 Okay, all right. We're going to give it one more minute. We're waiting for Allegra. Corinne will not be joining us this evening. She's not well. So we'll just give it one more minute. And we have attendees also coming. I think I'll go ahead and start since we do have a quorum. I am calling the meeting to order. It is March 14th, the Amherst Municipal Affordable Housing Trust monthly meeting. So we have a majority of our trust members here. And I also I'll state who the trust members are just in case people are just listening. Erica, I'm here. Carol, Paul, Grover, Rob Gaston. Corinne will not be joining us. And I'm sure Allegra will probably be joining us. Allegra is actually in the attendees' room. So if Greg Letzerin, she'll be here. Perfect. So we'll just wait for Allegra to join us. Greg, are you able to let her in? Perfect. Thank you, Allegra. All right. So we have a quorum and we will what we're going to also do this evening that we haven't done in the past. I'm going to state who is in the audience as attendees, since there's a small group of people. We have Sharon Pavanelli. We have Tom Reedy, Gabrielle Gold, Gail Flood, Barry Roberts. And there is an LBI phone that I have no idea who that person is. So we just thought it would be sort of courteous to let people know who is party audience as well. So we're going to Barry Roberts too. It looks like just came. I did mention him. Sorry. Oh, sorry. That's okay. Okay. So we will start first with the review of the February 8th meeting minutes. So let me open it up. If there are any comments, omissions, corrections that need to be made to the February 8th meeting minutes. So I'm not seeing any hands up. And I just want to also note that Nate is also with us, as well as Greg as staff from the town. Okay. So since I am not seeing any hands or I'm not hearing any comments, we will accept the minutes as they stand. Thank you. All right. We're going to move to the next item on the agenda, which is a report back on the Wayfinder's March 7th community information meeting. It was a virtual meeting. There are what we sort of ascertain. There were about nine to 10 attendees as per Wayfinder's. This was a community meeting to give an update on their development. The East Street, the South East Street, 31 South East Street, as well as the 70 Belcher Town Road development. The South East Street will have 31 units and the Belcher Town Road will have 47 units. They provide an extensive timeline in terms of what's going to be happening right now. They are working with the state and we're waiting for a letter from the state so we can have a 30-day comment period. The town will post that information on the website. There will be a website specifically for this development. And it will be a 30-day comment period, which will be very important for all of us to look at as well as comment on. And then they will be working on their comprehensive permitting. They also are proposing during the summer to do a site tour to give everyone who's interested a tour of how the design is going to sort of be conceptualized and to again answer any community questions or address any concerns. So they're very engaged in terms of outreach with the community. They've already talked and had multiple meetings with the butters. And they also have put up a website on Wayfinders, which is very easy to find, www.wayfinders.org, and then just do backslash real-state, backslash property-east-street-and-belcher town. And there you can also get the timeline of the development as well as post any comments. So I don't know if there are, Carol, if you want to add anything, I know you were there, but that's pretty much what they presented was what they presented at one of our trust meetings. So there wasn't really much new except for a more detailed timeline in terms of the permitting process, the financial process, the construction, and then they're hoping to do the leasing at the end of the quarter of 2028. All right. So I'm not seeing any hands-up or comments, so I'm going to go to the next item on the agenda, which is a financial statement. And I'm going to ask Greg to put it up for us to see. It was sent out as part of the materials and posted as part of the materials. And if Nate, if you can just walk us through it a little bit or just highlights, and if anyone has any questions, then Nate and Greg could respond. Sure. Hi, everyone. I'm Nate Maloya, planner with the town. The Greg, do you want me to share my screen? I'd mailed out a trust summary of the account balances. There haven't been many changes. So the biggest one, we allocated funding for Craig's Doors and for Amherst Community Land Trust. And that money has already been spent, and it was in contract and cumbered, and it's already been expended. If you can make a little larger, that might be a little too large. So that's the bottom line. That's the development funds. I think the important piece here is the trust voted 375,000 to Valley CDC for the Ball Lane project, as I'll call it. And so it does decrease the development budget to 189,000. We still have money in consulting services. Most of that would pay for Greg and for, you know, we still can hire outside consultants. There's technical services. There's a little bit there. CPA interest. There's some and then non-CPA, you know, about 28,000 that changes minimally. And yeah, that's it. I mean, we have requested money from CPA this year that will be available July 1st, you know, if council votes it. Yeah, I don't know if there's any questions. That's 300,000, right, Nate? If the council votes it. I mean, it's not a done deal, I guess, until that happens. But so that number down at the bottom that is 189, it could be 489 by the middle of the summer. That's all. I mean, at least my point in wanting us to be able to see this right now is just so we have some idea, because we're talking about do we want units or do we want money? Have some idea of what in the world is our financial situation that we're talking into as we talk about that. So yeah. Sure. Yeah, I think for the Wayfinders projects, you know, they're receiving funding from the town, CPA, complete CPA and ARPA. You know, I'm not sure if they'll have other requests if necessary. You know, there could be some other affordable housing projects that come along in the next year. And so, you know, an account balance of half a million might seem like a lot. But, you know, if we award 300, 400,000 for a project that does, you know, work against the budget. And so, you know, usually there's not a lot of changes quarterly unless, you know, unless the trust makes a big allocation. So we have some expenses for VFW, maybe if we have some, you know, consulting services for wetlands or surveys on properties for feasibility studies. So typically there's not too much change. Any questions from the trust members? Okay, I'm not seeing any. All right. Okay, so we're now going to move into our next item. We're going to have a proposal put forth for 45 to 55 South Pleasant Street, a proposed development. We have been joined by Gabrielle Gould, Tom Reedy and Barry Roberts as well to present what the proposal will be. But before we do that, I think it's important to want to know why this is an important conversation. As you know, the planning board has asked us the trust for our recommendation regarding this proposal. The town staff have put together a really excellent memo that they shared with us in terms of both positive impact and some of the other sort of things that we should consider with regards to this conversation. So it's, we can make a decision to either make a recommendation, we can make a decision not to make a recommendation. This is a recommendation to the planning board. So we can also make a decision that by not making a decision, because we may think that both either having payment in lieu of the units or having the units both have merits and we don't feel that we can make a decision. So I just want to start off with that we're not under any pressure to make a decision this evening. What I think is important is for us to listen to all sides. So we will first start off with the presentation by the Roberts group. And then we will follow with Greg and Nate if they wanted to make any more comments regarding the memo that they shared with us. We will then open it up to trust members to ask any questions, clarifying questions to Gabrielle, Tom and Barry if they're the ones who are presenting. Then we will have allow some time for the attendees to make comments. And then we will bring it back to the trust to see what we want to do. So I think it's going to be a rich conversation, but it's also I think important for us to think of what is our best course as trust members. So I'm going to go ahead and ask Greg to allow Gabrielle in to join us. And Gabrielle, you can let us know if you'd like anybody else from your team to join us. Gabrielle, hello, you should have a, there you go. All right, you're a panelist now, hopefully. I'm getting, hold on, getting all. Sometimes it takes a second. Yeah. Yeah. Hi. Hi. I would love for Tom, Riedi and Barry, if that is possible to be invited in. There may be things I don't know. There's a lot I don't know. It's a very long list. All right. Barry probably doesn't have a camera on. So I will just start. Erica, thank you and thank you all. I have had the pleasure of sitting down and speaking with several of you in person. And I also had a really informative hour with John Hornick where I was brought up to speed on a lot of affordable housing trust and where you all sit today. In those conversations, it was brought to my attention that this group, the main funding is from Community Preservation Act. And that is sort of the main funding for all the work that you do. And we have so much respect and appreciation for all the work that you do. But I also know as someone who's been working in nonprofit for 20 years, it's really hard to get a strategic plan together when, you know, for your future, when you're not quite sure where your funding is and it's year to year and nothing is ever guaranteed. I did want to share the sort of origins of this partnership that you're seeing here for this particular project. Sharon Povinelli and Mary Louise Brohl are the owners of the Hastings Building and of AJ Hastings. They made a very difficult decision post pandemic to close their store and then really started taking a look at their building and where they really thought AJ Hastings and the Hastings Buildings would go. They called a good friend of theirs and local architect John Kuhn had a really great session with him about discussing what the future could look like and then called in another good friend of theirs, Barry Roberts, and they decided to form this partnership to give the Hastings Building its next chapter in life. For someone like Barry, relative to the other apartment developments that he has built and is planning to build in Amherst, this is a small building in terms of units. Barry, Mary, and Sharon saw this as an opportunity to be the first to utilize the special permit to offer cash to the Amherst affordable housing trust in lieu of the three affordable rental apartments. They see this as an opportunity to offer the trust a very real amount of funds to use at your discretion, an endowment of sorts to help in the strategic planning and mission of your trust. Currently, there are 15 affordable apartments in the bid district or the downtown district. At this moment, to the best of my knowledge, only one of those 15 is leased and there are currently 14 vacant. This building will not offer any onsite parking, unlike the apartments that Barry is building at 422 Amity, which is slated to open at around the same time as the Hastings Building. 422, on the other hand, is going to offer 11 additional affordable apartments, but it also has onsite parking and it has direct access to really important services like real grocery stores, dentists, eye doctors, medical offices. And as well, it's really a walkable location to our downtown for all the services that our downtown has, cinema, live music, retail, incredible dining. We're not saying in any way that this offer is never going to come along again in the future, but at this moment in time, Barry, Mary, and Sharon see this as a really incredible opportunity to bring a seven-figure endowment that is completely unrestricted to the trust. While downtown living can be truly ideal for some, it also has difficulties. Our downtown does not have a viable affordable grocery store and while we do have a really reliable, incredible PVTA system, it's approximately a 21-minute loop to do a grocery shop. And I think of myself as the mother of grocery shopping and having to take a bus with bags, etc., and it can be really cumbersome. I guess what we're wondering is if these funds could be used for affordable home ownership for our teachers, our EMT, our firefighters, really anybody that wants to live in Hammers. Is this an opportunity to look at leveraging this money for home ownership instead of affordable rental apartments? Is this something that leverages the Valley CDC or Wayfinders to do a larger project of single-family homes or townhouses with yards and places to park? And could these funds be used to end a cycle of continuous affordable apartment housing and in terms of giving people affordable houses for generations of building equity and generational wealth? While $1,200,000 is not going to solve the affordable housing needs, it could be the foundation that the trust could strategize with for the future. If these funds could be leveraged to four home ownership opportunities versus three rental apartments, it seems like an incredible way to build and support our community. There will be more apartments. Barry has more coming in the downtown area and there are others who are invested in our town who will be building more apartments, and 12% of those units will be affordable. But there are not many Mary, Barry, and Sharon trios that will seek this special permit as an opportunity. I guess in closing, I wonder, can this money be used to leverage larger projects? Could this money be used for direct home ownership opportunities? Could a percentage of these funds be used to hire someone to assist individuals through what has been described as a very arduous application process and ensure that our apartments are filled and not vacant? Do these funds give the trust, the breathing space, to think bigger than your strategic planning for the future? Now I'm open to questions and comments, and that is sort of where we're coming to this group from. Thank you, Gabrielle. What we're going to do is first ask Greg and Nate to see if they want to add anything to the memo that they shared with the trust about both positive impacts and areas of concern, if there was anything else that they just wanted to state. And then I'll open up to the trust members to ask questions. Well, I guess, you know, I'd want to make sure that the trust is familiar with the project, and so I was going to share my screen and just show a few images of what was presented to the planning board the other week. And so if this is visible for everyone, you know, here is the Hastings building. Here's the new building proposed in the back. You know, there'll be a walkway and entry. Here's the entry there. There's two handicap parkings underneath the arcade here. Here's the existing Google Earth view with the existing buildings and the building in the back that's proposed to be demolished along with this one. Let's see, I'm not going to go through all of these in detail. So here's the new building. You know, it's larger existing Hastings building to be renovated. So there's units, affordable units in both buildings. I think that's important to consider that there will be new units. There'll be units in the existing building. Just if, you know, here's some images of what it will look like, the new building. I just wanted to get to that. And so here's the southern view. Here's from the west. So this is what you could see from South Prospect Street. Not exactly like this, but you know, this is the elevation facing that. And here's what you could see. You know, a bit of this area right here will be visible if you look down by Amherst Coffee and the cinema. So let's stop there. Yeah, in the memo, you know, staff, we outlined that the inclusionary zoning bylaw is intended, you know, primarily to have affordable units developed with a project. It does allow an applicant to request a special permit. So it's something that the permit granting authority can allow. And so that's the planning board in this case. The project is seeking slight plan review from the planning board. And so the trust would make an advisory recommendation to the planning board. And, you know, as Erica said, whether or not you make a decision tonight or, you know, next meeting, you know, I think what we would do is summarize the discussion. And, you know, I would, I would recommend some, some, you know, some, you know, something to the planning board, whether even if it's, you know, a split decision, but some, something that could summarize the thoughts of the trust the planning board meets next week, this may or may not, you know, be concluded then. And anyway, so with the bylaw, it provides what they're asking for is a payment in lieu of it's four times the median family income per unit times three. It could also provide for off-site units. So there is a provision that there could be off-site units within the zoning district or 500 feet. And so, you know, there's kind of three options, you know, in the development off-site units or a payment, the bylaw doesn't prescribe a certain ratio of that. So it could be, you know, a payment for one unit and two units in the development. I mean, there could be, you know, a number of things, whether or not that's, you know, something this trust or planning board would want to discuss. I'll also say that the bylaw provides a minimum. So, you know, I spoke with Tom and I suggested, well, if a payment in lieu is really important, it could be more than the 1.1. Why couldn't it be more? What's the, you know, the, and I think that's something that the trust could ask. You know, the idea of the bylaw was to cover the cost of construction, total development costs for one unit. And, you know, that figure is now a few years old and with the cost of inflation and everything, you know, 375 a unit is a lot. But will it actually, if it were to, you know, go one for one dollars, does it actually cover the cost of constructing a new unit? You know, I think the memo outlines, you know, considerations in favor of a payment, right? It could leverage things. As Gabrielle mentioned, it could have deeper affordability in other projects. It could net more units. You know, however, this site is, you know, really central, right? It's downtown. And so, you know, I'm not sure there's a, you know, I don't think there's a wrong site for affordable housing. I think that, you know, unless it's, you know, miles away from anything, then, you know, maybe, right? But this site to me is very appropriate. It's central to jobs, to current commercial retail. It's in the downtown. You know, we'd get the units. You know, it could be that with a payment in lieu, maybe it takes time to actually get a number, you know, the three units. And so, I think the memo just outlines those considerations. And, you know, I think that's for trust members to discuss tonight. And, you know, Greg and I are here to help answer questions. Or if you, you know, what I'd really want is for the trust members, before taking a vote, that you have an understanding of the options and you're comfortable with, you know, the decision you're making. So that's what we can help with. Thank you, Nate. Greg, did you want to say anything? Yeah, I just want to add one minor detail in regards to some of the specifics around affordability, just to kind of throw in the pot. And, you know, as it's been discussed, this is a very, you know, about as walkable or bikeable as it gets in the town of Amherst. And, you know, with that walkability, does come a certain affordability component in that, you know, if somebody wants to live car-free in Amherst, this would be the place to be. So, it's harder to integrate savings on transportation into the sort of housing framework that we use, but I think it is fair to assume that on top of the sort of, you know, 80% of area median income rent levels that would be on site would also be at the specific location, the ability to, you know, for some individuals or families to go car-free, which can save families some fairly significant bucks. Also has some trade-offs too, for sure, but on the saving side, that's something to win. Thank you, Greg. All right, so now I'm going to open up to trust members for any questions you may have, and it could be for Gabrielle as well as for Nate and Greg. So, I'm seeing Grover, I think your hand up was first followed by Allegra. Great, thank you. I first have a question for Greg and Nate, I think, which is what is the current policy for the tenants living in the existing units in terms of what access will they have to the new units? I imagine the new units are going to cost more than the current rents they're paying, and does the city have a right of return policy? And I'm sure we don't know, but I'm just curious if some of the existing tenants might fall within the 80% AMI range already and be likely tenants to fill that. So, yeah, I think that, you know, we don't have a right of first refusal. I actually am not sure how many units are occupied right now, so, you know, they'd have to follow, you know, any housing law to have them leave at the end of a lease. And then in terms of getting new units, you know, we can't earmark those for existing tenants, right, so they would, they could apply whether or not it's for, you know, the market rate or affordable units if they were included, and so they would just be part of the, you know, the application process and lottery pool. And that would be for any development. So, you know, even if it were somewhere else down in South Amherst and they had, you know, a property with a duplex and they want to now put 20 units, those two tenants would have their rights until their leases ended, and then they would have to, they could then apply as a new tenant, but we don't, you know, we don't, you know, have a policy in the town to buy out those units, you know, before the project. Looks like Gabrielle, you want to respond to that. I just want to say that it's a part of our know-how, but I haven't seen a resident resident stay in that, you know. You're going, am I hearing an echo? Yeah, you're really, Gabrielle, you're really muffled, like it's a really staticky. Hold on, hold on, everybody, everybody, you know what, you know, can you, you know, better, much better. Oh, now we lost you. Well, we go ahead, say something. Do you have any? Yes, we have you. Perfect, sorry. Okay, sorry about that. Airpods are not all they're cracked up today. I have a 15-year-old dog that is very loud, so please excuse her. So, there are no tenants for our current lease fees in that building, so nobody is being displaced or replaced. There is one store for added instruments, and we are actually speaking with them right now about a new location if he wants to continue working, but he's pretty sure he wants to retire, so we'll see. Thank you, Gabrielle. Allegro? You're very quiet. Yes. Is that too loud? I guess, so, I agree with what Nate said and that like affordable housing should be everywhere, and I think there's no bad place for it, but so that was kind of my concern, and when I was reading some of the material, it seemed like there was this idea that maybe this wasn't a good place for affordable housing, but then hearing that many of the new units that have been built are unleashed in the downtown area, I'm just wondering if there's a reason, if there haven't been applicants for those units, or if they haven't qualified for whatever reason? The two apartment complexes that are in downtown that have affordable housing units that we have, and again, this was asked of last week when I called the stakeholders, they're struggling because it is a very difficult process. The way that it's been described to me is that it starts with a 25-page application from the state that has addendums and additions, and I will tell you, I think everybody's probably doing their taxes right now. I think about how hard that paperwork is, and I know that Barry works very hard. He has Gail Flood who works with him in his office. She is certified in three different levels of an organization called NARU to help people through that entire process. I don't think every developer can afford to have someone on staff who does that, and that's why I mentioned that maybe a percentage of this type of fund goes to having someone who can really help people get through this process because it's hard, it's difficult. I've spoken to people who have said that they'll get eight applications for one apartment, they go through the state, they start emailing them the next level, which is now the landlord's level, and they will not hear back from more than half of those applicants. Maybe it's because they got housing somewhere else and they don't need this housing. I'm not 100% sure. I do think that as a community, there are conversations to have about doing better to help people get into these apartments or houses. I want to stretch the house's part. I think home ownership is key to longevity of a community. Sorry, the squares keep moving. I see Nate, your hand is up, and then Carol. I was going to say that those units are vacant also because they're new. 11 or 13 East Pleasant is marketing them now. Centuries' comments down on Main Street is also relatively new construction. It's not as if they've been vacant for two years. They're just in the marketing and lease up phase, to be honest. Well, John's been there for over a year, and I know he's struggling. That's the Main Street. There's three units there. Some of it can be that an Amherst 80% is too expensive for a voucher holder. To be honest, 80% is the maximum allowed in the bylaw. A developer can voluntarily rent to a lower income. Do they? No. They sit there with vacant units for a long time. At some point, the town could take enforcement action, or the state, we've done that with a few. We really inquire, why are units vacant after a year of marketing? Are you having too high of other thresholds? The way a marketing works is you are income qualified, and then you still have to go through additional screening that a developer may have. Oftentimes, applicants may not be able to come up with first, last, and security, or they might not be able to do some other things. We've looked into that. It's strange that we hear that at Valley's Project on North Hampton Road, there's 500 applicants for 28 units, and yet somehow there's vacant affordable units somewhere else. It's something that Greg and I have talked about. We'd like to do some more follow-up with that to determine what really are the barriers there. There's a cost and there's an expense to do the affordable units. I think that more people are getting comfortable with it in Amherst. They're using the same consultant. You have to have a qualified consultant to do this through the state. Before COVID, we had talked about some ways to try to make this easier on a developer. The town really isn't in a position and can't be part of this. We're part of the permitting and regulatory piece. Staff, we assist with applications to the state. We can help with some things, but we're actually not in a position to help with marketing. We don't really need to know anything about the tenants. We shouldn't, honestly. But if we hear that units are vacant, then we can figure out why. We're not reviewing tenant applications. We're not helping with marketing plans. We're here as part of the regulatory agreement and permitting. Thanks, Nick. Carol, and then I'm going to go to Rob and then back to Grover. Well, I just, Barry Roberts has other affordable units and other things that have been built with inclusionary zoning, I think. Is that correct? And how are they doing? At least I thought one of the things that you said the other day, Gabriella, was that there is real effort from this organization to do what has to be done to help keep those units filled. And so, are there year units that are better filled? I mean, as Nate's saying, maybe these are new, but some of them are at least a year old. Some of them are newer than that. But speak a little bit to what happens with the affordable units that you have already created in order to make sure that they are occupied. Absolutely. So, Barry Roberts has affordable units at one university drive, 70 university drive and 180 Fearing Street. As of this moment, as we're speaking, they are all rented and it looks like it's repeat tenants. In the years that Barry has done this, I think two years, he has only had one tenant, sort of, what's the word I want to use, price out of it. She got promotions at her job and was able to buy a house in Amherst, which was really great. Again, Barry has Gail Flood as a full-time leasing person who, at the expense of Barry, went through the, I think it's Nehru or Nehru program to get certified on three different levels. And they also hire a consultant per building to help, as Nate had mentioned earlier. So, in terms of affordables, he's doing really well. He's looking at bringing 422 to the community in 2025. And as soon as the permitting for that goes through, Gail will start the process at that moment because that's how long it takes. He will not have a shovel in the ground and she will start the process. Is that answer, Carol? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I just want to note that Gail Flood is also in attendance. So, it seems like you have your whole team here. Thank you. Next, Rob. I wanted to comment on the proposal. I don't have a question. I want to comment. Is that okay or are we still doing questions? That's fine. You can do both. Okay. So, I really appreciate this coming before us. I appreciate, regardless of what we recommend or what the planning board decides, it's good that we're having this discussion about the payment in lieu of outside units, an alternate way of fulfilling the affordable expectation in the zoning. So, I want to give a little bit of background about how that this provision came to be in the zoning. I was on the planning board when we started discussing this as a potential way of meeting our hopes for affordable housing. And it really was, at least in my mind, about what Ms. Gould was saying about potentially converting rental construction, rental offering into home ownership possibilities. A lot of it came in response to the archival buildings that people were so concerned about. Downtown not providing any affordable units. How can we, how can we leverage those buildings or other construction to get affordable units? And a lot of the opposition came from neighbors in the, you know, on the west side of downtown, concerned about their neighborhoods turning over from ownership to rental. And so this provision, at least my motivation for working on it was to provide a way for a developer to provide that affordable unit offsite or provide the money so that it could be used offsite nearby in the downtown so that people could own homes, so that it could be ownership downtown. And so I really like the idea of using the money to make homes right off the main streets downtown affordable for somebody. Well, that would be a win in my opinion for the language that's in the bylaw and potentially for this project. So I realized that, you know, that money could be used anywhere. It wouldn't necessarily have to be used for home ownership downtown. But I hope that if the playing board approves the payment in lieu for this project, that at least some units home ownership units will become possible downtown. So I appreciate that we're able to have the discussion because there wasn't, we didn't want to put it in bylaw just so that it, you know, it would just sit there. We wanted people to actually say, well, maybe this is an option for us. How can we interact with bylaw? And how can we fulfill the affordable housing need? So this is a good discussion. I'm glad we're here. Thank you, Rob. Grover and then Gaston. Thanks. I first wanted to also make a comment, which is I want to say to the public that's listening. I want to say that I think it's great to rent and to rent an affordable unit. That's a perfectly fine way to live in a home. And the rest of the apartments are rentals, correct? Yes, they're not condos, right? Okay, great. And my, and then I want to flag to Erica and Carol. I, the conversation about empty units is concerning to me, and it reminds me of the article that you shared Erica and the recent controversy about empty empty state-owned affordable units, right, which we also have in downtown Amherst. So now I'm walking through downtown Amherst looking around thinking, okay, there's these new, like higher end apartment buildings that have empty units, and then there's affordable units that need repairs or that are sitting empty and don't have tenants, right? Like, and then there's a lot of people facing homelessness and double the rate also in our town. So we have sort of a problem happening all along the economic spectrum. And I want to encourage every person who's an actor in the system to be part of the solution. And so towards that, I just would like for us to earmark on our list of things to talk about in the future to potentially take up. And it doesn't necessarily have to be part of our strategic plan, though maybe it will be in terms of when we're returning to conversations with the town is it sounds like we need to return to what the affordable housing 12% bylaws are in terms of, as Nate mentioned, are they the right number in terms of the in lieu payment? And also, what is the policy about filling it? And I know that in some bigger cities, there's encouragement to work with with places like Valley who already, as you said, have this long waiting list of people who are pre screened and pre vetted so that if there's people who fall within the 80% AMI and they don't have room in their unit, they could recommend them over to other units that are sitting empty. So I'm just saying there's other ways that we could think about working as a community to try to make this work effectively for the people who need the units. And so I'd like to earmark that for future conversations. And now a question, my question is, how long would these units be affordable? How long would they fall under affordability guidelines if they were built? In perpetuity is my understanding. That's right. Robert, I just wanted to say I wanted to just I heard you say apartment living. I agree. I don't think anybody doesn't think apartment living is great. I think there should be also opportunities for home ownership and that opportunity for that, you know, the yard. I mean, look, there are people who are moving here who are like, please give me a condo. I do not want to ever mow a lawn. But I just end, you know, to speak to that. Again, this is a this is an opportunity based on the size and scope of the project. Barry is intending on putting 12% of his units at 422 Amity Street right down as apartments and would not look it in lieu for that. I think it's the scope and the smallness of this project. And the three partners involved that see this as an opportunity. Thank you, Gaston. Oh, we can't hear you. Sorry, we can't hear you. How about now? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I just want to draw the the connection more explicitly that we're trying to figure out our priorities in the strategic plan. And the answer to this question that we're being posed hinges entirely on what we decide our priorities with respect to rentals and ownership and other means of making a big impact with the bandwidth and money we may have. And I just want to underscore the point that Grover earmarked as something that seems not just low hanging fruit, but unjust to exist as a situation and unjustifiable. And so something that I guess I feel should be within the ambit of what we want to do going forward in the strategy discussion is ensuring that available units are actually being being used. But then for the question we're being asked to comment on this evening. Yeah, I think it hinges entirely on the priority that we have towards home ownership versus rental and the scope of what we think we could do with that kind of money, which of course we don't really have the wherewithal to have a clear idea about. But I guess under any interpretation it's a very significant seed capital that could be deployed in a number of ways and potentially advance both the goal of increasing rentals and home ownership. Thank you, Gaston. Paul? Yeah, I have a question I'd like to ask the proponents is why are you proposing this instead of building the affordable units explicitly? As I stated earlier, I think it's the desire of the three developers came together and thought that this would be an opportunity to fund the affordable housing trust with some real seed money or some endowment money. And I think it's also the size of this particular building that it requires three instead of more. And also at the same time, Barry's building right down the street in in, you know, tandem almost it's going to be one right after the other 11 more units. Also, you know, speaking with one of the owners of the apartments downtown who has empty units and knowing that he's been there for a year and those aren't filled yet. This was just a great opportunity to for Barry and Sharon and Mary to put some money somewhere where it might make a difference and have somebody who does desire home ownership be able to do so. So I think these are having downtown units is really valuable. And I think we'll first off I appreciate Nate and Greg's memo that was very thorough and really framed the issues for us. So I think downtown units are really valuable. I think I'm really glad that Rob addressed why this was put into the bylaw so we could use it, right? It wasn't put in so we could ignore it every time. But I don't think I agree with the formula that's been put into the, you know, because I think that there's a discussion to be had about what is the value of this unit versus another unit at Amity Street. Because I think that these units are higher value because of the location. Really no real estate is all about location. So in terms of the value of these units at this location is higher than the value of the unit down the street someplace. So I think I would like to before we vote on this have a little bit more discussion about what that number looks like if we are going to go that route. Because I think that I really like the idea of ceding the trust to be able to do things and create more flexibility for what the trust wants to achieve. Because I think there's a lot, and Gaston, I'm sorry, we haven't established what our goals are. But I think this would be really beneficial to us to have a significant funding source to do whatever it is. If it's to support existing development to, you know, support them, whatever it is, we can name it different, a lot of different things. So I think I'm really inclined to go that. But I don't know if that the value is there as the value proposition from the trust point of view from my perspective. May I? Sure. So I agree. I think downtown is an incredible place to live. I think Greg, you had mentioned, you know, perfect place for someone who wants to bike or be, you know, car free. I'd like to remind us all that we still do live in New England and the weather patterns are such that I think these are the first three days in a row of sun we've seen since, I don't know, July. I want to say like I raised four kids. I cannot imagine raising four children without a grocery store within literal walking distance for me. That, I mean, that's to me personally. And again, it's more just talking about balance. Like, do we want to offer more than apartment living? You know, there are apartments and then there's, you know, the capacity for home ownership. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm not saying living on, you know, Amity and U Drive next to, you know, right down the street from Big Y is better or worse. But I am saying that I think without parking, I just, I feel like a family and these, this is a three bedroom, two bedroom and one bedroom unit and chances are it's going to have people with little humans and, you know, Pampers formula and baby wipes is a full bag. And I don't know the last time anybody went to the grocery store, but those paper bags just don't stay together for very long. Again, it's just, this is an opportunity we felt to bring to you guys seed money and a foundation. Thank you. Allegra. Can't hear you. I don't know why my computer is so weird. You hear me now. Yeah, much better. I think Gabrielle may have just answered my question, but it would, if there were affordable units, there would be a one, two and three bedroom available as the affordable set asides. Is that correct? Yeah, I didn't get the memo until like right before here, but that's what I think I just read. Okay. Thank you. Gaston. Thank you. I mean, I thought the question that that Paul was asking was more of the financial question. In other words, if the town council had put $700,000, would you still be here? And what's your cutoff? I think that that's what's your financial analysis that makes this something reasonable for you to do at the price. And what's the analysis that makes this reasonable, whereas $700,000 a unit wouldn't pencil? I mean, I can't speak to $700,000 a unit, but I can say that right now, one bedrooms are $1,386, two bedrooms are $1,711, and three bedrooms are $2,100 as the affordable units go. You can really quickly sketch out what that fair market value would be. And it is 21 years before the $1.145 million is recuperated. So this isn't like play to say like, Oh gosh, we just want to start making money immediately. It's a 21 year process before. Now, again, as I said earlier, these units are in perpetuity. They are going to be affordable for 20, 30, 40 years, but I don't know if Barry is planning on still being in the development game in 20 years. So I'm not quite sure what his idea of return on profit is, but, and, you know, I like this is a Sharon Povinelli, Mary Louise Brolin, Barry Roberts idea that they came together with and brought to you all. Thank you. Gaston, did I answer that? I'm sorry. I mean, you know, it would be helpful for us to be able to understand how a developer analyzes the value of not making the unit affordable. How much, I mean, we know that it seems reasonable enough to give up the close to $400,000 a unit or that number per unit. But what what analysis gets you there? I think is what the trust doesn't understand as well as we might like to. I'm going to call in my lifeline here and ask Tom to feel this one for me. Oh, I'll put my hand down. Yeah, I guess I mean, it's a it's a good question. And I think we're looking at it when I had the conversation with Nate yesterday. He was talking about cost of construction. I mean, there was an article, I want to say it was in the Republican a few weeks ago about I think it might have been an East Hampton Wayfinders project, pegging the cost of construction at about $451,000 a unit. And so Nate, based on his conversation with Wayfinders, thought it was like about $500,000 a unit at his point. And I think it's a good one. And I think it's worth exploring, especially with what Paul had said, relative to the downtown relative to the seed money and is the formula right, right? Or can there be some other dollar amount? And, you know, I think Nate had mentioned earlier on in this conversation, $1.5 million, where it's 500, essentially 500,000 per unit, understanding that the town could take that money and do a host of things with it. I mean, I'm sure Gabrielle can tell the trust. I mean, there's a unit on McClellan that just went on sale. It's a single family home. It's $368,000. And I think she has some other, right? So you can look and find these types. That's not the question I'm asking at all, Tom. We know that the building is going to be built. The units are going to be built. The question is, what's your income model? And given that you're modeling a perpetual difference between affordable rent and market rent, how much is the net present value to you today as a developer to not have to be committed to affordable rental? You're much too smart. I mean, that's not the analysis of all due respect. That's not the analysis that is done, right? What do you mean? Of course, how else is a developer going to decide that they're willing to give up the 400,000? The units are going to be built. So it has nothing to do with cost of construction, right? It's an income question. So I'm sorry, if I may, again, the loss is 20 years. It'll take 20 years to make up the 1.2. I feel like that that's the answer to your question. And again, you're just talking about three community members who see an opportunity. In 20 years, how much would you do model that you'd make at market rents? I have no idea what market rents are going to be in 20 years. It's the comparison that I'm asking about. I can't tell you where the market's going in 20 years. I don't think anybody here could. Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and move to Carol and just want to footnote that the conversation that Paul started and Gaston continued, we might want to go back to it before we can actually make a decision. So Carol, go ahead. Carol, can I remember? Yeah, I just unmuted myself. Well, one thing, if you were, if we decided that we would like to have the units instead of the money, which is kind of not exactly where I think I am, but anyway, what I remember about the design that we saw at the planning board, the units were really heavily, the space was heavily bedrooms. So if you were going to move a family into there, I just wonder how that would work. They kind of seemed like they were more expecting to have four different people living in four different bedrooms and have some small, small space that was a common space. And would you, if we just, if you don't get to give us the money, if you don't get to give us the money, that sounds really bizarre anyway. And instead, it's affordable units. Will they still be designed that way? Or will it be some interior changes to make them more suitable for a family or some group of people like that? It's my understanding that all of the apartments, you can't design an affordable unit or put different materials in the affordable unit. That's right. Actually, they will be designed the way that Cune Riddle has designed them. And all of the apartments will be equal to each other. So there is no, I have, for my countertops, and they have, you know, black granite. That is the goal of this, right? Is that we're, we're giving the same to everybody, the same treatment and the same respect. I was thinking more of just the, where the walls are almost and so how much space is in the living room compared to how much space is in the bedrooms. So, and I don't know, maybe that becomes impossible because of the reason that you just said, but it's not countertops. It's kind of how much living space compared to how much bedroom space and each apartment does have the living room, the kitchen, the sitting area, and then the common space, which is, you know, hopefully where people join together, which is lovely for, I mean, I, I grew up in an apartment building and it didn't have common space and we were all in our little units, right? And then of course, you know, being right across from the park is always lovely. I meant, I meant in the unit, but anyway, never mind, forget about my question. I retract my question or whatever. It's okay. I go ahead. I have something else to say later, but that's fine. Okay. Grover, Nate and then Paul. I wanted to return to the point in the conversation where Allegra asked you a question about the units and I believe the answer, I just wanted to remind us that as I understand it, we could also recommend payment in lieu of for some of the units and inclusive for others. So it's not a one or the other. So I wanted to say that and I, I'll just say public, like, I feel like we should continue on the discussion and I want to say that it seems like by having the discussion, Gabrielle, you are maybe feeling that we're not appreciative of the offer or bringing it to us. But this is really important to us and and we are all experts in various ways on our piece of this puzzle as well. And I wanted to say that for me, and I want to like say, Gaston, your point is taken that we haven't made a decision yet about our strategic direction. And my personal goals are to create more extremely low income below 60% units in the town in the years ahead. And so the payment in lieu allows for that in ways that I think is valuable to me. So that doesn't necessarily dictate how I plan to vote, but that is how I'm leaning because with $1 million to something like a Valley project that could be homes for 10 families, for example, if done right. So thank you, Grover. Nate and then Paul. Sure. I had a few things I was going to say. I'll probably forget one or two while I'm talking. One is that this is, you know, not precedent setting. So this is a case by case review by the trust. So, you know, if, if you decide a one option, recommend one option for this project in a month later, something else comes up, it's not, you know, necessarily you have to follow the same decision. I think, you know, as long as we're deliberative and, you know, judicious, I think the decision can be, you know, the recommendation to the permitting board is fine. I think that Carol, your point about the units is actually something staffs talked about, that the proportionality in the size of a living space in the Hastings building is actually better than in the new building. And honestly, if the trust wanted the units in the building, and that's where you voted, I would actually also recommend that one or two of the affordable units be in the old building. And that's fine to recommend that, and see what the planning board discusses. I think the layout and floor plans are important. And so, yeah, that's part of the consideration as well. And then Gaston, to your point, I think, yeah, it's interesting, if I look at the rents at Fieldstone, the new development at UMass, and you do back and back in gross numbers, you're made whole in like, you know, 10 years on 1.1 million based on gross rents, you know, after construction and everything, right? And so, you know, the present value now to an affordable unit in perpetuity, and how do you do all that? I mean, it's, I'm sure, you know, there's probably a number of ways you can slice it. But to me, that's why, you know, the payment and lieu of option was actually meant to be somewhat discouraging, because the idea was to get units and then have it be enough that it's really, you know, a developer has to, an applicant has to really consider it, you know, important to do it. And so, you know, we haven't updated that formula in a number of years, but the cost of everything has increased. And so that's why I was suggesting a higher number, you know, in reality, it's like, you know, you can't write a zoning by a lot to automatically update every two years with inflation or other indices, right? But, you know, if this number was developed five years ago, it's like, would every two years, we'd reexamine it to be a more accurate reflection of what we'd want a payment to be. And that just hasn't happened. And so it's difficult to say what is the right number. But I think, you know, to Paul's point and other things, you know, maybe some project, it's the formula, but maybe in some units we could, the trust or the permitting board could ask for more, because we think the value is more in the long run and for the project. Thank you, Nate. Paul? Yeah. So I just want to sort of not dispel, but just sort of let's recognize that affordable housing is for lots of different families. It's not just a traditional nuclear family. There's all kinds of people who need affordable housing and all kinds of relationships and single people, all kinds of things. And I think that we know there's a market for that in this community. So I think, you know, thinking of one size, this is what we're going to do is not helpful to us. I do think we really do need to do an economic analysis about what the value is, because we want to get the greatest, our job is, trust members, is to get the greatest value possible for something. I'm inclined to support this, because I think the location, while the location is very valuable, I think there's almost better locations that could support a broader range and larger number of units someplace else. So I'm inclined to support this. I guess the question is, I mean, I don't want to vote on this tonight. Are we under any time constraints in terms of taking a position or are we the negotiators is sort of the question, right? Thank you, Paul. We, Carol and I also asked that in terms of time constraints. So we understand that the planning board is having a meeting on March 20th, and they were hoping, which doesn't mean we have to, they were hoping to get a recommendation from us prior. But that's my understanding. And I know Greg has his hand up, but let me just go to Carol first and maybe Greg can expound on that. You can go to Greg first if you want, see if you can expound on that and come back to me. That's good. Okay, Greg, go ahead. No. Yeah, I was actually just going to sort of, you know, we're going to be on this actually at this point, but in regards to the planning committee, yeah, I understand they're meeting on the 20th. And I think that's what we know. And I don't think it's a guarantee they'll close their decision on the 20th. Nate would know probably more than me on that specific. And I was just going to say on the, so separately from the planning board scheduling, just on the potential expenditure of these funds, you know, if they were to be in, you know, some number in an in lieu form, you know, I think it is, you know, I think it's fair to say that, you know, depending on what we and then eventually the town through housing production plan, you know, depending what we prioritize around affordability, for example, if deeper affordability became a goal and became a reason to do this, then it's probably safe to assume that would be via rental and not via ownership. You know, I think there's exceptions to that. But I think if we had to guess, it would probably be rental. And it would, I think it would be very unlikely. I think it'd be incredibly unlikely that it would be ownership downtown. I can't imagine that working via the in lieu fashion. So. Thank you, Greg Carroll. Well, two things. One is just I, it feels to me like the way that this bylaw is written, it doesn't change maybe the number of units that have to be affordable. But it changes what has to be paid for them because it's based on the current median family income and that changes all the time. So it's not fixed. And even though it hasn't been looked at in years, it's looked at as often as that number is increased or changed. And the other thing I wanted to say, maybe it's obvious in it, but I feel inclined to take the money because I have for the however long I've been on the trust, which is not so long, but the trust hasn't been around for so long. This is the first time I've seen money that isn't CPA isn't it's like this money. If we think of something that we want to do that doesn't fit the exact guidelines of 80% or whatever else, this money we can use for it. We've never had money like this before. I just think it's actually kind of a rare and wonderful opportunity that I kind of hope we decide to take. Thank you, Carol. Rob. Thanks. So one way that it that it could be used downtown for homeownership, not saying this is the best way obviously there are plenty of other things that are valuable and useful. But somebody mentioned that there's a house on McLean priced at $360 or $3,000 or something like that. That doesn't mean that that that is the cost that that would be the cost to make it affordable. The cost to make it affordable is just to bring it down to an affordable price so that someone can buy it at 80% or 70% or 60%. And that number is about 180,000. So the investment there would be 180 or 200. And the developer could buy that house and then sell it to a low income person and partner with the Arizona Trust or with the Housing Trust to just do the subsidy forever. So there are ways of reaching the ownership that are not, I don't mean that the entire price of the house is what is being paid. Thank you, Rob. It sounds like that's another plus for flu and payment. But let me go to Grover. And I just want to say that we've actually allotted until 840 this discussion and we're still okay. It's only 810. So we're not beyond any of our deadlines. So we've got plenty of time to continue this conversation. But I want to make sure we have enough time for the trust members to decide what are the next steps or if they're going to, if we're ready to vote tonight. So I'm going to go ahead, Grover and then Allegra. You know, Rob, I just wanted to name, especially for public that's like following along is like, I agree with you that the money could be leveraged for homeownership, but also the densification of downtown and the way that the Land Trust model works means that there's fewer and fewer or there will be fewer and fewer homes that are on their own plot of land that can be subsidized that way. And so I'm just flagging that as apartments and condos, right, are filling the space, then we'll have less and less opportunity to support homeownership in that fashion. So in those cases, like if this was a condo project right now, I would feel differently about it than I do about a rental project because that is in lieu is going to be one of the only ways we get affordable homeownership increase in downtown because it's so expensive to build a homeownership project. That is my opinion. Thank you, Grover. Allegra, you may have to speak louder. I am right here. Sorry. I guess, you know, it's interesting because when I think we were discussing the idea of the inclusionary zoning and what we would support and what we would like to see, it was all like very abstract in terms of what numbers would actually be. And so I think there's obviously great value in a $1.2 million donation to the Housing Trust. And I think that, again, we don't have necessarily our path outlined completely. But I think that there are ways that we could use the money creatively, like perhaps subsidizing some of the vacant units in town and these other affordable buildings where a studio is $12.75, which is, I mean, almost my mortgage. And so I think that there could be ways that we could leverage this money to build deeper affordability in the units that might be like not big A 30% of your income going towards rent affordable. If that makes sense. Because units are so important. There's so many people that need a place to go. But if we're having trouble filling units down the road, whether that's because applicants aren't filling in applications or they're not completing them or they're not calling back, I think that there is some sense in thinking about do we do we accept the money? Do we say yes, the money? Or do we say some of the money? I don't have an answer, but I think that there are, again, different ways we could use the money with less restriction from our CPA funds. Thank you, Allegra. Gabrielle, I'm just going to let Nate speak first and then you can comment. Thanks. Yeah, I want to let this vacancy of affordable units dissuade or kind of cloud any decision. I think that if it's a problem, it's structural to the system and it's not just amorous, right? So we work pretty hard in our land use permits. We have conditions for timeline so that the marketing, the regulatory agreement have to all be in place all by the time there's a certificate of occupancy. It's difficult to have a land use permit condition how and when units are occupied. And so that becomes a monitoring issue. And so if we find out that the town finds out that there is an issue, then we can work with the state or the owner developer to do that. But if we're hearing that there's some vacancies now, to me that's saying, well, either the developer doesn't want to decrease the amount that they could rent to or there's other issues that, like I said, could be investigated. There could be a number of problems there, whether it's barriers with language or other things. What I also would like to say is that if the trust does take a vote, I would like to have with it some, if not part of the motion, at least part of the discussion of how you'd want to frame it to the planning board. And so I'm actually thinking the planning board might want to discuss this amongst themselves as well. And so we can summarize the conversation, but if, for instance, you vote for a payment in lieu and you'd like it to go to a certain type of units or something, you could say that or the discussion can say that the trust is working on an action plan, there's a housing production plan, we'd actually like the money to be unencumbered because the planning board, they could condition the payment to go to something specific and maybe the trust would want that or not want that. And so I think as part of any discussion or vote the trust would make to the planning board, I think some information like that would also be helpful for the planning board because the planning board might, their members, I really do think they'd want to discuss this as well. I don't think they're going to take the trust recommendation without a discussion on their own, whether that's next week or their following meeting on this project. And so having some information to go along with any vote I think would be helpful for the planning board. Gabrielle, I think you had your hand up. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify while it is generous and opportunity that those involved think is viable, it's definitely not a donation. So I just wanted to make that clear that it's in lieu, so there is a huge difference. So no one's getting a big tax write off on this one. Thank you. So I'm not seeing any hands from the trustees. I just want to acknowledge we have about five people in the audience. Does anybody in the audience want to make a comment or ask a question of the group here from Barry's team or even Nate and Greg in terms of how the town has helped us to think about the pros and cons of this decision. Okay, I'm not seeing any hands up. We do. Let me just look back. So Gaston, all right, where? I mean, I don't think we got an answer to Paul's question about who's the, I mean, I am personally sympathetic to this, but I hear both Nate and Paul raising the question about the amount. And that's obviously meaningful to the trust. And I don't think we clarified if the amount is going to be any different, how or where that would happen. So I believe I'm hearing is that I think what, again, you can clarify Gaston, but I think what I'm hearing is that we can't really make a decision unless we know what that amount actually is. We know what the amount is now. Well, no more about, I mean, would we recommend, for example, let's say that we concluded that we were sympathetic, but we think the board should take up the question of the amount. Is that the answer to the question that Paul and Nate posed to us? Or is it a different answer? Go over, go ahead. My understanding, so I'm glad you're asking this question because we should get clear on this, is that the in lieu payment is set in the bylaw and not a negotiation. Is that correct? Nate, do you want to respond? No, it's a it's a we'll say it's a minimum, right? So since you're with the building commissioner, it's kind of like the 80 percent affordable limit and inclusion zoning is the maximum. So you guys go lower. The payment in lieu of could be, it can't be lower than that, but it could be more, right? And so there's nothing that restricts that it's the bylaw, you know, essentially the way a regulation will be written is that if it's not prohibited, it could be part of a negotiation or review. So, you know, speaking with the building commissioner and other staff, they're saying, well, why, you know, because of that, right? Because there could be different values associated with units and different projects. And so to Carol's point, I just want to say that, right, although the median family income changes when the bylaw was written four times, the median family income was the four times, right? That that number, that factor was decided based on, say, cost of construction or what could be a good number. But I think that factor has to be reviewed periodically. So doesn't the percentage of affordable units, right? So when we decided at 12 percent, you know, people were worried that it would actually stop development or slow down development. And so you have to balance the amount of affordability with market development. I actually think that, you know, like I've said before that, I think we could actually increase the percentage of affordability in projects because we're seeing development. And so at some point, what, you know, what is the right percent? Is it also percent and AMI? Is it, you know, you know, so those are all kind of factors to be considered. But, you know, just speaking to how it changes, right, the median family income updated every year by HUD in April, May, June. And so, you know, this year is 93 seven. Next year, it might be slightly different. It actually has increased a little bit more recently. Sometimes it decreases over time. And so, you know, whether that, that, that decrease is actually corresponding to any cost of construction or other things, you know, it's hard to pin. But so anyways, so the long answer, Grover, to your question is that, you know, we see that as what is required. It could be more, it can't be less. Okay. I don't think I'm reading the bylaw and it doesn't say that that I see it says the fee in lieu value for each affordable unit not provided shall be four times bloody, bloody, blah. It doesn't say maybe it doesn't say at least it says it shall be so you could change the bylaw sometime. And that's a good thing to talk about. But right now this project as I see it, that's the amount. I don't I mean somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but it says that it shall be four times the current median family income for Amherst. It doesn't say that's the minimum. It says that's it. The building commissioner would say well, you could ask for more, or you could talk about more. So it has to be at least that it's not. Who who is it that says that I mean, why does it not be just what it is in the bylaw? I don't, what's the point of the bylaw then if it's just negotiable. So bylaws typically will set maximum minimums, right? So you have a minimum setback or maximum. So it's not it can be anywhere in between. And so it's really hard to capture every variable. But okay, I get I I don't know if that seems weird to me, but I you know more about town stuff than I do. Ron, I think the planning board could refuse to grant that special permit unless unless the offer was increased. That's that's that's where it's a minimum. Okay, thank you, Rob. Thank you for the clarification. And we actually did have public comment. The person was not able to be here this evening. And since you know, we did open up for public comments, I do want to share it just to be fair. This comes from Hedi startup, who lives on Allen Street. And she wrote, I'm expressing my concern as a private citizen regarding this project. Well, it'd be good to have a story that may remind people here of our beloved AJ Hastings, I have several concerns about the new scheme. I read that the developers plan to remit a payment in lieu of providing affordable housing units as this location. In principle, such a condition of development is not in question. But as this development is planned for a very prominent place in Amherst Center, at our most important crossroads in town, it seems short sighted to think that the only people willing to live there will be our student population. I think this is an era. Currently rents for downtown properties are higher than in other village centers of Amherst in outer lying neighborhoods. So we know that there is a plus to being close to everything, including town services shops and other amenities. I think this would be true of those who seek affordable housing in our own town and to not be thinking of them as a major oversight. And I hope that the members of the housing trust will consider this. And she apologized for not being able to attend the meeting. Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands up. So I think we need to think about what the next steps are. And let me just reiterate what Nate had said. Well, first let's let me reiterate. We can make a decision or about making recommendation. We can make a decision to either recommend something to the planning board tonight or we can hold off on a decision. And as part of the bylaws, what I've heard is that minimally we can receive four times the current medium family income, which is 93,700 times four, which is the total units will equal 1.124 million minimally. We can also ask that we could have the same types of units within 500 feet of the property or same zoning district, or we can ask for a mix of these things. So those are some of the things that we can recommend or we can decide on tonight. Or you can make a decision that we need to have more information about what the actual payment in lieu of these apartments are. So I think it might be important to have a motion put out here. Or maybe I should just ask with a raise of hands, are we ready to make a decision or do we need more information? Should we just go around and each person? Yes. Okay. So the question is, should we vote this evening on a recommendation? Paul? Yes, I think I think from listening to the conversation, I think we're all inclined to accept the payment in lieu of creating units. My feeling is that the number prescribed in the bylaw is too low. And I think that it should be a higher number. And maybe that's what the motion is to recommend to the planning board that it be significantly higher or whatever you want to say. But I think to give the planning board guidance from the trust saying this is a project that has the unique characteristics that would imply that we should accept the payment in lieu of taxes. I really haven't heard anybody really argue super strong or too many people argue too super strongly about saying, we need these units here. But to me, the value of the units is higher than what the bylaw prescribes. Thank you, Paul. Rover? I think we should vote tonight because I don't want to lose our opportunity to provide input to the plan for it. Thank you. Carol? I agree with both of the two people who just spoke. Thank you. Rob? I agree with three people. Gaston? Add me to the list. Allegra? Okay, Erica, go ahead. Good. Allegra. I agree with everybody else so far. Allegra, I think your your microphone like needs a warm up every time. Sort of seems like, yeah. All right. And Erica, yes. So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, seven, yeses that we vote this evening. So Paul had mentioned that it sounded like we were all in favor of lieu and payment of these units, but that we might want to make a recommendation to the planning board that the amount that is proposed is too low. So does anybody want to put forth a motion? So moved. I think Gaston should put forward the motion. I guess we recommend to the planning board to accept the payment in lieu and study the amount and make sure that it's appropriate for the property in question. Was that a second, Rob? I make a friendly amendment. Okay. Allegra? The friendly amendment would be that the trust can use the, it would be unencumbered to the trust to use as they choose. I would agree with that amendment. Would the original mover agree with the amendment? Okay. I'm happy to if that's not clear from the bylaw. I would like to make a friendly amendment if that is the right, if I'm doing the right thing in the process. I accept the first one then if that's the way we go. As do I. Grover, you want to make Yes. The language as laid out, I think we should say explicitly we recommend payment in lieu but think that the amount written into the bylaw is too low. I think we should explicitly use that way. What do others think? Is too low for the property? The value of that location. For the value, too low for the value, value of that location. And therefore should be studied. I think that that was what you recommended, Gaston. Yes, I mean, if we're not proposing a principle or a methodology, we're kind of passing it off to the planning board to study that question and just giving them our, you know, temperature read. Okay. And determined and that the payment in lieu should go to MAHT and it should be unencumbered. Okay. Let me try to state what it was. We recommend to the planning board to accept the payment in lieu of the three units. But we believe that the amount in the bylaw is too low for the value of that location and should be studied and determined by the planning board and that the payment that MAHT will be receiving should be unencumbered. Does that make sense? Paul, I think you have your hand up. I do. And this is just to discuss the motion. I'm not looking to change it. There's just two points I want to make. One is just to communicate to staff that what we're seeking is to maximize the amount of money that would come to the trust. That's pretty clear. I don't think we're just judgments. We're just random people. We don't know the real estate market or anything like that, but that's the communication to the staff. And the other point I want to make is that these units, when the formula gets applied, it's sort of a fixed sum for every unit, whether it's a one bedroom unit or a three bedroom unit. It seems sort of odd that that's the way the formula works. So I think we need to recognize that these units are multiple, you know, dimensional. And so when we are seeking, when the planning board considers this, they should recognize that it's not all one bedroom units or all three bedroom units, but there's a mix. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments before we actually vote on the motion that was made by Gaston and Rob and amended with Friendly Amendments by Allegra and Grover? Carol, we can't hear you. Sorry. I think we should vote on the motion, but I think that we should send the motion along with some commentary that includes like what Paul just said and anything else that makes sense. I mean, we can do the motion in a context. I believe Nate had recommended, since he's going to be at the planning board meeting to provide some possible highlights of our conversation that would help the planning board to have their conversation and make their decision. Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and ask each of you to vote on the motion that was made. I'm going to start off with Allegra. Could you say that again? I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. So sorry. Gaston? Yes, I, yeah. Carol? Yes. Rob? Yes. Grover? Yes. Paul? Yes. And Erica is yes. Okay. Seven yeses. The motion passes. I want to thank Gabrielle very, very much for being here this evening. And it seemed a little bit like on the hot seat, but it was really a wonderful conversation. As everyone said, this opportunity to work together and partner really want to thank you for representing here and also Tom and especially Barry, because my understanding is, is that you are very, very committed to working with the town and with the trust to ensure that there are affordable housing units available throughout the town. So we really want to thank you for being here this evening. And we're looking forward to working with you. Thank you. And thank you to all of you. And yeah, sometimes I'm hot seat. Go Gaston. I'll throw that at you. And I just want to say this is near and dear to my heart where I moved here from. I was incested and involved with HAPTAP for Humanity. And I think this is a really important conversation and one that needs to continue. And I look forward to seeing what the strategic planning this group can do with a cushion. Like I said, I've been a nonprofit my entire adult life and without some financial stability, it's really hard to make meaningful impact. So thank you for all you do. Thank you. And I'm going to go ahead and turn over the rest of the agenda to my co-chair, Carol. Okay, now that you did all the hard part. So the next thing that I have on here is just some kind of, since we've just been talking around it, sort of a report on our strategic action planning process. We were most of us, I think, all of us at the in-person that we did. I believe Shelly's notes have been distributed to everybody. And we have a committee that is going to be meeting on the third Thursday from 11 to 12 via Zoom. The committee is Rob and Erica and I and Shelly and Greg. Our first meeting, we haven't had our first meeting yet. It's next week, I think, whenever in the next, this is the second Tuesday. So that's Thursday. So that's the third Thursday. We will be taking under consideration all of some of the things that we just talked about. Anybody who has any input that they want to provide to that process, it's a subcommittee. It will be a posted meeting. There will be notes from the meetings. People that will be Zoom availability to the public if they want to come. But our goal is to meet for an hour each month and work towards bringing back to the trust some things that can be what we is our plan going forward. And we already had some input from Grover. But if people, anybody has anything that they want this committee to know, please send it probably to Greg or Erica and I and Greg. But so that we will have it to bring to this subcommittee. I thought, I guess I would just say I'm thank you to everybody who came to the thing on our meeting on the 29th when we had some opportunity to voice a lot of different things that people thought might be might be good options for us to pursue. Hopefully we will be able to bring back to everyone something that will get us all fired up, get everybody into a subcommittee or something to be working on doing something more and get some more affordable units and some better affordability situations all together in town. I don't does anybody else who have any other have any comments questions or anything about our strategic action planning process. Greg. Yeah, I mean just this is probably pretty obvious, but you know, I mean, I think like this is a perfect example of why we're doing that right in that, you know, we have this we have this opportunity to weigh perhaps depth of affordability versus, you know, versus units on the ground in a centralized location. And I think what we discovered our conversation a couple weeks ago was that we didn't necessarily have clarity on both of those things feel important, but which is more important, you know, and I think we'll be able to not order everything, but really pick out a few things that really feel have some consensus importance. And that's kind of, you know, that will that will next time something like this comes around will be we'll have a clearer frame work hopefully. Thanks. That's all. Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think we learned a lot about our what we think is important in the conversation today and I am a strong believer in learning from cases. It's hard to come up with things in the abstract cases really force you to see what you think is important. Yeah, thank you. So true. So true. So if there is nothing else about the strategic planning process, we will presumably have more in the meetings going forward because we will have met and hopefully come up with something to bring back. Then we have some presumably brief updates on the status of town projects, which I present think that since David here, maybe Nate is going to do whatever whatever there is to be said about the VFW development work group for starters. Yeah, the town had hoped to use a local architect who has experience working on shelters and permanent and, you know, permanent shelters support of transitional housing. They indicated they're not available in the short term. And so we've reached out to the state and CDAC to find names of firms. So really, we we thought we could, you know, kind of move this quicker. We are going to reach out to a few firms hopefully next week, other firms who would then, you know, lead this process, we're hoping to have a three month process where an architectural firm and team would meet with the trust, have a few public meetings and get ideas for this site and come up with a program and some concept designs. And so, you know, that that's a little delayed because the firm that has done a number of these is not available. And so we're trying to find someone else who who would be. And so, you know, I think someone is it's a smaller contract, it's not going to lead to, you know, construction plans necessarily or anything. It's really a discrete piece that can be used then to help inform the trust in town in the future. And it may just be that depending on how busy places are, you know, it's hard to just kind of schedule this in. And so we're reaching out to a few other places, if not tomorrow, then early next week. Okay. And then so after you reach out, then you still have to decide on somebody, right? Right. Of course. Yeah. Right. Okay. Is anything else going on there? Or that's, that's it. So the work group or anything will be developed after the architect has chosen. Right. Okay. Yeah, I mean, the site's getting ready, you know, where the town's preparing to have, you know, for the site to be demolished, for the building to be demolished. But then after that, it's really, you know, it's we have to have this, this visioning process and discussion with the architect. And, you know, like I've said before, I think it's the town would have to consider how do we want to dispose of this, you know, what kind of request for proposal. And there's a lot of factors. And so what, how far does the town take it? And what's kind of the role of a developer? Is it, you know, would, would the town and everyone recommend that the person who responds does everything from development to programming to working on the shelter and housing piece? Or, you know, do we break off components? And so I think some of that is, you know, yet to be discussed and how that would, how, you know, that could be worked out in a, you know, in a disposition. Thank you. On here also is how about the new housing production plan RFP? Has that, is that in process gone out? What's the staff? It has gone out and we expect responses. Well, if responses are in, they'll be in by Monday at two o'clock and we'll find out what we get. Basically the way this works is that we have a procurement officer in the town who kind of runs all of it and she'll report out, you know, who came back, you know, with the lowest bid and then, presumably they're qualified, you know, they meet the qualifications, we'll go with them. And that document, the initial document did involve some great feedback from this group and all that ended up in there. And so once we, you know, so I guess the big question is, you know, who responds if anybody to the RFQ will know on Monday. So. Okay. What happens if nobody's responded? Then you have to go back and do it again or something? Then you and me, Carol, we just get the whiteboard out and we, yeah. No, I presume we do it again. And I would defer to Nate and Paul on how we've approached that in the past, but yeah. Yeah, I'm hopeful that someone would respond. You know, we identified, I don't know, half a dozen, seven firms, eight firms or teams that would do this. If we don't get a response, you know, we can see who took out, you know, we could contact someone and ask why, you know, for instance, is it, is it the scope? Is it the timeframe? You know, what, what made it unattractive? And so, you know, that's always that's an option. I, you know, I'm optimistic, you know, we'll get at least, you know, a few quotes in there. Okay. That's great. So the other thing on here is a UMass meeting, which I think Dave was the one who was doing something about, and he's not here. And we knew that we were not going to be the leads anyway. But I wonder if anybody here from the town has anything, any update on that? Perhaps not. But does anyone have any update? No, I don't, I don't have an update. You know, I think that the play, I think we've talked about this, but the planning board had also asked for a meeting with UMass representatives. And so, I think some of it was Dave was reaching out to try to coordinate or talk about the right, the right, the roles and the meeting. And so I think we could wait till next time to hear about that. Okay. That sounds fine. Are there, is there anything else, Nate, that's up that wasn't on this little list here that's a town update that we might want to hear about? I think, you know, just quickly, the zoning board is meeting tonight to talk about Valley's project in North Amherst. And so that's getting close to conclusion. And so I know, you know, there's a lot of meetings sometimes in one evening. But, you know, I think that'll, you know, be wrapping up permitting soon. And so that, you know, that's, you know, that it goes through, you know, another process in terms of funding and everything else, but at least the, you know, the permit will be in hand hopefully soon. Great. Great. I don't have anything else on the list of town updates. So we have, we have a list that I don't really, sorry. I thought we were at like any, anything else that people have to say part of the meeting. But it seems like we're not quite there yet. We could be if you want to. I'll just say that I sent it off to Greg, but take a UMass students did a study of converting Hampshire mall to like huge housing complex. It's in the, it's in the Gazette right now. It's super interesting. Just kind of get the juices flowing. Thank you. In the Gazette, was it in today's, was it? You're muted again. It's available online. Okay. Thanks. We have a list. I don't know that I have anything to say about the things on this list, the legislative actions. Some of these we have been involved in with actually in support or we're probably in support of all of them, but some of them we've written things to the people about this is sort of where, where things are at the moment. Is a Mindy Dom still in attendance? It says she is. I don't know if Mindy has anything that she wants to say about any legislative actions, perhaps not. It's okay if you don't, but she just raised her hand. So can we let Mindy see what she has to say? I believe Greg. Mindy, shall I put you on screen here? Is that okay? Turn your camera off. If you don't want to be, here you go. Okay. Representative Dome should be in. There she is, or at least a picture of her. Hi Mindy. Hi. Apologies for the surprise. I didn't realize I was still logged in on Mindy's Zoom, but I will just take the opportunity to say hello. I'm Mindy's legislative aide, Grace. But if you have any questions or concerns regarding any sort of legislation, always feel free to reach out, email anything of that sort. Sure. Okay. And do you have anything you want to say to us about any of these things that are up at the moment that we're, if you don't, that's fine. Nothing of note. Just, I see that you have that the TOPA bill and the Rent Control Enabling Act are, they both got report, they didn't get reported out. They had extensions. And just for a date there, the reporting date was extended to April 12th. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thanks for being here. Okay. Thank you. I think we have, I think that's it. If there are any, anybody have any announcements? We just heard one. We have Grover's hand up. Yes. Is Dom's aide still here? Grace. Grace. It's Healey. Okay. That's a bummer. Well, then I will just make a public comment, which is to say I have been following that the state legislature put a cap on the time limit cap on the length that families can stay in shelters. And I'm concerned about this. And I haven't yet gotten clarity on how Representative Dom voted, but I contacted Cumberford because it's headed to this Senate next. And I encourage others to do so because the thought of a family staying in a shelter for a year and then being kicked out because they can't afford a place because how could a person raising small children afford a place in Boston or anywhere else on a, you know, Walmart, whatever, retail salary is beyond me. And it's just really unacceptable to me that we would just kick families out of shelters and use asylum seekers as some kind of reason for that. So while I know we have a real housing crunch, that is not the solution. So if you feel the same way, please contact your reps. Thank you. And I'm sorry if you had your hand up and I didn't notice before Grace left. Erica. I wasn't sure if we're on announcements yet. Yes. Okay, good. So the African Heritage Reparation Assembly is going to be coming on May 9th. Dr. Shabas and Michelle Miller, who are members on the Assembly, are going to present. If you had an opportunity to read their report, there is a section on recommendations for affordable housing. So that's one of the reasons why we wanted them to come and talk to us about those recommendations. So they will be coming on May 9th. So thank you, Lager, for helping us get them to come to one of our meetings. And then BU and Harvard co-sponsored the series, Housing Homelessness and Health. There was one webinar that's already happened, but the second webinar is going to be April 2nd from 4 to 5. And this one's on What Can Communities Do? Some of you had said that you were interested in seeing the webinar from the first presentation, which was predominantly research and policy. And so the information that I sent you actually has a link to the prior webinar as well. So you can register for this one or you can look at the prior webinar or you can do both. So those are my announcements. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else have any other further announcements or any items that weren't anticipated within 48 hours? I think there aren't any. So I will just remind everyone that the next meeting is on April 11th. And thank you very much for your participation. And can we adjourn? Do we need a motion to adjourn? I let's adjourn. Thumbs up for adjourning. Yay. All right. Everybody have a good night. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Thanks everyone. Good night.