 And I'll probably hit record too. It's not already. Okay. Yeah. It looks like it's already recording. Okay. All right. Good morning. Morning. All right. Well, this is our subcommittee to focus on action planning for the Amherst municipal affordable housing trust and welcome anybody who is attending along with us. And if you, I believe if they want to be heard or want to submit a comment, they could just raise the hand correct Rob. That sounds good. Yeah. And as of now, we have no attendees in the room. I can maybe I'll just welcome folks. Let you all know if folks show up. Yes, that would be great. We can see them too, actually. So, given that we're panelists, we can see them. If we were attendees, we would have no idea what was there. Yeah, sometimes though, if there are other people, I don't see the screen. I just see, I see us right now. But often when we run the meeting, half the people are not on my vision. And then when they have the hands up, I can't even see the panelists with a hand up. So, the other thing is just for recording sake also to ask for people's names, because sometimes it's just the first name. And I know when we do minutes, you like to have their full names. So, do somebody, do we have to call this meeting to order or something since it's a subcommittee. The meeting is called to order right now. The people who are present are. I'm Carol, everybody else say their name Carol Lewis. Eric. Rob counter. Shelly Gary. And Greg regime. Okey-dokey. So what do we do now. We have Shelly's notes we have some suggestions that Grover made we have whatever all of us have thought about. Shelly, can you help us out. Yep, so thank you so much Greg for sending these these documents out. I'm hoping that everyone kind of has them available to them to to review. And then Greg helped fill out some of just my notes where I tried to do themes and then Greg added a little added some of that as well to build it out a little bit. So I was doing it based on themes just because I'm trying to focus in on the potential goals for the trust and then Grover's really focused on kind of one goal and then put a lot of things under it which I would actually pull some of those items out as goals but I wanted to start with a discussion of kind of your takeaways from the meeting and some key things that you are hearing as trust members that there are certain things that really stand out as kind of appear to be particular priorities just from the conversation. I can start. So I think what I've heard pretty clearly a couple of things. One is the more concrete which I think Grover sort of gave good examples of which is being clear about our goals for increasing affordable housing. And she didn't separate rental from or transitional housing rental from home ownership. But that you know I believe we all believe in all those possibilities. So I think you know being impactful to actually get affordable housing online. That's one of the areas and also for people under 100% am I individuals, seniors families seem to be a priority people with disabilities, which would then include many people who are homeless as well getting them into housing so that that's one thing that was important because it was more concrete in terms of description. And then of course the type of housing being innovative in terms of ad use or other types of housing co sharing. So really being cognizant of the the different types that we could actually promote. So that's one area. The other area was being very clear about what resources we have and our ability to leverage them and move them forward. So you have your big goal but you also have to look at the limitations and the resources. And then the last thing that I thought was really important is there were a couple people had something very specific and just being paying attention that it seemed to me that what I was hearing and you can correct me is that this is something that they're very committed to and if we don't include that that they might. I may be wrong that they might not be as committed. So, so I think it's really important to pay attention to some people's specific interests to make sure that that's incorporated. So I heard that the comment as kind of because I kept saying like start with the data and the responses but we need to be, we need to feel really compelled by what we're doing, or we will be as motivated so I was kind of hearing it kind of from that angle. I do think that it's a fair point that you, the trustees need to feel motivated and really on board with what goals you choose and strategies so I want to jump in on that. So, my takeaway from the meeting last, whatever that was, a couple weeks ago. In the spirit of Shelley's recommendation to like try and pick two areas, two points, two goals. So, my takeaway of what those broad goals were that people were expressing were more units, just more units, and then there are, you know, different ways that you could achieve that as Shelley has here. You know, housing, senior housing, social units, those are, those are also ways to get more units, but just more units was a slide to call. And the other goal was addressing the markets situation. You mass, you know, that, particularly you mass, and how that impacts the market, how it impacts anything that we might try to do. And, you know, as, as you know, I said, I'm skeptical of our ability to actually influence you mass. So, so I don't know how to fulfill that goal but I but I do recognize that it did seem to be a goal that people were a lesson. Yeah. Yeah. I guess I would, I also heard a lot about dissatisfaction or wishing for something better with the interact with the relationship between the town and especially you mass but maybe also the other colleges in town that seemed something that people felt was problematic and needed to work, even though it also seemed clear that it should not be, it's not the trust thing to lead, but it might be the trust, it's kind of, it might be the trust to like, poke at someone who should be leading it a little bit to, to, and to do something that was collaborative with us and the planning board and Paul and who knows whatever else. I just heard a lot of comments that I think mostly this as a barrier that are lack of being able to be kind of in concert with you mass and have them take seriously the problems of housing there or they probably do take them seriously but not involving us in what they're thinking. I don't know. It just seemed like a thing that was a barrier and other thing units, units, units, but also some interest in how can we make sure that the units that already exist are actually occupied. What are there things that we might be doing that are not it might not take so much money is building a unit or renovating unit or whatever in order to just what could how could we be helpful in making the units that already exist more avail more actually be utilized. But units units units and and people I heard different, you know, like, maybe they should be old units for elders maybe they should be units for families maybe they should be units for below even 80% of meeting and maybe they should be 100 to 120% of work for it, you know, so I, that just seems so all over the place. Shelly, I don't know if you know this but we have a very good chance of having a million plus dollars given to us soon. I don't know. The article. Yeah, okay good. Yeah. So, um, so the one thing with UMass is so I appreciated Rob's concern during the meeting but then when Paul said he's the guy like he's the person that should be driving the relationship and I thought oh my gosh you have the person right on your board like it does feel like you could have some influence, because it, it does seem like it's trying to push the town to make it more of a priority to be building this relationship with UMass and putting some pressure on the state to do more. So, that actually when he said he's the one I thought that feels way more doable to have some influence in that. I was also surprised because he actually said something about UMass when it was just turned to talk. He said they have they have property or I forget exactly what he said but he didn't seem, he didn't seem to be saying leave this alone I want to do it by myself or I mean he might want some pressure because to make it more to prioritize it more like he might need some pressure to do that he's got his gazillion things on his plate so. Yeah. So I found that really actually promising. Particularly if they do have land. I mean that's the possibility of a land donation is to me so so interesting and very promise. I mean promising might be too optimistic but you know I think I think Paul is the guy right if there is some you know but I think also and I think Paul would probably tell us this just because he would be the person in Amherst to relate to UMass doesn't mean you know UMass has to listen to him right he you know I mean on a matter like this right like you know it's not as if he has a regulatory oversight of them really at all you know so I think that's just speaking to what Rob shared I think for me it's like Rob what you said specifically about I think you said market concerns you know and of course like UMass animates that market you know in a big big way but I think for me thinking about it in terms of the market. Makes it feel a little more like something that the trust can grasp in some way, rather than I think it would be easy to fall into sort of UMass combat and I Rob I understand your, your reservations there and I share them as far as like, we're not a community organizing entity, you know, and I think I think some of our members certainly come from that space, you know, my YouTube kind of but not here, you know, I mean so I think just sort of navigating that I think is key and I think, like talking about the market as a whole is, to me, conceptually opens more doors than this big blob of UMass that's you know because I think there's also a vulnerability or threat here of the UMass is also the reason not to do anything in the eyes of a lot of community stakeholders, you know, so we have to sort of be mindful of not reinforcing that. So, I just wanted to say, you know, I like that concept of market because I had heard it a little broader, such as corporate investors coming in and buying up homes. And how do we think about countering something like that. And, you know, I know, again, these are just brainstorming but one of the things is, how many people who are selling the homes know that there might be an alternative, such as, you know, working with the Amherst Community Land Trust or, you know, us trying to see if we can match somehow, not unreasonably in terms of investors, but, you know, having people think, you know, there are people who love Amherst and who might want to sell to a family, and we haven't, you know, really done enough of that to, you know, put it out there. So that would probably be about the educational piece. But then the other piece around market is having heard Gabrielle and, you know, represent Barry Roberts and his interest in really increasing bed capacity and home ownership here, not necessarily affordable, but that, you know, it's a piece under inclusionary zoning. You know, are there other developers who we can sort of get to increase the investment of creating more beds, because I think what I've heard is, with more rental spaces, it puts less pressure on, you know, people renting homes. And actually, this is really weird, but I've actually seen more houses for rent in Amherst that are generally student rented. So I don't know what's going on right now. It could be a blip. But I've seen more of that right now than I've seen any time before in the past few years. But explain that to me. What do you mean that there's Yeah, so there's signs out. Yeah, there's signs out right now. So there's a whole area that's all student rental here. And so I've seen more of those houses that are generally student rental houses have for rent on them. And I don't know if it was a small blip because you must just, you know, increased their private partnership, you know, big old dormitory space out on campus but it's just it's really weird that I've seen homes. These are homes that are generally rented by students and you can see even, you know, I've seen tons of cars there every year and now there are signs for rent for those. They're available, which suggests that the students are renting in apartments. Something else. Yeah, somewhere else. Yeah, somewhere else. But they're, but they're investor owned. So then that's why they're available for rent. And I don't know if there's any management or what are those other corporations that are here in Amherst that do all the management of these rental spaces. That's interesting. Yeah. Yeah, feeds into the housing production plan process. Hopefully, you know, that observation that's only a note of that. Yeah, yeah. So what I would love in terms of data is having a map a GIS map of places that are, I mean, I don't know how, how we could even do that. But you know, of the places that are rented out, these are, you know, home structures that are rented out and these are, you know, rental apartments that are rented out to see what's actually available and these are home owned. It would really be very interesting. But I mean, they're usually pretty high density areas where students live. So you can usually, you know, note if it's, if it's a home, or if it's student student rentals because you see multiple cars there even though there's not supposed to be more than four people unrelated people renting you often see six or five or whatever. What's the rule in Emmer's? Does this know more than four unrelated people? That's my understanding. Probably why Robert has things with four bedrooms and not five. It's not just random random isn't quite right, but it's certainly not strictly enforced that rule. Yeah, I mean, that would be such an effort to do that. Well, and to some extent, if you do it, all it's going to do is put more pressure on things because then the place where there's six people can't have six anymore than you need more places for students. So it's kind of in a way self defeating except for the neighbors who think that it's horrible. So I don't know. Well, most municipalities are reactionary. They, they respond to complaints. They don't respond to being proactive. Because they don't have the resources either to, you know, to inspect. I mean, that was the whole thing with the town council want to do more inspectional for rental spaces. And there was a big up in arms against that. But I was going to say there, I mean, I just heard three things more units. I think we all agree on that. And that's really expensive because it has lots of different pieces to it in terms of who we prioritize as well as existing units. And then also relationship. Okay, then the second one was addressing the market situation, trying to possibly increase more home development, be it rental transitional housing or homeownership. And then the last one I think was real realistic, making sure that we're realistic in terms of the resources we have. Did I get that or did I miss out development funding and market pressure. So the same kind of three key areas. Yeah. That leaves out something that I thought we talked about, but that seems important to me, which is land. Well, so I think that maybe that's part of, maybe that's part of units, but, but the whole subject of where is there land that could be housing. Who developed, who develops it, but is it at UMass? Is it what about whatever land Amherst owns that it hasn't got a plan for, or that it does have a plan for something? I mean, I kind of like the saying that Grover suggested that says that, you know, if you have some surplus land, you have to see if it's available, if it could be viable for affordable housing before you do anything else. And I like that at the same time that I know that the town desperately needs a new DPW and desperately needs a new fire station and that's probably roughly the same kind of land that you could build all those things on. So then that gives me pause, but something that gets affordable housing into the mix every time there's land in some way. I think that's a valuable thing to work for too. It's kind of mimicking what the governor is doing right now around state land is prioritizing affordable housing. So I really like that too. But I think that some of that can go under development. So I think it can be a strategy under development pursue that potentially. So under development meaning more units. Is that what you mean by development? Okay, so the development strategy, more units, one of the ways to get them might be more land or something like that. Absolutely. Yeah, okay. Okay, that's fine as long as it's there somewhere. No, so I think that because the way that Grover organized it, I would, I would do a few broad goals, not just that a unit, and then a lot of the things that he puts as tactics can fit under I think a few broad goals. And because you're, you're, I think you have enough capacity where you could focus on three goals. Just fine, you don't have to bring just two. And then just have a variety of strategies and then just kind of be thinking about timeline of what are the things you start first and so I think that that's really doable and to me these are kind of the three key things that came out of the meeting to I think that we're on a similar page. And show you how are you framing them again just just so you're saying development slash units and then funding for the trust. Okay, then like market pressures. So, I mean, I can maybe work with you on kind of some language to build that out a little bit as sure. Okay. But just kind of really, really general. And then I think that we start like I think the work that Grover did is fantastic and I think that we work on start moving some of those into strategies under these goals. And I think that I think this is a, we've only we've only been meaning talking for 22 minutes which is amazing we've gotten so much work done I actually was afraid it was going to take longer so it looks really good that things are starting to co less. I would just want to, I just want to push back a little bit on the prioritizing of seniors people with disabilities and families because really the only people I think that that's leaving out our single people who are not yet seniors. I think that's a good opportunity but they're likely part of the workforce, low income. So I just would kind of, I know that I know that people are really drawn to those three categories but when you think about who it's leaving out. Sometimes young people in our communities we're losing young people because our communities are so expensive. They're not working because they don't apply they can't. They don't receive disability insurance so I just would just I just want to put on the table of let's think about who we're leaving out when we get that precise about those three groups. Paul said that in the in the in our meeting said, you know, there's a lot of single people who I mean he made he made the same point. And a more more recent meeting that we need the more recent trust meeting when we talked about the in lieu. Yeah. Yeah, is there a way to, and we don't have to think about this right now but I'm thinking, is there a way that when opportunity arises so for example, you know with Craig's door, we were able to focus on individuals who are homeless and we were able to subsidize their rental or with, you know, Valley were able to do the RSO is for people who were homeless or, you know, we're experienced came from shelters or had, you know, needs around disabilities. So I think, without stating that but when there are opportunities to make sure that, you know, we, we jump on those opportunities. And when there when there's such opportunities available without saying specifically that really leave anybody out we're looking for the most vulnerable and the most vulnerable include individuals who are just trying to make it on a day to day basis. My proposed that we that we not have that kind of language in the goal piece but that we have guidelines for the trust and that maybe we have priority funding projects or something where we highlight that but maybe not specifically in the goal language but quite that detail. I think am I so really highlighting some am I that's important because that that's directly speak kind of funding, but I'm not sure that I would get quite as. I think that some of what she put on and some of what I think some of your sensitivities maybe could fit better in a different category in the trust guidelines. Yeah, because a lot, a lot, it depends on what the possibilities are. I mean, if you had a guideline where we want to fund families that would be terrible for me to decide not to fund the 132 North Hampton Road thing because oh that's all individuals so that would be you don't want to be in that place at all so yeah. Yeah, it's a really great downtown a lot of businesses. The chances are that it's a lot of single people that are a lot of the employees so we just I don't think you want to lose side of that just given how important that your your commercial kind of retail spaces in your community. Yeah, I mean I think family pro like household profiles, maybe is a general term, you know, we should probably be cautious about being too prescriptive I would agree with that. I have an area where I'm curious and Shelly I, I, I'm curious but you know, so there's household profiles like families or singles or, you know, retired people or, you know, whatever but then there's also like am I like you said, you know, and I wonder, you know and am I targets here too, you know, and I, and it might be written down somewhere but my experience of the trust has not been that we have a priority am I target. You know, and, you know, and, and I wonder if we should have if I look back at our last several years of, you know, the funding you know, you know, targeted you know el I through the valley project you know this upcoming way finders thing which we put a lot, if you include the land disposition process we put a lot of effort into the, the way finders project which will be, you know, a mixed, you know, tax credit, you know, 30 up to 80 up to market rate actually you know so you know, to subsidizing people coming off the street into rentals you know which is not capital investment at all you know I mean, and then the homeownership stuff you know at 70 with the land trust to 80 and 100 with Valley. And I yeah and maybe it's okay to have that spread I don't know you know I'm just like, you know but should we have that discussion at the trust you know of, of what our priority is or is that going to hinder us too much. Well, I would just say that we worked on creating RFP for the for the way finders project and one of the things that people were judged on in their proposals was having so many things at all at a variety of AMI levels. So if we have done anything in my knowledge what we've done it has been to ask for a spread to ask for things not to be all the same, but to be started, maybe 30 and even go up to 120 in different organizations of things but like I, as I've said so many times I like to see a spread of income that's like more it's an important kind of diversity I think. And I think that we have in some ways supported that but we, since we haven't actually had any goals that we paid much attention to in a while I haven't. I don't know what to say about that part, but we have embedded it in things that we've done. Yeah, I was going to say I had actually had a similar thoughts, Greg did in that focusing on certain am I targets or any other targets does help you focus your, your thought your action. But, but historically, we, there's also a tendency and a desire to be opportunistic and like, Oh, if we have a chance to do this, you know, we don't want to say, Oh, because we've set our goals here, and this other opportunities come up we don't want to lose that opportunity. So, there is attention, I agree with that. Yeah, and I also, you know, this is really an important conversation, but I also agree not to limit ourselves because sometimes the opportunities. I know we tend to be a little bit more reactive than proactive. I mean our proactive is constantly pushing the town to give us land to give us surplus spaces. But, you know, often opportunities come up. And, you know, we say, you know, we would like to see a spread and I absolutely agree with Carol that I think it's important to have individuals with different incomes together. It's been proven in terms of trajectory of, you know, moving upwards. It really provides, you know, some people have more resources than others and help others and, and I think that's really important. And so I think it's really important for us to also think about, you know, that that mix to help that mix be either with income or with families or individuals or whatever. I think that diversity really creates more synergy among those who live together as a community. So I think that's important. I think, you know, we, again, we have that euphemistic, most vulnerable. But I think, you know, that when an opportunity comes up, we think about that and I agree with Carol when we did the RFR we were very, very specific that we were looking for that mix, because we don't know how many people working in Amherst can fit any of those mixes. And, you know, part of it too is that you want to make sure, and we actually put that in the RFR too, that once they're housed that they have the support they need to stay housed. And for those who are able to then, you know, make some extra income to then move to a whole ownership, if that's what they want. So I think that that's really important to think about the mix. If I ask a question, maybe you're Shelly. Focusing on Grover's outline there. How important, how useful is it to put numbers on things like Grover has 300 units in five years. The number of which are this and 75 or this and 50 of those. Is it, is it important to be aspirational in our goal setting, or realistic, you know, what's the balance. That's, you know, 60 a year. And so that means one. So that means we're going to be aspirational. Is that really possible? I don't even know. Doesn't seem like. But yet we should have these aspirational goals. Yeah, I think that you just need to decide for yourself. I think that it should be a little bit aspirational. I think you, you, I think that we should be trying to stretch ourselves. The needs are so great, but I also think that you don't want to make it demoralizing because it's so far. So, you know, if it does feel really unrealistic, so I think that that's something that you just need to discuss. So I am she definitely got the message when I was trying to say smart goals really measurable she really put in these numbers. I think it's just a. So the trust just needs to decide how if you want to be as prescriptive as she's being, or if you want to have language like Carol and Erica kind of suggesting of really wanting to prioritize income diversity in the developments that you support, but I do like the idea of 300 or whatever the number is new units over five years, I think that that's helpful to kind of light the fire a little bit to, and then it's really measurable. The number needs to be a little bit less. The trouble for me with the numbers is whichever one it is I'm pulling out of my left ear because I have no idea what's possible. And unless we do some other work to figure out where housing could be some of the land work some of the work with somebody else to find out what's available. It's like, I don't know I can say any number you want because they're all seem equally the same and what I say to then I think we can probably do it but but after that it's really just made up I have no basis so I mean, you know I might and shelly even good about reminding us about the timing here and vis a vis the sort of political landscape in Boston and, you know, and I, I guess I see things like an organizer. If we had a more aspirational goal we have you know if we had a stretch goal. I've seen these before. It might help us sort of position ourselves in a useful way toward the, the political and hopefully financial opportunity that we'd like to see coming down the pipe, and you know, it presuming the housing bill passes. You know, more resources in the state pipeline. And I do think, you know, you can say probably much more authority but it seems to me, there's going to be a point at which the state is going to be looking for communities that are ready to go. You know, I mean, you know, there's still going to be more demand probably then there is resources, but, but yeah I guess I'm just thinking in terms of like, you know, like, could, could and more aspirational goal kind of help us in relationship to the, the broader environment, you know, of finance and that we're seeking to leverage. So one thing in terms of am I level so I again might not be quite as prescriptive in the goals, but I might put it in the guidelines, or it could even be part of your criteria that you would give extra kind of points or whatever to a development that unless unless you want to do it did get brought up in the meeting of housing for less than 50% of am I because a lot of the affordable housing tends to be around the 80% am I range they're they're often or 60% with low income housing tax credits so if you might want to specify, I mean summer fills a community where it's actually in their bylaw that they have to spend a certain percent of their funding on housing below 50% am I like 30% or something so that's really that's right now regulatory for them where I'm not suggesting anything like that but if if they're feel it getting kind of back to Carol's language of kind of most vulnerable like maybe you do want to do a particular highlight of very low and extremely low income housing, maybe, but it some of this more specific language could be in kind of priority funding cat preferences or your criteria as well in your guidelines it doesn't all have to fit. The goals could be a little bit more broad, or just less prescriptive. One of the things that I hope will be a strategy under something or other is to try to. It does seem in the state like a good time to be pursuing such things and so hopefully one of our strategies will be to pay attention to what's going on there and see in what ways we might be able to support it which we try to do anyway but they could be part of a strategy or tactic or I don't even know if I know the difference between those two things but yeah. Well, I just would like to offer you that coming from one of the state agency housing agencies quasi state agencies, Amherst has a great reputation. I mean, we look statewide. And in terms of statewide and compared to a lot of other communities. I think the view of Amherst is really favorable that you've done a lot on the housing front and if you like it to you, you're in it every day. It's not near enough, you know, we need more everywhere, but your reputation is really strong. People know that you're that you're trying to do, you know, the right thing, you're, you're moving forward. So, I just want to offer that to you. Thank you. Yeah, and I think Carol always said is under the development piece and under the funding piece we could actually have strategies for like for under development or underfunding, you know, continue our relationship with our representative state representatives is really really important to get more to see if they can push on the state level to find public land here in Amherst, because I think I don't know if the town's going to be able to push you mass but I think you know from the state that can be some pressure on you mass. So, I mean, I think, you know, we can have, you know, the advocacy pieces as part of, you know, either the funding or I mean we're still, you know, advocating for the transfer fees so that would be under the funding piece. So, so yeah, so I think that that those are really important strategies that might fit actually under both those areas. Yep, I definitely think bringing in your rep, your state reps, and Senator from UMass is, if you want to try to get some land from UMass I think that's definitely important. Yeah. So, what if the next step is that Greg and I try to put some language to these that before we meet again, and then you can decide if you want us to meet one more time before we go back to the full trust, or whether I think it might be a little premature email, we do a little bit of work but I think you can make that decision so your next meeting would be. Will we meet again before the April meeting. We can our April meeting is on the 11th. So, um, 18th. Our meeting would be the 18th but we could. So, there is the 28th and there is the fourth the fourth we always have a meeting with the town as a planning a pre planning meeting with Nate Greg Dave. And we could piggyback off of that if possible, or we could do the 28th. So whatever people suggest. The fourth would be better for me, but why don't Greg and I put some draft language together and see how people are feeling about it. And if then it feels like a shorter meeting to review it in person or tweak it. Before you go before we take it to the 18th, April 18th meet or April 11th meeting. Would that work? We could do so if we were doing it on the fourth we do it like after the usual meeting we have with the town so like 12 to 1230 or something is that what you're suggesting or what people are whoever suggesting it is suggesting. I'm not unfortunately I'm sending Nate in my stead on that on that meeting in the fourth I'm traveling that Thursday Friday unfortunately so. Okay. So, I'll be offline so hopefully we can avoid for this conversation we can avoid that day if possible. Okay. Sorry, on another day. Or what if we're your meetings on the 11th at night, could you do a 10 o'clock just for 11 or like. I could. I can't I that's the first day that I have company from out of wherever here and I'm going to come to the meeting at the night but I can't do another one. Okay. I think we might just be not meeting before our next meeting to my guests. I mean, let's try to do it by email. We can do it by email. Yeah. Yeah, let's do by email. Okay. I think that's a good idea but I would if it turns out to be to get gnarly an email which sometimes things do, we can always say we're not ready yet. Yeah, so I just want to reserve that possibility. Because sometimes trying to do things by email becomes kind of a nightmare. I totally agree yes so if let's let's try and if it just feels like we need to be meeting again then we'll just push it to the main meaning no problem. No urgency. And just a reminder we did also say that once the trust members feel good about this that we're going to go to the town council and possibly other committees and then also open it up for public comments so we're going to go to the town council with what I mean I think what we said is maybe not go but also share with other committees like the town council possible the planning board, possibly CPA. I mean Erica when we have a completed action plan or well completed to share not completed that it's totally completed because we wanted to get engagement as part of. Gotcha, so some sort of draft of it to yeah, you know I think maybe we're a ways away from. Oh yeah absolutely I just wanted to remind you we want to get initial trust feedback and then absolutely, absolutely. The other thing to keep it's sort of at least aware of how it's going is the progress with the housing production plan which I think they're still trying to find somebody to do it at the moment but we should just like. Remember that we would like to not be at least contradictory to each other as we go forward so. When it comes to the trust meetings he's on the, is he on the trust or do you just come to the meetings, he comes to the meeting, so he'll be in get he'll be a part of the conversation he'll as he's moving that process forward. Yeah, and I'll be probably more bold about the date even so I'll have my hand in both pots there. Make sure we don't trip ourselves up. This is not really about what we're talking about but because I'm thinking of it as a person who decide who is going to do the trust the housing production plan. Maybe some of us might get to meet with them to have say something about what we think should be in there. Yes, finalizes. So the housing production plan once that's once the development of that is underway. The trust will be the, because the trust is also the not the affordable housing fair, not the partnership, but whatever the housing and sheltering committee got kind of formally absorbed by their trust and and last time around that was the sort of feedback body. So, so the trust will be our main entity that will will lean on pre. And so we'll get a fast to go through the planning board or not but yeah, the trust will be the brain trust basically behind it and we wrote in meetings, three to four meetings with the trust into that solicitation in part thanks to your, your feedback so thank you, but um, yeah. Okay, great. Thanks. I have one sort of back back to this, the trust action plan I have one question for Shelley about like how to think about something is it okay if I, you know, and I'm. So you know we have this dynamic, you know, and I don't think it's necessarily problematic, you know, but just to think to monitor where you know applicants can both go to CPA right and then come over to us. And right now ask, you know, ask for support from us as well. That's a bigger thing to untangle it maybe or maybe not right but I guess what one of the question that that's a process thing which you know is is a conversation of itself but the sort of bigger thematic question it raises for me. The trust, you know, is, how do we, is there a way that we can incorporate criteria or planning where we're looking at things that wouldn't have happened either way. Right. I mean, I think, you know, like, like for example right like Valley identified that Valley is doing some homeownership with the Commonwealth Builder Program. And I guess it's kind of North ish Amherst, and they found the site right and they obtained it you know like developers do and you know and, you know, and brought it to us. And as well I think money from CPA and from us I have to double check, you know, you know, but then, you know, but then the East Street School, you know, which is the sort of wayfinders project which we just got a PLR for, you know, that is one where we identify the site and we kind of were the catalyst for the town to dispose of the site and put some affordable housing into it, get it over to us and you know and so that I'm less confident that that one happens. In fact, probably that one doesn't happen without the trust being there upfront. You know, should that kind of, you know, do you see trust incorporate that kind of question into their planning or into their work, meaning, you know, prioritizing you know what's the stuff that's not going to happen without us. I see it more as a communication issue, unless I'm misunderstanding. Often Carol and I get asked to sign something without even knowing that it happened. And, and so part of you know we have Nate on our on our trust we have Paul on our trust and thank goodness now we have you Greg on trust because we get more information from you. But you know, things go up in front of the planning board in front of the zoning board and we've talked about having people on those but it's just a lot you know being on the trust at those boards just to always pay attention see what's going on. I think it's a better internal communication I think we need better internal communication about how to manage housing development or you know housing period and in Amherst. I know the town council gets reported to and they have a CRC committee and so I mean I know one of the things show you raised in your presentation is possibly the trust being more proactive and meeting with these other committees and setting up possible communication guidelines or at least just. I mean I love the fact that the planning committee asked us for advice, I mean that was great that they asked the trust. What do you think about payment and Lou of you know of these affordable units, they could have made a decision without us, but to really set up that relationship that you know we haven't really, I believe had. We hear things like you know Allegra told us, oh the town council is reviewing the land policy for Amherst. Well, why didn't we know about that you know I mean we have Paul on our committee on our trust. So, I think it's, it's, I think it's a better internal communication and collaboration, and it's something that we have to think about how to do better. I'll take responsibility that as a coach here, pushing a little bit more on how to better do that. You might want to put on your agenda time to specifically ask Paul and Nate other staff of things going on, because what what I've seen a lot with CPCs Community Preservation committees is it's really interesting like there are there's an appointee from the planning board there's an appointee from the housing authority from all these are going to boards and it oftentimes feels like they take CPC information back to their boards but they don't bring their boards information to the CPC. It's a really strange. It oftentimes feels like a strange one way relationship and I wonder if that sometimes happens with the trust to where you have these people that would have information but maybe it goes out more than it comes in. And maybe it's trying to set up, get into a habit of creating space for that information to come in. And an expectation that the information come in, because it's not good if you're kind of operating in a vacuum like that's not what we want we want you know in relationship with everything else. I'm getting ahead of myself a lot but thinking about the housing reduction plan I think that's absolutely a strategy we could put in there which goes beyond the trust because it gets to, you know, communication structures across all these bodies not just the trust you know I think, you know the trust can help you catalyst and advocate for that. But but ultimately I think it's, you know, it's not all or shouldn't all be on this body. It's partly why I have appreciated Brewster has put a staff person on their trust board, and it's, it's a little bit unconventional, but I think that it helps a lot because she's the assistant town manager and so she knows everybody and she's always engaged with different boards so there's a good I think back and forth, and, but having Greg press Greg engage in other meetings like that can also help facilitate some of this. So, and Nate has, Nate has provided that for us over time and I think it's important. I said in on a planning board meeting last night that I thought was going to be about the project where we might get the in lieu but actually the planning board or the developer said oh can we, what do they call it continue this to later. So they had a whole meeting with hardly anything to do. And what they did, I stayed because it was kind of interesting so they said, Well, hey, Chris, who's the head of the planning department and Nate, what's coming up that we might be seeing in the future. What's, and so they had a whole conversation about all kinds of different things that might, they might be needing to pay attention to, or something that they had been paying attention to but kind of fell by the wayside and so how was that coming and it was just like. Yeah, we, we need to do so that sometimes we usually have a part of our meeting that is kind of town updates. But it usually is. Well, we usually is focused on particular projects or things that are we think are going on and not so much on. So what can you tell us that we don't know about that we might be interested to know. And so we got to add that question. Yeah, to what to what we what we asked for. Greg, your comment, I thought you were kind of leading, you're kind of also getting into a developer and the developer go to the trust or the CPC, or are you kind of getting into that. Yeah, yeah, that that and, you know, and should we examine that as part of this process, you know, keeping in mind that when the trust was born, we were town meeting, so that there was, I think, an advantage and indicating us money that we had in hand. So we weren't waiting on town meeting warrants, you know, so now that problem doesn't exist. As far as I can tell, it's like if, if CPC wanted to cut a check, they could do it with the approval from the council. But they don't I mean their process is to do their activity once a year. The Community Preservation Act does once a year. Here's our money. Here's what we're doing with it. We're done till next year. So yeah, so in that sense, it still exists. You're right. So then that we still serve that that function. And I guess I'm sort of separately thinking though, not so much about the CPC versus trust dynamics more so that that to me is evocative of like there are some things like, you know, I mean, if we're here and a developer already has a plan to do something in Amherst, right. Like, you know, they're gonna come ask us for money because they're gonna ask everybody for money. Right. Versus like us cultivating a site or, you know, identifying a site and just, you know, or you were saying, Hey, here's a specific population, we really want to serve. Come with your ideas for how you want to serve these people, you know, and use this money to serve the this population of folks that might generate like an RFP basically right that might generate more at least interest that might not have otherwise already been active and I guess I'm wondering, you know, is there a way we can leverage the trust work so at least some of its focused on the activity that wouldn't have already happened were not for the trust. I think that you're in the position to potentially drive what goes to the CPC even by you helping to initiate and to drive housing, housing focus, it could end up determining what goes to the CPC as well and until until there's a community that gives a huge chunk of CPA money to the trust, you want developers to be able to go to the CPC as well. You want more money going just all around housing. Yeah, because you know because they're not and the political navigation of like, you know, you know, we've in our previous plan there was a working plan to try and get the CPA or CPC to an annual allocation, like an automatic annual allocation as opposed to what we apply for every year. Seems like perhaps that's a stretch. You know, we probably won't get it next year if we get the million dollars I'm guessing but anyway, yeah, that's, that's another thing right is or you'll have this plan in place and you can make the case why you need more money, even more. Yeah, well, I feel like, I feel Greg like we do both those, we have done both those things. I mean, the ball lane and and 132 Northampton Road are examples of where the developer got the land and controlled it and said help us build what we know you need. And actually, Amherst had told Valley at some point in some way before I was involved and I don't know who did it, that we didn't have any single, you know, SRO kind of buildings and so we wanted something and they went and looked for the land and did it and asked us to help in the ways that we could, but then at the way finders project, the town and the trust came together to control the site, and then went out looking for somebody to develop it. So I, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking I feel like we do it both ways and I would hate to have something tell us that we couldn't do it both ways. We're getting to priorities and putting together your goals and guidelines that you're helping to frame some of this work that could help support developers in either through public land, or through private so I think that that you're going you're kind of going in the direction of, of, I think helping to support developers in doing more in Amherst. Public land versus private is a good differentiator. One developer is to be doing both. You want that to be motivated to do their own so that you're not, it's not relying on just you, or just the town. All right, so time checks 1159. This has been great you guys I like this subcommittee. I'm by any chance tomorrow Greg to fit in some of the work or, or do you need to wait till next week believe so tomorrow wait tomorrow is tight actually um. Yes, I could use some. Let me reach out to you about scheduling time next week to connect. Okay, over the afternoon tomorrow. Okay, let's let's let's be okay. Okay. Okay, thank you so much. Take care. Thank you all very excited. Bye.