Share This Article
The Sudbury Select Board and Finance Committee met jointly on Tuesday, March 25 to cover two matters: the Town Meeting article to provide Community Preservation Act funds to the Sudbury Housing Authority’s (SHA) duplex project, and Finance Committee recommendations on Town Meeting articles. The SHA’s Executive Director, Sheila Cusolito presented on behalf of the SHA.
Before they got to that portion of the meeting, the board entertained nearly 45 minutes of public comments both in favor of, and in opposition to, the SHA’s duplex project. A majority of commenters were residents of the Pine Lakes neighborhood who opposed the project. (Three of the four proposed duplexes are in the Pine Lakes neighborhood) Supporters of the project also commented, including Sudbury’s State Representative, Carmine Gentile. Gentile also serves on the Sudbury Housing Trust, which is a separate housing-related entity from the Sudbury Housing Authority. (13:30)
The Basics
The SHA project would replace four existing single family homes with duplexes. The approximate cost is estimated at nearly $4.2 million, or $523K per unit. (Page 13)
Cusolito provided a similar presentation to what she had given in an earlier Community Preservation Committee hearing. However, the discussion went into even greater depth and detail this time. Much of the focus was centered on maintenance, financials and if alternative projects were considered.
Maintenance
Maintenance of the existing single-family units has been raised as a concern in recent months. Cusolito explained that the duplex project was part of a new program that came with subsidies from the State. (1:29:50)This was also explained in an FAQ document on the SHA website:
“The grant the SHA received from the State is in two parts. The first part is for $1,200,000 for planning, design and construction of the homes. The second part is for four project-based Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) vouchers that will allow the SHA to receive 100% of Fair Market Rent (as defined by State regulations). This rent subsidy will provide sufficient funds for the operating costs, including maintenance, of the properties.”
Cusolito also pushed back against the notion that the estimated costs to get one of the single-family units ready for new renters was a valid comparison to new construction costs. She argued that a full capital improvement project for the four single-family homes would be significantly more expensive, noting that 3 of the 4 units will need all new siding in the coming years. She also made this point in a memo uploaded to the SHA site. She explained that the $137K estimate was for selective improvements, not a comprehensive project.
Financials
One recurring point that Cusolito made was that new construction would have very low maintenance costs for 10 to 15 years. She felt that would allow the SHA to build up a reserve via the voucher program and rent. She also felt that would exceed the amount of State funding they were previously receiving for the existing units, though concerns were raised that Federal funding for the new program could disappear at any time.
When asked what the SHA would do if the article fails at Town Meeting, she said they would pursue other funding sources, assuming the project clears the design and permitting hurdles to become viable. “I think we would find another funding source to make up for it.” (2:27:50)
Alternatives
Concerns have also been raised that the SHA could achieve its goals by building more duplexes on Fairbank Circle, where it already has several duplexes, and rehabbing the 4 single-family units. That would leave the single-family units as single family units in the Pine Lakes neighborhood, but Cusolito pointed out that this approach wouldn’t address the maintenance needs of the houses.
FinCom co-chair Mike Joachim asked how this project stacked up financially to other alternatives.
Cusolito answered that this project was prioritized because it it solves for the maintenance needs of the existing single-family units while also creating more units. She then walked through a series of project considerations dating back to the last duplex project the SHA completed in 2012. (2:10:15)
Cusolito was clear that the SHA didn’t do a cost comparison with other specific projects, and didn’t feel it was necessary given the other factors the SHA had weighed. She reiterated throughout the discussion that the SHA sees the most demand on their waitlist for smaller units with fewer bedrooms.
Next Steps
The Select Board and the Finance Committee did not vote their positions on the SHA article on Tuesday. They’ll likely do that at their next meetings. After that, it goes to Town Meeting to decide.