ww.eagletimes.com
www.vnews.com
On Monday, April 17, the Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA) Board of Commissioners committed federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and Vermont Affordable Housing Credits that will provide almost $37 million in upfront equity to construct and renovate housing for low-income Vermonters over the next several years. The $2.5 million in ten-year federal capped credits, $610,000 in ten-year federal uncapped “bond” credits and $485,000 in five-year state credits will support the development of 272 affordable apartments in 11 communities across the state. VHFA permanent and construction financing totaling $7.2 million was also approved for 5 of the projects.
The equity raised when investors buy tax credits is used to pay construction and renovation costs for apartments rented to low-income Vermonters. Housing tax credits are the single largest source of funding for the development of affordable rental housing. This year’s credit awards are expected to cover 55 percent of all development costs for the 11 upcoming projects.
“This year VHFA faced twice as many applications for tax credits as we could approve,” explained Sarah Carpenter, Executive Director of VHFA. “Although all of the projects under consideration would help expand Vermont’s extremely tight supply of affordable rental housing, limits on the amount of federal and state credits available each year hamper our state from more fully addressing this long-standing shortage.” One remedy would be passage of the $35 million housing bond proposed in Governor Scott’s 2018 budget and currently under consideration by the Vermont Legislature.
The investments made by VHFA this week will fund the construction of new apartments that will be affordable for the long-run in Burlington, Putney and South Burlington. They will also pay for complete renovations and secure the long-term affordability of existing apartments in Brattleboro, Bristol, Hardwick, Middlebury, Montpelier, Newport, Poultney and Springfield. Many of these buildings will be developed through partnerships between regional housing organizations and Housing Vermont, a statewide, non-profit developer and tax credit syndicator.
Nineteen new Springfield apartments for low income renters will be constructed as part of the redevelopment of the historic, mixed-use Woolson Block building in the city’s downtown area. Currently in a state of disrepair, the building will be renovated to include 15 affordable apartments and 4 service-enriched, transitional housing units for youth between the ages of 18 and 24 who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Springfield Housing Authority is the sponsor for this project.
Three historic buildings in Hardwick Village will be rehabilitated to maximize energy efficiency and ensure the long-run durability and affordability of 18 apartments for low income renters. This project is sponsored by Lamoille Housing Partnership.
The Putney Landing project will create 23 affordable apartments for low and very low income renters. Eighteen apartments will be constructed and five additional apartments created through renovations at the existing Noyes House. The project will be developed by Windham and Windsor Housing Trust.
South Burlington’s “City Center” (pictured) will be the location of a new service-enriched residential building providing 29 apartments for low income seniors and another 10 market rate units. Cathedral Square Corporation is developing the project with Snyder-Braverman Development Company.
In Burlington's large “Cambrian Rise” project on North Avenue, housing credits will help create 52 apartments for low income Vermonters and 24 additional market rate apartments. Champlain Housing Trust is sponsoring this project.
At the same meeting VHFA’s Board of Commissioners awarded Vermont State Affordable Housing Credits to 7 affordable rental housing development projects across the state. One of these projects, City Center Senior in South Burlington, also received federal allocated housing credits. The other 6 projects are acquisition/rehabilitation efforts, almost all of which will receive federal bond credits to help cover costs. They will generate 94 affordable apartments in Brattleboro, Bristol, Middlebury, Montpelier, Newport and Poultney.
The VHFA Board also awarded $85,000 of Vermont State Affordable Housing Tax Credits to two homeownership developments in Colchester. This will generate about $390,000 to keep the sales price of 18 condominiums affordable for eligible buyers.
In addition to housing credits, other funding sources for these developments include permanent financing provided by VHFA as well as grants and loans from the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, the federal HOME program, the National Housing Trust Fund, the Federal Home Loan Bank’s Affordable Housing Program, local housing trust funds, NeighborWorks, the Vermont Community Development Program and USDA Rural Development.
The Vermont Legislature created VHFA in 1974 to finance and promote affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income Vermonters. Since its inception, the Agency has helped approximately 29,000 Vermont households with affordable mortgages and financed the development of approximately 8,600 affordable, safe and decent rental units.
So what will be different? Now the apartments will be brand new, same clientele. How about nice apartments that would attract working people who contribute. I wouldn't want to rent space for a business having the same types of people living above. Business as usual in Springfield, we have too much low income housing.
ReplyDeleteLife in Springfield just goes from bad to worse. Meanwhile subsidize housing owners line their pockets foisting the scum of the Earth upon tax paying, property owners. Keep in mind the Woolson Block is tax exempt! That means the burden its low life residents place upon community services is bank rolled by you and me. I hate every thing about this place!
DeleteSpringfield Housing runs a pretty tight ship on leasees.
DeleteThe subsidized housing in town IS NOT tax exempt.
Delete"If you build it they will come." A town being reconstructed for the on-the-dole industry.
ReplyDeleteAmen 11:41 AM! I have commented repeatedly on this forum for months that we don't need any more public housing in the Square. I agree with you entirely that this latest "plan" is not going to attract the type of people we want in downtown Springfield. However, the powers that be in Springfield don't give a you-know-what about what local homeowners/voters want. What is it going to take to get Springfield voters to vote for leaders who will effect a positive change?
ReplyDeleteI suggested that the Youth In Transition people be taken under the wing of the neighborhood organizations to get connected with the real life of Springfield. They'd find out what makes a neighborhood, what families need and want, how much people need and appreciate what they're doing and how valuable they are to others. A very good "welcome to the world of adulthood" for young people who have little idea of what it's supposed to be like.
ReplyDeleteReward = tax money
ReplyDeleteGreat idea! Why haven't you stepped up to fund such a project? Right. Nobody wants to invest that kind of money into restoring the grand old downtown buildings. This was the best way to achieve restoration. My understanding is that with the housing authority involved there are rules, and if not followed tenants can more easily get the boot. So it won't be as before. Hopefully!
ReplyDeleteWill the building become handicap accessible?
ReplyDeleteSo many negative people. Look at the movie theatre building. It's clean with no loitering. That's what they will do to the Woolson Block! Either get on board with improving the town or go somewhere else and be negative and drag some other town down.
ReplyDeleteYeah, look at the theater building. Both its two retail store fronts remain unoccupied. No retail business can thrive here due to the demographic. So what's the solution? We add MORE low income housing. Let Springfield serve as a case study in how progressive politics took a community that once had the highest per capita income in the state, and turned it into an impoverished, drug plagued, human cesspool.
DeleteWhile subsidized housing for others than the truly disabled or the elderly downtown is always of concern, it has always been asserted that this project will be overseen and the residential part monitored by the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has a pretty good track record of weeding out problematic tenants, and they did an excellent job with the theatre renovation. So although the Selectboard should keep close watch, I have a lot of confidence in the Housing Authority that doesn't extend to some of the more private sector.
ReplyDeleteI look and see over 100 homes for sale in Springfield, some good and some not so good. Perhaps Springfield needs to switch gears, no pun intended and start to focus on attracting good industry, which will attract more people to move here thus more money will be contributing to to the Town. This building needs rehab, but for business, not more subsidized housing. I do not doubt that the Housing Authority does a good job, but to be blunt we need people that contribute rather than rely on State/Federal services.
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with you, but unfortunately the private sector wasn't interested in refurbishing the property and the former owner was problematic. The simple truth is that public sector funds were and are needed to restore the building and the best sources of such funds was public housing funds. The Selectboard, however, will have to remain vigilant to make sure the Housing Authority stays true to its representation that it will seek to put retail stores in the first floor storefronts and not squeeze in more housing on those floors or rent them out to social service agencies as office space. It has leverage since the Town is providing some revolving loan funds.
DeleteThe question is, do we understand what attracts business? It used to be that towns could just bribe them with free land, lots of tax breaks and cheap and malleable labor. All of which, of course, they would gladly accept, use up and leave as soon as they possibly could.
ReplyDeleteSo, what should we have instead of those cheap jewels to make them want to stay?
The first one I would suggest is to promote full employee ownership. You're not going to see employees choosing to fire themselves for a pittance. Another one would be to market Springfield's advantages relative to all the major metropolitan areas-- we don't have the heat of Atlanta, the drought of Silicon Valley, the traffic problems of the BosWash megalopolis, the earthquakes of San Francisco or the wildfires of Boulder. We do have primo Internet, higher quality of life in general. And we could be doing something to make our school system a magnet.