Meeting Agenda State College Borough Council Regular Meeting

Transcription

Meeting Agenda
State College Borough Council
Regular Meeting
Monday, October 20, 2014
7:30 p.m.
I.
Call to Order
II.
Moment of Silence and Pledge of Allegiance
III.
Roll Call
James L. Rosenberger, President of Council
Thomas E. Daubert
Catherine G. Dauler
Sarah Klinetob
Theresa D. Lafer
Peter Morris
Evan Myers
IV.
Public Hour - Hearing of Citizens
Anyone wishing to address Council with an item that is not on the agenda should
ask to be recognized at this time. Each speaker will have four minutes to present
comments to Council.
V.
Public Hearing
A. Luna Enterprises, Inc. Liquor License
Luna Enterprises, Inc. operates the restaurant known as Faccia Luna at 1229
South Atherton Street. In February 2012, Borough Council approved Resolution
#1060, which conditionally approved the transfer of PA Liquor License Number
R-18109 to the premises from a restaurant/tavern known as the Pennsylvania
Roadhouse and Tavern, which was located in Spring Township. The license
transfer was a place-to-place transfer and there was no change in the name of
the license. As part of a Conditional Licensing Agreement, conditions were set
with one term being that a liquor license shall not be transferred to any other
entity without Council approval. [Page 5 ]
The applicant is now requesting to change ownership of the current license from
The Pennsylvania Roadhouse and Tavern, Inc. to Luna Enterprises, Inc.
Chapter V, Part C, Section 303.e of the Borough’s Codification requires that the
Borough hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to approve the
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 2
transfer of ownership of the licensed establishment. The application has been
filed as required by the Codification and is complete.
Borough Solicitor Terry Williams will serve as the hearing officer for this Public
Hearing. A resolution will be prepared for Council to approve the transfer
following the hearing.
VI.
Reports
A. Affordable Housing Coalition - Pastor Paull Spring, Chairman of Affordable
Housing Coalition’s Education Committee, will update Council on the Coalition’s
need for more affordable housing.
B. Penn State Master Plan and Construction Projects- Gordon Turow and Steve
Watson will provide a report on the University’s Master Plan, existing and
upcoming construction projects.
VII.
Consent Items
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the following consent
items. (Attached to the agenda beginning on Page 17 is background information.)
A. Approve the closing of Allen Street, from East College Avenue to Calder Way, on
Friday, November 7, 2014, from 2 p.m. until midnight, for the Downtown State
College Improvement District’s annual Tree Lighting event to benefit Toys for
Tots and the State College Food Bank. [Page 19 ]
B. Approve the closing of Railroad Avenue, between North Gill Street and Orange
Alley, on Friday, October 31, 2014, from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m., for the Unity Church
of Jesus Christ College Student Outreach Program Concert, “Thriller Bash,” to
promote positive decision making and challenge young adults to think before
engaging in the drinking culture. [Page 23 ]
C. Approve request for Delta Program’s World Diabetes Day Walk to raise
awareness about diabetes on Friday, November 14, 2014, from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
No road or sidewalk closures are required. [Page 27 ]
D. Approve the closing of Fraternity Row at East Foster Ave; Laurel Alley at
Fraternity Row; and East Fairmount Ave at Osage Alley and Clover Alley for the
Penn State Interfraternity Council’s Greek-or-Treat event on Sunday, October 26,
2014, from 2:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Greek-or-Treat is an annual Halloween
event where fraternities and sororities join together and host booths with games
and crafts for community children supervised by their parents. [Page 33 ]
E. Approve minutes from the meetings held in September:
September 8, 2014
September 15, 2014
Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting
Page 37
Page 43
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 3
F. Approve vouchers and payroll for the month of September in the amount of
$2,487,888.54.
G. Appoint Theresa Lafer as the Borough’s voting delegate for the National League
of Cities 2014 Congress of Cities Exposition being held in November in Austin,
Texas. [Page 49 ]
VIII.
General Policy and Administration
A. Luna Enterprises, Inc. Liquor License
Council held a public hearing earlier this evening to take testimony on the
request to change the ownership of PA Restaurant Liquor License Number #R18109 from The Pennsylvania Roadhouse and Tavern, Inc. to Luna Enterprises,
Inc. All conditions previously set would remain in effect. A drafted resolution is
attached on Page 51 for Council’s review and consideration.
Staff Recommendation: Staff will provide a recommendation following the
hearing.
B. Approve a Resolution Allocating the Municipal Pension State Aid as authorized
by the 2014 Minimum Municipal Obligation and Budget.
The Borough of State College has received the annual Municipal Pension State
Aid distribution of funds under Act 205. These funds must be deposited into the
municipal pension plans in accordance with the Minimum Municipal Obligation
report that was filed with Borough Council in September 2014, and the Borough’s
2014 annual operating budget. The total State Aid allocation received by the
Borough in 2014 is $1,003,024.12; $447,488.89 is distributed to the Police
Pension Plan and $555,535.23 is distributed to the General Government Pension
Plan. [Page 55 ]
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council enact the Resolution
approving and authorizing the allocation of the Municipal Pension State Aid.
C. Budget Review Schedule
Borough Council will begin its review of the proposed 2015 Operating Budget
later this year. Staff is recommending Council meet on Monday, November 24,
and Tuesday, November 25, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and on Tuesday,
December 2, and Tuesday, December 9, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Attached is a revised budget review schedule on Page 57. If additional budget
work sessions are needed, they can be scheduled at a later date.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the revised
meeting schedule for the remainder of 2014.
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 4
IX.
Official Reports and Correspondence
A. President’s Report
Council will adjourn to an Executive Session
to discuss personnel matters.
B. Regional Liaison Committee Reports
Committee members are asked to provide an update on the following COG
standing committees:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Executive – James Rosenberger
Finance - Evan Myers
Human Resources – Peter Morris
Parks Capital – Tom Daubert
Public Safety – Sarah Klinetob
Public Services and Environmental – Sarah Klinetob
Transportation and Land Use/MPO – Theresa Lafer
C. Staff/Committee Reports
1. Redevelopment Authority’s Homestead Investment Partnership [Page 59 ]
D. Student Representative Report
X.
Adjournment
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 5
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 6
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 7
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 8
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 9
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 10
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 11
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 12
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 13
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 14
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 15
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 16
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 17
CONSENT AGENDA
October 20, 2014
VI.
Consent Items
Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the following
consent items.
A. Approve the closing of Allen Street, from East College Avenue to Calder Way, on
Friday, November 7, 2014, from 2 p.m. until midnight, for the Downtown State
College Improvement District’s annual Tree Lighting event to benefit Toys for
Tots and the State College Food Bank.
B. Approve the closing of Railroad Avenue, between North Gill Street and Orange
Alley, on Friday, October 31, 2014, from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m., for the Unity Church
of Jesus Christ College Student Outreach Program Concert, “Thriller Bash,” to
promote positive decision making and challenge young adults to think before
engaging in the drinking culture.
C. Approve request for Delta Program’s World Diabetes Day Walk to raise
awareness about diabetes on Friday, November 14, 2014, from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
No road or sidewalk closures are required.
D. Approve the closing of Fraternity Row at East Foster Ave; Laurel Alley at
Fraternity Row; and East Fairmount Ave at Osage Alley and Clover Alley for the
Penn State Interfraternity Council’s Greek-or-Treat event on Sunday, October 26,
2014, from 2:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Greek-or-Treat is an annual Halloween
event where fraternities and sororities join together and host booths with games
and crafts for community children supervised by their parents.
E. Approve minutes from the meetings held in September:
September 8, 2014
September 15, 2014
Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting
F. Approve vouchers and payroll for the month of September in the amount of
$2,487,888.54.
G. Appoint Theresa Lafer as the Borough’s voting delegate for the National League
of Cities 2014 Congress of Cities Exposition being held in November in Austin,
Texas.
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 18
This page was left intentionally blank. Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 19
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 20
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 21
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 22
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 23
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 24
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 25
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 26
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 27
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 28
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 29
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 30
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 31
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 32
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 33
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 34
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 35
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 36
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 37
Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting
September 8, 2014
The State College Borough Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, September 8, 2014 in the State
College Municipal Building, 243 South Allen Street, State College, PA. Mayor Goreham called the
meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Present:
Absent:
Elizabeth Goreham, Mayor
Thomas E. Daubert
Theresa D. Lafer
Peter Morris
Evan Myers
Catherine G. Dauler
Sarah Klinetob
Also present: Thomas J. Fountaine, Borough Manager; Terry Williams, Solicitor; Edward LeClear,
Planning/Community Development Director; Thomas R. King, Chief of Police; Mark A. Whitfield, Public
Works Director; Dwight Miller, Manager of Financial Services; Roger A. Dunlap, Assistant Borough
Manager; Sharon Ergler, Recording Secretary; Courtney Hayden, Communications/Special Projects
Coordinator; Jon Garfield, UPUA Student Representative; Charles DeBow, Parking Manager, and
members of the media and interested citizens.
Public Hour
Mr. Morris mentioned the recent passing of Borough resident Jay Schuchter. Mr. Schuchter was a
talented actor who worked in the local theatre and was active in the Wednesday afternoon
demonstrations, especially the Iraqi War. He commented that he would be missed greatly by all who
knew this remarkable man.
Margaret Nollau, 519 Penn Street, Huntingdon, PA, spoke on behalf of her mother, Carol, who was
diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. She explained that her mother was a local patron of Welch Pool, who
swam daily to maintain her health and alleviate her pain. She said when the pool was remodeled several
years ago; the handicapped parking was displaced across the street from the pool, at the State College
High School. Ms. Nollau commented that the long walk from the parking lot was a challenge for her
mother. She added that from communication with others, she discovered that her mother was not the
only person having difficulties. While she had no doubt the handicapped parking spaces were ADA
compliant, there were no longer accessible to patrons with disabilities.
Ms. Nollau said her mother had communicated with the pool supervisor and with the Parks & Recreation
Director, and they were not receptive to any solutions that would assist Mrs. Nollau and others
experiencing the accessibility issue. Her mother had asked to park her car in the paved access area
where the Rita’s Italian Ice parks and was told “if you do that, we would have to do it for everyone”. She
was told it would obstruct emergency personnel from getting to the pool in the event of an emergency.
Arthur Anderson, 426 Ferguson Avenue, said his wife who is handicapped, also uses the pool throughout
the summer and has experienced the same issue. Mr. Anderson distributed a copy of the Welch Pool
layout and referenced the distances at the pool, both before and after the renovations. He said the old
pool had handicapped parking that was near the entrance to the pool. He commented that the distance
from the handicapped parking used to be 75’ and now it was 305’. He said he found it ironic that
bicyclists can park 30’ from the pool entrance. He also mentioned some possible solutions, such as a
cart for patrons to ride from the parking lot to the pool, or having a pool employee pick up handicapped
patrons on a golf cart and driving them to the pool’s entrance.
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 38
Ms. Lafer said when the renovations for the pool were being discussed; she said there was not enough
handicapped parking that was accessible for patrons. She said both the School Board and the Parks &
Recreation Board did not know how to solve the problem. She urged Parks & Recreation to put
handicapped parking as close to the pool’s entrance as possible and added that it was wrong to require
handicapped people to have to walk that far. She said she hoped Council would find a way to respond to
these requests.
Mr. Morris indicated he agreed with Ms. Lafer and commented that there were three entities involved, the
Centre Region Council of Governments, the State College School District and the Borough. He said
Council should investigate to see if there was a solution and if there was, it should be done quickly.
Mr. Daubert said he also swims at Welch Pool and sees Ms. Nollau every day. He said he and others
had looked at this problem since the pool reopened three years ago. He noted that Ms. Nollau was not
looking for a private parking space; she was looking for a space closer to the pool. Mr. Daubert said
there were two bike racks and a couple of benches located just outside the entrance. He suggested that
the benches and racks be located elsewhere and two handicapped spaces be installed in that location.
Mr. Myers noted that as the School District moves forward with its plan to reconstruct the school, Council
needs to be cognizant of how this may impact additional parking and needs to be looked at closely. Mr.
Myers agreed that this matter needs to be looked into.
Mr. Rosenberger said this was an exceptional situation and reasonable people should be able to come up
with a plan to accommodate this matter. He noted that the pool just recently closed for the season, which
should provide ample time for everyone to figure this out.
Mr. Daubert said according to the lease between the COG and the School District, there are a certain
number of parking spaces that were required to be available for the pool. He suggested the Manager
write a letter to the Executive Director of COG requesting this matter be addressed. He said the Manager
could draft something and Council could review it at an upcoming work session.
Mr. Todd Roth, Centre Region Parks & Recreation’s Aquatic Supervisor, said there had been extensive
discussions about this subject and CRPR is charged to operate the facility as approved by Code. He said
that CRPR does not have the authority to make changes to the approved handicapped parking. He noted
that Council’s proposed action would be the first step at looking into a change. He said CRPR staff had
no jurisdiction. He noted that if they allowed Mrs. Nollau to park in the service drive, it would be a liability
concern. He added that the location where the bicycle racks were located was not acceptable for ADA
compliant parking spaces because the slope of the land was too great.
Consent Items
Mr. Rosenberger made a motion to approve the following consent items. Ms. Lafer seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously.
•
Approve the closing of various Borough streets (normal PSU 5k Route) for the 2014 PSU
Homecoming 5k, The Color Run, on Sunday, September 14, 2014, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
•
Approve the closing of High Street, between East Foster Avenue and Holly Alley, and Holly Alley,
between Hetzel Avenue and Holly Court, from 3 p.m. until 9 p.m., on Sunday, September 21,
2014, for the annual East Highlands neighborhood block party.
•
Approve the closing of South Allen Street, from Beaver to Foster Avenues, on Saturday, October
4, 2014, from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m., for the 15th annual Downtown State College Improvement
District’s Fall Festival (DSCID).
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 39
•
Approve the closing of the 200 block of East Calder Way, from McAllister Alley to South Pugh
Street, between the hours of 11 a.m. until 4 p.m., on Saturday, October 4, 2014, for Bradley’s
Cheesesteaks & Hoagies Eating Competition, as part of the DSCID’s Fall Festival.
•
Approve the use of various Borough roads on Sunday, October 12, 2014, from 2 p.m. until 3:15
p.m., for the annual Knights of Columbus 5k, sponsored by the Nittany Valley Running Club,
which benefits the Schlow Memorial Children’s Library.
•
Approve the use of various Borough streets and sidewalks on Sunday, November 2, 2014, from
11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., for the annual Penn State THON 5k Run/Walk, which benefits the Four
Diamonds Fund that fundraises for pediatric cancer patients and their families.
•
Approve a resolution authorizing for the destruction of various health documents from the Health
Department.
Resolutions and Special Business
Citizens United Resolution
Mr. Morris said he had requested this item be placed on Council’s agenda for consideration because he,
and other members of Council, were concerned about corporations making unlimited financial
contributions to political campaigns and candidates at all levels. He said the draft resolution was written
by Councilman Myers.
Mr. Myers said the draft resolution was taken from a good number of other resolutions that have been
passed by numerous cities and states around the county. He said he worked collaboratively with
Councilman Morris and Councilwoman Lafer.
Mr. Morris made a motion to approve the Citizens United Resolution. Ms. Lafer seconded the motion.
Ms. Lafer said she understood that Council did not have direct input as to the deliberations of Congress;
however, she said Council does have direct input to all elected officials. She said if the governing bodies
do not hear from Council and/or voters, they do not know what their constituents are thinking. She added
that it was important to join the list of other states, cities and towns in this effort.
Mr. Morris said by passing this resolution, Council was expressing outrage at the notion for bullying
purposes. A corporation is not a human being. This can be both absurd and dangerous. He added that
a lot of money can flow into political plans, which is happening now in the current election cycle.
Mr. Rosenberger said as Mr. Morris already knows, he did not agree that this was a topic that Council
was elected to address but noted he does not disagree with it.
Mr. Myers said often times recommendations are made by the PA Municipal League and by the National
League of Cities on topics that rise to the national level. He said Council is not taking a stand on this
matter without precedent. He added that these actions do impact the citizens of State College and
elections do matter.
The motion to approve the Citizens United Resolution passed unanimously.
General Policy & Administration
Financial Policies
Mr. Fountaine said that Council was being asked to approve amendments to the Capitalization and
Development Policy and to adopt a new resolution establishing the Continuing Disclosure Reporting
Policy, as recommended by the Borough’s independent auditors.
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 40
Mr. Daubert said when Council votes, he would like to vote on three separate motions. He said he had
no problem with the second and third amendments but he had serious problems with increasing the dollar
threshold for capital projects from $25,000 to $50,000. He said when Council voted to increase it from
$10,000 to $25,000 there was a considerable discussion. He was concerned about increasing the
threshold because staff would be able to come up with projects under the threshold and Council would
only get to look at those projects once a year during the review of the proposed budget. For example,
contracts for consultants.
Mr. Rosenberger had a question about the statement related to the Security and Exchange Commission
Continuing Disclosure Reporting requirement. He asked who was previously responsible. Mr. Fountaine
said this was a brand new policy and it was more of a housekeeping matter. This new policy would be
disclosed to underwriters or others who were considering investing in the Borough’s borrowing. He
added that Dwight Miller, the Borough’s Manager of Financial Services, would be filing the annual
disclosures in the future.
Mr. Fountaine noted that the definition of a project in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is any project
over the amount of $25,000, which had a certain life expectancy. Items under that amount would have to
be approved by Council as part of the annual operating budget. The reason staff was recommending the
change from $25,000 to $50,000 was because there were a number of smaller projects that were coming
up now the annual budget process, that were never intended to be a capital project. For example, if staff
needed to hire a design engineer for a project and the costs exceed $25,000 that goes into the annual
operating budget. He added that staff had been making this recommendation for the last three years.
Mr. Rosenberger said Council approves the CIP just a couple of months before the operating budget. He
asked if staff works to propose projects between $25,000 and $50,000 during that time. Mr. Fountaine
said staff works to pull CIP projects together early in the year and presents them for adoption in June. He
noted that staff had found that it costs more money to do things now.
Mr. Daubert said the CIP does help Council plan ahead. Otherwise, those items would not show up until
November during the budget review process. He added that managing finances was one of Council’s
biggest jobs.
Ms. Lafer made a motion to handle the three amendments separately. Mr. Daubert seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris said the amount chosen is arbitrary. When the threshold was increased, it should reflect the
inflation rate. He said raising it to $30,000 to $35,000 would be the sensible thing to do.
Mr. Rosenberger said he was supportive of staff’s recommendation and made a motion to approve the
threshold increase for projects in the CIP from $25,000 to $50,000. Ms. Lafer seconded the motion. The
motion failed 1-4 with Mr. Rosenberger being the only Council member voting in favor of the motion.
The motion to handle the three amendments separately passed unanimously.
Mr. Daubert made a motion to raise the capitalization threshold for fixed assets in the Capitalization and
Depreciation Policy from $1,000 to $5,000. Mr. Morris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Rosenberger made a motion to approve the resolution naming the Manager of Financial Services as
the person responsible for filing the Borough’s annual disclosures. Mr. Myers seconded the motion. The
motion was unanimously approved.
Private/Public Towing Ordinance Amendments
Chief King explained that the existing Private/Public Towing Ordinance was a document that was to be
reviewed every two to three years to determine if any changes were warranted. In response to a request
from the approved Borough towing companies, Chief King said he was proposing to increase fees
slightly. He distributed an updated ordinance for Council to consider because the drafted ordinance
provided in the agenda packet did not include all of the proposed fees.
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 41
Ms. Lafer made a motion to adopt the proposed changes as recommended by staff. Mr. Morris seconded
the motion.
Mr. Rosenberger asked what the bases for his recommendations were. Chief King said the last changes
occurred in 2011. He said he looked at what other comparable towing companies were charging. He
commented that he sat down with the local towing company owners in August and they were in
agreement with his recommendations.
In a roll call vote, Ordinance #2047 was unanimously approved.
Amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance on Corl Street
Mr. DeBow briefly reviewed the proposed amendment to change parking on Corl Street from the West to
the East side of the street. Currently parking was allowed on the West side; but that forces children being
dropped off at the elementary school to cross Corl Street. He commented that the State College School
District requested the change because of safety concerns for the students.
Ms. Lafer asked how many parking spaces would be lost on the East side with this change. Mr. DeBow
said there may be two spaces lost. He commented that letters were sent to the residents and property
owners on Corl Street and there was a mixed reaction. Staff reviewed the request and agreed there were
safety concerns with the current regulations that force parents to drop off young children on the opposite
of the street.
Mr. Myer said demographics had changed since the schools were built. Years ago only one parent
worked and now both parents work. Parents are constantly picking up and juggling kids around. He said
with any school building built or approved, Council cannot ignore parking issues. He added that picking
up and dropping off kids is a community issue, which needs to be considered going forward.
Mr. Fountaine said the proposed amendment addressed a safety concern and people will be able to
parking legally and will not have to cross the street.
Ms. Lafer said all school have pick up and drop off problems. She said she did not know if it could be
done at Corl Street, but the school needs to understand that there are a large number of cars and kids.
There needs to be a place where cars can drive up in a line and drop off.
Mr. Rosenberger said times are changing and State College is part of a green community. We should
continue to encourage people to walk and ride bikes to school and work.
In a roll call vote, the motion passed 4-1 to adopt Ordinance 2048 with Mr. Daubert voting against the
motion.
Mayor’s Report – Mayor Goreham said she attended UPUA’s meeting last week and noted that the
students who serve on UPUA take their positions very seriously. She said they are working hard to
connect our community with Penn State students.
President’s Report – Mr. Rosenberger said Council met in an Executive Session prior to tonight’s meeting
and will meet in an Executive Session following this meeting to discuss real estate, personnel matters and
litigation.
Staff Reports – Mr. Fountaine noted that staff was hopeful to have something to report on the Homeland
Security matter that Council members had inquired about; however, he said he would have something
more on the matter either at Council’s next meeting or at the first meeting in October.
Mr. Fountaine asked Council members if they had any questions on the Division of Health and
nd
Neighborhood Services 2 Quarter Report that was distributed to Council with the agenda.
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 42
Mr. Daubert said it was a good report; however, he wanted to know why the department had stopped
citing people who leave their refuse containers out all week long.
Mr. Fountaine said for a period of time there was a problem with the ordinance.
Mr. Kassab said his staff had been trying to verbally communicate or issue warnings to residents
regarding the removal of cans from the curb. He said those that do not respond after a verbal warning
are issued violations. Staff’s attention has been focused more on other types of violations, such as
refuse, weed and grass, etc. He noted that staff could be more aggressive if that is what Council wanted.
Mr. Daubert requested a list of the different violation costs, such as refuse, weed, snow and others. Mr.
Fountaine said staff would compile such a list and provide that to Council at a later date.
Mr. Daubert asked the Manager about the possibility of changing from the seven day requirement for
violation payments since it takes five days for a person to get the warning or violation in the mail. Mr.
Kassab said although the ordinance reads that a violation must be paid within seven days, his staff gives
10 days.
Mr. Daubert also inquired as to why a resident must come up to the second floor of the Municipal Building
to pay for a violation. In the past, you could walk in and pay for a violation at the Parking Office on the
first floor.
Mr. Fountaine said the seven day time period is set by ordinance. In order to change that, an amendment
to the ordinance would be required. He also noted that warnings and or violations are left at the property
and one is mailed to the property owner and another copy is mailed to the designated person-in-charge.
He commended that as part of the implementation of the enterprise software system, staff had been
evaluating the business practices, and paying violations on the second floor was one of the items being
evaluated. In addition, fines can be paid online at various locations.
UPUA Report – Mr. Garfield thanked Mayor Goreham for coming to speak at the last UPUA meeting. He
said UPUA is currently opposing Senate Bill 1240, because it lacks student representation. They are also
looking into House Bill 300 as it relates to sexual orientation and/or gender. He announced that the
NCAA had recently lifted all sanctions against Penn State earlier in the day. Mr. Garfield said the next
project the UPUA was going to work on was voter registration.
The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Sharon K. Ergler
Assistant Borough Secretary
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 43
Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting
Monday, September 15, 2014
The State College Borough Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, August 18, 2014, in the State
College Municipal Building, 243 South Allen Street, State College, PA. Borough Council President
Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Absent:
Thomas E. Daubert
Theresa D. Lafer
Sarah Klinetob
Peter Morris
Evan Myers
Elizabeth Goreham, Mayor
Catherine G. Dauler
Also present: Terry Williams, Borough Solicitor; Roger A. Dunlap, Assistant Borough Manager; Dwight
Miller, Manager of Financial Services; Courtney Hayden, Communication & Special Projects Coordinator;
Edward LeClear, Planning/Community Development Director; Mark Whitfield, Public Works Director; Amy
Kerner, Borough Engineer; Thomas R. King, Chief of Police; Charles DeBow, Parking Manager; Jon
Garfield, UPUA Student Representative; Judy Altieri, Staff Assistant; and members of the media and
interested citizens.
Public Hour
Chief King indicated he had information to share regarding the Homeland Security operation that took place
in State College on June 12, 2014. He noted that the investigation was continuing, but that several warrants
were served that day, detaining 21 illegal aliens. Of the ten arrested, six had been deported, one had been
released and three were still in custody pending removal. He noted that 10 of the 21 were arrested because
they had an immigration order of removal. No names had been released. If anyone had further questions,
he had been authorized to give out the contact information for the Special Supervisory Agent, Ed Engle, out
of Harrisburg, who could be reached at 717.782.4050.
The Chief then asked to make remarks regarding the tragic shooting of two Pennsylvania State Troopers,
who were ambushed at the barracks. He noted that his department worked closely with the Pennsylvania
State Police and he thought it was important that the community take a moment to recognize Corporal Bryon
K. Dickson’s life and service. Trooper Dickson did not survive the attack, but was survived by a wife and two
young sons. He was a Penn State graduate who had also served in the United States Marines. He noted
that another Trooper, Alex T. Douglass, was also seriously injured in the attack. He then asked for a
moment of silence for Trooper Dickson.
Mr. Rosenberger read an email he received from Phil Jones, from the State College Presbyterian Church.
The email announced the upcoming Peace Day, which was planned for September 21, 2014, from 12 p.m. to
5 p.m., at the corner of Allen Street and College Avenue.
Mr. Morris congratulated the State College Spikes on their New York Penn League Championship win.
Consent Items
Mr. Rosenberger noted he was asked to remove Consent Items A and F for further discussion.
Mr. Daubert made a motion to approve the remaining consent items; Ms. Lafer seconded the motion.
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 44
•
Approve vouchers and payroll for the month of August in the amount of $3,772,065.83.
•
Approve the closing of Curtin, Bigler and East Pollock Roads, East College Avenue and North Burrowes
Street, on Friday, September 26, 2014, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., for the annual Penn State Homecoming
Parade.
•
Approve the use of various Borough streets and designated bike routes on Saturday, October 4, 2014,
from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., for the Bicycle Ambassadors Program “Mayor’s Ride,” which is part of this year’s
Community Resource Fair program.
•
Appoint Ute Poerschke to fill a vacancy on the Design Review Board with a term expiring on December
31, 2015.
•
Approve minutes from the meetings held in August:
August 11, 2014
August 18, 2014
Regular Meeting/Work Session
Regular Meeting
•
Award the contract for Tree Pruning for Block A only to Dincher & Dincher, the low bidder, in the amount
of $67,970.00.
•
Approve the closing of Foster Avenue (additional street added), for the remaining State College Area
School District’s High School Boys’ Varsity football games, scheduled on the following Fridays,
September 19, October 10 and 31, 2014, from 5:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Mr. Rosenberger indicated that there was a correction to the August 18, 2014, regular meeting minutes. He
noted that on Page 4 of those minutes (Page 30 of the meeting packet), paragraph 4, the roll call vote should
be recorded as 6-1, not 7-1.
The consent items, less items A and F, were the unanimously approved.
Mr. Myers wondered if the information Council received relative to monthly vouchers and payroll could be
logically presented in categories. Mr. Rosenberger agreed. Mr. Dunlap noted those changes could be made
to the monthly reports.
Mr. Myers made a motion to accept Consent Item A; Mr. Daubert seconded the motion. The motion was
unanimously approved.
Mr. Daubert indicated he was unable to understand the information presented for Consent Item F – Tree
Pruning for Block A. Ms. Lafer noted that the costs associated with tree pruning had grown two-fold.
Mr. Whitfield noted the entire tree-pruning project was originally estimated for 692 trees at $105 per tree. He
stated that costs had dramatically increased due to the Emerald Ash Bore and because there was now a
high demand for tree pruning services. He noted staff had broken the contract into smaller blocks to allow
for bidding competition and the Block A work had to be completed before the end of the year. He indicated
that staff could rebid the project for a longer period, but there would likely to be a larger disparity between the
high and low bidders.
Mr. Rosenberger asked if Borough staff could do the tree pruning for the same amount of money if the
Borough continued to do it in smaller blocks. Mr. Whitfield said that staff was already scheduled to prune
several hundred trees and that the work had to be supplemented with a contractor due to the volume of trees
located within the Borough.
Mr. Myers suggested that the Borough only do half of the project because the price had now doubled. Mr.
Whitfield noted that would put the Borough further behind and that historically the Borough prunes 400-600
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 45
trees per year. He noted that Council had recently agreed to increase that amount to 1,000 trees per year,
which put tree pruning on a seven-year cycle. He noted that there were hundreds of diseased trees in the
area and the oak trees had to be pruned in the winter months as well. He also noted that the biggest
obstacle was the Emerald Ash Bore and that the Borough was loosing trees at an alarming rate.
Ms. Lafer made a motion to approve the award for tree pruning for Block A to Dincher & Dincher; Ms.
Klinetob second the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.
General Policy & Administration
Minimum Municipal Obligation for the Borough’s Pension Plans in 2015
Mr. Morris made a motion to receive the MMO calculation for the Borough’s Pension Plans; Ms. Lafer
seconded the motion.
Mr. Dunlap noted that Act 205 of 1984 (as amended by Act 189 of 1990) required that the minimum pension
obligations for the upcoming year be submitted to Council prior to September 30 each year. The Minimum
Municipal Obligation (MMO) was based on actuarial costs of the pension plans, obtained from the Plan’s
actuary, and the estimated payroll cost for 2014. The 2015 MMO for the Borough’s pension plans was
calculated to be $2,698,426, which included $1,131.360 for the Police Pension Plan and $1,567,066 for the
General Government Plan.
The Assistant Manager also noted that a Defined Contribution Pension Plan (MMO) was also included with a
projected obligation of $56,824.
Mr. Rosenberger noted that the numbers were higher than last year. Mr. Dunlap indicated it was $583,000
higher and that the Borough was still recovering from investment losses incurred in 2009.
The motion to receive the MMO calculation was unanimously approved.
Consider the Local Option for Enforcement of Liquor License Establishment Noise Complaints in the
Borough of State College
Mr. Dunlap provided a brief summary of the steps required to reinstitute the enforcement of the Liquor
License Establishment Noise Complaints in the Borough (as described in the agenda).
Chief King indicated that the Police Department still had the staffing to address the complaints. He noted
that the Borough received approximately 1,000 noise complaints per year, but that only 18 were related to
this specific noise violation. He noted that if Council does not adopt the resolution, the Pennsylvania Liquor
Control Board (PLCB) would do the future enforcement. He also stated that the Tavern Association requests
that the Borough provide that service to the establishments.
George Arnold, Downtown State College Improvement District Executive Director, was there to express his
support for the Tavern Association request as well.
Chief King noted that the PLCB would schedule a public hearing prior to making their decision.
Mr. Myers made a motion to take the necessary steps to refile the amplified music exemption with the PLCB
by adopting a resolution; Mr. Morris seconded the motion, which then passed unanimously.
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 46
Public Works
Amendment to the Storm Water Management Ordinance
Mr. Daubert made a motion to receive and review the proposed ordinance, make it available for public
comment, receive comments, discuss at the October 6 and 13 meetings and adopt the proposed ordinance
at the October 20, 2014 meeting. Mr. Myers seconded the motion.
Mr. Dunlap noted that the most recently issued National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit requires the Borough include several requirements in
the existing Storm Water Management Ordinance. The modifications of the Borough’s ACT 167 Storm
Water Management Ordinance must meet the requirements of two checklists developed by the DEP entitled
the MS4 Storm Water Operation and Maintenance Ordinance Checklist and the MS4 Storm Water
Management Ordinance Checklist. The due date for the modifications was noted as October 31, 2014, the
one year anniversary of the new permit.
After a brief discussion, Council approved the motion unanimously.
Mayor’s Report - Mayor Goreham was absent from this meeting; therefore, there was no report.
President’s Report - Mr. Rosenberger noted he had nothing to report.
Regional Liaison Committee Reports
Executive – Mr. Rosenberger indicated they would be meeting next week to continue planning for the next
COG General Forum meeting.
Finance – Mr. Myers indicated they had met last week and were continuing the review of the proposed 2015
COG budget.
Human Resources – Mr. Morris indicated they had met on September 3 and had approved the new Human
Resources Director job description.
Parks Capital – Mr. Daubert indicated they had not recently met.
Public Safety – Ms. Klinetob indicated they had met two weeks ago and had reviewed budgets for both
Administration and Emergency Management.
Public Services and Environmental – Ms Klinetob indicated they had met on September 11, and Stacy
Richards, Energy Resource Center Program Director, provided good information on how that organization
was able to grow the Energy Resource Center via different funding sources, etc. The committee plans to
collect information to share with the COG’s future Energy Resource Coordinator (currently planned for 2016).
Transportation and Land Use/MPO – Ms. Lafer indicated the MPO had not met, but the Transportation and
Land Use Committee had continued discussion regarding economic develop and how to encourage
businesses to stay here and/or expand. They were also talking about designating a place for people to stay
when they come into the area to check out resources, etc. She also indicated that Trish Meek, Centre
Region Planner, would be presenting plans to link all of the areas different bicycle paths. She noted they
were trying to shorten the plan to 10-months and that a number of public hearings would be scheduled.
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 47
Staff Reports
Year-to-Date Budget Report - Mr. Dunlap distributed the year-to-date budget report to Council. He noted the
Borough was on par with budget and prior year trends and he plans to present year-end projections
sometime next month. He noted that he had taken some comments earlier that day regarding formatting,
etc.
Mr. Daubert noted that the reports were confusing and it was difficult to determine how the Borough was
really doing. Mr. Dunlap noted that he still needed to customize the report, i.e., make revenue positive, etc.
Mr. Rosenberger suggested that Council jot down their suggestions for formatting, etc., and return them to
the Assistant Manager.
UPUA Student Representative Report - Mr. Garfield thanked Chief King and the Police Department on how
last week’s rally was handled after Penn State’s sanctions were lifted.
He noted that he would be meeting with IFC that week to create an informational brochure, that would
provide information on how the Borough works, voter registration, the point system, etc. He also plans to
meet with students from the Smeal School of Business to talk about entrepreneurship and economic growth.
He also noted that there was a Governance of Long Range planning meeting scheduled for Thursday to
finalize a restructuring plan that would be presented to the Board of Trustees.
Items of Information
There were no additional items of information brought forward by Council or staff.
Adjournment
There being no additional items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Sharon K. Ergler
Prepared by: Judy Altieri, Staff Assistant
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 48
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 49
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 50
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 51
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH OF STATE COLLEGE, COUNTY OF
CENTRE, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPROVING THE
TRANSFER OF THE RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE, R-18109
FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA ROADHOUSE & TAVERN INC.
TO LUNA ENTERPRISES INC AT THE SAME LOCATION
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS
WHEREAS, Act 141 of 2000 (“the Act”) which amends the Commonwealth’s Liquor Code,
authorizes the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to approve, in certain instances, the transfer of
restaurant liquor licenses across municipal boundaries with the same county regardless of the quota
limitation provided for in Section 461 of the Liquor Code, if sales of liquor and malt or brewed
beverages are legal in the municipality receiving the license; and
WHEREAS, the receiving municipality issues a resolution approving the transfer of the license
from one entity to another while remaining at the same location of 1229 South Atherton Street, State
College, inside the municipality; and
WHEREAS, all other conditions set forth in Resolution 1060 previously adopted by the
Borough of State College on February 6, 2012; remain in full force and effect; and
NOW, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Borough of
State College that the transfer of ownership of Restaurant Liquor License No. R-18109 to Luna
Enterprises, Inc., for premises located at 1229 South Atherton Street, State College, PA, subject to
the restrictions previously set forth in Resolution 1060 which is marked Schedule A attached hereto
and made a part of hereof; is hereby approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Borough of State College approves, by adoption of this
Resolution, the proposed transfer as herein above described for location situate at 1229 South
Atherton Street, State College Borough, Centre County, Pam, subject to the continued restrictions set
forth on Schedule A; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the license transfer of ownership herein above described is
subject to approval by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.
RESOLVED this
day of ____________________, 2014.
Attest:
BOROUGH OF STATE COLLEGE
_____________________________
Sharon K. Ergler
______________________________
James L. Rosenberger,
President of Council
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 52
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 53
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 54
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 55
RESOLUTION
2014 PENSION AID DISTRIBUTION
WHEREAS,
Act 205 of 1984, known as the “Municipal Pension Plan Funding Standard and Recovery
Act,” provides for financial aid to municipal pension funds and requires the municipal
governing body to annually distribute the aid between the municipal pension funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the Borough of State College hereby
distributes the $1,003,024.12 received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as
follows:
$447,488.89
$555,535.23
to the Borough of State College Police Pension Fund; and
to the Borough of State College General Government Employees’
Pension Fund.
RESOLVED, this 20th day of October, 2014 by the Council of the Borough of State College.
ATTEST:
BOROUGH OF STATE COLLEGE
___________________________________
Sharon K. Ergler
By: _________________________________
James L. Rosenberger
President of Council
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 56
This page was left intentionally blank. 7:30 pm
Time
Work Session
Type of
Meeting
Regular Mtg.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
25, 2014
1, 2014
2, 2014
8, 2014
9, 2014
15, 2014
8:30 am-12:30 pm
7:30 pm
5:30 pm – 8 pm
7:30 pm
5:30 pm – 8 pm
7:30 pm
Work Session
Regular Mtg.
Work Session
Regular Mtg.
Work Session
Regular Mtg.
Nov. 24, 2014 8:30 am-12:30 pm Work Session
Nov. 17, 2014 7:30 pm
Nov. 10, 2014
Date
Distribution of proposed 2015 Operating Budget and Overview of
Policies & Procedures, Review Regional Programs
Finalize comments on Regional Programs and Review Revenue, CIP and
Debt Management
Departmental Reviews including Administration, Parking, Planning,
Police and Public Works
Continue with Department Reviews and discuss CIP Projects
Public Hearing on Budget and continue to review the proposed budget
Budget Review, as needed
Final Budget Review and Wrap Up
Budget Review, as needed
Budget Adoption
Topic of Discussion
Proposed 2015 Budget Review Schedule
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 57
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 58
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 59
State College Homestead Investment Program
FINAL REPORT
September 24, 2014
A Program of the
State College Borough Redevelopment Authority
Prepared for the State College Borough Council
by
State College Borough Planning Department
State College Borough Homestead Investment Program Policy Document | October 2014
1
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 60
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Making a case for the Homestead Investment Program …………………………..3
Neighborhood Trends………………………………………………………3
Fiscal Impacts from Growth of Rental Housing …………………………7
Housing Costs ………………………………………………………………9
Relationship to Borough Strategic Plan …………………………………………….13
Selecting Properties for Acquisition through the HIP ………..……………………15
Property Characteristics…………………………………………………….15
Geographic Area …………………………………………………………….16
Homestead Investment Program Overview & Description ………..………………18
Program Funding…………………………………………………………..18
Single-Family, Market Rate Management & Operations ...…………….20
Affordable Units Management & Operations ……………………………24
Rental Properties Management & Operations ………………………….25
Program Evaluation ……………………………………………………….26
Activities to be Completed Prior to Implementation ……………………………….27
Appendix I – Focus Area Map ………………………………………………………..28
Appendix II – Student Home Maps ………………………………………………….29
Appendix III – Potential Metrics for Program Evaluation………………………….32
Appendix IV—Process for Affordable Unit Acquisition ………………………...…34
Appendix V—Sample Restrictive Covenant ……………………………………….35
2
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 61
Making a Case for the Homestead Investment Program
Several assumptions lie at the core of why the Borough should institute the Homestead
Investment Program (HIP). These assumptions include:



In neighborhoods near campus, rental property operators can out-bid potential
owner occupants for available single-family homes.
As the number of registered Student Homes and single family rentals increases,
owner occupants are less likely to compete for houses on a street.
A disproportionate number of Student Homes causes some residents to
experience lifestyle conflicts with their neighbors.
The demand for housing, particularly rental housing related to University
students, has led to housing costs that exceed that which is within financial reach
of many households that want to live in State College Borough.
Neighborhood Trends
A review of available data sources was conducted in an which attempt to substantiate or
refute these above stated assumptions. It is generally believed that the data presented
below tends to substantiate these assumptions.
Demographics
Since 1970, the US Census reports that State College Borough has experienced a
steady decline in the number of family households, as well as an increase in the number
of non-family and one person households.
Number of Households 1970 - 2010
14000
12000
10000
Total
8000
Family
6000
Non-family
1 Person hsehlds
4000
2000
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Source: US Census 1970-2010
3
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 62
Additionally, the US Census reports that owner-occupied housing units, as a percentage
of total housing units in the Borough, have declined since 1990. In fact, in 1990, owneroccupied housing represented 22% of all housing units in the Borough, with rental
housing representing 72%. By 2010, owner-occupied housing accounted for 20% of all
housing units, while rental accounted for 77%.
Housing Tenure 1990 - 2010
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Total # Units
Vacant
1990
Owner-Occupied
2000
Renter-Occupied
2010
Source: US Census 1990 - 2010
A locally derived data set that can be used to determine trends in owner- and renteroccupied housing is the rental housing permit report, which is provided each month by
the Centre Region Code Administration. This report provides a tool for tracking the
number of single-family homes that are rented in the Borough over time. According to
these reports, the number of single family homes that are renter-occupied increased
from 285 in 1990 to 535 in 2013. These figures represent 10.4% and 19.8%,
respectively, of all of the single-family homes in the Borough.
A second local data source that provides an indication on the rate of owner- and renteroccupied homes is the number of residential properties that qualify for the Real Estate
Tax Homestead Exclusion (HE). A property is eligible for the HE for a portion of its
property tax only if it is not rented. Between 2012 and 2013, the number of HE eligible
properties in the Borough declined from 2,186 to 2,171. This indicates that
approximately 15 more residential properties are ineligible because they are income
producing properties rather than the primary residence of the owners.
The trends in the number of family households and the percentage of housing units that
4
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 63
are owner occupied indicates that owner occupants are not able to successfully
compete with rental property investors for single-family properties in the Borough.
Quality of Life
The third assumption, that a disproportionate number of Student Homes creates conflict
in neighborhoods, is one that cannot be tested directly. Locally derived data on
property maintenance and ordinance violations is not tracked on the basis of whether or
not a property is registered as a Student Home. However, there are a number of tools
that help in the analysis of the impact of non-owner occupied housing on neighborhood
conditions. For example, in the annual Neighborhood Sustainability Report, data are
tracked and reported each year on the number of violations based on housing type.
Additionally, the annual F8 report tracks information on the demographics of violators.
The 2012 Neighborhood Sustainability Report contained the following chart that is
helpful in looking at the impact of rental houses in Borough neighborhoods. This chart
indicates the number of “quality of life” violations by housing type. These include such
violations as disorderly conduct, noise and over-occupancy. It indicates that these
violations are highest in rental houses and duplexes.
5
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 64
Excerpt from 2012 Neighborhood Sustainability Report
The F8 report provides data on violations that occur in the three neighborhoods that
surround downtown and campus from the start of fall semester to Thanksgiving
weekend. This report contains an analysis of the demographics of the offenders.
Student status is not tracked in this report; however, age of the offender is tracked. The
majority of the people that received violations are in the age ranges typically associated
with undergraduate students, and though it is not a perfect proxy of student status, it is
logical to conclude a percentage of these offenders are students. The chart below is
taken from the F8 Report for 2012.
6
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 65
Excerpt from 2012 F8 Report
Financial Impacts from Growth of Rental Housing
As is the case with older core communities in Pennsylvania and across the nation, State
College is faced with challenges in maintaining its fiscal health. This challenge is
succinctly captured in the 2011 Financial Trends Monitoring Report. This report
indicates that trends for the Borough’s financial state is favorable in terms of the
Operating Position category, neutral in the Community (i.e., demographics) and
Expenditures categories, and both neutral and favorable in the Debt Structure category.
However, the picture in the Revenues category is more mixed. This is apparent from
the excerpt from the 2011 Financial Trends Monitoring Report provided below.
Excerpt from 2011 Financial Trends Monitoring Report
7
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 66
As can be seen, a number of these indicators are trending towards unfavorable or alert
conditions. That is, growth in constant dollar terms is not keeping up with the rising
costs experienced by the Borough. It has only been possible to report a favorable trend
in real estate tax revenue because the Borough has increased real estate tax rates from
4.0 mill in 2003 to 11.04 mills in 2013. Without these millage increases, the trend in real
estate tax revenue would also be unfavorable.
It should be noted that the increases in real estate tax rates coincided with the repeal of
the Business Privilege Tax and the implementation of the Homestead Exclusion (HE)
program. Developing a strategy to help reduce loss of family households is one step
that can be taken to help stabilize the Borough’s real estate and income tax base.
Other communities in Pennsylvania which host universities , have experienced similar
issues with respect to revenue impacts. In 2005, a Pennsylvania Economy League
study showed that municipalities that host universities consistently collect less revenue
per capita through all forms of taxes than municipalities that do not host a college or
university. The study also found that these municipalities also have higher per capita
taxes than non-university municipalities.
Ensuring long-term financial viability is not the only reason to implement strategies that
counter the demographic trends that the Borough is experiencing. Factors contributing
to community quality of life such as improved property maintenance, expanded social
and civic engagement, and improved civic participation all benefit from stable housing
and stable neighborhoods.
State College is not entirely unique in experiencing the out migration of family
households and their replacement with non-family households, many of which are
comprised of unrelated university students. Virtually all communities that host a college
or university have faced increased “studentification” of the neighborhoods near campus.
“Studentification” has been defined by British geographers as the dislocation of
professionals, middle class and working class families by student residents, and a
resulting change in the character of these neighborhoods due to this transformation.
This results in the decline of the perceived quality of life in the neighborhoods when
measured by any number of variables. One variable is the ongoing conflict that exists
between student and non-student neighbors as a result of differing lifestyles and
behavior. This has certainly been the case in State College as significant population
shifts have occurred over the past four decades.
Similar conflicts have also been documented in the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada
where property prices have escalated, thereby contributing to cultural and retail
transformations and the out-migration of established populations and local community
resistance to students.
8
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 67
Housing Costs
Borough staff, through work completed as part of its HUD Consolidated Plan for the use
of CDBG and HOME funding from the federal government, has documented the impact
of the high cost of housing in the Borough. The following excerpt from the 2010-2014
Consolidated Plan provides a brief summary of the affordable housing needs in State
College Borough. The complete 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan is available on
Borough’s web site using the following URL: http://www.statecollegepa.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/284
Estimate of housing needs for various populations
This includes information on the housing needs in the Borough by household type,
income and tenure. The Department of Housing and Urban Development had special
tabulations of the 2000 U.S. Census data compiled. The Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data were used to complete the following assessment.
HUD defines various housing problems as:




Households with a housing "cost burden," means housing costs including utilities
exceeds 30% of household gross income
Households with a “severe cost burden," means housing costs including utilities
exceedes 50% of household gross income
Occupied-housing units which have physical defects (such as lacking a
complete kitchen or bathroom)
Units with overcrowded conditions (a housing unit with more than one person per
room)
Table 19, below, shows the number and distribution of households in the Borough in
2011, and identifies the percent of each household type which has a housing problem.
Household types include elderly, small families, large families and other households,
which includes single persons. (The CHAS data were not provided in a manner making
it possible to isolate single persons.) As the table indicates, 61.7% of all households in
the Borough have a housing problem; out of renter households, 70.6% have a housing
problem, and of owner households, 23.5% have a housing problem.
9
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 68
Table 19. Borough Households with a Housing Problem
Household Types
Renter
Households
Elderly
Small Families
Large Families
Other Households
Total Renters
OwnerOccupied
Households
Elderly
Small Families
Large Families
Other Households
Total Owner
Total Households
475
1,265
100
8,130
% With A Housing
Problem
47.4%
47.8%
69.0%
75.5%
9,970
70.6%
850
1,070
28
365
22.4%
19.2%
64.3%
35.6%
2,313
12,283
23.5%
61.7%
Total Number
Source: HUD 2007-2011 CHAS data, Table 16
Related vs. non-related households
When identifying housing needs, it is necessary to separate out “related” households
from “un-related” households. This is not done to discount housing problems faced by
unrelated households, which include student residents. Rather, it is necessary to base
our needs assessment on related households because students, whom are living
together and are unrelated, are generally not eligible for federally funded housing
assistance through programs such as CDBG or HOME. Those eligible include
extremely low, low, and moderate-income families (related by blood, marriage, adoption
or who have shown a stable family relationship); extremely low, low, and moderateincome persons with special needs; and extremely low and low-income elderly.
Extremely low-income households are those earning less than or equal to 30% of the
Area Median Income (AMI); low-income is 30.1% to 50% of the AMI, and moderateincome is 50.1% to 80% of the AMI. In the year 2009, the moderate-income threshold
was $52,650. In 2014, the moderate-income threshold for a family of four living in State
College was $62,640.
Chart 2, on the following page, shows the number of extremely low, low, and moderateincome “related” households with housing problems compared to the number of related
households of moderate-income and above with housing problems.
10
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 69
Chart 2. Related Households with Housing Problems by Tenure & Income
Related Households with >30% Housing Cost Burden by
Tenure & Income
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Elderly
Small Family
Large Family
Elderly
Small Family
Renters
Extremely Low Income
Large Family
Owners
Low Income
Moderate Income
Source: CHAS Data Report, 2007-2011 ACS Data compiled for HUD.
Cost Burden
Most housing problems in the Borough are related to cost burden. Table 20, below,
provides information on the cost burden experienced by extremely low, low, and
moderate-income Borough residents. Affordability is a factor when a family is paying
more than 30% of gross monthly income for housing plus basic utilities. In 2014, 71.9%
of the Borough’s extremely low, low, and moderate-income renter households were
living in housing that is not affordable. And, 45.4% of extremely low, low and moderateincome homeowners had a housing problem associated with a cost burden.
In the Borough in 2011, there were a total of 1,840 “related” renter households (elderly,
small and large families combined); 1,285 are extremely low, low, or moderate-income.
62.4% (or 740) of these “related” renter households were paying over 30% of their
income on housing; and 35% (415 households) were paying over 50%.
There are a total of 1,948 “related” owner-occupied households in the Borough; 423 are
extremely low, low or moderate-income. 69.3% (or 293) of these households had a cost
11
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 70
burden over 30%; 44.6% (189 households) had a cost burden over 50%.
Table 20. Extremely Low, Low, and Moderate-Income Households in State College Experiencing a Cost
Burden in 1999
Extremely Low-Income
Households
0-30% Median Family
Income (MFI)
In 2014 30% of MFI =
$23,490 (4 person
household)
Cost
Cost
Total Burden Burden
>30%
> 50%
Household
Type
Elderly
RENTERS
OWNERS
Moderate-Income
Households 51-80%
Median Family Income
(MFI)
In 2014 80% of MFI =
$62,640
Low-Income Households
31-50% Median Family
Income (MFI)
In 2014, 50% of the MFI =
$39,150
Total
Cost
Burden
> 30%
Cost
Burden
> 50%
Total
Cost
Burden
> 30%
Cost
Burden
> 50%
35
100.0%
100.0%
100
90.0%
25.0%
95
47.4%
0.0%
265
0
4,435
4,735
75
86.8%
n/a
88.6%
88.6%
100.0%
81.1%
n/a
84.1%
84.1%
86.7%
200
65
1,315
1,680
70
85.0%
100.0%
89.4%
89.3%
71.4%
42.5%
69.2%
55.1%
52.4%
21.4%
410
15
1,135
1,655
125
25.6%
0.0%
52.9%
45.3%
16.0%
2.4%
0.0%
13.2%
9.7%
0.0%
Small Family
25
100.0%
60.0%
25
100.0%
100.0%
90
100.0%
72.2%
Large Family
4
100.0%
100.0%
0
n/a
n/a
4
100.0%
0.0%
Other Owners
Total Owners
35
139
71.4%
92.8%
71.4%
78.4%
20
115
100.0%
82.6%
50.0%
43.5%
25
244
76.0%
54.5%
16.0%
28.3%
3,626
83.2%
72.6%
2,284
81.2%
34.2%
1,863
38.5%
6.0%
Small Family
Large Family
Other Renters
Total Renters
Elderly
TOTAL
HOUSEHOLDS
Source: 2007-2011 CHAS data, Table 7; HUD FY2014 MFI data
12
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 71
Relationship to Strategic Plan
The State College Borough strategic plan, adopted by Borough Council in the fall of
2009, established six major goals to be pursued by the municipality. This list, which can
be found on Page 2 of the Strategic Plan, included the goals of maintaining safe, stable
attractive neighborhoods (Goal 1) and expanding housing opportunities (Goal 4).
Pages 31 and 32 of the Strategic Plan outline initiatives that the municipality will
undertake to attain the six goals. As stated in the Strategic Plan, the strategic initiatives
for Goals 1 and 4 are as follows:
Goal 1 of the plan addresses the importance of maintaining safe, stable and
attractive neighborhoods. This will be accomplished through continued efforts to
support and enhance neighborhood programming, including working with existing
neighborhood groups and organizations. In addition to efforts to empower
organizations and groups within their neighborhoods, the borough seeks to
expand housing initiatives by encouraging and fostering home ownership. A
variety of strategies will be employed including working with property owners and
private developers to encourage investment to maintain and enhance
neighborhoods.
Goal 4’s primary focus is on developing additional housing and especially
workforce housing within the borough. This will include strategies to work with the
university and other major employers in the region to develop initiatives and
provide incentives for the development of housing in the downtown areas. Over
the long run, efforts will also include analyzing demand for student housing and
identifying growth and selecting specific areas for the continued development of
student housing.
The Homestead Investment Program (HIP) is an initiative intended to respond to the
strategies outlined in these two goals. As envisioned, the HIP does so in two primary
ways: by expanding the level of resources available for home ownership activities and
by providing additional resources to capitalize on opportunities to expand the diversity of
housing, especially through expanding workforce housing, in the Borough.
The Homestead Investment Program involves the investment of public funds.
Therefore, the Borough has a fiduciary responsibility to its tax payers to ensure these
funds are invested wisely and produce the maximum desired results for the minimum
investment of resources. In order to assure this program meets its fiduciary needs, it is
imperative to establish adequate and measurable outcomes that can be used to
determine to what extent the program succeeds in meeting its goals. There are several
more specific points within the Strategic Plan’s goals to consider when establishing
measurable outcomes.
For example, Goal 1, “Maintaining safe, stable, and attractive neighborhoods,” is a very
broad goal that requires a multi-pronged approach to succeed. The primary element of
Goal 1 that the HIP will address is expanding housing initiatives by encouraging and
13
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 72
fostering home ownership.
Goal 4, “Developing additional housing, especially workforce housing, in the borough,”
is a much more narrowly defined goal and the primary element of this goal that the HIP
will address is expanding the supply of workforce housing. This will take place either
through expanding affordable home ownership programs or through increasing the
supply of affordable rental housing for households where one or more of the members
of the household are employed.
14
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 73
Selecting Properties for Acquisition through the Homestead Investment Program
An important consideration in designing the HIP is identifying the pool of properties that
could potentially be suitable for the program. According to rental housing permit data,
there are 535 single-family, 333 two-family, and 634 townhouse rentals in the Borough.
There are an additional 91 owner-occupied dwellings for which a rental permit has been
issued for an apartment or 1 or 2 rooms. In addition, rental housing permits have been
issued for 34 apartment buildings with 5 or fewer units. These smaller apartment
buildings may be suitable for conversion to workforce, non-student market rate housing,
or mixed income rental housing use. This is a total potential target inventory of 1,627
units.
According to data compiled by the Borough’s Planning Department, there are 310
registered Student Homes in the Borough in zoning districts where a minimum distance
separation between Student Homes applies. Limited data are available regarding
student-owned homes. Because Student Homes are rental properties, they are
included in the one of the categories of rental housing listed in the preceding paragraph.
Note: At the time of the preparation of this program, the Planning Department was in the
process of verifying the use of one- and two-family rentals to ensure the actual use
complies with the use listed on the rental housing permit. This process also aims to
identify properties that are being rented without a rental housing permit or being used as
a Student Home without zoning approval.
Property Characteristics
In order to narrow down the inventory of potential properties to purchase through this
program, the following criteria shall be considered.
Owner-Occupied Properties






Housing which is suitable for owner-occupancy and is in close proximity to
downtown and campus
Duplexes, townhouses, or small, multi-family buildings which could be suitable
for workforce housing or mixed income housing and which are embedded into or
adjacent to single-family, owner-occupied blocks.
Properties that if converted to a rental would result in the majority of the
properties on block being used as rentals
Property is currently owner-occupied but is considered to be suitable as a nonstudent rental unit
Condominium units located in primarily owner-occupied condominium buildings
in or near downtown that would be suitable as housing for young professionals
Sale price meets eligibility guidelines for affordability for a household earning 80120% AMI.
15
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 74
Rental Properties
 One or two-family unit(s) which are currently rented
Registered Student Homes, or properties eligible to become a Student Home, and
Student-owned homes



The Redevelopment Authority has indicated that these criteria should be of higher priority
when considering the eligibility of a property for purchase through the HIP. Borough staff
recommends giving lower priority to registered Student Homes and Student-Owned homes if
they abut Atherton Street and Park Avenue due to the impact of traffic on the desirability of
these homes for family occupancy.
Rental properties with an existing non-conforming status permitting occupancy
greater than 3 unrelated persons.
Rent for the unit(s) within this property meet the eligibility guidelines for
affordable rent for a household earning 80-120% AMI.
Other Factors





Rental properties which have a history as a problem property according to the
Borough’s Nuisance Property Ordinance
Properties in the West End Area/Urban Village Zoning District that could be
reused or redeveloped as a mixed-tenure building
Property is a single-family home with a list price not exceeding $400,000 or the
seller is willing to negotiate a sale price not to exceed $400,000. (Note: This cap
should be revisited annually during Q1 to adjust for inflation and other factors.)
Property is not completely or almost completely surrounded by fraternity houses.
Property’s overall condition, curb-appeal and salability appear to be favorable
when compared to other home sales in the market.**
**Properties should be ranked as “excellent” and requiring very little to no maintenance for
resale, “good” requiring a small amount of maintenance or cosmetic improvements, or “rehab
needed” requiring a significant amount of maintenance or structural improvements.

Property is located on a block with more than 25%, but fewer than 75% of the
housing units identified as rental units.
Geographic Area
In order to have a measurable impact on the balance of the tenure composition of a
neighborhood, it is necessary to define geographic or spatial priorities for investing the
HIP’s resources. Research on the impact of student-oriented rental properties on
neighborhood character, conducted by Smith Partners for St. Thomas University, St.
Paul, MN, suggests that once the percentage of rentals on a block exceeds 30%, the
character of the block changes. The research cites studies Smith conducted in Athens,
GA, Athens, OH, and Milwaukee, WI as the basis for its conclusion on this tipping point
in character from owner-occupied to renter-occupied. Other analyses conducted in
Great Britain on the question of tipping point suggests that balance between renter
occupied and owner-occupied occurs at lower percentages of rental property, as low as
16
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 75
10%. During the Spring of 2014, Real Estate students studying at Penn State
University, suggested that for State College’s peer University communities, a
neighborhood became a “rental” neighborhood when 55% or more of the housing was
renter-occupied.
Using rental permit data and GIS mapping, it is possible to estimate the percentage of
rental unit for blocks in State College. The Appendix to this report includes maps
showing all properties which have active rental permits, as well as properties with onefamily and two-family rentals and those with Registered Student Homes throughout the
Borough. Using these maps, we can identify those blocks with high concentration of
rental properties and those where rentals are less numerous.
Blocks on which the predominant type of rental unit is within large, multi-family buildings
are excluded from this analysis. Another factor that may influence the Borough’s
decision on homes to purchase is the proximity of a rental property in relation to
fraternity houses. While many owner-occupied homes co-exist with fraternities, a
single-family house that is completely surrounded or almost completely surrounded by
fraternity houses may not be a prime candidate for conversion to owner-occupied
status. This consideration led to the assumption that the best area of the Borough to
target through the investment of Homestead Investment Program funds was roughly
within ½ mile radius of the edge of the Penn State Campus. After discussion with the
Redevelopment Authority, the decision was made to expand this target area to include
all of the College Heights, Holmes-Foster and Highlands neighborhoods, as well as a
small area of the northwestern portion of the State College South neighborhood. A map
of this area is outlined in Appendix I of this program report.
Note: a Block is defined in the State College Borough Zoning Ordinance as the length of
a street between two street intersections.
17
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 76
Homestead Investment Program Overview & Description:
In general, the Homestead Investment Program will:









Use a $5 million line of credit to purchase existing Student Homes, homes that
have the potential to be converted to Student Homes, single-family rentals, and
other properties determined to meet the program goals to resell as owneroccupied homes or non-student occupied rental properties.
Establish deed restrictions or covenants that limit the use of the property offered
for sale to owner-occupancy that is the owner’s primary residence.
Establish a policy that units acquired for reuse as rental units would not be rented
to unrelated undergraduate students.
The resale price for student homes and other rentals will be based on the value
of the property without the Student Home or rental permit premium.
Program will supplement existing affordable housing programs
Program will allow purchase of homes by households with incomes above federal
income guidelines and with after-rehabilitation values that exceed HUD limits
Program will not limit purchase to first time home buyers.
Program will primarily be targeted to neighborhoods most impacted by singlefamily conversion to rental properties
Future funding will depend on the success of HIP in meeting the goals outlined in
this program and on the Borough’s success in forming partnerships to assist in
funding the HIP in the future.
Funding
Initial funding to capitalize the program will be provided using lines of credit from local
lending institutions. Funds for carrying costs (as outlined in the Program Management
& Operations section) could be made available through the Borough’s Annual Operating
Budget or as part of the funds drawn from the line of credit for the program.
The Borough will continue to pursue opportunities to enlist local employers to participate
in the program. This could be done through a number of Employer Assisted Housing
Program models, whereas an employer could provide funds to the Borough for use in
the program, or an employer could provide assistance directly to an employee for the
employee to use tin order to purchase a home through the HIP.
The line of credit will be established by the State College Borough Redevelopment
Authority with the financing backed in the form of a Loan Guarantee by the full faith,
credit and taxing power of the State College Borough.
o Meet with financial advisors, bond counsel, and solicitor to determine
borrowing requirements and procedures for lines of credit.
o Meet with commercial loan officers and mortgage lenders from local
18
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 77
o
o
o
o
o
financial institutions to:
 review program goals, priority areas, and process
 determine interest in establishing lines of credit that could be used
to acquire property
 determine criteria lenders would require to make funds available
 explore opportunities to create a consortium of participating lenders
 Incorporate funding for carrying costs into the borrowing for
acquisition.
Secure a commitment from State College Borough Council to guarantee
the lines of credit and all loans drawn on the lines of credit
Work with the Redevelopment Authority and the Borough’s financial
advisors, bond counsel, and solicitor to prepare a solicitation for
participation in a line of credit program
Solicit proposals from lenders either individually or as participants in a
consortium
Prepare and execute loan agreements
Continue to explore or pursue opportunities for employer participating in
funding the program
Single-Family, Market Rate Program Management and Operations:
The following outline provides a step-by-step process for the acquisition and resale
process for market rate, single family homes through the Homestead Investment
Program.
Identify Target Areas
Prepare an inventory of existing 1- and 2-family rentals, townhouse rentals, and
apartment buildings with 5 or fewer units. Utilize this list to evaluate properties within the
target area that may become available for sale.
 Sources of data for this inventory include rental housing permit records from
CRCA; homestead exclusion lists; refuse billing list; real estate tax parcel list
 Determine if this will necessitate a door-to-door inventory of all 1- and 2-family
homes to ensure all rental properties are identified
 Identify townhouse complexes and apartment buildings that should be included in
the program
Acquisition Process
In this part of the process, the buyer is the State College Borough Redevelopment
Authority (RDA). The RDA’s Executive Director (ED) is the State College Borough
Manager; the Ed may further assign his authority to a designee, mostly likely the
19
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 78
Planning Director, to perform his functions.
This process assumes that an eligible property has been identified within the target
area, meets one or more of the criteria on pages 15-16 of this report, and the ED, or his
designee, and the RDA Chair agree that it is a good investment for the program’s funds.
1. ED chooses Real Estate Broker of Record using a rotating system except
when the seller is represented by a Realtor™. (Note: If a seller offers a home for
sale without the use of a Listing Agent, the seller will be required to utilize a
transaction licensee. In such cases, the Buyer’s Agent’s commission should be
the prevailing rate up to 3%.)
2. Broker of Record assigns a Realtor™ to be buyer’s agent using only agents
with experience listing and selling properties within the Borough of State College.
3. Consumer notice is signed – it explains relationship between Buyer and Buyer’s
agent (Note: The established rate of commission for a real estate agent
representing the RDA should be the prevailing wage up to 6%.)
4. ED and Agent arrange for a showing of the property – ED, RDA Chair & agent
attend – usually takes ½ to 3/4 hour
5. ED with approval by RDA Chair decides whether to pursue a selected
property. RDA must ratify the decision to purchase at the next meeting.
6. Seller’s property disclosure & annual expenses are provided to buyer
7. If interested in acquiring property, ED & buyer’s agent prepare an offer (initial
dollar amount willing to pay) on the property – usually negotiated. (Note:
Consideration may be needed regarding the seller’s/investor’s Capital Gains Tax,
which might include the possibility of a “1031 Exchange” if seller is an investor.)
8. If a sales agreement is executed, Buyer must make deposit on purchase by
paying the listing real estate office earnest money (usually $1000) - paid to
insure buyer doesn’t walk away from sales agreement
9. At this point, the sale is pending and other buyers are locked out. Sale pending
sign is posted on property
10. Earnest money is deposited in seller’s office trust account and is credited toward
buyer’s account at settlement (closing)
11. Buyer may have an appraisal done – usually required when borrowing money
for the purchase, but is not mandated for RDA’s line-of-credit
12. The offer is contingent upon satisfactory home inspections and the appraisal (if
an appraisal was sought) along with any other conditions the agent suggests, all
of which are spelled out in the sales agreement
13. ED & buyer’s agent decide what inspections need to be conducted – buyer
pays for inspections
14. Within 10 to 15 days of execution of sales agreement, buyer’s agent makes
arrangements for home inspections - buyer should be present for inspections
20
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 79
15. With receipt of inspection report buyer and its agent identify repair items they
wish the seller to complete or for which the seller will provide assistance to the
buyer to complete.
16. Within 5 days, seller’s agent responds to the reply to inspections
17. Seller can choose to do requested items, reject, or negotiate the repairs with
buyer through its agent.
18. If proposal is rejected, buyer has option of terminating the offer to purchase as
specified in sales agreement
19. ED or designee will notify the lender and provide it a copy of Agreement of Sale
20. Closing date is chosen
21. Buyer’s Solicitor performs title search and issues Title Insurance Policy in an
amount equal to purchase price. Note: Subsequent purchaser may have reduced
reissue premium.
22. Prior to closing, seller’s agent presents a fully executed deed in favor of Buyer to
the Buyer’s (RDA’s) Solicitor for review
23. RDA Solicitor prepares HUD-1 Settlement Statement and provides it for ED’s
review at least 24 hours before settlement
24. RDA Solicitor conducts the closing
Jobs While RDA is Property Owner
1. RDA Solicitor places restrictive covenant on deed requiring owner occupied with
rental exceptions for sabbaticals and other just cause established by the RDA
2. Property maintenance (lawn, snow, repairs, heat) – staff time
3. Pay taxes, insurance, utilities – staff time
4. Collect rents on rental properties that are acquired or maintained. (Note: Decision
must be made regarding properties purchased that are rental and have existing
leases that must be honored until expired.)
Resale Process
In this part of the process, the State College Redevelopment Authority (RDA) is now the
seller. The RDA’s Executive Director (ED) is the State College Borough Manager; the
Ed may further assign his authority to a designee, mostly likely the Planning Director, to
perform his functions.
This part of the process assumes that the property has not been identified as a property
eligible for the Borough to maintain as a non-student rental property, nor to resell as an
affordable unit utilizing locally-established affordability guidelines.
This part of the process requires that the RDA will not participate in a Dual Agency
arrangement where the same RealtorTM represents both the buyer and the seller in a
single transaction.
21
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 80
1. ED contacts Broker of Record to assign an agent. Broker of Record is selected
by using the rotating system – next agencies on the list
2. Seller’s agent is offered predetermined sales commission (5% or 6%). Seller’s
agent assists RDA in determining the listing price – requires a meeting by
RDA to approve listing price
3. Property is then marketed through Centre County Multiple Listing Service and
other Real Estate services (websites, etc.)
4. Restrictive covenants are revealed in marketing materials and are made
available through MLS supporting documents.
5. Seller’s agent presents all offers to ED and provides advice on negotiations
6. Offer must be accompanied by deposit of earnest money and offer must be
accompanied by a mortgage preapproved letter from buyer’s lender or other
proof of funds.
7. After negotiations and upon acceptance of offer, ED, with approval by the RDA
Chair, signs sales agreement and buyer’s earnest money is deposited in the
Real Estate office’s trust account
8. Upon final agreement, RDA Solicitor prepares deed in favor of buyer. Deed
includes covenants limiting use and resale, and is forwarded to ED for signature
and then it goes to buyer’s settlement agent
9. Buyer’s lender and settlement agent are responsible for preparing closing
documents, including HUD-1 Settlement Statement which must be reviewed by
ED
10. ED has option to attend closing, but may designate the seller’s agent to sign
HUD-1 on behalf of RDA and do the closing
It should be noted that any future resale of a property purchased through the market
rate component of the HIP will occur on the open market. The restrictive covenant will
run with the property, but the actual real estate transaction will be a “willing seller-willing
buyer” transaction not subject to approval by the Borough.
Deed Restriction/Covenant Compliance
Planning staff will maintain a database of all properties purchased and sold through
HIP. Planning staff will monitor real estate transfers on a weekly basis to identify when
a HIP property is transferred to a new owner. Planning staff will contact buyer to ensure
continued adherence to deed restriction/covenants.
Planning staff will evaluate all applications for rental housing permits to ensure
compliance with deed restrictions/covenants.
22
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 81
Marketing and Outreach
Borough staff and the RDA will foster a relationship with RealtorsTM and employers in
the area to promote the goals of the Homestead Investment Program. In order to foster
this relationship, the following steps should be taken to build support for the program:
o Meet with Realtors™ to review program goals, priority areas, and process
o Invite feedback on program and revise as appropriate
o Work with Realtors™ to market the benefits of home ownership in the
Borough
o Discuss interest by Realtors™ to participate in program by advising SCB
of new listings that meet programmatic goals
o Identify Realtors™ interested in becoming partners with the
Redevelopment Authority in program operations, by establishing a list of
participating Real Estate firms that have sold properties in the Borough in
the last year
o The RDA will utilize this list to rotate through participating RealtorsTM for
each acquisition and sale of properties through the HIP
o Meet with human resource managers/recruiters at PSU and other major
employers to ensure they are aware of the program and encourage
participation by current and future employees. Include meeting with
CBICC as part of this process.
o Complete a direct mail announcement for all State College Borough
homeowners notifying them of the program and the program goals.
Affordable Units Program Management & Operations
Determining Affordability Thresholds for HIP
One goal of the HIP is to expand the stock of affordable, owner-occupied homes in the
Borough. The number or percent of units that are affordable will depend on the cost of
homes on the market in the priority areas, but it is currently believed that setting the
target that 25% of all homes purchased for resale through the HIP are affordable units is
a reasonable starting point.
Properties that are determined to be affordable will be resold using existing First Time
Home Buyer (FTHB) programs to market and sell these homes. A description of this
process is available in Appendix IV.
Existing FTHB programs follow either HUD guidelines that set an upper income limit of
80% of Area Median Income (AMI) or locally established income limits of 81%-115% of
AMI. The actual income level is adjusted for household size. Currently, the FTHB
programs operated by the State College Community Land Trust (SCCLT), Temporary
Housing Foundation (THF), and State College Borough’s low/mod program all use the
23
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 82
HUD guidelines of 80% of AMI as the upper limit on eligibility. State College Borough’s
Middle Income FTHB program uses the locally established income limits of 115% of
AMI.
State College Planning Staff recently calculated that the median sale price for 1-family
homes sold during the period of May 1 – July 31, 2014 in State College Borough is
$269,075.00. Transfers listed as $1 were not included in the calculation. A total of 50
homes were included in the calculation, ranging in price from $2,385.00 to $594,000.00.
12 of these 50 properties included in the calculation sold for less than $200,000.00.
For 2014, 100% of AMI for a three-person household is $63,100.00. Using this income
amount, Planning Staff calculated that $222,422.00 is the maximum purchase price that
a three-person household earning 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI) can afford.
Using these data, the number of 1-family homes that would be “affordable” without a
substantial subsidy is very limited even if the upper bound of the income limit is
increased to 100% of AMI. If the Borough were to use the 80% of AMI ($50,500) as the
upper limit of eligibility to participate in HIP, the maximum home purchase price without
subsidy falls to $175,611.00. Only 4 of the 50 properties used to calculate the current
median price for 1-family homes sold for $175,611.00 or less. (Note: One property was
sold for less than $3,000.00, but appears to have been sold between family members
and, therefore, was not included.)
In addition to limitations on purchase price faced by low- and moderate-income
households interested in becoming homeowners, the Borough’s experience has been
that these households do not have the economic wherewithal to fund needed home
improvements. The current FTHB programs that base eligibility on HUD’s income
guidelines include a rehab component that improves basic systems before the houses
are sold to the first time buyers. Up to $20,000.00 for rehab and $10,000.00 for lead
mitigation are provided as part of these FTHB homes. The funds used for rehab are
structured as a forgiveness loan; funds for lead mitigation are provided as a grant.
As noted above, the Middle Income FTHB allows applicants to make up to 115% of the
AMI. Participants in the Middle Income FTHB program are also eligible for $3,500.00 in
assistance for rehab. Even at this higher income level, staff’s experience is that it is
difficult for a potential buyer to find a house that is affordable. Staff recommends
increasing the upper limit on income to be eligible to participate in the Middle Income
program to 120% of AMI ($75,720 for a 3 person household in 2014). Using 120% of
AMI as the upper income limit to participate in HIP would increase the maximum home
purchase price to $269,306.00. 25 of the 50 properties used to calculate median 1family home sale price sold for less than $222,000.00.
Rental Property Program Management & Operations
As documented in the introduction to this program outline, a well-defined need for
affordable and market rate non-student rental housing exists in State College. The third
24
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 83
component of HIP is to purchase properties that are suitable for use a rentals for nonstudent households. The goal is to ensure that 50% of all properties purchased for use
as rental units are affordable units.
The priority for the types of property that would be purchased through HIP included the
following types of rental property:
o Duplexes, townhouses, or small multi-family buildings that are suitable for
workforce housing or mixed income housing that embedded in or adjacent
to Single-family owner occupied blocks.
o Condominium units in primarily owner occupied condo buildings in and
near downtown that would be suitable as housing for young professionals
In addition, there may be instances when 1-family homes are good candidates to
continue or become rentals. This will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The basic process for acquiring properties that will be used as rentals will be the same
as acquisition of properties that will be used as owner occupied homes. That is,
potential purchases will be evaluated based on the suitability of a property as an
affordable rental, market rate rental, or mixed income rental. Any property determined to
be a good investment would be purchased using the lines of credit established with
lenders.
Following acquisition, rental properties will be operated by State College Borough.
Revenues generated from rental income would be used to pay debt service and provide
operating revenues to administer HIP. Day-to-day property management would be
provided by retaining a property management company or utilizing Public Works
Laborers. Fees associated with this service would also be covered by the rental
income.
Rental Housing Program Review
Twenty-four months after the initial rent-up of any properties retained as rental units,
Borough staff will prepare an evaluation of the rental housing component of HIP for
consideration by Council. As part of that evaluation, staff will present any proposed
changes to the program that, in the opinion of staff, are need to ensure the rental
housing component is meeting program goals.
Program Review
Six months after the start of implementation, staff will report to Council on the success
of the process outlined herein for acquiring properties for inclusion in HIP. As part of
25
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 84
that report, staff will advise the Redevelopment Authority, who will report to Borough
Council, on any modifications to the acquisition process staff believes are necessary to
improve the success of the HIP. These modifications could include changes to the
proposed process or retooling of the acquisition process to replace the one proposed
above to one based on retaining a buyer’s agent to handle identifying properties for
consideration as purchases and the actual purchase of individual properties.
Additionally, as the program is implemented, potential metrics which are listed in
Appendix III can serve as a guide to measure both the operational and quality of life
performance of the program. Metrics may change and evolve as implementation of the
program is ongoing.
26
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 85
Activities to be Completed by Prior to Implementation






Preparation of agreements with lenders willing to participate in the program. Complete
Approval and execution of contract with Management company to maintain
property for time between purchase and resale to an owner-occupant or between
purchase and conversion to a rental.- If needed
Council approval and execution of agreements- If needed
Preparation of documents for market rate component of program. - Complete
Preparation of documents for affordable and rental components of program. Refer
to existing programs
Update working documents, including a Policy & Operations Manual- Complete
27
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 86
Appendix I- Focus Area Map
Source: State College Planning Department, December 2013 Rental Housing Permit & Registered Student Homes Lists
The focus area for the HIP includes all of the College Heights, Holmes-Foster/West End
and Highlands neighborhoods. Additionally, it includes the triangular area of State
College South, which is bounded by Easterly Parkway, Atherton Street and Pugh Street,
as well as the properties fronting both sides of these thoroughfares.
28
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 87
Appendix II- Student Home Maps
One-Family and Two-Family Rentals and Registered Student homes- College Heights
29
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 88
One-Family and Two-Family Rentals and Registered Student homes- South of Campus
30
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 89
Properties eligible to become a Registered Student Home
31
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 90
Appendix III- Potential Metrics for Program Evaluation
In order to assess the impact of the HIP, it is necessary to develop a set of measurable
outcomes that can be used in evaluating the effectiveness of the program. The metrics
must be easily quantifiable so to enable time series comparisons and to remove, to the
greatest extent possible, subjectivity in collecting and analyzing data. For the following
program goal areas, a number of potential metrics have been identified. During the first
six month review of the program, these potential metrics should be utilized in order to
attempt to quantify the impacts of the HIP investments. These metrics will evolve based
on ongoing implementation of the program.
Operational Metrics
1. Expand Owner-Occupied Housing
Potential metrics:
 Acquire and resell 2 to 5 homes as owner-occupied units per year
 Overall increase in the number of Homestead Exclusion eligible homes
in focus areas (increase HE approved properties or single-family
properties without rental permits)
 Increase the Borough’s total EIT relative to the number of income
earners purchasing homes in the program. Each new household
earning an income will increase the Borough’s EIT revenues in some
way. Assuming an optimistic number of five properties which become
owner-occupied homes earning at least the Median Family Income
(based on 2010 data), with a 1.30% EIT rate, the Borough’s EIT
revenues could increase by up to $4,000.00 or more per year.
2. Reduce the number of registered Student Homes in R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts
Potential metrics:
 Prepare an up-to-date inventory of existing Student Homes
 Acquire all Student Homes within geographic focus area that are offered
for sale and are determined to be a sound investment of public
resources, provided the acquisition will not result in another property
becoming eligible for use as a Student Home
3. Maintain homes in remaining areas of the Borough which include properties
eligible to become Student Homes as owner-occupied or family rentals
Potential metrics:
 Identify all properties within the focus areas which could be eligible to be
converted to a Student Home use.
 Acquire properties which are offered for sale that have been identified as
Student Home-eligible properties, and are determined to be a sound
investment of public resources.
4. Increase diversity of residential units within the Borough’s neighborhoods
32
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 91
Potential metrics:
 Determine the mix of housing tenure in the residential areas close to
downtown and campus (the focus area)
 Invest funds in purchases at a ratio of 75% market rate properties
and 25% affordable properties
 Invest funds in purchases at ratio of 50% market rate and 50%
affordable for rental units
 Identify areas where a potential goal of reducing the “studentification” of
the area, by student rentals accounting for no more than 25% of
housing units, is attainable.
Quality of Life Metrics
5. Maintain Borough Neighborhoods
Potential metrics:
 Maintain at least a 90% favorable response rate to quality of life
questions on the State College National Citizen’s Survey (These
questions should relate overall to residents’ level of satisfaction with their
neighborhood and community)
 Achieve a 10% reduction over the next 5 years in the number of quality
of life offenses occurring in neighborhoods in which program funds have
been invested (Quality of life offenses include noise, disorderly conduct,
refuse, liquor law violations, and snow/weeds)
 Study impacts on quality of life on blocks in which funds have been
invested.
33
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 92
Appendix IV- Process for Affordable Unit Acquisition
It is essential to operate HIP as a revolving fund program to the greatest extent
possible, and to do so it is necessary to minimize subsidizing individual resale. To this
end, the elements outlined in Appendix IV will be used for the affordable housing
component of HIP. These elements are intended to minimize the subsidy required to
place a HIP participant in a home.







120% of AMI is the upper limit for participation.
Properties that are affordable to households earning 80% or less of AMI
without a second mortgage subsidy would be offered for sale through one of
the existing FTHB programs.
Up to $20,000.00 for rehab and $10,000.00 for lead mitigation would be made
available to participants earning 80% or less of AMI. Allowable rehab
activities will be limited to improving major systems (e.g., heating systems,
roof replacements, electric service entrance upgrade, interconnected smoke
detectors) to meet current property maintenance code standards.
As is the case for the HUD eligible programs, funds for home rehab would be
provided as a forgiveness loan; funds for lead mitigation be made available as
a grant. It may be possible to utilize funds in the Inclusionary Housing fund for
these components.
A developer’s fee of 10% of the purchase price would be provided to either
the State College Community Land Trust or Temporary Housing Foundation
for any properties that would be resold through their programs. The
developer’s fee is needed to cover the cost of program operations.
Properties affordable to households making between 81% and 120% of AMI
would be sold through the Borough’s Middle Income program and are not
eligible for a second mortgage subsidy through HIP.
Program participants that purchased properties sold through the Middle
Income program would be eligible for a $3,500.00 grant to be used in making
improvements to the home.
34
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 93
Appendix V- Sample Restrictive Covenant
HOMESTEAD INVESTMENT PROGRAM
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR TAX PARCEL
______________________, HAVING AN ADDRESS OF
___________________________ ______________________,
LOCATED IN STATE COLLEGE BOROUGH, CENTRE
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
THIS DECLARATION, made this _______ day of _______________, 20____, by the
STATE COLLEGE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a redevelopment authority
organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as
“Declarant.”
Declarant is the fee simple owner of real estate situate in the Borough of State College,
Centre County, Pennsylvania, as more fully described by deed recorded ________ day of
________________, ______, in Centre County Record Bk. ______ at Page ______, designated
as
Centre
County
Tax
Parcel
No.
____________________
with
an
address
of
_________________________________________________________________ (“Property”).
The Property has been identified and acquired by the Declarant under the provisions of
the State College Borough Homestead Investment Program.
Pursuant to the terms and
conditions outlined in said program, the Property is made UNDER AND SUBJECT to the
following restrictive covenants:
1.
The Property shall be occupied by owner(s) and shall be used by owner(s) and
occupant(s), as well as his/her/their guests exclusively as a private residential dwelling.
35
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 94
2.
The Property may not be occupied for any period of time by any household whose
members include a majority who are unrelated, full-time students unless the private residence is
also occupied by one of the students’ parents or grandparents. For purposes of the within
restrictive covenant a full-time student shall be defined as an individual who attends an
educational institution during at least five (5) calendar months in any consecutive twelve (12)
month period.
3.
Owner(s) or occupant(s) may carry out business uses such as home occupations
which are incidental to the residential use provided such use is in compliance with applicable
State College Borough zoning regulations.
4.
Owner(s) may rent the Property for single-family residential purposes only in the
event Owner(s) must temporarily vacate the Property due to sabbaticals, military leaves, job
relocations or such other circumstances as may be approved by the Declarant.
Prior to
withdrawing from the Property, Owner(s) will provide Declarant with ninety (90) days notice of
the circumstances and request written approval for such leasing.
5.
The within restrictive covenants shall inure to the benefit of the Borough of State
College, the State College Redevelopment Authority, and owners of residential real property
located within a radius of three hundred fifty (350) feet of the Property. The Borough of State
College, the State College Redevelopment Authority, and any person described herein shall have
the right to proceed at law or in equity to restrain a violation of the within restrictive covenants
and to recover such damages as may be assessable by law, including reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs.
6.
The within Declaration of restrictive covenants shall be binding upon any party,
whether owner(s) or occupant(s), having any right, title or interest in the above-described
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 95
Property, or any part thereof, as well as his/her/their respective heirs, successor and assigns for a
period of ninety-nine (99) years from the date of the within Declaration.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the State College Redevelopment Authority has executed the
within Declaration of restrictive covenants this ______ day of _________________, 20___.
ATTEST:
STATE COLLEGE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
_____________________________
Secretary
By:___________________________________________
Chairperson
State College Borough Homestead Investment Program Policy Guide- July 2014
1
Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2014
Page 96
This page was left intentionally blank.

Meeting Agenda State College Borough Council Regular Meeting

Transcription

Similar documents

Emlenton Borough - MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH SERVICES, CORP.

October 2015 Boro Bits Newsletter

Mi-Space Norton Fitzwarren News

Application for Rezoning in Ligonier Borough

Fall Edition - Wood

Borough of Fleurimont

- the Borough of Nazareth

printable PDF version - Nottinghamshire Heritage Gateway