Will St. Dom’s be affordable?

A meeting of the housing committee, September 11, may decide the church’s fate, and the state of Portland’s housing market

By Noah Bruce

Arguably the biggest issue in Portland today is housing. As the vacancy rate (quoted as low as 1 percent in a recent city commissioned study) attests, there’s just not enough of it. Due to this scarcity, what housing exists is expensive — in the Maine Sunday Telegram classified section, it’s rare to find a one bedroom under $600 or a two bedroom under $800.

The housing crunch feeds other urban ills like sprawl, homelessness, and poverty. Therefore, one of city hall’s primary concerns is housing, especially affordable housing. Yet, as the city’s upcoming decision on the direction to take with St. Dominic’s proves, residential development is a tricky issue that requires the city to carefully weigh costs versus benefits and neighborhood concerns versus city needs.

On September 11, the Portland City Council Housing Committee — Karen Geraghty, Jim Cloutier, and Nathan Smith (who has excused himself due to a conflict of interest) — will choose between two plans for St. Dominic’s. The first has been proposed by a group of non-profits led by Portland West and PROP (People’s Regional Opportunity Program), the other by Barba (pronounced “bar-bay”) Architecture and Preservation, a private firm in Portland.

While both plans are in their preliminary stages and are therefore not set in stone, the differences between them are stark. Therefore, though it won’t be picking a final plan, the Housing Committee will be choosing a direction for St. Dominic’s — either a city-supported facility that gives Portland more affordable housing and community access to the church, as proposed by the non-profits; or Barba’s project, which would stand on its own legs but does little to help the housing crunch and rents or sells the church to a private business.

Portland West and PROP want to turn the former girl’s school behind the church into 14 apartments, nine of which would be affordable —available only to those who earn 40 to 60 percent of median city income. Barba wants to create three extra-plush, high-end apartments in the same space (though they have recently said they would consider up to seven units.)

Portland West and PROP want to preserve community access to the church’s sanctuary by turning the space into a community center that would be available for receptions, Alcoholics Anonymous and other groups, and concerts and theatre. Barba has said that community space might be part of their plan but they have not committed to the concept. Most, if not all, of the church’s sanctuary would be converted to “commercially viable use” — perhaps office space or a restaurant — though they would preserve the internal features of the church.

The proposals find common ground only in their treatment of the basement of the sanctuary — both would convert it to commercially viable space.

Though it may seem the Portland West/PROP proposal is a cinch to win the bid — it provides needed affordable housing and ensures community access to the church — due to finances, the decision is not so simple. Despite the benefits of the Portland West/PROP proposal, it represents a financial burden on the city, while the Barba plan would allow the city to wipe its hands clean of St. Dominic’s forever.

The Portland West/PROP plan is tied to the city in a number of ways, but most importantly it requires the city to contribute annually from the general fund, i.e. the property tax, to help in the upkeep of the church.

Portland West and PROP estimate that the maximum amount they would require is $72,000 per year. Ethan Strimling, executive director of Portland West, stresses that this is the maximum they will need, and it could actually be quite less. “By getting a lower interest rate loan,” he says, “by increasing the amount of rent money we could get from the basement space, or if we can get grant money, the $72,000 could drop significantly or be mitigated completely.”

On the other hand, Jeffrey Cohen, the developer on the Barba team, points out that the figure could be more. Cohen says the non-profits’ proposal was “extremely well done and very professional,” but says the $72,000 “assumes their numbers are right. If their numbers are right it’s admirable, I just don’t know if it’s possible.”

Barba’s proposal, by contrast, asks the city for nothing. They calculate that the revenue they generate from the apartments and the commercial space will pay for renovation and upkeep of both facilities. And if they are wrong, it’s their bank account tha} will suffer. If the Portland West/PROP proposal falls short financially, the city could be asked to cough up more dollars.

This is just the first financial difference between the two plans. The second factor is the payment for the property. Portland West/PROP would pay $100,000 for the property, but the city would never see the money. Instead, the money would be held in escrow to be put back into the renovation of the church. Barba, on the other hand, would pay the city $50,000 outright for the property.

Then there is the issue of the property taxes for both facilities. Portland West/PROP would ask the city to return the taxes to help with the upkeep of the church, while Barba would pay the taxes to the city. Strimling points out “this is tax money the city does not currently receive,” so it does not represent a negative impact on the city’s coffers. However, neither would it constitute a positive impact like the Barba plan.

Finally, Portland West/PROP asks for $564,800 in federal money given to Portland for constructing affordable housing. Because it is federal money, it would not have any affect on Portland’s taxpayers. However, Councilor Jim Cloutier, who will be choosing one of the plans on September 11, questions whether this would be a good use of the city’s limited federal housing money.

“I’m looking for the most bang for my affordable housing buck,” he says. “$500,000 for nine units is expensive.”

According to Portland’s housing director, Mark Adelson, the city contributed about $12,000 per affordable housing unit in the Unity Village development in Bayside. Portland West/PROP’s plan asks for about $35,000 per unit. However, Adelson says this figure is “not unreasonable.” And Cloutier concedes that, though “it’s a lot of money, sometimes that’s okay. St. Dom’s has some unique features and history.”

The city purchased the structurally deteriorated St. Dominic’s cathedral and girl’s school on State St., from the Catholic Diocese for $50,000 in November 2000.

In March, the city put out a request for proposal in hopes that a developer would take the property off their hands, restore it, and put it to good use for the city. Specifically, the city wanted proposals to incorporate both buildings, to “preserve the significant features” of the church, to “allow for community utilization of the property, and to designate 40 percent of new units for affordable housing.

By mid-May — the due date for proposals — the city had received only the two plans, underscoring the lack of profit potential in the project.

Since then, three distinct voices have weighed in on the Housing Committee’s choice — a community review team, the Friends of St. Dominic’s, and a technical review team comprised of city employees.

In July, the city’s Housing Office convened the Community Review Committee, made up of citizens who live in the west end neighborhood near St. Dominic’s. The committee favored the Barba proposal for three major reasons. First, and most importantly, it was concerned that 14 new residential units would cause a parking problem in a neighborhood where parking is already an issue.

“I live on Grey Street, two blocks away from the church and the school,” says committee member Nancy Merrow. “Parking is very limited . . . The Barba proposal offered to put the least number of units in the school. That’s what tipped the scales for me. Portland West wanted to do 14 units. At a space and a half, [Portland’s estimated number of cars per unit] that’s 21 cars. Then there’s what happens with the church, and you know people are going to have to park there.”

Portland West’s Strimling counters that the property has a parking lot with 18 spaces. He says residents could share the spaces with people who work in the basement of the church, with residents taking spaces at night and workers using the spaces in the day.

Second, the committee was surprised at the high cost of renovating the facilities and did not feel it was in the city’s best interests to spend money on the project.

“The city would be setting a precedent for subsidizing abandoned churches,” says Merrow. “There’s too many other things that need money from the city . . . If the city wants to help low-income people they should put the money into education.”

Third, some members of the committee, Merrow included, feel that there are already enough low-income people in the neighborhood, and building subsidized, affordable housing will only increase this trend. “We have a lot of low-income people on Grey street,” says Merrow. “I don’t think we need more of that.”

Merrow claims this thinking is not NIMBYism (Not in My Backyard thinking). It is, she explains, simply the desire to live in a neighborhood populated by people who earn a mix of incomes. “When you get too many people that are all the same,” she says, “they start to reinforce each other’s weaknesses. I would have the same problem with too many high-income people.”

Not everyone on the committee shares this concern, and two members supported the Barba proposal only on the condition that they include some affordable housing in their plan.

The Friends of St. Dominic’s Church disagree with the neighborhood committee. At their meeting August 30, the group voted to endorse the Portland West/PROP plan, primarily because it wants to keep the sanctuary open to the public and not turn it into commercial space. “We feel it’s the only chance to save the sanctuary of that church,” says Jim Walsh, president of the Friends. “If it fell into the hands of the private developer it would be probably lost forever.”

The Friends would like to turn both floors of the Church into an Irish-American Heritage Center and museum. They would offer tours of the church and show films explaining its history. Like the Portland West/PROP plan, they would rent out the facility for theater and concerts and to groups like Alcoholics Anonymous.

According to Strimling, whose plan calls for the basement of the church to be turned into office space, if the Friends are able to raise enough money to offset the revenue lost by not using the basement as office space, he is all for using the entire church as museum space.

The third group that has weighed in on the issue is the Technical Review Team — a group of municipal employees in the Housing Office of the city. The team rated both plans according to four criteria: meeting the city’s goals, ability to complete the project, financial feasibility, and price offered for the property.

Barba won each category save the first. Portland West/Prop won the “meeting city goals” category because it creates affordable housing and assures community access to the church.

It’s clear that Barba should win the “price offered category” because it would pay the city for the property and Portland West/PROP would not. Regarding the “financially feasible” category, Barba’s plan is in one respect better because it costs the city nothing. However, Strimling questions why his group scored lower when they provided detailed financial data for their project and Barba did not even include a budget. Strimling was also dismayed to see that his plan lost out in the “ability to complete”ýcategory. Though Barba has extensive experience with rehabilitating historic properties, so does Portland West/PROP’s architect, TFH Architects, who has worked on the restoration of at least two historically important buildings in Portland — the restoration of the Thomas Block on Commercial Street and the Storer Brothers Building, also in the Old Port. However, according to the Technical Review Team’s notes, the non-profits did not convey this to the city, and their ranking suffers due to this oversight. Perhaps a re-evaluation is in order considering this information.

Despite the recommendations of the three groups, the decision rests on the shoulders of just two people: Councilors Karen Geraghty and Jim Cloutier. Both councilors stress they are approaching the discussion with open minds.

“I’m remaining very flexible in my thinking,” says Geraghty. “I understand St. Dom’s is a project with lots of possibility and lots of drawbacks . . . Both plans offer interesting opportunities and serious negatives.”

Both Cloutier and Geraghty are liberal councilors who count affordable housing as primary concerns. However, both said the financial aspects of the proposals will weigh on their decision. “The money is very definitely a big issue,” says Cloutier. “How big remains to be seen.”

And that truly is the question. If you boil it down, the decision comes to affordable housing versus cost savings. The community access to the church is secondary, although a strong showing by the Friends of St. Dominic’s on September 11 could convince the Housing Committee otherwise.

Meanwhile, Geraghty says the committee could postpone the decision by asking both parties to go back to the drawing board and sweeten their proposals.

But they should not wait too long to give the nod to one or the other, or the choice may be made for them. According to Barba’s developer, Jeffrey Cohen, development is a time-sensitive business. “If you don’t strike when the money is there and interest rates are right, you might as well just keep on talking about it.”

Noah Bruce can be reached at nbruce@phx.com.