Mercer County Affordable Housing Fund
MEETING MINUTES
MERCER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FUND BOARD MEETING
Tuesday – June 24, 2003
Mercer County Regional Planning Commission Offices
Present:
Board Members
– Debra Arner, Sister Clare Marie Beichner, DeWitt Boosel,
Dr. Joyce M. Cuff, Thomas Fiscus, Pamela
Prince, Bob Siegfried and Dave Ryan
Others
– Gary Cervone (Mercer County Community Action Agency), Frank Gargiulo
(Mercer County Housing Authority), Emmett Miles (Barnes/Miles Global Community
Development), Lizette Olsen (AWARE), Joseph Phillips (representing Southwest
Gardens Economic Development Corporation), Denny Puko (Executive Director,
Mercer County Regional Planning Commission) and Chris Conti (Senior Planner,
MCRPC)
Absent:
Board Members
– R. Glenn Adams, Ron Errett, Donald A. Koontz, Jim Miale, Randy Riddle
Mr. Fiscus, Chairperson, called the meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
A motion was made by Dr. Cuff and seconded by
Mr. Ryan to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2002 meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Fiscus next discussed the expiration of
six board members terms on July 1, 2003. Mr. Puko explained that these board
members were initially appointed for one year at the creation of the board.
This was to begin the rotation of approximately half the board needing to be
reappointed every year, allowing for both continuity and the possibility of
new members being added as old members are not reappointed. Subsequently, the
reappointed member's terms will be for two years, after they were initially
appointed for one year. After discussion, the board agreed to have MCRPC draft
a letter to the Mercer County Commissioners, alerting the commissioners to the
expiration of the terms and recommending the reappointment of these members,
pending individual board member's acquiescence.
To set the stage for the main agenda item for
the evening, i.e. the review of project proposals for the first round of
funding from the Mercer County Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Act 137), Mr.
Fiscus noted that in a memo from Mercer County Recorder Ronda McClelland, the
fund had accumulated $262,990.67 through the end of May 2003.
The board then moved to review the five
proposals received for the first round of funding from the Mercer County
Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Act 137). These proposals were received from
AWARE, the Community Counseling Center, the Mercer County Community Action
Agency, the Mercer County Housing Authority, and Southwest Gardens Economic
Development Corporation. Combined, the five proposals requested a total of
$246,671 in trust funds.
Mr. Puko then explained that at the last
meeting, the board expressed a desire to have a score sheet designed to
reflect the previously adopted competitive selection criteria point system.
This was subsequently done and mailed to the board along with key components
of the applications. Mr. Puko then added that the meeting was an opportunity
for the board to jointly discuss and score the projects and to eventually
reach an "average" of opinions. Dr. Cuff noted that the board
previously agreed that while the score system will help the board focus on and
clarify key issues involved with the projects, it was to be regarded as a
tool--that the board could recommend funding all or none or a combination of
the projects regardless of score.
Mr. Puko proceeded to summarize the projects.
Discussion by the board members and questions for the applicants in attendance
followed. (Note: All of the projects were to benefit low-income individuals.)
A summary of the projects and subsequent discussion is as follows:
AWARE
(A) Project: AWARE requested
$13,200 in Mercer County Act 137 (MC 137) funds to establish a bridge housing
program. This program would allow victims of domestic violence to stay up to
an additional sixty days in an emergency shelter above the current thirty day
stay within any sixty day period limitation.
(B) Discussion: The board
established that this project is an "operational" one, essentially
one that does not involve the construction of new housing or having a
"brick and mortar" aspect. It was noted that the Mercer County
Commissioners established a 20% cap on funding operational projects in any
funding round. It was acknowledged that this may act as a constraint to
funding these types of projects in any given funding round.
Mr. Ryan noted that AWARE's municipal support
letter was signed by professional staff member, rather than himself, the chief
elected official (Mayor) of the City of Sharon as stated in the threshold
criteria. Mr. Ryan stated that he authorized the letter and this should
satisfy the threshold criteria. Further discussion revealed that this project,
in essence, would be funded 100% by MC 137 funds, when threshold criteria
established for the fund requires a project sponsor match.
The board also discussed that the project did
not appear to meet the broad definition of an affordable housing effort
established by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for Act 137, i.e. "any
program or project approved by the county commissioners which increases the
availability of quality housing, either sales or rental, to any county
resident whose annual income is less than the median income of the
county."
Community Counseling Center
(A) Project: The Community Counseling
Center (CCC) requested $32,500 in MC 137 funds. These funds would defray the
cost of CCC's recent purchase of a home to eventually house three mental
health customers that would be under trained staff supervision.
(B) Discussion: The board noted that
CCC did not have a support letter from the municipality where their project
is located. MCRPC staff informed the board that CCC did make an attempt to
acquire such letter from the City of Hermitage.
Mercer County Community Action Agency
(A) Project: The Mercer County
Community Action Agency (MCCAA) requested $20,770.80 in MC 137 funds. These
funds would construct three new homes on five potential sites, as well as
four new rental units for transitional housing in the Cities of Sharon and
Farrell. Other funding sources for the project include HUD, HOME, CDBG (City
of Sharon) and Weed and Seed.
(B) Discussion: Mr. Puko noted that
this was the same project that the board reviewed in the fall when it
recommended projects to the Mercer County Commissioners for funding under
the PA DCED Brownfields for Housing Initiative. Sister Clare asked for the
project's need for MC 137 funds. Mr. Cervone stated that this was the last
part of funding necessary to complete the whole project as originally
envisioned. Lack of MC 137 funds would necessitate the elimination of one
house from the original project scope of three new homes.
Mercer County Housing Authority
(A) Project: The Mercer County
Housing Authority (MCHA) requested $31,200 in MC 137 funds. Mr. Gargiulo
addressed the board and stated that funding would help establish a program
that would expand the existing Mercer County HUD Section 8 voucher program
from rental vouchers into the area of homeownership for first time buyers.
The Section 8 voucher program would allow MCHA to provide housing
counseling, down payment and closing cost assistance and mortgage subsidies
to qualified buyers.
(B) Discussion: Questions from the
board established that homes purchased through the program would have to be
code compliant, could be purchased throughout the county and be used to
purchase homes provided by other housing programs currently found in the
county. Discussion then centered on whether the project is operational or
not and would fall under the operational funding restraint mentioned above.
The board eventually decided that the project in its construction was mainly
operational, despite the end goal of the project entailing the voucher
holder purchasing a home.
Southwest Gardens Economic Development
Corporation
(A) Project: The Southwest Gardens
Economic Development Corporation (SWGC), in conjunction with Barnes and
Miles Global Community Development, requested $150,000 in MC 137 funds. This
project would construct five new homes in the City of Farrell. Matching
funds for the project, both loans and grants, have been applied for but not
secured. Grant funds secured would lower the eventual home buyer's mortgage
payment.
(B) Discussion: Mr. Siegfried had
questions for the sponsors concerning the budget, particularly pertaining to
the project funding and expenditures balancing to zero. However, the budget
also indicated that the home buyer with their mortgage payment appeared to
contribute to the financing, generating the project a profit. Mr. Siegfried
asked if these funds would be used toward a revolving fund, which would
subsequently build more homes. Mr. Miles stated that the mortgage funds
would be used to pay the loans provided to the project by the Pennsylvania
Housing Financing Agency (PHFA) as well as developer costs. The developer is
responsible for the PHFA loan.
At this time, Mr. Boosel updated the board on
legislation pending at the state level concerning Act 137. This legislation
entailed using these funds for economic development purposes and by PHFA. Mr.
Boosel then excused himself from the meeting before the scoring and final
recommendation by the board to the county commissioners for funding of the
submitted projects stating potential conflict of interest, in that he was
directly involved with one of the projects.
The board moved to score the projects. The CCC
project was eliminated from scoring and recommendation to the commissioners
due to the fact that it did not meet the threshold criteria of providing a
support letter by the municipality in which the project was located. The SWGC
project, while scored, was removed from future consideration due to the fact
that they did not provide the board with a recent audit of the organization,
also a threshold criteria for a project to be considered. Mr. Siegfried made a
motion to remove the CCC and SWGC projects from consideration due to these
applicants not providing materials to meet threshold criteria, therefore
warranting further consideration. Ms. Arner seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
The scored projects were ranked as follows:
MCCAA - 34
MCHA - 29
AWARE - 28
Discussion moved to the county commissioner's
20% cap on funding operational projects in any one funding cycle. The board
agreed that the MCHA project was operational. Therefore, the funding of the
MCHA and/or AWARE projects would exceed the 20% threshold. Also, questions
arose over whether the AWARE project provided a match and if the project met
the definition of an affordable housing effort per Act 137. Mr. Puko noted
that several counties in the commonwealth have long standing Act 137 programs
and that MCRPC could check with these counties to see if they have funded
projects similar to the AWARE project. A motion was made by Mr. Siegfried to
remove the MCHA and AWARE projects from consideration due to the 20%
constraint on funding operational projects in any one funding cycle. Mr. Ryan
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 with Sister Clare voting against
the motion.
In the future, Mr. Siegfried requested the
staff of MCRPC note potential issues (meeting threshold criteria) with future
project submittals during its initial project review and alert the board of
such issues. Mr. Puko stated that the MCRPC would do so.
Mr. Fiscus asked if projects not recommended
for funding at this time could be resubmitted at a future date. Mr. Puko said
they could and furthermore, MCRPC would communicate with project sponsors that
were not recommended for funding to discuss how their projects could be
strengthened through corrective action for possible re-submittal.
Mr. Fiscus asked if there could be more than
one MC 137 funding cycle a year. Mr. Puko responded that while the original
intent probably was for one funding cycle a year, he did not see any reason
why the board could not entertain new or re-submittals before the end of the
year or sooner if the circumstances dictate. That said, Mr. Fiscus said the
board would welcome re-submittals at any time.
Mr. Siegfried made a motion to recommend to
the county commissioners that the MCCAA project be considered for funding
during the initial funding cycle from the Mercer County Affordable Housing
Trust Fund (Act 137). Ms. Arner seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Puko stated that MCRPC would inform the
county commissioners of the board's motion/recommendation and that MCRPC would
monitor the projects not considered for funding by the board for future
fundability.
Mr. Siegfried asked Mr. Puko the status of the
Brownfield projects the board reviewed in the fall. Mr. Puko stated that the
MCCAA project was the same one as the board reviewed during this meeting and
with probable funding with MC 137 funds (pending the commissioner's approval)
the last piece of MCCAA's funding scenario was in place for them to undertake
the whole scope of their project. SWGC project of rehabilitating two to four
homes was proceeding with three homes being ready for bid.
The board agreed to meet again in late
October, unless a project that needed immediate consideration in the
intervening time warranted an earlier meeting . A motion was made to adjourn
the meeting by Ms. Arner. Mr. Ryan seconded the motion. The meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Mercer
County Regional Planning Commission
2491 Highland Road, Hermitage, PA 16148
mail@mcrpc.com www.mcrpc.com
home
about mcrpc planning
projects community
development transportation
zoning
subdivision
