Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, Hermitage, Pennsylvania

 

Mercer County Affordable Housing Fund

MEETING MINUTES

MERCER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND BOARD MEETING
Monday, March 20, 2006
Mercer County Regional Planning Commission Offices


Present:

Board Members – L. DeWitt Boosel, Victoria Hosick, Bob Siegfried, Fran Billen, Donald A. Koontz, Ron Errett, Shirley Logan

Others: - Olivia Lazor (Mercer County Commissioner), Daniel Gracenin (Executive Director – MCRPC), Carmen Reichard (Assistant Director-Administration – MCRPC), Brian Barnhizer (Senior Planner – MCRPC)

Absent:

Board Members – Pamela Prince, Joyce Cuff, Randy Riddle, Glenn Adams, Suzanne Rosenfelder, Bill Morocco

Mr. Boosel, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He reminded the Board that the Minutes from the November 17, 2005 meeting were mailed prior to tonight’s meeting. He asked if there were any additions, corrections or deletions to the Minutes. There being none, a motion was made by Mr. Siegfried and seconded by Ms. Hosick to approve the Minutes of the November 17, 2005 meeting. The motion passed. Mr. Boosel also reminded the Board members that in accordance with the 2001 Resolution established by the Board, a minimum of three meetings should be held per calendar year. The Board agreed to hold at least three meetings each year.

Mr. Boosel next stated that there might be two vacant seats on the Board due to existing residency requirements. Mr. Barnhizer explained that Dr. Joyce Cuff is not a resident of Mercer County, and according to the Resolution adopted by the County Commissioners, they (the Commissioners) shall appoint County residents as members. Ms. Fran Billen stated that, under those standards, she cannot be on the Board either as she is not a resident of Mercer County. Mr. Barnhizer stated that the Mercer County Commissioners can be approached to see if this would be a problem, and, if it is, asked if they would be willing to modify the Resolution. Committee members went on to discuss a possible modification to the Resolution stating that a certain percentage of non-residents who work in Mercer County would be eligible to be on the Board. Mr. Boosel stated that he will talk with the Mercer County Commissioners concerning the membership issue.

Mr. Boosel next discussed the program guidelines/application criteria and some of the revised language regarding several issues and interpretations that were reviewed at the March 20 meeting. Mr. Boosel stated that he appointed a Committee to take a look at the program guidelines. He appointed Mr. Errett as Chairman, with Mr. Siegfried and Ms. Hosick as Committee members. This Committee met in December with Mr. Gracenin and Mr. Barnhizer and they discussed several changes to the guidelines. Mr. Errett went on to explain two proposed changes to the program guidelines:

First proposed change: There shall be a 20% cap on funding awarded to operational activities in any funding cycle (calendar year. Applicants that have been awarded operational funds may not apply for operational funds in future years, but may apply for funding for "bricks and mortar" development programs.). Two issues were decided. The Committee stated that they first needed to define the meaning of the term funding cycle, which they determined to be a calendar year. Next, they needed to define operational funds and whether the guidelines allow applicants to come back year after year for operational funding or not. The Board recognized that the emphasis should remain on the funding of bricks and mortar development projects. In discussion, it was noted by Mr. Errett that this would appear to contradict the motion which was passed at the last application review meeting. Mr. Boosel stated that what was approved in the recent past allowed for the operational use of a 20% portion of several years’ worth of program funds by an applicant. Mr. Boosel also reminded the Board that an application for operational funding has already gone to the County Commissioners and has been approved. In further discussion, there was still some question regarding operational funds. Committee members ultimately agreed that the language in the guidelines should read: There shall be a 20% cap "on the previous year’s revenues" on funding awarded to operational activities in any funding "calendar year". Applicants that have been awarded operational funds may not apply for operational funds in future years, but may apply for funding for bricks and mortar development programs. Committee members were in agreement with this item.

Second proposed change: In order for the Board to be prepared to assist in funding a potential larger scale project, a minimum fund reserve of $150,000 to $200,000 shall normally be maintained. Committee members agreed to leave a minimum fund reserve for projects that fall outside of the calendar year in terms of what was committed and what was expensed.

After discussion on the two proposed changes, a motion was made by Mr. Siegfried to approve them and forward them to the Mercer County Commissioners. Mr. Koontz seconded. The motion passed.

Mr. Boosel next welcomed Commissioner Lazor to the meeting and asked her opinion on the Board’s membership situation. He informed her that the Board has two members who are non-residents. According to the Resolution passed by the County Commissioners, they shall appoint County residents as members. Board members had discussed recommending that a certain percentage of non-residents who work in Mercer County could be eligible to be on the Board. Commissioner Lazor stated that she would check into this issue and get back to the Board.

Mr. Errett next discussed another proposed change to the program guidelines under Project Selection Criteria – Eligible applicants. Currently it reads: Eligible applicants include any county or local government entity or non-profit organization located in Mercer County. Board members discussed if they should maintain this restriction by requiring that entities/organizations be located within Mercer County. Board members felt that they might not want outside developers coming into Mercer County to carry out affordable housing related projects since their ties to the area could be slim or nonexistent. The consensus of the Board was to keep this restrictive language in place.

Mr. Errett next discussed a proposed change under Project Selection Criteria – Threshold criteria. Currently it reads: It must lever and utilize other (non-Act 137) funds, public or private. Board members discussed adding the following sentence. "Act 137 funds may not be used to cover more than 50% of the total cost of a project." The Board felt that this sentence is critical and should be added. In discussion, there was an issue concerning the 50% match, especially for a small project. It was noted that an applicant’s 50% match could be land, donated materials or labor. After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Siegfried to approve this change and forward it on the County Commissioners for their approval. Ms. Hosick seconded. The motion passed.

Mr. Errett next discussed a change under the Competitive selection criteria. The Board agreed that the following sentence should be added: "A minimum mean score of 30 points is required in order to be considered for funding." He noted two reasons why 30 points should be required: 1) there should be some minimum level of quality for each application; and 2) in the presence of more proposals than we could possibly have money to fund.

Mr. Errett went on to discuss how many points should be awarded for each level of match. Board members discussed the point system. After discussing the point system, the Board decided that if an application has a match of between 50-59% - it would receive 6 points; 60-69% - 7 points; 70-79% - 8 points; 80-89% - 9 points and 90%+ - 10 points. After discussion, the Board felt comfortable with the range of points but Mr. Gracenin expressed his concern about smaller projects and questioned whether they would be able to reach the minimum score of 30 points. The Board members agreed that they would not want to lower the minimum score of 30 points. They noted that for each project that is submitted the scores of each Board member are added up and averaged overall. Mr. Boosel asked for a motion. Mr. Errett indicated that some of the items were already approved by individual motion and others were not. Mr. Errett asked if he could review all of the changes and make a motion on the whole document. The Board agreed.

After Mr. Errett and Mr. Boosel discussed the proposed changes overall, a motion was made by Mr. Siegfried to approve the proposed changes noted above and forward them to the Mercer County Commissioners. Mr. Koontz seconded. The motion passed.

Mr. Boosel next stated that he recently met with the County Commissioners to discuss the issues surrounding requests for support letters that had been submitted to the County Commissioners. He felt that it would be necessary to amend item #2 under Threshold criteria to add the following language. "County Commissioners shall not provide support letters for applications, and if Board members provide a support letter, they shall automatically abstain from voting on the particular project." Board members discussed the pros and cons of adding this language. After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Siegfried to approve the added language and forward this to the Mercer County Commissioners. Ms. Hosick seconded. The motion passed.

Mr. Gracenin explained that, shortly after the last application review meeting, the MCRPC had received two applications for funding and felt that they should be considered under the existing rules. Mr. Boosel felt that if we are going to change the rules, that we should send the applications back and explain to them that there are new criteria that must be met prior to them resubmitting their applications. Mr. Gracenin expressed his concern over when the County Commissioners would take action on the guidelines and criteria. Commissioner Lazor stated that their next meeting would be the 2nd Thursday in April (April 13th). After discussion, the Board stated that we should process the applications as soon as possible and set up another meeting. The Board set up the next meeting for Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 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