Affordable & Fair Housing Partnership

Affordable & Fair Housing Partnership Meeting minutes 12/22/2022 In attendance: Janna Tetreault, Shira Simon, Kate Banigan-White Guests: Jamie Webb, City of Easthampton; Jeff Bagg, City of Easthampton; Bryan Balicki, Sage Engineering; Peter Graham, Valley Housing Consultants; Danielle Martineau Meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. Meeting was remote only. A. Approval of Meeting Minutes November 2022. Kate motioned to approve. Shira seconded. Notes approved unanimously. B. Discussion with developers of Sierra Vista Commons (Tasty Top Development LLC) • Project presented at Planning Board on 12/20/22 • Phased Project; focus on affordable housing for Partnership Meeting; permitting entire project at once • Using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program to finance the project. 35 affordable units are required by the zoning; the project is proposing at least 54 affordable units (44 units below 80% AMI and 10 unites between 80-120% AMI). 16 units will be for households earning less than 30% AMI. • Because the market rate rents in Easthampton are close to the tax credit rents, it makes sense to have more affordable units. • Peter Graham provided some background on the LIHTC program and how it works. • Project will be built in phases. The affordable units will be built in Phase 2. Partnership members expressed some concern about all of the affordable units being located in the first three buildings. • The project will likely seek Community Preservation Act funds Suggestions from Partnership members: • Find an opportunity to explain why the project is named Sierra Vista Commons • Let gymnastics families know about the project and encourage them to speak in support of the project; same with daycare families; make a point that Roots will take infants in daycare • Focus on the efficiency of units Partnership Discussion • Janna encouraged members to watch the Planning Board meeting from 12/20 and attend the next Planning Board meeting. • Kate notes that she supports the project in general but is skeptical about some parts of the project. The project sounds very corporate and it was hard to get through the weeds of the project. Concerns about the for-profit nature of the project. Other agenda items tabled until January meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.