Community Housing Council
Judge Welsh Hearing Room
Members Present: Elaine Anderson, Catherine Reno Brouillet,
Joe Carleo, William Dougal (arr. 4:12p),
and Molly Perdue.
Members absent: A.J.
Alon (excused absence)
Staff: David Gardner
Others: Provincetown Housing
Authority Group –
Dr. Cheryl Andrews, C. Reno Brouillet,
George Bryant (left at 5:05p), Bryan Green,
Nancy Jacobsen, and Patrick Manning.
The meeting was called to
order at
David Gardner announced that
the Board of Selectmen (BoS) and the Economic Development Council (EDC) are
hosting the 2nd phase of the Business Summit from
Meeting Agenda
Review and approval of Minutes
Motion: Move to approve the
minutes of the
Motion: Molly Perdue Seconded:
Elaine Anderson Vote: 4-0-0.
Discussion
RFP for
Members of the Provincetown
Housing Authority attended in their entirety.
Joe Carleo said to David Gardner that everyone has a copy of the RFP and
we were led to believe that the urgency around this meeting was that you would
need our comments immediately. David
said that you now don’t need to make the comments that soon. It’s scheduled to go before the BoS on December
10th and the date for release is
Cheryl Andrews, Vice Chair of
the Provincetown Housing Authority (PHA) said, “We weren’t invited but we
requested attendance so we’re not here in any official capacity.” Elaine
Anderson said that she wants everyone to know that the PHA was the initial co-applicant
with the BoS to the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) for funds on the 90
Shankpainter proposal #2006-01.
The Request For Proposal (RFP)
for Shankpainter was then launched into.
The RFP team was begun in mid August and then the project got its second
breath in mid-fall. David has inherited
this responsibility and lacks the background nuances. Bryan Green, Patrick Manning, and David Guertin
initially met with 2 members of the BoS to begin hammering out an RFP.
Cheryl Andrews interjected
that this current draft does not have a stamp of approval from the PHA. She said that her comments haven’t trickled
up! The PHA had evidently received the
RFP about two weeks ago. The PCHC had
just received their copies via e-mail last Friday.
Molly P. asked, “So there is
supposed to be a sub-committee that never met?”
Patrick said – correct.
Joe Carleo said – so this
draft that appeared last Friday - a lot of it has been taken from the original
draft?
Bill Dougal said that he
understands the history of how it happened but now we have evolved as a
Community Housing Council.
David Gardner said that at
this point it has been set up so that the comments of the PCHC will be funneled
through Patrick Manning and his group, the PHA.
This is just a review of the RFP.
Cheryl A. said that this RFP has
been out for a couple of weeks and when we heard from Molly P. that you had it
on your agenda, we felt it necessary to come to the meeting even though we were
not invited to sit at your table.
George Bryant said that he
didn’t feel that there was anything of substance and we all have to be on the
same page; there has to be a clearing house and a central point for
information.
David G. said that it was his
understanding that staff would be responsible for sitting on top of the RFP and
he was to try to incorporate as many suggestions as he receives into the
draft. That would be his approach.
The discussion went back and
forth and the main problem seemed to be that three different committees and
entities each felt that it was their particular responsibility to finalize the
RFP. David put that to rest with his
interpretation that staff would be responsible and would take into
consideration all of the suggestions of the three committees/entities, i.e.,
Provincetown Housing Authority, Provincetown Community Housing Council, and the
Community Preservation Committee.
Susan Connolly put all this
together and Sharon Lynn said that once we had a more precise RFP then she
would give it all to the different committees so the prior drafts are not too
much different from what you have now.
Joe C. then proposed that the
PHA join the PCHC at the table which they did.
Maxine Notaro cautioned that
the members can’t communicate back and forth with each other and discuss all
this. David’s intention is to share the
RFP with all the chairs of committees and he is now the keeper of the RFP.
Bill D. said he had one fundamental
question to start with - in order to
qualify for a sewer hookup – a determination must be made of the maximum septic
that could be put on the property.
Cheryl laid that concern to rest by saying that this project would be
exempt as are the nursing home, any totally affordable complex, and the
laundry, so the only problem may be the commercial portion of the
development. She said that we need to
focus on the section that is relevant to us.
Bill D. also wants the issue
of the use of local labor and workforce to be one of the criteria.
Cheryl felt that Bill’s viewpoint
is economic development – she would prefer to focus only on the housing
aspect. Molly doesn’t want to make this
application so difficult that developers wouldn’t apply. Elaine Anderson said that the Town has
already purchased the property for $1M to give to a developer who could satisfy
the RFP demands.
George Bryant said that on
Motion: A sentence to be
included in the RFP would be that the proposal has to be consistent with the CPC
application.
Motion: Elaine Anderson Seconded: C.
The PHA made the same motion
with the same result – 4-0-1 ab (CRB)
Bill D. would like something that would reflect the
use of the local workforce and he would like the lottery for these units to be
administered by the Town; he would like tightened language on what 40B would
mean - environmentally, etc. He would also like the respondent to have a
management plan.
Joe C. felt that the selection
process would not involve a lottery – but maybe a wait list.
Cheryl A. said that she felt
whoever the developer may be – they CAN’T make the selection process.
Patrick said that for rentals
the selection process will be ongoing as people move out, etc. You’re talking about the selection process
and that has to be in place for about 40 years.
There are many entities on the
George B. cited a development
in
Bryan G. said as long as the
selection process is taken out of the hands of the developer, he’d be agreeable
to it.
Motion: Ideally the developer
and the selection process will be separate entities.
Motion: Elaine Anderson Seconded:
C.
The PHA made the same motion
with the same results. 4-0-1 ab (CRB)
Cheryl A. said that the RFP
merely references the John Ryan’s “needs assessment” on page 7. Question:
Should the project mimic his ratio for the town or should it have 2
and/or 3 bedrooms?
Elaine A. had also been of the
opinion that this ratio would be mixed.
Bill D. said that there’s a dis-connect between the actual development
of the affordable and we’re relying on John Ryan’s report and it’s based on
certain measurements that he conducted.
What we have in this community is a tangible waiting list and we must
have access to this list.
Bill D. wanted to know if they
meet the criteria for local preference and whether that list is reflective of
this community.
Bryan G. said that this report
is 15 months old and is out of date. We
don’t know how many 3 bedrooms or 2 bedrooms we need.
Cheryl A. said - don’t waste
time talking about lists - either we screwed up in terms of outreach and then
we have to redo the needs. She hopes
that we get some median and middle units.
Cheryl feels it’s critical for the PCHC to look at the ratio on page 7
and decide on where the need is - it has to be what the community wants and she’s
not happy to rubber stamp the John Ryan report.
Joe said - so the goal of the
project is that we have to come up with the ideal mix.
Patrick M. said that his
impression is that median and middle should be included in the mix. He further said that when a developer does a
pro forma it allows a developer to go for funding sources and it’s documented
by a needs assessment. A lot of the
funding sources right now are dry - money is very tight!
At this point in the meeting,
it was decided that the meeting would be continued on next Monday – November 26th at
David G. said that if we can
get all committees to agree to the RFP, then his job is easy so talk amongst
yourselves.
Bill Dougal brought up one
final concern - under public notices – he noticed an application before the
Planning Board to develop Race Point Road and he’s raising the issue of - what
role do we have in this process? And
also, is this a 40B project? Maxine will
have the information at the next meeting.
Elaine A. said that we had
discussed this before and for the definition of the need, we need to know whether
40B trumps the Ryan report.
Adjournment happened at
Respectfully submitted,
Evelyn
Gaudiano
Approved by _____________________________
on ____________, 2007.
Joe Carleo, Chair