Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

It is Monday, May 19th at 6:30 p.m. and this is the meeting of the Affordable Housing Trust. Um, and we have enough members here for a quorum this evening. We have um Maryanne here. um Angus Michaels, Mark Graanbacher, and myself, and Matthew Northouse. So, we can go ahead and get started. So, we have um items on the agenda this evening um related to our typical business and we have Amy with us from um EHS to be able to talk about um applications for the small grant program. So, Amy, if you would like to start where we left off from the last applicants and then we can review any new ones that you have as well. Sorry, I didn't realize I was muted. Um, did you want me So, you want me to start with small grant application number four? Yes, please. Thank you. Okay. All right. So, I did reach out to Steve Whitten and I'm just waiting on him to um get over there to get um a risk assessment for us on the trees. And so once I have that information, I can report back um with small grant application. Number seven, the homeowners insurance won't help with regular maintenance repair. They only help with um like damage from storms and things like that. And since this wasn't one of those situations, they won't help with

the chimney repair. Okay. Right. So, so with that being the case then, um, just to, um, make sure everybody's on the same page, could you refresh our memory then? I believe it was $1,700, correct? Okay. And so, our approval last time was to make the grant for $1,700 conditional pending further information. And so at this point then given that additional information, it sounds like we should go ahead and um finalize that vote to to approve it if there's no further discussion about it. So members, are is there any further discussion about this given our previous conditional approval? I move a motion to approve. Second. All right. Thank you. Um Angus um moved and Matthew seconded. So all those in favor um Matthew, yes. Maryanne, yes. Angus, yes. And Mark, yes. And Ann is a yes. All right. So that's um Brent number seven. Seven. Yep. Number seven. Thank you. All right. And then with grant application number eight, that was the one that was denied because of the second home. And I think there was questions that I I was going to receive and and there's been a lot going on in town, so I I haven't received those yet. Okay. So with respect to um to that work, I believe that we had requested that some

of the original members of this particular small group get together and and talk about that. Um let's see. Yeah, I apologize. I think that um Mark and Bartlett and I were supposed to get together to review that and we did not, right? Because I think it was a case of um something we didn't really consider when we put the first guidelines in place, but should we approve it within the current guidelines and then just potentially adjust moving forward. But um I I did not mark I don't know if you spoke to Bartlett about it, but I did not I have not take that action. So um so how do we want to move forward? Should we um should we take that action again? I mean is there any time sensitivity on this? Amy, um I mean we can if you guys had questions that you wanted to have me follow up with the applicant with, I'm happy to do so. Um, these types of estimates are typically good for 30 days or so. So, um, I can't recall when her estimate was provided. I would have to go back and look. Um, but I don't foresee there being too much of a change with an with a ramp. So, if you guys wanted to gather, if you had additional questions that you wanted me to get information on, I'm happy to do so. Okay. Then, why don't we get together this week since we're meeting again next week? um we could um then bring that back to next week's meeting if we do have um if we do have questions or further recommendation. So I just wanted to make sure that that if we do that that it's the only one. Um last time it took like 40 minutes out of our agenda before we could get started.

Uh and those jerky meetings are specifically intended to be just for that. So, um, if we do, this should be the only one that comes forward on on next Tuesday. No, I'm sorry, next Wednesday. Yeah. Yeah, that's fair. And I'll Mark, I think we can make sure we have a strong recommendation at that point. Okay. My apologies. It is next Tuesday, May 27th. All these days. Okay. Um, all right. That sounds good. Thank you very much for for the additional time to to discuss that. and Amy, um, thank you for your time as well. No problem. All right. You want to keep going on application number eight? I'm sorry, um, the new applications. All right. So, I believe three were sent over, but actually, I've only received um recommendations from Henry on one of them. He's still working on recommendations. he had follow-up questions for the contractors and um wanted to go out and see um one of the other applications um prior to making his decision. So um we only have application um SGP11 today. So 11 is the one to move the laundry room from the first floor or to the first floor from the basement. So, this is a second one like this, right? Because we've had one like this before. Okay. Yep. Yeah. So, the household meets the AMI requirement. Um they're moving the laundry from the first or from the basement to the first floor. Um the estimated job cost um for the low assessment was $7,670.28 and that is the um proposal that became recommended from Henry. Okay, members, any discussion on this

application? Um, the applicant's going to cover the any additional cost above the 7500. They're capable of doing that. Yes. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Do we have a motion to move this forward? So moved. Second. All right. So, we're advancing um application number 11 and in the amount of $7,500. And so, any further discussion? Okay, let's vote on that. Matthew, yes. Maryanne, yes. Mark, yes. Angus. Yes. And Ann is a yes. Perfect. So then um we received a report on the balance of funds. Um Maren, would you like to to talk about that or Amy? Who who whomever is most appropriate? um just a a listing of the applications that have been received to date. Um the dollar amounts that um had been approved or in some cases are being contemplated just to provide a um status of um what applications are have been done and and what the total grant fund looks like at the moment. Okay. Okay. So, remind me Marin, in this particular with this particular grant, do dollars roll over or is it use it or

lose it? Um, it's reimburseable. So, it um we have it should be all spent by end of June next year. Okay. Mark, any questions on this? I I seem to recall that you had requested to get this info. So my only question to Martin is I know we had two years to spend it. Do we were we limited in what we were allowed to spend in a given year or we just have? No, we're not limited for what we spend and can get reimbursed for either this year or next. Okay. And my understanding is we're asking for additional funds in this next round. So yeah, so that was another discussion for tonight. Okay. So does anyone else have any other questions about this particular report? I think yeah, I think it's pretty straightforward. It just confirms what we've been seeing, right? Really good traction. So thanks to Amy and Martin and the team for advertising. It's do it's serving exactly the purpose that we had hoped. So it's great to see. And if the applicants were all to get funded, then that means that we will have used more than half. So um that's a good use of the dollars from the grant. And the best part about it is that they don't go away as long as we keep keep benefiting Littleton residents. So that's great. So to your point, Mark, about um a new state grant, Maren, I think you had said that it would be due sometime in June. Is that correct? Yep, that's correct. Um so it

would be through again through the community one-stop grant portal. Um and I'm working now on a series of grants. This is one of them. Um additional funding is is a grant. um one of the grants that I'm applying for. That's what I'm trying to say. Um question for a couple questions for the trust come up. Um what do you think would be the appropriate amount to request? Um, and we received the $120,000 for, you know, a 2-year fiscal period, but it looks like we're going to spend could easily spend the full 120 by this fall or this winter. Um, so I was wondering if it was appropriate to request maybe $240,000 for because that'll give us, you know, and we're obviously double um what we're able to do at the current time, right? So the seven So the $7,500 um that's the current amount um funds um 16 16 homes or applicants. So what you you're saying is that we would double that to 32 um at that same amount. So let me let me say it another way. I apparently confuse myself too. Um, so I would this next grant um would I would suggest that that should be for 24 $240,000, right? So that would then fund 32 applications assuming that they all get the maximum, right? But it's probably

sensible to just state the dollar amount. And would this would this new grant have the same requirements and limitations of the existing one? Uh it's a similar different program, right? It's similar program. I haven't noticed any big differences in the um text of the grant um requirements. So it would be very similar. Okay. Yeah, I think doubling it is sensible. maybe round it up to just an e quarter of a million dollars because it's a nice round number. So Martin, if we ask for more money, are we more or less? Are we asking for that amount of money or up to that amount of money? So they they could still fund it at 120 when we asked for 240 or is it all or nothing or um if we shoot high they can still give us below that. It's not all or nothing. Mhm. Okay. I think when we applied last time also we specified the 7500 as the max. Do we want to keep that this time? And what what do you think Amy? Are you seeing a lot of requirements come in? I don't think we want to decrease it. Um would there be any any need to increase that or do we like the 7500? Um, I mean, I think honestly it kind of really depends on the job that's being done and and the household. So, if you're looking for consistency and simplicity, say, keeping it on like a a having a standard um dollar amount that people can request and having them come up with the additional funds is fine. But if there are folks out there that are

financially more limited um and aren't able to cover those remaining balances, um those are the only people that it would it we I can foresee it being an impact on. I have I have one that's in progress that they're looking to get their roof done. So, um I mean there is the possibility of working with Habitat for Humanity to supplement that cost and and work out a payment plan. Um and that person might be able to handle that. So, I mean, it really just depends on on what you guys are looking for. I think keeping some good guidelines in place are are perfect and I like that. Um It's really it's kind of up to you guys. I'm not seeing a ton of of ones that are coming in super high. Okay. So, that was my question. Amy, I was going to ask uh in your experience, I mean, I haven't be been keeping any tallies at all. Have there is there a prepundance of people seeking amounts higher than 7500? I'm not sure. I've seen that but uh there there h there there has been one or two but uh you're a better position to advise us on that. Yeah, I feel I think 75 is a good number and I feel like it's I feel like it's reasonable and with the types of um jobs that this type of program is is trying to meet the need of I think that I think that's a good number. Um, you might have your rare occasions where there's something coming in a little higher, but it's it hasn't proven to be common within the applications that I've been reviewing so far. I think there's been maybe two, one one actually, one that's come in significantly higher than the amount that we can approve. So since

we've seen so many of these applications so quickly when compared to LRAP for example, it I am inclined to want to keep the number the the the maximum low um or like leave it the same at 7500. That does seem to be a good number. But to your point, Amy, about someone who's very um in a very difficult situation, you know, maybe we rewrite the program and say that 7500 is the maximum except for specific special circumstances that we can vote on as a board. And that might be additional financial requirements from the applicant or matching funds from another organization. So that if we do get someone who needs a new roof and it's 25,000 and Habitat says we'll pay half when we then we can go up to 125 that that decision can also be based on how many we're seeing. If this tapers off and we have we're sitting on, you know, 120,000 at the beginning of next year, perhaps it's not such a big deal to spend 30 grand on one person. But I would hesitate to do that until we figure out just how many people really need help because man, like 32 people isn't that many really, you know, and and what have we seen already? 15 applicants, 20? 11. No, I mean I'm curious how many Amy how many people have actually come up come forward and looked for money from the program. Um uh I would have to go back and check. Um I do know I have I have a couple that are in my in my filing cabinet that I'm waiting on estimates for. That's at least three or four. um and a couple other people that have said that they have interest in the program and are they're really just kind of gathering their information to begin the application process.

So in all probably there's like an additional six. Yes. To seven that are that are in Q for a better way to put it. And if all were to actually get funded, that would mean the remainder of the funds that are currently available from this grant. Yeah. Correct. Okay. So to just to add on to some of the things Matthew said about, you know, potentially funding higher amounts, the other thing that's been talked about, um, when we're designing the program, one of the things that, um, was mentioned is we could make it something that it's, um, rather than we're paying for it, we're basically it's a loan. So we basically putting a lean on the property. So if you sell the property, we get our $7,500 back. Um the general consensus among the people that helped write this program, correct me when I'm wrong, Maryannne, was that uh we didn't really like that, but maybe that's something we do for some of these larger amounts. Like if we're putting on a roof, right? You know, maybe that's something we'd say we'll help you put on the roof, but you know, we're expecting some reimbursement when you sell your house, for example, right? In in whatever time frame that is. So, it's something else we could consider if we wanted to extend be beyond the $7,500. Yep, I agree. That's my recollection as well, Mark, as to why we did not go in that direction. But for a large ticket item, I think that's a better solution than not helping. Okay. And one of the additional um questions in the grant application is any local match. So I didn't know if I hadn't heard any discussion from the trust if if there was a local match. Where would

the local match come from? EPC would that would they match? PPC can't do that. Okay. Businesses, you know, I mean, you know, like I don't know. We it's that's not that's not a model that we've really pursued at all is asking for private donations and I don't think it's a great probably not a good time to start be us affordable housing trust matching we don't have much money that's not that's not part of the CPC do we could use do you know what they had in mind for the match um it it it's one of those standard grant qu questions yeah So, I hadn't hadn't heard of the trust discussing that. So, well, I think the the conversations that I've had with Bartlett in the past are that if if we have CPC already funding the Affordable Housing Trust through the dollars that we say that we need. It would almost be like going to the CPC and saying, "Hey, we want to partner with you on this particular project, you know, could you fund us some more?" So, but CPC can't fund this project. Right. Right. Okay. Got it. I'm just saying in general, that's what it would be, right? Is if we were to go to them and say, "Hey, can you partner on this?" But we can't get them to do that because of the original reason we couldn't use CPC dollars. Right. Correct. So, so Maren CPC is we have a fairly large bank account from CPC funds originally. Do the interest that we earn on the CPC funds still count as CPC dollars or they free game for other things? It's my understanding that the interest also needs to follow the CPC guidelines.

I'm just asking because I know ARPA the rules were very different for that. So would I mean the emergency funds through the COA and Elder and Human Services, we have like a cap on that. Would that be something that you could put in there? I don't know if that would work. Um the Vincent Cooper fund. Um why don't you and I talk about that? See if it makes sense to include that. Okay. Okay. Yep. It wouldn't be like a a full match. There's no way I could do 7,500 per per applicant, but um if it was a need to for some assistance through an emergency fund, we might be able to do that possibly. So, Martin, if you need help on the grant application, let me know. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate I'm more than happy to let you do it. So, at this point then, it looks like just to make sure that we're all on the same page, we probably should make a motion that we're talking about a request for a $240,000 grant and that um we keep the amount of the applicant um grant to be $7,500. $100 per household and that yes, we could fund this at a higher amount, but that would require putting a lean on the house. And if we do that, I do believe that we're going to have to get some sort of legal counsel involved to be able to do that so that they can actually write the contract cuz that's what it's going to be. That's what it will entail. So I would I would make the motion to

apply for 240,000 with a cap of 7500 but not include the language about the lean. Um I I mean we we can decide on our own policies I if we get the additional money and we can debate whether we want to go for a lean or if we want to just look for matching funds or we want to just approve a larger amount like on at the board's you know pleasure. I'll second Matthew's motion on applying for the 24 20 $240,000 grant, $250,000 grant, whatever it was. So I I'm understanding Matthew's um uh motion to be 250,000, not 240,000. Is that correct, Matthew? I I that was that was an off a cuff remark. Okay. 240 actually I mean you we can justify it with the numbers that we've seen already given that we will spend 120 this year um or potentially within 6 months. So I think actually if if it makes a difference and and ev and any of the decisions on the the grant app the grant award is are are evidence-based then let's go for 240 because we can say we spent $120,000 in six months. Okay. and and and the other part of it is that uh any requests above 7500 is at the will of the trust. I think we're skipping that all together, right? Yeah, we can include that language or not. I would suggest we just um just ask just go forward with the grant and we can debate the merits of increasing the cap on some criteria later in another meeting if we get the additional if we get 240,000. Well, my only question on that, Maren, is that um the kind of policy stipulation that would need to be a part of the grant or not?

I don't think the trust would be limiting itself if we put in the grant application very similar to last time um with the similar wording. Okay. All right. So, we have a motion from Matthew, a second from Mark. Um, if no further discussion, let's go ahead and vote on that. Um, Angus, yes. Mark, yes. Matthew, yes. Maryanne, yes. And Ann is a yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So, then we have Amy up again on our next uh topic. If there's nothing else for or or is there anything else for the um small grant program? Good on that one. Okay. All right. So, Amy, um we do have an application for LRAP. Yes, this is a new applicant. So, this will be LRAP 41. Um so, it's an elderly couple. They're both receiving Social Security benefits. Um, one of the couple is the husband is still working part-time to help um with the expenses that they're that they have. Um, their daughter assists them where she can um as far as helping with applications and she has said that she'll help them financially where she can as well, but she's also struggling so it's not a consistent thing. um CHAMP application has been completed. So they're on the subsidized the state subsidized housing weight list and they are working on their application for Mil Pond and for Littleton Green which are other subsidized locations federally in the town. Um and they are they work with us to explore public benefits such as fuel

assistance and SNAP benefits which SNAP benefits they do not qualify. Um so they are seeking assistance um to make ends meet through the um affordable housing trust um little rental assistance program. All right. So what's their income and where does it lie in AMI? So they fall within the AMI requirements. They make $51,965 a year. That's including the earned wages and the social security benefits. Thank you. Any other questions? I hope he likes his job. Think he's willing to do what he needs to do. Yeah, it's kind of the situation with a lot of folks, unfortunately. Yep. All right. So, can we have a motion for LRAP number 41? I will move move approve uh LRAP 41. Sorry. All right. And Mark, was that a second? There second. It was Angus. Angus. Thank you, Angus. I'm sorry. I I did not see. All right. So, any further discussion? If not, let's go ahead and vote on that. Um, Angus, yes. Maryanne, yes. Mark, yes. And Matthew, yes. And Ann is a yes. All right. So, we've approved that one as well. Perfect. All right. So, Amy, is there any other information that you would have for us? So, we do have folks up for reertification. Okay.

Um, so LRAP 2, this is um they've been in enrolled in the LRAP program. Let me get to my notes. Sorry. It's a fourperson household with um only one adult member of the household working. Um two adults, two children. um one of the spouses is unable to work um and is ineligible for SSDI. They do receive SNAP benefits and lie benefits or heat benefits. Now um they utilize food pantries and to supplement food costs and they've been enrolled in the program since 2019. So they have been enrolled in this program since its inception. They do have two children that have medical conditions that require many trips to Boston Children's Hospital. They're active on w weight list for subsidized housing programs and just have not received responses from them. Um and I'm hope I'm requesting for them to um be certified for another year. So moved. A second. So I'm still we have a policy that says three years and now they're on year six. So, we're okay with them going on for for a long period of time. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to it. It's just it doesn't seem like having a policy that says only 3 years and being approving year six matches your pol the policy. Well, I think that as a trust, we had agreed right from the inception that additional requests will be at the discretion of the trust and that within the rights of a trust to approve in such dire circumstances. Yeah. But I'm just saying that if you have a policy that says 3 years and

you're violating the policy, then you don't have a policy. So, we're not violating the policy. We did agree within this trust that we will discuss and approve as needed in extenduating circumstances. Are there extenduating circumstances or or what what are they I guess for this? So the with with this household the there is the the father is able to work and he continues to work um as much as he possibly can. The wife is ineligible for disability because of self-employment. So disability income doesn't cover that. Um if you're self-employed you don't qualify for disability. So she didn't pay in enough quarters in order to qualify is essentially what happened with her. Um they are working on exploring disability for the children. Um because of their extenduating medical conditions um and the housing crisis is really the biggest component I think here and the availability of the the vouchers and subsidized housing. So Mark, to your particular question, um I would say that um when the policies are not being adhered to and the board, regardless of what board it is, isn't adhering to them, then the policy needs to change. So I think if it's not clear already in our policies and we would need to ask Mara to research, you know, when that vote was taken because clearly it was probably done years ago. Yeah, it would probably be a good idea to take a look at that policy again and amend it so that we can say with clarity per Angus' comments that we reserve the

right to continue families beyond the three-year time frame with the approval of the board. I I would agree if if there are children with medical restrictions, this family is is going to be in need. If they're already receiving SNAP and other public benefits, this family is in need. So, I think we should change the policy if it doesn't already say so. I I want to add that the policy, I believe, was changed because we came across certain circumstances exactly as being discussed now where the family was in extremist and needed more help. Yeah. So this uh provides though that the trust can actually discuss and amend at its discretion is an addendum to that policy. Uh but I don't uh recall exactly what date or time. I know we discussed this last year cuz when we were renewing them and but my comment still is that we've never actually rejected anyone because they hit their time frame. Right. So, it's really not saying that there's an exception if everyone is the exception, right? I I'm not opposed to giving this family benefits. They clearly need benefits, but we have a policy in place and I we can't there just seems to be like um uh we keep vi we keep ex saying extenduating circumstances on everyone, right? which means that no one has extenduating circumstances. It's everyone can't be special. So Mark, are you suggesting we just remove that language? I'm suggesting there's not a three-year limit. I I'm s I don't know what the right answer is, right? That might be one solution. Um but yeah, or or we stick to that you I

mean it's been six years. How long have they been in the subsidizes housing pool? Right. I mean, this can't we can't keep doing these forever, right? That's not the point of this. It's meant to help people get on their feet and this is will be year number six, right? How long do we keep helping people get on their feet, right? It's meant to be a short-term fix, not a long-term fix. So, I would actually ask Amy and Maren if you could pull together the language that we have for the LRAP program and we can have that discussion in June because one of the things that has to happen in the next meeting or or in the next month or two is the board needs to re u reook at the budget and relook at the goals. And I think that would be an appropriate one to take a look at during that time to discuss how do we proceed based on the current language because I think it's the language that needs to change and I I must say that somewhere within the minutes of this uh trust is uh language where it was inserted that where we come across situations like this then we do make an independent uh um determination and address it at that time. Yeah, I'm happy to pull together the documentation for um the June meeting. Great. Thank you. So, with that said, um Mark, would you prefer that we postpone the reertification of this one? I'll vote for it. I just don't I think I think at

a certain point we have to decide what you know we LRAP is meant to be a short-term get on your feet program. 6 years is not a short-term program anymore. So when does it become outside of the bounds? Right? And I understand this family's in dire needs and we should be help and they need help. Right? But that wasn't the intent of the LRAP. So, okay. So, um Maren, thank you very much for pulling together that language for the June meeting. Um and then in the meantime, there was very much there was a lot of discussion, but I believe that Matthew had made a motion and Angus had the second. Does that motion remain the same, Matthew? Yes, it does. Okay. And Angus, still seconding. Yes, please. Okay. So, we'll go ahead and take a vote on this. Um, uh, Angus, yes. Maryanne, yes. Mark, yes. Matthew, yes. And Ann is a yes. So, we can so this application can proceed. Amy, thank you. Mhm. All right. So, um, we have another reertification. There's there's five more. So, just to throw that out there. Um, and I'm sorry, Amy, real quick, but so that reertification was LRAP number two, correct? Yes. Correct. Yes. Thank you. So, this is LRAP number seven. Um,

it's a twoerson household, both elderly. Uh, their annual income is $55,826 a year. Um, their rent is 1,885 a month. They have been in the program since 2020. They both received social security benefits and one of them is still working and they both struggled with significant medical conditions over the summer that have caused a trickle effect of bills. Um, so for this one, I did have a very long conversation with them about their eligibility for the program and I said that there is the concern that they might not be approved moving forward. um they've been in the program for a while and there is other circumstances they're on weight list they but I I did say that I would only be requesting for them to be in the program for another year. Another year starting now? Yes. How many years have they been in? Since 2020. They meet the AMI requirements. They they definitely fall within the criteria. Well, I think it's it's important to say, Amy, that you don't bring anything to us where they don't meet AMI requirements or if they're on the on the edge, you you you bring that to our attention, right? Mhm. Yes, I am very forthcoming. You said their rent is 18. What is that? 1,885 and their income is 55,000. Yes. At the moment, yes. So, the the spouse that continues to work is not able to return to work to her full hourly time. Like she would she

works part-time, but she's she's limited to a certain number of hours at this moment. So, one she is hoping to increase that back to her usual amount, but it's still part time. she is receiving social security benefits. So that can be a factor in affecting her on the social security side. So she stays she has a certain number of hours a week that she used to work. I think it was 20. So was even with her being back to the full 20 hours a week of earned income that in conjunction with her social security benefits and her husbands, they would still fall within the AMI. And Amy, the social security, they're um they're senior citizens, so it's not SSDI. This is social security, but she could still continues to work. Yes. Okay. And so it's my understanding that with social security that um when somebody continues to work, they can only work up to so much if they haven't reached a certain age. I think it's what 65 um or whatever age they need to reach. So until then, they are restricted as to how much they can earn until they reach that age. I I I'm not sure the logistics of that. I usually tell people to contact Social Security to find out what that cap is. So yeah, any further discussion on this? What's the number where you're considered household housing? It's 30. Is the 1885 consider including their rent or including their utilities? Sorry. No, it's not.

That's just rent alone, right? So they're based on my calculation, it's about they're paying about 40% of their household income on rent without utilities or anything. Right. Right. All right. So, if no further discussion, then um we should take a vote on whether or not to um continue the LRAP for this uh applicant. So, moved. I'll second. All right. So, Angus, yes. Maryanne, yes. Matthew and Mark, no. Okay. And Anna is a yes. So, we will continue reertification on this particular applicant. And that is with four yes and one no. All right, Amy, we have a few more. Y we have LREP 10. Um this is a single individual residing over in the mobile home park. Um annual income 22,452 and the rent 440 before utilities. And they've been in the program for how long? Since 2020. And so Amy, what was the rent? It's 440 before utilities because they're just paying their lot fee. So on top of that, they have their mobile home insurance and their utilities.

So this is one. Are they in anything to get out of the mobile home into So this is this is a resident that is their cognitive limitations, physical limitations would be drastically impacted if they were to move to a different residence. So, this is one where we're going to be paying for the lifetime of the resident. They've been in here for 5 years. There's no plans to move them anywhere else. Correct. Um the family's hoping yes for some help. Yeah. So as I said before we have a policy that says three years. We just approved two that are now over. Right. This one doesn't even have a plan to get off of the short-term assistance. So I don't know how we say that there's a policy. they are on those weight lists. It's just they the family doesn't foresee her coming off anytime soon because she's not being evicted. You have to be in those dire circumstances to come off those weight lists. So Amy, I have a question about um the applicant's um cognitive and physical capabilities. So, has there been discussion with the family about um her situation that she um voluntarily leave that space and and go to um another space where there's some assistance provided? So, she does they do private pay for assistance being provided in the home.

Okay. which is roughly another $500 a month. So, what what are you suggesting that potentially she could move to a space covered by Medicaid or is that right? Well, I mean, yes, to a space where there can be some assistance provided because of of the language that Amy used, cognitive and physical limitations basically means that that one now becomes in a position where um it's it's required that somebody be able to provide that care. And what Amy is saying is that somebody is coming in out of private pay to do that, which is basically allowing the the applicant to remain in in their mobile home. She doesn't yet qualify for skilled, which is when Medicaid would cover. Oh, okay. And assisted does is not covered by Medicaid. Mhm. So, uh any has anybody looked at whether um assisted living might be less expensive than private pay? Assisted living is not less expensive than private pay at this point. No. Okay. So, I think we need to address Mark's point, right, about um you these first three cases we've seen, which definitely are longer than the three years. Um, I think in good conscience it would be difficult to not support these folks that need it, but potentially to give them a year of lead time to let them know that we'll approve for one year, but beyond this, they need to look for longerterm arrangements because this is supposed to be a short-term program to

get on to get them back on their feet. And clearly that's not the case um for for this individual. So that could be kind of a compromise solution here is approve for a year but let them know that beyond that they need different arrangements. What do you think? That seems reasonable. I think it we should also put an agenda item on another meeting to discuss like a policy because it's proving very difficult to to tell anyone no and it I think it fights with I mean look we're all compassionate. We don't want to say to them you can't have this money that's that's keeping you in your home. Um, but the truth is that Mark's right. Like this is intended to be short term and it's turning into something else. And I don't know what the solution is, but we probably should discuss it like separated from the individual items because we're having a debate every time and it's just not going to be productive. Right. So I would agree, Matthew. And as per the prior discussion, um, Maren is going to be bringing us the language that currently resides within our policies for the June meeting. So that will be a calendar agenda item for then. Great. Thank you. And I I wanted to uh ask Amy um is there a possibility to research what other um avenues or uh opportunities are going to be available to these people. Um because it's heartbreaking, you know, to tell a family with young children with special needs that, you know, you're not going to have a a home within the next couple of months. uh to tell a cognitively impaired person that well this is the last month you're going to be in this mobile home. So in your

experience dealing with the um uh the agencies that you deal with, are there any avenues for these people to transition out? That's uh possibly something we should be looking at. So, when you're on weight list for subsidized housing, specifically CHAMP, which is the state subsidized housing um site, um those ones there is the the language around imminent risk of homelessness or currently homeless and until those are checked off, you are not really considered an imminent risk. Um, so you have to be like in court proceedings in order for them to consider you an imminent risk of homelessness or you already have to be in a shelter. So those are the people that are getting prioritized on that weight list. Um, oh yeah, I'm sorry. So are you basically saying by giving these people the money, we're keeping them off of those lists? Uh I mean I wouldn't necessarily go that route because they they would have to go into a significant amount of arars before a landlord would pursue um yeah eviction I think is um and it is it is a bit of a catch 22 though right because programs like raft also right um residential assistance for families in transition um you need an eviction notice in order to qualify for that. And the state will provide up to $7,000 a year in aid. Um, but again, it doesn't kick in until there's a threat of eviction. So, I mean, like the like these these folks are are are current. Everyone that's in the program is

current and they're current in part because of the assistance they get from right. Yep. All right. So, um that's an even higher level policy question, Amy. I don't know that that uh that we can address that this evening, but if you have anything from your contacts within the other um housing services or within any of the other agencies that assist families to be able to say, I mean, I'm familiar with the cliff, right? that that that basically says you you can't earn too much more money because once you earn that money, you get cut off of benefits and then it's the cliff because then everything goes away. And in this particular case, we're saying that we are essentially keeping folks from going off that cliff with this $500 a month. Mhm. And so they're not experiencing that. Once this money goes away, then what happens with them? So that's that would be my question is what happens with these folks if that $500 goes away. I think that would be like one of those where we kind of find out as soon as that happens. You know, are they going to start receiving eviction notices or notice to quit that you the notice to quit comes before the eviction notice. So you get the the notice to quit which says you have 14 days to comply with paying the rears in your rent. Um which scares a lot of folks. Uh Marian can probably attest to that um with her experience with St. Vincent Paul. And then and this is more common um with the folks that are in those bigger complexes that have the

lawyers on retainer like Village Green and Pawnside. Um Rogers would be another one because they have formal um legal team in place that would start handling these notices. Now, I would say the other fear for a lot of these people is once they get the eviction notice, I mean, the rents that we're looking at like 1,800 a month is pretty low. Um, so these landlords could be looking for any excuse um to evict these folks. So, it definitely, I would say, would bring on a really stressful situation for the families cuz it it may not just be the threat of eviction, but they could actually uh want them out again so they can um they can increase the rent. That's what um that's what I'd be concerned about as well. All right. So, um we have the discussion in June with the uh content of our policy language and and Amy, if you do have anything that you could bring forward to the discussion in June about what happens to folks, you know, with a little bit more more solid information, maybe using one or two examples that might be helpful in our discussion. Okay, I can sit down. Sure. Um, so as well, so with LRAP number 10, circling back then, is there any further discussion on this specific applicant? If not, we need to move this to a vote as to whether or not we approve Um, per Maryanne's recommendation that we approve for one year. I I I so moved. Second. Okay. Matthew and Maryanne made the motion and second. Any further

discussion. All right. Let's vote on that. Matthew, yes. Mark, no. Maryanne, yes. Angus, yes. And Anna is a yes. So that moves forward with four yes and one no. Perfect. All right. So we have one, three more actually. So we have LREP 14. So this is um a single mom with four kids. There is no um child support received. Um the the fathers are not in the picture. um benefits um are received for two of the children through SSA. Um the mother was on unemployment because she had lost her job and that has stopped since um end of 2023, beginning of 2024. The um they are on all the wait list for subsidized housing. She is working on gaining employment. Um hasn't had any success yet. She does receive some help from the family when they can. She does receive SNAP benefits. She receives um HEAP benefits and she has been enrolled in the program since 2020. Annual income with the two benefits received for children that have that are receiving SSA is 24,576 and her rent is $1,100. What LRAP number is this, Amy? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. LRAP 14. Apologize. Members, any questions for this particular applicant?

What did you say your income was? 24,000. 24,576. And that's based off of the children's. She gets SSA benefits for the children, two of them. Could you share with us um are they very young children, middle school children, high school children? Um middle to elementary. Okay. Thank you. What year were they on the program? 2020. Are you able to share um how long the applicant has been unemployed? I would like to say she has struggled with maintaining employment and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that she's a single mom of young children that are often getting sick and you have to call out of work when you can't send your kid to school and you have limited informal supports that can help um with child care. I think that's her biggest barrier with finding consistent employment. So, her likely path out of this situation is through subsidized housing.

All the weight lists and keeps them updated and she's actively communicating with the different agencies that she's applied with. All right. Any other questions for Amy? So just broadly speaking, Amy, at this point, um, from a similar type of, uh, report that was presented this evening for, um, the small grant program. So, will we be using all of the funding from LRAP this year to your knowledge? you know, the the 120,000 that was I that was earmarked for this year, will it be all used by the end of the year? No, we haven't had um consistently had um 15 um applicants for the entire active participants for the entire year. Okay, thank you. All right, they did have two people that did not. So, LRE 22 and LREP 34 did not need to reapply. Okay. Well, that's good. Yep. Wishing them well. That's good. All right. So, back to LRAP number 14. Any further questions, comments? If not, we'll move forward to vote on this. Um, Maryanne, can I can I ask, are we limiting them to they've been in for 5 years? Are we putting the same

qualification as we put on the last one that they have to find a way? Would you like to make a motion on that? I'm going to vote against it, but I'll make a motion that we put a a that we approve LRAP, whatever this number is, for one more year, and tell them uh the same language Maryanne used on the last one, that this is their last year. Well, um let's hang on a minute. I I thought we were going to review these options in June when we have uh information from um the policy document. So, thank you Angus and Mark. So right now Amy is coming to us to reertify these applicants for next year for 2526. And the policy that we're going to take a look at is what currently exists and we will amend it based off of that conversation. And so I'm looking at it that we are making decisions right now on these that um that policy discussion in June isn't going to affect because that policy discussion in June isn't going to be till the middle of June sometime and Amy needs to move forward on these. So um right so we approve them as per standard protocol and then after the meeting in June we follow up on the policy or we follow on whatever comes out of that uh meeting. So what you're saying Angus is that if we were to put the one-year restriction on this that perhaps that one-year restriction would go away. Is that what I hear you saying? Possibly.

But I suppose that we what my recommendation or what my suggestion is is to approve them for a standard one year, which we've done for a couple of those that came through tonight. And then come June, once we review the policy and make make a definite determination, then we can now start imposing limits. All right. Um, I I'm good with that. That sounds good to me. Any other comments? Okay. All right. So, with that said, then let's go back to LRAP 14. We have the motion to approve it um with the amendment from Mark to approve it for one year. Any further discussion? All right. If not, let's vote. And so, Angus, yes. Mark, no. Matthew, yes. Maryanne, yes. And Ann is a yes. So, that is approved um on a 4 to one vote. Right. 2F. All right. So, LREP 17 is up for resertification. Annual income is 28,440. Um, rent is 650 before utilities. This is significantly lower um rent amount. Um, single person household works with us to apply for all the different benefits. Does receive minimal SNAP benefits. He's been enrolled in the program since 2022. good. So, I think this is year four for him.

Um, just had a lot of expenses this year and was hoping to catch up on them um and remain in the program for another year. Again, he's one that I've reviewed and said that program does have a limitation and it is likely that he might not be approved for coming year. Amy, you said the rent was 650 with utilities before utilities. Okay. And what was the income? 28,440. Any chance for him to get a higher paying job, increase his income? That seems like about depending on the hours, it's close to minimum wage. He's a senior. He's not working anymore. He and one of his benefits is a veteran. He's a disabled veteran. Got it. Okay. So that's so social security and veterans benefits. Uh one of Yes, he has some social security and a limited uh and then a veterans disability pension. So you said just to be clear, you said his in his rent was 650 and his income was 28,000. Mhm. So he's not even considered rent restricted. He said 27% for his rent. He's not even considered burdened. Burdened before you include utilities. He would be probably be close with utilities. But before utilities, he's not even rented. That is correct. I got the same figure. Any other comments or questions?

Sorry, I was just going to say even though he wouldn't be considered burdened when you get down to that level of income, even if it's not um 30 or 40%, 28,000 doesn't go too far. um when you start adding in the regular monthly expenses. So I would make a motion to approve number 17. So we have a motion to um uh approved by Maryanne, second by Angus. Any further discussion? Can I ask a question? Do we have to approve them for the full $500 amount? Good question. It's a max. It's up to a maximum of 500. So his rent Yeah. But we said up to but we've never approved anyone for less than 500 when their rent is more than 500. Right. So I what you're saying because this particular application is applicant is not rent burdened. The rent is not more than 30% of their household income. So Mark, you're saying maybe approve him for 300 instead of 500 to cover half of his rent instead of the full 500. Yes. I will second that as an amended motion. All right. Any further discussion on that amendment? Okay. All right. So, we are voting now on approval of this applicant at $300 um with the acknowledgment that the applicant is not um um at is not rent

burdened at 30%. All right. So, Angus, yes. Matthew, yes. Maryanne, yes. Mark, yes. And Ann is a yes. Thank you. Thank you members. All right, Amy, one more. All right, we're up 20. Um they are receiving 58,400 um as a person household. The um rent is 1,850. Sorry, my dog must have caught something at the face. Husband's chasing after her if you can hear it. Um, two person household with one source of income. Um, the spouse is unable to work due to medical conditions and is ineligible for SSDI and SSI benefits. Um, they are ineligible for SNAP at their current income and they work with us to apply for HEAP benefits and they've been enrolled in the program since 2022. So Amy, what's their transition off the program? Um they're hoping I the husband can sometimes get um a bonus and they're hoping that this year will be a good year for them financially and he will receive a bonus, but they aren't. Um it's they're another one that's kind of stuck in like a a troubling situation with their finances. Um struggling to make ends meet, trying to look at different rentals that they can qualify for through the affordable programs and

um they're looking at um low-inccome housing. I'm sorry, Amy. You said their household income was 48 58. 58 58. Okay. 58,400. Okay. Um, the reason they don't qualify for SSDI is because it was an unwritten um or well, there's a written rule that's not like broadcasted that she they didn't apply for disability soon enough. during the pandemic, she she had held off on applying and there's a 2-year time frame from your last date of employment. So, when she applied, they denied her because it had been 2 years since her last day of working. So, she's ineligible, but she's also not able to work. Correct. So, what's the solution to get out of that? This is another one that seems like is a forever candidate unless they get some other situation, right? They have to move to somewhere cheaper, right? And we're another one that's approaching year four. Yep. We've talked about going into different communities where you can qualify for an affordable unit that would be lower than what they're currently put paying. So, they're looking into that, but it hasn't come up yet that they've found a place. Any further comments,

questions? All right. So, do we have a motion on this particular applicant? I would make a motion to approve with the one-year limit. Okay. So, Maryanne moved Angus second on LRAP number 20 to renew for one year. All right. All those in favor? Maryanne? Yes. Mark? Yes. Matthew and Angus. Yes. And Ann is a yes. Okay. That's my final one. All right. Well, that was um a lot of work, Amy. So, thank you on your on our behalf for uh all the communication that I'm sure goes into just bringing those forward to us. Amy, are all Amy, are those are all the ones that you have for renewal or those are all the ones that will be renewed? So, these are the ones that are up for renewal beyond that three-year point. Okay. So there will be others that are coming up for renewal soon too or these are the only ones are more than three years old. The rest are automatic renewals. Is that what you're saying? I I'm asking what happens do we have active versus how many that we just approved? Are there more that are going to be coming up for reertification in the short term? So, we have three that were recently approved. Mhm. And then we have four that are within that three-year time frame that still qualify and still meet the

criteria. Two that did not reertify. So, do we have don't we have to reapprove the ones that still meet the criteria that are within the three years? If I if I recall correctly, you leave that to Amy to do and she only brings you the ones that require if if I recall correctly, you brings to the trust the ones that go beyond the three years. She reertifies the income levels every year to asssure that they still qualify. I thought we still had to approve them even if they did. I mean, okay. Not that it not that I not that I'm wanting to deny them, but it seems like they'd have to re they should have to reapply and be revoted anyway. If I'm reading everyone else's policies correctly, that's how Westford and Error do it. Um, I haven't actually looked at our policy at this point, but but otherwise, how do you know that you if you had new applicants versus the existing ones and we had limited funds, which one should you pick? We haven't reached that point yet. I know we're lucky on that part. But so what if as part of Marin bringing forward the policy discussion around LRAP identifying the process as to how an applicant gets approved and how an applicant reertifies that approval. just puts put in something in writing that then we can all sign off on. I think that would be really helpful. My understanding of the process is that Amy reviews them and only brings to us the ones that need to be

approved. Is that correct, Amy? That that that's how I understood it. Yep. Me too. I'm happy to do it however you guys would like, whatever makes you feel more comfortable. I think what Angus said and I agree. I think we just if we can just get that in writing so that we have that as one of our policies that this is the no question about it moving forward and then Mark if you want to make any kind of an amendment to what you see in June then it can be done then. Well, our polic on the website it says applications will pre pre will be presented for consideration of reertification at the May affordable housing meeting to avoid any dur disruption. It doesn't say anything about um whether they're over 3 years. It just says everyone will be presented. It says applications. Well, it's because they're approved and they can't go beyond three years. So, that's No, it doesn't say any on the website. It says applications for reertification will be mailed out to participants in April to allow a full month for updates, corrections to applications and submittal of the required supporting documentation due the first week of May. Applications will be presented for consideration of reertification at the May AHT meeting to avoid any disruption of rental payments to the landlord for the upcoming year. Right. It doesn't say anything about anyone over 3 years. Correct. On our website. Correct. And what we're saying is that that has been the informal way that it's been done. And now if we want to formalize it, that's why I'm asking Maren and Amy to put the process down in

writing as to how do you become um approved and then how do you become approved during the reertification? Once that's in writing, we can take a look at it in June and make any amendments that we want to make. What I'm saying is that is in writing. That is what I'm reading. And I get that. I know. I know that that's I don't have a problem reertifying the ones, but they do have to be voted according to this, right? Which is what our documentation says. And I think what what I'm saying according to what we've been doing for the last 6 years is that the only time that we reertify is when they come up against that particular three-year time frame or if there's been a significant change in in household circumstances. Yeah. I think so what you're saying what I'm hearing is there's a difference in in um whatractice you're thinking reertifiying is and what Amy does annually. So we can certainly have that discussion. Yeah. Yeah. And bringing forward whatever is in writing like Mark said from the website so that we can go through it and make sure that we're all on the same page about what we'd like to see going forward. Yeah. Absolutely. But uh we have to remember that if we have to sit and approve absolutely every um L every LRAP every year, I mean every month, it's going to be an honorous meeting. No, we approve them every year. Once a year. That's what we do. Once a year. Yes. Every year. Yeah. I don't think anyone's suggesting doing anything every month. Um No, no, no. I think it's a good idea to approve it. And I also think it's I think it's

not a bad idea to to formalize this also, right? And especially a point that was brought up earlier. If we run out of funds and if we have to start looking across applicants and prioritizing, um I think it's it's a good idea to look across the full pool, right, to um to help to prioritize. Yep. Yeah. You never know when that might have to happen. It's a good idea to formalize it. So, thank you Amy and Maren for the work that you've done and for that that's coming up. No problem. All right. Great. So, if nothing further on Lrap, then we'll move on to our next agenda item. All right. So, strategy 1.1, which is status of funding requested town meeting for LRAP. Um, Bartlett is not here this evening. So, real quick, um, just a followup to the May 6 town meeting. Article 26 did identify 106,000 from the community housing preserves to the affordable housing trust um, LRAP program. And so now what that means based off of what was done last year and moving forward anytime we request funds from town meeting and they're approved um the trust needs to have a grant agreement exhibit signed between CPC and affordable housing trust. last year um was the very first year that we did this and so we had to go through and get um town council involved and they created the grant agreement. Now all we have to do is add on another exhibit identifying the amount of the funds that were approved at town meeting and CPC um signs it and the trust signs it and

then the accountant Michelle transfers the funds over officially um sometime in June or July. So that's the way the process works. So, um, in terms of that particular exhibit, um, Mara, do you want me to work with, uh, Carolyn on it or do you want to draw that up? How, how do you want to work that? Kind of depends on what timing you're looking at. If you're looking sooner than later, I would rather have you do it. Okay. So, I'll ask her to draft that. And so, then, uh, trying to think about last year. I think we just went ahead and signed it and then turned it over to Diane Corey as a an officially signed document. Anything else that we need to do about that? from your perspective, Mar not that I'm aware of. No, I'll work on that. Any questions about it? Okay. So, next is item D on the agenda, the strategy for 119 to Hadawan Road. And Mark, um, can you provide an update on that? Um, so we are in the process of

signing the, uh, the lawyers are involved in doing the transfer, the final closing. Um um Mar and I spoke with Carolyn about whether they needed to do an environmental review and it was determined that was at their risk. I guess they've opted against it. They should be doing the closing any day now as far as I know. So, um um and I don't know, I know they have to do a site walk and some other things at some point, you know, a site plan, but I haven't heard what a schedule is yet. Um I will follow up on when the closing is and um a schedule what their schedule will be. Okay, great. Thank you. And let us know if you need anything from us. Yep. look forward to um to that project getting going. That's great. Then item E on the agenda, strategy 2.3, uh ensuring the King Street Common Development um builds at least the number of affordable rental units as approved in the planning board decision. So given the um discussion about senior affordable units that was had at town meeting, I just wanted to make sure that everybody here um if you didn't know does know and if you did know just as a reminder um in the planning board decision that was done for 550 King Street there there is a um plan in the um in the appendex of that decision that identifies the

phasing of all of the different apartment units. And in the phasing it says phase one, then phase two, it identifies the different buildings and the time frame. And this was approved by the planning board last June 2024. And in here there was um a sentence added that says senior affordable units will be constructed no later than phase 3 which at this time was supposed to be between 2027 and 2029. So it is still the intention based off this decision from the planning board that the 40 senior affordable units will be constructed no later than phase three. And again, based off of another point in this decision, those units can be either on or offsite of the 550 King Street development. So again, that's just for your information. Wanted to make sure that everybody knows that that's still something that um that is required of Lupi Company. And now, yes, uh I have a question. Um we've had situations in the past where um uh builders have skirted the rule to provide these uh percentage of houses uh for seniors. Um, I'm not privy to the full details of the 550 King Street uh stipulation, but is it ironclad to where the uh developer is uh going to be held um with his feet in water to make sure that these uh units are all built? Perhaps Maron might know a little bit more about that. I don't know. Well, from my perspective, to answer

your question, it's in the decision and it's really up to the town to uphold that decision by holding their feet to the fire if if they're choosing not to. And so, it really is up to the planning board. I'm sure the select board has influence. And the reason why this particular strategy was in here that we all approved last year was that we want to ensure that this affordable housing is created. And so that's one of the reasons why I wanted to bring it to your attention is because this board does have this as a specific strategy. we have that level of influence to be able to go back to the planning board, to go back to the select board and and say, "Hey, we understand, we hear, we're thinking, believing that this isn't going to happen. What assurances are there that it is going to happen?" So, I do believe that this is something that we should continuously monitor to make sure that it's going to be built because if not, then who knows what could happen. So, that's my opinion. Thank you. I just wanted to, you know, I just wanted to have it on record that we've had developers who have skirted the rule. So, So, is there an action here? Well, I'm not sure there was an action on this. There's no action. Yeah, the action is is actually the strategy and that is for us for us as the affordable housing trust to ensure that those get built. You know, at least the number of affordable housing units as approved in the decision. So, Maryanne, to your question, no, there isn't anything other than we have to continuously be vigilant

about it. Okay. So then the action might be to monitor the plans for the different phases. And if it's by latest phase three, then we should review the phase three planning to make sure that we have 40 affordable units. Is that what we're suggesting? Well, that's 40 of the senior units. It's it's a lot more than that. it I mean if there's 804 total that are going to be built there'll be 81 affordable units 40 of which are the senior unit and those are the ones that are committed by in phase three you said 2027 and 29 correct yeah so do we want to make a do we want anybody want to second Maryann's motion I second Okay. So, any further discussion? All right. Maryanne, yes. Mark, yes. Matthew, I take it that was a yes. I didn't quite hear you. Sorry. Yes. Okay. Angus. Yes. And Anna's Yes. All right. So, continuing to monitor that would be great. And, um, Maren, did you have anything that you wanted to say about this? Um, that's exciting to hear that the Affordable Housing Trust is still in support of affordable housing. Um just be aware that the process um of zoning enforcement is zone is the building

commissioner. Um he has the authority to enforce the planning board's special permit. The planning board has influence but not any authority on it. So does that mean that the building commissioner could possibly delay the affordable housing? the developer. If the developer wanted to delay the affordable housing, it would be difficult for the town to compel him to build something that he didn't want to build. That's the situation we got into on Dean Lane um for one unit. So, it's definitely a situation that you want to continue to work with the developer the whole way through the process. meaning we should be working directly with the developer or planning board should the I would suggest it's the town administrators um and and staff's job to continue to work with the developer the whole way through any Yeah. Okay, as I said, it's one of the reasons why I wanted to make sure that everybody on this board is well aware that um it's something that does need to be monitored. So, thank you. Then with strategy F or agenda item F, which is strategy 2.5, monitor and influence the potential for affordable senior housing at the Shadic Street Town Hall. So, we know

that um the article that was brought forward, article 12 at May 6th town meeting um did not move forward. And so, I don't know if that will ever be resurrected, but as of right now, that particular um item is um is not on is not on the uh on the radar. All right. So then we can move on to board business. So for any updates, Maren, did you have anything else that you wanted to share with the members this evening? Um, no, thank you though. Angus, how about you? Uh, not today. Thank you. Okay. Mark, um I attended the Habitat for Humanity breakfast a few weeks ago. Um they were very excited about the Littleton project and also um are working on another project in Littleton after ours which will be the Dean Lane project. So, they have closed on the property, I believe they closed it on the property on Dean Lane last week. Um, and we'll be building a house, affordable house there. So, for anyone who might not remember, Dean Lane is over on the Cooper Farm development. And so, that particular um lot was in question for several years. and the with the developers um giving it over to Habitat for Humanity. It's good to see that that's going to be an affordable housing unit. Uh I don't believe that we have a

role in that other than to ultimately try to get that on the um SHI so that it can Oh, it can't be counted. Um, no. Because of the um way the D HOA is set up, that was the one. No. Um, nobody under the age of 18 can reside in that. Oh, that's right. Because of the age restriction, so it can't be on the SHI. Okay. HLC's policy changing a handful of years ago that it wouldn't qualify. Thank you for that reminder. Yeah, that's the one thing that was different about that development is it was the first one that um or was the last one before the senior residential development changes went into play. Okay, correct. Okay, thanks Mark. So, thanks for going and representing Littleton. Anything else? Um I'll leave Maryann for the other one. for the fundraiser tomorrow. Oh, okay. Is it my turn now? Sure. Go ahead. Okay. So, um, first point, um, Maren, I'll respond to your message in email, but thank you for forwarding that invitation for the spring forum in Devons, and if there is a seat available, I would love to attend. So, I'll respond an email, but thank you for that. And um second point um Mark had raised there's a fundraiser tomorrow at Deurgables um which is a brew house you guys probably know I think it's on Porter Street and it's for the benefit of the society of St. Vinc. So, I think you've heard me talk about it and Amy maybe, but we work closely with residents of Littleton to help folks who are going

through um a rough patch, help them buy, usually financially by paying a bill, either rent, mortgage, utilities, but um there's some really good raffle items, basket items. So, if you would like to attend, we'll be at Digibles 4 to 8 tomorrow and tell all your friends. Um, do you happen to have a flyer on that? I will send it to this group as soon as we finish here. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Thanks so much, Maryanne. And so missing you guys and a few others is why we needed to move the meeting from the 20th to the 19th. So very good reason. Thank you. Thank you. Matthew, how about you? Anything new? No questioning. Okay. All righty. Okay. Um so then moving on to the magic appointment. So I know that the select board has um a magic appointment and the planning board has a magic appointment and so the affordable housing trust has an appointment as well or has the opportunity to make an appointment as well. And I apologize I didn't get this sent out but so there is um a convening of the Magic Regional Municipal Affordab affordable housing trust kickoff meeting. It's on Thursday, May 29th from 9 to 11:00 a.m. And so it says, "This meeting is intended to be the first of a series of convenings with the purpose of providing a regular space for you all as affordable housing trust chairs, board members, and invested planners to gather, to get to know each other, and to learn from each other. We aim to create a space for you all to share

successes and lessons learned, talk through problems you may be facing, ask questions, and learn new best practices. We hope the space will give you an opportunity to build working relationships. Our vision is that these discussions will improve the effectiveness of AHTs all throughout the region. The meeting will take place in the conquered townhouse, conquered maps. And so I would like to know who would like to self-nominate for this particular role. Um, as chair, I'm not able to attend daytime meetings like that. So, is there anyone here today who would like to be able to be appointed? Um, I think I responded and said I would attend the meeting. So, okay. Oh, I forget. You'll have to send me it again in case I don't have it on my calendar. Okay. Thanks, Mark. You'll represent us well. I was at their last meeting. So, or a similar meeting. So, great. Any other comments or questions on that? Great. And then if you can just refresh us or update us, I should say, with anything that u that's going on there, that would be great. Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything else before we move on to approving our minutes? We have three sets of minutes from April 2nd, April 15th, and April 30th. Are there any comments or questions about any of those?

All right, seeing none. Um, do we have a motion to approve these minutes? Move that we approve the minutes as listed. Second. Okay, Matthew and Maryanne, thank you. Um, so move to a vote. Um, we have Angus. Yes. Mark, yes. Maryanne, yes. and Matthew. Great. All right. So, all of those approved. And then we have um scheduling of our next meeting which is going to be uh next Tuesday the 27th at 6:30 p.m. And the primary purpose of that meeting is to be able to discuss um Turkey Farm. And based on the last meeting that we had with Laura Choffelt from MHP, she said that she was going to be providing us with um the updated versions of a plan and um RFP based off the discussions that we had with her. And so this evening we talked about coming back to one item on the um small grant program. Um Maryanne and Mark, do you think you'll have something for next Tuesday or do you wish to postpone that discussion? Um I'll try and set up I'll after this call I'll try and set up a meeting with Bartlett and Maryanne uh for later this week. So, we should uh let you know shortly. Um, I think that we have a select board meeting that night, right? Yes. And unfortunately for next week, that's the only date that Laura said she was able to be there. So,

given Maryanne, Angus, Bartlett, and I, and possibly Sue, that would be five of us being able to attend that meeting. Well, that's fine. I just wanted Mark to make sure Mark knew he wasn't going to be able to present. Yep. That's true. Yep. So, that would be Maryanne or Bartlett talking. Okay. I can take it. Yep. Okay. With Bartlett. All right. So, the reason why I ask about that is because if you think that we're going to be able to have that conversation next Tuesday night, we should try to keep it short. Um, but Maren will need to update the agenda then for the 27th to add that on as an agenda item. So Mark, when you contact me, if you could please just copy Marin so that she knows to update that agenda or not. And then on June 17th, that would be our next meeting, next regularly scheduled meeting, Tuesday, June 17th. Does that um date is that date an issue for anybody? I can do June 17th. Angus, you're good with June 17th? Yes, please. Okay. And you're confirmed for next Tuesday, the 27th? Yes. Okay, great. All right. Good. All right. So, I think we're set then. Anything else that we should address before we adjourn? So, just one more question. I noticed on our website that four of us have terms that are expiring in June. Um so our appointments to this trust. Um so what is the the process for next step for those?

So, um it depends on where the um approving or authorizing uh group comes from. So, for example, um which group approved you? A select board. Correct. Select board. Yeah. Yeah. So, Mark, you're Mark and Matthew on the select board. What would that process entail? We have a regular section, a regular event uh where we appoint people um and so your name will be put on the list assuming you would like to continue and we will be Okay, sounds good. And apologies for the rookie question. That's fine. Oh, that's okay. And actually, I don't know whether um because our assistant TA um left uh uh last week, Jim, our TA made overwhelmed. So, it might be a good idea to to remind him that we need someone appointed. Um, and I I would be happy to do that. Um, I don't know if it comes from him or like Diane Corey will send out something to ask you to I I'll see I plan on going I'll be in town hall tomorrow. So, I'll ask and figure out and let you know, Marian. Okay. Hannah will need to go through the town administrator and Sue goes Sue is the appointed by this council on aging. So and Diane Corey does handle that. You're right Mark. Super. Thank you. Yeah absolutely. Thanks for the question. So all right if there is anything else then um is there a motion to adjurnn? Second. All right. Well, thank you everyone. Um, thank you so much for your time this evening and we made it in less than two hours.