Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the March 10th, 2026 meeting of the Cadam Finance Committee. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet
device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025
extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general general laws chapter 38 section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chadam finance committee
is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in
progress may do so by calling the telephone number. One area code 508-9454410 with a conference ID number of 181231120 pound sign or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in
the posted agenda. I'll now call the roll. Stephen Daniel is not here. Andy Young is here. John Sprag >> here. >> Barb Madison >> here. >> John Pablardo >> here. >> Kristen Andres >> here.
>> Tracy Shields >> here. >> What a wonderful thing. Tommy D >> here. >> Eric Whitley >> here. That's great. That's always nice to see. All right. Okay. Okay, where everybody's here. We
have a relatively brief agenda, we believe. And we have Gloria McFersonson. Looks like she may be online. >> Carrie. >> Yeah. So, um Gloria McFersonson will be going um the housing and sustainability
director. She'll be going over um the articles listed on the agenda. Um the home rule petition for attainable housing restrictions and year-round housing occupancy restrictions. Um, appropriation from the Attainable Housing Special Revenue Fund for lease to locals program, an appropriation from
the Attainable Housing Special Revenue Fund for the Stepping Stones Road, um, and acceptance of the request from the estate of Patricia Ford, um, which is, uh, 63 George Ryder Road. Okay,
>> great. Thank you, Carrie. Should we turn it right over to Gloria? Hi everyone. >> Sounds like it. Go ahead, Gloria. >> Hi. Um, >> you're on mute, >> I believe. >> I >> There you are.
>> Can you hear me now? >> We can. >> Great. Sorry. Sorry about that. Um, what was the first one again? Was it the home roll petition? >> The home rule petition for attainable housing restrictions and year-round
housing occupancy deed restrictions. >> Perfect. I'm going to share my screen if that's okay. That was one of the articles where town council made um a couple of changes.
Can you guys see that? >> Yes. >> Let me get to the the part where there's edits. So there it's it's not a huge edit, but I did want you guys to see it. Um so basically if you read my staff report which was
written for the select board um mass general laws um allows certain restrictions to be held in perpetuity including affordable housing restrictions, watershed restrictions, conservation restrictions, historic preservation restrictions
um but not attainable housing restrictions or year-round housing occupancy restrictions. So those two types of restrictions were recently um adopted by the town of Chadam under seasonal communities at last town
meetings. So we're allowed to do those restrictions, but right now we're not allowed to do them in perpetuity. And um if you can't do a restriction in perpetuity because it's not mentioned under the pertinent statute, then there's a default time limit to the
restriction of 30 years. and we want to correct that and we want to put it out there um as a possibility that the town of Chadam, if we were to do attainable housing restrictions or year-round housing occupancy restrictions, that we
would in fact be able to hold those in perpetuity. And I think back about the chop properties and how those were 40-year deed restrictions, which I think at the time everyone probably thought, 40 years, that's fabulous. But now that the 40 years is upon us, I think that
there's a general consensus that it would have been um nice to have those in perpetuity. And so as we move into kind of that next phase of housing where we start looking at those higher income levels, the attainable income levels from 100 to 200% AMI, I think it's going
to be really important that if the town were to subsidize those types of deed restrictions or year- round housing occupancy deed restrictions, um that in return for our investment, um we would be able to do those restrictions in perpetuity. And that's the point of the
um the home rule petition. You can see that town council added a section two um and that just references um a part of the um statute chapter 184 which talks about these restrictions
that talks about how affordable housing restrictions are held which is by the um executive office of housing and livable communities EOHLC. and he added a note that when we do attainable or year-round housing occupancy restrictions, they would not
be mandated to be held by the EOHLC, which and at this time at this time they wouldn't want them anyway. They only deal with affordable housing restrictions. Um, but we just wanted to cover our bases with that. Um, are there any questions?
>> Thank you, Gloria. Barbara, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so Gloria, if we get this passed right away, then it will cover when and if the chop houses come up and we do something with them, um, it will cover them as well.
So, this is totally unrelated to the chop properties. The chop properties were affordable housing. Um, so they would have they had affordable housing restrictions. I suppose if we did a deed restriction program for attainable
housing, um we could potentially end up buying um or acquiring attainable housing restrictions on the CHOP properties. Um in which case this would apply. We would never we would never be doing a a restriction program that would be specifically targeted at a particular
neighborhood. Any deed restriction program that the town did would have to be townwide. We might capture some chop properties, but it wouldn't be targeted to them. >> No, I didn't mean that they'd be targeted. I just meant that if we did something to make them uh to extend the
affordable restriction, if they would then fall under this category and we could make it in perpetuity. So, I think that it's likely that if we were to do that, it they would um fall under attainable housing rather than affordable, even though they were
originally affordable. Um the buy down for an affordable restriction would be really financially prohibitive, but the buy down for an attainable housing restriction, which this would cover, would be um more reasonable. >> Okay. Um and then just a second question
if I could, Mr. Chair. um the Pat Ford house that we're going to be talking about shortly. Does this have any effect at all on that or does her will take care of saying that it will be in perpetuity and we can abide by that? >> So, this wouldn't apply to that because
Pat Ford's will actually requires um the property to be used for for affordable housing purposes and this home rule petition is only for attainable and year round. >> Okay. So Pat Pat Ford's um affordable property would not be covered under this, but it wouldn't have to be because
affordable restrictions can be held in perpetuity. >> Okay. Thanks, Gloria. >> Thank you. Other questions, members of the finance committee? No, doesn't look like it. Anybody in the audience? Anybody online?
I don't see a waving hand, so I guess maybe I'm safe to say there's nothing more. All right. Um, Gloria, do we want to move on to the next one? >> Sure. Um, what is next on your agenda?
So, I can share that >> potentially. >> That is the um appropriation from the attainable housing special revenue fund for lease to locals. >> Okay. So, I don't need to sh I don't need to share that because there's
actually no changes made by town council for that. So, what's in your packet um is the actual article that's been vetted by town council. Um so, the town through a home petition established a um special
was it a home petition? I don't I don't know if it was or not, but we established a special revenue fund specifically for the purposes of funding attainable housing projects and programs. Attainable housing being 100% AMI up to 200%.
That fund is funded through 1% of our short-term tax rental tax revenues, which is deposited quarterly into the account. Um, and so I had gone before the select board a month or two ago to describe um, what we would need to
establish a lease to locals program in Chadam. And um it would be similar to Lisa Loko's programs that are already being um done in Province Town, Orleans, East Ham, Chillmark, Nantucket, and a lot of
places out west too in in uh Colorado, in Idaho, and in California. So there's a there's a bunch of these programs around primarily focused on tourist uh tourist communities that are, you know, hit hard where housing um matters
because of short-term rentals. So what this program would do is take a certain amount of subsidy, give it to the landlord in exchange for a landlord/propy owner renting year round as opposed to short-term rentals. It
really is basically pri providing a financial incentive to convert short-term rentals to year-round rentals. Um, and that's would be funded by the attainable housing trust fund, which means that anyone who would be a
tenant in those properties would have to be income qualified at an attainable level. So, up to 200% AMI. And this was at the request of the select board. Okay.
Uh question, Gloria. The um the sorry, the financial aspect of this is kind of ambiguous at this point. You know, is the 312,000, you know, actually a calculated number
or is it kind of a jump ball? Because presumably homeowners need to be given sufficient incentive to lease a local, but not too much incentive. we hope to lease the locals. How's that been figured out?
>> So, this was an actual number. Um, I can actually get my staff report to the select board and send it to Carrie so she could distribute it. It had to do with the costs that were um born by the programs on the Cape and also Nantucket
and Chillmark. And it includes Yeah, it's really itemized actually. It includes like a year of program administration. It includes um some money, I think it's $12,000 for advertising to get the word out there. It includes the costs of the actual
subsidies themselves. Like I don't think in the first year that we're going to use the full 312,500 because I think until the word gets out, I don't think that we're going to maximize the number of properties. Um we did fund it up to um potentially 20
properties which is what um East Ham and Orleans do. Province Town does up to 30. Uh Nantucket also does up to 30. I think it makes sense to limit it to 20 like our immediate neighbors do. Um but like I said, I don't anticipate in that first
year getting all 20, but we did fund it for 20 properties just in case. >> Interesting. Uh go ahead, John. >> Yeah. Thank you, Gloria. I I read the memo. Um, what type of subsidy would a
homeowner expect to receive? How do you determine the delta between fair market and what the program is willing to pay? >> So, the so the delta is not going to be real. We're not we're not actually covering the full gap between what they
can get for a short-term rental and what they can get for a year- round lease. Um, typically the programs that are already in place on the Cape have um caps that they can give to um property owners depending on the number of bedrooms and the number of tenants. And
so the maximum subsidy in East Ham and Orleans is $15,000 per year. And that would be for like a threebedroom with three tenants housed. Um like a two-bedroom would be $10,000 for two bedrooms and two tenants. and a single
bedroom or a studio would get $5,000. So, Chadam would have its own program and would be able to develop um the parameters for that and what what the payments would be. But that's basically what our neighbors are doing. And so, when you think about it, I don't know
that, you know, 5,000 or 10,000 or even 15,000 would necessarily close the gap between a short-term rental and a and a year-end lease. But we're hoping that there are other factors that would make people want to do that as they have in other towns. Um supporting the local
community is one of them and also just um perhaps less wear and tear than having people in and out every few days or every week for a short-term rental. >> That's helpful. Thank you. Um I just note also in the memo there appears to be an inversion of uh
the 312500 under background and analysis. It's written 132500. >> Oh, I did not notice that, but I appreciate your catching that. >> Sure. >> We'll edit that before it uh before it
goes to town meeting. Thank you. Sorry about that. >> Barbara, you still have a question. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Eric, >> um, Gloria, you talk in there about in your memo about a program administrator
and that the program administrator is an outside source, but it's not somebody that we're going to hire. Did you What were you meaning by that? What did you have in mind? >> So, it's not a new staff person that we would hire, but it is an outside consultant that we would hire. So, it's
not what I what I meant was no new staff positions are included in this ask. So, we're not going to have to pay salary plus benefits or anything. So, every other community on the Cape and the islands that have done this have hired an outside consultant to be the program
administrator and they look at um tenant income. They certify the properties. They certify tenants based on um income and um they help match tenants with landlords. And it's not something that's within the
skill set of the staff that we already have in town hall. And especially when you talk about like income verifying, it's not anything that the town really wants to get involved in. Like we don't want to collect people's W2 forms. We don't want to have their social security
numbers and and all of these other things. And we don't want to have to verify our own residents um and their incomes for this. So that's I think the reason why other towns have kind of like farmed this out to a consultant which we intend to do also.
>> Okay. Thanks >> Eric. >> Uh thank you. So you mentioned um conver you know trying to convince people that are already using them properties for short-term rentals to participate. Um, what about properties that are already
renting to locals um and not not necessarily as short-term, but uh would qualify for their current tenants. >> So, none of the none of the other programs actually um pay to subsidize people who are currently renting year
round because they're already renting year round. This is really with the goal of converting short-term rentals into long-term rentals. So, if you're already leasing year round, you wouldn't qualify for this. >> Thank you, Kristen. Please.
>> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. But, um, Barbara already asked my question and got the answer. Thank you, Barbara. >> Okay. Please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this would become a a part of our budget and it would include the program administrator
and any subsidies we had to pay out. So what are you projecting to be a number that we would be plugging into our annual budget to take care of this program? >> So this I think it would be similar to
this. We'll have more information if we um get this approved at town meeting and actually institute the program. But um on an annual basis, I anticipate it would be a little bit less than this because this 312,000
number also includes the initial establishment of the program and the program guidelines and and things like that. So that's equivalent to one month of the program administrator fee. So subsequent years we would have that cost
that wouldn't be included anymore. It wouldn't need to be. And we would also have maybe a better sense of how many property owners we could anticipate um wanting to participate. So if we realize that it's really just 10, then we wouldn't necessarily have to appropriate
um enough money to subsidize 20. >> So right now we have a lot of questions still about this program. What it would would it become annual? Would it become something that as an expense every year?
and whether we have a program director or not. >> So, other communities do this every year. Um, some towns like East Ham and Orleans only provide one year of subsidy for property owners who choose to lease
year round. Other programs like Nantucket and Province Town um do three years up to three years of subsidy with each year the subsidy dropping a little bit. So the first year they'd get 100%, the second year you know 75%, the third year 50% say. So it's possible that
individual property owners could do um up to you know two or three or or more years if Chadam wanted to subsidize it more. We could really develop a program to suit um the needs of the community and the wants of the community. Um so
there's that which would make it come back every year. Um or at some point, you know, we can evaluate how it's doing. We can do a costbenefit analysis of how much it costs and how many people are housed. Um and you could determine to move forward or or not with it. But
the way the program stands right now in other communities, it's an annual ask of town meeting, but it's not necessarily for the same pro um properties. So you haven't come up yet with a like for the first year what it so we could
tell the town meeting what it would cost to run for the first year. >> It would be $312,000 and $500. Okay. If we were to subsidize if we were to subsidize up to 20 properties. If there are fewer properties that choose to
participate, we would not spend the full appropriation. And that includes the program director. >> It does. It does. This is like the full >> for one year maximizing the number of properties.
>> Tracy. >> Um, hi. Thank you. So, it my understanding from what we read is that it's not going it wouldn't be coming out of a budget or even a a capital expense. It's coming from the account that is
already drawing money from the short-term rental. Correct. >> Correct. So, there's no impact on the actual town budget. This is a fund that is, like I mentioned earlier, funded through short-term rental tax revenue, and that money is sitting there um
waiting to be spent on attainable housing projects and programs. >> Thank you. Eric, do you still have a question? >> No, I was going to make that same point. Okay, John. >> Gloria, um trying to understand how this
would function. It from the memo, it sounds like a potential rentor would approach the program, get verified and pre-approved, sort of like a mortgage, and then would approach
uh a potential landlord. So, the program administrator would do outreach in two different ways. They would outreach to the general public to see who wants to rent, and you're right, the renters would apply to the the program through an through a a web
portal that the program administrator makes, but outreach would also be made to property owners who could potentially be interested in the program. And like tenants, they would also apply to the program through the portal. So you'd have you'd have two different groups
applying, potential tenants, potential property owners who want to lease year round. And that's where the program administrator starts all of their verification verifying the property that honestly that it exists um that it has the number of bedrooms it says it has,
things like that. They do income verification on the tenants and then they ma quote match up um the tenants and the potential landlords really based on household size. So if you have a landlord that has a property with one
bedroom, it doesn't make sense for tenants with four people to, you know, a household with four people um to apply for that. So that they would put them in touch. Um but then the tenants apply directly to the landlord. Um and yeah, and the landlord makes the final
decision. But it is kind of like a matchmaking service in that respect. >> So in order for a property to be qualified or pre-qualified for the program, it has to have demonstrated a short-term rental history.
>> Either short-term rental history or no rental history. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, Gloria, I I've got a sort of a related question. First, a very minor one. In the write up that we received, it says the use of attainable housing
funds does not impact the town's budget as 1% of the town's short-term rental tax revenues are automatically deposited into the fund. Do you mean 1 percentage point or 1%? Um my understanding is that 1% goes into
the attainable housing fund, 1% goes into an account for um the school district. Okay. >> So I think it's 1% but Carrie would probably be able to answer that better. >> Carrie's eager to answer that. >> It is 1%. 1% goes into the attainable
housing uh special revenue fund >> and then 1% goes into the Chattam Elementary School fund. >> Right. No, I appreciate it because I I first read that and thought it really literally meant one percentage point. >> Oh, yeah.
>> Okay. Others, uh, Tracy, were you wagging at me? No. Okay. Please go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have one final question. So, what if we decide after the first year, we being the
taxpayers and the administration, we don't like it. How do we change? Do we just stop or are or is there an obligation there? >> There's no obligation at all. And in fact, the burden is on me so that if we
do want to continue a second year, I would put forth um a another warrant article next year for funding for it. Um all of the leases that are done through lease to locals are for one year. >> Okay. >> So, it really it really is a one-year program. There's no automatic renewal.
Um it would have to be voted on by town meeting every subsequent year. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Kristen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Gloria, I'm just curious how the success in these other towns um how has it been? Uh
what's the success in these other towns? >> So, the success has varied. So, Province Towns been very successful. I think that we have something like oh 50 properties in the program and like 74 people housed. So Provincetown has
been really successful but they've also been at it for a little bit longer. Um East Ham and Orleans actually do a joint program together and I want to say they have and they just started last year. I'm going to say they have nine
properties in the program and um maybe 20 people house something or 20 24 house something like that. I'm not sure of the exact numbers. Um a lot less than Province Town but a lot newer the program. >> Thank you.
>> So that's why I think that the first year I don't think we're going to we're I don't think we're going to maximize the 20 properties. >> Go ahead Barbara. >> Thanks Mr. Chair. So Gloria, it's possible that we'll have, you know, 10 or 20 properties and, you know, dozens
of families who are interested in it. >> So lots of different people. >> Well, we can only do so much. >> Exactly. Exactly. I mean, so that's the other side of this because this would be an annual request. If we see that it's really successful, if we see that
there's a lot of demand, if we decide to extend the subsidy for like two or three years per property, I mean, these are all things that we can make decisions on after the program's been in place for a year or two years.
>> Gloria, I I have a maybe a more general question. Um, this at least by its title, this appears to be to incentivize property owners who are currently renting out on a short-term basis to convert to longer term and to narrow it further to locals
and within certain income guidelines and so forth. But there certainly is a possibility that we could have landlord, for instance, Eric, I mean, you asked kind of this question. They're renting to a local who would otherwise qualify,
but at the time they're being stretched to pay what the landlord considers to be a market rate. You know, are are they disqualified from applying for this? >> Is who disqualified?
>> The landlord or or the tenant? Presumably the tenant, but you've got to match the tenant to a landlord. Not I'm not 100% sure I understand your question. I know that >> there are some towns that do rental caps as part of their program guidelines.
East Ham and Orleans don't. Um Province Town and Nantucket do. So it's possible that when we develop this program with whoever we select as a program administrator, we do put those kinds of parameters on it so that a maximum rent
can be charged. Well, I mean that the text says because of the funding source there would necessarily be an income cap for tenants of up to 200% >> money in this case. >> Right. >> Right. So that so that would be true like like ten potential tenants would
have to be income qualified. >> Mhm. Right. And you know up to 200% AMI uh suggests a certain rental rent capacity, right?
Um, I guess so. Yeah. I mean, typically in this from a housing perspective in um in our area, kind of the the lower cape, not so much the outer cape, um, market rate rents tend to fall at about
maybe 110% AMI. So, it might be it might be something that the town would would consider to put rental caps so that landlords didn't charge more than what they would normally charge >> um to rent at those income levels or not
depending on what the town wants to do. East Hammond New Orleans does not do that. They don't have rental caps and the program so far seems to be working because like I said the average market rate rent in this area tends to
fall around 110% AMI. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions from finance committee? Doesn't look like it. Anybody online? No. Anybody in the audience? >> Doesn't look like it. All right. Then let's move on to the third. >> Did you want us to vote on any of these
or are we voting on any of these today? >> We are going to. >> Oh, >> yes. Yeah. Uh the last one has to do with uh the Ford property. >> Okay. Let me share my screen for that one because >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. The next one is the
attainable housing revenue fund for stepping stones. >> Oh, stepping stones. Okay. Um Okay. Sharing my screen for that. Can you guys all see it? Yes. >> Okay. So >> um Okay. So this is the same revenue
source as for lease to locals. It um is that attainable housing fund. It's the repository for 1% of the short-term rental tax revenue. It's a fund that is um dedicated to attainable housing projects and programs and the funding is
there waiting to be used. So, as you guys might might know, the town put out a request for proposals for the development of the Stepping Stones Road property. We received uh one application from Housing Assistance Corp um in
formerly known as Hack um and they did a total of 14 uh dup 14 units in seven duplex structures on the property. It was wellreceived by the evaluation committee. Um they highly recommended it. The town manager acting as chief
procurement officer went before the select board to have the select board affirm her decision to award the development rights to Hack. um and the select board members um did so unanimously. So now we have this, you
know, out there and because it's a home ownership project and because projects don't have the benefit of state and federal funding sources, this is a project that's going to have to be subsidized by the town. Um and the ask
of $2.1 million is the ask of the developer in the proposal that they put forward. So um I think I I got into it in the staff report a little bit that when we subsidize the development of affordable
and attainable housing on the Stepping Stones Road property, we're going to do it proportionally. So, a certain percentage is going to come from the affordable housing trust fund and a certain percentage is going to come from the attainable housing trust fund. Neither one of those funds has any
impact on the town budget. Both of those funds have money in there right now that are ready to be applied to this program. Affordable housing trust funds can be used for the affordable component of the project, which happens to be four out of the 14 units. Um and that those funds
require just a um supermajority vote of the um affordable housing trust fund board of trustees. Um attainable housing funds will be used for 10 out of 14 um units on the on the project and those
funds need a majority vote at town meeting. So that's what this article is for. It's not to fund the affordable component. It's only to fund the attainable component of this project. And I wanted to explain that even though the developers total ask was 2100 uh
2100 that would have been nice. Um 2.1 million um I wrote it in the Warren article up to 2.1 million for the attainable housing component. We may not use it all, but I think that as we go through
the negotiation process with the land disposition agreement and as hack starts to do some of their site engineering and figuring out how they're going to connect to the sewer and and pump up to it and all these things, I think that there are potential are potentially some
additional costs. And I think I mentioned if the town wants solar panels installed, the proposal didn't didn't provide solar panels, but if we want those, that would be an additional cost. And I just want to make sure that there is a little bit of cushion in what we were asking from the attainable fund so
that if the town does ask for more, um, we don't have to have a special town meeting in the fall to get it. >> Okay, Eric, please. >> Oh, and actually, I wanted to I wanted to make one other note on this. So,
um the part on the screen where it says and to authorize the town to convey or lease said property there. So, that was added um by town council and um through a lot of confusion and everything, it actually did not get deleted in the
version that you were sent. And the reason it's going to be deleted is that um town meeting when it authorized the change of use for a portion of the Monoy Regional School District's property um from you know school use to affordable
and attainable housing. This was town meeting 2023. They actually authorized the town to convey or lease the property and they authorized the town to do affordable restrictions on the property. So, we don't need that there. So,
actually, this this just needs to be stricken. And that was in the version that you guys um had in your in your packet, but I just wanted to let you know that we're taking out that line because those authoriz authorizations were already granted.
>> Eric, please. >> Thank you. Um, so the 2.1 that comes from the the trust fund makes makes sense. Where does the rest of the money come from? How is it how is it funded u to to get to completion of the project?
>> So, this is an ownership project. So, a lot of the funding is going to come from a construction loan that's later paid off with the sale of the units. And as a town, we are we're a really good partner for developers. Actually, we've gotten a lot of grant funds. And in fact, we got
a $175,000 seasonal communities grant um specifically for the pre-development costs of this. So, as they're working through their surveys and their um site design and engineering, um they can draw in the funds that the town received for
that. Um there are other grant opportunities that we'll be able to um potentially tap into. So, that'll help, but primarily it's funded through a construction loan that's paid off with the sale of the units. Really what we're doing is we're funding the gap between
um the actual construction costs and what they can sell the the buildings for at those affordable and emptyable um income levels. >> Okay, thanks. Yeah, I I thought that might be the answer. It seems it and I haven't seen any of the math. It seems
like the gap would probably be bigger than that. But but um but >> I have to say I agree with that. like when the proposal came in, I was actually anticipating um a bigger gap. Part of the reason that I think that it makes sense to do a warrant article for
2.1 million as opposed to like parsing it all the way down, I think it was like 1.5 something um that was the proportion um if we didn't ask for that buffer. >> All right. Thank you, Barbara. Do you have a question?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So chances are there won't be any return of those cushion funds. Um my question was since the state has no involvement in any of the funding for the attainable portion of the property, they will have
no say over who will be able to occupy it. Correct. I mean so we won't be limited to like 70% of local um occupancy. We can do whatever we want with occupancy in terms of finding the buyers the occupiers of the property.
Correct. >> So yes. Yes. With caveats. So local preference only applies to affordable units. So we can actually um if we choose to apply a local preference following state law um with the
affordable units. So four units we can apply local preference to. those affordable housing deed restrictions are actually going to be um held in party with the state um because they're affordable and we want those units on our subsidized housing inventory.
Regarding the other units which are attainable, so there aren't there aren't the strict uh processes and procedures in statute for attainable housing that there are for affordable housing. That said, um we
tend to follow those processes so that it's fair, so that we'll conduct a lottery for these. For instance, we're not going to, you know, handpick um who's going to go into that. We should do a fair process. Um especially because I imagine there'll be more than, you
know, 10 families locally that want to potentially use those. And actually, as we're constructing these, if we actually have a lease to locals program, lease to locals is a great stop gap measure for people who are about to lose their housing, but if they can hold on for
like another year or two, then you know the development on Stepping Stones Road will be um developed up and coming. Um so yeah, so we'll probably follow the same processes regarding the lottery. The other uh potential caveat is that if
we apply um some of the preferences that were allowed under seasonal communities and this is something that we can work out in the LDA which we're just starting to um negotiate with the developer right now and I can't give you any more information on that um other than we're starting but it would be possible to
apply some of those preferences for either like municipal employees or or artist housing to these um units as Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Um, Cory, I have a question that actually pertains to one
of the earlier articles, I assume the affordable housing units are going to go out with restrictions in perpetuity. What about the attainable units? >> The reason that home rule petition is on is on the warrant. So right now an
attainable housing restriction would default to a term of 30 years. Um we don't want that. Um we want them in perpetuity. I'm working with town council for some language within the deed restrictions that would be you know in perpetuity or the longest period
allowed by by law. Some way that we could potentially capture like a future time when these deed restrictions are allowed in perpetuity. It's all it's all being worked out right now. I don't have any um definitive answers, but yeah,
that was a a big concern of mine that, you know, we have the ability to do these um attainable restrictions or year- round restrictions um but they're they're currently limited to 30 years. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Gloria. Are there members of the finance committee?
Gloria, please go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This all sounds very complicated. However, providing as much of attainable and affordable housing for Chattam residents is complicated and it it's not an easy job.
And it's good that we get started on it and work out the kinks and see what's good and what isn't. But every time we say, well, this doesn't come from the budget. Well, it does come from the taxpayer because the taxpayer has that
uh on their on the on top of their tax bill, they pay a percentage for these kind of projects. >> I don't I don't believe so. when you're taking it out of the
community uh preservation funds where these where >> oh I we haven't asked for community preservation funds for these projects. This is an ask for the attainable housing fund. I mean, I suppose it's possible that the
developer hack um will go before the CPC and ask for uh Community Preservation Act funds, but currently there's no um intention to do that. But I'm not saying that it might not not happen, but right now that that hasn't been discussed at
all. >> So, um these funds that Gloria is requesting is from the Attainable Housing Trust Fund. um not trust fund, special revenue fund. >> And where does that come from? >> It's the 1% um on the short-term rentals, the
additional 1% that's put into here. It's just like the lease to locals that she was requesting the funds from, it's the same account. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, when there's short-term when people do a short-term rental, they pay a fee to the town and it goes into this
fund. >> Yep. They pay 6% and 4% goes to the general fund and 1% goes to the Chad Elementary School and the other 1% goes to the attainable housing trust. >> Okay. So, this has nothing to do with the CPC fund. >> Correct. No. >> Okay. It's gotten me straightened out.
Thank you. >> But we're leaving. >> And I and I don't see I don't see them going for CPA funds for this anyway. And even if they did, CPA funds would only be able to be applied to the units that are 100% AMI and below. they wouldn't be
able to be applied to all of it. Um, and yeah, I mean, we have we have affordable housing trust funds that we've been specifically waiting to use for a project like this. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Nicole, I see your hand up.
>> Would you like to come come online and talk to us? >> Yes, I would. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um, you got my attention with the cushion. It's a pretty nice cushion and I understand not wanting to come back to town
meeting, but I think well I guess my question is when you present it at town meeting, do you also disclose that there is a cushion so people know exactly what they're voting for?
>> Yeah, absolutely. I'm not not trying to hide anything. I mean, I think it's right there in the explanation or at least in a staff report. Yeah, I'm happy to explain that um more clearly at town meeting, but um we also might have more
of an idea by the time we get to town meeting of what kind of cushion we might need because I'm hoping that the land disposition agreement will be um negotiated by that point. Um >> okay. Well, I think the the firmer
numbers that you have, I think that works much better at town meeting and I think the voters would appreciate knowing exactly what they're voting for. >> I agree.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Other questions from the members of the finance committee? Okay, I don't see any. Um, maybe it would be appropriate for us to vote on the three housing articles before we
move on to the Ford donation. That sound all right? Before we forget it, before I forget it. Uh yeah. Um Carrie in the scorecard
the let's see the uh we've got article numbers for some of these. >> I don't believe so. Not yet. >> Okay. Well, the scorec card has a line number. Maybe that's not an article number. All right. So, we should just
call it off. We've got the um >> where the heck are we got? uh p rest restrictions in perpetuity for attainable. All right, that's the first article that we took a look at. I don't think we had any other questions on it. Uh I'll
entertain a motion to recommend approval to town meeting. >> I'll move that. >> Second. >> Great. Thank you. Motion made and seconded. I'll call the role. Stephen is still not here. Okay. I'm in favor of Joanne Sprag. Yes.
>> Barb Madison. >> Yes. >> John Palardo. Yes. >> Kristen Andres. >> Yes. >> Gracie Shields. >> Yes. >> Tommy Don. >> Yes. >> Eric Whitley. Great. That passes >> unanimously. Uh, all right. Next is the
uh lease to locals article. Do we have any other thoughts or questions on that? Doesn't look like it. Uh, okay. I will entertain a motion to recommend approval to town meeting. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Okay, good. Motion's been made and seconded. I'll call the role. Andy Young is in favor. John Prague, >> yes. >> Barbara Madison, >> yes. >> John Papardo, >> yes. >> John Christristen Andres, >> yes. >> Shields, >> yes. >> Tommy Don, >> yes.
>> Eric Whitley, >> yes. >> Okay, good. All right. Then the uh last housing article we just took up was the stepping stones road and go ahead Barbara. >> Thanks Mr. Chair. Um to Nicole's point,
Gloria, do we have a timeline on this? Because if we went to town meeting with a lower amount without the cushion, wouldn't we have plenty of time to ask for the cushion at the following normally scheduled town meeting? or will they be putting all of these up within a
year? >> So, shovels shovels will be in the ground in a year. So, I suppose that, you know, I I don't want to I don't want to say that we definitely have time, but I also don't want to say that we definitely don't have time. I think it
makes sense to um do it upfront so Hack knows what they're dealing with and can move forward without waiting for a town meeting vote uh potentially in the future. Um, the buffer that I'm asking for is something like $500,000. It's not
a It's not a huge buffer. >> All right. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Good. Okay. Will those in favor speak up when I call the roll? Stephen Daniel still not here. Oh well. I'm in favor.
Join Brig. >> Yes. Barbara Madison, >> yes. >> John Pavlardo, >> yes. >> Christristen Andre, >> yes. >> Tracy Shields, >> yes. >> Tommy Don, >> yes. >> And Eric Whitley, >> yes. >> Okay. Once again, eight to nothing.
>> All right. The last one is the article having to do with the estate of Pat Ford. >> Okay. So, this is perhaps the most complicated one of all, and I put it up on the I'm sharing my
screen. I'm assuming you guys can see it. Um, quick change from town council. You may recognize the language that was added. It's exactly the same language that was removed from the Stepping Stones Road article. So, we actually do need to authorize the um select board to
further dispose of the property if they want to develop it for affordable housing um or sell it. Um so that language was added to this um beyond what yeah beyond what is in your packet. Um so I think that's the only change. So
all right let's talk about the disposition uh or the acceptance of Pat Ford's property. So uh Pat Ford passed in uh 20 was 2023 May of 2023 actually I think it was April of 2023. Um, so Prop
4 passed in 2023. It took a full year for the will to be adjudicated in probate court and a representative appointed. Then it took another year for the heirs to um clean the house, remove personal items and things like that. Um,
and so here we are um after a couple of years ready to put the acceptance of this property on the town meeting warrant. So Pat Ford's will expressly stated that she wanted this property to be used for affordable housing purposes
as determined by the select board. So how the however the select board deems um it to be used by the town for such affordable housing purposes. Um there's also no limitation to um the structures and improvements on the site. So they
can be um renovated, rebuilt, torn down. There's no um restrictions um with regard to that. So we have um Pat's property, including a house um with an underground garage and and and everything associated with the property
to be used for affordable housing pro uh purposes. One of the big questions that we asked uh town council is what does that mean? like what are affordable housing purposes? Like what would constitute an affordable housing
purpose? So the obvious answer is, you know, build build a house and or renovate the house indeed restrict it for affordable housing. Um, the other option that town council laid out was that the select board could choose to sell the property and put the proceeds
in the affordable housing trust fund which has a purpose of use for affordable housing only. So that would also sort of uh satisfy the uh the terms of the lease or the terms of the will sorry. And then there's the question of
well do we keep it or do we sell it? um the town could potentially keep it and use it for rental housing. The town could sell it to a developer um or sell it to someone who would develop affordable housing on it. So, we had all of these questions that had to be hashed out by town council. And I think we have
a pretty clear um you know, three options of of what the town could potentially do to the do with the property, but ultimately that would be the decision of the select board. So the other two complicating factors in this is that the property is subject to a
mass health uh claim um which would have to be taken care of and the property is also subject to um a tax lean back taxes and current taxes which would also have to be taken care of. Um
neither of those would impact the town budget. So, anytime we would have to um take care of the Mass Health lean or take care of the tax lean, it could be done through the purchase of the property and any proceeds that we get,
whether that's to a developer or um if there's an ownership house built on it, to the to the purchaser of the house. Um all that can be taken care of. If the town were to retain the property and use it potentially as rental housing, um we
would have to deal with the tax lean um ourselves. Um I'm not exactly sure how we would do that. Carrie could probably shed a lot more light on that. I know we'd have to go through the ne um uh processes and procedures. Um and then the mass health claim would also have to
be retired. And if we were to retain the property for rental purposes, um that Mass Health lean could be retired through the use of affordable housing trust funds. So there's actually no financial ask that comes with this
warrant article even though we have those two um leans on the property right now. >> Okay. members of the finance committee. Eric, >> um, has have we done an analysis on what the value of the land is on the
property? I think that the structure there is probably doesn't have a lot of value, but the land itself in one of the scenarios for the sale of the property just to kind of give a baseline. >> We have not had an appraisal done at this point.
>> Go ahead, Barbara. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Gloria, is affordable housing is technically affordable housing. This could not be used as attainable housing. >> Correct. Correct. But with seasonal communities,
um, I think I wrote it in the first, um, maybe the first option. Oh, maybe it was in my staff report rather than that. So, if the town were to retain it, um it would still have to be affordable housing, but we could potentially allow, you know, municipal
employees to rent it under, um under our allowances through seasonal communities. So, we could potentially layer on how we treat this property. >> Okay. And um if this should be approved by town meeting, how quickly and we're
planning to keep the property or whether we are or not, how quickly could we make the payment to the state assuming that interest and penalties are acrewing at you know some ungodly number and they have not been willing to show us any
slack here. So, I would I would say that if the if town meeting accepted this, the select board should probably have a meeting relatively quickly about what they wanted to do with the property and then I think that we would probably go before
the affordable housing trust and ask them to retire the mass health claim as soon as possible. >> Yes. Because of the interest acrewing. >> Thanks. >> Other members finance committee. >> Please Eric, go ahead. question. It's
maybe a little bit outside of this specific, but brought in by it. So, the option C that you've offered um you know, selling the property with no deed restrictions with the proceeds going to the affordable housing trust fund, you know, great that that's an option on the
table. I think there's some real value to that. Could is that something that can be considered for other properties? Uh you know, I think of I don't know, we're probably maybe too far along on Old Harbor and things like that. that I mean is that something that was considered at all in any of those other
locations? >> Um I do you know what I really don't know if that was considered at for 127 Old Harbor Road. I would I would really want town council to weigh in on
whether it's an option for that property. It's possible that the restrictions in that bequest are different and would make it it different. But, you know, if the the stars align, I guess it's possible that we could do that. I mean, I that's a
really great question. It would really uh bring us some flexibility. >> Yeah. Well, I don't think that anyone's worried about the deed restrictions there. They've they've pretty much submarine that whole concept of the deed restrictions there. They have nothing to do with what what people are moving forward with. So, but thank you for your
answer. I understand, Barbara. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, and Gloria, this is probably way outside um your parameters also, but I was if if someone decides that they would like to leave a piece of property to the town
for this reason, do they have to um assume that their entire will is going to be published to um these agendas? Um, I don't know the answer to that. Um, but we did attach the will to the select
board staff report. >> Right. Okay. All right. Um, just for the record, this is apparently a 10,800 square foot lot with a 1500 square foot house. Total assessed value currently is
555,000 split roughly evenly between the house and the land. >> Those numbers Andy I'm sorry >> the exact number of current assessment is 555,000 land 297
building 257. Um, so not inconsiderable, but I'm I'm guessing that your guess on the house is probably about right. Built in 1924, at least on this, it's been depreciated 48%.
Okay, other questions? No, doesn't look like it. Um, do we think that we should be recommending that this Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Please come on up. >> Uh Brian Phillips, 374 Lans Road. Um I
just kind of have some uh just a questions about the will. Um like I Mr. Whiteley said that the you know the town council has kind of deemed that um after 30 years the town can do whatever they want with the property. don't have to
honor the uh the wills of these people leaving these properties unless they're the wills in a trust. Is that correct? >> Or it was something along those lines. >> I haven't I haven't heard that. I'm not >> Yeah, I'm not sure if you're asking me.
I just I just know the old harbor process. Yeah. Well, that well I guess my question well town council has deemed that you know wills only have to be honored for 30 years which I disagree with but um but if it's a part of a trust it had it's it's then permanent.
>> I um >> Brian that's a legal question that's way beyond my knowledge. Um >> I guess I just was wondering if this was a part of the trust and it would be permanent. >> The will itself does not state that this is in a trust. >> Okay.
>> All right. So, I'm I'm kind of reluctant to guesstimate what might happen, but you know, if we accept this, u presumably if we hold it, we could put whatever restriction on it we wanted. So, that's at least if it's affordable housing,
that's at least 30 years, right, as it's written. Or if we get that special state legislation passed, it could be in perpetuity for affordable housing. Um, go ahead, Tracy. The affordable already has the perpetuity option.
>> It's only attainable that we're asking for more than the 30. >> Yeah, but the >> and this property is affordable. >> I agree. I just don't know whether the whether the language of the will is specific enough to make that >> to cross that hurdle. But that never
mind because if we do accept it, then we can put on it whatever restrictions presumably we care to. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Brian. Um, I don't know what the right answer to this property is, but I I seems to me
we should urge town meeting to go ahead and accept it. Um, and some of the details are going to have to be worked out in the wash. >> Any other question? I don't I don't I mean it's clearly worth more than
whatever is owed, so I don't see how it would be negative to accept the property, right? >> Correct. Right. I I'm agreeing with that. Oh, good. You're Or you're agreeing with me.
Either Either way works. >> All right. Cool. Do we want to make a motion on this? >> All right. Tommy moved it. Second. >> Good. There's a second. Regrettably, Stevens still couldn't join us. Chair
both side. Joannne Prague. >> Yes. >> And Barbara Madison, >> yes. >> John Papero, >> yes. >> Kristen Andre, >> yes. >> Tracy Shields, >> yes. >> Tommy Dome, >> yes. >> Eric Whitley, >> yes. >> Okay, good. So, again, eight to zero.
>> I know, Gloria, you cleaned it up. >> All good news. >> Thank you very much. That was good. >> All right. Thank you so much. Um Carrie, >> thank you, Gloria.
I don't have anything else for today. That's it. That's all on the the whole agenda. >> Okay. Now, everyone should have received a notice that the meeting that was originally scheduled for March 12th has now been cancelled.
Another holiday. Mike, >> we're going to move the couple items instead of having a whole meeting to um the 17th. >> Okay. So, Tuesday the 17th of March, St. Patrick's Day. >> I assume we'll have a green agenda. Um
>> look at that. Okay, good. 1:30. >> So, we'll have a full agenda. >> Well, that's right. Joanne, you're ahead of you're ahead of yourself here. You should have worn that sweater. >> Oh, look. Ah. You gotta hold your hold your fire until next week. All right. Cool.
We don't have anything else to take up then. Uh is there an interest in adjourning? >> So moved. >> That's good. Is there a second to that? >> Second. >> Great. Those in favor chair votes I Joanne? >> Yes. >> Barbara, >> yes. >> Don, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Gracie,
>> yes. >> Ammy, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Great. Thank you so much. I think things went along just fine.