[Roberta Cameron]: I'm calling to order. Thank you. It's 6.40 p.m. I am calling to order the meeting of Medford's Community Preservation Committee on Tuesday, March 14th, 2023. We are meeting remotely in accordance with, I'm not gonna read the entire, preamble here. In accordance with the Legislative Act 22 of 2022, we're holding this meeting remotely and we'll do our best to make it available to anyone who is not able to access the meeting. It will be posted on the City of Medford website and links will be provided. I'm not sure what else I need to say about this meeting.
[Danielle Evans]: You're the only ones that were able to hold a meeting, because it was only advertised for City Hall is closed. Ah, yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: So I'm going to skip over the approval of the meeting minutes until the end of the agenda. So we can begin with the next item on the agenda, which is the remaining 2022 application deliberations. So Danielle, am I able to share my screen?
[Danielle Evans]: You should be able to. I made you a co-host.
[Roberta Cameron]: OK. I'm going to try sharing screen then. And just to review for the committee members where we left off.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Where are you muted again?
[Joan Cyr]: I didn't hear you. You're muted again.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. No idea how I got muted. Can you see my screen? Yes. Okay. Um, so you should see the spreadsheet that shows what, um, what we funded at our last meeting. So our last meeting was in January. And at our January meeting, we voted to fund all of the items that are shown in bright orange on the screen. And Danielle, you can remind me, I don't Recall of, I think we also funded the, the one that's in yellow too. Is that correct?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. So the decisions that we have left to make are funding of walk-in court, which, um, at a rate, and I would, um, change this to, um, $740,000 to round it down to $740,000. I think that I had been using a figure of $750,000 in my correspondence this month, but we'll adjust the award and then future ask accordingly. So $740,000. And that brings the total that we would, if we award Walkland- One more zero. What's that?
[Joan Cyr]: One more zero. Yeah, 740. Oh, I'm saying 74,000.
[Roberta Cameron]: I know, that's 740. Okay.
[Joan Cyr]: I think the refresh is very slow on my laptop today. I'm like $74,000. That's a haircut and then some. Yeah. So if we were to award the $740,000 to Waukland Court, that brings the total awarded this funding round to $2,193,864.
[Roberta Cameron]: And we have total available funds of $2,270,000. So that leaves just a delta of $76,000 that we haven't spent of available funds, which means that the remaining projects, the Brooks Estate Manor East Elevation, the Salem Street Burial Ground, and the Tufts Park basketball there would not be sufficient funds to fund at this time. So if we are to recommend to walk link court to be funded this round, the next conversation that we're going to have is going to be what to do about these other applications that I think we would be amenable to if we had enough funds for. But with that introduction, I then wanted to invite, I see that we have members of the team from Medford Housing Authority to give us some more information about Wakling Court. And I know that we had some information shared with us earlier this month. So I'd like to learn more about this so that we feel that we have sufficient information to be able to make a decision on this project. I'm going to stop sharing at the moment. Okay. So who among the Housing Authority team would like to speak with us?
[Ciccariello]: Hey, good evening, everyone. I'm Gabe Chikarola, the director of modernization and procurement with the Medford Housing Authority, and I have Margaret Donnelly-Moran from the Cambridge Housing Authority joining me this evening, and I believe Jeff Driscoll, our executive director is also listening in. Margaret, I'm going to go through the presentation. We have a short presentation to go through the funding sources and the cash flow for Walkman Court and to kind of give you an update on where the project is currently at. And Margaret may assist me at some points with answering some of your questions, too, with some of the bullets. I'm going to share my screen now, if that's OK. And if you guys didn't know, Cambridge Housing Authority is assisting our the Medford Housing Authority as a development consultant on the redevelopment of Walkland Court. So I'll get started with the short presentation. Can everyone see my screen? Okay. Okay, so most of you, I believe, are familiar with the existing Walkland Court site. It is currently 144 units of state-aided elderly housing. It is two-story garden walk-up brick flat buildings. There's a total of nine residential buildings and one community building. And what we're looking to do is do a complete redevelopment of the site. demolish the two-story walk-up garden flat buildings, and in phase one, construct a mid-rise building that would house 198 deeply affordable senior disabled units. So it would go, just for the senior disabled, from 144 units to 198. And we're also looking, once that would be complete, once phase one, the mid-rise elderly disabled would be complete, We're looking to add a phase two on the site, which would add 40 deeply affordable family units. So the current status of the project, the Medford Housing Authority received a $15 million grant from DHCD through their public housing innovations grant. And this grant requires that the phase one elderly disabled portion of the project which is a mid rise buildings to close to financially close by April 2024. And every time I bring up this $15 million grant I gotta let you guys know and try to reiterate that we really believe we would not have received that grant without the $350,000 that the community preservation awarded this project. Back in 2022, whereas actually in 2021 we did the application got the award in January of 2022, and that really spearheaded and showed that show DHCD that we had local support, and we were the only housing authority in the state to receive this $15 million competitive grant. So once that, once we received that grant, we started resident and community engagement process. We onboarded our architect or designer, which is Dietzen company in September of 2022, we onboarded them. And we're going to be looking to receive full site zoning approval by the end of the spring of this year, by the end of spring, 2023. And then we need to submit for state funding in October of 2023 through DHCD. So I'll go to the next slide, which is a construction budget. And it's broken out the two gray highlighted areas of sources, and then at the bottom in the middle is uses. So the sources are your traditional or typical funding sources used to fund affordable, deeply affordable housing projects. It's low income housing tax credits, tax credit equity, permanent debt was showing the $15 million through the public housing innovations grant. Also have DHC subordinate funding, a Medford Housing Authority program loan, and then our local funding ask from the city of Medford and we will delve in a little deeper about the total funding asking the city. as you get down what the uses are. And so that total, the total construction budget right now is $114,527,000. And then we break it down by uses. How are we gonna use and spend that $114 million? And you've got acquisition costs, the construction, architectural fees, financing fees, the temporary relocation of our residents to prepare for construction during construction. operating reserves, construction contingencies, and then developer fees. And those developer fees are generally assisted to fund the program loans, the Metro Housing Authority loans. So the next slide is, and do you have any questions before I'm about halfway through? Do you want to get through the presentation and do questions? I can stop every slide or two for questions.
[Doug Carr]: Just had one question. The five point in the last slide, the architectural fee of $5.4 million.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Doug Carr]: I'm involved in some fee writing in my office and I do, I don't do affordable housing, we do market rate, it's different product. But that number seems incredibly high per unit basis. It's a astronomically higher than I'm used to seeing in the market rate world by a factor of like four or five. Is that competitive or is that just something that is part of a mix here because of the type of housing?
[Ciccariello]: Generally, we'll see fees. Margaret, for this size project, do we see the fee between five and six percent of the construction budget?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: That's correct. Because it's part of the state public housing program, when we actually went out to select a designer, they actually set the fee for the project based on their experience and the requirements of the project. And so not only is it consistent to the market that we see for affordable housing, it's something that DHCD actually assisted us in establishing the fee for the project. And with public procurement or with procuring as a public agency, there are different requirements in terms of how you actually need to complete the specifications and the project drawings as well.
[Doug Carr]: Thank you very much. I'm all set.
[Michael Ward]: Any other questions before I move on to the next slide?
[Ciccariello]: So the phase one, again, which is the senior disabled mid-rise building, our local funding ask or total local funding ask is going to be 4.75 million. So for CPA, our ask is a total of 1.95 million. We've already received $350,000. which I recently, you know, which I just brought up for phase one, which has been all expended. That was, we've used it all towards pre-development because we're deep into design now. The invoices are coming in hot and heavy. That's all been expended already. The CPA 2022 ask for phase one is an additional 1.6 million on top of the 350,000. We're asking 750,000 in 2023 to assist with continuing supporting pre-development services or pre-development activities. Then another $850,000 in 2023, whether it's out of round to support construction activities. So the total is 4.75 which is a local ask other local funding needed for phase one is and it's the difference between 1.95 2.8 million. We've been in discussions with the city, whether that could be our funding mass work CDBG or home. multiple conversations with Alicia Hunt and they are discussing and meeting internally. We're hoping to meet with them in the coming weeks to try to come up with a game plan to assist with funding that gap with other local funding sources. So we need a letter of, we're gonna need a letter of commitment by September of 23 to secure the federal and state funding and actually be able to financially close a project in 2024. And why it needs to be in September of 2023 is because DHCD's 2024 winter round pre-applications are actually due in October of 2023. So we need to have our zoning in place, funding commitment in place for us to do our pre-application to DHCD in order for the application to be competitive. If we don't have those things in place, DHCD just moves on to the next projects. You get put at the bottom of the list
[Michael Ward]: look at you in the following year.
[Ciccariello]: So now we're getting into, this is the actual pre-development budget. So this is just to get us to the point of construction.
[Michael Ward]: The costs in, I need to, I'm actually having trouble, I'm blocking my view here. Let me see if I can fix this.
[Ciccariello]: Okay, so the costs in yellow up top in the middle were added since our CPA 2022 application. And in 2023, the development in 18 will be, is again, we'll be seeking zoning approvals and we're continuing to work on schematic design and we'll start working on construction drawings. Again, the project's aiming to close financially in April of 2024. So again, this breaks down just what our pre-development budgets are, the uses, and then those sources of funding. Out of the $15 million DHCD grant, we can use $1 million of that $15 million towards pre-development activities. We're showing the $350,000 CPA award we already received. hoping for an additional $750,000, using state modernization funds, housing authority capital funds, and again, that possible pre-development Medford Housing Authority loan. So our total pre-development cost is $4,491,000. The sources we will hopefully have is about $4,600,000. So we have a gap of about $485,000. Any questions on the pre-development budget? I'm going to keep going. We're almost done here.
[Danielle Evans]: Can I ask a question? Sure. Um, so the gap of 485,000. Yeah. I was confused. So what were you hoping to fill that with another city source?
[Ciccariello]: Possibly. or additional, we can try to get additional, we gotta fund it somehow, whether it's modernization funding, other local funding, capital funding, if we can get it. So yeah, so we do have a gap with what we're showing right now in our budget.
[Danielle Evans]: Okay.
[Ciccariello]: As we stated, the CPA fiscal year 21 funds that received have already been fully expended. Per CPC guidance, walk-in phase one may be eligible for 1.1 million in pre-development funds, including the $350,000 already awarded. $750,000 of pre-development funds in 2023 would assist with covering this year's pre-development costs. And again, MEJ is exploring pre-development loan options. Again, these typically have high interest rates and increased project costs. So this is the last slide. So the timing of the CPA funds during construction. So the construction cash flow schedule for phase one has been shared with community preservation. based on the typical timing of different funding sources, DHC funds become available first in fiscal year 2025 with the exception of that one million that we're using towards pre-development. Again, we expect to financially close the project in April of 2024 and currently expect to be complete with construction of phase one by October of 2025. Again, local funding asked for the phase one is 4.75 million. And we break it out by year 2024 2.72 million 2025 2.2 million. That's it.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you very much for the presentation and for the update on the numbers. I feel as though the budget is much more clear than it was when we last spoke a few months ago. Questions from committee members?
[Joan Cyr]: So Roberta, you had said beforehand that the amount was $740, but Gabe keeps talking about $750.
[Roberta Cameron]: Exactly, I gave them the number of 750 and that was an error. It's 740 was what we calculated we could actually give them. I'm not sure why I introduced the error of $10,000 in that information. So if I understand correctly, the housing authority is looking for a total of $1.6 million from the CPC. And that's divided between what we can give them now And then they'll come back and ask for the remaining amount that would go toward construction, but they need to have it committed before this fall. So if there's a $10,000 difference in the amount that we can give for pre-development, we can move that $10,000 to the second tranche of funding that they intend to ask for construction.
[Danielle Evans]: Roberta, can I ask you to do the math one more time, or to walk us through the math? Because it was 27 point, like 27% of the pre-development budget for phase one.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes, let me navigate my way through my overly full screen. Um, so let me make sure that I'm plugging in the correct numbers because I might have, um, I might have used an estimate.
[Danielle Evans]: Um, I have a higher number.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. Yeah. Let me share my screen and I'll show you where I have the, um, I'll stop sharing.
[Ciccariello]: Okay.
[Unidentified]: Roberta, we can't hear you again.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, she's muted. We're three years into this.
[Joan Cyr]: I know. You think we would know how to do this?
[Roberta Cameron]: No, sorry, guys. What happens is every time I go to share my screen, for some reason it freezes my camera and I can't unmute myself. So I had to wait until Danielle unmuted me. So, um, I should, am I sharing my screen now?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. So can you give me the exact amount again of what the, um, what the pre-development budget is? It's $4,491,830. 4,491,830. Okay, so four, four, nine, one, eight, three, zero. And so this, this is 54. This is the share of new units. So this is the proportion minus 300. So this is the amount that we can actually do. that would mean that we actually could give 800,000. Has the pre-development budget increased from what it was before?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: We had identified three categories where there had been an increase. And I think on one of the slides, we highlighted what those were, where there would be A&E reimbursables for things like traffic studies, rendering acoustics, stormwater mitigation, that added $100,000. Energy sustainability studies, because of the change in the energy coding, $75,000. And then relocation was a line item that we hadn't included in the CPA 2022 budget. So those were the three line items where there had been some cost increase, and that was highlighted in the presentation that Gabe provided, and we can send that over as well.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: And then I can speak to 27% that you have in column I, just relates to the fact that of the 198 elderly units, 54 of them are the new units. And I think that's where that percentage comes from.
[Roberta Cameron]: That's correct. So if we were to actually grant the 800,000 requested, then 16 that that leaves 16,000. So that's still just falls within the available funding. But if we could look at what isn't included in the pre development budget, again, I want to make sure that the costs that might be included are eligible CPA costs.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Can you see my screen?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: And just go to the slide that was before this one, Gabe.
[Ciccariello]: Okay.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Because it has the three line items highlighted.
[Michael Ward]: There you go.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. Well, I certainly don't have any concern that there aren't sufficient costs that are CPA eligible. Does anyone have questions or concerns about the items in the pre-development budget?
[Joan Cyr]: I don't have any concerns about these items. concern is about the second half of the S, that'll be off cycle. Have we talked at all with either Nicole or anyone on the city council to sort of get their feeling on this plan?
[Roberta Cameron]: We have not yet talked with anyone on the city council. with respect, and what would specifically be your concern about the city council's response to the request?
[Joan Cyr]: Normally off-cycle requests come as a surprise.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah.
[Joan Cyr]: And yet we are planning for this to be an off-cycle request. That's my one concern.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. So we did, go ahead, Danielle.
[Danielle Evans]: Um, I was, I was thinking that we might have to do like an unusual, um, FY 23 round, um, maybe break it into two. Two like cycles to kind of handle like the overflow, since this was, um, some, some large important projects that came in this round. And the idea is why are we making people wait, you know, until, you know, next winter, um, Because we know that they're going to apply. And then, you know, maybe perhaps half of the funds could be reserved for new projects that we haven't seen already. Or I mean, this is all something that you will have to discuss, but it's something that we can do. You know, it's. This is local control. You know, local decisions. Some cities and towns don't even have funding rounds, it's always. rolling. So you guys make the rules.
[Joan Cyr]: I think we made the rules based on the funding that we were anticipating coming in here.
[Roberta Cameron]: We did already inform the city council that we would be coming back with a second request for the McGlynn playground. And I just did some quick math, including the McGlynn playground The three projects that would be bumped from this funding round, if we fund the Walkling Court project and Walkling Court second request, we're already at our entire, like close to our entire budget for the next fiscal year. We're at $1.5 million of requests that we anticipate filling in that were, overflow from this year. So a possibility that I would like to entertain, and this could actually both solve the overflow problem as well as the off-cycle problem, would be if we were to approve both requests now with the first 800,000 being out of our current funding round and the second 800,000 being a bond um, payment.
[Doug Carr]: What does that mean exactly, Roberta? That's a term we haven't used a lot here.
[Roberta Cameron]: So to, so bonding CPA funds means that we, um, we issue the commitment now and it can be paid, um, first of all, we don't have to actually draw a bond right away. We can issue the commitment now, and then when they're ready to draw the bond, then all of the debt service payment would come out of future CPA revenue. So probably, you know, maybe something in the order of 200 to 300, and probably less than that, actually, maybe something in the order of 100 to $200,000 a year would come out of the top of our CPA revenues every year to go toward paying down the debt service on bonding this project.
[Doug Carr]: Why would we, I'm open to this idea, but this is something that's completely new. We've always lived within our means year to year, right? For the first five years. Why would we go into essentially a mortgage system? Why are we borrowing ahead?
[Joan Cyr]: Because we've not had a request for this amount of money for a very important project. I think it's always been out there as an option, but we never had to consider it because we could always live within the means, as you said.
[Doug Carr]: Right, but we're also, by doing, and look, I obviously agree with this project. I live three blocks from Walgreen Court. This is a needed project, I sure agree with that sentiment. But we're essentially cutting off the ability to really engage products next year if we do this, right? You're basically spending most of next year's funds, available funds, on stuff that's right here in front of us. So if somebody comes up with a new idea next year, whatever it is, we're not gonna be really able to entertain it because we've spent all the money or committed the money at least, which is new for us.
[Joan Cyr]: So this might be a crazy question, but Margaret, I suspect that maybe Cambridge has had something like this come up in the past. I know you guys have been at CPA for a long time and you have a lot more money than Medford does, but.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Yeah, I mean, less so in Cambridge because, you know, Cambridge has had linkage fees and, you know, CPA funds and now the city is actually allocating a portion of the general budget to affordable housing. We haven't had to go through, I think what you're talking about, which I have seen other communities do, which is that they, when they have an important project or a project that's requiring a lot of funding to do, I'm going to pick on Needham, the town of Needham had some historic improvements to their town hall that was above kind of the normal ask. and it required multiple year fundings, then the community actually bonded against the CPA funds so that instead of taking two or three years of CPA funds, they take and bond that larger number and then they use a portion of the future CPA funds to cover that bonding expense that That cost so the money comes comes available for its use right away, but the CPA program funds it over, it can, you know, can be a 10 year period, it can be a 20 year period. That's what Somerville, I believe, Somerville has been doing for their Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT- of Somerville or in case the town of Deanham to continue to further some of the other CPA objectives, whether it be inside improvements, historic stuff or affordable housing.
[Unidentified]: Thanks. I kind of like that idea.
[Danielle Evans]: It does increase expense because you have to pay interest on it, so.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Yeah, but it does open it does open that possibility of being able to continue to further your other objectives. So, you know, I think it's it can be it can be a useful strategic thing to do. But, you know, you want to be you know, you want to be strategic about it for the reasons Danielle mentioned in terms of the interest cost and transactional costs.
[Joan Cyr]: And I think we're sort of stuck in the middle of either saying yes to one big project and no to a bunch of little ones, or no to a big project we really need and yes to a bunch of little ones. But if we could do both and pay little interest on it, and I don't know what the interest rate is. Is it high?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, right now it's interest rates are relatively high. But this is something so I mean another question is what would the housing authorities timeline be for drawing the bond. We committed this year, but you don't actually have to draw it until you're ready to use it.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Right. So the construction, you know, the construction period will start in this, you know, spring, late spring of 2024, it should be about an 18 month construction period. So you could conceivably, you know, we would need to have it allocated and under contract for the closing, but we could conceivably not spend the next year allocation until 2025. It can be kind of a resource that comes in, and we can manage that, where it comes in, you know, towards the last half of the project.
[Doug Carr]: I'd like to see a PDF of this entire presentation. I think it's important that you remember, half the board here at committee is not here tonight almost. And this is an important piece, I just feel like this is a really significant shift in the way we're thinking about things. I'm a little disturbed about us paying $100,000 in interest for something that is essentially like if that's three or four products we're not funding because we're paying interest for something that's important to us, but is I don't know, that's a balancing act I think people need to be part of. And I also, the total project cost here, forget about pre-development, right, the total project cost here is tens of millions of dollars, right, with many different funding sources. So we're, you know, being asked to put I think at least 40 plus percent of our annual allotment for redevelopment, I think, only, but construction is another, what does it give?
[Unidentified]: Is it $50 million, $60 million?
[Roberta Cameron]: If you don't have that in your presentation, I think I have a table that was shared with me.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Construction is $85 million.
[Ciccariello]: Yes, just for phase one.
[Doug Carr]: Right, but this is our money is a rounding error in that amount of total budget. You know, I hate to be blunt about this but that budget, you know, I mean, I haven't seen a construction project finish on time in three years because of COVID, because of inflation, because of change of supplies and everything else. It's like, I don't know. There's such big numbers there. HAB-Michael Leccesereeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: But at the same time, this is a much needed project. We're talking about having places where you put someone in need to live compared to having a playground outside. I understand where you're coming from, but to me, I just see it as a very important project that you'll be housing people, not people that are already now in housing, but people who are waiting. You guys have no idea how long people, especially even elderly, some of them die before they even get into housing, because the waiting list is endless. to the point that they stop taking new application. Because you can't give people false promises that, yeah, we'll take your application, but when am I going to get a unit? Oh, eight years from now, they might call you. By then, the person is already either moved on, passed on. It's very, yes, I understand your point again, but this is a very important project.
[Doug Carr]: I look, I completely agree. I just think we're less than we're about 1% of the total project costs, maybe. Right. So, like, I, I guess I question how much of that impact is whether it was 500,000 or 900,000. It's the project is 99% somebody else's funding, right? It's gonna go forward without us or with us.
[Roberta Cameron]: I think that part of the reason why CPA funds are important here is to show that local commitment. As they mentioned, we probably wouldn't have been able to get this far without that first 350,000, which is just a tiny drop in the bucket, but it was the CPA, the city funds being the first in, show a city commitment to the project that the other funders will respond to. And so without that city commitment, they may not be able to get the other funding that's anticipated.
[Doug Carr]: Are you saying, Roberta, if we had 500,000, this project would not go forward, but if we had a million, it would?
[Roberta Cameron]: I can't speak to the budget for the project. I'm just saying that it Um, I think it's an important piece of the puzzle. Although 800,000 sounds like a small. Um, a small amount compared with the total budget of the project. It's an important piece of the puzzle because of just the significance of the city, making a commitment to the project. I just want to go back a beat. I had suggested that we, one option could be to fund 800,000 now and, or fund the entire $1.6 million now with half of that being current revenue and half of it being bonded. Another option is to honor the funding request for 800,000 now, and then make a decision about the second request at a later point in time, which could be in next year's revenue or bonding at that time. So we can come back to the bonding decision later if you prefer to make that with, give other committee members the opportunity to weigh in who aren't here this evening. The benefit of, doing the whole package now is transparency. We go to City Council with one package, one funding request and say, this is exactly what CPA is giving to this project. Or we can take the same approach that we did with the McGlynn School, which is to say that the CPA has agreed in principle to a larger package, but for now, this is what we've approved and we anticipate coming back with a second recommendation later this year. So that's the other way that we can handle this. I had a question about your permitting. I know this is outside of the purview of the CPC, but just in the interest of understanding the certainty of your process, and thus the certainty of the pre-development funds that we're putting in, where are you with respect to the permitting process right now? And it seems to me that it's a short timeline to have the permitting in place by the end of spring 2023. Maybe you can speak a little bit more to where you are with that.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Do you want me to answer or are you going to take that one?
[Ciccariello]: Yeah, yeah, sure. Go ahead, Margaret.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: So, you know, we have been working with the designers, you know, going through a resident neighborhood process. They're in what's called the schematic design phase, which needs to be completed before we would be eligible to move forward with seeking zoning relief. We've been having conversations with the city staff in terms of how best to position the project in terms of seeking the zoning relief, whether there's a path to some existing zoning opportunities or to some revision to the zoning code that may make sense to pursue, or potentially pursuing what would be a friendly 40B but the zoning process will really ramp up over the next, you know, four to six weeks of spring and go through the summer with the expectation that our zoning would be in place for the fall, you know, so that when we go to submit our pre-application for the DHCD winter round funding, as David mentioned earlier, the zoning is another key element to have in place. And so part of the neighborhood process we've been going through is to, again, be transparent, to answer any questions or concerns that the larger community might have, as we've been doing with the Walkland Court residents themselves, so that as we work forward, we've kind of heard and addressed to the best of our ability. the concerns that have been raised and try to build, you know, the support that we're gonna win the hearts and minds of everyone, but we'll have, you know, done a really thorough and good job in terms of as we go through the process with the city that, you know, we'll be able to keep on schedule and meet that fall deadline.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you. Other questions from committee members?
[Joan Cyr]: So do we need a motion or something to either pursue one or the other of the two options that you set forth? We'll go the McGlynn way or just approve the concept in full now and then decide later on how to fund it?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes, but before we have a motion there's just one more thing that I wanted to raise for discussion and see take the temperature of the committee members on this, which is that the. So, this $800,000 that we would be approving this evening out of the current funding round would be going toward pre-development cost. Pre-development cost means that this is for the design and permitting before we're actually constructing any new units. So how comfortable are we with the risk of putting such a large amount of CPA funds toward the pre-development cost? And so an option that, we've been thinking about has been to apply a condition that the pre-development funds be in the form of a forgivable loan that would convert to a grant once the project is under construction. But that's, I'm not, I'm not sure myself about how, you know, how much of a risk we can take on or ask the housing authority to take on with respect to the putting this money on the line for pre-development.
[Joan Cyr]: Honestly, I'd rather have our money go towards construction next, but I don't know if there's any wiggle room to take some of the funding from the construction side of the budget and put it to pre-development activities and put our funding towards construction. I didn't know if Gabe has a comment on that.
[Roberta Cameron]: You are muted, Gabe.
[Ciccariello]: So generally, so right where we are in the biggest pinch right now is is what the pre development funding. And coming up with all of our sources, if we were to even get our full kind of ask right now from CPA, we're still showing like a $400,000 gap, which we need to figure out where that comes from. The construction isn't as bad because then we get into the getting the low income housing tax credits that DHCD, the remainder of the $15 million kicks in. So there is just a lot of upfront costs on a project like this that is
[Michael Ward]: getting that funding is really critical and would be a huge help to really push this project forward.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: And it is our kind of hardest funding that the Housing Authority has to get. And I can speak from experience in Cambridge, you know, that, you know, when we did our first jobs, you know, our first projects like the Bedford Housing Authority is doing, um, accessing funds that we could actually commit to pre-development activity, given the restrictions that the housing authority has in terms of state public housing funds and federal public housing funds, um, is a real challenge, uh, and a real obstacle to moving forward. And, you know, as Gabe said at the start, you know, your early contribution of the $350,000 really set the table for Medford to be competitive for that $15 million grant. and access to a million dollars out of that grant for pre-development. But we still need to get from here to there to get construction underway and to get the final pieces of the financing in place to allow for the construction start. And absent CPA funds and funds that Medford has scrambled to identify and bring to the project, we really have Limited opportunities and those opportunities just like you talked about in terms of going in and trying to get loans to cover that come with a huge premium cost that is already a challenge on a project that has so many expenses.
[Ciccariello]: And I can't stress enough, Walkling is so tough. There's just no reserves there. We're doing the salt install building right now, because it's a federal property, we have just better finance. We just had the funding in place to get us through to construction, to pay for architects, to pay for consultants. One of the main reasons we're doing this, buildings are obsolete, but also getting out of that state portfolio and getting a better subsidy per unit is going to make all the difference in the future of the development and really keeping it affordable and being able to maintain it properly. Because we really, it's pretty pathetic what we have for money down there.
[Joan Cyr]: So if you were to look into your magic crystal ball, I assume that the CBA gives you the redevelopment costs. What is the risk that this project won't go through and we will lose that?
[Ciccariello]: I mean, I see this project. Yeah, go ahead, Gabe. No, you go, Margaret.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: No, I mean, I mean, I think this project as well is long overdue. I mean, the conditions of the housing, as Gabe was mentioning, is really very poor, certainly poor for the intended population that it serves. And I think something needs to be done. And I think we've aligned with your help already a substantial contribution from the state. We have to kind of go through the process of completing the design and getting the zoning in place. But the site is going to be vastly improved as a physical plant and as a presence to the community, as well as being just made appropriate for its use in terms of the population that it's been designed. I mean, it's a property that's been serving as low income public housing since the early 1960s. what's being proposed is gonna really vastly improve that. I think it's a type of project that has so many wins to it for the community, for the population that it serves, for the state, you know, the state's motivation on this is, you know, this is solving a state public housing problem that they're looking for solutions across the Commonwealth to do, and it's adding some much needed, deeply affordable units to the city. both for the elderly demand, but also for the family demand. So it's really an exceptional project that I think has engendered a lot of support within the community. Obviously, we do need to go through the zoning process to get the zoning in place. But I think the enhancements that will come with the work will will allow for that to move forward and in the state has already stepped up in a huge way with their $15 million that you know I, you know, I, I don't really see it's it's about getting it to closing it is to one of the board members' point of view, it's a very challenging time. Interest rates are climbing, construction costs are climbing, but our numbers are holding together. I mean, we're, you know, together, we're closing on the financing of the Saltonstall building and moving forward with construction there. Cambridge has a couple of projects moving forward with construction. And so while it's really a challenging time, the crisis of affordable housing has not diminished. And I think that's reflected in some of the governor's statements and some of the priorities in her budget as well. And we have this unique period of time where the city has some OPERA funds to have, but the state has a tremendous amount of OPERA funds to have that have been dedicated to affordable housing. If we can get ourselves ready and through the door, I think it's... You know, I'm just very confident about this project, very excited about this project, and I think it does a tremendous amount of good for the residents who live there who are going to be disrupted by it, but also for the overall community as well.
[Danielle Evans]: Roberta, would this be a good time to chime in on the status of the other funding sources that might be available?
[Roberta Cameron]: exactly going to be my next question too. So other funding sources that might be available that I'm aware of and you are in the biz, you may have other funding sources that you haven't reached out to as well yet either, but our home consortium funds, I wonder if you have reached out to the home consortium yet and have a commitment from them either for home funds or the home ARP funds, or the status of applying for a MassWorks grant that was mentioned on one of your previous documents. And also you just mentioned that the state has ARPA funds, and I wonder what the process is that you go through for accessing those funds as well.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Yeah, so I'll start with the last one. That last one is part of that Wendy Gaertner?rkerrerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrkerrk what best route they would like us to pursue on that. MassWorks is a little tricky, though. I think it's absolutely one that we should be exploring because of the needs to be public ways. And so then there's a question of whether or not the city would actually want a public way in the heart of Watling Court. So that one of the bunch might be the most challenging to get, but it still is one that is being carefully assessed and reviewed and will be part of our discussions with the city.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so regarding, so we did sit down with the mayor and the ARPA team and our CDBG administrator and myself to kind of think about what could possibly be available. It doesn't look like COB, Erika Vandenbrande): there's going to be any cdbg money and the ARPA money is also been committed to a lot of different. COB, Erika Vandenbrande): projects and the way that the mayor's been rolling it out is you know, in phases, you know to kind of like identify some of my projects so she's not been inclined. you know, to commit it all up front. So, and also because ARPA funds are going towards Saltonstall, that I think that the Walkling Court ARPA request, I think was a surprise. It wasn't anticipated. So coming from city ARPA funds, it's really, the city of Medford really didn't get that much. So I would really encourage you all to apply to the home consortium. Not only is there the regular home consortium allocation, but the home consortium also got ARPA funds. And of course, I don't know the number off the top of my head, but it was at least 7 million earmarked specifically for rental housing. And they've had it, the consortium's had it, there's eight communities. So You know, the eight different communities can apply for this, but you know, it has to be, you know, a project that's like ready to go. So I feel walking court is like very well positioned. I talked to the mayor and she, we provided a letter of support. We're going to, um, request that this get on a future agenda item. Hopefully maybe the April meeting, um, we're going to request that we could introduce this project. I have emailed Deborah Burke, who's the executive director of OSPCD, which oversees, you know, of Malden, because Malden is the lead community of the eight-member consortium. But, you know, it's formula funded, and so Medford brings money to the table. So, you know, we're looking to access those funds. And historically, Medford hasn't been utilizing home funds as much as some of the other communities. So I feel like we have, this would be a really good project, and I think it would be very competitive. It would be a great opportunity to bring some of this money to Medford because it's pooled funds. So conceivably, if nobody from Medford applies for it, then Medford doesn't get any. So it could all go to Chelsea if Chelsea asked for it, but no one else does. So if we can get in the pipeline, because the home ARP application It hasn't even opened yet because they've been out, they haven't had a home director. So we're trying to like nudge it along and hoping maybe with some pressure from here's a project like banging down the door, like let us apply for it. There could be like a decent amount of money there that, you know, conceivably could mean like bonding wouldn't have to think about bonding CPA funds. It could be enough. That's on my to-do list tomorrow is to craft a memo to the NSC North Suburban Consortium.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you. I think that covers all of my questions and concerns. So putting everything out on the table that we've discussed just now, I would entertain a motion for recommending funding for this development.
[Doug Carr]: Could I ask a question? We got all the information I think we need from the folks. You guys get a great presentation. Thank you for that. This is a great project. It's important. I really want this to be built by whatever means necessary. So please don't take my questions as I'm against the project. I am not. I guess my question, Roberta, before we have a motion is should we consider a couple of the other projects like the car park or whatever else is on the list that we haven't talked about to see if there's, we never really, we put them on a different category, but we didn't rank them about what's left. I don't know if you want to do that as collectively as a whole, or you just want to say, because if we do this, there's really nothing left, right? There's, or there's other ones. And that's okay if we make that collective decision. We have to talk about it before we commit every last dollar for the last round. That's the only question I have.
[Roberta Cameron]: I would welcome input from other committee members. Before we do that, let me just share one more time. And Danielle, if I go mute, please unmute me when I share it.
[Unidentified]: Oh, there she goes again. Oh, that was quick.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay, thank you. So in this column H, prioritization, this was our discussion back in HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : January, I believe, when we decided which projects were going to be, we would move forward immediately in January versus hold on to, and so the projects that are. HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : highlighted in pink are the projects that received. HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : A third priority so first priority number one and second priority. We voted in January to fund all of the first and second priority projects. And Walkling Court is a first priority project, but we felt back in January that we needed more input, which we've received this evening. So that leaves the third priority project. So these projects we determined to be third priority back in January. Based on, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, other committee members can can recollect our discussion a couple of months ago. But I think it was based on the timing, the urgency of these projects being funded. All of the ones that we consider to be first and second priority were projects that would have like a strong impact on community members in the short term, were ready to go right away and were relatively time-sensitive. And so the third priority projects, I don't think, I mean, maybe I'm speaking for myself. I don't think that we had any objection to funding these projects. They just, if we had to choose, given the limited funding that we have this year to cover all of the requests, they reached the bottom of the list in terms of the funding that's available.
[Doug Carr]: HAB-Michael Leccesereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
[Roberta Cameron]: It helps us now to map out what this current choice is in front of us and what to do next. Because as I said, all of them, I think, were projects that in any other funding year we would have easily agreed to fund any of these projects. They were all the kinds of projects that we like to fund. We just didn't have enough money for the ones that seemed less urgent.
[Doug Carr]: I still think that ranking is correct. So I concur with that approach. I guess my recommendation would be to make a motion to fund the 800K as noted there, but to leave our options open, I guess I'd prefer not to commit another, more than half of the next funding round right tonight without a little bit more input from the other CPC members.
[Roberta Cameron]: We could not commit the second $800,000 tonight except by bonding.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Roberta Cameron]: So bonding is the only way that we're allowed to reach forward into the future.
[Doug Carr]: And again, I think that's a critical, um, Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His): Decision that I feel like that's a change for this committee committee, I want to hear everyone's opinion about that too, just because it's it's a different way of doing business and it's a Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : I think in the future. I think it's going to be something we do more of. I can see that path going forward as we have Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : Bigger products, more of them more flexibility. There's obviously a big housing push the city for housing trust and other things that would help move things along. So I'm open to it but I really want you know the rest of the committee to be part of that discussion personally. But I'm open to this 800 tonight is I think a good move.
[Joan Cyr]: So I can second that 800 tonight move.
[Doug Carr]: That's a motion without a motion.
[Danielle Evans]: That's right. Are there conditions because we talked about it being a forgivable loan because or a way to claw COB, Erika Vandenbrande. She-Her, Hers. There, we can clog back because it would have been spent on something that was not eligible if the new units don't come to fruition, so. Right. And if this, you know, it seems that, you know, the applicants are pretty confident in it going forward, so I'm not sure there would be any objection to a loan. So we would convert to a grant, probably at closing, because they'd have all their approvals. It could convert to a grant upon the zoning approvals for the requisite number of new units.
[Unidentified]: It could be a closer benchmark.
[Doug Carr]: Would that be something that the proponents, Margaret, Gabe, are you familiar with that process of us committing, but if it dies, that we could somehow get some of it back, or when you get the zoning approval, that seems like a good benchmark, because once you get the zoning approval, I think there's an even bigger momentum to make it happen in the city.
[Unidentified]: You're muted, David.
[Ciccariello]: Sorry. Sorry. Can we get back to you on that? That's something I just want to talk with the team about. Margaret, have you ever experienced anything like that with your applications?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: A lot of the City of Cambridge money comes in as loans. OK. And so, you know.
[Danielle Evans]: Most pre-development is a loan from any source. OK. Like CBG doesn't even do that. If it doesn't happen, the city has to pay back the feds. The home program is forgivable loans for pre-development. It's essentially a grant, but it protects the city's million dollar plus investment. We're all confident that it's going to go forward, I think we need that insurance policy.
[Roberta Cameron]: Danielle, I don't know if you have handy the recommendation letter from the $350,000 grant. I think that would be helpful to copy those recommendations forward and then add this recommendation.
[Michael Ward]: Yeah, let me find that.
[Roberta Cameron]: So while Danielle is looking for that, I could move us along a little bit. So we have a motion to recommend the funds in a second. We're not like, we can vote on the conditions after we vote on the recommendation. So maybe I could just take the role for the conditions. I mean, for the grant, for the recommendation now. So, Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan? Yes. Losa? Yes. Steve?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right. And yes for myself. I have been the affirmative.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Sorry to interrupt. Could I grab for the record who made the motion and who seconded it?
[Joan Cyr]: Jack made it.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Thank you.
[Danielle Evans]: I found a version that was not what was approved. I think I have a PDF of what was approved. Did you want me to share my screen? Sure, that would be good.
[Roberta Cameron]: Can everybody see that? If you could blow it up a little bit, it'll be clearer. Oops. Okay, that's good. Yeah. So we can skip the first and second because those who are specific to the process that they're already undertaking, unless you think that they're still relevant. The third one is the one that I'd like to carry forward. As CPA funds can only fund new units, not replacement units, the percentage of the contribution of CPA funds to the pre-development costs must be equal to or less than the percentage of new units. So we should continue that recommendation or that condition. But then we wanted to add a condition that we can write together.
[Doug Carr]: What does that mean about percentage of construction costs, of development costs, of total costs?
[Roberta Cameron]: What does it mean? So this states that the percentage of contribution of CPA funds to the pre-development cost must be equal or less than the percentage of new units. So that formula that I showed on the screen earlier to confirm that the amount that they're requesting is below the threshold, that threshold is determined by the proportion of new units to total units.
[Doug Carr]: Right, okay, I remember that in the spreadsheet, okay.
[Roberta Cameron]: And I just actually realized that I wanted to clarify, we just recommended 800,000. Okay, because we had earlier talked about 750,000, but we made a recommendation for 800,000. So carrying over that third condition, then I have on my screen, I'll share screen and we can compose the language for this together. You'll unmute me as soon as I get accidentally muted again. It's not showing me the correct tab. Oh, it's only letting me share. It won't let me share a document that's not an internet, a tab on my browser. So I don't know if someone else can hear. What are you trying to share? A word document.
[Joan Cyr]: Oh, just an email to one of us.
[Doug Carr]: We can just put it on ourselves.
[Roberta Cameron]: I don't actually have a document. I was just going to start from scratch.
[Joan Cyr]: Oh, we should grab one that we had from before.
[Roberta Cameron]: I just, well, I know I just wanted to compose the language of the condition. And they can write the letter using one from before.
[Danielle Evans]: Why don't you put it in the Google Doc?
[Roberta Cameron]: I could do that. OK. It takes me a moment to figure out how to open up a Google Doc.
[Joan Cyr]: You've got a Word doc open if you want.
[Roberta Cameron]: Sure, yeah, you can share screen and we'll work from yours. Who are you saying that to? Are you talking to Joan Kay? OK, so the grant will be. A forgivable loan. That will convert to a grant upon the issuance of permits for development? I know that's the plain English what we mean, but is that how we want it to be written? I feel like there's probably better language.
[Danielle Evans]: Requisite zoning approvals or.
[Roberta Cameron]: Issuance upon the requisite zoning approvals.
[Danielle Evans]: Or zoning relief to create 54 new units.
[Joan Cyr]: Say that again, the last part of zoning approvals?
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. to construct the 54 new units. And that, I mean, to be really clear, we say in addition to the, I forget the number, X replacement units in phase one. Because right now we don't know the exact zoning path that it's going to take. And I know this from my other hat as a planner, that it could go a couple of routes. There's a curve ball in the zoning, the new recodified zoning that has a new provision that wasn't in there before regarding the multiple structures on a single lot not being allowed anywhere except the mixed use zone, which is station landing. Used to be able to do that and that was taken out. So now this is could possibly be a nonconforming issue. I'm going on a tangent, but there's like three or four different ways we could go forward. It could be zoning board, it could be planning board, or community development board. I don't think there's a by right path.
[Roberta Cameron]: Then do we need to add some language saying that if fewer than 54 new units, then the grant will be proportional as stated above?
[Joan Cyr]: Which one is it? Constructed or planned?
[Roberta Cameron]: Permitted.
[Joan Cyr]: Permitted. Thank you.
[Roberta Cameron]: Is that clear enough the way that's stated? So this will be condition two. Condition one states that it has to be within the threshold that we described previously.
[Ciccariello]: So really quick, just to confirm, it will convert once you receive just permitting or zoning approval?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: The requisite zoning approval. And the XXXs would be 144 replacement units.
[Roberta Cameron]: Well, and Amanda just gave us the language for number one.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: And I just want to clarify what we're intending to go in and permit the entire plan, both phase one and phase two. So in reality, we're looking to propose 94 new units on site. So it could be that part of the grant, you know, could be used for the new family units is that will be part of the permitting?
[Roberta Cameron]: Even better. So 54 is the minimum threshold.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Yeah, because that's what the 27, 27, 27% is. Yes. OK. I think that these conditions are good.
[Roberta Cameron]: Any other comments or corrections? And then we can take a motion to approve the conditions.
[Joan Cyr]: I'll make a motion to approve the conditions.
[Roberta Cameron]: I'll second it. And I will call the roll if you can stop sharing, Joan. PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, Lupita D Montoya
[Ciccariello]: Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. I'll forward that. I'll email that to you first thing in the morning, okay, Roberta?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes.
[Ciccariello]: The presentations you can pass along to everybody.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. And I'll start pushing forward the home fund.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Yep. We'll be in touch on that.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, we're going to really push for that and help support that. So I'm confident.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: We'll look forward to it.
[Michael Ward]: Awesome.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_26]: Thank you again, everybody.
[Michael Ward]: Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.
[Joan Cyr]: I put all the conditions in the chat. Taking notes there.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Do you all need to vote on the other ones?
[Roberta Cameron]: So no, we don't need to vote on the other ones, but I think we need to hold a conversation about the other ones. And then it's going to be very important. This is, you know, I know that we're kind of between staff right now, but I think it will be very important to communicate back to all of the grantees or the applicants for the ones that don't make it this round, what the committee's intentions are and what the next steps for them will be. So as we said, all of these projects we deem to be projects that the committee would be amenable to funding. It's just that we have to wait until we have the next funding round funds available. So the next funding round, we need to talk about, so the next thing on the agenda is to talk about the annual review. The last few years, our annual review has gone on for a couple of months. We've taken public input by a survey we have an annual public hearing, which is actually required by law that contributes to our annual funding round, or to our annual review, identifying what our priorities and the process will be for the next funding round. So this year, given our staff situation, It would make sense for us. So we are required to have an annual public hearing, but we're not required to have an annual plan update or annual report. We just do that as a best practice every year. So it could be that we scale back what we do in terms of an annual review this year to accommodate the current level of staffing that we have. But we do still have an obligation to pass a budget showing what our annual allocations, minimum allocations to each program area are going to be. And we have an obligation to hold a public hearing, and it's a good Um, I think it's a good practice in general, or we felt that it was a good practice to communicate to city council every year, what we're doing and what our plans are for the next. Year. And I think it's also an essential practice to identify a timeline for. Our. Annual application process. at a minimum, we, you know, maybe want to start with talking about what is that annual application process going to look like for next year? Is it going to be substantially different from what we've done in the past? And if we change that process, like what kind of instructions do we put out for applicants for this coming funding round? So what's different about this year is that we've already somewhat promised a $500,000 grant or $400,000 grant to complete the McGlinton School. And we've just somewhat promised an $800,000 grant to complete the Wackling Court funding package. And we've got a few hundred thousand dollars worth of projects that we would like to have funded if we had the funds available. So we could just make a summer funding round and say, when the new fiscal year opens, everybody come back now. And then it's not an, out of cycle application because we would define July as being our, you know, beginning of it. Yeah. Or we could only honor the two at the beginning, McGlynn and Wockling, and then invite the others to come back at some point later in the year. Like our very first year, we had two funding rounds. So we could do a mid-year funding round or just a rolling basis or, you know, we could, a lot of ways we can handle it. So I'll let you all see if you have some ideas about how to proceed.
[Joan Cyr]: You look like you're going to say something, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: Nope.
[Joan Cyr]: Go right ahead. I mean, I like the idea of starting the new cycle in July. For reasons I previously stated. But to the point of how much do we, you know, sort of advertise or, you know, go out to the community to try to elicit feedback and elicit, you know, applications when we know that we're gonna have less funding. I think it would be good given the resource issue that we have to just go with the basics this year, maybe, and do a funding round that starts in July with the same process that we had, so we don't have any new administrative work to do. I say go light. But do advertise about the things that we are doing, right? We should talk about the projects that we funded or recommended funding for. Yeah.
[Doug Carr]: Do we know about the anticipated dollars we think we'll be getting? Obviously, it goes up every year. The matching seems to be pretty aggressive. We've gotten more money than I ever thought we would.
[Roberta Cameron]: I think we received a warning. a couple weeks ago that don't expect as much this year as you got the last two years.
[Doug Carr]: From who?
[Roberta Cameron]: The department of revenue.
[Doug Carr]: The CPC is not as generous this year.
[Joan Cyr]: There's a new sheriff in town.
[Doug Carr]: There definitely is that for sure.
[Danielle Evans]: In the last two years, we've had two tranches of match come in. Yeah, I don't know if we can expect that because there's the first one, which is all like fees to the registry of deeds. And if there's any state surplus, then the state votes who gets it. And then, you know, Stuart and the coalition lobby hard to get a piece of that pie. And then if they get it, then it comes back. So it all depends. especially since the state had to pay back everybody for the state income tax. Remember that? There was that issue. I wanted to be like, just keep it, keep it.
[Unidentified]: Anyway.
[Roberta Cameron]: Um, I'm also concerned though about the fairness because if we, if we're going to invite people to submit applications for July in general, then we need to get that notification out right away. Like we need to have, like if the applications are due in July, then the eligibility determination forms should be due in May. So pretty much. What's that?
[Danielle Evans]: Did you skip that step?
[Roberta Cameron]: The eligibility determination.
[Danielle Evans]: So because work that just gets repeated and most know whether they're eligible or not, because I've talked to them like, yeah, I don't get surprise EDFs, but I know they're coming and then they cut and paste it to the application. So.
[Doug Carr]: I actually agree with that, Danielle. I think there's been enough, because of your work, because of the way you communicate with people, that I feel that step could be streamlined and eliminated. And just reach out to people who are first-timers who don't know what they're doing. That's a staff action. It doesn't have to be a protocol for all one of your 10 or 12 applications, because as I said, most of them know the drill by now, or if they don't, they find out quickly how to do it. So I like that idea just because it's less work for you too. It's a whole, it's like doing everything twice, you know, there's a bar and then you pass the bar and then you go back for the full. But I feel like that would be nice to be, to ease the pressure on your successor, whoever that is, to kind of just try to make it one and done on application, like most grants.
[Roberta Cameron]: I started a thing in Somerville, which is adding a third step to the application process. Somerville loves to be complicated, but my third step that I added was requiring a month ahead before anything else is due. Any non city applicants need to submit a form that basically just puts them in touch with me so that I am communicate, I'm talking with them and figuring out how I need to support them before any applications are due. And now that I think about it, like I would rather keep that form and skip the eligibility determination step, make everybody do this talk to me step. And then like replace the eligibility determination form with a talk to me form.
[Doug Carr]: Why isn't the talk to me, just call me, it's the last item of the... Why is there a form to call me?
[Roberta Cameron]: Because it's Somerville, and we need to... I need to document everything. I need to be able to forward emails to people and say, what do you think about this? So that's why I have it be a form there. But anyway, I think that's a good point that eligibility determination is at this point really And often what also happens is that right up until the very end, when we're like considering the conditions on the recommendation, we're thinking, well, is everything that in their scope actually eligible? And we might be, you know, striking out line items at the last minute. So yeah, the eligibility step doesn't necessarily make sense. So now we are talking about. updating our application materials if we're going to change the application process. So again, this month is a difficult time to make that transition, like next month might be easier. We anticipate being able to have a new staff person within one to two months at this point. we're close to making a decision. So that means that we could have somebody in place to update the application materials in April or May.
[Danielle Evans]: And so let's- 35 hours a week to do it rather than like 14. Yes.
[Doug Carr]: That suggests that the application process and the evaluation would push into the fall, I presume, right? Early fall, but fall.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, so it's OK. Yeah, so we could we could. Ask for the full application from the two applicants that need an early decision. Oh, if we're going to lose Steve, you know what Steve? Are you able to stay on for five minutes longer to take a vote?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I just took a vote. The vote was, do we think we'll have school tomorrow? Can I vote? Oh yeah, my kids are like, are we going to have school?
[Danielle Evans]: And I'm like, yeah, you are.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I think it's going to be because the roads just look wet outside my house. So yeah, sure. As long as I have a definitive end, yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes, five minutes, and then I think we can continue our conversation even without a quorum, but we need a quorum to vote. So the vote is to approve the meeting minutes, and we have three meetings to approve. The first is November 30. Is there any discussion about the meeting minutes for November 30? I don't think I read them.
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't think so either.
[Roberta Cameron]: We can still approve them. We are bound to approve the meeting minutes for November 30 because we're up against the length of time that we're allowed to take to approve them.
[Danielle Evans]: Per open meeting law, basically you're just, the vote is, I got them. That's basically what the vote means. People who weren't even at the meeting can vote, we got them, because you got them.
[Joan Cyr]: Where are they? Are they on the Google Drive?
[Danielle Evans]: They're in the meeting packet. In the meeting packet?
[Joan Cyr]: Oh, shoot.
[Danielle Evans]: OK.
[Doug Carr]: They're in there.
[Danielle Evans]: And I had some PDF in there, and then I deleted them and then replaced them with Word docs. So they should all, they have like today dates.
[Joan Cyr]: Gotcha. Sorry. OK, I have got them. I have them now.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Got them too.
[Roberta Cameron]: So is there a motion to approve November 30? Motion to approve the November 30 meeting minutes.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: I second it.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, Doug?
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: I got it, yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan? Yes. Losa? Yes. Steve?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, that one is, and myself, yes. So November 30 is approved.
[Joan Cyr]: December 13.
[Roberta Cameron]: December 13.
[Joan Cyr]: Got him. Motion to approve the December 13, 2022 meeting minutes.
[Michael Ward]: Second.
[Roberta Cameron]: And I will call the roll. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes, again.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan? Yes. Losa? Yes. Steve?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And yes from myself. All right.
[Joan Cyr]: Motion to approve the January 10th. Oh, it says January 10th, 2022. I assume that's 2023. Not approve of the 2023. June, it says 23.
[Doug Carr]: The file name is 23, but the file itself says 2022.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. What? Oh, let me see.
[Joan Cyr]: Did I, um, the top of it? Oh, I can't even.
[Danielle Evans]: Oh, then with the amendment then.
[Joan Cyr]: With the amendment of the date on the first page, I make a motion to approve the January 10th, 2023 minutes. Second.
[Roberta Cameron]: I second. All right, I'll call the roll. Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Losa? Yes. And Steve?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right. All right. And myself, yes. Thank you. All right. So we covered that business. So thank you to Steve for hanging on for five more minutes, and we can go back to the conversation. You are most, you know, we love having you, Steve, but if you have to drop off.
[SPEAKER_03]: We do. Good night, everyone. Have a great evening. Thank you.
[Roberta Cameron]: See you, Steve. Good night. Thanks. All right. So I think what it sounds like is that I can only stay for a couple more minutes.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Okay, I'm just coming up. Yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. Um, so we're going to have to continue. Let me skip. So it sounds as though we're going to have to have a maybe a second, we'll talk about this at the next meeting, what the application cycle will look like. Either way, there won't be enough time to advertise an application cycle for July. So I think that maybe we'll have to let the July people in and then come up with a fall date to allow the remaining projects to come back and open the gate for anyone else. But we also need to talk about the public hearing. So we're required by law to have a public hearing. The most logical time for that would be our April meeting. So that means it has to be advertised right away if we haven't already advertised it. Is there still time to advertise for the April meeting, Danielle?
[Danielle Evans]: Because our ordinance says it has to go two successive weeks, right?
[Roberta Cameron]: The, yeah, that's actually by state law is that it has to go, but it has to be advertised to successive weeks.
[Danielle Evans]: That's an act?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah.
[Danielle Evans]: Does it matter with the, does it have to be two weeks before the meeting or two successive weeks?
[Roberta Cameron]: I think two weeks, two successive weeks before the meeting.
[Danielle Evans]: Okay, because with like, like planning and zoning, it's The first notice has to be a minimum two weeks before the hearing. Second notice has to be the following week. So sometimes there's no notice the week before. So you have two weeks of notices, and then there's nothing one week, and then you have your meeting because of publication dates. So when's our newspaper published now, now that we're with Sunbelt?
[Roberta Cameron]: I think it's still Thursdays, but I'm not sure. Okay. So it's the, our next meeting is the 11th.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. So if it goes in the paper. On the six on April six and then March 30th. And the deadline is the Friday before, so it has to go in 24th. Yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right. So we, we have time to get this in the paper so we can advertise our public hearing for April. And then the question is, do we want to have any like last year, the format was we invited testimony from a bunch of different folks to talk to us about what they perceive as needs and priorities. Do we want to do that again this year or do we want to just do what we used to do and have a brief CPA presentation and then Ask for public comment and then close the hearing. I say go less. Okay. So we'll just have a simple public hearing. We'll have, we'll open public comment. We can talk then about what we think our needs and goals, um, priorities for the, year and actually we need to talk next time about some of these bigger changes as well so that will all be on the April agenda and then the May agenda can focus on the budget and what funds are actually going to be available and pass a budget for city council and by that time by May we may have a staff person who could put together a brief report for city council but we'll have to see what's possible by then. Thank you Losa. At this point we don't have enough people to continue a meeting and I think we've made the decisions that we need to make for now anyway so thank you all.
[Joan Cyr]: And we'll let Danielle and Amanda vote us.
[Doug Carr]: If we have a quorum, can the meeting actually never end? Is that what happens?
[Danielle Evans]: You guys can't leave.
[Roberta Cameron]: So, all right. Well, thank you all. Have a good night.
[Joan Cyr]: You too. Take care.
[Roberta Cameron]: Bye bye.