Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

632. I call this meeting of the affordable housing trust to on July 22nd, 2025. I call it to order. And the first order of business is to have elections for the different positions on the committee. So, does anyone have I guess we do it in order. We do chair and then vice chair and then secretary or something. Does anybody have a nomination for the chair position? Don't everybody speak at once? I nominate Maryanne here for chair.

Do I hear a second? I'll second. Maryanne, are you okay with that? So, thank you for asking, Matthew. I appreciate that. Um, if if no one else would like to be chair, um, then then I will accept the the nomination. Um, if there's someone that feels really strongly and passionately that they would like to chair, um, then I would, um, offer that they they take it. But if if there's not anyone, then um I'd be happy to do it.

I I think you know um having having experienced um a couple chairs, the um level of accomplishment that Anna brought as far as being like driving things forward was a very refreshing. And I know that she spent a fair amount of time at it. and I know that I do not have that amount of time to spend on this committee. Um, so I um appreciate you being willing to do it and uh yeah, I think that I think it's fantastic. Ditto.

Well, thanks. I I appreciate that. You know, I I don't had the experience that Anna brought, you know, her um experience from planning board and just from, you know, being in different positions in town for a number of years. Um, you know, she leaves big shoes to fill. Um, and I I don't claim to be able to do that. Um, I I'm not sure how this process works, but one one thing that I would like to ask of the the trust is that if um if we do move forward and if I am um elected into this role, I'd like for us to um to meet at least quarterly in person. Um I think that that will help us to um bond uh a bit more if we're able to do that. Not every meeting, but just you know every third meeting.

Sure. Okay. Looks like Angus. Angus, do you have your hand raised? Sorry. Uh yes indeed I do. I uh wanted to um Oh dear. What's going Oh, there we go. I wanted to um parrot or second what Matthew had said. Can everybody hear me? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Yes. So, Anna's accompl accomplishments are monumental, but then she does have a bit of experience. Um I did second uh Sue's nomination, but uh unfortunately I think I was muted and nobody heard me. Um certainly uh I've been on the trust for six years. And I've seen the work grow in leap and bounds to where Anna had left it. Um we had uh started with bare bones and a lot of accomplishments had come along and uh the trust work now is pretty much like a a a full-time job. And certainly um anybody uh taking up a role uh must have enough time to dedicate to it. And I do believe uh Marianne coming in from a background of real estate uh recently retired from what I heard uh if I'm wrong please correct me uh does have a significant amount of experience and time that uh we certainly shouldn't let uh um leave um to fall off uh by the wayside. And I do believe the nomination is or is in order. I second it and I think that she'll do a tremendous job. Uh certainly Marian if there's any question or any issues that arise. Um uh Marin is here Javi is here. Uh the whole trust is here. We'll work with you. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. And ju just to be clear, I don't have a real estate background. Um my background is high-tech and um but the the experience I bring is really through the um the volunteer work that I've done through the society of St. Vincent Paul and that the work that I do uh with our our neighbors in need in Littleton and other local communities. So that's the um that's the experience that that I bring. Um but it certainly will be a learning curve. And in terms of you know just setting expectations um I do not have full-time 40 hours a week to commit to this. Um, so if that's if that's your expectation, Angus, then that's that's not happening. So, obviously not. I don't think anybody has given that much.

Yeah. Well, you you mentioned it as a full-time job and I have um other jobs, right? So, I will, you know, commit as much as I can to to move things forward. Um, and yeah, that's um I just just wanted to be clear though about my background and the, you know, the level of commitment that I'll I'll be able to um to deliver here. Right. And for clarification, I just meant in terms of the scope of the work and not that you should commit that much time. So, but certainly we'll take whatever time you can offer. Thank you. Right. Is there any further discussion? Can we just do this by acclamation instead of a vote or do we need a vote?

We need a vote. We need a vote. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded to nominate Marian as chair. Um, all in favor, I will just go across. Matthew, Matthew is yes. Marianne, do I vote or do I abstain in this? You totally vote. You can vote and I'll vote yes. Mark, yes. Angus, yes. Sue, yes. And I vote yes. I believe that's all of us. So, it's unanimous vote. Thank you. Thanks for the vote of confidence. All right. So, now you're chair. You can do the rest of it. Is that how it goes? I'll nominate Bartlett for vice chair. Oh my god.

Second. Revenge is fast. All right. Are you okay with that, Bartlett? Yeah, I am. Okay. So, the motion was made and seconded. So, Maryanne, take us home. Oh. Um, so this also requires a vote then. Yes. Correct. And a rule. Okay. Then we'll um we'll take it around then. So Matthew Matthew is yes. Susan, yes. Mark, yes. Bartlett, yes. Angus, yes. Okay. And you you vote too.

And I vote yes. Okay. And I vote last, right? Is that how it normally works? Okay. And for the minutes, it helps if you say who made the motion and who seconded it for the person um compiling the minutes. Okay. So, Matthew made the motion and I Maryanne seconded. Great. Okay. I certainly will need to refresh between this meeting and next meeting on the uh the Robert's rules of order here, but um keep me honest in the meantime.

We're a long way from Robert's rules of orders. [Music] Okay. So, Barley, are you serious? Do you want me to take over from here or is this I don't get like an effective tomorrow? No, it was effective 10 minutes ago. Okay. All right, then. Let's um let's move on then to item three on the agenda. Um 3A is our strategy 4.1 small grants program. And Amy, you sent around a couple of new applications. So, if you could um go through those, that would be terrific. Sure thing. And congratulations, Maryanne and Bartlett, on your new positions. Everybody seems very excited.

Thank you.

Um all right, so small grant application number 13. So, this is a single individual um that is dealing with a pretty intense rodent infestation. Um it went throughout the duck work and insulation in their mobile home. Um the she's been breathing in the fumes and rodent droppings and urine which we all know is not good for our health. Um and it's caused her some frequent hospital visits and doctor's visits. So she went and got some quotes on getting the duck work replaced um as well as the damage to the insulation underneath and getting the whole underbelly resealed so to reduce um further infestation. So, she's seeking for the grant to cover the first 7,500 and she is working with Habitat to cover the remaining amount and pay that off. Um the quotes that um there was two HVAC requ three insulation and underbelly sealant um quotes and the ones that Henry had approved was estimate one for the HVAC and then estimate three for the insulation moisture barrier underbelly sealant. And what do those total?

Um, so the total is for $8,784. So the anything over the 75 is what Habitat will finance with her. And Amy, that's the one where you sent the letter confirming that, right, from Habitat? Yes, it's the redacted letter. Yep. Any questions, comments? It looks pretty straightforward to me. I mean, you know, she's secured the balance and um I have no objections in moving this forward. [Music]

You said you said that the the issue was rodents in the in the trailer in the mil home. Mice. Yeah. Is is there this includes um getting rid of the rodents in some way? So, the rodents have already been dealt with. It's now the aftermath that she's dealing with. Um, okay. All of the residue that's left behind. Well, I'll make a motion that we uh um support this applicant 13 with a grant of $7500. Second. Okay. Guess we will vote then. Um, Matthew,

yes. Susan, yes. Bartlett, yes. Angus, yes. And Marian is a yes. So, SGP13 is approved. So, Amy, did you arrange the um coordination with Habitat on this? Yes. That's that's really cool. Yeah. Lisa has been great over there. Lisa Garvey, I believe is her name. Um, she's she's brought some folks to me and we've been collaborating on a couple different cases. So, um, I can move on to grand number 14.

14. Yep.

All right. Um, so this is a twoerson household, ages 64, 65. They both have chronic health conditions. Um, one requiring dialysis and the other receiving cancer treatment. Um, with the health conditions causing decline in the physical capabilities, they are seeking support from the program. You add a shower stall with a handheld shower. Um, so this would be like your walk-in um, shower, no tub that you have to jump over, which will increase their abilities to remain as independent, and safe as possible staying in their home. Um, let's see here. the estimate. There was two different estimates received. One for 92 thou 9200 and then another for 10,300 and Henry approved the 9200 estimate.

Is is this a retrofit of an existing bathroom or are they putting a new shower in on a new floor? So, this is a um bathroom with a closet and it sounds like the closet is what's getting turned into the shower saw. Okay. Y. So, we're going to cover the 7500 of the 9200. Yes. And um we talked about Habitat helping with the remaining balance, but her children are able to help with the remaining um balance. So, they'll pitch in and she has a little bit of savings that she can use to cover anything that the kids can't. Wow.

Well, I make a motion that we approve S. Second 14. Okay, Matthew makes the motion. Angus seconds. Um, let's go around for a vote then. Uh, Matthew, yes. Susan, yes. Mark, yes. Bartlett, yes. Angus, yes. And I'm a yes. So, we approve SGP14.

How many uh how much money have we spent and how much do we have left? This is I mean this has been like a a raging I mean a raging success, right? Like this is of all the things we've done I I don't recall ever having this many applicants or approving this much money going out in such a short time span.

Yes, I'm glad you asked that question. Um, I did go back and update our internal spreadsheet um that has the amounts that have been approved um and shared that with Amy, but I forgot to share it with with with you all. Um, so uh with one of the grants having been um passed over, I think there are two more, help me out, two either two or three more full grants available and then one partial. Sorry, my dog joined.

So, but um so I will before the next meeting I'll get that information to you, but Amy and I are working closely together so that she's not accepting applications for funds that we don't have. Did we approve this at the fall town meeting last year? Um this was um funded through a um state grant program uh housing choice grant.

That's right. uh $120,000. So there was up to 16 full grants available. Some grants have been partial. One was um turned out they didn't need need the work done. Um so we have like I said that was 14. So I think we have three more full grants and one partial left. But like I said Amy and I are working together so she's not accepting applications that um can't be funded. Uh, and so I did apply for additional um, housing choice grant to re um, you know, add more funding um, to this program for the next two fiscal years. I did 200 requested $240,000. We won't hear if that's grant is awarded until maybe early November,

but then the cash wouldn't show up until the fiscal year next July. Um well, if it's awarded or is that not tied to um let's see. So the way I requested it would um it would become available next this January. Okay. It's a calendar year. Yeah. Calendar. A similar cycle to last year when we got it right. We got it in January. Started in Februaryish. Yes. And you doubled it based on the demand.

Based on the demand um and Yeah. And our ability to really tackle that number of projects. So that would be for um two fis two fiscal year. Well, two years. We're gonna take it, right? Work through that amount. Great. Clearly, there's a need, right? As you said, it's been a a great success and um yeah, thanks for putting the application forward for more funds. Okay. Um I think we can move on then to um LRAP, the rental assistance program. Any new applications, Amy? No. No. No, no applications.

Okay. So, can can I ask a question? I'm sorry I missed the last I missed the last meeting. Um and I had I had written up a potential policy. Did Did you all discuss that like for um to go over like whether we renew after 3 years or not? We we tabled the discussion, Matthew, until you could join us. So, that's um that's next up on the agenda. We can um we can cover that now if you'd like. Sure, why not? Unless there's any more LRAP to talk about. Yeah, there is.

So, I wrote that primarily because two meetings ago, we had a lot of long discussions about renewals after 3 years. And Mark legitimately pointed out that why do we have a three-year limit if we never stop after 3 years? So I think my only point in this policy was to give us uh motivation or a a go just a framework so that we could actually you know end someone's support which I realize is always going to be a very difficult decision. Um and I think if we are we are very you know clear about this at the beginning of the process that it lasts for 3 years at the end of the 3 years we won't have the difficulty in saying no especially if there are other people who need the money.

So I did some research on this. I inquired with several other um housing trusts that have um a rental assistance program. They all appear to have three-year caps and from the ones that got back to me, they're all very hard threeyear caps.

Um they do not extend past 3 years. the um the one said they have only had one circumstance where they extended beyond 3 years and that was someone that was uh terminal um and they didn't want to you know cut her off in her last few months. So everyone seems to be pretty strict about their three-year caps except us. So, so I guess my feeling is if there aren't more applicants than money, it seems silly to cut someone off after three years.

Well, I Well, so we're spending the we're spending CPC funds on LRAP that we could be spending on other projects that would have a longer term. So, there's always the money. It's just a matter of what we're spending the money on. We can choose to spend it on rental assistance, but that doesn't really build more affordable housing. That's a short-term um it's a short-term band-aid for someone, right? It doesn't help the long term. It's so so perhaps the policy should be even more strict than I wrote it. But I'm well I mean I welcome any feedback. Well, I mean, it seems to me that several of our LRAP recipients have been um if not terminal, at least not having prospects of increasing income

and that it's necessary um well, I don't know if it's essential, but it's certainly um an important benefit to those people to get that LRAP money. So, um I mean I would I would be happy to say or I would consider um we say there's a very hard three-year limit, but people can reapply after 3 years if if they think that they, you know, have no alternative. But we're not meant the LRAP isn't meant to be the last alternative for people. It's meant to be a temporary solution to a problem, right? And if they're going beyond 3 years, it's no longer I mean 3 years is what we considered temporary.

And I think what we said before is if they're on LRAP, they they can't be on other lists or they don't end up on other lists for state aid and things because we're supporting them. And then the No, no. what we were what Amy has said before is they don't get or I believe it was Amy but someone said that they didn't they won't get the things because since we're supporting their rent they don't get the the programs that kick in right prior to being evicted and things like that so because

not necessarily it does people that are prioritized on a lot of at least the the CHAMP which is the state subsidized um housing weight list. That one they're prioritizing people that are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness. So these are people that are documented in shelters and needing permanent housing. And so they're staying in those permanent housing shelter programs where they keep them until they can get them secured with housing um without having like court proceedings in process for people that are on those weight lists. That would that's kind of like where it we've seen in our office that the the ball starts kind of rolling for the folks that are on the state subsidized housing list is when they're in the court proceedings. there's document documentation from the courts saying that they're facing homelessness because they're getting evict getting evicted. Those are the folks that would get bumped up into a more of a priority over others. But like federal sites like Mil Pond or um the Littleton Green, those two sites um they can kind of handle their weight lists the way they want. They're not mandated in the same way as the state. Um, so that's that's what I was I was trying to allude to,

but that's means that because we're paying paying their rent, we're keeping them out of the court system that would open up the other avenues. Yeah, I I think that that what you're describing, Mark, um is the case with RAFT, which is um resident rental assistance for families in transition. And that um can provide up to $7,000 a year um for families that need rental assistance, but typically they don't accept applications until there's an eviction notice. So it creates a difficult um situation right because a lot of people don't want that eviction notice right they want to retain or you know a relationship with their landlords but that typically is what's required to qualify for raft.

So um I want to bring a different dimension to this um uh perhaps um Amy can correct me if I'm wrong. Majority of the people we've helped with this program are usually the elderly who have very little prospect of increasing income or new income or even to go out there and get a job and some of them are ill and um almost literally bedridden can't help themselves. So um certainly what we're providing is a lifeline and how do you put a hard stop to that after 3 years and with no more prospects of getting anything from anywhere. Um I'm not sure that we must follow what other towns are doing. Um we have our own culture here and we have the way we've always done it here. And I do believe that um the policies we've had that have been documented multiple times in uh minutes and actually Marin brought um brought them up uh I think a couple of meetings ago should be the way we move along with this type of um business. Um excuse me. Uh I I don't believe um we should just um cut them off with a hard stop and say, "Oh, you're it's three years. You're you're done." Um with no prospects of getting anything anywhere else.

I strongly believe we should be reducing the amount of money we're giving to LRAP and spending that money on building affordable housing for in town. We would be much better off in the long term rather than transferring money that we're getting from the CPC to landlords. We'd be much better off taking reducing it by half to 2/3 and putting that money into building more affordable housing. I I do understand the logic for that. But certainly we are we are doing both. We are. No, we're not.

We are building affordable housing. We are um uh working in construction in um several other areas. There's 550 King Street. There's uh

250 uh there's a DIY farm building. We were we we are doing stuff. So, the only thing we've accomplished on that is the Habitat house where we're spending $250,000 to put in two houses effectively, two affordable housing. This is not sustainable on how we should be doing this. We need to think big and it's going to require more money and we can't put it all towards LRAP to do this. 550 is not our project. We're not funding anything on 550 currently. Well, Mark, we already have 200,000 into the habitat site and we've committed to spending another 100,000. So, that's 300.

But, you know, um, you know, when we spend 7,500 to improve somebody's house, that's 7,500. And it doesn't add any numbers to the affordable list either. So, I'm I'm in favor. I mean, I support us on this. That's not That's not Littleton money. That's state tax money that we're getting a we're getting a grant for. We can't actually do that for CPC funds, right? The We could

No, we can't. It's illegal. You cannot. That's why we had to go for the grant because you can't spend CPC funds on people's houses. So when when you designed the program Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Susan.

No, I'm I totally agree with Angus and and and Bartlett. I can't see putting a hard stop after 3 years. Some of these people, as Bart Bartlett pointed out, have already had to go longer than just 3 years. And they are in most cases the elderly who do not have a chance to um get more income and get themselves out of a situation where the rent is a a problem. And uh yeah, I understand Mark what you're saying about having the money to do more for affordable housing, but to me that's a much bigger a much bigger issue, a much bigger problem that we're not going to we're not going to be able to tackle and do all at once. and that this helping $500 a month helping people with rent is something that we can do locally and we could and we should

I didn't say we shouldn't do it. I think that the three years is a reasonable it's read the policy and read what LRAP's supposed to be. It says it's shortterm rental assistance. That's what it's meant for. It's not a long-term program. It says you can re renew or reapply after five years is if we could word it that way is what I mean after 3 years. I I just can't see it being a three-year program and stop because well I'm not for that.

Amy, you're the one that um that sees these folks that are applying and that um are in this situation. Um, how do you feel that most people are able to graduate from the program? Like what options do people have to stop the dependence on on LRAP? We do have a few folks that have transitioned out successfully before the or either at the three-year mark or before the three-year mark. and some of them have ended up in they've received one of those those state funded or federally funded vouchers. We've had some that have passed on. We've had we have some that have been evicted from their current residence even with the help of the program because they were too far

Mhm.

into the hole rentwise or on terms with their landlord in order to stop it with the program. Um and then we've have we have some that have found and secured more affordable housing in other communities. So, um I've seen a range of it. Um, I I understand both sides. I I understand the the the back and forth and the argument. Um, I think in and in and speaking to what Mark is kind of talking about with the affordable housing, I think what my follow-up question would be is what what level of affordability are we looking at? Are we looking at a certain AMI? Are we looking at deeply affordable? because that is the greatest need that I see just because those weight lists are so long and I know the process for that is very complex and there's lots of shades of gray and it's very hard to understand. Um but that's that's where the need is is in that deeply affordable category where you're looking at these people that are on disability or they're on social security. there isn't the ability to increase the income. Um, and they're still strugg, you know, they can't get on into those programs because they're so there's such a demand for it. And in order for you to go in, it's usually because you're waiting for somebody to pass on, be no longer eligible to live in one of those facilities or move in with family or whatever. Like there's circumstances that surround them leaving that type of a living situation. And you don't really understand that need until you're the one living it. and dealing with it either as a family member or as you know you know one of the people that Maryanne and I work with through St. Vincent Depal. Um,

which is difficult because you're kind of between a rock and a hard place. You really don't have another option. Um, but I also and I and I see it from from the other side too. I'm a bleeding heart. I'm always going to do my best to try and find a resource to help them stay in their place and and make things work and, you know, not have to rip up their family roots and and move to a different community. But, you know, there has to be that ability to see that reality isn't going to be in affording a market rate rent rental.

So, so I I guess I'm going to um I'm going to kind of support Mark. I think that we are in a position of h of of we sort of feel like we have a lot of money and we do, but I don't think that's necessarily going to last. um you know some of the things that Fincom has talked about over the last few years and the financial policies that they want to put in place you know they feel like us having a million dollars in the bank is a waste because we're not spending it and it's not doing anything for Littleton and a lot of it came from CBC. I mean I know someone was payments from uh from developers but it all got it all got run through the CBC for the match. So, like I think that if we were running on a shoestring and we were scraping to try to find, you know, $90,000 to help Habitat build a house, we might be having a different discussion about the LRAPS because we might be saying, you know, it's hard for us to justify spending60 or $70,000 a year on rental assistance when we could convert some of that to money that we could go towards finding a permanent house for someone. So, I think that, you know, that that that is a valid concern for me. I do I mean I look, I'm I'm as committed to like helping people, I think, as anybody here. Um and and I also understand like long-term fixes are better than short-term fixes. So, I think that 3 years of help is a good middle ground. And I would advocate for having a you know having a cut off after 3 years.

I support that as well and I think it's important for us as was noted earlier to be transparent with people um to give them the opportunity to um to address their situation within the three years. And I I know and I understand that's that's difficult. Um but I think three years to me seems like a a reasonable period of time to support um what was identified and implemented as a short-term program

because the people on disability or the people who absolutely can't afford their rent and never will, I don't think this is the program for them. like they should be finding I mean with Amy's help other you know state programs to help them live affordably. So Amy are there any such programs?

Well there well there is but the availability of those programs are limited. Uh they all have weight lists. Uh you go to Mil Pond, you're looking at three to five. Any state aided um housing authority, you're looking at 10 um years. Yes. Years. Yes. 10 years. It there's just there's such a great need for deeply affordable housing

in in the Commonwealth. Um so it's just I think that's that's the struggle. I and I and I understand where Mark is coming from and and what Matthew is saying and it's it's it's a difficult position because you you're like I said for those folks that really need to get into one of those places and they're on those weight list because that's one of the parameters of the program is that they're willing and able to and agree to being on those weight lists. It's it's just there's so many there's so many people that need it. It's hard to get one. And I wish I knew what the the magic thing is that I do on the applications with the ones that do get it. I I really wish I do. Um because some people it happens quickly and some people it it takes so long and I and I don't know what their algorithm is, but it just it's really unfortunate that there's such a great need and and there isn't a better solution. And I believe if you look at what the governor is doing, I mean, she kind of understands that and she's throwing a lot of money towards affordable housing things, right? And we should be advocating with our legislators and our governor and everyone else for them to throw more money at these types of programs,

right? Um, but we also know that it takes years and years to build that stuff. I mean, none of those units are going to come online for three years or five years, right? So really, so what are we proposing here? I think we have two options, right? I mean, right now we have um the program in place with the defined limit of three years and we basically just don't enforce it. So I think Mark, you're proposing that we don't change the existing policy, but we start enforcing it. That right? Yes. Okay. And then um Angus, what what's your proposal?

Well, we do have um a proposal on the books. We have it documented in our minutes and in um policy that uh we uh re-evaluate. It's at the discretion of a trust to evaluate each case as it comes along to us. Now, if someone's been on it for 3 years, we're not going to automatically renew for another three years. It has to be brought back to the trust for review and then independently evaluated on its own merit to determine whether they should proceed. And I think that that's where we are and that's where we should stay rather than put a hard stop for people who are going to be on a waiting list for 10 years. So, um, if we if we adopt the hard stop, don't be surprised if you see homeless people on the streets. Right now, we don't really have any, but it will come.

We do, but um, so you're proposing that we not make any official changes or no changes. um no changes the process we've been following. Yes, the current policy is the case is re-evaluated after 3 years and um Marin you can correct me if I'm wrong and Amy can correct me if I'm wrong. Uh the current policy is each case is re-evaluated on its own individual basis after 3 years to determine continuation of the program. The policy actually says they should be evaluated every year. They're re-evaluated every year and after three years they're all

reertification after three years is brought back to the trust.

So we again I guess you're not proposing any changes to that. So there there still would be um a reertification or is it a reapplication? Do they need to reapply after 3 years or is it reapply every year? Marian? Yeah, not just reevaluation. Yeah, I re I receive applications and supporting documentation annually. Yes. Yes. At the at the turnover of the fiscal year and I start that process in like March, April time frame where I send everything out and for those that want to continue in the program. And now Amy, could you tell us what you do if they've reached three years and they have nowhere to go? Do you just automatically renew it or do you send it back to the trust?

So in I'm trying to remember exactly. So when we had finally reached our first time of people coming to that threeyear mark, we were what uh two two and a half years into the pandemic. um there wasn't a lot and so there if there was mitigating circumstances I was advised to you know review it with them and see if there was a reason why they should continue in the program and so that's what I've been doing because I wasn't told to do differently. I'm happy to do that. Um I have always been very transparent with every applicant about the guidelines that it's you know this is not a permanent program. This is not a long-term program there. There is a three-year you know time frame on this. I can bring it back with mitigating circumstances, but it's up to the trust to say whether you go on or not. So, that's how I've always left it with folks. Um, and those and I've had I had that conversation with all of the ones that were beyond the three years this year. So, I brought it to the trust for the trust to make the decision.

And I think Amy, the the guidance from the trust at that time was that we would extend one year but not beyond that. Right. And those people were given that communication and they were happy to have the additional year to make sure they had everything in order to move on past the program at the end of this fiscal year. Yes. At the end of the fiscal year. Mhm. Okay. So, how do we want to move forward, folks? Well, we just put it to vote. But what are we voting on? Right.

Are we voting on no change to the policy, in which case we wouldn't have a vote, or we voting on Yeah. I don't know what we're voting on. Yeah. Okay. Well, maybe I I misphrased it. I think that we should just leave it as it is. And after 3 years, uh, it's brought back to the trust and then we independently evaluate each case on its own merits as we've always done.

Yeah. Feels a little like kicking the can down the road. So instead of deciding now, we're going to decide every time a a renewal comes up. And um I I guess that's an okay to an okay way for us to move forward. I mean I think that the if we strictly follow what's in place now um then we will be um terminating more um tenants after 3 years and I think we just have to prepare for that unless we make a change um to extend beyond 3 years. Well, well, the

I'm confused then because I agree with what I'm agreeing with Angus that the policy says we after if the person hits the three-year mark, then we evaluate it. But now you're saying, Maryanne, well, at the end of three, we have to be ready for a hard stop. Well, no. Maybe we need to before we t be table this and I know we've kicked it around a lot but let's get the policy written exactly what we all understand it to be and then be able to take a vote or at least or everybody look at the policy again. I have to admit I'm not totally clear. I'm hearing people say two different things. So to be clear, it was uh it was um re-evaluated I believe in the fall of last year and updated to the uh to the words I'm stating here that the the after 3 years it needs to be re-evaluated on its own merit and that doesn't mean that the trust is going to be a rubber stamp that just approves everything that comes along the road. So if it comes up and um folks feel it's um unnecessary to be renewed, then we stop it right there.

Okay. So So let me throw this back at you then, Angus. We just reviewed them all and every one of them was approved that was over 3 years. So tell me what criteria you're going to use to reject someone that's been that for year four because right now the policy says we're going to review them and then we can reject them. But we didn't reject a single one. So what's the criteria that would that you would use to reject one?

Well, the same criteria that's written in the policy. What you're stating is that at the particular time those cases were brought to us amongst the cases that were brought to us, none of them were deemed sufficiently egregious to be rejected. That doesn't mean that in future it's not going to happen that cases are going to be rejected. So what what is sufficiently egregious? Because we're talking people that were on the program because they needed assistance. Nothing changed in their situation. They still need assistance. So when did it become egregious?

Well, it's it's a decision for the trust to make when these cases are presented. What that's what I'm asking is what is the det what is the factor for you and you Susan that would say all of a sudden this person that's been getting rental assistance now no longer qualifies because of what? Well Mark I'm not going to make this decision independently on my own. It's a collective decision. We make the decision.

Everyone gets a vote. So, what changes your vote from a yes to a no? Because we just approved six of them. I believe that we're over the time and nothing had changed in their situation except their their time was up and we all and you everyone said we're going to extend them, right? The trust voted to extend them. So, what's the circumstances under which you say nope, we're going to cut this person off? Well, we're more aware of it now. I think going forward, we're going to be a little bit more careful in the way we approve these programs. Um, uh, it it doesn't require that we throw the baby out with the bat water at this time. I believe

I don't I don't think you're you're following Mark's question, but the way I see it too is that we have a certain criteria that we um we use when they first apply. And what's different about the criteria that we use after 3 years? Because if we're just using that same criteria, why have a three-year limit, right? If it's just the same set of criteria. So, what's different after three years? Uh Mark mentioned with I think it was Box for another town said that they had one extension for someone who was terminally ill. That's like the extent of their exception. Is there something exceptional about the situation that would um prompt an extension beyond three years?

Right. See, I would I would consider the question uh perhaps a different way. And why does Littleton LRAP program have a three-year limit? We have a three-year limit because that's what we borrowed from Boxboro as the example, right? But every other one does, too. I have not seen a single one that doesn't have one that's more than three years. So, well, so is why is why would that why should Littleton follow that standard? Because these are short-term assistance. Some of them actually are even shorter. Right.

Right. Right. But Littleton certainly has the option to not follow that standard. Um and again, a policy decision that's up to the trust. Um I s it sounds to me like um if I could recap, there's three that are interested in um keeping a harder limit at the three years. Three who of you who are interested in um providing some leeway. Um it's not going to get resolved this evening. I'm happy to share the um existing policy um with all the members um for further discussion at the next meeting if that and if you're looking for additional information, additional research that staff can help with. Let us know what it is that we can help you with.

Thanks for that, Maren. That's that's helpful. And I I think if you could resend it, that would be great. um without consensus, right, which we don't have. I think I haven't heard a motion to to make a change. It seems like it wouldn't pass if there was one. So, at this point, I believe we just stick with the policy um as it is today and again, we'll have to evaluate case by case um unless there are changes. Does everyone agree or any does anyone have a different opinion? I agree. I mean, I think we can re revisit this discussion.

That's fair, but I don't see any reason to change anything right this minute. Okay, Matthew, were you going to say something? I was just going to say like I think that we are going to be right back in the same position we were when we approved six next year. next time we talk about this.

The the point of my policy was to give us uh guidelines on and and make it a temporary assistance program and and we're not going to do that. It's hard for me to imagine any one of us saying no more no more money for this poor person who can't afford their rent. So, but okay, like it's clear like there's not a if there's not a majority who want to change it, we're not going to get anywhere tonight. And we've probably talked about this enough. I think so as well. Um I do want to thank you Matthew though for the time that you put in I think with Amy as well. Um I think there was some good insight there. Can I throw Can I throw a thought out there?

Um I don't know if this is helpful or if this is just going to make it messier. I just you know we have a we have that preference point system to uh for when we reach capacity in the program. Is it is there um is there certain points that everybody could agree on like medically ill like if they're in the terminal situation, you know, preference points to put on the on the certain circumstances where it could kind of be graded in a way that the the trust could find a way to be on the same page about the the extension policies. Um, it's just it's just a thought. I I don't I don't know if that's kind of like I mean it's kind of what Mark's throwing out there a little bit, but it kind of puts a way to kind of not necessarily completely dismiss a person's situation, but to kind of grade it in a sense of like this, you know, on the scale of, you know, being from like bad to like horrific, you know, where do they fall? and is that going to help with making the decision? Just just a thought to throw out there. Just

I mean that's an excellent uh suggestion. I'd be happy to work with you to draw out those guidelines. I mean certainly we can look at it if they're on diialysis and they're about to die or uh something then perhaps we probably shouldn't throw them on the streets. Um and then make a list like that. Okay. Yep. I think it's a good idea. Thanks, Amy. Okay. Sorry, Susan. Go ahead. No, I was just going to say I think that's a good idea, too, and I'm willing to work with you, too, Amy, on that. Perfect. Okay. Like the collaboration.

Thank you. All right. Um, let's move on to the next agenda item. Um, the Tahadawan Road project. And Mark, if you have an update on that. Sure. Um, so I think everyone got notice to go and sign the deed.

Um, I don't know if everyone's I went and did it today. I don't know if everyone else has done that yet. Um, and I believe Maryanne will if or Maryanne or Bartlett signed as chair. Bartlet might have signed as chair already or um and the select board has to sign off for the final closing. We are very close. I think the deed is the last thing um that we had to do for the closing. Um I've been having conversations with Carolyn Reed. She would like to do a walk through of the site in early August um either the first or second week and was wi with us and the neighbors to talk about what's going on. And she was asking if anyone had any restrictions on dates or preferences on dates um before we set that up as well. Nothing specific.

So Mark, I did sign um just to your question, I didn't sign as chair um having not been chair at the time. So if I need to do something different um I guess Marin would you let me know or is that Yeah, I think Marin took Marin could correct me, but I think we're all set there, but I'm not 100% positive. Um so I I turned all of that over to Lucia so she could follow up with it. So, she's been emailing with with you you all on on gathering the signatures. Soon as it's ready, she'll get those notorized and then back to Rion or um you. I asked her to contact both of you when it's ready. Okay.

I I'll reach out to her tomorrow just to see if she needs anything else from me. Thank you. Great. Um and just another quick note about um the habitat um to toabon road parcel. Um uh I talked with Carolyn um a little bit last week. Um they have applied um to um the bank in Boston for um one of their fair housing um affordable housing uh grant programs. Um, so it was very nice to be able to partner for the town to partner with them on this grant application. Thank you.

Um, next agenda item, strategy 2.1, jerky. So just before we move on, I'll set I'll work with Caroline to set something up for either the week of the a August 4th or August 11th as a walkthrough and whoever can make it can make it. Yeah. I'm around those weeks, so I should be able to make it. Okay. Thank you. If you need Mark, if you need to post it as a sidewalk, just let Lucia know. Yep. I will do that. Okay. Anything more into? Nope. Okay. On to 2.1. Derky Farmhouse. Bartlett. Anything to

Yep. Um,

I um I completed and signed the uh the insurance uh on the house and barn and u for liability and not for damages. Um the cost is $1,200 and change um reduced from the $12,000 that they were asking for the liability. Um, I'm not really aware of other changes on that. I'm waiting for a um a draft of the RFP. Um, I intend to uh call Laura about and talk to her about that um when it when it arrives and um have have something I hope have something for the next meeting. I would I mean I anyhow

Yeah. Um and actually circling back on Laura's um schedule, she is away until um very early August, I think the 3rd. So she wasn't that's one of the reasons she wasn't available um to provide us an update for tonight on the status of the RFP. She deserves a vacation, too. So Oh, good. We'll look forward to it next month, then. Um, okay. Moving on to board businesses. Anything else on Derky actually before we move on?

Not really. I am going to talk to um the highway department about resecuring the bulkhead, but um the insurance requires that you know the doors and stuff be secured and that there be no trespassing signs and that no trespassing signs are in place. The barn is appears to be secure. Um the house the bulkhead is the the plywood panels have been moved. I moved them back. Um I don't know if they're secured. Okay. Thank you. Um then moving on to board business. First topic here is um exploring the next affordable housing trust development. And Mark, you and I had talked about these. The first is a revolving RFP for land purchase.

Sure. Do you want me to drive these discussions, Marian? Yeah, if you don't mind. Thanks, Mark.

So, um, Marian and I talked to Moren about a month or a little over a month ago about looking into what we could do next. Um, um, as far as, uh, potential projects where we could do them. uh we talked about like Shadex Street or possibly across from Russell Street or um or you know if we wanted to just purchase a a plot of land and what we had to do. Uh this led us to a discussion with Kim Quovo who's the chief procurement officer in town who told us what we would have to do for um if we wanted to purchase property to um to develop as affordable housing. Um and basically um for almost all property uh we would have to go through an RFP process. So, we would have to put out a RFP that says the affordable housing trust is interested in purchasing land um for the to build affordable housing on. Uh and then people can apply, you know, can submit their uh responses to that and then we at a meeting can judge that we uh like that response and um proceed to buy the property in that manner. We cannot go and buy, you know, if you see a for sale sign in the neighborhood and you say, "Ah, the affordable housing trust should go and buy that." We cannot do that. We have to do it through the RFP process. So, when we were talking about this um with Kim, one way of doing this is basically to put out a revolving RFP. So we can put out an RFP that says if you have a plot of land that you want to sell, you know, by, you know, se we're going to look at all proposals we get by September 30th and make an evaluation and say whether or not we want to do buy one or not. If we pick

none, we'll put out reissue the RFP for December 31st. So, we basically always have these RFPs out there that we can review anyone that would submit their, you know, their land for sale, um, uh, that we could evaluate whether we wanted to build something on. This is for land that the town doesn't currently own, um, in any way. Um, so that's what the revolving RFP is about. Um, Kim has offered to help us write a revolving RFP if we're interested in pursuing this. and Marian and I said we'd bring it back to the board and see what everyone thought of this idea and what we wanted wanted to do. Uh the idea here is, you know, after Tahadawan is well on its way, you know, we're basically going to be um handing that off to Habitat within the next couple weeks hopefully Derky's um down the pipeline and we should be figuring out what project we're going to do next um for building affordable housing. And this is was our approach to tackling that. So, so if people think we should be working on this revolving RFP, um Maryann and I can continue to work with Kim to draft something to bring to the next meeting. The the other option is we look at building on town land that the town already owns, which we which we've identified a couple parcels that might work. Um but we haven't but uh one is right across right across 495 from Russell Street really close to the end of this sewer line. Um it's currently controlled by park and rack is where they were talking about building tennis courts at one point but determined that the access road would be cost too much um for tennis courts for affordable

housing. It might not the road would might make more sense. Uh when we met with Mara she said we'd have to go through like and do a wet wetlands survey which will cost us some money to do. I presume that we haven't allocated. So, if we're interested in pursuing that property, we can start the process on whatever that would be. Um, there's other a couple other properties in town that we could also start looking at which would probably be the same type of process. So, that sum it up pretty well, Marin and Marian.

That's that's a great summary. I would say the only um the only other property we talked about in in some detail maybe was behind the police station and determined that um that that one would be challenging just with access and easements and that's not one that would um that we would prioritize. Yeah, I I would like very much to have a standing RFP based on my experience with the orchard. It's kind of a hassle and we we have enough bureaucracy already to try to get something purchased. Let's not let an RFP be another additional step that we have to go through in order to get it approved. So, I think that's a great idea.

So, Marian and I will work with Kim and Marin on getting this going so that we'll have something either for the next meeting or September. So, the other property that we talked about um was I don't remember the exact address on what is it 19 Shadex Street. It's um

14 uh right next to Pine Tree Park that vacant field. um um which we after after talking to Kim I think there's enough special circumstances that it's possible that we can get permission we can get we can look at purchasing that property without going through the RFP process uh because there's enough special circumstances around it that we could um circumvent the RFP Um um do you want to take it from there? You've done

Yeah. So just I think some of the some of the characteristics right it it abuts um the town land right already it's on town sewer. So some of those aspects would make it um um or would allow us to potentially bypass the the RFP process. Um, I did reach out to uh Lisa Stoic, who's a realtor here in town, and she uh confirmed the owners and the fact that it is not currently on the market, nor has it been on the market in the recent past. So, I've asked for her input on um uh best way to approach the owners to understand if they it's something that they would be willing to um to put on the market or to sell to the town. So, any other thoughts or insights there?

I mean, it's right it's right next to Pine Tree Park. That would be a great spot for affordable housing. Also, very close to the senior center and the library. Yep. It's a fairly large It's a fairly large, too. It's several acres, isn't it? It's just an acre and a quarter or something like that. Um, but when we toured lab when we talked with lab 9, they said they could do like um a was it a 30 unit uh development on like uh little on 3/4 of an acre

6. So they have a kind of a um a standard design that they were proposing to us like exactly as you said Mark a three-story 30 unit affordable housing with a mix of one two and threebedroom units um with onetoone parking um and it's again looks looks like a nice nice proposal. So it can be done um on on that on that space and like you said just the access to the library, the senior center um you know with potential you know aligning with um Pine Tree Park management there. I think um I think it's a great spot. Okay. So if folks agree we can then continue and um I can circle back with Lisa again about um best way to approach the owner. Martin, unless you have any insight on um on how to do this.

Um yep. So I the other recommendation I heard from Kim was to involve town council in reaching out um to the owner should the town so choose to do that. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. All right. Um so Marin, just for clarity, should should Maryanne reach out to town council? Should you reach out? Should I reach out? I I don't know what the process should be here. Um, I think as chair, Maryanne certainly can. I would recommend you start with Tom Harrington. Okay. And he'll either handle it or direct you to one of his staff who will.

I'll help you do that, Maryanne. Okay. Yeah. I don't have his contact, so that'd be great. Thanks, Mark. Okay. Um, next topic is trustee and town planner updates. And how are we doing on time? The meeting should go not more than two hours, right? Yeah. Is that the That's the cut off. We'll try to keep it shorter, but uh Okay. So, Marin, you want to kick us off? Town planner update.

Um town planner update. Um so, I would um my my update was going to be about possible candidates for the seventh member of the affordable housing trust. Um I did reach out to uh Kristen Gishard. A lot of you know her as the planning director in Actton. Um she is in the process of leaving that position and becoming the uh director of the um uh regional housing service offices that covers conquered Lexington Sedbury um I think a whole bunch of communities in that area. Um she's obvious a Littleton resident. uh she was stepped in as a planning board member um during a partial term um when somebody else had stepped off. Um I don't think we could get any luckier than to have her join us. um she was not willing when I spoke to her um she was willing to listen to um sitting on the trust but was not able to offer her time yet and we'll can re-evaluate in September whether her new job will offer her the time to um sit sit on the trust.

Well, sounds like that would be a terrific candidate. Yeah. Yeah. So I guess the option would be then to to wait and decide if she would be willing to do it. So can we hold off on this until September? Um so the appointment is um this appointment is um with the town administrators. So yes, I have made that signal. I know him. I could talk to him. Thank you. Yeah. Great.

Okay. I guess we'll um continue on the updates and then we'll go through possible candidates or actually maybe everyone can do that during as they as they give updates. Matthew, any updates? Uh nothing actually. Um there's someone on the if if um we do need someone else. There's someone on the charter committee that I think would be a good fit, but I'll wait. And um I I would be so happy to have um I'm sorry, I forgot her first name already. Kristen Kristen, I would be so happy to I talked to her very briefly about the orchard uh work a couple years ago. So, I'd love to have her on this.

What's Kristen's last name? Gishard. Gui C a R. Thank you, Mark. Any updates? Uh, no. I Yeah, just keeping up on the habitat stuff, right? Susan, no updates. Bartlet? No, nothing. Angus, no. Nothing.

Okay. Um, I have one quick update. Um I'm going to be forwarding to um this group um a link to a presentation and a Zoom call for the Mass Affordable Housing Trust Magic region. So Mark and I are representing our group um with Magic and there was uh an interesting session that was held um last week. I was able to participate for the first hour and they talked about um a transfer fee proposal that's in our state legislature right now. And the proposal that's on the table is that it will give local communities the option to take a percentage of every real estate transaction that fits certain parameters and um give that to affordable housing. The range is from 0.5 to 2%. It's a one-time transaction fee. So it would happen um when a property changes hands and it would basically almost serve as a tax um for uh for those transactions. Um there is as you can imagine the real estate lobby is pushing back really strongly against this um and u but there were a lot of details that were walked through. A lot was a lot of the discussion was more the um kind of the process to get this through um state legislature. Um it really is just giving the opportunity. It's something that every community would have to vote on individually. Um but it's it's kind of an interesting idea. Um each town could also put restrictions on it. Um a lot of them will exempt properties under a million dollars. So, it's really just looking at um you know some of the the higherend properties, but that again can vary by communities. Lots of different examples, lots of questions. Um I will, as I said, I need to finish watching the presentation myself, the second half. Um but really good discussion and that's

something that could be coming um as an opportunity for us um to to leverage within the the next year or so. So, that was um that was my update. Um, next topic is possible candidates. Do we have um other than those mentioned any possible candidates that you want to put forward? No. Okay. Then the next topic is um minutes from June 12th. Um, does anyone have any corrections or anything? Any comments about the minutes from June 12th?

Do we have a motion to accept minutes? So, move I move that we accept the minutes from June 12th. Second. Okay. So, Matthew made the motion and is seconded. So, um, let's go around and get approvals. Um, Susan, do you approve? Yes. Minutes? Yes. Mark? Yes. Matthew? Yes. Bartlett, yes. Angus, yes.

And Maryanne is yes. So, the minutes the June 12th meeting are approved. Um, and our final topic is scheduling a meeting for August. I think our default is usually the third Tuesday, right? So, that would put us at 19th, I think. 19th. Is that right? Yep. Is everyone available for meeting on the 19th? Yep.

Anyone not available? Uh I I won't be available. I'm sorry. Um

Okay. Um, is there another date? Should we look at the 20th? Wednesday the 20th. Uh, I'm actually I'm out that whole week, so I'm not I'm not available, but you know, the me the the trust business can go on. Okay. Okay. Then we'll stick to the uh Tuesday the 19th at 6:30 for our next meeting. Um, do you want to try in person or do you prefer remote for that one?

That's a good question. Um, what does everyone think? I'm fine with in person. All right, let's try for in person for that one. Okay. Um I'll we'll check for a meeting room. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Excellent. And um remind me, do we um do we make a motion to adjurnn? Is that how we have meetings here? Okay. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Second.