I see that it's 629. >> Call this meeting to order. Uh, good evening. Uh, welcome to the May 2026 meeting of the City River Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board. U, my name is Joe Ravalisi. I serve as chair of the board as mayor Keefe's appointee. Um and
we will begin uh this meeting with roll call taking attendance. So uh I'm present. Matt Wolford >> present. >> Annayio Oswaki >> present. >> Laya Petri >> present. >> Dean Harris >> present. >> Lorie Manzo
>> present. >> And belated happy birthday to you. Um, you're welcome. Uh, Judy Gosselin >> here, >> present. >> Deb Frank, >> present. >> Terrific. So, we have perfect attendance. Excellent. Uh, and we'll
start as we always do with an update from our treasurer on the state of our budget and finances. >> Uh, again, good evening everyone. Uh, this is a report from the from Masuta Newton and the budget officer here, Ravier. The current balance to the affordable housing trust committee
is1,7,881. Uh this balance is reflective of the approximately 1765 167,000 that is encumbered for the next two per payments to the neighborhood developers. The balance is also includes the free
cash appropriation of $139,375. Interest paid for this period is $3,873.776.77. During this period, a payment of $5,000 was made towards senior home repairs request. Thank you. >> Fantastic. And so, uh, the notes I'll
add to that on the budget side, as an IO mentioned, we received our free cash allocation for the year, so it tracks with what we were kind of budgeting for. So, that's great news. um hopeful that um so we we well not hopeful I know that we've received an additional earmark to
support down payment assistance programs via the state budget which we're really grateful for um Senator Edwards and Representatives Turko and Janino for their advocacy on that front and so at some point uh we'll receive $50,000 for that to add to our total um and hopeful
that we'll find other opportunities to to grow the fund as well but uh thank you Anio for the update and you know for you and Matt and everyone else for you know we've despite not having a huge budget of new funds to work with um outside of select investments we've done
I think a nice job of delivering real results and programming while still being a responsible steward of the funds and not seeing that pool you know shrink so uh thank you to everyone for your efforts on that front um any other questions or comments on the financial
update no okay so we're going to move to um the subcommittee reports. I know that we don't have too much. I know I you've been conversing with Tom if you want to check in about that. >> Sure. So, first of all, yeah, so we're my committee subcommittee is a fundraising committee and uh what we're
one of our goals is to uh prepare this grant as fundraising opportunity uh with a local partner. Uh part of that is actually working with Tom Sikoi. Forgive me if I misspelled mispronounced his name but
>> pretty close skowski. >> Yeah. So yeah, part of it is to work handinhand with his department and so we submitted our a framework for our proposal to Tom. He was very kind enough to review it so that we get some input
from the city. Uh we also talked about additional collaboration on other projects not related particularly to fundraising. Ideally, I'd like to have a meeting uh next week to update the fundraising committee on what the current discussion is with me and Tom.
Uh the reason why there was a little bit of delay is one because there's like um professional uh scheduling issues and I wanted to have something to present to the group rather than to say well to sort of have a meeting without any major accomplishments being made. But since there are some updates, I'll have a
meeting out next week. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, any questions, comments on that piece? No. Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to take uh with unanimous consent uh the next item out of out of order. Just um actually
no, no, no. Um this the next item is quick. Never mind. I wanted I'm going to get to our guests because we have guests present to present on something. But I am going to quickly discuss the ADU loan program. Um just as a check-in for everybody. Um, couple things. We did
based on the vote that we made at the last meeting, update the guidelines to reflect that you have to rent the unit at 80% AMI or below. Uh, so that's been updated on the application and on the materials. Um, I can also update you to let you know that we have successfully
awarded one grant. Good job everyone. Uh, we have two more that are pending receipt of their building permits. So, as per the policy, you know, they submitted their application, they meet the guidelines, they've gone to site plan review, but they're still waiting to get their building permits finalized,
at which point we'd be able to um enter into a loan agreement with them. And then we had a few more applicants whose I'd say the status of their application was a little bit more unclear if they've been to site plan, if they're moving towards getting building permits. So, um, not considering those actionable at
this time, but we're we're making progress towards awarding those funds. So, um, thank you to everyone for your efforts on that. Uh, there were also just to kind of keep everyone in the loop, uh, related to the ADU program, but also just kind of in general, uh, the new HUD figures for, uh, median
income were published this week. Um, I'll send the document around to everybody. Uh but the 80% AMI figure and I think this is just helpful for um context for everybody when we talk about what an 80% AMI affordable unit means. Um so for a household of two that's been
updated to $ 109,700. Uh it was previously $105,929. A household of three has gone from $119,20 to $123,400. and a household of four has gone from
132,320 to 137,100. So, um I don't need to emphasize it to this group or to people who, you know, regularly engage with the board, but it's just a reminder that, you know, two working people with a child making
$60,000 a year each or someone's making 80 and the other's working part-time, you know, they they fall into this affordable range. Um so um reminder of the importance of you know continuing to create units that are at a range of AMIs, you know, including 80. Uh but
this will um so the city of Boston hasn't published updated rent limits yet at the 80% AMI. Uh so I would anticipate they'd go up slightly from based on the slight increase in annual median income reported for the region. Um, as a reminder, the rent limits now under 80%
AMI are 2316 for a studio, uh, 2482 for onebedroom and 2,978 for a two-bedroom. So, again, we're not talking cheap, you know, this is still pretty significant, um, and useful context, you know, for
all of our discussions. um any questions um or feedback on the ADU, you know, program so far or on the AMI figures? So, I know we did a little bit of this last month. Oh, Deb, were you about to speak? Sorry.
No. Um, I know we did a little bit of this last month, but I'd ask everyone to kind of keep taking some time in the coming months to have conversations in the community about, you know, if we were to do the ADU program again next year, uh, how do we want to prioritize
it? You know, where where is the real need? Where's the unmet need? How can we emphasize the creation of affordable opportunities? uh and also emphasize um you know supporting rever families where having an ADU is going to help them stay in place. So don't have all the answers
but I think this is an iterative process that we can you know continue to work on together. So thank you to everyone for that. Um unless anyone objects we're going to move on to the next item which is the one feno uh application. So you all should have received uh in your
emails this week the application that was submitted by the one feno development. Uh they submitted um their application, their budget for the project and some other information about the project. So hope you had a chance to review it. Um I believe that our you know visitors
um have a presentation as well. I don't know if you emailed that to me or >> Yeah, you can just material. >> Yeah, terrific. Um, so if you want to just come up and talk a little bit about the project, about the application, and then we can ask some questions, that'd be great. And just start uh by stating your
name, the company, um, and any Yeah, thank you, Chris. >> All right. Um, good evening, uh, board. U, my name is Marie Moricead and hello to everyone on the phone as well. Uh, I
am with the Boston communities. We are a real estate development and consulting firm and as Joe mentioned, we're here to share a little bit more information about the application that we submitted uh to you all uh sometime last week but
earlier this week depending on when you got it. Uh so I have here with me my other colleague uh Ritu uh Shudri uh who's here with me uh development consulting and working uh to help progress the project. Uh so I am here on
behalf of Boston Communities and the Procopio Company uh who's also the land owner. So we do have site control of the land. Uh and uh sometime last spring we kicked off this project in partnership with the river chief of planning. Uh Tom
and we worked with Joe Mayor Keith uh presented it to the council received uh overwhelming uh support from the council to reszone the site to allow for affordable housing development. Uh right now we have a proposal that's putting
forth about 85% affordable affordability for the first phase. So overall this is a 96 unit two-phase project. Okay. And the first building that we'll be presenting uh or developing will be would be 48 units and
we're requesting um some funding for that first phase. Uh we did submit a pre-application to EOHLC uh uh sometime at the end of last year. Uh they uh had overwhelming the demand. We're actually in talks with them. I met
with them a couple of weeks ago and uh planning to resubmit uh late summer where they're having planning. They didn't have a um they didn't have a what they call a mini round this year. So they're looking to actually bring all their pipeline. Um so so that's one of
the reason I'm in front of the housing trust today is because as part of that uh the whole sort of financing plan uh the river housing trust plays a critical um part in terms of you know closing that gap to help us bring affordability
uh to Ravier. So, uh, as mentioned, the first phase is 48 units. And, uh, you know, why are we doing this? Uh, this is this particular site, if you've had a chance to look at your material, is in the Prattville area. It's on Fenno
Street, uh, and Columbus, if you all know where that is. It runs through Garfield and Washington Street. Uh, very transitoriented, uh, uh, neighborhood. It's actually right next to the Chelsea Housing Authority um site and so um you and the
land owner have has owned the land for about 20 years. So this is a vacant land that's been sitting there that we'd like to develop bring 96 units in in terms of uh the ecosystem of our housing also help address uh river's uh shi
percentage which was at 7 7% right around last year might be a little bit more but it's it is below the 10% threshold so it would help to contribute towards that uh and so uh we're excited as a organization oursel Boston
communities. We primarily focus on building affordable housing. We uh have development projects here in Chelsea. Uh we haven't developed in Rivier yet, but our my co-partner actually lives as a resident of Rivier. He owns him and his
wife and uh recently um uh welcomed a new baby uh in about a couple of weeks ago. Actually, he's on paternity leave and that's why he couldn't be here today. uh and uh we're excited to work in river and partner uh with uh with the
office of housing and the chief of planning on bringing this beautiful project to you all. And now I'll pause and take any questions or I can delve in further in terms of any aspects of our application or the development itself.
>> Yes, >> I have a quick just a very quick question about the amount requested. Is it 400,000 over 2.5 years? >> That is correct. Right now, yes. >> How did you arrive at that number? >> Yeah. Well, we we certainly understand that uh for the housing trust, there is
a cap, a yearly cap. Uh we did look at some of uh the data uh in terms of what's been awarded previously. We've spoken to, as I mentioned, EOHLC, the state um in terms of what would make sense. But what's primarily driving it is as we look at what the gap is, right?
in terms of uh uh being able to complete all of the financing plan for the projects. Obviously, right now um as a development team, we're financing the design and we'll be applying for the application with the state, but once that's done, we'll be ready to progress
the infrastructure and then ultimately the construction of the project. Uh and so, uh we'd be open to hearing from the board in terms of what that is. We started with our ask, you know, in terms of building the capital stack. Uh but
again, we're open to hearing what the board would be able to do to support this project. >> So I have, you know, one question for you and then one for the committee to talk about. The first is while it's seven units of the 48 for the first
phase, are you committed to carrying that same percentage over into the other 48 units, >> the 85 affordability? Well, it's right because because seven of you know of 96 comes out to 7% and it really doesn't help the SHI. So,
>> oh, let me clarify. So, um so so the first phase is 48 units. 41 of the 48 units are affordable. There's in that mix there's seven market rate units uh included. So, >> 41 are affordable.
>> Yeah. 41 affordable, seven market. Yeah, >> correct. >> And if you want to maybe talk through the So that's why I paused for I >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And that's helpful clarity if anyone would be asking. >> Yes. No, that's that's significant. The the other part would be for the committee is that because the ask so
great, it's it's over that threshold that we've we've we've set that I don't know if we can even legally give $400,000 if we wanted to. Um >> yeah, I I think the on the amount piece, we'll have to discuss that. you know, I think let's um we'll we'll good good
point to bring up and we need to discuss, you know, what's appropriate, I think. Um, do you have further questions also about the project or >> Yeah, that was part of my I mean that was part of my that's why I brought up immediately the 400,000 with our cap 150,000 and then it's is it a lump sum
or is it it wasn't particularly delineated in the document and the other followup question is just how it's allocated the budget to me that I saw doesn't seem to me how that connects to the 40 where with the if we were to provide 400
>> in terms of the the units themselves or >> yeah I'm just looking at the budget that you have and I want to connect the dots of where we would plug what gaps would we plug >> um I want to make sure I understand the question are you specific referring
>> the two questions one is it a bulk sum right 400,000 requests the other question is given the budget that I see here that was and uh what was provided to us for this deck um I don't I want to where is the our contribution Oh, I see.
>> Where are we where is it that we're filling? What gaps are we filling in? >> Yeah, I I I I understand now. So, the two and a half the rationale for the duration was based on going through uh the remaining of the design going through construction's about you know 20
20 months right now. And so from the time that you know we we're initiating design through completion of the phase we would spread out sort of the allocation. So that's the rationale for the for the duration the 2.5 years. The
actual gap it would be based on the amounts that we're getting per year. So it would it could be contributed towards the design component or depending on when it came in could contribute to construction and ultimately close out. So I think it would touch all phases of
the development. But if the board has a specific ask in terms of how it's allocated or where it's if you want it to go towards design or something specific, we can certainly >> that in the it would be it'd be easier to have it tethered to something that's specifically to Reddit related to
construction. There were proposals, not what you're saying now, but in the past where some of was asked for goes to administrative cost or some other thing that we didn't feel was appropriate use of public funds. >> Yeah. No, we can certainly structure structure it that way so that it can
contribute to the pre-construction work that's being done as well as uh as well as both the actual vertical construction that's that would be completed. Yeah. >> I I want to make sure to um that uh if anyone on Zoom has questions, I don't want to Yeah.
>> not um >> give you a chance to be called. >> Two really quick questions. Um, do we know how this is going to impact traffic and um the schools around? Um, are there
it says that it's going to be um multifamily uses um one, two, and three bedrooms. So, I was just wondering how that would impact the the community around that area, what kind of strain it
might put on our city resources versus um what what we already have. >> Yeah, absolutely. And this is one of the questions both questions have come up during um the zoning process when we
went through in front of the council. Uh so I'll address both of them. In terms of uh traffic itself, we have been talk, we've spoken with the community, particularly the folks on Columbus Street that are adjacent to the property. I mean, we're also seeking
some uh mass works uh housing works infrastructure fund that we're working with the state to help provide some uh better route in terms of uh both cars that are exiting and entering the site. I've provided some picture if you the
way you will see that the pro property is situated. You actually kind of have to drive through and the housing is in further in the back. And so uh we're act we actually met with the chief of planning today to talk about uh some of the infrastructure. Uh we also have mass
dot that was is directly adjacent to the site. So we have been uh engaging and talking to the office and there's there's additional redevelopment work planned for the area through the Chelsea housing. You may have heard that they're
looking to do some redevelopment. So our hope is to really understand um both short-term and long-term what that um what what the plan is in terms of traffic and reducing um congestion in
that area. We have the benefit of the site being adjacent to the route one expressway. So those are some of the things that we're looking at in terms of how we could potentially create some traffic pathways. So that's very high level but that we're you know we're
doing some of that analysis right now but it is to your point at the top of mind and we uh would make sure that both during construction and post construction we minimize that impact. The second question was in reference to
the school um and that's something that we're working through right now. the actual site uh covers both Rivere and Chelsea, right? And depending on when the construction is done, you could potentially uh may have some Chelsea
resident that may be interested in the housing too. And if it's affordable housing, we can't limit. But, you know, our hope is to have some priority preferences for River residents in that. Um and you know um and and that could be
there could be some intermunicipality agreement in terms of the school that happens there. So that's those discussions are still underway but it was both questions um as you brought up have come up during the council meeting and we continue to vet it with the community.
>> Okay. Follow-up question. I apologize. >> Yeah. Um because you're it this site it would be a road address. Is that correct? >> Uh it's uh as of right now the housing is in River. Correct.
>> Okay. Um, so then that I'm a little confused on how if if it's a River address, how Chelsea
would be possibly having students in our school system. Is that what I'm hearing or am I hearing incorrectly? >> No, no, that's Sorry. Uh what I was saying is that Chelsea existing Chelsea residents could also benefit from the
housing. Obviously if they've moved into the housing then they would have a river address at that point. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you for clarifying that. >> Yes. Absolutely. Yep. >> I thought it aligned very well with what
our HF missions is all about and I thought it brought some really good um proposal. I thought was strong around some of the other funding that they have. For me, um I'm just reiterating what you had talked about earlier about the to me I saw like an $850,000 gap in
the funding. We just have to keep track of that. And also, is there any impact on the mass DOT easement status that does that play a role in any of this? I mean, is there any other impact that we would see?
>> Yeah. No, we we right now the mass DOT's board actually approved an easement um uh a few years back. We're working through finalizing that execution based on the final site plan. So, we would continue to have that easement in place.
Um, as of right now, it's not a critical component for the site development itself. We're It's just an added benefit that it would bring to provide uh more frontage in terms of the roadway as well as um you know, we actually walked the
site this past weekend with the river um conservation commissioner to just understand some improvements in the mass dot river line. Uh but but yeah, we would our goal right now we have active discussion with Mass DOT to fully
execute that easement that was started and was approved by the board. Um and again, we're hopefully, you know, we're we're not going to have complete reliance on it, but it's really an added benefit to provide frontage if needed to
site from a roadway access perspective. Did I answer your question? >> Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay, great. >> Great job. Um, yeah, I guess I guess first off, looks like a great project. Um, really good use of space. If I if I just looked at that satellite image, I wouldn't
think you could fit 96 units in there. Um, and obviously great the uh the high affordable percentage. Um, kind of to um, Annaio's point, you know, usually we're we're getting involved in projects that are kind of already through the
kind of planning phase you guys are in. And and you know, maybe as a way around that, like to your point, we can um, kind of stipulate funds to be used for hard construction costs because we definitely wouldn't want to be in a situation where, you know, we're we're handing funds over that could be used for soft cost planning that, you know,
um, for whatever reason the project doesn't come to fruition. Um, but I think what would also just help the board get more comfortable is just understanding a little bit more detail around the source of funds like I'm sure the LITC and first mortgage you guys are kind of fully approved on but on the
balance of funds um that are are detailed in the budget you provided. Uh what what if any of these haven't been secured yet? >> Yeah, absolutely. Um, so just to follow up on your point and I think you've you've mentioned so this would be part
of the full sort of the state funding the house the river housing trust is a component of that and typically would come at the construction financing. So I think even though we're looking at the full capital stack the usage does go towards construction. So that's one
point. Um the other piece right now we've as I mentioned we've submitted a preliminary application through to help uh for some of the the LITC that we have in here both the 9% and the state LITC uh we're working with uh to submit a
full application uh later this year. So that's a piece right now. It really depends on availability and and so forth. But they do need to know that um the River Housing Trust is in supportive of this. So one key component that they look at and which is why they ask us to
come to the trust before going to them is to make sure that one the fun the trust can support it and then they plug in the rest. It's a critical component. If we don't have that piece, then it is presented as a gap. And that's why we have to really line up all of the
decision ahead of time and and re reaffirm with EOHLC that we have the support of the local funding as well. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Can I ask questions? >> Yeah. >> Great. Uh well, first of all, thank you
for the presentation. You know, I think um we've discussed the project and obviously, you know, our office has been supportive of the zoning change and of the you know, bringing it to fruition. Um, as you know, Dean mentioned, um, the percentage of affordable units is
critical, you know, in getting us to our goal, not only of 10%, um, affordable units across the city, but also we have really specific numerical targets that we're committed to under the uh, housing production plan for the city um, that we're required to hit in terms of number
of affordable units to be developed. Um, and so we need to, you know, be supportive of projects that are going to help get us there because we've already made that commitment to the state. So, um, very much appreciative, um, you know, that this would be a really highly percentage of affordable units. Um, you
know, I think a a couple things that I want to make sure that we discuss. You know, I think obviously the dollar amount total and schedule is a critical component that we'll get to. I'll say that, you know, to deliver 41 affordable
units um would be a really excellent use of this would probably be like the bulk of the funds that we have to allocate to various projects. So, I'm not necessarily opposed to that um you know, for a project of this caliber. Uh, but I do want to make sure that we tie up kind
of loose ends and make sure we have an understanding of timeline and process and where we fall into the process because if we're making this big of a commitment that kind of freezes out maybe other applicants that might be further along in the pipeline that that's my biggest concern. So, I'd say
um you know the uh one other thing I want to clarify just for um others that may not be as familiar with discussions around this site um sort of the access points into it right now are through Chelsea. So that's why you hear Chelsea a lot like if you look at it on a map if
you you know click on river on Google maps and it puts the outline in Ravier you see that it's in Ravier but it's tucked underneath the highway you know in such a way that it's not really you you drive to through Chelsea to get to it and that has some pros and cons you know from a river standpoint you know
talk about city services it's less taxing like it's not taxing at all on our neighborhood roadways which I think is something that the city council you know appreciates. Uh but there is a massive kind of coordination issue with Chelsea that needs to take place in order for this project to happen. You
know, they need to be supportive and on board and I'd just like to get an update from you on how those conversations are going. >> Yeah, absolutely. And I just shared uh the update with Tom as well earlier uh today. Um so uh as mentioned a lot of
the coordination uh questions that have come up is in reference to the future development or redevelopment of the Chelsea housing site and making sure one understand timing and if there you know a project so close I know some of the
concerns was competing resources and what we've done uh to help address some of those items like one like from an infrastructure perspective uh we're applying ing for mass works and housing works to help, you know, with utility
tie-ins and uh storm water improvements and things like that. And um really looking at our capital capital stack so that we're not relying too much on Chelsea housing uh funding to help support the project. So that's one. Um
the other concern and you know just uh was around at the time they were just initiating their 40B uh application and so um you know we wanted to make sure that we weren't sending different messages to the community with one
development here another development. So we did talk about that and um and coordinated our community engagement process a bit more so that um you know uh it it wasn't sending different messaging to like the Chelsea housing
residents that are nearby that we would generally would be doing outreach and sharing information and so forth. So we've done a lot of that. Um I have met with the uh council for the district Todd Taylor. uh spoken and shared the project. Um you know his big question I
think came up was around traffic. That's what his cons constituents are saying and and so forth. Uh but we we continue to work with uh Chelsea where one of the funding sources you probably see here is NSC and in order to go to NSC as you
know Joe because you sit on the board is you need support from the local. So we work very closely with uh the folks like Ben Cares and to get letters of support and so forth. Uh so we would be continue to do that to get their support on that stuff.
>> I mean how I guess not to put too fine a point on it but like do you anticipate in the coming months that you would have that letter of support, you know, or do you feel like there's large barriers to getting there or do you feel like think you've made progress on some of the concerns they had? No, we're progressing and we're actually scheduled to go in
front of the NSC board June 13th. >> June 13th. Yeah. So, working towards that. >> Um, and I know also there's just a lot of process that needs to go through with conservation commission. You know, I know you mentioned that you did a walk through. Do you have a sense of what the timeline is
>> to even kind of get in front of conservation commission to start that process? because I know that you kind of need to go through that before you can >> Yeah, >> we actually uh there was already there's two site walkthroughs that were done. The first site walkthrough um we didn't get through the entire site. So uh we uh
our engineer from VHB did present the project at the last con meeting and and the commission was actually ready to provide the determination that we were seeking but we wanted to make sure that there was sort of visibility and transparency. So, we had agreed to
another uh walk through just and we ended up spending two hours on the site walking through and just really understanding all of the connectivity and I think it was good for them to see. We do have to go back to formally get the approval of the applicability from
there and then that would give us sort of the blessing that is needed to finalize the site plan to submit for site plan uh review for rever. So that's those are the that's the critical path. Um with the Riviera Housing Trust
decision. Um and with HL HLC application being in September October, I would hope that would give this board here enough time to to look at this request and you know uh work through that and you know we can share an update in terms of where all of that is. Uh our goal is to
present make sure this project is in the forefront. we're sharing what the ask is. We have an opportunity to talk through it. These things take, you know, a couple of months and or sometimes longer. So, we just want to give the board enough time to review the
materials we sent and to ask questions. >> Yeah. And then if you could just talk through I know one of the things that you mentioned and I really appreciate it on the application. Uh we put a huge pri priority on kind of being a force multiplier, right? where our contributions are fairly small but we
have the ability to signal municipal support and unlock additional funding. >> Yeah. >> You know, beyond the symbolic value of it, can you talk through like are there specific funding sources in the stack that require or greatly benefited from municipal contributions and can you talk through what the timeline is on applying
for those sources where you would want to have that municipal support sewn up before you try to get them? >> Yeah. No, it's it's an absolute strong message. One, to have the support of the council from a zoning perspective, but to be able to to put dollars behind and
show that support is incredible and really like as you mentioned, unlocks not only uh state and other agency funding that we're applying for, but as well as just construction financing and, you know, pre-development and so forth. So that's really critical and important
for um all of the lenders and financing to know that we have the support local support needed. Um in terms of timeline as I mentioned right now um we're waiting for uh there's no there won't be a mini application mini round
application with the state. They usually typically do it around July. Instead they've really just looked to do one round this year. Um, good news. It's hard to meet with the state. We've already met with them, presented our project, and we have the application in
the queue, which we started last year. And so, uh, the next meeting we have with the state, we want to say we have the support, the local, uh, funding support needed. And that timeline uh is around and I'm just based on memos that have been put forward uh
Joe is around I think a late August September they'll open up the preapp again and then um based on review of the project the support that's provided the the design that needs to be progressed which is about 70% they would allow you
to then submit a full application round which is around October uh you know and usually they give you about a month and December they review it and then I think January, February they would be looking to make an award decision. So at that
then we would be going through so the funds that Ravier would be contributing at that point would be earmarked or committed some point uh and we would work through to uh get a LITC investor
which typically takes another year to kind of work through. So there's still some time to do that, but unfortunately these types of project especially to make them affordable just takes a little bit of a while. But it's really important that we have all of the
necessary approvals in place to allow it to progress. >> Then my last question, then I want to make sure that if some others uh have them too. Um the timeline that you presented for construction, is that based on kind of your understanding of the alignment with the Chelsea Housing
Authority work? Uh, so and I can't I'm not on the Chelsea housing development right now. Um, and I'm not sure how much the board knows about it, but it is a large project 600 uh plus units uh that um is going through, you know, design.
My big piece as a developer of this parcel is make sure one we we're coordinated in terms of infrastructure work that's being done. So, we talked about, you know, roadway and traffic and if there's uh public realm improvements that we're bringing forth that they
understand and it really ties in together so that there's that continuity in terms of the you know land design. Um and then uh but you know it's their project's going to take take time to put forward. I h I don't know the details uh right now. They're still working through
that. They're still working through the their application. Um, but we stay very close with the PM and um, it's going to take us a little while to go through our design, but our goal is to be transparent and share design information and you know where we have the
opportunities to work and collaborate on infrastructure related work, we will >> other Yep. >> Okay. Hi. Hi. >> Um, I have a question. uh this project is just for reveal or because you say Chelsea will be involved. I I mean I
think the same way we have the grants or the support from our city from our board would be the same way for Chelsea >> or who would be Chelsea involved from a from a financing perspective. Yes. From a financing perspective, most of their
support I would see would come through the the NSC uh in terms of their support through that. We are applying for some funding for that, but we haven't gone through a Chelsea trust per se. We do have another project in Chelsea right now. Uh it's on at Broadway that's under
construction now. So, we're being mindful of that as well. uh that project uh that has a lot of affordability >> and how will be you know affected you know the project during the okay my question is because sometimes when we
have to choose the people will be available for get the affordable how how many will be from Ria how many will be from Chelsea >> now that's a great question so uh when you have these types of projects that
have state subsidy sub subsidization. You could include some preference, but I can't we can't like say you you can go you can't we we can't do that because that's funding for statewide and if there's a need and they
meet the income guidelines it would be open. What we can do is what we can push through it is to have preference for revere and so if there are a river residents they would get some some preferences but we can't like reject Yeah, >> you know, applications because that's a
that's part of HUD. That's, you know, there's, you know, this there's bigger implications there. >> It's it's the same kind of process from if you remember the uh condos that were had affordability. There was, you know, there was a preference. I think it was 70% was like the maximum preference that
could be applied to Rivier residents, but then the rest was for the general pool. So, it's pretty similar. It's a little different because it's not an ownership project, but same kind of concept, you know, in terms of a resident preference. Uh, but um because it's in River, you not to speak for you, but it would be a River resident
preference if there was a local preference put in. >> Um, but yeah, that's good question. Um, I think I saw Lori had her hand up, too. >> That's online. >> Yes, I'm online. >> Okay. Hi. >> Um, hi. Uh a question that has been
rolling in my head um is are these um units? You said the first phase is 48 units and out of that 41 would be affordable. Um for phase two, um are
they going to have the same affordability percentage or is it going to be different? >> Yeah. No, that's a great question. um the way that we're designing the buildings right now. Uh and this this this is another um approach to make the
design and the construction as efficient as possible is that the layout of both buildings would be similar with the exception of maybe like the first floor orientation or things that might need for elevation. But generally speaking
and and we would strive to maintain the same type of uh affordability. It does you know uh we will have to look at the unit mix. Uh uh I will say that the site itself based on you know what the council rever
council approved they asked for a minimum requirement of affordability. So we have those guidelines to work within. Anyways, in fact, the phase one affordability percentage that we're presenting is higher than what the council had asked for. Uh so we would
strive for that. Uh but we would at minimum meet the guidelines of the the zoning for the area that the river council had asked for. >> Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Other questions for anyone else?
So I think you know I I would just say obviously we're going to carry this forward and continue the conversation you know moving towards the next meeting. I think um you know the amount is obviously larger than we stated in the application that we can allocate to
a single project. So you know I think that the maximum we could do would probably be less than that. I'm >> per year. Are you thinking like the per year or the overall amount as well or both? >> Both. Um but I I do think that um I'm
personally open you know to two things you know one is sort of a conditional or applying to construction cost just in the event to make sure that we're covered you know because my biggest concern is just there's a lot of steps to go between now and you know shovels
in the ground and completion of the project. >> Um other projects that we've funded have been more like they got the bulk of their funding sources. they had a gap that was going to be met by loans, but by us making a contribution, we were able to um you know reduce that burden,
you know, on a low-inccome housing developer, which we like to do, you know, or we're like there's a specific A leads to B, you know, where our investment unlocked specifically like Commonwealth builder funds for that ownership project, you know, there's not that direct A to B. So, I think that
said, a conditional something conditional is something I'm open to. I'm also frankly very just speaking only for me and not the whole board. I'm very open to you know a really like as large as we're able to do assuming we you know this moves forward you know it's
something that's going to pro provide a lot of affordable units and one of the highest percentage of affordable units outside of you know like public housing of any project that we've done in the city. So that doesn't necessarily cause me discomfort. It's kind of where we are in the timeline that causes me
discomfort. um you know and if we're committing the kind of the bulk of what we have available when we don't even have kind of that determination from conservation commission that you can go to um site plan yet I I'm just I'm not super
comfortable with that. I think that >> I think the first step would be like a uh based on your review and this is uh recommending to the board would be like a letter of support right understanding that there is still some fluidity in the timeline right it's first typically what
we do is we show the state a letter of support just like we're showing our financing letter with terms and things the bank is not necessarily giving us any funds yet they're just saying we've reviewed >> this project we support it here are the terms we could deliver. So I think
that's the first step, right? Yeah. Determine the amount. >> I can't speak for everybody and maybe people can speak up if they agree or disagree. I think literally today, literally right now, I'm comfortable with saying, you know, we support the project. Uh we want to see it come to
fruition. You know, as a board, we think it aligns with the goals to see it happen. And it's something that, you know, if it moves forward in permitting, we'd consider funding to some capacity that I'm comfortable with. I think talking about numbers or making a commitment not close to I think I would want you know we we'll keep this on the
agenda. I'm not going to vote it you know up or down now I want to keep it and carry it forward for conversation and I think it would be helpful if between now and the next meeting we had some specifics or progress really on two things. One on moving from conservation commission kind of getting that determination to move to site plan. I
think getting to site plan is just such a key that's really the first step for anything being built you know in the city. So, I think it's just kind of that getting through that step first would be really crucial. They can talk through they might identify like major concerns or red flags that hadn't come up yet or
just different things that could alter the timeline. Uh, and then also that, you know, conversation with Chelsea and kind of looping them into the conversation that >> we're all kind of aligned to. I think that if we had those two things, I'd be,
you know, we'd have to talk about the amount and everything and the sequencing of it. But that would make me more comfortable, you know, with like moving forward. But I think that from a goal standpoint and alignment standpoint with what we're trying to accomplish, I think, you know, this is very much >> very much does that. You know, I think
that we're really I'm excited about the unit mix here. I'm excited about the amount of affordability. Uh I think the location can be, you know, really helpful for residents in terms of access to transportation to schools. Um so all positives, you know, on my front. I just
um you know, I think from a precedent setting standpoint with the funds we have with such a huge ask, I'd want just more kind of certainty with the timeline of the project. >> And that makes sense. And as I mentioned um because of at the time the adjacent project was kicking off we would have
normally presented to the board already but we did um slow down some aspects of the work. Uh we had already presented to NYSE we're going back to their board so presenting some things. So we we we expect that the first step is making sure you all are comfortable your
questions are answered um and that we have time to to talk through that. The only thing I'd probably add to that is that the extent to which you can add language such that this project would be beneficial to the residents of River. I know this is a touchy subject, but these
funds do come from the city and folks the extent to which we can make this available for folks that already live here. >> Yeah, I actually think our application to the state, we we asked for rever some reverence. So, um, to help that, you know,
>> what I mean by that and the specifics that Joe mentioned would really go a long way to get the support that you're requesting. >> Excellent. Yeah, I concur with with just about everything that that he said. And even even at the max that we have out there right now, you know, the the our program
is for 150,000 max that we have and so for 4,000 a unit just under that to to go towards to unlock affordable units is I think a tremendous value to in alliance as you said with what we want. So, you know, I don't know, you know,
what what it would take to go more or whatever, but even at the 150, I would I would think that that would be something um that I would be for. The other question is, do we I noticed this is our final round. Do we have any other people that have submitted proposals?
>> Yeah. So, we haven't and actually we should probably talk about updating the timelines on that application because we haven't received um the pre the most recent one we received before this was the um the North Suffach, the one that we did, you know, that we hadn't approved. Um so, we can talk about
timelines for future rounds and I think frankly that ties into our conversation about how much we're willing to award, you know, to a to a single project. um agreed, you know, with what you said on the value of the of the units and what we'd be able to unlock. So, I think, you know, progress there. I would say, does
anyone else have questions for our presenter >> or comments? We'd love we'd love feedback. We we do take otherwise all of your comments. I would think that that you just want to stress that, you know, >> 34 of those units are are basically, you know, up to, you know, >> the 60%
>> 60% which is about people that make >> I'm thinking around 75,000 a year. >> Um, so there there are people out there that are are, you know, working hard and they have no place to live and this would give a lot of people an opportunity to live in some good places. >> Yep. And for those that just to expand
on that so within that uh 41 number 41 there are seven that are for folks that are 30% and below AMI and then the remaining is for 60% and below. So, uh, we've seen the demand especially around
those numbers and that's why we've we've fought to for that mix. >> And I think an added value with this project too is that it helps us, you know, if we get to the point where we can be supportive of it, it helps us support that 30 to 60% AMI range. You know, where we're talking about other
programs that are in that 80% AMI range like workforce housing and, you know, I think covering that that range is really important for us as a board. So, I'm glad to see that that unit mix. I think that's a real positive. >> But we can't forget the market rate as well. So, and I we we one of the areas we thrive in is creating mixed income
communities. We've seen uh from what we've done in Matapan, Massachusetts, what we've done in Chelsea that having mixed income communities is where you get you start to reap the benefits because integrating it you know. So,
>> so unless anyone else has questions or comments, I think my recommendation to the board is going to be that we, you know, we place this on file, uh, we bring it back for the next meeting and that we'd ask that, uh, the proponents, you know, between now and then provide us with updates on their conversations
with the city of Chelsea, with the conservation commission, uh, site plan review, um, and if applicable, uh, North Suburban Consortium, and just provide some of those updates. we can pass it along to the board and then maybe if appropriate have you come back or either in person or on a call to go over kind
of where that sits in a month's time. At >> the very least, I think you can write that letter of support if that's what's needed. >> Yeah. Actually, I'll make a two a two-part motion. Uh I'd like to first make a motion that for this specific funding request, we place it on file, request that additional information, and
uh you know, pick it back up in June. If I >> second, >> can I ask for unanimous consent? I >> and seeing no objection. >> Um secondly, um I'd like to make a motion that I'll draft and send for
review uh a letter that um the you know, speaking in our capacity as board members, we're supportive of the project. We'd like to see it move forward. We value the affordable housing it's going to create and you know certainly consider it for a funding round. >> Thank you. >> That's great.
>> I agree. I second. >> Second. do uh any opposition. >> Thank you so much. That's really gonna help us. >> Seeing none, um I'll draft that and I'll get it around to everybody for review and then we can vote um to, you know, approve that if you all agree with it.
>> Agreed. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Terrific. All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, board. Thank you. >> All right. And thank you. I know that was we had a lot of questions for you, but you know, we just like to do >> No, we love the questions. And >> if you have any followup, if you're about to fall asleep and you think of
one more thing, send an email to Joe. We'd happy to answer your question for you. >> I think every one of my fellow board members knows that this is the stuff I think about as I'm falling asleep. Really? So, it's it's good. >> It's all I think about, by the way, is housing. So, happy. Thank you again. >> Well, thank you again for the
presentation and and for answering our questions. >> Absolutely. Anytime. We look forward to coming back and presenting an update. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you everybody. Um, I know that was a lengthy agenda item, but I think you'd all agree it was worthwhile. You know, good conversation
and we're, you know, grateful to, uh, be able to work with folks that are interested in developing affordable housing here. >> Um, I want to move to our next agenda item, uh, which is with regard to the buy down program. So, we've kind of had this on our agenda for a few meetings,
so I don't have a lot more to say about it beyond kind of what I already did. I wanted to open it up to you guys. you know, I sent around draft language. Um, I have confidence in the funding sources that are aligned in there that we'd be able to utilize them towards this. Um, and wanted to get folks
feedback, you know, either on the contours of the program or the language or proposed changes or anything of that of that sort. >> Sure. I've just got one comment. uh reading through the document, there's a section that's titled uh minimum down payment. And it one of the thing it
highlights are the things that preclude uh folks from getting this such as they uh should not have received the firsttime home home buyers down payment assistant program and that was it. I was wondering uh should that should that be
more of a vague thing? For example, ideally you would would want someone to stack the various different funding programs available because it prevents other families from enjoying it. I was thinking is that line too uh is not is not encompassing enough. Should it be
more? For example, let's say you have we have another program down the line that has some elements of first-time homeowners associate something to that effect. And what this language simply says is just just that that one program precludes it. However, this person or
family may be able to stack with others. I wanted to know is that specific are we just comfortable saying only those that receive first-time homeowners or should we mean it to be anything other than that? >> Yeah. Uh I I appreciate that. I think for me the reason why I'm only I would only want to specify that program is
that's the only other one that comes from our funds, you know, as the trust. I think if we created another program out of the trust and we wanted to not allow you to dip both of them, we could specify it, you know, when we create that program. Um, I'd be comfortable saying that maybe you don't go back and
also get an ADU loan from us too if we're doing like a $300,000, you know, subsidy of the purchase or something like that. But I also don't want to preclude people from taking advantage of any state programs, you know, mass housing programs or like one plus
mortgage. You know, I think if people are able to take advantage of other programs, whether they be through private entities through their bank or through the state or federal programs, I I don't have a problem with them stacking with this, even though it's a really generous program because it's
not, you know, municipal funds. Um but I your point is taken and maybe we could add something about other >> yeah it was only specific to funds that we would provide uh as far as stacking with other sources funding that's >> I think in addition so I think I would agree that you know it maybe wouldn't be
in conjunction with other um city funded sources or we' say that it would create an ineligibility window to apply for other you know um funding from the housing trust for various reasons like the ADU or senior repairs. or something like that. I think that
would be a reasonable um amendment that I'd make to the document. Um also, I think it's already in there, but now I'm like not looking at every page at once. So, making sure that we tighten up and clarify the conflict of interest language. Um you know, that obviously
like none of us could benefit, none of our immediate relatives that are on. >> Yeah, I don't think that was in there. >> I I Okay. If it's not, it should >> reread it. But um so that's something else that I'd want to make sure to clarify interest policy as we have for like the
um down payment assistance, which is you can't be either yourself or a direct relative um on this board or in planning and community development uh or um an elected official would be the the conflict of interest policy. I wouldn't
want to preclude city employees and other departments. I think that's frankly an excellent target for a program like this. Um, schools and police and fire and public health and DPW and departments like that. I think it makes a lot of sense um for, you
know, for that. But I think tightening up that conflict of interest policy and clarifying that you wouldn't be eligible, you know, for a period of time for additional funds from the trust is probably would a good amendment. So, I'll um anyone object to me making those
amendments to the document? The idea is just so that other families could enjoy some other programs. We wouldn't want one family to sort of stack all of the available funding. >> I agree with that. So, any any objection to me making that edit? And I'll I'll make sure that everyone sees a full document before we actually like vote to
enact anything, but we can tighten up the language and and get that to go on. So >> I think it's also important to share that um the subsidy rates seem to be a lot higher than most especially the national standards and that would preclude us from having to allow the
stacking. >> Um and the deed restrictions uh look also to be um much less than what others are looking at like Boston at 50 >> years.
And um just this this is picky. There's no there's no number eight. It goes from 7 to 9. >> Okay. >> That I noticed. Um and just the the titles. And then do you want to have a pre-approved participating lender list?
I don't know if that's going to be make a difference because it mentions um a part a participating lender, but there's no list. Should we go off and and list folks to be preferred lenders? Yeah. >> No, I think I think the I think the list is probably the list that is with the
city of Boston and that is approved by Chapa is the >> Okay. >> the list of approved lenders. >> Yeah. So, that that's what I would work off of. Um, you know, I think I'm open to shaping it in another way. Um, one thing that I did not want to vote on
today is, you know, actually like the application process. I wanted to um because I think how the applications flow, you know, how we work with banks on this, if we wanted to create a strictly first come, first- serve application process like we did with
down payment assistance or if we wanted to do it a different way, like I I have deeper questions about all that that I'd kind of want to frankly take another meeting or two to talk through the application and what the process would be. So, these are good questions to raise. Um
but yeah, so that that's noted. I'll make sure to clarify and specify what we mean by approved lender. Um and that it would be someone that's already been approved to to do, you know, on the chapa list for um these state um assisted programs.
>> Thank you. >> Y >> other questions, you know, as to like the language, the form of the program, things like that. Uh and good good point on the deed restriction. You know, I think that my goal and our goal as we've crafted what it looks like is to create
a deed restriction that is meaningful in the sense that, you know, we're creating an affordable unit in the city. We're preventing kind of a tool of flipping. You know, you know, we're creating like a stable affordable housing situation
that's going to benefit a resident. uh also creates the opportunity for equity to you know to come back to the trust and can be a little bit self- sustaining uh but also creates some flexibility for the resident to generate wealth building to kind of be on the property ladder to
not be to have it be a more flexible program than like the pure deedrestricted condo units that we have in the city where I think they're really great and they serve an incredible purpose and we need more of them but they're also very specific to kind of a particular constituency that knows that
they're going to want to live in that unit probably for the rest of their lives, frankly. Um whereas I envision this program might be better suited for someone that you know they may have a growing family or they may view that their needs are going to evolve in 10 years and you know say in year 11 they
want to sell the property. some of the benefit accrs back to the city rather than all the benefit accrewing back to the owner, but there's a little bit of benefit that occurs to the owner so that they're able to help them position them to, you know, kind of move up move up in the property ladder as it were. So, um, I'm open to changing it or discussing
it, you know, but I think that that's the balance to try to strike. I'm I'm I'm very in agreement that we want to be careful about not skewing that balance too much in the direction of toward the res. I don't I don't mean this in a negative way toward the resident because
that might not be in the public interest, right? The public interest is in affordability, you know, and creating affordable units. Uh so that's where that balance lies. I think there's no one right answer to it. I think that the best solution is to create a range of
programs that have a range of different types of restrictions of different sizes and different forms. and uh certainly open to further discussion, but that's kind of why we crafted it the way that we did and agreed that it's definitely much more flexible than Boston's similar program or I think Cambridge has their I
think it's called the Homebridge program or something where it works a little bit like this but their units restricted in perpetuity. Uh again, great program uh supportive of programs like that, although maybe a little bit different than the goals of what we were trying to trying to do with this, if that makes
sense. Okay. Other questions? >> No, I like what you said, especially that if the if there's the ability to to take back some of that money and then reinvest it into another person. So,
while that particular unit may not be um affordable for perpetuity, will, you know, the goal is to keep creating units for people and it doesn't pigeon hole somebody into that same unit, home, whatever, for their lifetime. Um because quite frankly there are people that that
you know went through some of those u programs uh 20 years ago. They want to sell now. Um but they can't sell it for what they can to to move to a different place. They have to you know they'll they'll be back in the same boat, right? Because if they bought it for 300,000
and now it's worth 500,000. If they sell it for, you know, whatever the restriction is, 10% or 20%, you know, yeah, they can sell it for 360, but they're they're not going to be able to move any place else with it. In this case, they'll be able to move. we'll take some of that money back and then and then help another family out. I think that's the goal and I like that.
>> Yeah. And I think also to again to talk about time and a place in people's lives, I think we look at, you know, because this is for existing Riviera residents, it's people that are here that are looking to put roots down in the community. And the problem with the fully restricted unit is that to your point, yeah, there's places that you can
move if you sell a fully restricted unit, but it's probably not here, right? you know, you're probably looking at moving out of the region and, you know, which is fine if that's what you want to do, but we want to encourage that kind of lifetime, you know, buy in and investment in the community. So, um,
good, good point, Dean. And yeah, the the being able to bring revenue back in to help sustain the program in the future is definitely a big part of it of why it's designed the way that it is. other questions or so I think that uh what I'd like to do
is make a motion that make the edits suggested um first of all fixing the seven and nine it skips from seven to nine so fixing that secondly clarifying the conflict of interest policy and it's in the language around everyone for review clarifying that any recipient of
this is not eligible to receive additional funds um from the trust um during the duration of the deed restricted period of the unit. Um, and then also beginning, you know, to make
progress towards talking about an application process, but approving the approving the the uh project, approving the um, sorry, tongue tied. So, I'd like to move that we approve the form of this um project, that we commit to carrying
it out, that we make those amendments that we suggested, and that the next phase is we come and discuss the application process, which we would start doing next month, assuming that everyone agrees with the final language. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> Great. Okay. So, uh I will get that updated language around to everyone. Um, obviously you can raise any objections or issues you flag via email in advance, but we'll take a ratifying vote at the next meeting on that language and I'll
come back to you guys with discussions about the application process. I'm going to send around to everybody. Um, I felt like we already had a lot of reading for this meeting, so I didn't send it to you, but I'm going to send some comparisons of different application processes that different municipalities have for some of these home ownership
programs and think about it. you know, think about the way we want to away. You know, we can do a lottery type system. We can do first come, first serve, we can do a weighted program. They come with different pros and cons, and I'm going to send around and try to get everyone's thoughts. So, >> great.
>> Terrific. Um, with that, I believe we now move on to other relate items if anyone has any additional items that were too late to add to the agenda. Seeing none and any public comment
including from Zoom. >> Okay. Seeing none, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. Any any any objection? >> All right. Seeing none, we'll see you in a month.