Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Rents topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cumberland housing board considers raising rents for new tenants, asks staff to draft means‑test
Summary
At its Aug. 4 meeting the Cumberland Housing Authority discussed moving new‑tenant rents to the 60% area‑median‑income level, debated whether to require an income means test for new occupants, and asked staff to produce a written proposal; the board tabled formal action until a future meeting.
The Cumberland Housing Authority on Aug. 4 discussed raising rents for new tenants to levels tied to 60% of the area median income (AMI) and asked staff to draft a one‑time means‑testing proposal for new move‑ins; the board did not vote on a rate change. Chair Bill Hanson opened the discussion and asked staff to summarize the data underlying the recommendation.
Matt, a town staff member who compiled a rental survey for the board, said he reviewed AMI‑based rents, HUD fair‑market rent figures and comparable properties in the Greater Portland market before making a recommendation. "It's not without precedent that the housing authority has looked at this as a way to move forward to . . . address its financial needs and long term planning and capital needs," Matt said. He recommended setting new‑tenant rents at the 60% AMI level for both one‑ and two‑bedroom units while preserving existing, grandfathered tenant rates.
The board's discussion focused on how utilities should be treated in a new rent schedule and whether to require an income‑based eligibility test when a unit becomes available. Christina, housing authority staff, explained how the authority currently handles subsidized units: "When we review whether or not a tenant is eligible for the subsidy, we look at the low income, which is set by HUD," she said, describing the process of verifying tax returns and HUD thresholds for subsidy eligibility.
Members raised concerns about tenant utility burdens, pointing to varying heating costs and the town's potential plans for subsidized electricity or solar. Norm Mays, board member, advised using HUD's utility allowance schedule to adjust AMI rents when utilities are not included. Board members compared local examples — noting, for instance, Westbrook's utility allowances (about $69 for heating and roughly $3 for cooking on a one‑bedroom) — and discussed that inclusion or exclusion of utilities would affect the effective monthly cost to tenants.
Several board members and a public commenter, Bob Vail, urged the authority to target limited units to those most in need. Vail said some people on the waiting list "shouldn't be on that list" and recommended considering assets as well as income when defining eligibility. Board members discussed practical difficulties with asset tests; the town manager and other staff suggested that an income‑based standard (for example, an AMI threshold) is easier to administer and verify using tax documentation.
The board also reviewed local context: the town's circuit‑breaker/property tax relief program was referenced as an additional safety net (board members said the circuit‑breaker program’s income threshold is roughly $92,000), and staff supplied median household income figures for Cumberland and Cumberland County as background for any AMI‑based standard.
Rather than decide, the board asked staff to prepare a written proposal that would include: (1) recommended rent levels for new one‑ and two‑bedroom units tied to the AMI tiers (staff discussed using the 60% AMI as the primary recommendation), (2) the utility‑allowance treatment (whether rents are gross or adjusted for tenant‑paid heat/electric), and (3) a means‑testing plan for eligibility at move‑in (staff indicated a preference for a one‑time eligibility check at move‑in rather than annual re‑testing). Christina and the town manager agreed to draft the proposal and return to the board.
The board set a follow‑up meeting for Monday, Sept. 15 at 4 p.m. and tabled the new‑rates/means‑test items to that meeting. Staff were also asked to do outreach and report on conditions at Drown Road, a nearby housing property that several board members said had maintenance and management complaints from tenants.
What changed: no rents were increased in this meeting; the board directed staff to produce a written means‑test and rent‑setting proposal and to return for a vote at a future meeting.
Why it matters: the authority’s choices will affect how much new tenants pay, who qualifies for the limited units, waiting‑list ordering and how utilities factor into tenant costs. The board balanced concerns about preserving long‑term tenants’ grandfathered rates against the goal of aligning new rents with market and AMI benchmarks.
