Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

Oops. All right. So, do we have a motion to approve this application for the mini grant? Okay. Moved by Angus. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Moved by Angus. Second by Maryanne. All All in favor? Second by Susan. Sorry. Second by Susan. Thank you. Uh, all right. So, all in favor, Angus, I. Maryanne, yes. Mark, yes. Susan, yes. And Ann is a yes. All right. Thank you, Amy. All right. So, we have move on to small grant number 10. Um, this is a single person household. Um, receiving $31,10.64 a year. So, she falls within the AMI. Um, she's seeking flooring repairs. Um, there was a leak with a pipe. Um, mobile home insurance covered part of the repair. This is one that Henry also went out and reviewed in person. Um, because the homeowner's insurance was only able to cover partial replacement. Um, she has uneven floors in her home. She's got subfloors in there um down to the plywood. Um and um we are seeking help from the program to repair the remaining damage that needs to be for the for the job to be complete. Um so there were two estimates. Um Henry went his suggestion was to go with estimate

number two first which was at the 7500. um they were a job that came in and tried to complete and bring it to a safer point and um he felt more comfortable with the way that they had proposed the job. Okay. And welcome Bartlett. Thank you. All right. So, for this particular applicant, um, based off of the the repairs that they're going to do, will will that take care of the situation with the flooring problem? Yes, it would complete the job. Okay. Well, I would advocate for this just having a family situation similarly where the floors weren't fixed and then it created mold problems. So then that increased the price like threefold. So so I would not want that to happen to this particular family. So that's my input. Other members your thoughts? I concur. We should proceed. Yeah, I support this applicant. All right. Do we have a motion to approve? So by Angus second. All right. So moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All right. So um with that we have Angus um voting to approve. Yes or no? Angus. Yes. Maryanne, yes. Susan, yes. Bartlett, yes. Mark, yes. And Ann is a yes. All right. Thank you, Amy, for

application number 10. And now on to 11. Is that it? Nope. 11 was already approved at the last meeting. Sorry, I'm getting when Outlook updates. Um, there there was supposed to be another one, small grant number 12. Um, and since you guys didn't receive that, do you mind if do you mind if I try and find the information within my emails and forward it to so she can share it so you guys can view it or So you said all of these were were sent to us on May 19th. No, application number 12 was a newer one. That one I had I had forwarded over I thought to Lucia's for it to be included. Um, yeah, she didn't include that one as far as I know, unless Maryanne that was part of the email that you we received the earlier ones, the ones we just presented, just not 12. Amy, you suggesting like that you can share it with us now and vote on that? I'm hoping I can find it. Hang on one second. Maren, just as a side note, is there anyone else waiting in the waiting room? Um, we're not utilizing the waiting room. There's one other attendee. Um, um, Mel Lions Teada. I'm sorry, who did you say is waiting? Mel Lion. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Um, so meanwhile, if you don't mind, I'll jump in on the um rest of the uh small grant program. um just let the

trust know that um the town did um put in a community one-stop grant to replenish um the small grant program we put in for $240,000. So that was the request. Um those grants are reviewed over the summer and announced usually late October or early November. So at that point um we would know whether or not um we would be getting additional grant funding for this program. Any questions for Marin on um the third item under the uh small grants program topic. Great. Thank you so much Martin. So Amy, I guess we'll give it another minute. If you can't find it, then we'll need to postpone that particular application till the next meeting. So Marin, did you I just forward it to you. Are you able to see that in your email? Oh, yep. And Mar, if you wouldn't mind um asking Lucia to please make sure that she forwards those on. Well, she'll be back in the office on Tuesday. She's been out this evening. 23. So, this one was09.

Um, did you send me several, Amy? U, they should all be in the same PDF. Okay, thank you. 10 12 12. Okay. Okay. Um, so Amy, I'm sharing it now so everybody can see it. All right. So, this is um a disabled adult with an adult son. Um, the in the income uh still falls within the AMI. Uh the the adult um is on disability and the son is working. So, the the income is inclusive. um they're looking for roof replacement. Um so they received three different estimates um and they won't they they had already reached out to Habitat for Humanity. So they are one that we would be doing in conjunction with Habitat for Humanity. So my request was to um after Henry providing the um encouragement to move forward with estimate estimate number one the 9,450 for their roof replacement um if the grant um if you guys are willing to move forward with the grant for 7500 Habitat is willing to work with them. I already received a letter from them confirming that they would be um willing to help the family with the remaining balance so that they can pay it off over time rather than upfront. Uh it's a twoerson household seeking assistance through the replacement for 24 year old roof. The home is heavily wooded area so there is a lot of debris that falls onto the shingles and moss is avoid unavoidable. Habitat application was submitted and approved hoping to

utilize the program to reduce the amount and length of time payment plan for is for is for the remaining balance that the grant doesn't cover. Okay. Any discussion? So is the 9450 an estimate from for Habitat to do the work and then we're basically helping subsidize what Habitats are doing. So Habitat doesn't do this type of work. They bring in outside contractors. So this is an actual contractor that would be coming in to do the roof replacement. Um Habitat would just be providing the no interest loan to cover the remaining balance. Thank you. No problem. Any other questions, members? Seeing none, does anyone have a motion for approving this? I move we approve um small grant number 12. Second. All right. Thank you, Susan and Angus. Any further discussion? All right. Let's go ahead and vote on this. Susan, yes. Mark, yes. Angus, yes. Bartlett, yes. Maryanne, yes. And Ann is a yes. Okay. So, we have that. All right. So Amy, um just to make sure you know for the future that doesn't happen, you might want to go ahead and and copy um uh

Maren as well as as Lucia just to make sure that that gets added in. We'll do. Thank you. Um, now we can go on to talk about LRAP and as I understand we don't have any new applications for LRAP. Is that correct? Correct. All right. And then we um we did have some information from from you Amy related to um the policies and guidelines that were set up last September. Um and the new version says July 1, 2025. Um were the household income limits the only thing that has changed from September? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, I know that we had the email from Marin back on May 19th. They gave us all the LRAP web web page and I think that clearly outlines the process and expectations. However, I know that there was to be some discussion about what happens um when an applicant um exceeds the time extensions and our colleague Matthew asked if we could postpone this discussion until the July meeting because he wanted to be a part of it. So, what what do you all say about that? Sure. Is some is someone actually updating the policy between now and are proposing drafts and who whom is doing that? Are we just Well, as it relates to the extensions, I think that's part of what Matthew wanted

to participate on because one of the items that was in the packet that I forwarded was Matthew's input on on extensions. I'm I'm not a I'm not asking that we um vote on it today. My question is are we actually planning on July on having a new proposal to vote on and if so who is working on that? I don't think there's a new proposal. I think what Matthew requested is that there be a further discussion about the extension time frame and then after that there might be some more work to be done on the guidelines if the board decides that that's what we want to do is change it in some way. All right. So seeing that there is um an okay approval to uh to table this for the next time for Matthew to be able to participate. Okay. So, also under LRAP, I sent out a copy of the CPC um grant agreement exhibit. So for folks who were on the board last year, you might remember that around this time frame um we had um the grant agreement that was put into place for the first time and there were two exhibits to that grant agreement. It was signed by um both the affordable housing trust and by CPC. Accordingly, the

following years were supposed to add on another exhibit to that particular agreement. Um, what you see is what I sent around to uh Carolyn uh Mueller who is the chair of CPC. I sent it to Diane Corey and I also sent it on to Michelle the town accountant. So Carolyn said that she's fine with it and if we approve it tonight then they can approve it tomorrow night at CPC at CPC's meeting, excuse me. Um, however, Carolyn did say that there was one particular issue, and that is that at this moment there isn't $16,000 in the AHT bucket. So, in other words, the balance right now in that bucket is $91,558 as of the end of May. So once they get their state match in November, then the remainder of the um 15,000, whatever that amount is, will be available. So she asked whether or not the affordable housing trust would be okay if Michelle in accounting um splits the payments to the affordable housing trust into two payments. So maybe 90,000 within 60 days and then the remainder by the end of the year, the end of this calendar year. So when I contacted Michelle about this, she said that from her perspective, um that would be fine. Do you have any concerns with that, Anna? No, I think that um it's more of an accounting issue than anything else. We're still transferring the money. um you know within six month time period. So so I don't have any concerns about that.

Any other comments or questions about that? I'm fine with that splitting it like that. Okay. All right. Does anyone have any comments on the language in exhibit C? I think it was well um should we then state that uh the initial dispersement will be 90 something,000 and then the subsequent dispersement will be the 15,000 and then it should be good. Okay. All right. So you are recommending that the exhibit be amended to include that language that 90,000 within 60 days and then um the remaining um 16,000 by 123125. Is that correct, Angus? Yes, please Anna. All right. So any comments or questions about that? Well, do we need to do that? I mean, it I mean the the appropriation has been voted and and um we're just talking about when the payment is made and um I mean I I don't see that it matters if we put that in the agreement or not. Okay, Maren, from a administrative perspective, what are your thoughts? Um the funds will be drawn down over 12 months. Um so it has no impact on how the program operates. Okay. So Angus, it sounds like we don't need to um to make that modification on the exhibits or are you okay with that?

That's fine. That's fine with me. Okay, great. All right. Well, thank you for making that clarification and it sounds like we're all on board. So, um, may I have a motion to approve the exhibit to, um, to transfer funds from CPC to Affordable Housing Trust. So moved. Second. All right. Sue and Susan and Angus, thank you very much. All right. So, all those in favor, um, let's go ahead and start with Mark. Yes. Bartlett, yes. Angus, I. Susan, yes. And Maryanne, yes. And I am a Yes. as well. Okay, great. So, Amy, are you still on? You are. Um, is there anything else that you would like to discuss before you head out? Nope, I'm all set. Melissa, with Bartlett being back, if we wanted to review the revisions that were proposed by Marian. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to um review and vote on the changes we proposed to small grant program. All right. So, let's do that. So, let's go ahead and go back to um strategy 4.1 talking about the small grants program. It was the second item on the agenda, the policy language for eligibility. And so Bartlett, um I don't know if you were part of you came in at the tail end of any of that discussion, but what we were um wanting to to get through was the proposed changes that Maryanne had

recommended in her document called SGP guidelines. Okay. It's it's the change you already saw that we worked on together. Okay. Then it's probably okay if we worked on it together. And so Angus and I had some concerns about it that it felt a little too open-ended. And so prior to your arriving, I it didn't seem like there was going to be an affirmative vote on that. So I I I postponed it. But if you're here now, we can have further discussion and or move to a vote on this. So Marian, um I I did have a question. I know we worked under this together, but we changed the must under home ownership for not having to should and then we added the extenduating circumstances line. Um, I'm wondering if it still should be a must and then the extenduating circumstances allow us to override the must because right now it we can't I'm trying to figure out if the extenduating circumstances are meant to allow us I I think the extenduating circumstances were allowing us to override either of the musts, the income or the home ownership or even the grant amount. But those others are still must. So, I'm not sure why this one should be a should and the other ones are left alone. Do you do you recall? I don't Does did what I said make sense? Um, yeah, it it does. it. Um I'm not Yeah, I'm not sure what the what the language should be. Seems like kind of a

a detailed policy question that I'm not sure. Um well, typically speaking um in order of of um rigidity, shall is the most rigid, then must, and then should. So from that standpoint, should is the most lenient of those three words. Shall, must or should. So must is kind of middle of the road and I would feel more favorable to it if it was a must as well. So that that makes sense. So we still have the ability to um override but the language says must which is stronger than shall. I'm good with that. Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think it's probably good to have it as a must and you know make it so that extenduating circumstances are really unusual and rare and not normal business but it'll just sound better that it's that we have a rule but we have some flexibility. Okay. So any other discussion or comments? Yes. Can we clarify again that this does not apply to the amount to the 7500 cuz Mark just put that in again in his statement. He said the amount of the grant and I thought earlier this evening we said 7500 was could not be changed. That that was my understanding too, Susan. And um Mark, I don't know if that's what you meant by the grant guidelines, but I was not interpreting that to mean that we could go over the 7500.

I think we can decide what extenduating circumstances mean however we choose. Right. Well, one case is the application criteria, right? And the other is the amount. Right. I kind of see those as two different things. And I thought we were addressing here the application criteria whether they qualify but not the amount. Right? So I'm if people never want to grow vote for a grant other over $7,500 then we're free to never vote for a grant over 7500 and give Amy guidance that we're not open to grants over 7500. We're also free, I believe, to say that someone really needs an $9,000 grant and we see them as worthy and they fall under the extenduating circumstances and we could tell Amy to allow that one through. So, I don't understand what the real issue is here because we have the right to vote against any of these that we don't believe are extenduating circumstances or determine what those circumstances are. We had one a few weeks, a few months ago that wanted the trees removed and we decided that the tr though it, you know, and it would push them over them out or we decided that the trees didn't count. We could have allowed them to do the trees and called that something that they would have to repay, right? So, I'm not sure where the line is we're really arguing about here. If people don't want to vote for one over 7500, then we won't. So, the way I saw the trees was that um that it fell outside of the grant guidelines for what's an essential home repair. So, that's kind of how I was seeing the grant guidelines. is not the amount but

the the specific nature of um the work that was being done. So that's where I saw the exception for the trees not in the amount. Yes. I mean we could view them both ways. May I just uh say that the inclusion of grant guidelines in this modification opens up everything. It opens up the amount. It opens up the criteria whether they're a Littleton resident or not and several other uh parts of the uh uh grant guidelines and that really is the problem. Uh I don't think it really opens it up to anybody outside of Littleton. Uh, no, I'm just giving I think it just it's it's looking to open up the language so that the trust has the ability to say, you know, based on the circumstances, you know, the trust has the ability to make the decision as to whether they want to approve these certain situations because they don't fit into a perfect square box. you know, it's it's opening it up so that there is the ability to look at the whole big picture for the family or the household and say whether or not they wish to move forward with the program and that's up to the trust. So, it's it's putting the the the decision on the trust to make those decisions based on this the circumstances which was already on us. Right. Right. But now the language is in there which wasn't before which was the problem. Right. If I'm not mistaken. Uh may I then propose that we change or grant guidelines to read perhaps or other criteria as seen fit by the trust. But that opens it up even more. Well, the grant guidelines

means that the whole grant is thrown overboard. Um I'm not sure I I'm not following. I think what Angus is saying is that um based off of the language that was just proposed, you know, that opens it up even more. Yeah. Well, I think the biggest concern that that I'm hearing is the words extenduating circumstances. is not defined. And that was so much right because we wanted to to leave it open and again with the with the trust being basically the stewards right and being responsible for using the judgment of what that what that could be. All right. So right now where we stand is the what we're seeing on the screen is what is proposed and the change that was just discussed to go back to the original language. So that means that that first um amendment to this um uh does not does not stay. So, the sentence would read, "The homeowner must not have an interest in other real estate." And then the additional language in yellow is the proposed new language. Are we interpreting when it where it says or grant guidelines, is is that the dollar amount or is that sort of something else or both? From

what I'm hearing, that seems to be what causing the confusion. Yeah. Right. I think where we're reaching is that it's both. Initially, I would I was just considering that as the details of Yeah. what a repair is. But I think All right. Let I'm with you. I think now it's we're considering both. And given the change to must, I'm I'm still okay with the with the grant guidelines then. Yeah. And that um the the trust would be voting. Yeah. I I I I want to say I remember a discussion about the the grant limits from several months ago where we decided to limit the grants to 7500. But that in cases where during construction um you know more problems are found and the the cost of the repair goes up because of unknown discoveries that then we would consider um allowing you know more money to be spent because you know it's required to finish the job and it it's necessary. Um, but I don't think we have to say anything about that. And we I think we decided not to say anything about that. That was going to be a an arrangement between us and Amy. Do other people remember that? Yes, I do. Okay. Mhm. So, so if we go with an understanding the grant guidelines is just a general, you know, the the details of the of the grant as it's written or of the these guidelines as written and not that it does not

specifically include the dollar amount upfront, then I could I could see leaving it. But I think we need to have an understanding of whether that grant guidelines phrase includes the dollar amount. And I would say we don't include we don't include the dollar amount that that's something that appears to be fixed. So then um would the language be based on what you just said, Bartlett? Um, given extenduating circumstances, the trust may consider and approve applications that fall outside of the income, ownership or grant guidelines, excluding the amount of Well, I think that we should just have that be under our part understanding of what we mean. I don't I mean, I don't think somebody would interpret that as including the dollar amount. Can I ask a let's just say we we just approved one that was $7,500 for a roof and Habitat is basically giving them a no interest loan for $2500. If they didn't get that loan from Habitat and still needed a roof, we're not going to help them with a roof because they can't afford the other $2,500. They have no recourse from us. We're going to say, "Sorry, we can't give you any money." That's what we want the program to become. Well, I think that's what it is. That's what it is. This allows us to say that no, we could give you the $10,000, but we're going to request repayment on some future event. Right? That's what this allows us to do, rather than tell them no, they can't have any money because they can't afford to do the project.

I think it's a valid point, Mark. Um, originally I was with Bartlett to not include um an increase in the number, but in thinking about it further and also reflecting on a conversation in our last meeting um when Matthew brought up this exact point um about what if someone what if we have money and someone needs $30,000 but they repay it. I feel like we could accommodate that without further language changes to this document. So I actually like the fact that it's it gives us more latitude. Well, at this point, my contribution is that whatever we say must be documented because I know uh further down the road in six months, sometimes we forget just as um there was documentation in the minutes and in a specific document about the LRAP program and we were uh bickering about it uh until Maron brought the uh document to us. So whatever changes we make, we absolutely have to document it so that it can be retrieved in the future. That's what this document is. What else would you like to have documented? Well, there was some comment that it should be an agreement amongst us and that we understand that it doesn't include um the 7500, but I think that if we make any changes, we must specifically say that um there there's no change in the 7500. Um okay, the grant is 7500. Um and that's what we've been dishing out. If someone comes with a $10,000 project, then they should source the $3,000 uh with or without us. But that doesn't stop us from giving them the $7500.

So I given what what you I'm sorry, Sue. Go ahead. No, that's okay. Go ahead. No, go ahead. Well, what I worry a little bit about and maybe I'm way off base, but if this program is now known as like 7,500 and so people who really need a small grant for something or a small project done, they would consider that if they know that there's a possibility it could be wide open even if they have to pay it back. um that could just overwhelm us with requests and I don't know how Amy feels about that. She may tell me I'm all wet. So that could be and then you know when you start into the town being involved in people paying back amounts that's another whole process that I don't know we want to get involved in. That's those were just two thoughts that popped into my head. Yeah. So, I agree. We we don't necessarily want to get involved in the repayment. That's why we made him a grant and didn't put that condition. There was a lot of discussion when we first started about whether or not to have that condition. And when we got together, Maryanne Bartlett and I with Maren and everyone else, we decided not to put in that condition. Right. So that would be an extenduating circumstance under which we would, you know, if someone actually needed more, we would could potentially put it in if we so desire. It doesn't mean we have to, but we can, right?

Right now, if and I agree and we can give Amy guidelines right now that says, you know, unless you know someone is in complete and dire straits, do not bring us any application that's more than $7,500. We won't approve it. That's entirely up to our prerogative on what we do, right? So, I don't think this gives us more leeway, but it doesn't force us to use any of that leeway. Yeah, I agree. And to to Susan's point, I would say because I kind of agree. I think if we state the language here, be too specific about going over 7500, then that will plant a seed. I think that that can be our interpretation and like you said it can be something that you know as you said Mark dire circumstances and Amy's not going to bring us you know like things that are are not essential. So I I'm I'm coming around to liking this with the one change that that someone made here back to must. All right. So this is the language that we're reviewing now in yellow. And do we have a a motion? Are we ready for that? [Music] I'll make a motion to approve the amended small grant program guidelines as amended and presented on the screen. Second. All right, Mark and Maryanne. Um, so let's go ahead and take a vote. Um, that's uh Susan. Yes. Mark, yes. Bartlett, yes. Maryanne, yes. Angus, abstain.

And um Ann is a yes. So, all right. So with that understanding, would that mean that we can review app the grant applicant number four for the trees or no? Yes. Let's move forward please. Okay. All right. So um in the packet was included a letter from um Steve Whitten, the the tree warden in town. He went out to the property in question for grant application number four and did an assessment. He identified um six oak trees that have a high-risisk assessment that could cause damage to the house and may be responsible for moss growth on the roof. The six oak trees identified show signs of decay and broken limbs and dead branches. He recommended the removal of these trees to mitigate any damage from impact with the home. There is a cluster of oak trees on the side of the home that may need further assessment, but he would agree the with the removal of trees is necessary to provide a clean and safe environment for the homeowner. um included with the package should have been that letter with the client's address and um name redacted as well as a site drawing that Steve provided um identifying where those three homes lead saying six oak trees numbered for removal, front of property, rear of property, and then the trees on the side of the home were in question. Um the resident um also went out and got two different estimates. um from companies that own their own crane. So, these would be companies that do not have to rent a crane. Oops, I didn't realize that. Sorry about that. Um these would be from companies that don't require the rental fee. So, we had received two

estimates um or we the client had received two estimates that were um they were very different in their assessment of the property. So with with Steve going out and providing his assessment um and with these two new estimates, we are receiving um a much more consistent quote. Um uh the companies that are looking, one of them said that they would be removing the six oak trees and that came in around 5,000. And then another one said they would be removing the six trees for 6,000. And again, this is for um the remaining balance to be applied to with one of these estimates. Um primarily the lower one, which would be the 5,000. So based on that information, that's what we were hoping to open up those guidelines for is so that we can take a look at these and take into consideration um these types of requests. Um they don't necessarily fit into those perfect guidelines for the program. All right. Thank you, Amy, for that additional explanation and the letter from the tree warden. So any comments or questions on this one? Do we have the letter? I don't see it. It was in our packet. Which document is that? It was called site drawing-steve w with redacted. That's the first one. And then the other one is it should have just Yeah, say drawing. I'm looking at the documents for the 617 meeting and I don't see that document in there. It's the one from Luchia, not

from Anna. And the first one starts with tree risk and the second one is site drawing. Right. Mar, do you have the spreadsheet or do you have the amount for the remaining amount? I believe it's I think the Yeah. No, I I don't have the spreadsheet, but uh it would be for the remaining mount up to the um 75 75 for this address. Okay, I want to be something that I'm drawing a blank. Hold on. Might be able to find it in a his email. I want to say it was like 4, 115. Hold on. Mark, were you able to find the documents? Yes, I found them. Thank you. So, sorry, Amy, what's the um the final amount that we're asking to approve or being asked to approve? I'm trying to verify um you're trying to approve the the amount that's being requested. Uh the remaining amount. So, okay. Yes. So, 4,112 was previously approved for um the gutters and sophets. Um the remaining amount was of the grant up to the 7500 was being requested to go towards the tree removal.

All right. Any other comments or questions before we um move for a motion? Well, I want to say that I just paid to have two large trees taken down at my house um because they do present a danger of falling. One of them already fell on the house and um one was leaning on the house and I think um between the damage the trees do to the roof and the and the potential danger um removing one some of them is a good idea. All right. Do I have a motion? Yeah. So, I I would support and make a motion. Um the exact number just isn't clear to me. Um could we just approve then the balance? So, I think it's it's roughly 3,400. Is that right? $3,388. Okay. So, this is um SGP number four. Yes, they were previously approved for the 4,112. Okay. So, make a motion approve SGP04 and the amount that Amy specified. So can Amy can I ask what the estimate was actually for because what they one of the estimates had in stump grinding and things in there originally. Okay. So the the she had received two new estimates um which was a recommendation um from the tree warden to seek out the the estimates from from companies that have their own like stump or um crane and and all that. But the stump grinding I don't

uh I don't see that included in these two new estimates. Um and I don't know if she's necessarily worried about that. I think she's more worried about the the trees. It stump grinding is usually specified specifically as included or not included because it's it doesn't specify that in these. It just it says the removal of the six oak trees, four in the front yard, two in the backyard, and um the Steve had gone around and marked the trees of concern um with um ribbon and the the two different tree companies that she brought in agreed with what he had had noted, but it just it just identifies the crane. doesn't say anything about the stump. If she wished to do that, that would be she was she understood that she'd be covering anything remaining. Any other questions, Mark? No. Okay. Any other comments from anyone else? So, we had Maryanne provide a motion for SGP number four in the amount of 3,388. Do we have a second? So, actually I do have another question um for Amy. Amy, is the household a size of three or four? Because in the original application, it was going back and forth. The income was calculating it for all four the even the one that's not currently in the home that is in a long-term care facility

which they're privately paying for the private the long-term care facility through a long-term care program as well. So, they're currently they're currently being reimbursed for the long-term care facility payments, but that will end come December. But Amy, if I recall, you and I sat with that and um they met the guidelines for a threeerson household and still made the um income met the income guidelines. They've met the income guidelines for a three or four. Any other comments or questions? We still have a standing motion from Maryanne. I'll second it. Second from Bartlett. All right. So, all those in favor? Bartlett? I'm in favor. Yes. Mark, I'm going to abstain. Okay. Maryanne, yes. Sue, yes. Angus, yes. and Ann is a yes. So that SG key number four um is approved. Thank you very much. All right, Amy. Thanks. Thank you. Welcome. All right, so let's move on then on our agenda. Strategy um 4.4, 4 which is um or 2.4 119 to Hadawan Road. Um so Mark you have that uh what is the update please? Uh so we just got mail from council that everything um has been agreed to for the closing between

council and Habitat. Um, and they're working on setting up a closing date. Um, there's a couple documents that the that I don't know if it's you or me, Anna will end up having to sign, but they're going to get in touch with us soon with further details. Okay. Yeah. Um, please go ahead and and sign those documents. And this is technically your project from the standpoint that you've been the lead on it for the last year. So, that would be great. Yeah. Um, and Habitat wanted it wanted the closing by like somewhere in mid July because they were going to uh be applying for grants and they needed control of the property by then. So, right. Any comments or questions on this? All right. Thank you, Mark. Appreciate that you're moving that forward. working at the speed of government. I love it when Susan laughs means it was particularly funny. All right, so moving on then to strategy 2.1. Derky farmhouse. Um, so we had a site visit on June 3rd with um Laura from MHP came out and um several members were there. Um, Bartlett, would you like to recap the visit, please? Um well, we walked through the barn and um I was very enthusiastic about the barn and Laura was less enthusiastic about the barn and said that converting barns is difficult.

um that my understanding was that she had people who could or would come out and evaluate the barn for housing and tell us whether a conversion is feasible or not. Um there were a lot of discussion about the property lines and the setbacks and the wetlands, those setbacks. Um, but I think generally it was a pretty positive um walk through the the the barn and the the road near the road part of a site. So I don't think I think uh the question wasn't not whether you could convert the barn into housing. It's whether you could convert the barn into affordable housing. Whether you could generate enough rent to support the conversion at an affordable rate. Well, yes. We we did not discuss the house in any detail. Anyone else have any comments about the visit? Okay. Um so yes, there there is more work to be done. Um she she being Laura had um various ideas. is um she provided various comments about um how uh emerging developers might be interested in this particular project. Um so we'll see. Um Bartlett, is there anything else you would like to add? Um, no. This is a very slow moving project

and so I don't really know how to speed it up. But I have a question. Sure. Did she uh specifically state any particular reasons uh she was concerned about ban conversions? And did she find anything that um triggered her to suggest that um she it sounded like she wasn't uh particularly in favor of this conversion at this time? Um well, she was I mean we were were talking about affordable housing and um she said that a lot of barn conversions become market housing um and they end up being quite big units. And um it was her my my understanding was that making it into four units, you know, it just involves more construction and more kitchens and, you know, more plumbing and um that it it would be difficult or impossible to to make it make the numbers work with affordable units in there. So, it's it is she said it was a nice barn and she actually um you know was quite creative and I thought about you know the the issue of changing the floor to floor height in the barn. Um so she was helpful in that regard. Um but but that just [Music] she thought that it was going to be easier to get a developer to build new construction affordable units on the on the grass and you know the on the open

space rather than have affordable units in the barn just that's going to be very difficult to do. So, what about I know I know that the trust had um indicated an interest in two and threebedroom units. What about downsizing to one and twobedroom units? Um, we didn't we didn't talk about um we I don't remember us talking specifically about the number of units. We did we did mention it, but I don't think there was a strong direction one way or another. I think Angus means that instead of two and threebedroom units, would we have fewer of those and more one-bedroom units? Is that what you mean, Genus? That is correct. Perhaps it might make the cost uh less expensive, less the plumbing, and less to do. Mhm. So, I think um I think that's part of what she will have in her recommendations. Yeah. I mean I mean you should I mean there was a lot of talk about the number of units um is the is is the number that that um is important and figuring out the cost per unit. So um from that point of view more units is better. Um I'm not sure where the tradeoffs are in that particular equation. So, at the the talk that Maryanne Marin and I were at last week, uh, someone was saying that when you go beyond two units in a building, it the code completely changes, making it much more expensive to build. So, that might be one of the

issues with the barn. Yeah. the the I mean I was I was told that any anything over three units you have to sprinkle it and put in you know fire alarms that go to the fire station. Um which is an additional expense. Um but that would be true if you know if we build a six-unit building next to the barn. Yeah. I just didn't know if it was cheaper to do that in new construction than retrofitting on some of those things. So I don't either. All right. So anything else regarding that site visit? That site visit or that property? That site visit. So regarding the hopeal application um that was submitted and so we should be hearing back um on the acceptance of the application and then with regard to the insurance. So um it's just been incredibly frustrating. I know that Diane Dickerson um has been working with the broker um and finally received something today um with Jim Dugen's help to to really push on them. Finally received something today at 4:30. I was in the middle of traffic so I haven't looked at it. What I saw from the email itself instead of the documents was the amount of 12,444 for one year. And then right before we came on, Diane Dickerson called me and she said that there is a option if we did not want to

do the full policy um that we do just a general liability and then shelf selfinsure for the rest. I said that I had no idea what she was talking about and that this was going to require some more time and um but since this is the last meeting before the existing policy expires on July 3rd um it does warrant conversation. So, um, Bartlett, as um the project lead for Derky Farm and, um, co-chair, I I need to lean on you to to work on this to try to get it resolved, but I would like to open the discussion about the proposed amount um, and your direction on how to proceed. Well, I haven't read the policy. I did read the $12,000 um number. I think the $1,000 a month is a lot to pay in insurance. Um I think that there's a good chance that the house will get demolished. I don't know what the point is in I mean I don't think we can assume that it's going to get rebuilt and I don't know what the point is of ensuring a building that's at least 50% likely to get demolished. Well, I think my biggest concern is um is always um if somebody gets injured on the property while it's in our ownership and that that's probably the most important thing. Yeah, that would be the liability. Um the other insurance would be for fire or a hurricane or you know some kind of destructive

thing and I'm that's what I'm questioning is do we need insurance against that building being destroyed in some way? That's an open question for the members. That's a question for the for the group. I don't think we need to uh insurance against the building being destroyed. I think it's going to fall over on its own soon enough. Well, maybe we should insure it then. I mean, what what what was the what's what's how much insurance is there on the building? Do we know what the policy limits are if the building is destroyed or we'd have to read the document for that? Correct. Um receiving something at the 11 hour 59 minutes is not two hours before the meeting. More we can do about that. Yeah. So, I'm more than happy to give you the existing policy if you'd like to review those. It's easier on paper than trying to look at it online. Um, but getting back to Bartlett's question, how does everybody feel about not insuring the building and just having the liability? And I don't know how much those two are intertwined. I'm good with it. Just the liability. I am as well. All right. So, at this moment, we don't know what the price tag is for just that. So what is the trust's intention then to provide Bartlett with the full amount and then

reduce it down to just the liability? So I'll make a motion that we approve up to $12,000 for insurance with uh for liability insurance on the building. Since we know the total policy is $12,000, the just the liability has to be much less than that, but we don't know how much less without you looking at the policy. Do we want to maintain any prior insurance on the barn? I believe the policy that we have covers both buildings. If we can separate the two, then I would maintain insurance on the barn. If not, I'm If it's easy to separate, then separate and do the barn but not the house. If it's not, I'll leave it up to your discretion how you want to proceed. How's that? I think it would be worth maintaining insurance on the barn, but if it's too much of a pain or too expensive or if you decide it's too expensive, then don't do it. All right. So, we have a motion on the floor to approve up to $12,000 um for liability and giving Bartlett some leeway in also maintaining insurance on the barn. Second. All right. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Okay. Bart Angus. All right. So, um, with that motion on the table, let's vote on that. Maryanne, yes. Bartlett,

yes. Angus, yes. Mark, yes. Susan, yes. And that is a yes. Okay. Before we move on from this property, I do have a couple questions. Um, one is the letter Jim sent said that we were using CPC funds to purchase the property, which I think we changed to not use CPC funds to purchase the property. So, I don't know if that affects our application at all. No, we already purchased the property as in past tense. I know, but we at a recent meeting, we voted to repay the CPC money so that we could do things and not have the house be affordable. Remember, we went through this whole discussion that if we bought the property with CPC, the house had to be affordable, right? We had the discussion. We did not have the vote. It's my recollection. That's my recollection, too. Um, you can at any point go back and revisit that. All right. And in fact, what Laura recommends is we hold off on that vote until she has provided her recommendations about what to do with the house and the barn. Okay. So then my second question I think is might be okay and Warren probably can answer. So since the house was currently purchased with CPC funds, we can insure it with CPC funds. But if it's not with CP purchased with CPC, are we allowed to insure it with CPC? Does that make sense? I understand the question. I can certainly ask council. But at the moment it stands that it was purchased with CPC money. That's correct. So we pay the bill and then we change it. But uh does it really matter at the at

the time it was purchased with CPC funds, but we're making alterations in order to proceed with the project in terms of perhaps maybe selling later and so on. So, I think it's still valid. Well, the question is once it's no longer part of paid for with CPC funds, what can we use CPC funds for on that property? My understanding, nothing. But again, that's the conversation that you and Bartlett had with town council. So, you would probably know better than us. We didn't have the conversation on what we could spend on the property. We had the conversation about um whether the house had to be part of affordable. So we can revisit on the other front but we didn't have that part of the conversation. Right. Do you have any other questions, Mark? Nope. Okay. All right. So, um, thank you all and Bartletta, thank you for working on that. Well, you and I will be in touch about if I find anything out about insurance. Yeah. And I'll get you those policies. All right. So, the next item is um strategy 2.3 um King Street Common Development. So, one of the items that I sent to the members was the King Street Common decision. And um I wanted to point out a couple of quick things per our discussion that we had back on May 19th. And that is um to reference that particular document. If you look on page 10, there is a sentence in there about the

expectation of when the senior affordable units were are to be built. On page 11, it lists the number of units for seniors and that they are at 30 to 60% AMI. And then on page 12 on items B and C, it uses the word shall. Um, which typically means that a a shall indicates a mandatory obligation or requirement and it means that the party is required to perform a specific action. So, I just wanted to make sure that everybody had this document because it seems like from what was discussed at the May 19th meeting that um uh there is a belief by Maren that Littleton cannot compel Lupi to build the senior affordable units. Um I believe that Littleton can compel them to build them. our town leaders just to have the just have to have the political will and the financial commitment because we might have to sue them to do so. So I just wanted to make sure that in moving forward that you all as trustees are aware of um what is written and what is expected um and that also you be aware of the times when Lupi and uh crew you know be it his engineer etc are planning um to be in Littleton because that poses an opportunity to be able to ask questions. So, with that in mind, it's my understanding that the next time his um development company uh is going to be in Littleton is um on July 10th. Now, that might change. I don't know. But I would definitely recommend that affordable housing trust members either uh watch or attend that

meeting. Any comments or questions? This is planning board meeting. Yeah. Marin, can you confirm when Lupoli Company is coming to Littleton? I have I don't have an agenda for July 10th yet. Um I believe uh Lupi team is working through the town administrator's office to get in front of the select board sooner than later. All right. So, if no other comments or questions, then we'll move on to our board business. Um, Maren, uh, the budget for next year, you requested that. Yeah, just my helped my thought process to put this all together in in one document. Um, sent out uh just just a quick draft budget. um housing consultant services um for the Asabet Regional Housing Consortium. Um that's the one the um quarterly bill that we get um through the town of Hudson um for consulting services. The um most recent uh regional training opportunity that we had was the one at Devons and I believe Mark and Maryanne joined Cooper and I at that workshop. Um and so that is estimated at 3600 uh for fiscal year 26. That includes um some optional hours um where housing trusts or planning staff can reach out to um the housing consultants and and get help with um whatever ongoing issues we might

have. Um I would recommend on the second line um to set up um a training budget. um because sometimes trainings come up without a lot of notice. Um and that way it would allow uh trust members to attend without um checking back um with the trust. Um recommended amount of 500 and again all of these are up for um your uh cons discussion and vote your consideration. Uh LRAP, you've already voted um previously to set the LRAP amount for FY26 at $120,000. Um, EMAP and E-RAP programs are currently not active. Um, staffing is you currently covered under the planning department um budget. There's no um proposal to change that. Just thought it wise to include it here so that we note it. Um, same thing with legal fees. um uh affordable housing trust has not received any separate uh legal bills um from town council for a couple years. Um then we jump to the Derky 260 Foster Street. The insurance um I uh according to the prior conversation would bump that amount up to 12,000 maximum. Um, we will have advertising costs um if we decide to move forward with a um request for proposals, mowing. I wasn't sure if that would need to be done again this year. Um when it was done previously, that was $500. And supplies and miscellaneous um in case any more reinforcement or new locks or etc is needed. Um and then um dur

um and not for vote at this time but for consideration um for the future. The derky repay repayment um of MHP program would be up to $35,000 only if the affordable housing trust decides not to move forward um with the development. And another thing on the horizon is the um Habitat for Humanity grant for to Hadawan parcel. Um now that the parcel will be transferring um that will be coming up hopefully sooner than later. Um I believe if I recall that um grant agreement has up to um $100,000, but that vote on the exact amount and that transfer would be at a later time. All right, that's the staff recommendation anyway. All right, thank you Marin. So members, what um comments or questions do you have for this particular item? It all makes sense to me. I think it's a good idea to set aside some funds for training um so that we don't have to do it at at the time. I like that question is is I I generally don't know how much these sessions cost. Is 500 enough? Um what's what's your experience there? What have we spent in the past? Um so the if trust members are interested in going to the CPTC annual meeting that's usually just under $100. Um, I believe some of the MHP trainings, um, a lot of those are free. Um, but

then there are some costs for, um, like the MHP annual conference. Um, I believe that was around $100 per member. And the session that we went to last Thursday, that was included in our membership, so there was no cost to that. Correct. Correct. So, it ranges. Um, So it seems like 500 might be reasonable then if there's anything beyond that it can also be something else that the trust approves. So correct? Yeah. Y no I think the budget sounds reasonable. Okay. And um Bartlett, is there anything else that you can think of for Derky that needs to be included right now? And if not, like I said, we can always add it at a later time. I'm not thinking of anything right now. I mean, we'll settle the insurance. I don't know if we need mowing. Um, we probably do need some security um because the the plywood is has been moved off of the um bulkhead door into the basement. Ann and I moved it back, right? But it it was originally screwed down. So we couldn't probably ask the highway department to go out and screw it down again. No. So do you recall what that amount was and we can go ahead and include it in this? Well, I mean it would be one guy for half an hour, so I don't know. would be I don't think it would be very much. All right. How about we add in another $300 on top of what Maren has listed? Okay.

All right. So, so Martin, can we pay for all of these things out of CPC funds or at the moment? Yeah. I didn't know if the consulting and the train training the trusted member training founded as CPC eligible. Um, yes, they are. Okay. Thank you. They're in support of housing. All right. So, any other comments or questions? If not, what we're looking at is 3,600 housing consulting services, $500 member training and education, LRAP 120,000. Derky includes um $12,000 for insurance, advertising of 800, and I assume that's for the proposed RFP. Marin, that was my thought process. Yeah. Okay. mowing for 500, supplies miscellaneous 500, um, plus 300 for securing the home again in the bulkhead. And I believe that's what we have right now. Make a motion to approve that budget. Second. All right. Bartlet made the motion. Angus seconds. All right. So, all in favor, Angus. Yes. Bartlett. Yes. Mark. Yes. And where are they? Susan. Yes. And Maryanne.

Maryanne. She's muted. Yes. Okay. And Ann is a yes. All right. Okay. So, we've got that taken care of. And it helps um accounting as well. All right. Well, Michelle helps us, so we'll help her. All right. So, next on the agenda is um Maryanne and Mark discuss exploring the next affordable housing trust development. So, know we didn't really talk about this being on the agenda. Is this based on our conversation from last week about the meeting? Lauren added this to the agenda. Oh, okay. All right. Um, I am happy to share some notes that I took from the last meeting that we can walk through that might make it easier. Let me see. Unless Maron, there's some place specific you'd like to start. Let me see. So, well, um, Marian and I met with Marin last week, I guess it was. I'm not really sure exactly anymore. Um, but, um, and the idea was with the Tahadawan property moving along, uh, we thought we should start looking at what our next affordable project could be. So, uh, we started talking about, um, if there were town parcels or other parcels we should be looking at, um, for affordable housing, um, and what the process is for that. Um, with some followup, we've been

talking to Kim Quovo, who's the chief procurement officer for the town at the moment. um if we were about what the regulations were if we were to try to buy a property. So, um we've had email conversations with her and we'll probably try to meet with her in person uh one day next week. Um she's on vacation this week, so uh nothing's been scheduled yet. So, I had just taken some notes from our meeting. These aren't official minutes, but just um if you'd like, we can walk through the the properties we discussed. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. So, first one was 13 Shadic Street. Um just the notations here, plus or benefits. If it doesn't say anything, it's more neutral or just a statement. And the minus is um a negative. Um and then we talked about next steps. So 13 Shadic Street um is highlighted as an attractive property for us. Um location near the senior center on town sewer would require some reasonzoning. Um the downside or the negative is that the town doesn't know the land. Um initially I had taken an action to follow up with Kim Alvertelli or Lisa Stoic about the MLS listing but Mark was going to follow up on the process. Um, but Anna, after our discussion when you said that you and Bart were pursuing separately potentially with Leoli, um, I put on hold the MLS discussion I was going to have with Lisa. So, well, actually, I'm not pursuing anything with Lei. So, so that's just um incorrect. So, I had mentioned that Bartlett had conveyed this idea to them. Yes. Yeah. I I mean, I don't know. um pursuing is the right word. I send an email

to um the engineer who's most frequently at the planning board. Um, and he and I have t chatted and joked about stuff, but I I just wrote him and said that there's this parcel that I understand is on the market or will be on the market and it's next to um Pine Tree Park and uh I thought it was a joining on two sides. It's actually a joining on one side. Um but it's a parcel and and it would be a good location for for housing. And um I asked him to ask the people who think about affordable housing at Lupi to uh think about this lot as a as a possible site for affordable housing. And uh I have not heard back. So I don't know where that has gone. Um they My experience is that you I you can't predict um from a not a nonresponse what Lupoli was actually doing. Um I sent an email to some people at Lupi about the library mini golf months in advance and I didn't hear anything and um they um showed up and did a lot. So, um I I just don't know what's happening. Okay. It was a very it was a very small effort on my part. Okay. So, Maryanne, if you wouldn't mind taking my name off there because it's Bartlett who who was exploring that. Okay. I think it was something that you had suggested though, right? You were um involved somehow, but um it's gone.

Okay. Okay, the next property we discussed was Russell Street. Um, it's at the the bend of Russell Street. Um, positives, it's a large lot, easy access, owned by the town already. Park and wreck. Um, it's close to town sewer, could be extended, probably at not an outrageous cost. Need to check wetlands restrictions and then Martin provided this further update um, after we met. Well, yeah. outrageous cost. Um the Pine Tree Park is in the process of um or they will be in the process of connecting to the sewer which guns runs down Shadic Street and um we're estimating the costs of designing and engineering and implementing this connection from the existing septic systems to the town sewer is as close to a million dollars. that does include um whatever dealing is needs to be done with the le existing leeching fields. But it's it's it's not a trivial thing to design engineer and and implement a pipe from one place to another. But there are no pipes there currently, so it's slightly simpler. Well, there's there's water lines in there and stuff, but Yeah. Right. And there's no leeching fields. The property we're talking about has is undeveloped, right? So, it's it's simpler, but it's still a substantial number of dollars. Yeah. I think it was just a proximity that made it a neutral and not a negative. It's not like bringing it down to Derky. [Music] So, um there's still a need to check wetlands restrictions. And yeah, so again, we were just kind of

doing having preliminary discussions and um leveraging Marin's knowledge to help us consider what could be, you know, potential next projects. Um the other one we talked about was behind the police stations location near shopping on town sewer owned by the town. Um access challenges um with the easement likely it's probably possible but maybe awkward. um that alone could be um you know a deterrence and then also um being right behind the police station they may not support it. There might be reasons why it would not work beyond beyond politics. And then just at toward the end of the meeting we discussed the catalog property and Mark I think you were going to have a conversation with Joe to see if that would even be a remote possibility. Um I've reached out to him. I haven't heard back. Did I miss anything Marin or Mark? So the other thing Maren mentioned was there's was the possibility of potentially combining a bunch of little parcels together and doing one big one bigger RFP around it. We really didn't spend much time investigating that because the logistics just sound outrageously complicated to manage and put together. All right. Um AR, does that cover it from your perspective? That's what I recall, too. any um any comments from other members?

So, I think the goal is kind of like, you know, we're looking I'll say over the summer at what we think a reasonable next project would be and then, you know, by sometime, you know, late summer, early fall, maybe we're ready to hit the ground and actually start more actively pursuing it as opposed to this being like very very preliminary work to say what we could do. Does that sum it up, Maryann? Yeah. Yep. Well said. If there if there people have other ideas of like, you know, look here, look there, we're willing to like develop them at this level or slightly more detailed to see where we can go. You know, we're not spending any money. We're just doing, you know, introductory research. Great. Thank you. All right. So, I want to do a time check. It's 8:32 and we have a um uh agreement that we wouldn't go past 8:30. Um does any everybody have like maybe another 5 to 7 minutes in them? Well, can I sure sound so excited? Okay. All right. So, um under trustee and town planner updates, um I'll open it up. Does anyone have any updates that they want to talk about? Well, um perhaps I should do a quick recap. I went on a a trust uh funded training last week and I'm Mark was also there I believe. I mean I just uh uh looking at the um the budget that's budgeting trust member training. I think it's quite appropriate. The last time I

went to any training was I believe in 2019 and I had assumed it was the same training but it wasn't. I did go to the one in Devons but this is a bigger MHP is a bigger larger more um organized and appears to be a much more powerful uh program. So I encourage everybody to go to this one if they get a chance and funding too. So we um the first day was uh the kick start. There was um a lot of fanfare and uh uh and then we broke out into sessions and I went into the session where they were talking about pre-development work. Um uh we were educated uh that that consists of desktops uh desktop surveys, actual surveys and then review of the concept looking at utilities, power, gas, telecom constraints and easements and uh things like that. Um there were sessions for policy. I was more interested in the actual work and so I went to the ones that uh talked about um what was uh relevant with what we're doing and actually most of the things that they went through are things we're going through now with the various projects that we're handling especially the Durky uh project uh there was a session on housing development on public land and I thought that was quite interesting. So I went to that uh they talked about the RFP process, identifying the land, going to town meeting to get approval,

assign disposition, um and so on and so forth. Uh but something caught my eye. They talked about um RFP cautions. Um, do not do prescriptive designs. Do not send in multiple designs. No postawward approvals. No postawward inspections over and above what was approved. No ground lees under 50 years and uh and so on and so forth. I'll just It was a lot to take in. So, I'm just going to skim through my little notes here. Uh, and they talked about common RFP mistakes. Uh, people assume that the AR RFP look uh similar, but there are certain things that could create problems. So, uh they recommend never copying someone else's RFP. uh always have uh sufficient information for the developer and uh the feasibility design should not be too prescriptive. Uh there shouldn't be inconsistent RFP information. Do not send in inappropriate requests. Do not do post approval post award approvals. And then they talked about uh funding. Uh there's conventional real estate funding, equity, debt. Um they talked about constraints such as cash flow, operating expenses, and so on and so forth. And there was um

talk about the lowinccome housing tax credit. I'm not sure we're we're actually doing that here. That's that's typically for much larger projects. Yeah. Right. And then um they talked about fair housing rules and so on and so forth. Great. And some towns have um devised uh specialized uh mechanisms for um uh for locating vulnerable properties before they go into the hand of developers. Uh some target um the poor and the elderly and try to get them um before a developer gets them. Some look at uh organizations because a lot of organizations are running out of money like uh charitable organizations and uh some use uh potential deferred maintenance buildings usually old multifamily homes can be used for um uh multi- uh for you know uh housing development And then one town uh Greenfield has uh developed a uh um an app to find uh properties that they can go ahead and develop uh develop on low uh income. Um so that was just a brief rundown of uh a very extensive uh two-day uh program and I encourage everybody to go to that. Great. Thank you, Angus. And when the RFP comes out,

you'll now know what to look for. All right. Um, anyone else? Um, I'll I have a couple I also was at that conference. Angus summed it up pretty well. Um, a couple weeks ago, Marian and I went to a meeting in Conquered, uh, which was run by, um, MAPC, I believe, or Magic, I'm not sure which, where they got together the different affordable housing trust organizations and talked about, um, well, we basically compared notes and on different things. People were very excited to hear about our small grants program. Um um it was um yeah they were very keen on more information and wanting to set things up similar. Um I'll let someone Maryanne or Marin can talk about the program we went to last week. Um I have tomorrow I am going into Somerville and I think Marian is as well to see one of the lab 9 the lab 9 affordable project. We're going to tour that site um tomorrow morning. Um um so that's um my other update is after our la our meeting in May I've reached out to four or five I think that's a number uh different affordable housing trust um to see how that have rental assistance programs and um all of the programs advertise that they have a three-year um cap. Um so I reached out to them to see what happens to their participants when they hit three years. Um and also to compare what some of their guidelines are and to date two programs have uh responded to me on

the three-year question and both said um they do not um extend past 3 years. Uh one one said they had only one circumstance on which they extended past 3 years. One of the two said they've had one circumstance they extended past the three years and that was someone that was um had terminal cancer who um they extended for a short period of time but uh they no one goes beyond 3 years so far. So I'm going to follow up with the other ones and have more conversations around that so that we can tighten up our LRAP policies. Great. That'll be just in time for the next meeting when Matthew will be here. It's uh nice that um Mark has gotten this feedback from the other um uh programs cuz uh you know it breaks your heart if people are still having problems and then you turn around and say to them no. But certainly perhaps we could write into ours um uh specific conditions that may trigger extension like uh terminal cancer or um certain other um medical or other condition perhaps that might help. I believe and I also want to add that um at my meeting um it was also the same people were excited to learn about Littleton the they say oh we hear good things are going on in Littleton tell us about it and so on and so forth and I also actually um spoke with Laura who was also uh uh a presenter at the conference she had said that she had already visited the day before to um inspect the uh the barn.

So, yep. Great. Um Maryanne um Mark mentioning lab 9 or nine nine lab 9 to um to everybody. So, did you want to uh talk about the visit that we had with them? Sure, I can um I can talk about that. I shared some um took some notes on that one as well, but um basically they presented us u um a proposal for a 30 unit three-story affordable housing building, right? One that's already designed. They took some of the best practices and the favorite things that Polo likes about affordable housing and they incorporated that into design um kind of a yeah pre-esigned um building and that's what they'd like to do. So they said that when they go into these affordable housing projects about 30% of the cost is soft cost. it's architecture, it's design, it's you know the project management overhead and the remaining 70% is construction. So the concept is if they have this pre-esigned building then they can really reduce and you know try to eliminate a lot of the soft costs. It was um it was really interesting. It was a a good design. It was 60% two-bedroom, 30% 3bedroom and 10% onebedroom. Do I have those right, Anna? I think it was the other way around. More onebedrooms, fewer threebedrooms. Okay. So, that's but that's roughly the mix. So, mostly two, but then a split of um single bedroom. Some of the aspects that they wanted to incorporate, they all have their own laundry. Um they all have um open um open layout, open floor plan, and there's one to one for parking spaces. And that entire uh the building

so the 30 30 unit building plus 30 parking spaces can fit on 6 acres. Um which I think we both kind of immediately thought of the Shadic Street lot, right, which is an acre. Um but I think that there's there's good potential there. They're eager to do business with us. They understand that whatever we do would require RFP and you know we have processes to go through. But I thought it was a it was a good exercise and yeah, really interesting. Yes. And so based off of the conversation that Mark had earlier about meeting with the magic group that is discussing affordable housing, um uh we connected the lab 9 folks with the magic folks to see if they can make some additional connections for their business there. um in the spirit of um being able to get more small affordable housing projects. So, thank you, Maryanne, for sharing all that. All right, anybody else? I have a one more quick one. Um we talked about Loli. I just the draft agenda for the select board meeting on Monday the 23rd came out in Luli updates from the Le company are on our agenda um for somewhere between 6:30 and 8. Um don't ask me more than that cuz that's exactly what I know. What's the date? Uh the 20 Monday the 23rd. June this Monday. Thanks. Thank you, Mark. I know we're short on time, but there was one thing I wanted to present. Mark mentioned the um magic, not the magic, sorry, the Asabet uh conference that we went to, Marin Cooper, Mark and I, um two topics. Uh one was designbased zoning. Um couldn't give that justice in a in a one minute summary, so maybe we can save that for a

future meeting. Um but the other one talked about schools and the impact of development on schools. And just the the what I wanted to share what I thought was interesting about that was um let me know when you can see this slide. Yep. This shows school enrollment trends and really interesting. So this is starts in 2002 2003 school year already a steady decline and then this drop off is obviously COVID um but we haven't recovered. So this is the um the general trend statewide in Massachusetts. The interesting part though, they broke it down by all of the towns that are in this consortium and Littleton is is bucking the trend. Um all of the other school um school or the towns are decreasing and Littleton is up 3%. I think there was one other town that um was it Bolton? That's Boilston. It's more flat, but everyone else is um varying degrees of decline, but that was um that was kind of interesting to see that um the a lot of a lot of research went into the studies. Most of them showed that there they said that there's not a tremendous impact on housing and the demands. They talked about fixed versus variable, but they also said that um several of the studies were funded by developers. So, you all for sharing. That's all good. Yeah, it was interesting. Again, in the interest of time, um you know, I won't go into more detail, but it was definitely worthwhile session. Thanks, Maryanne. All right, so on to our next agenda item real quick. um membership reapplication. Um this year it's Susan, Maryanne, and myself. And I did want to inform everybody that this is going to be my last meeting

because I am not seeking reappoint. So you all will get to continue to have fun. All right. We have minutes from May 19th and May 27th. Are Susan and Marian putting in for reappoints? I did. Yes. My appointment is actually through the COA, so I have to wait for a COA board to approve it. But you're planning on staying at the moment because we're done by 9. Because nobody else wants it. But now I'm now I am vice chair of the um COA board. So that adds another thing to my plate and I not sure. Okay. All right. So minutes. Um any comments or questions from the May 19th or May 27th meeting minutes? All right. Seeing none, do we have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All right. Susan and Mark. All right. So, Angus, yes. Mark, yes. Bartlett, yes. Susan, yes. Maryanne, yes. And Ann is a yes. Okay. So, we're approving those minutes. And next is scheduling the July meeting. What would be the date for the July meeting?

See, if I It's usually the third Tuesday or second, but usually the third. So, the 15th. Yeah, right. I will be unavailable that day. Would you rather move? Is it a select board? Is it I I am on vacation that week. Oh, vacation. Um July 15th, I will also be out of the country. How about the 22nd? I believe I can do the 22nd. I might be exhausted, but I should be here. Yeah, I I'm pretty sure I can do the 22nd. Great. All right. So, the July meeting will be on Tuesday, July 22nd at 6:30 p.m., right? Any other business? If not, um, let's do And just a quick question. You kind of glossed over your, um, announcement that you wouldn't be continuing. Is that, um, you won't continue as chair or you won't be on the trust overall? No, I will not be on the trust. Yeah. Well, I'm very sorry to hear that. So, very sorry to hear that. Well, there's there's only so many hours in the day. So, well, I'd like to thank Anna for her time on the trust and wish her well. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks, Anna. We're going to miss you. Thanks, everyone. Well, great work. Thank you. and thank

you all for continuing on this work as well. So, Anna, uh I think that your nonrenewal will be a big loss to the board uh the trust cuz you uh came in and slipped in and uh it was just seamless and you went straight to the point on all the issues we were dealing with at the time. And I think that your work is visible in where the trust is today with all the accomplishments the trust has and uh the accolades that the trust has been receiving uh both uh internally and externally. Like I said in uh Worcester people say oh you're from Littleton. Oh goodness we hear a lot of good things going on in Littleton. Um how did you do this? Tell us about this and so on and so forth. But I think that your steady even handling of matters um your judgment and all of that is crucial to the success of the trust and I can't uh thank you enough for the quality and the high standards you brought uh when you assumed the uh chairmanship of the trust. So, uh, thank you and, uh, Godspeed whatever it is you're going to do next, plan a wedding, um, so anyway, well, thank you, Angus. I appreciate those words. I appreciate everyone's kind words. So, um, I'll know where to where to look for great affordable housing conversation. So, thank you again. All right, have a good night, everyone.