[Nicole Morell]: هذا. 20-024 اللجنة الجامعة للاجتماع الثلاثاء 10 مايو 2022 الساعة 5:45 مساءً سكرتير، يرجى الاتصال.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Вице-президент Медведь. подарок Советник Каравиелло. Конгрессмен Коллинз.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. Councilor Tseng, I see on Zoom. Present. And President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: As in six present one absent the meeting is called to order, there will be a meeting of the Metro City Council community the whole on Tuesday, May 10 2022 at 545pm. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the potential establishment of an affordable housing trust paper to zero to zero to four. The city council has invited housing planner Daniel Evans sure and ever of KP law. and Shelly go ring of Metro housing partnership to attend further information aids and accommodations contact the city clerk at 7813932425 sincerely yours Nicole morale. I also want to note that we also have Jeffrey Driscoll, the housing authority that I forgot to include in the invite but was so gracious to join us tonight as well. So we have before us tonight draft. ordinance around establishing an affordable housing trust as was requested by the city council. This was completed by our housing planner and partnership with Metro Housing Partnership. So we can go through the draft. I can pull it up on the screen. We can go through it line by line, but I don't know if councilors want to start with questions as we have a number of experts on Zoom and with us in the chambers.
[Unidentified]: questions.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, if you're able, Danielle, if you would give us an overview of the document we're looking at, and then we could, I can pull it up on the screen as well.
[Danielle Evans]: Mike's. Danielle Evans, housing planner.
[Alicia Hunt]: Hi, Alicia Hunt, director of planning, development and sustainability. Sorry, I was available at the last minute. So I'm here for
[Danielle Evans]: So as you recall, I was here. I think about a month ago, and I went over. I was not you know I'm not an expert on the housing trust that's why we got the grant from mass housing partnership to help help guide us with making determinations of which parts of the statute that we want to modify, that we're allowed to modify. So at your direction, we drafted an ordinance for your consideration. We have Shelly and I'm not sure if Sharon is on yet, but I don't know how would you, would you like me to just go through it and talk about some of the decisions that we made or? Okay, so flipping through, for the number of members, we landed on seven. It seemed like a good number, not too big that it becomes unmanageable, but also not too small. So that's not just a few large personalities kind of controlling it. And with, Shelly Gehring's guidance, you're looking at what other communities do. Seven seem to be your best practice. And the other part that we added to was who should be on it. We determined, we wanted to keep it kind of flexible, so it's not too, you know, prescribed. So one of them, well, the statute says one of them should be the chief executive officer, but it's possible to put in their designee or their designee. And we got a legal determination from Sharon and Kim that this is something that we could do, but there's no case law on it either way. But some communities, I'm not sure how many do, but for example, Melrose has or their designee as a required number of the trust. So we could include that or not. We're recommending that a member may be part of the Community Preservation Committee, not requiring it, but kind of highlighting it that it would make sense for someone from the CPC to also sit on the trust as we expect that a large percentage of the CPA funds would be transferred to the trust and just have someone there kind of just keeping track of it and making sure that it complies with the Community Preservation Act, because just because the dollars are in the trust, it still needs to comply with all the CPA regulations. And then kind of, again, not being prescriptive, but to recommend that it The other members have experience with real estate, housing, banking, architecture, planning, social services, and also best practices to have someone who has the lived experience of residing in low-income housing. Again, we didn't require that that be in there, but encouraging if there was somebody who wanted to serve on the trust and is qualified, then it would be wonderful to have a representative. I know City of Somerville requires that someone from low income housing be on their trust. And then for the terms, I feel like I might be stepping out of my depth trying to remember which ones we were allowed to modify or not. believe it was to your terms shows on yeah maybe maybe Shelly could jump in if i'm. Getting things wrong.
[Nicole Morell]: Charlie I just set free to unmute if you want to just share name and address for the record, please.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: Sure, my name is Shelly daring and i'm a program manager at mhp mass housing partnership. And you're doing great, Danielle. What you have for appointment of trustees terms and vacancies to your terms is required by the statute. And I don't think that you modified that any further, except you just clarify vacancies, which that's not in the statute, but you're just clarifying how vacancies will be filled.
[Danielle Evans]: Thank you. And then I believe that the next part where we could modify are the authority and responsibilities. I believe it's 16 powers that the statute grants to an affordable housing trust. And I believe that the only power that we modified in any way was borrowing funds and bonding, having that come to council.
[Nicole Morell]: and that's number 11, I believe? Yes. Okay, thank you.
[Danielle Evans]: Because we don't want to constrain the trust too much. We wanna make sure it's a nimble board that can act quickly, but there are some things like borrowing where it would make sense to bring in the council if it pleases the council to have that included.
[Nicole Morell]: And I do see Attorney Everett is on the call now too. Okay.
[Danielle Evans]: So, I mean, it's sort of a short and sweet ordinance. I don't know if you have any questions or Shelly, if I missed anything.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: No, I mean, there's just some things that you put in your ordinance that a municipality would put in the ordinance that's not in the statute. So you're getting a more description that's probably similar to other boards. It's not veering away from the statute. It's just adding some more clarity for the board.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Shelly. Any questions from the council?
[Unidentified]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Danielle Evans]: They would be staggered that way that there's not a full know, cleaning of house every two years. You'd want to have some, you know, continuance, some institutional memory there. But they would be appointed by the mayor.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Danielle Evans]: Well, I don't know if Sharon wants to speak to us. Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: To someone on zoom just said they didn't hear Councilor Scarpelli's question so it was just about the whether or not the terms are staggered. That was the response. Any further, any other questions from the Council at this time?
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you. I had a few questions. Start with the more substantial and thank you so much for the overview. That's really helpful. There were just a couple smaller points. I just wanted to make sure that I understood in the ordinance. Close to the very end under I guess section L, it refers to exemption from Chapter 30B. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding what that exemption meant. So that just means that the trust does not have to abide by the same uniformity and contracting and procurement standards within, like in transactions between city agencies and city departments that it would otherwise have to engage in, like with bidding out for a vendor.
[Danielle Evans]: If I may, I'll toss that one to Shirin.
[Nicole Morell]: Hi, good evening.
[Everett]: This is Shirin Everett from KP Law. Yes, the Affordable Housing Trust is subject to procurement, so it's subject to the requirements of 30B. However, transactions between cities, you know, intra-city and inter-city and town transactions are exempt from 30B. And that's what's stated in the ordinance, which is, it's a board of the city and therefore subject to 30B, but of course, agreements and conveyances between departments is exempt from those requirements.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Attorney Averill. Sure.
[Kit Collins]: Um, great. Thank you for that clarification. Just want to make sure I know what we're voting on. Um, and then secondly, um, just looking for clarity on whether the all of these hypothetical potential property holdings by the housing trust projects, etcetera. Would they be subject to all the same zoning rules and procedures as any other development, including special appeals or requests for exemptions, or is there any sort of also separate process for affordable housing trust development projects?
[Danielle Evans]: My understanding would be that it's subject to all the same zoning regulations, unless we made changes to the ordinance. Like if we, for example, if we adopt you know, small scale affordable infill development, then those small parcels could follow a different process, you know, without having to go to the zoning board.
[Alicia Hunt]: So to be clear, it would follow the rules that any other affordable housing. So zoning has occasionally things that say affordable housing is different, for example, parking minimums. And therefore, but it would have to do anything that anybody else doing affordable housing would have to follow as well. Is that clear?
[Kit Collins]: That is.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Any questions, further questions from the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Danielle. Thank you, Alicia. A few questions. Number one on the on the powers in terms of borrowing is 70% of assets as the council would be required to approve any borrowing that leverages more than 70% of the assets of the trust, is that 70% statutory or a best practice that was gleaned from other ordinances?
[Danielle Evans]: My understanding is that that's not in the statute, that's us limiting the trust.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Danielle Evans]: And that was, I believe, a recommendation from Attorney Everett. Or Shelley. But yeah, this is a limitation that we would be imposing on the trust just to kind of rein things in a little bit. Yes. Are you able to speak to that number?
[Everett]: I'm not sure if I provided the 70% number, but the council has a choice on how much it wants to control the trustees. Most often than not, there are no limitations placed on the trustees, including their borrowing authority. But where some limitations have been placed, they are, for example, most commonly found in the borrowing provision, which says that if the trustees encumber more than 70% of the assets of the trust, they need to come before the city council. Again, this is discretionary. We don't have to include this. and it's up to you if you determine it appropriate to place this limitation.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Attorney Everett.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, maybe it looked like Shelly was, I'm just wondering how we picked 70% versus another amount.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: So it's not in the statute, the restriction isn't in the statute. I think that it maybe was in a different ordinance that Alicia and Danielle saw. communities, there may be a couple other communities that use that percentage or similar percentage, but I think it was just, I don't know if there was a, it didn't come from MHP, but it might've just been other ordinances, other communities that use that number.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I don't have a problem. I think this is, this makes sense. I'm just wondering 70% versus 50% versus 90% you know, is there some sort of risk factor that we're trying to mitigate by picking a specific percentage.
[Alicia Hunt]: My memory was that it was. We some communities put it in as a limit and they that we saw different percents 80% just felt really high to be going there to give them that 40 or 50 felt very controlling it was relatively arbitrary, but it just felt like a place where it started to make sense to us.
[Zac Bears]: Okay yeah that's. That makes sense, yeah. If it really is just kind of what we're comfortable with, it seems more than anything else as the justification, that makes sense. In terms of the membership, are we limited by the statute to, or not? One, could we require, for example, someone with lived experience of residing in low-income housing or, do we have to kind of provide a set of categories that can be chosen from? And then I have another question after that.
[Danielle Evans]: My understanding is that we should require that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. That's something I'd be interested in doing.
[Alicia Hunt]: If I might on that, we really liked the idea of these experiences in a member of the CPC But we have found that sometimes it's hard to find somebody with the right experience at the right time. And by putting it in as a recommendation, our hope was that people would look to the recommendation over time. 10 years from now, people would see that and say, well, we should be looking for that. But if we didn't find somebody with lived experience willing to serve on an unpaid board, then we wouldn't be having a vacant seat on the board for an extended length of time.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and that kind of gets to my next two questions. One, are we not allowed to provide compensation to this board or was that just a choice that we didn't think we could afford?
[Alicia Hunt]: So we actually looked into that. There are some communities that say you cannot pay boards and commissions, and it is we've been learning that it's actually a best practice to pay your boards and commission members, because that allows people to use that money for childcare or transportation or to make up lost wages. But so our feeling in this case was to remain silent on it here with the thought that it might be something the council would want to pursue on a citywide basis and to look at as a big picture rather than a case by case basis for every board for individual boards and commissions. That said, some of our boards and commissions do provide a stipend, but most do not.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yeah. And that's something that has come up in a few recent discussions that we've had in general. Given that an in general solution would take time and resources that may not be available. I just think considering the authority and scope of what this board would be doing, it would be know, on par with other boards and commissions in the city that do receive compensation. And that would be something that I would like to see in the ordinance, even if we later move to some sort of citywide approach. And then my last question is, again, on the does the statute does the statute Could we put into the ordinance that the council would confirm appointees to this board or does the statute require that we do not have that authority?
[Alicia Hunt]: So I'd actually like Sharin to address that because we discussed today the statute addresses it one way. but our charter addresses it a different way. And she and I went back, we're discussing the legal. So if she's comfortable responding to that question, the councilor's asking if they're allowed to have council confirmation.
[Everett]: So this statute, which is chapter 40, section 55C, provides that trustees are appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council. So that's the general rule. However, the city charter provides that among one of the things that can happen, the city charter provides that the mayor's appointments to city boards does not have to be ratified by the city council. And as affordable housing trust is a board of the town, the charter provision, which says that it's not subject to city council confirmation, It trumps general law in this case. So the appointees are not subject to city council confirmation.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, there's a number of appointees that we do confirm whether that's conflicting general law or not. So, um, I'm going to make, yep.
[Everett]: I'm sorry, I just wanted to say, it's not a conflict with general laws for the mayor to appoint the trustees.
[Zac Bears]: Right, I'm saying that there's a number of boards and commissions in the city of Medford where the city council confirms or approves the mayor's appointees.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I think you just misspoke. I think you said general law when you meant city charter.
[Zac Bears]: I mean to say that I don't know what the provisions are, but that is, you know, I would dispute that characterization of the charter, at least given the practice of the city. So I'm gonna make a few motions here. One, I'm going to move that we amend the draft ordinance to compensate members of this, all members of this board who are not the mayor with a $1,000 stipend.
[Nicole Morell]: I'm happy to have council review the changes after we we motion to make them.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know if it's easier for them to put this into the ordinance or not, but.
[Nicole Morell]: I guess, any changes we suggest tonight, would that be Attorney Everett making them? Would it be you both reflecting that?
[Alicia Hunt]: It could go either way. We created the draft. It was circulated.
[Everett]: I can revise the ordinance and provide it to you for your review.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Would it be easiest just for you to, you know, take note tonight for anything that revisions we make, or would you like me to try to do track changes in real time and then share with you?
[Everett]: No, I can take care of that.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Great. Thank you. Okay. So we have a motion from vicers and bears. I can take them off the end or we can vote right now.
[Zac Bears]: I'm fine taking them as a package.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I have a second motion.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I would also move to amend the ordinance to require confirmation of mayoral appointees by the council.
[Nicole Morell]: I do see Councilor Tseng on Zoom, but Councilor Knight, it looked like you were going to put your hand up way back when. Oh yeah, but before. I was embarrassed. Nothing. Okay. Are you all set for Vice President Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, for now, yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: I was, I was going to second, the two motions but I believe that compensation is important when it comes to public jobs like this, I mean we, we get, we get what we pay for, and if we want good quality work when we need to pay for it. candidates with lived experiences to apply for this role or people from less privileged backgrounds to serve on this board will need to provide compensation. I mean, the research is very clear. I would also be more comfortable if the city council were to appoint or were to not appoint, confirm the appointments made by the mayor. I believe that that second pair of eyes, or in this case, a council's pair of eyes would be helpful in ensuring that this board does its job correctly and that it has the confidence of the people of our city. There was the note in the document that I don't think we've really talked much about about whether it's in section C part one about the composition where it says of one, The board shall be composed of seven members of whom one shall be mayor. And we, I think, flirted with the idea of putting in their designee. I think that might be a question that we should answer as well if we so desire. I would be comfortable putting in a designee from the mayor here, but I am curious as to what my council colleagues think. Thanks.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I have a few questions. Any further discussion from the council?
[Adam Knight]: In looking at it, right? I mean, the fund can operate in a couple of different ways, right? It can really operate as a funding entity, right? A trust fund that gives out money, that solicits proposals and gives out money to bring those proposals to the community, or it can operate as like an initiator, right? An active initiator. I don't think I really want a board of seven members that are going to be paid a thousand bucks, active initiators in multi-million dollar construction projects. In our community might be a good idea for us to find that this is a funding mechanism only versus an actual. authority or entity that's going to go and move and put shovels in the ground themselves and hire a general contractor to do that and purchase properties itself. I don't know how we want to talk about that and whether or not we want to, you know, limit the scope and authority of the Board of Trustees to act as a funding entity very much like our Community Preservation Commission does, which has been pretty successful, or whether or not we want to, you know, have a seven-member panel, $7,000 annual salary running projects and hiring general contractors to build affordable housing units. I mean, I think that looking at it, I mean, is that how this would work? I mean, they're pretty much like a quasi-autonomous board that's gonna run under its own scope and authority without influence, right? So when it comes down to that type of initiative, where they're gonna be an active initiator of a project, how would that work?
[Nicole Morell]: I do see Shelly with Venture Housing Partnership has her hand up. Shelly, if you're able to respond to that.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: Yep, I just wanted to respond that when we talk about trust initiating, we actually, as a state agency, MHP suggests that trust, we never suggest that a volunteer board of trustees on an affordable housing trust actually be the developer. When we talk about initiating, it's more during the pandemic, it was often the affordable housing trust that actually initiated emergency rent assistance programs. It's more recognizing a gap and then trying to create a way to fill that gap in the community. It's not actually being a developer because the trust is subject to procurement to Chapter 30B. The development gets very complicated and these are volunteer folks. So we would never suggest that. And I only know of one trust that decided to be the developer and because of the complications of it. So we don't imagine that the Medford trustees would want to be the developer. Instead, they might look for different sites that might be conducive to affordable housing. They might reach out to different affordable housing developers. They might just help to support projects moving forward, but not where they are actually the developer.
[Everett]: And if I may jump in, that has been my experience as well, which is the trust provides seed money to start affordable housing projects. Either they contribute funds or they contribute city property, and that's what enables affordable housing developments to get their steam and to get going.
[Nicole Morell]: Just Councilor Knight's point with the language need to be modified to reflect that or is it's you know, the hope that the intention wouldn't go beyond the scope we're looking for. Is that enough?
[Adam Knight]: I mean, if I may, I think a terrible idea. And I think the experts agree, right, that having a seven member board of non professionals running a big project like that is a good idea.
[Nicole Morell]: Right.
[Adam Knight]: I don't envision that happening. Right. Under certain administrations. But at the same time, you know, I guess, is there a hybrid approach? Is that the best practice? Or would us act just as a funding mechanism only be what works best for us?
[Everett]: If I could just suggest something, which is I know that you want to place limitations on the trustees' ability to start projects, but I would just urge some caution because one of the things that the trust can do, and that has been helpful in other communities, is that if there's a piece of property that becomes available for sale, and it's relatively inexpensive and can be developed for affordable housing,
[Nicole Morell]: Oh, sorry, Sharon, you got muted for, I don't know how or why, but you just got muted.
[Everett]: Can you hear me now?
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, we lost you for a minute. We lost you right at, you know, if a piece of property becomes available.
[Everett]: So that's, so that's one of the reasons that communities have affordable housing trust, such that if a piece of property becomes available, the trust can act relatively quickly to purchase those, that property. So I would say that if you wish to place limitations, one would, I would hope you not place limitations on the authority to buy property because that's one of the instances in which a trust is very useful.
[Adam Knight]: If you read the 16 items here, it pretty much seems like everything is focused around the flexibility that's not happening. I don't want to recreate the wheel. Thank you, Councilor Knight.
[Nicole Morell]: Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Would the trust have the authority to, instead of, for example, selling or conveying public land to a private owner, property. Um making that available by say a 99 year land lease to a private developer for the purposes of construction.
[Everett]: Uh well, if it's city property, City Council has authority needs to authorize its sale first. So, you know, so it has to go
[Zac Bears]: So that would mean that the city council would have to approve its sale or conveyance to the trust?
[Unidentified]: That's correct.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. But once it was in the hands of the trust, the trust could then sell it or convey it in any way it wishes.
[Everett]: That's correct. So long as it's for affordable housing purposes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Could the city lease the land to the trust?
[Everett]: Um. Theoretically Yes, it could. I haven't seen that happen because I think it gets very complicated as to what the town's cities responsibility is for the trust responsibilities are. But theoretically, theoretically, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay Um, I just. As one Councilor have deep that's given our limited public property. And I have even more concern with the idea that the council could conceivably sell or convey the land to the trust, which could then turn around and sell it to a private developer. Even if it was for affordable housing purposes, I'd much prefer the city to maintain long-term ownership of the land and come up with some other arrangement that allows the construction of this stuff without the permanent loss of public land. Could we place in the restrictions, and I'd have to read them again, could we require that any existing public property that is conveyed or sold to the trust be required to be maintained in the ownership of the trust, or is that not allowed?
[Everett]: That is permissible, but I But my concerns are you are unduly limiting the authority of the trustees. There may be situations in which the property, the city doesn't want the property and therefore has to lease it, but the financing only works if the developer purchases the property. So in that case, the trustees would be foreclosed upon acting in that situation. So, you know, anytime their limitations are placed, and I'm not saying every limitation is unreasonable, there are just more hoops for the trustees to work through and to develop affordable housing.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I hear that. I think we're limiting the hoops pretty significantly. Most of the hoops we're not including, except for, you know, extensive borrowing. And this would be the only other one that I would really, propose restricting, I just really don't, I cannot see, and I'd have to, you know, I don't know every single piece of land that we own, and I'll go to you in a second, but I really can't see a piece of public land in this city that we own that we would rather sell than keep for the long term. But maybe Danielle has one.
[Danielle Evans]: So I would have to disagree with that. We own tons of small parcels that would be I as a housing planner think would be perfect for small scale infill affordable ownership opportunities. One thing that we're severely lacking in is affordable ownership opportunities like as we all know that owning property, you know, is, you know, one of the things that you can pass, you know, generational wealth onward, and that there's been, you know, segments of society that have been really cut out of that with redlining and all that. that if we have a small parcel that is suitable for housing, and we get calls all the time from for profit developers that want to buy our parcels, and I always say, we're not interested in selling these right now to private developers for market rate housing, that one thing that the city is fortunate with is that we actually own some land, small parcels that would be know, kind of useless for anything else. That could be an opportunity for homeownership. And some of the most expensive parts of developing housing is land acquisition. And we have a lot of land that's could be used for that. So I see like large parcels like yes, like some of the land that was sold was unfortunate, because we'll never get it back. But some of the small that could be suitable for affordable housing. I don't necessarily think that we wanna hold on to it.
[Alicia Hunt]: Is there perhaps a number here, like if a parcel is, for example, I'm afraid to quote numbers and be wrong off the top of my head, but I believe that single family zoning is limited to 5,000 square feet. We've been looking at parcels that are like 2,000 square, 3,000 square feet that are two next to each other that the city owns. or 4,000 square feet, which under current zoning would not allow a single family house, but it's actually a reasonable size because a lot of the parcels, for example, in North Medford are only 3,000 square feet. So we actually have a lot of homes on that with size parcels. And so in that scale, selling that parcel with the deed restriction on it to be deed restricted affordable housing is a way for somebody to have home ownership. On the other hand, I think that we are thinking about city on land, we're thinking, more than 10,000 square feet. We're thinking parcels over here like multi family residential parcels, and that there's some scale over which we are all agreeing that the city shouldn't be selling those quickly we should be doing very significant analysis before sale and probably what we want to be looking at is long term leases. So I'm wondering if there's a place a number there, we could probably run some numbers with our GIS staff pretty quickly to come up with some number where we wouldn't if it needed to be if the trust wanted to sell something over. 8,000 square feet, they would have to come back to the council for permission. And that would engender a public process. But if it was a small parcel, then the trust could sell it. And if I understand correctly, and actually I'd like Shelly or Sharon to correct me on this, if we sold a parcel for affordable housing as the affordable housing trust, it would have to be deed restricted affordable housing. So affordable in perpetuity, or is that not correct?
[Nicole Morell]: Shelly, are you able to speak to that? I know you've also had your hand up.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I want to say a few things. So one, if you're using it, some of it can depend on the funding source. The trust statute doesn't specifically say a restriction in perpetuity, but CPA funds does say that if you're acquiring a real property interest, there needs to be a restriction in perpetuity. But we call it affordable housing because it has a restriction. So the idea is that we also have the anti-aid amendment in Massachusetts where there needs to be a public benefit from public resources being invested. So that's typically shown in affordable housing with an affordability restriction. So that is basically a given that you need a restriction when you're investing in funds. But I wanted to talk a little bit more about the land and this concern around public land. One, in several communities, the trust is actively engaged in disposing of municipal land for affordable housing, but the land isn't always transferred to the trust. So it doesn't necessarily need to be transferred to the trust for the trust to be actively engaged in the process working with municipal staff. There are some communities where they are transferring parcels, Chelsea is transferring tax title parcels to the trust. The directive is that it's to be redeveloped into affordable housing. I would encourage you not put this restriction in the ordinance, but to consider at the time of vans, if you want to be more prescriptive about how the land is used to do it at that point but not to restrict your in the ordinance that would be my suggestion. But the affordability restriction is that's how we identify it as affordable housing. And again, like with CPA, it's in perpetuity. And there could be an expectation that when the trust invests that there's a similar kind of restriction regardless of whether it's CPA funds or not. But that is typical, that's best practice, that's creating a public benefit when you're creating affordable housing.
[Everett]: And if I could just, Daniel, I know that Daniel and I are working on a project where a city-owned property was previously a tax title property. And by itself, the property is not developable. It's a small lot. But the owner of the abutting lot could assemble different parcels so that to make or create a bigger, larger parcel on which they could develop multiple family affordable housing units. So there may be some parcels for which it has no value of its own. I have seen some limitations placed by some other communities by saying if the property is worth more than, let's say, 500,000, then you have to come back to the city council. But there are various kinds of limitations, but I would encourage you not to place a blanket limitation because, again, there are properties that can be assembled and sold and they're always going to be deed restricted. Nobody is going to be able to convert them to completely market rate housing and use it for profit.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I appreciate that. That's helpful. Um, I do generally, my main concern here is that we quite frankly, the only way we're going to address the cost of housing crisis is removing as many units as we can permanently from the speculative market. And that's my goal here. So I'm open to other options and ways to do that other than just saying, you have to come back for anything. So I'm not trying to be prescriptive. I'm just also trying to think 15 years when none of us are here, maybe, maybe not, you never know, that that consideration is still a part of the conversation. So it sounded to me also like there could be temporary, and maybe I just misinterpreted, would it be possible for the trust to only require temporary deed restrictions? Because I thought if it was CPA funded, it'd have to be in perpetuity, but perhaps other sources of funding would only require less than, for example, a hundred years, or I know there's some properties that we have that are 50 years deed restricted. Did I hear that right? Or?
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: So it could depend on the funding source, but some funding sources may not require as long of a restriction as CPA. So that's a possibility.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, at the very least, and maybe I think you kind of get where I'm going here. So maybe, maybe you could come up with something that kind of that captures all of this in one, I certainly wouldn't want us to, you know, either convey public land to the trust or, or have it, you know, the trust be involved in conveying public land directly from the city to someone for a project that's not in perpetuity. I think that would be a real you know, even if there's a hundred years of public benefit on the hundred and first, I can only imagine that in a hundred years, that property is going to be worth more in Medford than it is today, barring, you know, some catastrophe. So that would be a concern that I have as well, that we, if we are in some way conveying public land in any way, that the deed restriction would be permanent. And I'll leave it there. I may make a motion on this a little later.
[Adam Knight]: Um, can we require any project funded through the trust be subject to the prevailing wage laws?
[Nicole Morell]: Attorney Everett, are you able to speak to that?
[Everett]: You know, the trust is a public body and it's a board of the city, so whatever laws apply to the city apply to the trust.
[Adam Knight]: Right, so say we solicit project for affordable units that we're going to fund, but we're not going to own. We're using public dollars to fund a private project, right? That private project could be done by anybody. We have a responsible employer ordinance. We have a wage theft ordinance here in the city. I know ultimately, you know, I'm a strong believer in prevailing wage. And I think that if we're going to be using public funds to build affordable housing units, the people that are building units should be paid affordable living wage so that they could actually be people that don't have to live in affordable housing units and can purchase homes in this community, live in this community. So I think that that's important to look at if there's a way that we could ensure that any project that's funded through these public dollars is subject to the public prevailing wage requirements. I think that would be something that would be beneficial and rise everybody up. The workers will be getting their rate pay and the dollars will be going towards creating affordable housing but also creating wealth for individuals.
[Nicole Morell]: Shelly has her hand up if you're able to speak to this, Shelly.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I just want to jump in. I'm not the most articulate person in responding to this, and there might be someone else on the call. But if you do that, it makes affordable housing significant. It can make affordable housing significantly more expensive, which means more public subsidy, more local public subsidy would be needed. It could put projects at a disadvantage to get additional resources. You want to think about that really thoughtfully. And I think touch base with people who are more expert in this area. because affordable housing is already extremely expensive per unit. It already takes a lot of public subsidy and the more requirements we put on it, then the more expensive it gets.
[Everett]: Right, and I would add to what Shelly said by saying that such a requirement could jeopardize any financing projects because it's going to make the project much more expensive or there can be banks and other lenders who won't finance a project with such a requirement. So, I mean, a trust is supposed to promote affordable housing. This may be holding them back in developing projects.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, we're going to be chasing our tail.
[Adam Knight]: I have a problem with public dollars and paying somebody less than prevailing wage or allowing somebody to use public dollars to pay somebody less than prevailing wage.
[Nicole Morell]: I agree. And I absolutely agree with your point. people that are funding, you know, doing the project are them going to need affordable housing that we need more affordable housing because you know, we're stuck in a vicious cycle.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And we've been building substandard properties. We see what happens when properties are built with substandard.
[Adam Knight]: And also we do have Briscoe here who's kind enough to take some time off of his day to come over here and join us. I just like to hear from him a little bit as to how he thinks that he could envision a affordable housing trust fund in Medford, help the housing authority and their initiatives and what they're trying to do. and what role you could see the housing authority playing in this once it comes to fruition.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilman. Yes, for those on the call, Executive Director of Medford Housing Authority, Jeffrey Driscoll, is here. So if you want to speak to how perhaps you've seen other communities work on this as well, I'm curious after Jeffrey speaks, Shelley and Sharon, if you have any thoughts on how a housing authority may be involved in such a trust.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Thank you, Madam President for inviting me. I appreciate that. Councilor Knight, thank you for suggesting that I come. I've not seen the ordinance. I will say, I'll give you a little bit of a background on where the housing authority is at this point and how we may be able to fit in with the housing trust. I'll preface that by saying that I don't want the housing trust to be in competition with the housing authority. And I do hear that it may be relative to funds that we have received previously from the CPC. But the Housing Authority right now is renovating 121 Riverside 11 story building. We have a budget that was presented me today. I'm $143 million. We're going to gut the entire building. We're going to relocate the residents who were there to other units that the Housing Authority has. We also have a master plan there. That master plan in includes increasing the number of units there from 200 to 217, which will do within the confines of the, the building, also on that site. We have a master plan which shows the development of an additional 80 plus units in a four story building with a podium underneath for parking on that site. We've already met with the city officials relative to that. I have been before or provided information to the council previously on walkway and court. We have presently a $15 million application to the state for funding. We're one of four housing authorities as finalists for that type of funding. We anticipate that 144-unit development will increase to 238 units, 198 elderly, and 40 family, all deeply affordable. The housing authority in addition to that is looking at the pre village on Riverside Avenue, we have a physical needs assessment that we're undertaking to see where we can increase the number of units there and increase the quality of the housing. I don't look at a housing trust as necessarily being adverse to the interests of the authority. But the authority, I would think, would be able to assist the housing trust because of our professional staff. I know there was some concerns that were raised about seven volunteers. My board is made up of five volunteers, and I don't speak for them today because they're not familiar with this. I don't speak from my own point of view. I have a professional staff that is dealing with the consultants, the construction consultants, the architects, in dealing with these projects. The total amount of the two projects that we have funding for already for mass development, first is the Riverside project. As I said, that's $143 million. And we estimated that walk and court would be approximately $140. But seeing the prices come in, I think it's going to be much more significant than that. And we're doing that in-house with the use of consultants. My hope would be that if a housing trust were to be authorized by this body, that there would be some participation by the authority. I've had just a very limited discussion with the city officials, both the mayor and Danielle. I don't know that the housing authority should be a member of that committee, of the trust itself, but certainly the housing authority would be very well positioned to be of assistance with the development of affordable housing. I'll end on this one note, and that is that in all the years I've been involved in public housing, what I've seen is that the most difficult aspect for things to be affordable is not in getting the initial financing, not even in building the units or repairing the units, but is having that ongoing funding to be able to afford those units. and the Housing Authority with its repositioning of assets as additional subsidy. For example, at 121 Riverside, by the efforts that we're undertaking, we'll have 200 additional subsidies to be able to provide for affordable housing in the city of Medford. And those 200 vouchers in part are going to assist us to be able to renovate Walkland Court so that the Housing Authority is very much a resource for the development of affordable housing. Would we be interested in a 3,000 square foot parcel of land? More than likely not, but we can make a significant impact on affordable housing in the city of Medford. And quite frankly, we're at a point right now through the planning stages that we're doing that. So do I think that a housing trust is something that is a negative? Absolutely not. But I think it needs to be done in concert with the housing professionals that we are at the Medford Housing Authority to be able to be of assistance. And just as a note, relative to what consulate night just said, and that is that the Housing Authority is going to propose procurement relief and a home rule petition to the legislature at some point in time, and that will come through the city hall, but that procurement relief is going to be a great assistance to us. We're not looking to impact the wage rates. the prevailing wage. So that's how we're proposing to go forward with it. And it'll make a significant difference in the ability for us to go forward with not only the Saltonstall project at 121, but also Walkman Court and eventually LaPree Village.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Senator Falco?
[George Scarpelli]: You brought up a great point, Mr. Driscoll. First, thank you for being here. Thank you. But it looks like and sounds like the trust is really focused on CPC money. So, do we know if we can, can we get a number of what what the monies over the last few years that have gone to the Housing Authority and how that would affect future funding from the CPC to the Housing Authority because I you brought up a good point. And I think that's something that I wasn't even thinking of.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I can tell you off the top of my head if I may, Madam President, back a few years ago, we presented a proposal to the CPC for $452,000 for a conversion from oil to gas. And that was based upon security issue, and we had the fire department support in doing that. We, with the city had put forth an application, I believe it was for $60,000 for bocce courts that were originally going to be built on city land, and it was built at 121 Riverside, which is the housing authority land. And just recently, the CPC had provided us $350,000 as a pre-development monies for Walklane Court. That's estimated to cost us 1.1 million, and the CPC was kind enough to give us $350,000 toward that.
[George Scarpelli]: So thank you, and my question is probably for Danielle, how will that affect as we move forward, if we go through with this ordinance now, how does this, I mean, there's only one funding mechanism.
[Danielle Evans]: I mean, we would love people to donate property and monies, but this is what... Nothing stops the trust from giving funds to the housing authority. They would just be, the trust would be the ones that everyone would go to for housing projects versus going to the CPC.
[Adam Knight]: I think it's also important to point out, I believe it's what, 10% annually is required to go into each bucket, right? So the idea of the Affordable Housing Trust was that we have to dedicate 10% every year, put it somewhere. So why don't we put that money into the Affordable Housing Trust and they can administer it, do something with it. We still have a lot more money that can be used for housing initiatives that sit in the CPA account that the CPC can still oversee and keep exclusive from the Affordable Housing Trust, right?
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, we could do that. Yeah, we could do it a number of ways.
[Adam Knight]: Like I know, I keep bringing up- It's not like the Affordable Housing Trust is just getting all the CPA money.
[Danielle Evans]: No, some cities do do it that way. They say 40%, yes. So there's just a number of ways that we can do it, but I don't see how this would keep us from funding housing authority projects at all.
[Everett]: There are some CPC funds cannot be used for certain projects such as They can't be used to repair existing housing unless the housing was created or developed using CPA funds. So there may be certain limitations in helping the housing authority, whereas the Affordable Housing Trust can use CPA funds for a wider variety of purposes. So we can assist the housing authority with acquisition and development of affordable housing, but we cannot help them with the rehabilitation or improvement of existing housing because that's prohibited by the CPA. However, the trust could use those funds for other purposes that are permitted under the CPA.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Attorney Everett. Shelly, you also had your hand up.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: Yep, I just wanted to speak a little bit to the housing authority and having another housing entity, creating a trust, having another housing entity in the community. And at MHP, we strongly urge communities to have their housing entities work collaboratively. We would expect the trust when you create one, when it's up and running, for them to work upfront with the housing authority We would urge your municipal staff to help facilitate those conversations as well with the CPC to make sure that these different boards are working together that they're not. trying to do the same thing, that they're not stepping on each other's toes, but instead that each entity is identifying its particular niche and its role in the community, and that you're all moving forward, identified housing goals for Medford, but not in a silo. The trust is a municipal entity. It's not on its own, out on its own. The mayor has to be involved in it. The city council, hopefully to some degree, will be involved in it. the housing authorities should not see this as a competitive entity, but just another housing entity to be addressing the severe housing needs that you have in Medford.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Shelley. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Marillyn. Thank you so much, Mr. Driscoll, for being here, for sharing your perspective. I just wanted to briefly comment on some of the speakers, some of the recent speakers. I just wanted to emphasize and thank you for making the point that it sounds like this is a situation where, you know, the proposed affordable housing trust and the MHA could have a symbiotic relationship. And I thank Ms. Evans for speaking to this, that there's enough complexity in how the affordable housing trust can maneuver the different buckets that the CPC funding has to go into that it's not, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game and either we fund the AMHA, which I think we're all extremely grateful for your tenure and your expertise in our community. And we can, you know, explore the many funding streams for an AHT at the same time. So that's really, it's great to get some clarity around that. And I missed making this point several minutes ago before Mr. Driscoll spoke, but I just wanted to note, I also am interested in, you know, I don't know if, Maybe the attorneys on the call or staff here today could speak more to this but in speaking about our housing situation in Medford with some of our. know, local leaders in the labor community. I know that the issue of wage justice, prevailing wage in affordable housing construction is something that's deeply felt by our leaders in the labor community. And I totally understand the sort of oroboros effect of more expensive to develop affordable housing, you know, and when we have such a strong need to develop that pipeline. But at the same time, I think that that's an avenue that I really think we should consider before taking it off of the table. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Not for you, Jeff, but Alicia or Danielle. I don't know if this has been asked before, but I think it's been asked in the past. Can you provide the Council a list of all these properties that are available in the city? Are they the small lots that you have? I think we may have asked that at some time ago, I don't know if it ever got provided, but going forward, do we have a list of the properties that are available for sale that the city owns?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, we certainly can provide a list. One of the things that we wanted to do was to, and was a recommendation in the housing production plan, is to go out and evaluate them. Because some of them, it's a cliff, you can't do anything with it. I've been slowly going and actually visiting most of the parcels, walking around, bushwhacking through the woods to kind of see what would be possibly developable. And most of the people that are inquiring about the parcels, I mean, thankfully that kind of tips us off of which ones are actually good to be developed because private developers want them. So they kind of do some of the work for me by identifying the good ones. But yeah, so it's a process.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you could provide us a list of the ones that you have at the moment, even at the moments and update them as you get them. So we know where they are.
[Alicia Hunt]: So one thing just to be clear is that it is easy for us to get a report from the assessor's office of all the parcels we own. The difficulty is that they are all identified by these lot ID numbers. and not street addresses. So if we were to just give you a spreadsheet, it wouldn't be very meaningful because the identifiers, we've been looking at them and trying to kind of give what are the roads they're on. Some of them are in the middle of areas. So one of the things we have to sort of figure through is, we can generate that list, we could probably mail it to you tomorrow, I think. It's the mailing it to you with information that's actually meaningful it asking our GIS person to actually generate a map, showing which ones are owned by the city might actually be more helpful, because then you can see where they are.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, I see where they are and you know what neighbors there in and with. Right.
[Alicia Hunt]: There's one called Zero Fulton Street. It is not at the end of Fulton Street. It is a random lot in the middle of Fulton Street, for example. So that's why I just want to, yeah, wanting to get it to you in a format that is, makes sense, if that's what you want.
[Richard Caraviello]: No, no, I understand. I understand. Yeah, like I say, if you have identified some, if you can give us what the ones you've already identified, but as you identify them, if you can keep the council updated, so we know, you know, where these parcels are and what kind of pushback we're going to get when We pilot, you know, we try to develop them because, you know, you may have neighbors that don't want development on an undersized lot beside them.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. And we've also been looking at, some have water on them, some have wetlands, some have streams above. Like there's all kinds of, some have cliffs. And we may all be aware that 10 years ago, developing property with cliffs on it was not cost effective in Medford. And now it turns out that blasting in the city of Medford is cost effective. So some of these things, weren't developable. And now they are becoming so I understand.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, thank you. Yeah. If you can please send us what you have available at the moment. And as you go forward, you know, maybe, you know, maybe maybe months or so. Just just keep a surprise. So, so, so we know what kind of pushback we're going to get from the from the neighborhood or particular neighbors.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins, Vice-Chair Bares, we are starting to bump against the 7 p.m. meeting time. I just want to note that we'll keep going, but as we do have a number of revisions, we will like to meet on this again. So there will be more time for discussion, but going to Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And to pick up on a thread that Vice President Bears made earlier, so sorry if I'm stepping on your toes. I was hoping that if it were amenable to you, maybe to make a motion for your staff going back to the issue of the conveyance of public lands, ways to solidify that. If your office could come up with a recommendation for perhaps a square footage threshold or another metric under which you would recommend that Um, these conveyances or sales should go forward and over which should could be subject to City Council approval to make sure that we have kind of a another check built in regarding the sale of larger publicly owned blocks.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. We'll work with Attorney Everett with Sharon on that as well.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a motion?
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And that was actually what I had my hand up for. So I have two motions here. I actually did, just in case we don't have Mr. Driscoll next time, I do have one question just for you, for you, Jeff, and then I have a similar additional motion. Just if the MHA weren't to serve on the on the board itself. What what do you kind of envision as a relationship between the housing authority and the housing trust and is it more just like open communication and dialogue and having that or I'm just interested to hear what your thoughts are.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Without having seen the audience, it's difficult for me to answer that with specificity, but I would say generally, the housing authority could actually provide the technical expertise that the council was concerned about earlier by having seven individuals without the expertise to go forward. We certainly would be interested in working with the trust to maybe assist in the development of affordable housing. um the housing authority right now um has its own non-profit. We also have um two LLCs for the Riverside project. We have three LLCs for the for the Walker and Court project. So, um we're diversified and and certainly could be of assistance to the trust if the council so wished it to be.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you very much and yeah, I think we'll sounds like we're coming back to it.
[Nicole Morell]: Um yeah and I did, I forwarded you a copy of the ordinance just so you have.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Nicole Morell]: Of course. Sorry for
[Zac Bears]: So in addition to councilor Collins motion, which I think, I think we're on the same page. I'm basically just that sailor conveyance of any publicly owned parcel that has previously been conveyed to the trust, some sort of square footage amount over which the council would have a review. I also have another motion to request language that the housing trust require any project involving public land, either previously conveyed to the trust or owned by the city. hold a permanent affordable deed restriction, ideally with a preference for a long-term land lease in lieu of sale or conveyance. So I'll back off on that requirement, but I do think that the permanent deed restriction really needs to be the minimum that we do. So that would be my other motion.
[Kit Collins]: Seconded.
[Nicole Morell]: Do you have a number of motions on the floor? I do have one resident with their hand up on Zoom.
[Adam Knight]: I'd just like to make one motion as well. Oh, Councilor Knight. That we amend the paper to reflect the prevailing wage requirements. Second.
[Nicole Morell]: And going to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom, name and address for the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Thank you for your time. Affordable housing is definitely a major, major issue, in my opinion. And as a matter of fact, buying heat and oil and groceries has been a problem in the last year and a half also. And I doubt the city of Medford has many parcels to speak of that's for sale unless you start knocking down high schools and elementary schools. I doubt there's any land of substance available. So I've been thinking out of the box, been patiently listening. I'm thinking more like, My idea would be by eminent domain, let's say, take an example, 20,000 square feet of Mystic Avenue and go six stories high and sell it as a cooperative housing shares as they do in the Big Apple, New York City. I believe from my real estate experience, that keeps the housing prices low in perpetuity, period.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Casagnetti. Okay, so we have a number of motions on the floor. The first motion from Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Knight, is to amend the paper to include compensation for the trustees of $1,000. The motion to consolidate all amendments, seconded by... Second. Vice President Bears, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll for the motion to consolidate all the amendments and take them as one. Do you need a minute to write them all down?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. I gotta get the motion to consolidate and there's one from Councilor Bears that I got about three words out of before my feed died. So hang on a second. Councilor Ntuk moved to consolidate all motions. Yes. And then I didn't hear the second on that.
[Nicole Morell]: Vice President Bears.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, here comes the roll call on that motion to consolidate. Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. So the affirmative is here and the negative, the motion passes. I can go through the motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hang on a sec. I'm gonna tell you what I have and that'll probably be easier to tell what I don't have. Let me go to, there was a motion from Vice President Bears that was the last motion he offered. He moved to request language that the housing trust require any project. And then I lost the feed there and I came back and it sounded like he was making a lengthy motion. I think I have all the other motions, which I'll read back, but that's the one I'm gonna need the most help with.
[Zac Bears]: It was required that any project involving public land either previously conveyed to the trust or owned by the city have a permanent affordable deed restriction with preference for a long-term land lease in lieu of sale or conveyance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So request language that the housing trust require any project involving public land either previously conveyed to the trust or owned by the city have a permanent affordable deed restriction with preference for a long-term land lease in lieu of a sale or conveyance. Correct. Okay. And was there a second on that? Not that it matters because they're all consolidated now.
[Nicole Morell]: I did not write down the second on that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't think it matters because I think they've all been consolidated. Let me read back the other ones that I have. I have Vice President Bears moving to amend the ordinance to compensate all members of the board who are not the mayor with a $1,000 stipend. I have a motion from Vice President Bears to amend the ordinance to require confirmation of mayoral appointees by the council.
[Zac Bears]: Correct.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have vice president bears lemon on the housing trust, which I just read on the conveyance of the deep restrictions, which I just read back. I have a motion from Councilor Collins. She actually asked director hunt if her office could recommend a square footage threshold for these conveyances over a certain square footage that require council approval. And then she's so moved. I have a motion from council night to amend the paper to require any entity developing projects adhere to the prevailing wage law. And I have Councilor Knight moving to consolidate, which you have voted to do. Is that correct? And does that reflect all motions?
[Nicole Morell]: Yes, that's all the motions we have.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Nicole Morell]: Please call the roll on those when you are ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Okay, Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. I'm sorry, Councilor Caraviello, I couldn't hear you. Thank you. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes, I have the affirmative, zero negative, the motion's passed. Do I have a motion for the paper?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to refer the questions out to planning development and legal counsel and adjourn.
[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears to refer the questions out and adjourn, seconded by?
[Kit Collins]: Second.
[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Scarpelli, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, Planner Evans, Director Hunt, Director Driscoll, and Attorney Everett for your help. And shall I had to jump off? Thank you all. And those on the call, please give us a moment to get together before our regular meeting. Thank you.