Townhouses Proposed to Take Place of Former Schools
TREK Development President William Gatti, Jr. proposed for Ford City Junior/Senior High and Kittanning Junior High to both be demolished and townhouses to be built at both sites. A trio of developers presented the ideas to both groups of Ford City and Kittanning residents last night.
by Jonathan Weaver
A western PA development firm has proposed to demolish two community schools and fill the spaces with townhouses.
TREK Development President Bill Gatti, Jr. proposed the idea and conducted question-and-answer sessions in both Ford City and Kittanning last night.
“As always, it’s a passionate and vital conversation, and we’re happy to be participating in it,” Gatti, Jr. said. “I’m from Indiana, so I know the area reasonably-well. It’s (an area) that needs some investment, we hope to make additional investments and we’ve had good experience working here.”
Gatti, Jr. also thanked crowds of about 50 in Ford City and 75 in Kittanning, respectively, for their input, and stressed community partnership while trying to emphasize past success.
About 75 local residents - including Borough Council members, County Commissioners and County planners - attended the Kittanning proposal at St. Mary’s Parish Hall.
“We try to always look out for the broader community (so that) our goals are aligned with your goals, (is) aligned with your school board’s goals, your leadership’s – we’re all marching in the same direction. We have to figure out ways to pull the rope together because rebuilding these cities and towns is hard work.
“If we’re working against each other, it just doesn’t work.”
Gatti, Jr., Senior Project Manager Trey Barbour and Lead Architect Tom Harley received mixed reviews from local residents after a similar message to both groups.
“We looked at this very hard – one of our core values is historic preservation (so) we really wanted to find a way to rehabilitate and reuse (these) buildings in a meaningful way (but) we were not able to do that. So what we are proposing is demolition and new construction of townhouses on the site the building(s) used to sit.”
The trio proposed two dozen, two-story townhouses for either families or seniors – with a fixed rent of an estimated $650 per month - to sit alongside both 4th Avenue and North McKean Street.
Both at Ford City and Kittanning, some residents advocated for building single-family homes rather than the townhouses.
Development of both sites would begin as soon as 2018 if the group is successful receiving Low Income Housing Tax Credit from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency.
Gatti assumed at least $150,000 construction cost of each unit in Ford City.
The tax credits would be sold to a local investor for money off their federal tax bill.
In Ford City, residents inquired if TREK Development had considered a supermarket on the site and another concerned citizen was concerned with demolishing the historic school.
In an answer to Borough Councilwoman Kathy Bartuccio, the townhouses would meet or exceed handicapped-accessibility requirements.
Dialogue has also continued with State Senator Don White.
Ford City parking would commence in the alley – given developers predict each resident would not have more than one vehicle.
The Armstrong County Housing Authority currently manages Kittanning Cottages and Valley View Apartments TREK Development has developed.
The former schools were designated Keystone Opportunity Zones two years ago.
Officials from both communities heard details regarding the proposal a few weeks ago at the Armstrong County Courthouse.
Kittanning Borough Council President Kim Fox said she was “impressed” with TREK Development’s work at Kittanning Cottages – the former Indiana University of Pennsylvania satellite campus site – and would like to see new development despite sharing some concerns with residents.
“We all live here, work in this community, love this community and I want to see it thrive,” Fox said. “And I think some sort of residency there will make us thrive. I’m very concerned that if the building stays – and I love the school; I went to school there – a halfway house would come in or something undesirable and we wouldn’t have any control over it.”
Ford City Borough Council Vice-President Tyson Klukan will take community concerns in perspective before making a final determination.
“I think the citizens had a fair amount of concern for the old structure, but I think the citizen threw out fair questions that need to be answered that made me turn my head,” Klukan said. “This is in the infant stages, so you got to see how the community feels.”
He looked forward to more community meetings regarding this topic.
TREK Development has not made a formal presentation or purchase offer to Armstrong School District regarding either site since they still own the properties so no decisions have been made, though Gatti acknowledged some board members are aware of the possibility.
“If there’s general consensus around the idea, we are prepared to make a formal ask,” Gatti said.
Harley – who toured the schools while they were still in-use with Gatti - stressed both designs are not complete. The group began plans two or three years ago.
“This is a process – plans always get revised,” Harley said.
The trio was welcomed to Ford City by local resident Don Mains - the former U.S Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development – with purple flowers from Marcia’s Garden prior to their presentation.
Following the Kittanning presentation, Ron Crytzer presented history regarding the front lawn in front of the historical museum – currently a parking lot beside Kittanning Junior High.
Ford City, Kittanning Borough, Local News | jweaver August 25, 2016
Loading ...
By mutchka, August 25, 2016 @ 5:15 PM
Do we have 24 people in ford city with 650.00 in spare money for rent
By local410, August 26, 2016 @ 12:11 AM
how is housing for the elderly and handicap being innovative and going to help the towns? the towns are already aging and lets say a business would for whatever reason come into either town whos going to work there? the old folks? come on. Either you wash you hands with it and accept the fact that its going to be an old retirement town or work hard to bring youth and promising innovative thinking towards all this. SMH
By Rat_Smeller, August 26, 2016 @ 12:50 PM
Better to bulldoze those buildings quickly and get the property back on the tax rolls. The towns of this valley are absolutely littered with old school buildings that are just rotting away slowly over time because a use could not be found for them. If the people of Ford City and Kittanning love their old alma maters like they say they do, then they will not stand in the way of the plans presented in this article. Its better for these buildings to quickly then it is to see them slowly decay over time.
By rocket, August 26, 2016 @ 5:50 PM
How does creating and enabling people to continue to live in rented or assisted living conditions assist the county’s unemployment rate? These conditions do not contribute to the tax base and only continues to burden the tax payers. Soon, the tax payers will also be in need of this type of housing themselves, because property taxes will be unaffordable! This is a nice idea, but not the answer. We need employment in this county. We need places to work. What do not need is to further enable non-contributors to our community.
By Jerri, August 27, 2016 @ 1:25 PM
This is the worst idea they could possible think of. Of course this guy will stand there and sell his snake oil to the few people that showed up or even knew about this meeting. Google Orchard Hill Trek Development and read the write up about it. It’s the same thing he’s proposing and its Section 8. Wake up leaders of this county. Is that what our county is going to be known for now? Why not try to entice businesses or work with a college to utilize that building? The council leaders already foolishly made these areas KOZs so the taxpayer once again will be footing the bill with more property taxes out of our pockets. Don’t slam us with cottages that will do nothing to improve our communities. Come on ASD. You can surely think of something better than this!
By Saddie, August 27, 2016 @ 6:08 PM
Do you not realize how many times the company that owns the Cottages has raised the rent. I know a few who live their and it has gone up the past few years. When they first opened they were told it would not raise. Something to think about before considering them.
By rocket, August 27, 2016 @ 6:37 PM
This is my second attempt to leave a post- not sure if my last one was deleted…
Although the idea to created subsidized housing is honorable, it does nothing to help relieve the tax payers from the already 23% of renters that do not pay property taxes in the county. More rental units equates more burden on the tax payers and does nothing to help boost the economy of this county. We need industry- real jobs to help relieve individuals from the need to use subsidized housing and renting! What we do not need are more areas to enable individuals who refuse to work and live in poverty. Bring us work- and not dollar stores and walmarts, real work with benefits!
By worthingtonman, August 29, 2016 @ 9:53 PM
Rocket
Just a piece of info, but Taxes are paid on section 8 housing. The only rentals that are not having property taxes paid are the projects (government Housing) I would hope that IF these townhouses are built, the owners are charged full property tax and not subsidized property taxes, although I am sure they will be somewhat subsidized. I just don’t understand why the have to be subsidized townhouses. Build townhouses and sell them or rent them at fair market. Most folks renting section 8 housing are not going to be able to afford the rent anyways. These towns have already been decimated by greedy landlords whoring their properties out as section 8 to receive outrageous rents. I think at the moment we have hit the quota in Armstrong County as I do know at least one person, who I might add is lazy and unwilling to work , that is waiting for their turn at a section 8 voucher. Drive thru some of the neighborhoods Taft used be really nice neighborhoods in Kittanning and you will see the decay from folks not having pride in their homes. It’s kinda sad. And before I am attacked for my comments let me say yes there are some benefiting from section 8 housing that are truly worthy. But in general it is a failed policy.
By jorn jensen, August 30, 2016 @ 8:37 AM
Well rocket ‘gets it’. The best way to bring beneits-paying work to this area is to push legislators to make Pennsylvania a right-to-work state. That won’t happen as long as union-loving democrat Tom Wolf is in office - but, the people need to plant the seeds now (actually, long ago).
Making this county a retirement village or section 8 Grande’, is not the answer. Anyone with any sense would know that.
Saddie - That would be your ASD school board that raised the rent at The Cottages. How? School property taxes increases. The owner of The Cottages has to pay property taxes. School board continues to raise property taxes and the owner of The Cottages is not in business to lose money - they just increase the rent to pay the increase in school property taxes. Push your legislators for passage of HB & SB 76, school property tax elimination. Join PTCC online - Pennsylvania Taxpayer Cyber Coalition.