Moving donated houses to purchased land & retaining as rental subsidy of $40,000 per unit 2 If funds were available RHA could apply for several grants and low interest programs (Fed Home Loan), which would in effect double or triple the available resources. If this were available in 1999 RHA could have purchased 32 available rental units on Main St. Spence Farm & Longwood will be developed soon. The RHA wants to construct an over age 55, low income housing area (separate homes which could be rented, sold on an endowment basis, or sold with a deed restriction, which keeps it affordable) If CPA funds were combined with the required linkage the developer must provide if, zoned as a Planned Residential Development or PUD, this is doable. If just Longwood Farm were involved this could provide 20 to 40 badly needed units of elderly/handicapped affordable housing. CPA funds could be combined with the new Affordable Housing Trust funds And RHA resources to provide many opportunities to expand affordable housing. In summary the RHA could lever each $100,000.00 in CPA funds into anywhere from 2 Units to 12 units of affordable housing each year. In special circumstances, such as Spence farm or combining with Fed/State grants the RHA could leverage $500,000 into 20 to 40 units or more. The variety of opportunities are wide and the ability to be ready to react when one presents itself, with available CPA funds, would be of great importance. ' tL F z °v ~aa°: O q >o a0 CU ~ 1 0 aU+ L' p 0 , ® o " +r W A N Y N cm bo Q) 0 D O 0 r. O U) + O CL) ;1 14 00 oayiOC3 Ocz f Y~ O U y a0 1 , a SOME 0 .d „ ~ 0 rv 0 W-00 ' 04 ~ Vf "Cl ~"N C'I 0 ^ y 0 -ICI :3 m <4 m s~ o , y O O p 0 y OVax Q V) Y c,, -db( o o0 y a , a} .y O S" 7 a U O 40. ;.4 P4 0 -0 ~ - O co U ~ a . ® bD Y O '1' cE Y N 04 O O cV y O ' ° O P bAWNw 0 O > ~U a ~ P. ~ y cV CIS ?I E"0 0~0 E N ~20• L Y o a d -I v.2 a~..~. ray" °=Q°°' Y cv ~ ti N y y • y . o y 9) 0 C1' O 0.)A 0- CZ - N it Q Ll A 0 y . a U ` `o ° 0 en Q > r , . &4 . o A d v c d C~ ~ 0c iq U R cC 0 C1,y 0 w A 04 CZ U O ~7 O G~ am. 0 o ' y N 0 C's 0-. 04- Ei (ov o ~j CA 3.4. tj yO F■ o a0 ° -0 03 El c > ■ cvov to- $4 U 0 N.~ y ro cC p .q a U y w y 0 O. Y Yi OY y CA G ~ 0 Ox O s ' L1 14 MOO, w 1/y ~ GU Yy O ca .r. O . Y Cp? C 0 ' O'. Y fr' O O i0 y coy; U 0 -q).- 0 0 u ONO ~ ccz a) .C v on .4 a Rs v v T$~ cl ° H o., a N a. Z tV 0 O D. C10 J) ZIV: y W Y ® w ~ 0 ..b Vl cc . W a - O Ly y a' O >v 75 -0 0 ~0 v y H a U q y yn^ CIS Q. y y N Vi y 0 C3 v b ® "K, 0 A "C''b ~'i L". y A +r O y O ~ U V o Q; o 4 W > y 0 O V OW ON 0 a + "r1 CA a Q . cl U C'Is N Y ' a o' Q y cc 4a x (A A c ~ dft M Q i q Om V W d wZMCI LLL: ` 2 ~ . _:low 1990 Household Incomes ,kA v El less than $10,000/year S, ,77w 0 $35k-$50k 1-7.'-l 0 $100k or more B $10k-$25k i Z~i 0 $50k-$75k N-7 11 0 $25k-$35k 'I C, S- 7, 0 $75k-$100k I C 0: 535 5577 t✓'.02 uttt Inied Fi .st s irn Homebuyers PrW..22tRM anal binWti F! a ily Purchase Gasis: Purchase Fuiida' le Lot„ for l? acement j nr Donated Single Farni y Horde: Costs: Purchase Price or I-and ' $90,000 Legal costs of acquisition, & permitieg l $5 000 Co5t of Foil-jdation _ , x110,000 Cost of Nlovirg 0 1 X30,000 wite'N rk, t,lt Ries, Landscaping, etc $10,000 5%: j'ot.al Cost- of acquisition & deveiopn;ent $152,25-3 er,eipt of 112 ofi cost of Razing from dorlifof $5,000 Mortgage for 80°',, Boston med. Incnme buyer : kledia.n Income for 4 person farnily SOT000 j _ 80% to qualify as low .ncorne _ $53,601 Percent usable for ,icusine costs ~ 3Lt.00%, Funds av.010lo for Housing costs ~ $16,080 Less estimated R/E taxes & insurance i 3,OW: Buyer Funds available for Mortgage $1131080 -'Mortgage tivhic}1 Gould be supported ~ by above amount- Rate . 6.75°m `fie-m - Years 30 Supportable Mortgage _ - - ! $166,471^ less 5% down payment -n-ptional ~o Buyer Purchase Price $166,471 Funds available to RHA for reinvestment in Multiple Family Rental Property- I $18,221 Existing Affordable Housing S% Tannerville Cedar Glen ❑ Longwood Place ❑ Peter Sanborn Place State Family Housing ❑ State Special-Bleeds Housing EMARC Reading ❑ Sanborn Street BHA-Owned Affordable Units. OTHER READING HOUSING -50 100 rcequirement or Vnap. guts of mass U L - Attorciabte housing = 1u% of all tlweltang units Reading, Mass Analysis Methods to Achieve Required 10% Affordable Housing Current Base @ 5/31/00: Total Housing Stock 8,100 Affordable per chapter 40B 375 Current affordable percentage 4.63% >nario No. 1: RHA acquires existing housing units and converts to affordable: Housing Inv. Current Construct Purchase when Scenario Inventory New Units Existing. Units completed Total housing inventory 8,100 0 435 8,100 Affordable housing included in total 375 0 435 810 Percentage of affordable housing 4.63% 100.00% 10.00% unf.:pireEase FAA.; 52.2E3fl nario No. 2: RHA constructs new housing units which are all affordable: Housing Inv. Current Construct Purchase when Scenario Inventory New Units Existing Units completed Total housing inventory 8,100 483 0 8,583 Affordable housing included in total 375 483 0 858 Percentage of affordable housing 4.63% 100.00% 10.00% Est treated cpst per unfit tr?clurfe farad._... 4 Q F tai::;posf qt scenarto;iq:::I $6 .62 nario No. 3: Linkage - All new units built in town require 20% of units be affordable: Housing Inv. Current Construct Purchase when Scenario Inventory New Units Existing Units completed Total housing inventory 8,100 4,375 0 12,475 Affordable housing included in total 375 875 0 1,250 Percentage of affordable housing 4.63% 20.00% 10.02% W st :cost:>fo>:b uiJders:redo:Ceti:::rrc:e::::>::<: :::.g.:::::.: >$6(3; 00~]<:= »Tota3::;crst;afsee.n arta;to.;bp(l.d ers.: :.;:.$52. ~©Il. ;ODD.;: Scenario No. 4: Double Amt Linkage - All new units built in town of Housing!! require 10% of units be affordable- Housing Inv. Current Construct Purchase when Scenario Inventory New Units Existing Units completed Total housing inventory 8,100 8,100 0 16,200 Affordable housing included in total 375 810 0 1,185 Percentage of affordable housing 4.63% 10.00% 7.31% stcst tc, t~iil~l~ ~s tce~lucrdf Wt.E}~ AGO, -Tpt~l coif of s ~~~,rio t~ l,uilti~cr, '$4~E 6~1~,~7fl; 6/6/2001 Achieve 10% afford, housing