And >> okay, good evening and welcome to the February edition of the Amherst Affordable Housing Trust. Uh pleased to see you all, Alex, He Carla,
Bob, and uh Greg, of course. Uh so why don't we go ahead and jump right into our agenda. Um uh thank you for providing us draft minutes for January,
December, and November. So um are there any comments or requests of uh for modifications of anything in in these minutes? Um,
uh, well, it's very it's it is important for us to stay up tod date and and I'm really pleased that you were able to get us there. So, I wonder if we have a motion to approve the minutes as um, uh, circulated in the packet.
Okay, we have a second. >> Okay, thank you, Alex. Okay. Um uh maybe we can uh I'll just go around quickly then. He uh we have a motion to approve the
minutes. >> I >> I uh Carla >> I >> Bob >> I >> Alex >> I >> I I vote uh to approve as well. So unanimously passed uh approving uh three
months of minutes and so that puts us up to date. A nice place to be. Greg, thank you. Well, we got to go back some and do some more previous to that, but we're starting. >> All right. Well, um we're uh we've we've got good cover. Um
>> uh Okay. So, next item on our agenda. We are um uh Yes. So, you'll recall that back in December,
we had a guest from the uh initiative to pass the public banking law. And as uh you may recall the the public banking initiative, the proposal is basically to take a percentage of the tax proceeds
that are held in banks and set them aside for purposes of loaning funds to CDFIS. And I think we had recently considered an
initiative the actually the um the rent control initiative that I'll I'll note that the mayor of Boston actually um just endorsed interestingly. Um, so that that ballot initiative is getting some movement and I think that the there were
concerns about wait what are the actual boundaries of what kinds of initiatives we might be asked to approve? Um, can anyone's personal pet initiative show up here and put us all in a position to
decide whether we want to vote to approve it or not? And um so I uh having kind of brought this to us, I retreated and and thought about it further. And my my proposal that I'd
like um us to consider to see if it if it makes sense is to adopt this a two-step process um for initiatives. I I don't think I don't think we should uh kind of cancel our pos our potential
voice as a as a trust and avoid all political endorsements. But I do think that we need a process for deciding what is appropriate for us to be endorsing and and that we shouldn't be um kind of figuring it out
each time without a process. And so the process I'd like to propose is that we first of all vote on whether any initiative that has been brought to our attention um and and and
gets on our agenda whether we think it's in the Bailey wick of in in the kind of subject matter domain and falls within the mandate of the trust. And the idea would be that whether you would then go on to vote in favor or
against, you can have a the view that it is in our u so for example I voted against the rent control ballot initiative but I have no doubt that it's squarely within our mandate to back
something like that. And so I'd like to propose that we adopt this process that whenever we have any such initiative and the possibility of endorsing a
political initiative that the first question for us is is this really in our in our proper scope of what we do and what we um pretend to care about or is it outside of that and only if that vote
passes do we then have a vote to decide whether we want to endorse it. So we we first kind of filter out anything that doesn't fit within uh we think doesn't fit within our scope and uh so even if
we all wanted to endorse this if it doesn't fall in our scope we wouldn't endorse it. Conversely, we might all vote against something ultimately um but uh agree that it is squarely
within our mandate. And so those are two different ways that we would not endorse something. We might really love it but think it's not inside of our Bailey Wick. And we might not like it but think it is inside our Bailey Wick. In either
case, we wouldn't be endorsing it. So that's the proposal. Alex, what do you think? >> Yeah, I think that makes sense. Just for clarity, are you imagining that these two votes happen at the same meeting right after each other? >> I think that as a general matter, I' I'
I'd propose I think it makes sense to do it in consecutive meetings. With respect to this the um public banking initiative, I guess since we already discussed it at
a prior meeting, I would be open to having a second vote if it were to pass the first vote. Um but I do think Alex that the the best way to um administer this policy is by doing um subsequent
votes and separate meetings so that um we don't let the tail wag the dog. >> Yeah. Okay. I think that makes sense. Thank you. other other thoughts about about this approach, Bob?
>> Yeah, just u makes sense to me. Uh and the consecutive meetings also makes sense just to give us little time to be familiar with the the issues. >> So yeah, I support this. >> Okay. Um yeah and and and and um and so you know
I think maybe we should really um if we if we want to adopt this policy which is I think the first vote then um I would see if we are open to doing the first vote on on the um on the public banking
and then follow our process if it does pass that step to save an endorsement vote until the uh March meeting Carla. >> Um it's kind of I'm not trying to be wishy-washy, but um I think that's a
great compromise and I just think also just to add that be mindful of time taken or devoted to these um >> discussions and votes. Um it hasn't obviously it hasn't been ownorous thus far, but you know just to keep in mind
for the future. Um, ju like I said, I don't even know if that needs to be added in any way, but just kind of just a reminder that it's probably less important than some of the other um roles that we play, I guess.
>> Yeah. And and so I mean, I guess to to spell it out, um, Carla, the the first stage that happens beforehand is whether to put it on the me on the meeting agenda. And so um uh just
because I'm currently chair, let's say he brings this initiative to us and says I'd like to uh you know put this before the trust for a possible endorsement. The first step would be Greg and I
talking about it and and making sure that we think it's a plausible candidate for fitting within our our scope and and that would that's I guess the mechanism that we have available Carla um for
addressing what um what you're concerned with other than basically finding that your concern is manifesting testing and then we we need we we need we need to add further controls. Any other um thoughts or or or or
comments? I um so if if if there aren't and um and again I guess just to to more explicitly address Carla's concern, we are ne we are never bound by our past um uh
decisions. we can always overrule ourselves. Um uh you know um so we're not we're not stuck with the rules we make. We're stuck having to talk about and vote on changing the rules that we make. Um, and so with that said, I
wonder if anyone is moved to, um, make a motion to adopt this policy, which I would, uh, state as before voting to endorse any political initiative,
we would first have to vote that the initiative falls within the trust mandate at a prior meeting. >> So moved. If you're waiting on >> Do we have a a second? >> I can. Yep, I'll second. >> Okay. Um uh HJ,
>> sorry. I was trying to second, but these guys are a lot faster than I am. >> Yeah. Yeah, you you got to be quicker if you want to get those uh if you want to get in the minutes for questions or seconding. >> It's okay. Okay, I can be in the gaffel, I guess. >> Uh, well, you can be the first one to
vote in favor. >> I >> I Bob, >> yes. I >> uh Alex, >> Carla, >> I >> Okay, I I also vote to uh to approve this policy and so it has passed unanimously.
And so, um, with that done, I wonder if we, um, would want to now consider whether we think this public banking initiative
fits within our scope. And I um I think that it would be uh perfectly reasonable to to to um think that we need more more information
and discussion and I I might be able to answer questions but but I might not be able to and we may not be able to to get there. Um uh so let me see um if you feel like you have enough information
to vote on this procedural question of do do we think this public banking initiative is um you know close enough or within the scope of our of our mandate for it to be the kind of thing
that we might endorse. Uh Bob. Yeah. Um I did a little reading on it and so I'm inclined to say that is within our scope. I guess my question is it's not it's not exclusively about
funding CDFIS um as I understand it or at least not exclusively about funding for housing related things. It's small business as well but it does also specifically mention how affordable housing as a name. Uh is that correct?
>> Yes. My my understanding is that it is the funding is primarily geared to move through CDFIs, but you're absolutely right that it's not um uh it's not only for housing and the kind of lead
argument for it is um supporting small business especially in underserved communities in the state and the needs of people in the state such that it does explicitly contemplate
support of affordable housing. Uh but that is by no means its exclusive focus >> from what I've read. Uh and with that understanding, I think it still does fall within the overall scope. So,
>> okay. Other other questions or comments about that or or reactions? Um, I guess I'm wondering whether we be you feel like you are you have a
view and and we're ready to vote on it or whether you have kind of com comments you'd like to discuss or questions that you'd like to ask before you had your own view about that.
Um Carla, Alex and he >> I think initially Oh, sorry, HJ. Um I was I mean I was think I mean I kind of think I was the one that expressed some reluctance earlier but that was partly too because I I mean I I appreciate the presentation but I I needed more
education as well you know and I think with a um wider lens I can see now how it's you know more connected than I kind of understood initially you know so that was in some
ways I think that um that's one of the other benefit benefits of kind of having the two votes that it gives us a little more time to consider the impact of it. Um, so anyway, even though I'm think I was the original one dragging my feet, I'm I'm tending to think that it it does
definitely seem within within our scope at this point. So, >> yeah. But, uh, thank you, Carla. I mean, and I want to say that I I appreciate that you shared your um your reluctance because I think it it made clear that we
did need to operationalize a process for these endorsements. Um and and so I'm I'm I'm I'm happy the way that things are have unfolded on that front. Um uh he he you were gonna
>> uh mostly I I do agree with um what Carla said and what Bob Bob's analysis of of this. I think I think there I think the broader ambitions of the the bank is is is is potentially greater than just affordable housing. that clearly affordable housing is is a
primary um uh directive that that this um aims to uh help and that that is that is our main focus. So I I think it's directional line and I'm for it. >> Okay. Alex, do would you like to make any
comments or um um I guess I'd also be if you don't have comments, I'd also be open to a motion from from you to on this either way. >> Um no, I just wanted to again extend a thank you to Carla for the invitation to
slow down and set some procedure with this. I think it's putting us in a better spot. So, I also appreciated the chance to kind of catch myself up on the issue. I agree with what Bob said that I think it's within our sh appropriateness to be
>> okay. Well, I it's I think at this point given um what's been expressed, it's a a formality, but let's um why don't we why don't we get it over with um uh so could we have a motion to um uh kind of
approve the public banking initiative as uh being within our scope to endorse. Man, that's an awful motion to approve this public banking initiative to be within our scope. >> Second.
>> Do we have a second? Yes. Okay. Second by Bob. Um Carla. >> I. >> Alex. >> I. >> Bob. >> I. >> TJ. >> I. >> And I I vote to approve. So unanimously.
Um, so that will tee up a um a vote for uh substantive vote uh in March. And uh please do not hesitate to send any question that you may have um to Greg
because we can go back to um the folks involved in the steering init the steering committee of this initiative to give us answers uh so that we have the benefit of that information before a substantive vote uh next time. Uh, thank
you uh, very much. And I think we're now ready to uh, take up the efforts that that Alex has put in to kind of dust off a process that hasn't
been looked at um, a new in in some years. And so, uh, looking forward to your presentation. Um, so let's go with that. >> Yeah, let's do it. Okay, I'm going to
>> uh I I would like to welcome uh uh those in the uh in in in in the audience. Thank you for joining us this evening. >> Great. Okay, can you all see a slideshow? Hopefully. Yeah, great. Okay.
So, first of all, before I begin, a big thank you to Greg for working with me through this process a little bit. So, this presentation won't take super long. I'm hoping much more of our meeting can be spent actually in discussion about the contents. I know you all haven't had
a long time to review the draft application that was sent today. We're certainly not looking for any major vote or action today. There's like a specific ask at the end that I'll get to, but just some background first to make sure that we've all level set and are kind of
on the same page. So, our current application that the trust has hasn't been overly utilized. It predates my time on the trust, but it also predates the creation of our action plan. So, it's a really great starting point, but
since it's been adopted, there's been a lot of change in the view of what the trust can and should be funding and the scale of those. We also have more experience providing funding to projects and right now, none of that experience is really captured in the application
process. So, I think right now is the time to start this process of refining an application. We have some folks with some institutional knowledge and time now and we also have a fairly manageable pipeline at the moment. We're also
looking at hopefully an increased financial position in the coming years. So setting some precedent and infrastructure I think is really important. So the goal for this application is to directly tie what we're doing to our action plan and our
charge. um but also to find a balance between flexibility and prescriptiveness in terms of how we hear and consider projects. So the general application process that um I've laid out for help
is a unified part one and part two application that a person interested in receiving trust funds or trust support would submit directly to staff. that would enable staff to meet with that applicant, help them through a revision
process as necessary until they make the professional determination that it's at a a flushed out enough spot to come before the whole trust. And then it would involve the staff member coming to the trust with a motion. So that motion could look like lots of things.
It could look like just a motion to fund the project or for larger projects or more realistically it's probably a motion to add them to the agenda at future meetings or a future meeting that starts to lay out kind of that process.
Hopefully that provides a a chance to see without the application process for applicants, but also make sure we're capturing the voice and expertise of our professional staff as we're going through the review process. So part one
is fairly simple actually. It's the first couple pages of that document. It's a questionnaire that people walk through and then plug their answers into this memo that they would provide in writing. So kind of like Matt Lib style. Um it would be standardized. Everybody
would submit this. All the information should be appropriate and applicable to every type of project. So there shouldn't be any like not available moments um on there. And that's fairly straightforward. The slightly more
complicated part of it involves self assigning type and classifications to projects. So let's walk through in part one of the application. Um but they would basically self- select which
typology their project go through and those these number systems align with our action plan. So it's drawing strong connections between what we've identified as our priorities and the reasons people can apply for funding to us. Um, our action plan is a little
stacked strangely for this, which is why we have two and three intentionally left blank and a lot of subtypes under one, but it connect to those large bullets on our action plan for what we're trying to do. Um, what I wanted to spend more time talking about today was this idea of classification. So to jump forward for
just a second, the goal with the way this is framed right now, which isn't how it has to remain, is that somebody as they fill out this declaration could identify their project by type and class and then from this matrix at the back
from table three, it would tell them what we were looking for them to submit along with their application that is specific to their project. So the types are a little more intuitive. The idea of the classes is varying levels of intensity. So if somebody's asking for
something that we determine to be a less intense project, either because there are fewer moving pieces or the funding stack is simpler or it's a smaller overall ask or any other number of reasons. It would allow us to upfront
ask less from them and hopefully allow us to continue to be really nimble and flexible and respond in a timely manner to councils without setting a really low bar. for larger projects or projects we want. So, this is kind of a sliding intensity scale of what we're asking for
up front and how far along in the process we want people to be before. Um, so the classification right now is set up kind of like a tax return deduction form in terms of like you do some basic math and then it tells you kind of what
you fall into. Um, but that's the thing to mostly talk about today. So, I think this needs to be a longer process to make sure we have time to really be thoughtful and about building an application that works for us and is going to work for our applicants. Um, I
know this is a, like I said, a lot of you all haven't seen it before today. So I'm happy to start with just some general questions and feedback on the format and then if we feel like it's appropriate and we're ready today, we can jump into a discussion for kind of
the classification system looking towards one of these three outcomes. So either just generally asenting that yes, this is a direction that's worth exploring and that would help me know as I continue to develop this with Greg's help that this is something that's worth
spending time on or um asking for a pause, which is fine if other folks have other ideas about how to approach this and want to wait till next month's meeting where they can come back with their own kind of proposal. Um or if people feel really strongly against
this, that's okay, too. Um, just having some direction coming out of today would be awesome, but still thinking about this through a longer term lens in terms of making sure we get this up and running before we need it, but also not rushing ourselves. So, I'm happy to stop
there and take questions if folks have questions and then we'll go from there. >> Good. Uh, who wants to start the the questions? I you know I'm um I you know the the question my my question is what um when
we look at the kinds of projects that have come to us and I guess a smallcale project was the um the house that we helped a teacher buy with a $25,000 grant
because the price prices had gone up so fast and what had been affordable became unaffordable by a margin that we could close with a relatively small grant. And then we've got the the larger, you know,
um Ammeris community homes, wayfinders projects at the under other end of the scale. Um, and so with those examples, what are the deficiencies of the
existing one-sizefits-all process? >> Yeah. So, to start with, I think that our current application doesn't really capture necessarily either of those project types super well, just from a type standpoint. Um, as we've become a
little more ambitious and creative in how we're looking to fund projects, things like one-time grants, things like stock debt, these aren't really set up well within our original application. By my view, at least, I don't think it gives people a chance to really make a strong case for even something like that
one time request within our original application. Um, in terms of the other larger problem that the kind of bucketing classification is trying to solve, I think to me it's thinking about how we respond to scale because right
now we have a one-sizefits-all application, which means in theory we should be requesting the exact same supporting documentation from every applicant regardless of the facts of their case. and we might choose to wave some of that as a trust and we have that ability right now. But as we're thinking
about establishing precedent and long-term process and procedure, um that's what we're setting ourselves up for. Thinking about just in the last couple of months, the projects that we've heard about that have come to us either in a formal or informal capacity.
That doesn't feel like that's necessarily going to serve us well moving forward. And if I can just follow up before handing the question over to HJ, what are the specific kinds of documents or information that
we would or wouldn't require and that the categorization would I guess in effect give a uh a preliminary default answer to the question of what what the trust needs for the given project.
Yeah, I think that's a bit of a moving target and will become a little more clear once we decide on if we're moving forward with the classification scheme and if so what we're waiting more heavily in that. >> The draft that you all have has an example that's assuming that basically
the major factor we're considering is the cost of the project, the cost of the trust rather. Um, and thinking about kind of that sliding scale of that. Um, but there's also other factors that we could consider in terms of how
experienced of a developer they are. If we have a working relationship with them, I think there are other things that could be captured and depending on what categories we end up considering, it's going to change what we're asking for. But a rough idea of like for a
fairly small project that's home purchase and rehabilitation but a very small scale project where it's like one structure and a known amount of work. We might not really need formal construction documents in a full perform stack. We might be comfortable moving
forward without that. But if somebody's talking about a much larger scale purchase and rehabilitation those are probably things we're going to want. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Alex HJ. >> Yeah. And I was wondering um certain
projects like there's there's not just a a cost scale to it, but maybe like a timeliness scale to it. Like one of the advantages that the trust has is that our funding is ambiguous in terms of like when exactly funding can be applied, right? So I'm
wondering if if this can be a vehicle to also bring forward projects that are are relatively lightweight doesn't doesn't have to go be brought through the big whole rigor moral but
also um maybe it's it's a more pressing need that needs to be discussed on a shorter time scale basis and if we could um apply some efficiencies that could be hopeful more more beneficial. Let's have a question. Certainly. >> Yeah. I mean that's certainly the hope.
I think the other important piece of this that I want to highlight again is that the application would go through a filter before it made it the full trust. That filter being our professional staff making a recommendation. And I think that is also meant to help with that efficiency and timeliness and
understanding that we and our successors as members of the public need not be fully educated on the nuances of construction financing and construction schedules. But we have professional staff who are can provide some context
when they move forward with application to help us think different >> Carla. >> Oh yeah, you uh muted still. >> Sorry. Um I um I was so focused on lowering my hand. I didn't want to
can't do two things at once. Um, so I think my question is kind of related to both what um, Alex and HJ were talking about, but just I appreciate that like the differentiating like the different projects and I like you know and the guidance to like what you refer to as
you know the mad libs you know helping answering questions in a more simplified way. I think I'm just um wondering and maybe this would be part of what the professional staff would be part of is like just making sure that it is accessible to some of those smaller projects who like you know when you
think of one of the bigger projects they might have like a lawyer or someone who can kind of look at all these paperwork and not be overwhelmed as opposed to someone who maybe isn't as educated or I I I don't know I'm I I I don't know if I'm being clear in how I'm asking it but you know
what I mean just making sure that it's not overwhelming that it's still accessible and welcoming. I guess it's hard to say that about a municipal form about finances, but you know what I mean? So I and I guess there would always be I imagine if someone is asking
for help that Greg is there to maybe give them some guidance about the wording of it or I don't know. But um anyway, >> yeah. No, I completely agree that that's something we should remain focused on as we move through this process.
In my view, I think the bucketing approach allows us to do that a little bit more to respond to scale and size appropriately. Greg, I'm not sure if you have more to >> um if I if I may just jump in to say
that the um the the structure doesn't have to be on the surface. In other words, um we can be more like a um one of those
uh like Venus fly traps where we we try to pull in very easily and then we tell them this is what we think we need. But that first stage is just we we we're really excited to hear from you. submit an expression of interest and then
professional sta staff will kind of help you figure out what we would need for a viable presentation application that so the the the the backend work that that Alex has done can structure the process
without necessarily being on the surface potentially. Um I'm just kind of trying to process out loud here. DJ, please. >> I I totally thought that Bob still had his hand up. Um, the only coral area, the only counterpoint that I can think
of, and I'm just playing devil's advocate here, by the way. I think this is a great idea, is that I am I'm kind of curious if the types of projects that we could we are there types of projects that are we that we could maybe like we might not cover well enough in this format. like if there's a template for
everything and then all of a sudden yet we have we're throwing a curveball, how does that cover and I think that's really the only the the off the top of my head the only consideration that I can think of that's a little bit different. >> Yeah. No, I think that's important to
keep in mind. We obviously can't predict the future in every type of project we're going to get. That was the hope in structuring this around the action plan is these are projects we know that we'd be interested in funding. there is like an other category right now in terms of typology um which we can certainly
maintain and I also want to stress some of what Gaston was saying that this is meant to be a baseline that we can modify as needed. So either on a per project basis or just overall we can revise the application as we need to and I think we should plan on doing that
anyway whenever we update our action plan and make sure it's in alignment. If a project came to us and we had asked for a set of documents and for some reason it wasn't feasible or appropriate for that um I think there's very much a way we can build that into the process
where they can write a written just like a letter saying hey this is why we don't think this is appropriate or even through a conversation with professional staff and we can wave that requirement or we can
>> uh good by the Alex, you're maybe your mic is kind of picking up less well and kind of in and out a little bit. Um the um the the thought I'm having is that
the structure can kind of suggest that by default this is what you would expect to be required to put together a full application. uh but those requirements might be waved and others may be added. So that um but what I think is very
helpful that we haven't really um done it all is to position proposals as connecting directly to our strategy and as therefore almost um
kind of shaping how we evaluate a any given proposal. We we have it we've kind of taken them all as uh sooie generous whereas we should start to think um when it comes to a small
um emergency needs type of application here's here's what we should be thinking about as a trust. In other words, the the corollary of this effort is to start to sharpen our own sense of
what makes applications meritorious so that we're we don't feel like we're we're shooting from the hip every time. >> Yeah, that all makes sense. I had had my hand up earlier but then you said exactly what I was thinking of in terms of uh you know first of all an
expression of interest. though you know looking at the application the draft thank you very much Alex as it is now um you know it's more involved in maybe at the somewhat later stage but getting that sort of initial expression of interest which the staff professional
staff could do an initial read on and then if we have this sort of templates uh by type or whatever um of of the documents that are needed that would seem to be a good a good approach. And yeah, I think in terms of a sort of
internal way of of tying this to what our our action plan is is is just, you know, for any proposal that we look at, maybe a first step is, you know, which point does this germaine to um and then
go on from there? And um the I guess >> maybe like like Carla the the part that make put me most on alert maybe it's just you know past trauma was the like right one if it's this or one if it's
that and um I guess I'm I'm curious if really in what I see is that maybe it's there's a few kinds of requests and each of those kinds of requests might have a different scale. So if that's right,
then it would be more a matter of spelling out in the matrix what are the default requirements as opposed to what I I may be misreading, but I I see that the the method that you're
proposing tries to create categories based on two functions. And it it might be easier to process by just having that grid of different types at different scales
because each type has its own demands, but again I I may not I I may not have gotten yet what what you were proposing, Alex. So, I wonder if the the rambling I'm doing um maybe if if you could show
us on the slides and and and explain it better to me given my doubts. >> Yeah, happy to. Um let me see if I can get on the slide. Okay, so I'm going to pull up the draft application that you
all saw. There haven't been edits made to this since the version that went out in your packet, but just for ease of looking at um so we'll start with I think the matrix just to make sure that we're kind of on the same page. So the
hope is that every project will have a type and a classification that the method for determining classification would be consistent across projects. requirements would be different based on project type.
So I I know I only showed the top couple on the slide because I think that's what Greg had populated a little more in terms of thoughts of what to show that every type of initiative would have these different categories of class A,
class B, class C. In terms of determining the categories, it is set up right now in the direction I was moving in which can obviously change is that you go through the same questionnaire to determine classification regardless
project type. So it's still asking the same questions that should be relevant regardless of what type of project you're talking about that are focusing on the funding details, funding stock and experience developer. So this I'm
certainly open to changes in approach or more narrowly just massaging the actual calculations here, but the thought is that everybody hits this form with the same information regardless of the project they're posing. >> And Alex, could you just zoom a little
bit? I guess where what what I'm what I'm I guess what I haven't pieced together yet is why um if let's say you your answer to Jay is yes all funds have already been
committed no all funds haven't been committed why doesn't your answer to that question just have a direct implication period without having to get funneled through some additional class or category
Ah, okay. I think I understand what you're asking. So, um I think there are several different factors that I'm trying to capture with how the classification is set up right now. Um so, your response to that would
have a direct impact, but it would be mitigated by your other responses to that. So, as it's set up right now, you basically earn points in this this top section, this like A through F. You gain points and then you lose points
in the bottom section. The thought being that if you have a larger proposal, but you're a developer who's done similar projects, other sources are providing most of the funds and or we've worked with you before. That kind of offsets
the amount of up work with that person in light of those factors. So I I'm not sure if that clarifies it or makes it more confusing. just >> I mean I I think it I I it just makes me
more skeptical that I'm just skeptical that these numbers are are really meaningful as opposed to
more of a of a kind of decision tree type of setup like if X then Y if if if if R then S as opposed to if X plus R then Z. I I'm not seeing the X and the R
as being um commensurate and commen and commensurable. >> So certainly that's something we can discuss and work through as a trust. If we'd like the general idea of the bucketing but aren't happy with this proposal, I'm very happy to hear other
people's ideas on that. In terms of the actual mechanics of this kind of additive form as opposed to a decision tree, a lot of that is stemming from the fact that I don't know what format this final application will take. I'm assuming that for now it would be a
paper form. I don't think that's feasible or the direction we move in, but I don't know the limitations around electronic hosting of it. So things like decision trees can be fairly difficult to have people work through paper with the hope that this is a little simpler.
I think that also can change as we learn more hosting capabilities. Bob. >> Yeah. I also have some um skepticism or some questions about the value of an additive kind of formula. um you know if
we had uh 20 applications coming in in a year and we needed to sort of rank them against each other I just sense that it's going to be the qualitative measures that are going to I mean yes we need to get some basic things in terms
of overall scope and cost and so on but I I suspect that the decisions are going to be more um more complex and I'm not sure that just adding numerically like that is is going to have value. Um,
yeah, just some thoughts. >> Yeah, thank you for that. So, just to make sure that being clear on this because I think I'm probably not. The hope behind this additive value is not necessarily to rank projects against each other. It's
to determine how we are viewing the intensity of the project which has nothing to do with a merit judgment. It has to do with this level of intensity we are asking for in the original application. So just because one project gets a higher score than or like higher
numeric on this than another doesn't actually involve us evaluating them against each other at all. Um, it just, as you can see down here at the bottom, helps them determine what level of intensity we are going to be viewing
their project with, which all that that impacts is what we're asking for in terms of support material. >> So, this is not meant to replace our qualitative judgment. This is to help us guide the applicants through a process to get us the information we're probably
going to be asking for anyway up front. And is it the intensity of the initiative that dictates what what requirements or something else that you know the type well I guess you have got both there uh in terms of of what sorts
of documentation and we're going to ask for. >> Yeah. So it's both. It's the type and the intensity. So that score up the score up above the the additive factor up here would come out to either A, B or
C depending on its value and then you would come down to this matrix find the classification and the typology of your project and then your application would live in one of these squares and that would identify what we're actually asking.
>> Okay. And I guess the last question I would have then is is that the applicant that is having to say okay this is where the classification is or is it really the staff that's that's going to make that
you know decide whether it's A B or C. >> I think it starts with the applicant just from a clarity and transparency standpoint of let them know how we're considering it and asking them to kind of selfidentify. I think certainly staff would have the final say on that and
might review the data and say I don't think that's appropriate. I think we need to be looking at a different classification. But the hope is that it would start with the so they could see within this out what information. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Greg, you want a clarification or or have Carla's question? >> Um we go to Carla. I think we're kind of past what I was going to say. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I I just um this is a really basic question. Could you clarify exactly what
you mean by intensity, Alex? >> Yeah. Um well, yes and no. I'm happy to clarify it as I intended it here, but I was also hoping that with some of what we could work towards consensus on. So, I was thinking that we probably were
going to consider a combination of factors, including the cost of the overall project, the amount of funding that the applicant is requesting from us, the experience of the applicant, like how many other projects they've
done, and if they've worked with us before um and commitment of funds from other people. So the thinking being obviously we have a financial responsibility to be more thorough with
larger expenditures to single spots. Um but also we have a responsibility to be always thorough but to really be careful when we're working with new parties. That's great. We welcome applications from folks we haven't worked for before,
but we're going to have a different relationship with them and we might be looking for different things since we don't know them as well. Um, and thinking about the percentage of the funding stack that's coming from us because if we're just proposing if we're just providing gap funding, then maybe
we don't need as extensive of information because this has been vetted by other organizations that have already committed funding. If we're this like primary funer or the sole funer of something, then there's a lot more that we're going to need to see because if we
don't review it, no one's >> Does that clarify it a little bit? >> Uh, Greg. >> Yes. H still up, but I can maybe add something here. I think you know the part of the advantage to to this
approach not necessarily the sort of um uh tax return method here a decision tree would be another way to come at it but you know is is some sort of um framework that accommodates uh both uh
you know both a very large development and very small development u an ask that comes at the end of a process Allah our second investment into Amoris Community Homes, which was a deal that was very well vetted and understood and just had a gap uh versus perhaps our first one
which was when they were very early in the process or um and so you know what, you know, so intensity doesn't have one definition in that sense because if we're the you know, if if it's a relatively modest amount of
money but um we are the primary equity investor um then perhaps there is an obligation to have a more intensive review process. That same amount could be um early money for a much larger project. Uh
in that scenario, it might be more appropriate to have a more modest process. Um you know, so I think you know what what what the attempt is here is to capture sort of all those different categories in in one tool and then the outgrowth perhaps of this is so
of these buckets. then you know perhaps there are um are more explicit criteria we can begin to develop within those buckets. Um that's but as Alex noted those are would be specifically separate from this which is more just a categorization exercise.
>> Um yeah that's that's kind of yeah >> I um I I guess I'll just say I I I'm not really comfortable with this process at all. this idea of adding up these different points. I think that the
question of what documents we expect is an important one and we have a list of the kinds of things that we require and the question is are there any reasons why any of those aren't required for the
project in question? Whether we're in a position to kind of predict in advance, I I don't know. I don't know how well positioned we are to determine in advance that we
don't need this or we do need that before we've seen the project. other than saying these are the kinds of things that we normally uh look for and you should be prepared to provide these. If you think any of these aren't
appropriate, you know, tell us why. >> I Yeah, I think there's merit to what you're saying. I don't necessarily agree with it. I coming from with that. I think part of it is a question of how we want this process
to evolve and at what point and at what level of polish we want to interact with applicants. So, from my understanding, what you're you're proposing or suggesting is closer to what we've been doing, which potentially can result in a
much longer process. If we're asking people to start to fill out an application, prepare all of this documentation that that for most projects might include things we don't necessarily need or might not include everything we need. >> Yeah.
>> Present to us. Then we provide feedback and say, "Actually, we want this, we don't want that." and it might drag out the process. So I I think that's important to think the mechanics of what that looks like from an applicant viewpoint. >> Yeah. So I mean
I understand that this is a way of trying to revisit the experience that we've had with ACLT now, right? Um, and so we've learned a lot by working with ACLT and we
have learned about ways that we want to be demanding that we weren't clear in at the front end that we'd want to be demanding. And and so that that's it's important not to
have to go in that direction. In other words, what drags on a process is to realize that you want more than you asked for at the beginning. I my sense is that
if people know we're looking for all these things, but there might be reasons why those aren't critical, that's a easy conversation for the proposer to have with Greg. And Greg can reason about it and say, "Yeah, you're
right. um for this given this or given that uh why don't you go ahead and focus on these items um and making a judgment call about what we won't need the discovery as I see it
with ACLT was we actually want a lot of these a lot of things that that they weren't um giving us and that we weren't clear that we were going to demand you know over the course of the four or five months that we were talking to them. And
so the the issue was more um uh spelling out requirements than it was waving requirements. Yeah, Alex, please. Yeah, I worry that if we skew too far
towards here's our set list of requirements, we essentially need to petition individually to have things removed, we're going to lose some potentially really important smallcale projects.
>> We've never lost like we've never lost the we don't lose projects, we just don't get them started. So I I um uh I we we I think we need to be much more
concrete about what what what specific kinds of projects we're worried about. >> I agree with that. I just don't want us to set the burden of application so high >> people feel like they can't approach us. I'm thinking about the scenario of
homeowner who might be interested in grant for an affordable ADU for instance which would be a really small scale project. >> Yeah. >> A lot of things we would ask for from formal developers they're just not going >> or have access to and I'm afraid they never apply.
>> Right. And we're we're going to have a specific call for proposal for that that specifies the lower requirements, Alex, when we're when we're ready to do that. So, um, I don't I don't expect that someone who's when we're when we're we
figured out how to support ADUs, they're not going to go through the standard application that, you know, Wayfinders uses. We're going to have something that's designed for that kind of uh proposal in order to avoid the the the, you know,
to spur applications. Um uh so let let me let you respond before taking more questions. >> No, I I'd love to hear other people's >> Yeah, EJ. >> Yeah, I'm trying to think of like a a
good good way to phrase this. I I am I am also concerned that we won't get the math right essentially. um which is obviously something that that just takes time to work on and not not saying it's just it's just an anxiety but at at the same time um
maybe it helps to work through like a case to see how this actually is playing out ra you know rather than dismissing one way or another. I think I think a a real example uh that maybe the trust uh is a little
bit more there's there's a little bit more history of understanding how how that process unfolded and see how a process like this could have changed the course of how how it was approached it would would be an interesting way to at least uh you know ascertain a little bit
more information. Right now we're sort of on two sides of the fence and I I'm not I'm not confident that we we will really be able to uh understand the the impact of something like this uh without without some sort of case study to be honest.
I don't know how feasible that is but that that's just how my brain is thinking right now. >> Wow. >> Yeah. I'm just thinking um back to sort of that two-stage process where I' I'd like to see something just a very
accessible sort of web form as an expression of interest and then having some sort of just checklist of of different documentations that may be required and could be in response to an expression of interest something that
Greg or uh subset or whatever could give an initial view on you these may not be required, but it's not a formal formal application at that point. So it's getting gathering the expression of interest in a way that's going to be welcoming and and accessible
and then providing a list of of documentation that may be required and then at the next step sort of uh tuning that um and then you know it the application can be just really the application for funding you know and
that essentially uh and that could be sort of more formal and and have all the documentation attached attached to it, but maybe something like a phased approach to that uh could be worthwhile. >> Um, so trying to uh uh build on that,
Bob. So the initial is like I want to do this. I think it'll cost this much. And then the discussion with us the first time they come to our meeting is basically to figure out what it is that we really
need to consider before we could approve. >> Yeah. Or maybe even just before they come to us, that stage where they're talking with Greg um to get an initial read on whether it can be put onto the
agenda or not. So I guess right is our is our biggest concern um having people feel that they have to put together a lot of information or
that they do put in a lot of information or what What which way do we want our trigger to be light or heavy? Uh he >> just out of curiosity do we have a throughput issue in terms of like
processing is it like yeah like kind of along the same lines Gaston I think you were raising basically am I am I understand the the the question you're posing is are we concerned about the process being too lengthy because of um unintended um asks that that that we add
on or are we concerned about prior like getting applications into our pile. I'm I'm sort of hearing two things as well. >> Yeah, Alex.
>> Yeah, in my view, I think we have room to grow in both areas. I think that right now our application process is not overly clear nor applicable to a lot of different project types. So I think it's highly possible that we're missing some
applications altogether that they're initiatives we could be funding that aren't even coming before us. Um, and then I also think that even if somebody is coming to us for funding right now, such an inconsistent bar in terms of
what we're asking for, they don't really know at the beginning of the process at this point, which I think is also slowing down the process and potentially discouraging people from applying as well. are
>> um maybe um because since I'm newish to the board, you know, I was I feel like I was still learning a lot of the process while the um ACLT was being presented to us. So maybe as like a mini case study
or Alex, could you speak to how you think this form would have helped or improved that process? It doesn't have to be lengthy. I'm just curious like how how this kind of way of organizing it may have made that better or streamlined
it or helped prevent any um confusion. >> Yeah, I'll start and I'm happy to have Greg type in at any moment with anything. Um I agree that we all have learned a lot through the ACLT process in terms of materials we actually wanted
to see in this case. I'll also think that's a different approach than we've taken when interacting with ACL team before. Um, which admittedly was before my time as well. But there was something about the intensity and style of what they were doing in this proposal versus
in previous repo proposals that caused us to ask for a fairly different set of documents which while they were both I I think appropriate to project type really was I think a missed opportunity to be
more clear upfront in terms of you know if you're thinking about this this is probably what we want. There's this is not a hard and fast list. This could still be modified like I said at the beginning either systemically or on a case-byase basis. But I think that if we
had been able to provide more lead time to ACLT in this case with some of the things we ended up asking for but waited several months to coherently ask for, we might be in a different spot in terms of
um that project. I I don't know if it would have impacted overall like timeline of that project, but I think it could have impacted our internal timeline of how we reviewed it. Greg. >> Um, yeah. I think you know speaking kind
of trying to stay my lane from the staff perspective here I think perhaps what it would have provided is a what what this framework you know evolved and and completed uh which it's not yet but would provide was a a a clear juncture
and directive to me for like when is it appropriate to forward an application on to the trust uh you know what what are the standards you know I I could as staff be empowered to require uh before we put it put it on the agenda in the
first meeting. Um so that might have I I don't I don't know if it would have changed the uh the ACLT timeline on their end, but perhaps it would have changed uh the the time that we spent uh
in trust meetings on it. Um, I I you know, just thinking about the ACLT versus Wfinder. So, sorry, HJ, go ahead. >> Yeah, sorry for letting in. Um, for the
ACLT specifically, it was it was actually interesting, but basically it came down to our inability to um, basically be lean holders that we we took that portion out of the the proposal. And I don't know if it's just like
something that if we're not going to build that vehicle into our our ability to fund. I mean, like that that's already something that we would just ask to not put in applications for going forward. It's it's it's not really a money thing. was really like the complexity of dealing with how how that would actually be processed that that
ultimately made that decision. So maybe that's a little bit closer to what the documents really should should end up being. Um it is maybe worth also just seeing how many of the documents we actually we asked for but really wasn't
that that key to the decision-m process. U maybe that that's a way to maybe that's an also a focus area we could we could do here. um because they they I've been in tons of these similar types of you know discussions where we ask a ton of things
and we just it's it wasn't really that material at the end of the day. So it it it is a it is a good lesson learned that that I we we can do but maybe the the way in which it it we're sort of reacting to it could actually swing it
um unfortunately someone in a in a different direction that that could be just as complex. So just a word of this thing here. >> Alex, >> yeah, I want to invite us all to think about complexity and at what point it's
helpful as opposed to all appointed for fairly short terms in terms of actual project life cycle and the trust is a fairly young body of town government in the like big picture of
things in the town's history. So, as we think through what we're doing today, I think it's worth trying to keep some complexity out of it, but also remembering that we don't have some form of criteria, some form of like
intentional precedent that we're setting now to put us in a difficult spot. So far, we've thankfully been in a position, at least since I've been on the trust, where we've mostly been able to keep funding requests as they come in, which is great. Also, per our own
action plan, we would love to see a lot of applications in the future and we might end up in a spot where you need to be more procedural about things and don't have the time or the money or the capacity to take it as case by case.
Well, I understand the push back against complexity. I understand the concerns about getting it wrong now in terms of the math and how much we're classifying it and if we're classifying it. I just do want to encourage us all to think about the future and the implications of
whatever we decide here, how it's setting up not only the trust while we're on it, but the trust after we're all off of it as well. I I I would like us to try to articulate the kinds of proposals
we want and what we require for each of those kinds of proposals. So for you know a smaller proposal to um expand a home in such a way we we we
need this for the traditional large development project. we've got a long list of things we need and I think that it's feasible to uh approach it that way. Um from the kinds of proposals that
we want and for each category, here's what we um here's what we will typically require to give appropriate consideration. And
I think that that information is basically the backbone of your draft. Um, I would I would like it to be more straightforward from we here's for this
kind of proposal. We want these kind of proposals. Here's what we need. We want these other kind of proposals. Here's what we'll need. And I think that that's a feasible approach. Alex, >> yeah, I would love some clarity from you
on that case. Then how you think we should be classifying and separating types of >> because you mentioned like a small proposal and a large proposal of various types. So how do you think we should be >> breaking that down to provide?
>> Yeah. Well, I mean I think you've done a lot of thinking on this. So, can you can you pull up your your draft so we can look at kind of I think we can reverse engineer it from from the work you've done. Um I mean so from the very top of it we you
we've got like the types. So what what are the basic types that that you identified? So, emergency assistance um that's its own type and I think we need to if we want to get emergency assistance applications
uh from anyone other than the entities that have come to us for rental type support I think we need to put out a call uh we need to put out a call for proposals um and so um you know I don't know what what what
do we contempl play in the category of emergency assistance is a question that that I'm um I'm not sure that we know. I think we want to be positioned to do it, but we haven't spelled out what kind of
proposals we want in the in the realm of emergency assistance, have we? >> No. To my knowledge, we haven't. It's something we've discussed before. >> Yeah. and actually the trust was divided on based on the fact that we hadn't
fully flushed out our views on it. Um, >> and we it looks like we're going to get I mean we're on track to get meaningful funds from the CPA um that that we can peg to this >> and so I think that's one of the init one of the task forces or subcommittees
that we need to push forward is a call for proposals for emergency assistance for example. Um, uh, Cara, >> um, and I I originally was like I was going to be working with Rob on that and then that kind of, um,
>> fell off. Just I mean, I'm still very interested in, you know, working on that and being a part of a working group or subcommittee, but agreed that there's not enough clarity there. But, um, yeah. Anyway, just wanted to >> so I I think that that on the emergency
assistance, we need to we need to put in much more work to solicit proposals and in doing so get clear about it. Development has been our bread and butter and um I guess all of our all of our grants
have been for development other than some rental assistance and I guess purchase assistance. Um if if we think of that house that we helped to buy and um so putting the rental assistance in the emergency assistance
bucket, this kind of um supporting the purchase of an affordable home, I think that that's a category that we should decide we want to do more of that and we should put out a call for proposals. I I really would like us to
be I think we need to get more proposals and a call for proposals for uh supporting the purchase of a home that's going to be um locked into uh affordable ownership or rent over some period of time. We can be pretty specific about
what we need for that kind of proposal. >> I I agree that a call for proposal can be worth pursuing. I do think it's important to stress that emergencies don't always wait on funding cycles and if we adopt a model of we won't consider things unless we issue a call for
proposals with specific criteria. >> No, I'm not I'm not proposing that at all. No, I'm proposing that we add call for proposal. We're open for business >> then. I I mean I'm open to that. I don't think that gets around the point of we still need to figure out how we're
asking people to apply and we currently don't have an application that's set up to really hear >> DJ sorry muted myself unmuted myself like a million times. Um I Okay, I think I'm
going to try to translate what I'm hearing from Geston and I do agree with what Geston is basically saying. I think I think he I think I think the the view here is that we need to define um like how we can actually help by by
thinking through the process and actually largely think through how much money we can actually like I'm thinking the overall budget you know like one of the things I I I struggle with the ACLT project was really understanding like how much is this is this going to
basically pigeon hole us later down the line and um you know hurt our ability to do any sort of like emergency assistance help like the these initiatives you do need to pre-think through okay we're going to set aside this much budget this is our ability to
actually help then this is this is how like we like we need this information from from from the applicants to be able to at least consider for for how much of the the portion of the budget that we're thinking about and I I think that's a good way to kind of like make sure that
we're we're we're able to be responsibly spending what is a rather um goodsized budget that we have without really feeling like we're we're basically putting all of our eggs in one giant bucket just because the application
happened to come first. It it just gives a little bit of safety net overall when when we think about it because our funding cycles as you guys have pointed out it it's it's just sporadic. it just we just have to u um react to whatever is coming at us at the time. It's just
putting a little bit of a break just just to kind of give a give us a little bit of guidelines. Does this kind of fit the bucket of things that we've determined that we can actually do? And that clarity is actually what I think would drive efficiency as well because if it's just a no-brainer, it will get
funded pretty easily. It's the gray area that we need to define a little bit uh a little bit better along along the way. But understanding some of these guidelines would I think just overall help. How did I do guess Geston? Was that kind of
>> Yeah. Yeah. Uh yeah. I mean the the idea of having um kind of uh budgets for different sorts of things is what structured our proposal to the CPA.
And it looks like the CPA intend I mean voted on what was it? 325 Greg. Yep. Um and so that supports both some emergency
assistance and also the kind of ecosystem initiatives. And so if we use those buckets, then we kind of are in the business for proposals for those two buckets. And then our existing
budget can be pegged towards development at different tiers. But we we could further, you know, subdivide that in our in our intention or more formally um to to facilitate what you're saying. Um
I guess the part that I'm most convinced about is the need for us to explicitly tell the community we want this. We want these kinds of proposals and be specific and especially smaller proposals that we haven't historically gotten too many of.
I think we need to be explicit to the community that we're open for business and here's what we would love to fund and here's what we are looking for in a proposal. Bob, >> I think one of those would be ADUs and
um I think um also it's a pre-development and development. So we could separate those out. Another basic distinction within development uh could we separate as home ownership versus rental
development as two basic? I know there can be crossover and and projects can can shift, but that would seem to be to be one. Um, and then I'm also just sort of thinking about um, you know, who
is submitting the proposal? Is it a developer? Is it a homeowner? Do we want proposals from both? Um, I don't fully have my head wrapped around that, but for ADUs, for example, um, you know, it could be homeowner who's who's
submitting that. um and if we're doing some some outreach on that. Um but those are just some initial thoughts. I I I guess I'm wondering as a matter of workflow among our our our group here,
can we um can we target the outcomes and process that Alex has given so much thought to here? Can we um package that with work on these calls for proposals? So, can we
try to do kind of break the world of the kinds of applications we'd love to see down and have the call for proposals with the requirements
as one kind of thought process as one effort from uh the each of us or in groups of us. Um, can we can we take this momentum
that we're getting tonight and direct it to matching the, you know, application requirements with the calls for application that we'd like to put out there? >> Yes.
>> Yeah. I mean, well, I mean, it means so the um so for example, to operationalize this, I mean, Bob and I have been working with Greg on the more ecosystem and ADU stuff, but um you know, a uh a proposal that jumps to my mind would be
to say, um uh Carla, could you and Alex work on the emergency assistance call and what what that would um what are we looking for and What would an application require to get in front of
us? Um, for example, uh, Greg, >> yeah, you know, responding to your question, I think certainly some some of this could happen as a sort of draft kind of, you know, thought exercise like back at the
envelope type stuff, but I think at some point in the process, some sort of more formal budgeting would probably be be key in order to bucket these different things so we know you know because I think you know what Alex has sort of proposed here is really
not so much about merits of projects as it is um soundness of applications um but I don't know that we have and we've come we've heard members come back to this a few different times we don't
necessarily have uh detailed criteria on merit um you know and and Part of that would be, you know, we like um, you know, supportive housing more than ADUs, you know, or some some value statement like that. So,
I think that's that's a remaining piece, too. I think before um a launch, but I just want to sort of insert that. >> Right. So indeed, I think that the um the kind of merit is baked into the notion of a call for proposals, but
you're right, and I mean, it's helpful that you framed it as the soundness of the application is what um uh what Alex's draft works to make very explicit is what makes an application sound. And I think
that the the difficulty of the endeavor is our lack of clarity about the different kinds of proposals that we're we're open to taking in. Alex.
Yeah. So, I guess I'm kind of left with this big question. Um, as we determine what we want for application material for projects,
we going to treat all projects of the same type the same way. We going to ask for the same materials $4 million development that we're going to ask for from a $50,000 development. If that's the direction we're moving in,
I think we can certainly start drafting what we want to see in terms of development, rental, ownership, like these different categories. We're not I think I'm still left with this question of how are we making a determination or an initial determination of
how we determine what we're asking. >> What is a what is what is a $50,000 development project? Have we ever seen that? What does that look like? We haven't, but I'm a I'm trying to be expansive to think about what we could see, right? So, the idea that somebody
might come to us asking for $50,000 for GAP funding because between when they originally put their funding stack together and when they go to actually sign a contract, prices have gone up and that's the piece of funding that's missing, >> right? And >> we want to hold that to the same level.
>> And do we want to handle hold that to the same level of rigor review and application as a person asking for $4 million to develop 200 affordable units? >> I mean, no. And we haven't and we wouldn't and they the requirements
wouldn't make any sense. So I guess I'm left with this question of are we upfront telling them we understand your project's going to be different because of scale or are we saying here's what we want in them then making them meet with somebody to say actually we don't want these things.
>> Well I I I think scale is is um is is a little is not as as useful a word as as proposal type. In other words, um, scale is the difference between Ammerst Community Homes building, uh, doing
asking us for $500,000 or Beacon asking for $8 million. I don't know if there's much difference at all in what we'd require. I don't think scale makes any difference at that level. When we're at a $50,000
project, it's not about scale. It's a whole different ball of wax. And if we want that kind of proposal, I mean ACLT came to us because they have a common board member. I mean they they um they
uh um you know Rob recused themselves but he sent them to us and um and we were game. I was perplexed by the proposal. We had um you know the founder John uh saying this is a great proposal
and we all were persuaded and do we want to fund more gap funding? I think we should put out a call if that's what we want to do and and be very specific about what we need. But the list of criteria for developer just don't make
any sense in that context. They couldn't produce those things because they don't even apply. Greg, >> uh, TJ, >> I think I I think I think our ambitions are really wide and and broad and and what
we want to solve all all the things that we can hope to solve. But I'm I'm I'm sensing that maybe it is just good to pick and choose our battles right now and then try try to solve small problems and then eventually cumulatively we'll have a better understanding of it. So
I'm hearing like in a like a much smaller project needs to be thought through and those those vehicles just need to be honed in and that's that's a separate question from what Alex is proposing in terms of like okay these more ambigu like like these projects
that can scale in a very different way and they're complex because they're they're not really definable. Um, if it's helpful to Greg, we could have a template, but ultimately I think Greg is our biggest filter anyway. So, it's like
right now maybe maybe that's what we're just going to have to acknowledge that like there's going to be that human element that that we're we're always going to rely on and then that it's it's just going to be a suggestion list of like what we have seen for now and that's all we probably
will be likely be able to commit to right now. But I think as projects get more complex and we have more understanding of it, we can start thinking about layering in things so that that process it like setting that expectation can be done a little bit
earlier. That's all we can really do for complex projects like that. I mean, I I would I would love us to be um getting more small proposals, but I think we need to help the community know what we want to want to
get. >> Exactly. And and that that's what a RFP would do. >> Yeah. Yes. Yes. I mean I um few meetings ago Bob and I talked about
coming back to you all with an RFVP for you know innovation ideas and we we haven't come through with that but I I'm I remain very um bullish on our putting out calls for proposal and
>> I um I uh yeah I we need to I I want to I want to see how we can figure that one out. Just out of curiosity, what's the current roadblock for that? >> No. Uh just that when we when we've been meeting, we've been focusing on other
things. Um um so it's that there's no roadblock besides um >> dividing and conquering and >> and putting in the putting in the time between meetings. Alex. >> Yeah, I think in the interest of time
and knowing we still need to open the floor for public comment and we have some other updates on our agenda, I'm going to suggest that we move on. Um, I encourage folks to bring thoughts and whatever the next version of this looks like to them future meetings so we can
continue this. Based on what I've heard tonight, I don't think it sounds like we're ready to continue to flush out this idea of a streamlined application. So, I'm going to pause on that. I wanted to thank Greg for his help on this so far and for
starting this conversation and barring any objection and suggesting we move on. I I um I think that we're Yeah, let's let's keep moving forward and um you've opened questions and and put in um
analysis that um we we need to build on and reckon with and I think we're all agreed that we want to get more proposals and especially smaller ones and um and so I would like to encourage
everyone as well to think about which kind of proposal are you personally enthusiastic about and um and would like to kind of spearhead and I would like to support you and and I I know Greg as well. So, thank you very much, Alex.
Thank you for always being so uh thoughtful and um and thorough. Um I mean the I I I also feel like we're getting a lot um we're getting good rapport uh among us as a group and um
that's very pleasing. At the same time, we're down two members. And so, uh, I thought we could talk about what expertise, areas of expertise we might want to bring to our membership as
a way of um, sparking ideas among us to invite people and recruit. um in losing uh Robert Alingham, we we lost someone who had a a distinctively strong set of ties in in the local
business community. So, uh I think that that that always made a lot of sense and and it would be great to u find uh another member who would bring those ties. Um what other sorts of
expertise or interests um do you all think would be uh strong compliments for our current membership? Or is anyone having ideas of of uh someone in your network who you think
would be a good fit for um what we're trying to do here? Yeah, EJ. >> Man, I can talk about what I feel is my my personal deficiency. I'm I'm not only new to this board, but I'm also fairly new to Amorest and and I honestly just
don't really have a good sense of what what I feel that what could be useful to people in our community. So someone who just has a good feel for it. I think that's what I I I would really cover it that perspective.
Um that and just like a good logical sense of like okay we got this pie. We we we have this desire for an initiative for for let's say emergency assistance. what what is a logical
amount to set aside as as that for for our our our 2026 spend for emergency assistance, let's say. Let's just call it like and from that let's like I'm looking for someone who who also likes to think in that direction.
Okay. Well, um, uh, I wonder if I should send out a call in the the mailing list that we have for people in the community interested in in affordable housing. Uh, Greg, >> yeah, if I could, maybe it'd be helpful
to sort of offer sort of some town level context on the the appointment process. Um um all of you have gone through it but it's been longer for some than others or the um you know the way this works is that uh you know folks get appointed um
sometimes directly by Paul um as town manager sometimes um he makes a recommendation and then uh you know select board or sorry the town council approves uh and then sometimes I think in some cases for a select set of these
boards the town council does it directly perhaps perhaps I forget how the where there there's a couple of them where they're more involved. Um but you know so Paul is kind of looking at a range of metrics you know both you know what these individual bodies need but then
also you know you know some folks will will apply generically and express interest in multiple bodies um and then he'll look at well who needs what uh you know um you know what's the mix of people on each body you know making sure I I think he's kind of focused on um
sort of diversity of experience and perspective and you know background all this stuff. So, um, uh, in every year, and I'm in touch with them with the town manager's office about this, you know, it seems like they're trying to be a bit more, uh, campaignish about the
application period. Um, and so I've requested explicitly that they keep me in the loop on the timeline for that. And so once you know the I I don't think there's a formal um official period but they're kind of creating a bit of a an outreach period
to sort of blitz communication and press releases and this kind of thing. So when that happens, um, is the time to spread the word, send your network, you know, because the way to sort of get folks plugged into this stuff is, you know, especially if they're if it's totally off their radar, is one, personal
appeals, but two, like multiple touches help a lot as well. Um, so when that, you know, when that kind of outreach campaign, that's my word, not theirs, but when that begins, um, I'll be sure to loop folks in. Um but yeah, but also I I've communicated clearly that we are
um uh a little bit light right now um as far as our our overall uh team based on our core needs and whatnot. So that's um you know I've I've uh I've named that. >> All right. You want to um follow through with town updates, Greg?
>> Um yeah, sure. So we covered the big one uh which is um the CPA has made recommendations to the council uh which will have to approve them in order to make them official. Um my understanding is generally council approves them although this year
they recommended some bonding I believe and that might be more of a significant uh choice for the council. Um so you know so we got to wait to see what the council does. Um but but at
this stage they recommended uh $325,000 uh to the trust. Um and um also uh related to our um our efforts over the recent months, they recommended $450,000 as requested uh by ACLT uh to that
project. So, um, ACLT, uh, between our investment, um, and CPAs has a good hunk of equity to move forward, uh, and seek a loan, you know, construction loan. Um, and, uh, it's my understanding that, you know, that that outreach is underway.
Um, so that's kind of the exciting stuff around um, CPA. Um, regards to the ACLT, you know, I've been in touch uh with Linda and uh and a couple different folks on that team and uh they are proceeding on on pursuit of the first
set of items we talked about last month. Uh I've been in touch um with them and and you know and some of those are are already checked off which is great. Um and then um yeah and then otherwise it's we didn't meet that long ago. Um there
haven't been um uh you know any huge developments. Um uh there is a proposed market rate development over in East Ammerst. Um uh which I think maybe is not going before ZVA for a little bit,
but keep your eyes peeled for that if you're interested. Um and then um sorry I lost my um I think Yeah. And then the other um another sort of town thing to note is
some consideration of a um of a historic district in East Ammerst um along with um um some possible interest in in resoning there which kind of goes hot and cold. Um but uh you know and then separately from that specific East
Ammerst area, the planning board um is looking at strategies from the housing reduction plan um and other sort of priorities they might have uh around you know their their work this year. um you know and and some of those strategies might include um targeted resoning uh or
you know or I think they're also I think they're looking at uh some some changed definitions although I'm not sure how how real that is but they might I think they're I think they're looking at the possibility of changing apartment
definitions um to add the possibility of apartments that are above 24 units um which would be Great. Um, yeah, so there, you know, there's there's there's planning board is kind of creating their work plan for the year. Um, and hopefully inspired by the HPP. I think those are the main town updates unless
folks have any questions about other specifics. >> Nothing new from uh Beacon? >> Uh, no, nothing new from Beacon. Um, so I'm I'm not um I'm not sure where that stands. I don't know that anybody is in the town staff at least.
>> Okay. Anybody have any other questions about town stuff? Um, well, we lost our one audience member, so I don't think we'll have any public comment. Are there
any items not anticipated for the agenda that um anyone would like to put up for discussion? All right. Well, um I guess we get a little bit of an early release
and um I know uh Bob and I have um a uh ecosystem meeting planned with Greg and um and uh Carla, I know you've been talking
with uh with uh Greg about um uh Craig's doors. Um, I don't know. Is there any anything um anything new on that front that >> I think my my what I was going to suggest, Greg, at some point we need to talk about meeting the new director
because that's been a big change over there. So, >> yeah, you know, that's that's a great idea. Um, and let's um let's, you know, actually I I I hope to have some some updates there in a month at our next meeting. um not so much about Craig's Doors, but about um um you know, sort of
homeless services in general. But um um but yeah, we can uh Carl, let's let's find some time to do that. >> Okay. Um, >> yeah. >> And, uh, you know, why don't um,
uh, I guess it would be good, Greg, to, um, give us all a nudge to go back to Alex's draft in like maybe two weeks so that we
can keep the keep the conversation and thought process moving. for sure. >> All right, folks. Um, thank you. It's good to see you. And, um, you know, whether we're we're agreeing or not, I'm
I'm very happy how we're um, getting to know each other as a group. And um I look forward to us taking some concrete steps to um solicit
proposals and not just wait around for the next thing to show up. Um so hope uh you all enjoy slightly warmer weather this weekend. Um good to see you. Good night. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.