The Town owned Page Property is currently moving through the steps of being rezoned as Reserved Open Space. Because half of the property was originally purchased using ARPA Federal grant funds, $3.35 million from our TNACC 4.0 mill levy tax funds will be used to repay the General Fund.

Should TNACC property tax be used to fund Affordable Housing (future development, future residents), or to support critical or required Town needs and services (current residents)?



With the Town currently experiencing significant budgetary issues and funding constraints, personally, the choice is clear: we should use the funds for general town services that help current residents – not affordable housing, which serves future development and future residents.

As Town Staff noted in the October 6, 2026 Study Session for the 2027 Budget, the repaid funds from TNACC/TNAF would need to be appropriated in a supplemental 2027 budget. This means whoever is elected to Council will be making the decision to use the repaid funds for current resident needs (using them to address the funding gaps that we are currently trying to find ways to pay for, such things as Street Maintenance, neighborhood/community parks, and many other required services for the Town), or instead to use the funds to support future development and future residents (Affordable Housing).

The funds used to originally purchase half of the Page Property were received from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). This was a Federal grant provided to municipalities due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The other half of the funds came from TNAF/TNACC in the first place.

The Town’s portion of these ARPA funds were originally appropriated when I previously served on Council, through various budgets for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 years. During that time, I implored Staff to understand what was available through the federal SLFRF guidelines as to how we could use these funds. Only until we had roughly ~$500k left of the original $6.8 million did Staff come before Council and say we could have used the funds for virtually any government services. As our current finance director has told the current Council, as far as the federal reporting requirements, our project is complete. The funds do not even have to be paid back or used for the purpose they were originally outlined for due to the way in which we reported the use of the funds.



Almost 90% of the $6.8 million in ARPA funds we received were used by the Town towards Affordable Housing. The use or purpose of these funds was reported by the Town as "Revenue Replacement" funds to the the US Treasury Department – which meant these funds could be used for virtually any Government service. Instead, the Town used them towards an initiative that had no funding and no resources prior to COVID or the ARPA funds being received. The entire "Affordable Housing" division for the Town was created and initially funded by these ARPA funds — employees, consultants, the land, everything.

TNAF does not have a responsibility to even pay back the funds to the General Fund.  Sure, it makes sense for it to repay the General Fund, and to just consider the ARPA amount as a loan, since there are enough funds within TNAF to repay the General Fund over time. Personally, I want to use the funds to close the budget gaps and issues we have, prioritizing current resident needs by paying for necessary services and projects like Street Maintenance, parks, connectivity, or any required need we have to keep Erie the thriving community that we love.

My opponent, however, wants to restrict the usage to Affordable Housing, which most benefits future development and future residents.

While I do not disagree that there is a housing affordability issue nationwide, and that we need to find ways to address housing diversity for our local community – we currently have an immediate budget issue that has required Staff to cut $3.5 million in operational costs for the proposed 2027 budget, recommend a transportation maintenance fee be applied to utility bills so we can meet our annual street maintenance obligations, and no obvious way to fund certain Town projects within the coming years. As well, we have no land available, no water available, and no staff available (no staff remain in this Town division) to be able to move forward on any affordable housing projects.

Quite frankly, these funds from TNACC/TNAF, our dedicated property tax used to acquire open space and trails, if used for Affordable Housing, would instead benefit future development and future residents — instead of current residents — during a period of time where we absolutely need them.

Saying we should use the funds to resolve our current needs is not a condemnation of Affordable Housing. It is saying we need to fix what's broken while we still can, and then come back to the Affordable Housing discussion. Simply put, the Town needs every dollar we can right now.

Staff has already recommend a new fee to be tacked onto our utility bills. There have also been discussions occurring about potentially increasing the current property and/or sales tax rates. These types of responses in light of our current budgetary and funding issues would be guaranteed to negatively affect the affordability of Erie. To the point where even current residents can no longer afford to live here, let alone say those on a fixed income or those requiring housing within a certain AMI.

We have the opportunity to reclaim this $3.35 million in funds, and use them to help fix the budgetary issues and funding gap that we currently have. This comes at an opportune time, when we really need the funds, and we should use them for general town services – not affordable housing.

Update:

Following this post on social media, a resident asked me the following question:

Question:
My question is, does it have to come down to an either-or situation with affordable housing? Or are there more potential solutions like the 119th temporary path that could be "progress over perfection", or other less contentious budget items to get the funds from? Why cant it be a 15-phase park with building the next piece every few months as soon as it's funded? People pay money for sports tournaments and road running races... can we be creative?

Answer:
Sure, we could be creative. I’m absolutely open to having a conversation of “or”. The stance that my opponent has is everything for Affordable Housing, full stop. My stance is use it however we need to, whatever that might be (connectivity, parks, trails, etc.). My position actually allows for the use towards Affordable Housing if that did ever arise, where a project came up that required the funds.

Just like any other project that also has competing interests for the same funds, the same approach of funding availability, prioritization, necessity, etc. should be taken into consideration, regardless of the project/project type. I personally want to be able to have the versatility to use the funds as necessary, however the Town needs or requires it, instead of encumbering them solely for one single use.