Council approves series of affordable-housing measures; members press for clarity on contractor pricing and resident relocation

Rochester City Council committees on several committee votes approved financing and agreements to support new and existing affordable-housing projects while members pressed staff for written answers about contractor price risk and protections for residents who will be temporarily relocated.

The measures approved included introductory number 62, which authorizes sale of real estate, appropriates annual action-plan funds and authorizes a grant agreement to construct and sell seven affordable single-family homes in the Beachwood neighborhood; introductory number 63, an amendment related to Greater Rochester Habitat for Humanity's By-the-Block Phase 2; an amendment and additional appropriation for the Federal Street scattered-sites project (introductory 65); and introductory number 66, an appropriation from the 2024–25 annual action plan and a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for a townhouse redevelopment project that will require resident relocation.

Council members asked detailed questions about two recurring concerns: whether contractor costs and material-price increases are effectively “locked in,” and whether relocation payments and other assistance will protect low-income residents who will be displaced during construction.

On contractor pricing, Council member Mitch Gruber pressed administration staff about whether material and construction costs are fixed for the Habitat homes and related projects. A staff presenter said pricing is not locked in, noting that contractors generally do not pre-purchase all materials and that the city and builders will “be at the mercy of the market” for items such as lumber and plywood. Staff said they will attempt bulk purchases for items like roofing shingles and will ask builders to stockpile where feasible. The administration said legal and budget staff will review contracting language to address the risk and that the city would provide a written answer about contractual remedies and contingencies.

Council members also asked for the locations of the remaining By-the-Block parcels; staff said a map is available and will be shared. Members raised a separate program-eligibility concern after a constituent reported a crossing guard was told city employees cannot participate in the By-the-Block lottery. Staff confirmed that city employees are excluded from eligibility because the program uses a lottery and the city determined that excluding employees avoids any appearance of favoritism.

Introductory number 66 prompted the most extended discussion. Council members sought clarity on how lump-sum relocation payments would affect public benefits and on whether displaced residents would retain housing subsidies. Staff and a private relocation consultant, Michael Ton of CVR Associates, addressed the council. Ton said the relocation plan aligns with HUD rules and the federal Uniform Relocation Act and described a replacement housing payment cap of $9,570 that is intended to cover the gap between a household’s current rent contribution and replacement housing costs during displacement. He said part of the payment can be paid directly to a new landlord to cover first-month rent, with the remainder given to the family. Ton also said the project team will assist residents in finding replacement housing and that when the replacement payment will not suffice, federal rules require consideration of a “housing of last resort” payment, which would be calculated on a case-by-case basis. Ton said the project aimed to complete relocations quickly and that the owner/consultant preferred to have relocations done by the end of the month, making timing a concern.

Council members asked whether project-based Section 8 vouchers would “travel” with displaced residents; staff said they would provide definitive answers in writing. Staff also described a “right to return” process: displaced households who remain income-eligible and in good standing generally will be allowed to return to units when they become available, though changes in household composition or loss of eligibility could affect a household’s right to return.

All of the introductory items discussed in this segment were moved, seconded and passed by voice vote. The roll call at the start of the committee recorded Council Member Patterson, Council Member Gruber, Vice President Harris and Council President Melendez as present; Council Member Smith was excused.

Council members asked staff to follow up in writing on: (1) specific contractual language and budget remedies if contractor costs exceed the per-home not-to-exceed amounts; (2) whether relocation payments affect eligibility for public benefits; (3) whether project-based Section 8 assistance would convert to tenant-based vouchers during displacement; and (4) maps and parcel lists for By-the-Block properties. Staff agreed to supply written responses.

Looking ahead, councilors signaled interest in receiving written explanations of contract terms and of the relocation-plan mechanics so they can verify residents’ protections before construction begins.