CPC Emergency Housing Relief Subcommittee mtg noes from May 11Notes from the
City of Beverly
Community Preservation Committee's
Subcommittee on Emergency Housing Relief
Participants: Heather Richter; Derek Beckwith; Thomas Bussone; Nancy Marino.
Heather Richter called the meeting to order at 10:01 AM. She read a statement describing revisions to
open meeting law, per the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to allow for remote meeting public
meetings and she conducted a roll call of subcommittee members.
The first matter addressed by the subcommittee was the review and acceptance of minutes from
subcommittee meetings that took place on April 24 and May 04, 2020. Derek Beckwith offered a
motion to approve the April 24th subcommittee meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Nancy
Marino. They were approved unanimously. Next, as to the May 04th minutes, there was a question as
to who had made a motion to adjourn that meeting and who had seconded the motion. Thomas
Bussone said he had made the motion to adjourn and Nancy Marino said she had seconded it. Tom
Bussone made a motion to accept the minutes from May 04, 2020 with the proposed edits. Heather
Richter seconded the motion and all were in favor.
Richter referend the matrix created by Deschamps that outlines the program elements of five different
operated by Action, Inc. for the City of Gloucester, NSCAP for the City of Salem, the City of Waltham, the
City of Chelsea and the Metro -West Collaborative. Richter asks the subcommittee members for their
general thoughts. Tom Bussone is concerned about the prospect of paying an agency to manage the
program. Considering that such a program is being evaluated in response to an emergency the priority
is helping people and the funds should be almost entirely if not completely directed towards those in
need. Beckwith understands Bussone's perspective but recognizes that the administration of a program
is time - consuming and believes that the subcommittee should consider compensating any
administrative agency for their work. Bussone states that some of the agencies have a largely volunteer
staff in any case. If a substantial amount of money is set aside for the program then an administrative
fee could be significant.
Richter suggests that the group talk about a potential budget for the program and reviews the CPA
budget provided by Bryant Ayles, which identifies available CPA funds. The subcommittee reviews the
projects that have thus far received recommendations for Round 7 CPA funding and those projects that
are awaiting final review. It appears that any money set aside for a rental assistance program would
need to come of the general reserve since the fund devoted to community housing will have been
depleted if the housing project recommended for funding is approved by the City Council.
Bussone states that given the current general economic conditions it is difficult to determine how much
money will be available for the next CPA funding round, from the State and from the City. It is difficult
to know what to set aside for rental assistance.
Deschamps will double -check the budget with Ayles.
Page 1 of 4
Richter suggests that it may be reasonable to set aside $200,000.00 for emergency housing relief. Nancy
Marino agrees that $200- 250,000.00 may be advisable. Beckwith states that at this point, the
subcommittee and others don't have a sense of the need out there or the types of applications that will
be received. He agrees that $200,000.00 may be a good number to start with and the sub /committee
could recommend additional funding if need is greater than anticipated.
Bussone believes the program funding could be depleted quickly. Let the need be created before a
budget for the program is approved and announced. Then put a dollar amount on the appropriation.
Marino agrees with Bussone. Richter suggests that the program could be structured so that applications
are accepted for a specific period of time. Then, based on the need identified in the applications, the
CPC will recommend an appropriation.
Bussone believes it is likely that lower income families have a safety net in place. If someone owns a
home, should they be excluded from the program? How does the CPC make sure the money is spent in
the right place? Reserve the funding for those that are needy and not being served by other programs?
Beckwith suggests that if a household receives assistance from other programs then they are not
eligible. Beckwith asks if a cap should be placed on the amount of assistance per household. Perhaps
use number of bedrooms to determine the amount of assistance. Should a certain number of months of
rent be provided? For instance, if there were 40 recipients at $5,000.00 /max would that be sufficient?
Beckwith mentions that only homes with deed restrictions to maintain affordability would be eligible to
receive CPA funds. Bussone mentions that Northridge would be an example.
Beckwith mentions that we don't know what demand will be and suggests a few parameters: set aside
$200,000 in program funding; the landlord must agree in writing to participate and provide proof that
the applicant resides in an apartment owned by the landlord; select a credible partner agency that has
experience with administration of this type of program; income eligibility of 50 -100% of AMI that factors
in unemployment benefits; if assets can cover rent for certain number of months then not eligible.
Richter mentions that income eligibility could be 100% of AMI or below. If household has applied for
RAFT and is found ineligible or has maxed out their RAFT benefits then they would be eligible.
Bussone recommends that a household be required to prove they have exhausted other remedies. He
also recommends not identifying a maximum AMI. Bussone asks if the program should prioritize
families over individuals?
Beckwith recommends there be a limit of one application per household. There needs to be
confirmation that the person applying is the person named on the lease or is named by the landlord, in a
letter if there is no lease, as the tenant. He also says they need to prove that their inability to pay is due
to a loss of income caused by COVID -19. Bussone agrees that is appropriate.
Richter suggests the applicant provide proof of residency in Beverly prior to the COVID 19 crisis such as a
letter from landlord or lease, proving that they lived in Beverly in February of 2020.
Bussone notes that asking for a lot of information about the applicant limits who the City can have as a
partner. Some agencies would not have the legal ability to collect certain types of information.
Page 2 of 4
Beckwith would not have a problem including people who can prove they have lived in Beverly for quite
some time but may be undocumented. Bussone would be fine with accepting people who have work
visa, but a not social security number. Bussone questions if the CPC or the City is legally obligated to
report someone who applies for assistance who is undocumented? Beckwith suggest that the program
does not need to promote that the funds are available to the undocumented. Marino agrees that the
applicant either has to provide a social security number or a work visa. Richter notes that the
application doesn't need to request a social security number. She states that the focus should be on
income, residency, and household size. Beckwith mentions that income does need to be verified.
Verification could be a letter from a former employer. Bussone mentions that bank statements will
confirm assets. Bussone recommends that the agency administering the program be allowed to
determine the types of verification required because that is their expertise. The CPC can just let them
know that they want income and asset verification.
Beckwith reviews program parameters suggested by the subcommittee thus far: 100% of AMI or below,
the applicant will have exhausted other resources; one application per household; existing lease or
letter from landlord proving residency prior to February 20. Also, cap the number of months for which
assistance will be provided and the amount of assistance.
Bussone agrees that once the moratorium [on evictions] is lifted landlords will be requiring three
months in back rent. Some agencies [that the CPA would select as a partner] may have the ability to
negotiate with the landlords. They can be good negotiators. Limit the payment to 3 months or some
other cap, whichever is less.
Beckwith suggests that the committee could asses a cap based on bedroom number. If the program set
aside $200,000 and the applicant receives $1,500 for 3 months then they will be able to serve about 44
applicants. If the program services applicants earning 100% of AMI then likely the applications will
reveal requests for higher monthly rents. Richter asks if the cap should be three months. Bussone
agrees the cap should be 3 months but how much rent per month? Bussone suggests a limit of $1,200
per month for 3 months for a total of $3,600. Beckwith considers whether or not the number of
bedrooms should be a factor in determining the rent limit. For example the limit could be $800 /month
for a one bedroom versus $1,200 /month for a three bedroom. Beckwith suggests a step increase up to
$3,600.
Bussone wants to make sure the fund helps families who have the greatest prospect of recovering after
receiving the assistance. Beckwith questions how the CPC can create guidelines that address that
situation. Richter states that the partnering agency will have the burden of selecting who is selected for
assistance. Bussone said that the CPC could ask for the right to review applications. Bussone states that
once the CPC selects a partner agency that agency will educate the CPC about the process. Bussone
states that the CPC should reach out to organizations /agencies and tell them about the general
parameters of the program and ask how they would help to achieve the goal.
Bussone suggests paying up to 60% of rent for a 3 month period. Beckwith asks if there shouldn't be a
maximum award specified. Bussone doubts people paying a $5,000 /month rent will apply. Richter
favors paying 60% of rent.
Beckwith states there are many unknowns.
Page 3 of 4
Marino agrees that the CPC should not over - engineer the program. She states that the CPC should rely
on the agency the CPC /City is partnering with. It is impossible to predict what the economy will look like
in three months.
Marino was looking at the demographics provided by Deschamps for those city's hosting the five
programs in the matrix. Waltham and Salem are the most similar to Beverly. Marino suggests that the
duration of the program be six months or until funds are depleted. Bussone suggests that the start of
the program be 3 months from the date the state of emergency was ordered. Beckwith mentions a
possible resurgence of COVID 19 in the fall so suggests that the program run until December 2020.
Marino states that the lifting of restrictions doesn't mean that the economy will automatically rebound.
The impact of the pandemic will be felt for years to come. Richter suggests that the program end date
be reviewed periodically in partnership with the agency.
Richter will write up the parameters of the program based on today's conversation. The subcommittee
should meet one more time to discuss agencies that might administer the program and the outline
Richter creates. She asks if anyone prefers one agency over another. Marino says it would be nice if a
Beverly -based partner agency were to be selected. She mentions there also needs to be a balance
between administrative costs and the services provided.
Beckwith asks if the City needs to issue and RFP in order to select a partnering agency. Bussone
responds that we are not purchasing anything so nothing to be put out to bid if a partnering agency
volunteers their time and the City is the entity cutting checks to the landlords for rent.
Bussone suggests that once there is a draft of the program parameters the CPC can reach out to various
agencies and share the program guidelines
Marino asks if it is a question for the city solicitor.
Bussone suggest that maybe the City should issue a request for proposals to help the CPC come up with
program guidelines.
Beckwith states that if the cost of the service is below $50,000 then the City doesn't have to put it out to
bid. Just solicit quotes.
Bussone recommends that any agency being considered be asked if they are interested in partnering.
Don't mention an administrative fee. Also, ask them what services they could offer.
Bussone revisits the program parameters: proof of income; proof of residency; $200,000 program fund;
other assistance exhausted; one application per household; pay 60% of rent for up to 3 months; review
program every 3 months; end the program on 12 -31 -2020; lowest possible administrative fee. Bussone
suggests that the subcommittee report out at the next CPC meeting and ask for an interim vote to
approve that the subcommittee keep working on the project.
Richter recommend the subcommittee meet again on May 18. The members agree.
Richter invites a motion to adjourn. Bussone motions to adjourn. Marino seconded the motion. The
meeting adjourned at 11:51 AM.
Page 4 of 4