The Ayes have it: BHA Life Management Program Passes 76 to 65

By Kim Siebert MacPhail

Article 12 Community Preservation Budget, line item 15—Bedford Housing Authority (BHA) Life Management Collaborative—was controversial well before the November 4 Special Town Meeting. The Selectmen hadn’t supported it; the Finance Committee supported it, but then reversed their decision. Ultimately, when the count of hands was done, the ayes prevailed by just 11 votes with fewer than 150 residents in attendance.

Briefly, the goal of the BHA’s Life Management program is to support affordable housing residents so they can acquire life and work skills, increase their hire-ability, and ultimately move out of the BHA’s 100 subsidized residences. The $85,000 funding request is for a two-year pilot program that targets up to 15 individuals or families who have indicated an interest in participating.  According to BHA and Community Preservation Committee Chair Gene Clerkin, the concept for the program is modeled on the federal “Welfare to Work” program.

[For more background on the issue, read the following three previously published Bedford Citizen pieces: “BHA Discusses Affordable Housing Life Management Program”: https://thebedfordcitizen.org/2013/10/18/bha-discusses-affordable-housing-life-management-program/
“Letter  to the Editor: BHA Life Management Program Follow Up” https://thebedfordcitizen.org/2013/10/19/letter-to-the-editor-bha-life-management-program-follow-up/
“FinCom Reverses Vote on Affordable Housing Life Management Pilot” https://thebedfordcitizen.org/2013/10/21/fincom-reverses-vote-on-affordable-housing-life-management-pilot/  ]

The rules governing Community Preservation funds became more flexible in 2012, allowing affordable housing reserves to be used for projects that are not bricks-and-mortar based. This flexibility may be attractive to towns like Bedford that have higher than the strictly-necessary affordable housing rates (10%, as calculated under the state formula).

However, in the case of the BHA Life Management pilot program proposal, both the Selectmen and the Finance Committee voted to recommend disapproval. Additionally, vocal citizen concern has been raised, claiming that Bedford— at 16.7% currently— has more than enough affordable housing.

Prior to the vote, residents spoke both in favor of and against the program, leading to a narrow-margin in the outcome.

“My observation is that funding from Community Preservation for something like this doesn’t seem to be in line with the intent of Community Preservation, what it was set up to do,” said Jeff Cohen of Houlton Street and Chair of the Planning Board. “I wonder how it was concluded that this was an appropriate source for funding for this. It doesn’t seem to be, for me, and that’s probably the reason I’ll vote against it.”

Selectman Margot Fleischman addressed Cohen’s question, saying that the decision by the State to allow CP funds for wider purposes, plus confirmation from Bedford’s Town Counsel, made it “reasonable to infer that this would be a legal use of the funds.” Fleischman noted, however, that the Selectmen agreed with Cohen on this point, saying that in their discussions that the program was “not in keeping with the traditional use of Community Preservation funds in Bedford.”

“[The] program that is proposed in item 15 would be a departure from this practice, as you noted, in that it targets a small number of beneficiaries and does not create a tangible asset,” Fleischman said in response to Cohen’s comments.

However, Rich Daugherty of Elm Street spoke in favor of the program, asking first about the turnover rate of affordable housing and adding, “Isn’t it in our best interest to increase that turnover rate if we can take residents and help them move on to a different place in their lives and make more efficient use of the units we have without having to build more? I teach in a program in Boston that has a certification program where they take residents, put them through a year of intensive training, and they end up with a guaranteed job if they can make it through. It’s hard. but if they can make it through, they end up with a job and a better life and they leave public housing. It seems like a good deal, to spend this kind of money to get people trained to change their lives.”

“We do not have significant turnover,” Clerkin responded. “We don’t have much turnover in the Ashby [senior housing] units and that’s 80% of our units. In Elm Street, in our [12] family units, we have similar turnover—about one or two a year. The group home we have on Railroad Avenue is pretty stable. We don’t see much turnover there at all.”

“Can we impact the turnover? Is that the expectation here?” asked Daugherty in a follow up question.

“The intent is to impact the turnover,” confirmed Clerkin.

“It seems like this is a good deal,” replied Daugherty. “If we can impact turnover rate and make affordable housing units available to others because people currently in [that] housing move on to a better state in life, this is a good deal for us. We were the number one town in the state to start [participating in the Community Preservation Act]. It looks like we might be the number one town in the state to try something bold that might work.”