Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing authority and HUD describe obsolescence test for Hudson Malone Towers; city to sign letter seeking HUD action and vouchers
Summary
Albany housing authority and HUD updated the commission on Hudson Malone Towers, reporting a physical‑obsolescence assessment that supports inventory removal; HUD said a formal application can trigger tenant‑protection vouchers (90‑day review) and that demolition/repositioning could follow if HUD approves.
The commission heard a detailed update from the Albany Housing Authority (AHA) and HUD on Feb. 12 about Hudson Malone Towers and the housing authority’s effort to reposition or remove the property from public‑housing inventory.
Dr. Miles, the housing authority leader who addressed the commission, described an assessment done to determine whether modernization would be cost‑effective. HUD staff and field office representatives explained HUD standards: if modernization activities exceed a certain percentage (the meeting cited a 62.5 percent modernization‑to‑value threshold), the building may be deemed physically obsolete under HUD policy and eligible for inventory removal under section‑18 processes.
Brandon Little of HUD explained the typical mechanics: once an inventory‑removal or demolition application is submitted, HUD reviews the documentation and—if approved—can award tenant‑protection vouchers (TPVs) to eligible residents; that agency review and voucher award process is typically on a timeline that HUD staff described as a 90‑day review to award TPVs after submission. Dr. Miles said his office had commissioned an obsolescence study (cost cited in the meeting) intended to substantiate the application and that staff were meeting with residents to offer transfers or vouchers when possible.
Commissioners pressed on timing and the risk posed to residents. Commissioners and the housing authority discussed options including internal relocations within the housing authority portfolio, use of vouchers (tenant‑based or project‑based) and emergency housing vouchers. HUD field staff said emergency vouchers are available in certain circumstances and that relocation planning is required as part of any inventory‑removal submission. Meeting participants discussed the possibility that demolition could revert title or control of property depending on deed terms and conversion steps; the transcript shows some differing readings of property encumbrances and notes that further legal review is required.
The city manager said staff would finalize and circulate a letter to HUD in support of the housing authority’s application and that city elected officials would sign the document to expedite HUD review. Commissioners expressed broad support for moving residents out of unsafe conditions while also urging thorough attention to relocation plans and the durability of voucher funding if the repositioning timeline expands.
Next steps: the city will finalize the letter to HUD for signatures; the housing authority will continue resident outreach and submit the formal inventory‑removal application so HUD may review potential TPV awards and other repositioning resources.
