|
|
|
|
FAIR HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES
|
NOVEMBER 21, 2005
ATTENDANCE: Reverend Jeffrey Ingraham; Chairman, Bernadine Tatem,
Raoul Dupervil, Hope Boone
STAFF: Margaret Suib, Fair Housing Officer
OTHER(s): Tim Sheehan, Executive Director Redevelopment Agency
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
NORWALK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A. Anti-Predatory Lending and Affordable Housing Initiatives
Ms. Suib introduced Tim Sheehan, the Executive Director of the Norwalk Redevelopment
Agency.
Mr. Sheehan stated that he was scheduled to do a presentation, but he clarified that he was here tonight to discuss the initiatives they were looking at, that were related to housing policies, particularly predatory lending and actions they will take in the city. He said was present to seek help from this commission so they could address the issue in the coming months. He was also present to discuss affordable housing and the battle entailed in expensive housing in Norwalk.
Mr. Sheehan went on to give some detail about the predatory lending program and how it will operate. They are working with the housing development fund located in Stamford, noting that this group has done a lot of work with first time homeowner program and they have received respect from lenders in Fairfield County. He explained that one issue involving predatory lending, included people coming into the city and promising below interest rate mortgages, but eventually, the rate ends up being above market rate. He pointed out that these folks target seniors and minorities and income qualified renters. He said that in Norwalk, 25% of the homes are occupied by persons 65 years old and older, who are cash poor, so they are fertile ground for predatory lenders. So they were looking to reach out to those persons to give them alternatives to predatory lending. In Norwalk alone, there are more than 6,000 renters that fall below the financial threshold for first time buyers. He further noted that Norwalk’s median income for a family of four was $91,200.00. He stated that first time home buyers become targets because the market place isn’t educated about other alternatives.
Mr. Sheehan continued and said the proposal calls for HDF -Housing Development Fund to establish an advisory council that will work with the redevelopment agency to focus; on those people that are drawn in and to appeal to those looking for home equity loans. They will stress to them that they don’t need to be taken in by predatory lenders. He expressed that he welcomed the commission to take an active role at the advisory level and he encouraged any thoughts and ideas they might have. He said as they progress, it will be a combined effort between Norwalk and Stamford and HDF will manage the program. He said HDF has dedicated $25k to spearhead the effort and he expected the application would be funded within 60-days. He further noted that since this commission was actively involved in this area, he felt that people shouldn’t have to pay more and take their equity investment out of their home. He stated that if any commission members were interested in participating on the advisory committee, they should let Ms. Suib know.
Ms. Tatem spoke about having testers go out. Mr. Sheehan said one big issue about testers, was that folks entering into loans don’t understand what alternatives are out there, so they want to educate them first before any testing might be done. Ms. Suib added that you can’t legally do testing on lending, because it would be considered a false document.
Ms. Tatem clarified that she was thinking testing should be conducted more as a way of making people aware. Mr. Sheehan said they could possibly incorporate that element into their program.
Mr. Dupervil questioned a way it could be done to forewarn people about predatory lending. Ms. Suib pointed out that the lenders tend to hook people on the phone with a low interest offer, but by the time they receive the paperwork, of course the rate goes up. Mr. Sheehan added that if someone receives a phone call, they could immediately say no, due to the fact that they have already been educated about predatory lending practices.
Reverend Ingraham asked the name of the agency funding the program. Mr. Sheehan said they were the Housing Development Fund (HDF). They are an affordable housing lender and they operate with conventional banks that put a mortgage pool together particularly geared toward first time buyers.
Reverend Ingraham questioned whether most people would use HDF’s services. Mr. Sheehan said if that’s the case, HDF can also provide their comments to someone, if the deal they were offered was being structured in a legal lending contract.
Ms. Tatem asked when the program would be advertised. Mr. Sheehan said there was a public hearing last Thursday and there would be another in 30-days. Then the matter will go before the common council and then it will be picked up by the newspaper thereafter; once the funds are awarded to HDF, there should be an article in the newspaper.
Ms. Tatem thought there should be regular notices in the newspaper monthly, regarding predatory lending as a reminder to people. Mr. Sheehan again urged everyone to submit their thoughts and ideas.
Mr. Sheehan updated on the local market place with regard to housing. He said that most should recognize that the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency has been a strong advocate for affordable housing in Norwalk, since it impacts the community from an economic standpoint. He reviewed the handout that was distributed showing the median single family home cost comparison from 2004. He pointed out the estimated income required to purchase a $490k home, noting that most households don’t come close to that income level to maintain a home at that cost. He further reviewed the chart and noted that they haven’t even begun to meet the family incomes required according to the last census taken. He expressed that the statistics were bleak in view of the demographics and how issue ultimately will play out will be quite depressing. These impacts reflect on employee’s that aren’t able to live in Norwalk. He reviewed the income growth chart for Norwalk. And said that one issue they explored has been trying to product additional housing stock and inventory in areas close to transportation nodes, to try to move into the trend the rest of the country was going. But there has been a drop in the number of people that work in Norwalk and live elsewhere. So they are trying to promote a “live where you work” strategy, but there are challenges associated with this. Another impact is the age segment of 18 to 34 year olds, where Norwalk has seen a 15% loss in that demographic area. He stressed that’s the population you want to keep most, because they leave, go to college, but they don’t always come back. He said a report had been done and recommendations have been made to encourage affordable housing and the discussion of that is in process with the Planning Commission. He stated they have also encouraged developers to dedicate a 10% initiative into their housing developments. Ms. Tatem commented that 10% wasn’t very much. Mr. Sheehan explained that affordable housing was not free and there were other factors to consider, such as, how viable the end project will be for the developer.
Mr. Dupervil questioned the process of what determines affordable housing. Mr. Sheehan said the process was to go through the State Affordable Housing Act.
Ms. Tatem further questioned the fact that developers only dedicate a 10% affordable housing initiative. She challenged Mr. Sheehan’s comment that a higher percentage may not always be viable or profitable for the developer.
Mr. Sheehan thanked the commission for allowing him to speak tonight. He said he would like to meet with them quarterly to share more information and to get their insight.
Reverend Ingraham asked how often the Advisory Board met. Mr. Sheehan said that wasn’t established yet.
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 15, 2005 MINUTES
It was determined that these minutes were previously approved. The correct month minutes will be available for approval at the next scheduled meeting.
APPROVAL OF FAIR HOUSING BUDGET APPLICATON, FY 2006-2007
Ms. Suib distributed copies of the application. She reviewed the budget application
and referred to page 1. She said they were looking for a fairly significant
increase, noting that every year for the ten budget cycles she has worked on,
most departments enter a zero budget, but this commission has never done that
because their budget is so small. If they entered zero, there wouldn’t be an
operating budget to work with. She said they were predicting a 25% increase
in insurance costs that is very high, noting they were a small group that gets
hit year after year. She commented that she hoped to a raise this year, explaining
that merit increases are now given instead of step increases. She pointed out
that the numbers outlined were submitted by the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency.
She reviewed the goals & objectives page. The operating budget was reviewed
and she pointed out that the column 2004-2005 were monies they received. As
for office expenses, she said that since she was in the redevelopment department,
most of the equipment indicated on the list was not required for her use. She
explained they don’t use outside attorneys or auditors either. And she explained
that they use to pay Telesco Services under the Esposito administration, but
under former Mayor Knopp’s administration, those services were paid directly
by the city.
Ms. Suib reviewed the 2005-2006 column that denoted what they actually had last year. She noted that column should be compared to the other sheet she distributed referencing the 2005-2006 highlighted column. She explained those numbers showed what was budgeted last year. She said when she prepared last year’s budget, they overestimated the health insurance increase that resulted in more money than they expected, but it turned out the benefits cost more and the money didn’t go away, it ended up in the personnel cost budget of approximately $3,000.00; so the net effect was putting in the numbers that they actually received, not what they asked for. She said they built in a 10% cost of living raise and thought they should get at least that as a merit increase. The end result was that they began reducing the operating budget by 1% across the board. Ms. Boone asked if that amount was guaranteed. Ms. Suib said no, they will receive the money, but they can’t de-fund the job. She further mentioned that they will probably get the same amount as they received last year of $84,509.00.
Reverend Ingraham asked for clarification on the budget chart comparison pages. Ms. Suib clarified that the highlighted column was what was actually received and the column on the other sheet was what was requested.
Reverend Ingraham asked if the director of the agency would endorse the 10% request. Ms. Suib said yes, it’s a budget request, but not necessarily a raise she will receive. This will be contingent upon the redevelopment agency deciding what to give her. Reverend Ingraham thought that if a line item was approved in the budget, then this indicated to him that the monies would be actually given. Ms. Suib unequivocally said that wasn’t the way it worked. Again, she will receive a raise if they feel she deserved it.
Ms. Boone asked if the funds would come out of the budget for special events the commission sponsors. Ms. Suib said yes.
** MS. TATEM MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FAIR HOUSING BUDGET APPLICATON, FY 2006-2007
** MR. DUPERVIL SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S REPORT BACK TO FHAC ON FHAC’S PROPOSED WORK PLAN FOR
FY 2005-2006
Ms. Suib explained the fiscal year began on July 6, 2005. She said that back
in June, the commission gave her some ideas for a program plan for the year
and asked for her feedback on those ideas.
Ms. Tatem returned to the topic of a testing program. She commented that she thought that duty was part of Ms. Suib’s job. Ms. Suib explained that if there was a case of discriminatory action bought by a tenant, such as a realtor steering minorities to other areas of town, then testing would be warranted. She said a program to test realtors was different and to do that, you need multiple samples to conduct this; for example: if you were testing for race, you would need to send an Af-Am tenant and then a Caucasian tenant to determine the level of treatment extended to each race, i.e., this is indicative of what’s called a “sandwich” technique.
Ms. Boone asked where you would get the people to do the testing. Ms. Suib
said they were hired or it could be conducted with volunteers. But to do this,
the process takes a lot of tem and money to train them. She further commented
that she personally didn’t have the time to do it. She relayed that the State
Housing Commission does the testing anyway.
Reverend Ingraham said he would like to have Lori Torrano sit in on the discussion
to determine if something needs to be restructured
Ms. Tatem repeated that she thought testing was a doable thing. And she noted that if she read the dissent decree correctly, she thought this was outlined in that document. Ms. Suib clarified that she does do some testing, but just not on the level Ms. Tatem was referring to.
Ms. Suib explained that her statement of testing not being doable was basically relayed to her by Ms. Torrano. She said she has been working on the affordable housing initiative and has gone beyond what she is supposed to do. She further updated on other various areas she was involved in on a regular basis, as they were outlined in the packet. She expressed that all she does could be considered outreach.
Reverend Ingraham stated that he hoped Ms. Suib’s involvement working at the state level wouldn’t take away from her focus on Norwalk’s issues. Ms. Suib responded that she was invited to participate at the state level, noting that when a complaint comes forth, she alone can not resolve it.
Ms. Tatem stated there was also a request for Ms. Suib to sit in at NEON’s meetings. Ms. Suib said she did attend. Reverend Ingraham said as lone as the staff at NEON was aware of FHO, then that was good.
Ms. Tatem commented that some people were uncomfortable meeting with her at city hall. Ms. Suib said in this case, she was willing to meet with someone outside of city hall.
DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION’S FY 2005-2006 WORK PLAN
Reverend Ingraham clarified the items denoted “not doable” would be addressed further with Ms. Torrano. He noted that those items could be restructured as needed.
OLD BUSINESS
Reverend Ingraham asked about FHO’s annual report. It was stated that some of the commissioner’s didn’t receive the report. Ms. Suib said she would mail out copies.
Reverend Ingraham stated that they needed to come to a consensus about the FHO report and whether or not it will require an addendum. Ms. Tatem stated that although it’s the housing officer’s report, that didn’t mean the commission, had to sign off on it. Reverend Ingraham said they could submit their responses as necessary.
Reverend Ingraham addressed a lending study that was done a year ago and the matter of the bank that donated some money as a result of the study. But it was felt that the donation was considered a conflict of interest and Corporation Counsel agreed.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
** MR. DUPERVIL MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN
** MS. BOONE SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Graham
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |