Then I'll go ahead and call to order the um Air Affordable Housing Trust Board meeting for Wednesday, August 27th um 2025 in accordance with chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law.
Public bodies otherwise governed by the open meeting law are temporarily relieved from the requirement that meetings be held in public places open and physically accessible to the public so long as measures are taken to ensure public access to the body's deliberations through adequate
alternative means. This meeting of the air affordable housing trust will be live on Zoom. The public may participate remote by joining Zoom meeting ID number 8180509-7403 or by calling 9292056099 for additional information about remote
participation. Please contact Alicia Hersy at a hersyair.mma. us or 978-7728220 extension 142 prior to the meeting. Um first up will be approval of the
agenda. Anybody have any changes or edits? I move we approve the agenda. I'll second. All right. Um, Colleen, how do you vote?
Hi. Uh, Cindy, how do you vote? Hi. And who seconded? I guess Jonathan Jonathan seconded. Sorry, Jonathan. How do you vote? I
And Bob, how do you vote? Yep. Bob, how do you vote? I uh vote yay. All right. And then the chair votes yes. Agenda is approved. All right. Um next up will be approval
of the meeting minutes from July 30th, 2025. Um any changes or edits? Um not seeing anybody or hearing. I'll go ahead and take a motion on the approval of the meeting minutes. So moved.
Second. All right. Uh Bob, how do you vote? Yes. Uh Cindy, how do you vote? I. Jonathan, how do you vote? Abstain. I wasn't there for the meeting. Okay. And uh Colleen, how do you vote? I.
And the chair votes I. Um the minutes are approved. Um that brings us to the election of officers, which we had um tabled the last meeting. um to give James an opportunity to see if he wanted to serve
as the vice chair again. Would we like to uh move forward with another candidate or table that again until James is able to join us? Anybody strongly? Does anybody want? So, can I just ask
caller user number one? Just want to make sure that's not pat user one is muted. [Music] Can caller user one identify themselves, please? Okay, then it's not a problem. We're
fine. All right. Um any thoughts or discussion on what we should do with uh about election of officers? Can I can I ask uh through through the chair to Alicia, do are we aware of James intent? Is this an issue that he
just couldn't make the meeting tonight, but he is interested or do we know do we have any any understanding of what his intent might be? Um he has not made a number of meetings now. Um I think he has a lot of conflicting
um other things conflicting with it. I think he would be happy to serve. He's always happy to serve when he's here. Um we can put it off for another month and I can check in with him. Sounds acceptable to me. Anybody else?
Yeah. I just want to say that my reluctance to raise my hand for the role is one I I want to know what what James intent is and number two is um I I just I'm I'm I'm brand new to the board and I I feel much more comfortable uh learning
from you and learning the rules and how this works before I leapt into any of the of the executive roles. Understandable. All right. Um, then why don't we table that for one more month and um
we will and Alicia if you could check with James and then we'll put it on next month's agenda. But do we need a motion? Do you? I don't think we do. No.
No. That's okay. All right. So that's going to bring us to the next item which is the review of the proposed air affordable housing trust funding request application. Did do you want me? So, we had not received anything more than what we
originally requested and we got um the CPC application and a number of items that they sent to the CPC, but we still do not have a deed restriction or a proposed deed restriction um or a marketing and um a fair marketing plan
and um a monitoring plan. um we can everything will be contingent on receiving that stuff that we go forward with. So I don't have anything more to add to the original application
which was for 240. I think that what we ended up choosing well I don't know what I the next line is to review the proposed funding um no the public information session. So, I think we'll go on to What do you think, Sean?
Yeah, that's um that's fine. Can Can I I'm sorry to interrupt. Um I had um I had sent over I we we had done um a draft tenant selection plan. Uh we had
done a draft affirmative fair housing marketing plan. Um, I know that that we had a um sort of specimen based on past deals um uh uh affordability restriction, a Laura, whatever the the whatever you
call it, the the the that um and then I had taken um and is it the the the plan that talks about, you know, how we operate the property. Um and I'm really sorry. Um, I had sent those, I think, to
Connie. Um, and I thought he was going to ship them along to you folks. Um, so my apologies. Um, I thought that that was done. Now, they are all draft, you know, to be finalized.
um all subject to what ELC um you know will will approve. Um but again they're based on you know
the dozens of of of transaction that we've done in the past. Um, and we are the folks at DHCDLC sent them a whole bunch of new information. Um, and first thing Tuesday morning, I am going to be hitting them really, really,
really hard um, to pay attention to our deal to start getting us uh, they promised they'd sign a a project manager, a lawyer, and we'd start circulating the mass docs. So, that I I'm I apologize you didn't get that stuff. And, um, we're working really
hard to to finalize it all. And um sorry Colleen uh can you just remind us what is the deadline for this application for the ask? You mean for this is different from for us to go to we're not going to CPC.
They're asking us. Yes. They're asking us for our funds and then CPC is having a separate funding request. Yeah. Sorry, I was confusing them. Um, being on both committees, I'm trying to
keep them straight in my head. Right. Yeah. Um, all right. Jonathan, did you have a question? Yes. I I hate to be tedious, but can anyone give me a little summary about where we are up to this point regarding this? Yeah. Um, actually, Alicia, would you
Yep. you could probably articulate it the best. Um, so we last meeting we um voted to move this to a public information center session and to
continue to review the application. Um, I'm sorry. I've been out of the office for about 4 days. So, possibly though, I checked my email. I didn't see it there, but I'll go back and check. I'm checking from home. Just got in. Um, so possibly
Connie did send it and it didn't get forwarded on to people. Um, so we have asked for specific information, things like the deed restriction, the um there'll be LA units, not lip units. Um,
and so there's going to be a deed restriction and then there's going to be marketing plans and monitoring systems and all that sort of thing. Um, and but that doesn't mean that we can't go forward with reviewing this with contingencies and things like that. And
so if you have sent that on, Rick, we can get that off to people before we have our public information session. Jonathan, I would also suggest looking at reading the meeting minutes which were quite thorough u about what was
done and give a good status of what where we were at after the last after the last meeting. So, I think that what we should do is um and we I had sent on to Connie the the the
drafts of the of Lau units and I'm sure he sent those on to you too, but it sounds like you're you're working on that, correct, Rick? Okay, you're um muted. Oops. I think he's muted. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I couldn't find my
button. Um I'm sorry. What the the the the which do the question was we had sent samples of all the documents we were looking for. Yes. Yes. and and um I had sent back a package. Okay, very good. I had asked I
I had asked the the lawyers and I'm not sure that they sent it. They they've got a draft um affordability restriction document, but I did send like I said the the uh a draft that my guys did of the TSP, the affordable uh fair housing marketing plan. And then I did take
there was a document that you attached that I think was the monitoring talking about the property management company and who's going to staff and what we're going to do. Um, and I did mark that up, um, to conform to to to how we work. Um, so I did get you I, you know, I think I
did get all that stuff. Um, and and again, just the the the all kinds of they're all works in progress, but I thought we should get you sort of sort of the the basics so that you could have a look. And Jonathan, at our last meeting, we
had um there was initially the ask from the housing trust was for a portion of the overall total of 570,000. And as a trust, we had decided at the um end of the meeting to move forward with
a public input session, but with only one option and for that, and that was to um the ask of $5,000 per unit for 35 units is what we're planning to move forward um
to get public input on. Thank you. Sean, I just can I make a quick comment now that I just talked about having the two committees together in my head. Um, the documents we're waiting on are
probably ones that CPC needs and the CPC public hearing is next week on Wednesday. So, in addition to making sure we get them before the public info session, um it also is probably pretty important.
I'm sure Janet can probably not and give a thumbs up on that too, that CPC gets it before the public hearing. Agreed. I've got a cat tail and a cat jumping all over the place, so I do apologize. Um, yes. Uh, so, uh, Rick,
we, you know, we definitely need those to review before the public hearing because at the public hearing if there's questions, um, it that's, that's the yes or no. Does it go to town meeting? So, okay. Thank you,
Alicia. Please, you to the chair. Um, so I think that right now before we move on to planning for the public information session, we should Does anybody have any new questions that they've come up with through you know since the last meeting
to for DCT and Rick and Shocket? I think I have a question. Sure. Okay. So, as I'm going I was going through those documents and getting them ready to send over to you. You're
talking about the 35 units with vouchers being 60% AMI. Um, will how are you going to make a priority of 30% because they are they are subsidized.
So, are you going to make a priority for people who qualify lower than that to be first considered? Um so we're working through that. Um right now um I think that um
six of the units will be reserved for people below 50 and then the rest between 50 and 60. um in the past and I was looking at um uh uh uh the
last MRVP contract that we signed and I think that had some preferences for additional preferences for below 50 and and below 30. Um so um you know subject to um our
investor not um having a problem with that right because you know the the the the the what was presented to them was I believe 35 below 60 of which six were going to be below 50. um uh uh that you
know we're we're we're all for that, right? And and the more we can help out, you know, it's the MRVPs are meant to for deep subsidy and the more we can help out people who need deep subsidy, right, the happier we are. Um
there's also been discussions with DCTA um about um voucher preference being given
to the original tenants who we define as people who moved in before Brady bought it and who are still living in unrenovated units. Um, so and I was counting this morning and it moves but I think there are 31 of
those folks and then that are below 60. Um there are then by my count 14 um new tenants households who are below
60. Um and the expectation is given DCTA's preferences that uh uh uh uh uh once we hit the 50% you know the six at 50 that that you
know an original tenant at 51 will get preference over a new tenant at 49. But what about an original tenant below 51? Because as in my calculations, you've got a number of original tenants below 51
100%. We we absolutely have that. And so no, they will the original tenants, you know, all 31 original tenants below 60 will get the vouchers and within that there will be at least six below 50. And how does um EOHLC
do this? because I know that they don't always allow do they have a um do they have something that they can wave the the fair marketing stuff that goes allows original tenants first preference? Yes. And I got nervous about that.
Right. Great minds think alike. Um because what DCTA is asking for, you know, we're happy to accommodate but only if EOHLC will do that. and I dug up um a deal that's not dissimilar that we did in Boston. And there are a whole
bunch of preferences that were negotiated that are not exactly um what we'd be asking for here given the you know difference in differences in the projects. Um but they're all analogous. They're all of a piece. So
that's why I need to get to somebody at DHCD who can say to me, right? Um, yes, Rick, this is fine. Um, and and and so I I I don't expect it to be a problem, but it's something it was one of the things that kept me up
this weekend about how are we going to do this? Um, but but I I think we can accommodate everyone without running a foul of MRVP rules. And what I'm told is and I'm
trying to I got to get I I I've got to get to ELC to tell us who the administrator will be, right? I don't know. And maybe you guys know. Will it be the It will be ELC
probably. They designate, as I understand it, they would designate to air housing authority or to one of the regional housing authorities. Maybe I have that wrong. That's what my people are telling me.
But e but EOHLC will make the rules under which the administrator will operate. So So it's absolutely right that ELC will make the rules. Well, so I think it might end up being split because there's two different
things happening. So you're going to have an administrator of the MVP vouchers. Okay. Is that what they are? MVP vouchers and the administration, you know, you're talking about them being the monitoring and the um or are
you talking about you guys being the monitoring? But then the on the on the deed restrictions, it will probably be EOHLC, right? So anytime you're working on the movement of that deed,
then it will be back to EOHLC, right? My understand Yeah. My my understanding from from again talking to my people who who live and breathe this stuff, um when I say administration, there'll be a housing authority administering. They'll keep
the waiting lists and they'll do the interviews and the certifications and the inspections. So, I think that's how it goes, but it'll be according to whatever rules are agreed in our tenant selection plan,
which will come down from on high at at at ELC. So, I have a followup question. I have a follow-up question. The 40B that we're working with is talking about having 16 vouchers and they're talking about having them at 30%
AMI. Um, and and clearly low income extremely low income vouchers are of great value and I understand that that you don't know how long the vouchers will be in place but there
could be two commitments. one of uh deed restriction that those 35 units will always be at 60% AMI or in perpetuity for 99 years but you could also as long as vouchers are there with them deed a
number of them towards extremely low 30% AMI and that's something that you know I know I think the housing trust would have some interest in we can put that out for us to talk about.
So, um I will I listen that it I I don't see any problem with that. Um except for one that I'll mention. Um I and I don't think that the investors will have a problem with it. Um and I will I will bring that back to them. Um
my biggest concern is um we're going to get we're we we think and hope that we will get a 15 to 20year MRVP contract and we're we know we're going to be agreeing within you know
with the the the the use agreement that we will we and Our successors and assigns will forever take MRVP as long as it's available in form and substance mater. What scares me is uh say it's a 15-year
contract and getting out to year 13 and having admitted 35 people below 30% of AMI and then the subsidy goes away. So, you know, and and look,
my investor and I will be long gone. Um although when when it's sold, right, they'll be thinking about that and how it might uh impact the the value, but I'm concerned, you know, less on the what are we going to do front when now
we can only collect 30 of 60 from them based on the use restriction. Um but I'm more concerned with the human toll of that. um you know so there's the financial issue which is you know
painful but then there's the human toll of people having to sleep in their cars. Um and that that so that you know you know that that that's why when we talk also you know we we've talked about using some of your money to buy down 80% units
to 60% units. Um, you know, and I've just been really clear that that whatever that number is, what whatever whenever we do that, we're going to have to be able to fund that differential, you know, forever because I certainly don't want to be the property manager
when when Mrs. Jones gets told, you know, you know, that, you know, 600 a month subsidy that you were getting, well, sorry, we're out of money. So, um, I I'm we're wide open to all of this. Um but but you know there are um you know
potential unintended consequences. So um you know I guess I would say um if if you folks tell us what you would like to see um then assuming that that you know the invest to the extent it's different than what the investor has invested in
um I will certainly fight for it and bring it back. Um, and we all know to your point that ELC, um, would love the idea of more, you know, deeply subsidized units. Mhm. So, so can I ask you, I mean, again,
tell us, tell me what you'd like me to, what would make you guys happy for me to go back to everybody with. Um, my guess is the tenant association, who also is sort of a party to all of this, an important party. Um, and a lot of what I'm saying is stuff that we've agreed to
with them. You know, there I'm sure they will be in favor of of of a lower income mix as well. So, I Sean, do you I I do you want me to go forward with this? Um, yeah. One second, though. I just
want to give Cindy a chance to ask her question first. Thank you. Two things actually. First is I have a very unstable connection. So if you lose me, you'll still have four people. Um second through you Sean to Rick. You're talking about 31 I'm
unclear. Is that individuals or is that units? What are you what's talking 31 households? 31 units. 31 households. Okay. So there are 35 unrennovated, right? And some of the original tenants who are
occupied uh occupying those have left. Mhm. So out of those, so there's 31 original households, 35 units. So the four other are those units that are occupied by new tenants, but
they are occupied by new new tenants, but they amazingly they still income qualify. Okay. So they're below 60%. So, so um and and the the 30 all of the the 35 below 60 units
will be identically equal to 35 voucher units. So, I have another question. Yes, please. Uh I this is where I'm not familiar with the MVP um vouchers. What is usually? Aren't
they usually at 50% or below or Amazingly? Uh, I learned I thought they were 60% or below. Um, amazingly they're 80% or below. Really? Yep. I was shocked to hear that. But to Dick Bower, you
how do they find how do they take people in? Because does a lower income have higher priority in our the the tenant selection plan that we did on the sort of similar deal.
Um has higher priorities for lower income. Exactly. So I guess the next question is and the next request is could you get us the MMVP voucher program guidelines? Yes, let me try to track those down. Um
and again I that I've been I've been work I've been working with my folks um to make sure that we're going to be able to do these kinds of things with these kinds of preferences. Um, and so just today they sent me, like I said, an
analogous agreement, but I think what they've told me is, you know, there's the standard program guidelines and then there's what you negotiate with them. Um, so I'm just trying to find the right person at ELC um to have a conversation
with to make sure that, you know, we're getting from them what we expect we're getting from them and what we need. Okay, let me jump in here. Yeah, if I could. I'm sorry. And I'm one of the lawyers
representing DCTA. Um, and I wanted to touch on a couple questions that people have asked about. Um, so, uh, on the MRV, MRVP, um, it's primarily a tenant-based voucher system like section 8 vouchers.
So, there's a set of standard rules. Um, and those are easy for us to get to you. Um, these are going to be project based. They're going to go with the units. Um, there may and as Rick said, some of those terms are going to be up for negotiation. So, there may not be a formal set of rules that we can point
to. It's stuff that's going to have to get worked out. Um, and that's going to be true for tenant selection as well. So, I know there have been questions about priorities here. Um, and what about existing residents? And the usual rule
for project-based is that existing residents get preference even if they don't necessarily qualify for the highest priority because part of the goal is to avoid displacement. This has been, as you know, a four-year campaign
um to be able to keep Devon's crest affordable and particularly keep it affordable for the existing residents who are still there. Um and so our our hope and expectation but not nailed down is that um HLC will agree the the priorities as Rick said
would be for the existing residents um even if they might not have that same priority coming in from outside because the the highest priority is to be able to make sure that they don't get displaced. Okay. Did you also
were there other loose ends um that it would be helpful to have more information about? I'm just I'm curious that um you said for the MRVP that you're hoping it would be a 15 to 20 year contract. What What does that mean? Like in a current like
currently if places have a contract, does it usually renew? And it's just that's something you can't like predict down the in the future, but yes. Okay. They they we we you know I don't know how long, Dick, how long's the program
been around and and it keeps renewing. Thank the Lord. Um and it's a state program, not a federal program. So, you know, it's probably a lot easier to go bang on Jaime's door than to go to Washington and try to get Nameless, Faceless HUD to
to to give the money. Um so, um you know, and everybody kind of just assumes it's always going to get renewed, right? Okay. Any other questions, comments, concerns?
We just um we've got and I'm looking at my little spreadsheet here. Um, the vast majority of the original tenants
are below 50%. And it looks like there are three 17 or 18 below 30%. So out of the gate, the profile is going
to look really good, right? So then the only question becomes whether we sort of deed restrict that a, you know, a turnover a 30 has to be a 30, a 50 has to be a 50 and a 60 has to be a 60 or what those numbers would be. Okay.
And that's all I'm saying. And it can there can be a deed restriction. Everything you're talking about can be 60% but a if there's not vouchers because you cannot maintain a property much less than that unless you have
really deep subsidies. Yeah, we we've got a problem if the vouchers go away. Um we've got a problem um collecting only 30 of 60 um you know so you know we've already
factored that risk in Mhm. and it just gets worse if you've got you know people who you know are further away from being able to pay 30 or 60. But but we understand and then our goals our
goals are totally aligned. The more the more lower income subsidized folks we can have the the the better for everybody and certainly the state would agree. If
just a so say these um units are deed restricted for affordable for in perpetuity 99 years whatever but what happens if a contract for MRVP is not
renewed and then you're stuck without the subsidy but you have these units that are still deed restricted we're we're then kept at 30% of 60% %. So we would lose two or three $400 a
month in income on 35 units. And again, that's already sort of factored in when the investor looks at the risk and hopefully the investor will have sold to DCTA in year 10. Um, but one way or
another, this investor will be out. So, you know, they're underwriting the risk of something that could happen, you know, six years after they own it. So it's a you know on a net present value basis you know they can deal with it. Okay. Just curious
any other questions or comments on So I want to um circle back if I could. Um so Rick had mentioned discussions about um using some of this money to um to buy down some of the 80% units down
to 60%. Um, so then the rents instead of being, we're talking now about the other 79, instead of the rents being 30% of 80%. Um, they would come down to 30% of 60%. So they would be, um, much much more
affordable. Um, and, uh, and the priority is to use as much as possible of the town money for that purpose. Um when we had uh been here before, we had talked about using money for renovations
for the for the uh 35 units. Um do you want to talk Rick about uh change in emphasis? Yeah, and Dick, sorry I you know I I meant to bring that up earlier and we've been sort of moving on to other things,
but we did want to raise that issue. Um, we went back um to DCTA um and talked to a bunch of lawyers including people with experience in public
procurement and all of that. Um, and there's all kinds of obstacles um, and the lawyers can describe them better than I can to to using the 5,000 uh to pay for construction. um you open
up all kinds of procurement issues, three bids, you know, um and it's just a tiny part, right? So, you know, 5,000 * 35 is $175,000 out of what's going to be a 5.5 or $6
million construction budget. So, um, what the tenants have been advocating for that we thought would be something that the state would be eager to see um and that would be good for you folks and
your mission is um to use all of the money um that we get from the town um from whoever um to buy down units um to to to to buy down units from 80% to 60%
so that you know uh uh perhaps at the end of uh when when DCTA when DCTTA buys it in 10 years they'll be 38 or 39 below 60 units you know deed restricted forever instead of just 35
and I think when we covered this during our last meeting it was that the same amount would would get one possibly two additional units. Is that um yeah. So um the our our total ask of
of 570 would probably get five maybe six additional units. Have you come up with a number um of what you need for that um fund per unit to buy it down?
Yeah. And I and I think um I I think it was like 70,000 for a twobedroom and like 110 or 120 for a threebedroom and that would be for the 30 years. Um,
is that is that 30 years is what we said, right, Dick? Is that is that how we did that math? That's what we agreed upon was 30 years. Um, yes. Yes. And what are you what is the deed restriction you're thinking of overall?
So I think if we were to go and buy down an 80 to 60, I think Dick, correct me if I'm wrong, we would go in and amend the use restriction so that instead of
specifying 35 below 60, it would then for 99 years be 36 below 60. And we would do that when when as and if. So if you were to get the full ask between
this this trust and CPC, it ideally well it would be 40 units below 60. Yeah. If all that funding right 40 or possibly 41. Okay. Yeah.
Any questions or comments on that from the board or from the trust? Yeah, I just want to make sure I'm clear. So, if we're getting 40 to 41 units, all of those, even if CPC and
affordable housing trust funds didn't go towards those original 35 units, they would all 40 get deed restrictions for the 99 years or in perpet. And it's the incremental five or six,
right? And and all of them, all 114 will get deed restricted but at different levels. So as of now it would be 35 get deed restricted at 60%. Um unless some of those come down and
then the other 79 would get deed restricted at 80%. That's as of now. Um, if there were enough town money to buy down, let's say six of the units from 80% to 60%. Then there would be 41 would
be deed restricted at 60% um and 73 would be deed restricted at 80%. So each for each increment to buy down one, there'd be one more where the restriction would go down from 80% to 60%.
which is a real big difference in affordability for the residents living there. And then the then this funding ask was figured into your overall calculations. Is your investor then willing to put up the difference
that you know so now you don't have this $570,000 from the town. they're willing to make up that difference in construction costs if we decide to use the no the the the
before the 570 right our sources and uses balance right we we you know we're going to spend X for the property property we're going to spend X for lawyers we're going to spend Y for construction and that all adds up to like 41 million and the total sources
that we're counting on are50 15 million of debt, 15 million of equity, and 10 a.5 million of um state soft debt. So the 570 is incremental. Um and I've
convinced the investors to not think of it as their money, right? So gee, we just now now we need 570,000 less equity for the sources and uses to balance because we're getting it
from someplace else. Um but to think of it as um a sinking fund, if you will, um to add more affordability over time. So it's it's it's not their money in any way, shape, or form. Okay? and and without that money then um there's no
source for additional affordability, but there'll be enough money to finish the buildings and pay the lawyers because you always got to pay the lawyers. Yes, Rick, that con that construction budget really uh with you and your your team sharpening
their pencils came down. Um, so, so yes, so it came down. Um, but other things went up. Um, and we lost 300,000 of of state money that that we thought we were going to have. So, I'm waiting and we added some scope. There were a
couple of units that that weren't as well rehabbed as we thought of the existing units. So, I'm waiting and they're now getting to seriously to to doing the drawing so they can actually put it out to bid to get us final numbers, which is about a month
away. Um, the other thing that I've learned um that's giving me some pause, but we'll work through it, is um that the investor the investor's investor um is is is is
very pnikity about what gets done up front. Um, so, um, I'm hopeful that that they won't find additional work. So, that's kind of a number that keeps moving around. Um, and and I'm comfortable right now that we're going
to be okay. Um, but um, but we shall see. Does that answer your question, Connie? Well, I I think Sean's question was, you know, if you Yeah. take $570,000 of town money out of the construction budget. You know, what what's happening with the
construction budget basically? And I right, you know, my my understanding, Rick, was that you and your team had really sharpened your pencils and you had been able to find some savings in the construction budget. I I know that there's other things in flux, but you were confident that you could still do
the the renovations work for 570,000 less basically. Yeah, as we as we sit here today, but I'm still sitting there waiting for other stuff to come out of the blue and and you know, hit us on the head. Okay. Yeah. All right. Um,
sorry. Go ahead, Connie. Sean, if I may, Sean, uh, chairman, I think tonight, um, if I might suggest, you know, we've we've got this total ask of 570 from the town and I don't have the exact number, but when we calculate what say six units
or or uh making six of the 80% units 60% units, whatever that that exact dollar amount is, just so that we don't have uh we're not like $20,000 short from the town or $10,000 over whatever that amount is. I would hope that the trust
would consider adjusting whatever we get from it and CPA, whatever it would be recommending at town meeting uh so we can just come up with an exact figure to do say six units uh reducing them from that 80% affordability to to 60%. Does
that does that make sense? Yeah. Do you think that for uh our public input session you would have those numbers be able to have that number? I'm going to defer to Rick on that one. The the the the exact per unit number for two and three
bedrooms. Yeah. Yeah. I we can do that. I've I've calculated fi five different ways. Let me just figure out what looks like the best way. Um and and and but again that was that was sort of the ballpark that I recall. Okay. So, I can have that. I'll have
that tomorrow. All right, Alicia. Alicia, you're still uh muted. Sorry. Just wanted to remind the trust that one of the things that we were concerned about last time is that to maintain our rental assistance program,
we need to have keep funds in our account. Um so that is something that um as we're looking at these numbers else we because we're not going to go for our ass till the springtime. We don't want to muddy
the waters while while DCTA is going up in front of the CPC by having our own request from the CPC. So we're waiting till spring. But in that case, we do have to our funds are a little bit different than they were shown before
because our our rental assistance program, we need to be able to fund it for next year. Alicia, could could you give us an idea on what is what would be available just so that when Rick does the calculations, we we can figure out if it's six units,
what we were talking about last time, which was 175 because I'm we need 72,000 to do per year for the rental assistance program. Um, so right in that 170 175
range. Um and and it's not impossible to come back another time as you move your project on and do another request, but we do have a couple more projects coming down the the pike right now. Um how um affordable unit housing projects coming
down the pike that we anticipate getting some requests from too. So, um, so right now where we were last time, that 175 range was what we have. If we don't go for an ask, and at this point
we can't go for an ask. We're too late to go for an ask for CPC. Um, but I think that it's better for you guys that we not on the the ballot. You know, we're not in in front of town meeting
this this fall. Yeah. while you guys are. So, I I have a quick question. The the if you were to give us 175,000, would that be a loan?
No, it's a grant, I think. Yeah. Okay. Um because I was just on the phone with all the lawyers um and and the lender and equity and and um I know that um Deck, we can take this offline. Abramitz was thinking about it
differently. Um, and I do know, um, well, we have to figure out, you know, if we're a for-profit enterprise, so, um, we have to pay taxes on a grant. So, um, uh, uh,
uh, Bramwellitz thought it was going to be a loan, a soft loan like.1%, you know, 99year term acrewing. Gabby Hen, so um, hold on.
Sorry. Um so, um well, let let us we'll cut we'll we'll work through that. Look, one way or another, we'll figure it out. Okay, Colleen. Yeah. Just a quick reminder as we talk
about these numbers and what is getting asked for from both CPC and the Affordable Housing Trust. While there might be time to think about those numbers from the housing trust side, whatever we vote on at public hearing
next week for CPC funds is what gets sent to town meeting. Town meeting can bring it down, but we can't bring it up at town meeting. So that those numbers really are important for that CPC meeting next week.
Good point, Colleen. Thank you. Um, could we get a little bit clarification? So, are we now locked in or are we not locked in until next week? This is for the CPC. I'll let Janet weigh in. I think
we just have to have whatever we vote on at next week's meeting is the final total. So it can be adjusted up until the meeting. Is that a true statement, Janet? Through the chair,
please. Okay. Um, well, during the public hearing, we can put in a number of 570 and put the warrant at 570. At town meeting itself, we can reduce it to 375
should the uh trust do the 175. So, right now the application still stands for the public hearing of 570. Okay, Colleen and Dick, does that help you? It does. Yes. Thank you very much.
Okay. So, for the I'm sorry, Janet, for for purposes of the the public hearing, we if we figured out that we actually needed 572,000 to reduce six units at 80% to 60%. Does that mean we we can't adjust the ask at
the public uh hearing that CPC is going to have? You know what? Um Connie, I haven't had that happen. So, with that, I need to um I need to verify because right now what
we have is the application and that's what goes to the public hearing and the again the application is 570. So, one good thing, one good thing is the public hearings happening on the 3, your forum, your public information
forum, um, information session, um, is going to happen on the 10th. And if need be, you know, maybe that extra $2,000 might be able to come from the trust. I'm not I'm not certain. Yeah. So, we couldn't amend we couldn't amend
a CPC application before the third is what I'm saying. Um, I believe and like I say, I think we can I I'll double check and I will let your team know because I know I got to get some stuff to you, Connie. And and what what we'll do is get back to you. I mean, Rick said he may have
numbers tomorrow as soon as possible anyway on what say six units uh you know, the fund for six units, reducing them from 80% to 60%, what what that uh dollar nut will be because you'd probably be I um to the
chair, just a quick question. Um, like if you're going to look for six units, it would be two twobedroom I mean three two bedrooms and three three bedrooms. Would you look at it that way or because the three bedrooms going to be more expensive for that sinking? I think that's right, if I may. So, I
think um it it clearly does depend on what the unit mix is. Um most of the units at Devon's Crest are two-bedroom, although there are there are a number of threebs. So, it probably my guess would be it probably wouldn't be three and three. It might be four and two or five
and one. I I want to I want to say where it's we're at 92 twos and 22 threes. Okay. Okay. All right. So, Sean, if um I I'll go ahead and I'll put that in as a to-do
and I'll find out and I'll make sure that the trust knows. Perfect. you know, and then you all will know as well for DCTA. But but it sounds like if if I could from what was said that the as of this
minute the the CPC ask is 570 by itself and then the trust is in addition to that. Not that we not that we are expecting that the total um will um that more than that but that but that the 570 was left in for just this reason
so that um we can figure out what a number is and then the CPC will come down to match it but if it ends up at say 572 as Connie said um that's okay because that would
be um 400 and something out of CPC which well below the 570 number that's currently in the CPC application. Am I understanding that right? I think so. Yeah. Yeah. So that that leaves us some wiggle room
there. Yeah. Okay. Um any other questions? Oh, sorry Denise. Um Alicia. Um so one of the re one of the things we had talked about is how valuable we think
the vouchers are. Um would you and even if we were buying down more units would you entertain uh uh contingency upon receiving the vouchers for the project? Oh yeah. Without the vouchers we don't
have a project. Okay. Yeah. So that's not that's not a problem if we put a contingency of that sort of thing in. Absolutely not. Yeah. Without the without the vouchers, there's no project. Okay.
Okay. Um any other questions from the trust before I open it up to Denise? Go ahead. Oh, Rick, did you want to say something before I talked? No, I was I was waving at somebody on the street. Sorry. Um, so I was just curious and you know I
don't want a long drawn out you know thing. I was just wondering like is it really hard to go to the public to get something like this approved and can you make any suggestions to us um how we can
present it to the public so that they don't get confused they don't think it's a waste of money you know like like for instance I'm thinking of Noah like how did they ever have to go before the town publicly yes
oh So, um, what's your thought about that? Like, you know, is there something how can we present it to the town so that they're not looking down like, oh, this is a welfare thing or, you know, oh, we don't want to waste taxpayer money, you know, all that kind of stuff. I'm just curious like, you know, what's
what is your thought process about that? Well, I think when we started this trust, um I think you'll find that the town's been very supportive of um making sure either creating affordable housing or helping people maintain
um you know, staying in their homes. So, I think the way that you guys have presented it to us, um, you know, and the benefits of having affordable housing, and that's what this really is doing is it's allowing not only residents that are already there to remain there, but, you know, it's
creating a a stock of affordable housing in the town, um, which is very much needed. So, I think that's the message that people like that resonates with people. I think also really I'm sorry, Sean. No, absolutely. Um, I I think that emphasizing that it
gets us um I'm not sure what whether it even gets us over the 10% mark that we need to hit as a town. No, no, it doesn't. Well, it's got it gets us closer. It's got to come close. It's got to come
close between Noah and this. Um, I know we don't have Noah yet, but um, we'll get into 9%. It's a Hey, that's 10% is the golden number. That's the goal. Yeah, that's the golden number to avoid having hostile
developers come in and do whatever they want. So, the more that people understand that, that it's not a matter of whether or not we have affordable housing in town, it's we have to have it or else we're vulnerable. So, I think you guys have been doing a great job of
explaining it. I think that's a good point, Cindy, to bring up. Maybe that could be a point that could be either in the documentation to the town, I don't know, or or whoever is going to talk about it. But I think that's a good point because I don't think, you know, I don't think most
people know about the percentages expected in towns or cities. So it might be, you know, even if it's a one sentence or two sentence um comment to real have them realize, look, we have these mandates by the state and we're close to our mandates or
something to that effect, you know. Yeah. Um Colleen and then Alicia. Yeah. And I also think another important talking point to the town about this is that we as a town
voted to adopt the community preservation act and to have those funds. So these are not funds that are going to come out above and beyond what people are already putting in. These are funds that the town put in because we
have a 3% search charge. we get, you know, additional money from the state and so it's there to be used for affordable housing projects. And so this is us, you know, putting that money to good use. And so I think that's another important thing. Sometimes
people from the town get nervous like, oh my gosh, now there's going to be more that we're being asked to put into taxes. This money is already there and this is a type of project that can support. And then, you know, the fact that it brings us closer to those percentages is valuable as well.
That that that's a good point, Colleen, and I I appreciate your feedback because these are points that I think are important when we bring it to the town for them to re, you know, to know that. So, I'm glad thank you for bringing that point up. and Cindy too. Alicia,
um I think that anything that you have 60% or lower will be a much easier sell to the town than 80%. 80% is moderate income for Boston Cambridge and many
many people in this town are not at 80%. And I think the more you can focus on even lower than 60%, because even 60% many people in this town will look at that and say, "Wait, I make less."
And so I think that that is something that you should keep aware of. Do people understand? This is my point about talking like a to me a lot of people don't know the AMI, the 60% AMI sometime. I don't know. Don't you think
it's more reason presentable to people that don't have that understanding to talk different numbers? Like what's your thought about that? Cuz I we talk about different numbers all the time. We do presentations and a lot of people in this town do know the
different numbers and are quite well verssed on it. Oh, okay. But I mean there's probably a lot, but there's still some people that don't really have a clue about it in a way. I I think I think I think I think Alicia you make a very
very important point. Um the the 60% number um for a fourperson household um is a number that I absolutely Alicia think people are going to say holy crap
I don't make that um right I think we got to be really careful I I it because you know we're in this weird world where you know you guys are considered to be in the Boston SMSA. You
know, I got properties in Lemonster. I don't know, not too far away. And the the the the the 60% income is probably 30% less than air. Yeah. So, you know, I I would I I I think the
points that that um Colleen uh uh and Cindy made are so right on. You've already paid You've already paid these taxes. Nobody's going to ask you for more money. This is what the money's there for. And oh, by the way, there
have been a bunch of studies um showing that one of the failures of the CPA is that while it was meant largely for affordable housing, lots of cities and towns haven't spent the money. So, good on you that you're going to spend it.
and where they have they're more likely to go buy a pristine field and call it open space preservation than to let a developer come in and build a 100 affordable units and help that. So, I mean, you guys are awesome and exemplary
um in in in not being like so many of these cities and towns. Um but that's what I would stick on is the money's already been spent. It's going to get spent. Nobody's going to have to be taxed an extra dollar. And this is what we voted uh to to to to voted to be part
of CPA for exactly this in addition to all the other great points that that that Denise and everybody else has raised. But I would stay away from advertising what the 60% rents are. Yeah. Well, hey, um Alicia, oh, sorry. I just want to say that um
one of the things that we talked about earlier was buying them down to 50 or even 30% some of those units. And the reason being is because 60% a family of four 60% AMI is 99,240.
And let me tell you, you go in there and talk to them about that and you'll get a no vote 100%. Um, and so are you sure you don't want us to buy some down to 30 and 40 or 50 and 30 at
just what I think I will put together is at whether it's perpetual or not. Um, like I said,
what did I say 17 or eight? I think no I think I said that there's a really big number that are below 50 and a non-trivial number that are below 30 of the people who will count at least in the beginning and these are your friends and neighbors.
You see them at the supermarket. Yeah, it was 18 below 30 and 14 below 50. Yeah. So, you know, the original profile is going to be, you know, very deeply subsidized for very low incomes. And
then the only question is again is can we can we get to some language that everybody can agree to to say that in addition to the six below 50, we can have a tier below 30. And again, I'm all for that. I just got to sell it to the investor.
And can I say one thing, too? So like it's not always about a family of four with the amount of income and and we have you know and and it's per household. So it's like there could be like three people working making $35,000
each and that's like almost $100,000. So I have I think it's it's an important point to remind people that even though it sounds like a high income like not not the one person is making a h 100,000
it's a combination of household income a a two a two a twoerson household it's right around 82,000 I think so it does go down in a in a oneperson household it's
67 Yeah. Yeah. So, I think that's an important point to bring up, too, because you know, like if they do hear like a hundred thousand, it sounds like, wow, that is high. But we have to remember that that could be three people making 30,000 each.
Um, okay. I'm going to go with um I'm going to go with Alicia and then Dick and then we're going to move on um to the next. I'm just going to give you a statistic. Okay. 50% of heirs households make
$100,000 or less. 50%. So just for your information. Thanks, Alicia. Dick. Thank you. Dick, you're muted. Thank you.
Um, so as as Rick has said, he's going to um take a look about whether out of the the folks that were already there that we're talking about, whether some of those units can get reduced. Um, that doesn't in the short term require
money because the MRVPs will cover that. The question is sort of long-term uh commitment that goes with reducing those. for the folks who are not going to have MRVPs. Um, each increment we take it down takes more money, which
means fewer buy downs. So, you know, maybe we could do six buy downs down to 60%. That same amount of money might only get us three buy downs to 50%. So, we get a lower cap, we get lower rents, but for a smaller number of
people. So, we then have to think about the trade-offs. Is it better to have more units down to 60 or fewer units down to 50? There's no right answer, but I just wanted to note that there is a trade-off there. I will produce a grid and on one on the
down the the left column will be two-bedroom and threebedroom. In the um across the top will be 50 and 60. and I will calculate the cost to buy down an 80 to a 60 for a two-bedroom and 80 to a 60 for a threebedroom and the same for a
50. Okay, produce that tomorrow. All right, great. Thank you. Um, and I think I I'm going to guess this pretty much covers most of the questions that we had and
sounds like we're able to move forward to uh planning for the public information and listening session on 9:10. Um, I think it sounds like you guys um Denise had some good questions. you guys have some a little bit of guidance from
us on what might be most beneficial and appropriate for uh that public input session and then um if you can get us all the paperwork beforehand that Alicia talked about at the beginning. Um
yeah, and Alicia I can you can confirm through Connie or with me directly what you have and what you don't have and I'll make sure I get you everything you don't have. Great. Okay. Thank you all so so very much. We are so grateful to you all. All right. Any other questions, comments, or anything before we
Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. Absolutely. Um All right. With that, I will take a motion to adjourn. So move. All right. Um Cindy, how do you vote? Second. Oh, I guess for a second. Yes. Thank
you. All right. Cindy, how do you vote? I. Pauline, how do you vote? Hi, Jonathan. How do you vote? Hi. And um is Bob still here? Looks like we lost Bob. Okay. And the
chair says I. All right. Thank you everybody. We're adjourned. Thanks everybody.