[Losa Julie Genevieve]: I want to call the meeting to order at 4.39 p.m. Roll call, please.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Yes. Commissioner Janvier. Here. Commissioner Foley. Here. Commissioner Holien. Here. Commissioner Luongo. Present. Absent is Commissioner Lister.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Pledges.
[6zUtu0XZLH4_SPEAKER_05]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Approval of minutes on July 13. Can I get a second, please, if there's any?
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I'll second.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Is there a recession held on July 13, 2022?
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: All in favor? Aye. Thank you.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: And a special meeting held on July 20th, 2022.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Financial? He wasn't there. He wasn't there.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: So, Michael, are you abstaining on those? What? Did you vote on those?
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: No, he did not.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: He wasn't there. You weren't present, right? So, we'll report you as an abstention.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Yeah. Okay. Financial report and Michael. Financials?
[MCM00001419_SPEAKER_00]: Yes. So, the financial statements you have in front of you reflect nine months of our fiscal year, which is three quarters of our fiscal year. Right now we're in our last quarter. So basically all the programs are running as we had estimated when the budget was built. Our operating reserves show an increase of $2.1 million, $2,302.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Does anybody have any questions regarding the financials?
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I'll move to approve the financials as presented.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: If I may, Madam Chairman, where does that $1 million show up?
[MCM00001419_SPEAKER_00]: Page 15. Where it says operating reserve analysis, and you go down to where it says net income deficit, All the way over to the COCC column, you'll see 1.225869. So that's part of that 1.1 million. It's actually $1,175,531 that we received. That's the surplus, right? Yeah. And what can be done with that money?
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: What's the chances of the feds taking it back, Jeff?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Well, the feds took it back previously, and we filed suit against them with a number of other housing authorities. And if you recall, we won that suit and recently were able to contribute significantly to the reserve. At this point in time, I'm not aware of any intention by the federal government to recapture that. as they not only lost the suit that we were involved in, they had lost the suit previously dealing with the recapture of funds.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: So you plan on using some of that? We certainly do, yes. Thank you. All right.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: So I made a motion.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Yes. Can we just, Jim just came in, can you just repeat what the motion was? I believe it was to accept the report, correct? Yes, the financial report.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: All in favor? Aye. Aye, the ayes have it. Thank you. Do you need a minute, Jim? No, I'm all right. And can I get a motion to close public input since there's no... Michael, you don't think they're saying public input, do you?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: No.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Okay. So moved. Thank you. Can I get a second?
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, second.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Thank you. All in favor? Ayes, aye. Executive Director report.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: May I say something? Sure. Okay. I wasn't sure when the appropriate time to say this was, so I figured now. I just wanted to tell the board that Losa and I had the opportunity last Thursday to get a little tour of Medford Housing with Jeff. and he took us to almost all the sites. We didn't get to everything but we'll blame that on traffic and chatting with residents and staff. And I have to say I've been in this industry for 14 years and I have seen my very fair share of housing authorities and their units and developments and I was so impressed. I was so impressed with the staff, with the condition of the units, with the grounds, both family developments, I did not see one piece of trash and I think it was trash day. A tampon, I walked in and I said I would eat off this floor. It was spotless, it was shining, it smelled good. I just felt it was necessary to make a comment that Jeff and his team, it was great. The maintenance guys were friendly, they were personal, they answered all our questions, they were talking with staff. And they clearly care for their job, which I think is a testament to the administration here. And I hope the rest of you get a little tour, because I was very impressed. That's all I had to say.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: And we had only scheduled that maybe a day in advance.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I didn't give you any heads up. I just said, hey, how's Thursday?
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: Madam Chairman, if I may, it's funny you brought that up, because I was still going to bring it up. We take a tour. Jim, I don't know that you'd be available at all. I'm available to take a tour. I don't know whether you've been through tamponio, welding.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: We've had discussions about taking a tour, Jim and I. Oh, we've done it?
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: No, we've had a discussion about trying to get a tour.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: I'd like to be involved in that.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: So if it's in the planning stage, I'd like to be involved in that.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Right, because I've heard you express your concerns about specific developments and things. I was just blown away, and I'm not trying to be like, you know, crazy with my wording. I truly was. I mean, for an agency this size, and it's a very large agency, I mean, usually you see units that are not in great condition. You see turnovers that take forever, and that's just not the case here.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: And you get to go into units.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Right. Correct. Right.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: I think, again, I wasn't here last month, unfortunately. But we all got a six-page letter, I think, from one of the tenants of Tamponi.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Right, so I'm not talking about that or that or anything.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: No, no, no. I want to bring this up anyway. And my name is in that two or three times. For you members that don't know, I've been involved for many, many years, not only with Tamponi, with all the developers. I live down the street from LaPree. So I know LaPree like the back of my hand. And Willis, I'm very familiar with it. And yes, we have good development, we have good management, okay? We have a good director, even though I don't see eye to eye with him. And I want to bring this up right now. He was out ill about a month ago. Michael, this isn't on the agenda. I'm sorry. This isn't on the agenda. You're going to have a personal attack on me. What do you mean it's not on the agenda? I can't talk?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: It's not on the agenda.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: I don't care. I can't talk? It's not an item on the agenda. Can I talk? I object to it. I don't care what you object. You're working for us.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Michael, you're criticizing me.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: And what I want to tell these members, okay, is when you were ill, I don't care what problem you have. When you were ill, and you were ill, back in the end of June with COVID, okay? And all I did is I called the director of modernization. I called the director of modernization to just ask him, I just asked him. if the fencer tamponi belonged to us. That's all I was going to ask them. The next day or that night, I got a call from you. You tell your subordinates not to talk to the commissioners. I know that for a fact. Thank you very much and I'm sorry.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Madam Chair, can I just respond to that?
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: No, I don't want you to respond. Oh, so you get to talk and I don't? No, you don't. No.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: You brought a point and it's fair he's right here he's not absent so therefore he should respond to whatever it is that you brought up against you know that will sit against him.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: My staff because of a history of interference by external influences are told that if they get a call from a commissioner or if they get a call from a politician, it's to go through me. And that isn't to prevent anyone in this room from speaking to my staff, but that's to protect my staff. And the individual that you called was very concerned that they had done something wrong, that a commissioner was calling them. And let me finish. Let me finish. I had had COVID, but I was here. I not only return that call then, but I return the call afterwards. And what I have a problem with is when you threaten me through some of my employees and things that you say to my employees that you're going to take punitive action against me. Now, I'm not going to continue with that. I'm not going to continue with that.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: Who said that that I threatened? You threatened me.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: No, no.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: You threatened me. You finish and then I want to pick it up. You done? I'm done. Okay. All I did, Madam Chairman, all I did, I called and asked for Gabe Ciccarelli, he's the director of modernization, a question, whether the fence and tamponi belong to us or to the contractor. That's all I said. About maybe a few hours later, I get a call from the director. Can I help you? I know what it was all about. That's all I asked Gabe Ciccarelli. I didn't ask him anything. What's this punitive? What are you talking about?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: The punitive is with me. But you did place a phone call to Gabe and you left a message that you told your boss on me. That I may have said, yes. That's one thing. And then you did mention that you wanted to take punitive action against me, get two other commissioners to vote for you with punitive action against me. And you told, I'm not going to say who it was, but you told another employee that.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: All right.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I'd like to sit down and talk with you after the meeting. Don't point your finger at me, Michael. Don't point your finger at me. Let's move on. Let's move on. I'd like to talk to you after the meeting. I responded to you. The answer was that that's our offense and that we actually had it surveyed. Yeah, I know you did. And I would have told you that we spent $2,500. I know you did. And I would have told you there was a high likelihood that you signed the check for that company. All right.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Conversation, we need to move on, please. Thank you. Executive session. Thank you.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Director, I'm sorry, report. We hired, and I apologize for this going on, for my role in it.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: I apologize too.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: We hired Sandra Rauniger as our resident services supervisor. Sandra is doing an excellent job. She, Jennifer, And Karen DeJoy and I met with some residents at Tampone. Sandra is hopefully going to begin instituting some new programs with our residents. And we look forward to that coming to fruition. The relocation of Saltonstall residents has begun. I was at Tampone the other day and I saw a resident that I recognized and I first thought was, boy, they're out of place here because they live at Saltonstall. Then I realized that she was one of the first to be relocated. Right now we're looking to relocate the folks on the 11th, 10th, and ninth floors. We have had some success with the residents utilizing Section 8 vouchers. I'm reading my own notes. You want to look at my notes? It wouldn't make any sense to you. Show Jim, he'll tell you.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: What was the girl's name? I was just going to write it down.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Who you hired? Sandra Reiniger. Sandra was our contracted FSS coordinator and she's now become an employee and now she's basically under the supervision of Jennifer directing the department. She's very strong, been working with us. The FSS program, there's 600 in the nation, and there were six of them who were ranked number one in the country. We were one of those six, and it's because of Sandra's work. What Sandra has agreed to do is to increase, and Michael saw, as far as the ability to do this, but increase our FSS allotment from 40 residents and participants, Section 8 participants, participating in that program to 60. And so we're going to look to do ten, hopefully within the next year, and then ten more on that. I was, Kayleen jumped in front of me there. That's okay, Kayleen. The tour of the sites, I was able to take Kayleen. And Lowe's are around. They did meet with the staff. They did get to go into at least one unit, if not more, I don't remember.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: A couple. Yeah, Willis and Tempo.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Yeah, bless you. Thank you very much. I did show them, if you look outside the window, I did show them the parking lot that is presently under an expired lease with the Department of Transportation that we're working and negotiating with to try to have them renew the lease that expired in 2006. It's necessary for purposes of the construction, actually the financing for this building. And that's moving forward very well. We continue to work on a number of legal matters beyond those dealing with the relocation. One of them involving the relocation is the contract that we're negotiating with Dietz Architectural Firm out of Springfield. It's a woman-owned business. Cambridge has used them in the past, speaks very highly of them. So we're just, like I said, right now we're at a point where we're looking to finalize the negotiations. more difficult than usual because this is a site that DHCD is still involved in. They recognize that the majority of the work will be done when they have no formal role in it, so that we're able to negotiate something that is actually going to be lower than what DHCD would have allowed us to pay as far as the architectural fee. So I'll report back to the board the success that we have. As I was just beginning to say also, we have a number of legal matters. I believe on the next day that court is in session in Somerville District Court for summary processes, September 4, I believe. And I believe right now there are eight cases on for that day. Half of them, approximately half of them are non-payment. The other half are for cause evictions. So we'll be proceeding forward on that. If you look at the reports that we have, beginning on page 18, you'll see that we have 919 vouchers that are under lease at this point. We've issued, we're attempting to issue another 25. We contacted I think we contacted in the vicinity of close to 100 individuals to come in to lease up with us, or excuse me, to have a voucher issued so they could go out and lease up. We're looking to try to get more participation in that program. You've got a report here in resident services, June and July, on page 19. You've got Gabe's ongoing report on page 20. Gabe gave you an update of the comprehensive modernization of soft install as far as where we are at that point. We just had a newsletter printed and we'll distribute that to the board. We'll probably email that to each one of you. That deals with the soft install modernization and on 22, the modernization at Wofford Court. We had tentatively planned to have a resident meeting in the month of August because of the delay in the contract negotiations. That's probably more likely going to be in September. Our date of closing on that with mass development was November of 2023. It looks like, realistically, in discussing with the architect, that'll be more like April or May of 2024. Madam Chair, unless there are any questions, that's all I have right now.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: I do have a question. In the vacancy reports, we're not including any vacancy that is open for relocation? No.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: That's a good question, because I was thinking that. Thank you. I was confused.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Right, that's the reason why I had to ask that as well. Thank you for clarifying.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Is there any? Yeah. Can I ask a question that pertains to the development but doesn't pertain to the report? Sure. So is the applications to get a residency for the environment, that's still closed? Yes. Is there an idea of when you would think you would? Is there something that you're waiting to hit a certain milestone to be able to start taking applications again for residence?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: It depends on how long it will be. Quite honestly, I wish I could give you a June 1st, 2023 date, but I can't. Because at this point, we stopped taking, we stopped filling vacancies as of January 1. Prior to that, though, the only wait list that was open was Walkling Court. And so we weren't accepting them for federal because it was so long. The anticipation is that going forward, we're still going to need to have vacancies because we're looking to get 70 vacancies at this point so that we can move three floors plus out of this building or within this building. We have 42 vacancies on the average every year. I haven't looked at the last report, but we were in the vicinity of about 32 right now that we've got. So realistically, at least another 30 we need before they begin construction and after the first of the year. So we won't be filling any units. We haven't sent anyone to Walkley Court yet because that's a state site. But at some point in time, Paul, we're going to be in a position where we're going to be looking to take at least a third of the units at Walkley Court offline. And so those folks will then have to be transferred to federal units. They'll have to get authorization to be able to do that. If we get the 60th unit from here in June of next year, it doesn't make sense to open the wait list because shortly thereafter, less than 12 months from then, we're going to be looking to relocate the Whatling Court folks.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah. So with all the movement we have going on, it's just not really
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: At this point, no. You're talking about having the empty units so you can utilize them to move people around. Exactly. And I say about the 42 units, that's on the average that we have over the last few years. I don't know where we are at this point, almost three quarters of the year through. But again, if for some reason that date of April of 24 is pushed out a little bit, There might be a window there. I'd be lying to you, though, if I thought that that'll come to fruition. Now, the Section 8 wait list is open, and someone can apply for that. But the public housing wait list, even if we opened it, the reality of someone getting a unit is slim to nil. And I have a problem when someone applies and we have to say to them, well, you've got a six-year wait. Yeah, we're giving somebody hope that they're going to get a unit, and you know I applied and quite frankly, and I think Kayleen has experienced this, people will call weekly to find out where they are on the wait list. Where am I? Where am I?
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: So these two vacancies are at family sites?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: More than likely.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: And the family site wait lists are closed as well? Yes. So you don't have separate wait lists for the different- The federal list is closed. We don't have a separate list for the pre and- One, two, three, or four bedrooms or anything like that?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Yeah, we do. We do have separate lists for that, but those are closed.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, because I'm sure there's a list for elderly housing, right?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: There's a list for- Yes, yes, but by bedroom size too, by bedroom size. I don't have the breakdown of that, but there's 6,000 people on the wait list, 6,000 applications. Now, some of those might be, I believe, duplicate. There's 6,000.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: And now, are the people who are eligible to apply for housing, to get housing in Medford Housing, are they current Medford residents?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: They get a preference. Anyone can apply, but a Medford resident or someone who works in Medford gets a preference.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Now, with the big push for like, even federally, the big push for like low-income housing and more housing for low-income and so on, would the size of the old list be able to determine whether you're eligible for like some type of grant or maybe the state gives you some type of land to actually build and like add on to your development or something like that? Is there any type of resources you can get?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I would love that to be the case but what we're doing here to answer that question what we're doing here is we're proposing increasing the number of units here from 200 to 222. And the way that we're doing that is we're taking some of the community space away on the floors and we're decreasing. We have more of a need for one bedrooms than two bedrooms. We're decreasing the number of two-bedroom units and making those one-bedroom units. So that's an additional 22 units here. At Walkland Court, we're looking to increase from 144. to 198 elderly handicapped, plus a number 40, an additional 40 units of family. So there's, we can calculate that out, almost 100 additional units. But once this building closes, we go from the Housing Authority owning this to the Housing Authority's LLC owning this. And so in doing that, we get 200 more public housing units on paper. where we can then look for property to develop, or we could look for property to acquire, and we could get that subsidy that you're talking about for those 200. Now, on paper, the Housing Authority already has 83, so we have 283 subsidies to be able to utilize. Some of that 283 will be used to fund the new units at Walkland Court, at 100 or so. We'll go through that. The other units will be dealt with differently at that site.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Now, would it be unprofessional of the board to try to start looking into different policies or different things we can do to grow the size of the housing garden before you have that type? that those on paper, or can we be proactive in something like that? We had the discussion about, and forgive me, I don't know the names of the development yet, I'm still struggling with that, but the one on the Fellsway. Already building. We talked a while ago about that, about how this needs to be some type of, sorry, some type of, maybe there's something to do with that. Couldn't you somehow look into maybe, you know, The housing authority is selling that to a developer, and the developer bringing back X amount of affordable housing units through that and then being able to, you know, with them being, say, they can go five, six stories up and they can build on that whole block and they can get a few hundred units in there. We say, well, 30% of them are going to be, you know, affordable and, you know, X amount are going to come back to the housing authority. You work something like that where you can try to add to the affordable housing in the city. through all the support for the residents themselves and kind of help the housing authority. Or just take the money and put it in your pocket and use it for something else.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: The master plan.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Paul, I love these questions. They make me smile.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Do you want to address that? No, I just think this is wonderful that as a person... On the construction basis of it, that's where my mentality goes. I see all these different developers buying up different properties and different things, right? And even like, I grew up in Charlestown housing, Charlestown projects, right? And I know there's a... Right now, on Barney Hill projects, there's a huge master plan over there to eliminate the entire development and build high-rises. The residents who are in good standing are going to get units in there, and then the developer gets to sell the rest. It's conflicted over there in the community and stuff like that. Some people like it, some people don't. I think it's a good idea, but I think there's certain ways to make money and build your affordable housing for people that actually deserve to have affordable housing. So it's just something that was kind of stuck on in my head.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: You're pretty much spot on. I wanted to ask the question. You're pretty much spot on. The issue there is that the federal government won't really give us a whole heck of a lot more, but we have assets and resources that we can use. With the redevelopment of this site in the planning stage, we have used the expression master plan. We have a master plan for another building possibly in the back of 88 units. We're at a point now where we're looking at zoning for this building. because there may need to be zoning changes. We're taking into consideration that there might be the ability to cite something there, and so that the two of you who are involved in contracting would understand. There may be some sort of variance we need for an access roadway going into that. We're looking to try to plan that. I mentioned about the DOT negotiations. In order to do that, we have identified not only the possible that we had under lease and renewing that, but also the possibility of negotiating beyond that so that we'll have adequate space to have additional parking for a new sighted building. One of the things that I thought of is that there's basically two developments that we have, other than WalkLink, but two developments on the federal side that aren't as accessible as the others, one being the building that you're talking about and one being Canal Street. so that there is a possibility that both of those could be valuable assets for us in not only giving us those additional subsidies to put into that type of a building, but also some income to use to build something there. The preliminary thought was 88 units, which would be a podium parking on the bottom. and going up possibly four or five floors above that, so either be a five or a six story building. But using the inadequate facilities that we have now, or I shouldn't say inadequate, but those facilities that are not as amenable to individuals who have a disability as this building is and certainly will be. So you're spot on as far as that, and we would look to use the paper That we would get from that, what do I mean by that? Because on paper, we would have another 30 or 40 units that we would be able to use to put into an 88 unit building. And then we also have the ability through our own Section 8 program, which has almost 1,000 vouchers, to be able to put vouchers in there. That's the real thing. The asset that we have is that we have the subsidy. You know, contractors and investors can go out and see a building and buy it. The issue is, how are you going to sustain your note for that building? And that's where we're different than everyone else, because we have the ability to access the subsidy, like you said, the federal government. Well, they're not going to give us anything more than what we already have, but we're in a very, very unique situation by having the ability to have 283 subsidies that we could utilize on paper.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: I don't know if we make a motion or something, it doesn't have to be now, but maybe, you know, If you think it's proactive and it's something we could or should be doing, maybe as a group we get together and kind of just put our heads together on maybe what would be the best vision for the housing authority going forward when it comes to some type of even development or adding units or.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: That's certainly something that we will discuss going forward. Right now, the capacity that we have is somewhat limited to be able to take a third lodge project on, but I would anticipate once this is beginning and we're having that transition, and the only capacity limitation there is is the fact that we don't physically have the ability to take more residents and relocate them at this point in time, and that's what's going to slow us down. And we're still interested in, and we are once, again, once this building is in construction and out of design, we have a needs assessment that is ongoing at LaPree Village. You know, that's a site that certainly needs some renovation. And so, and that's a beautiful site. It's 11 and a half, almost 12 acres. So a lot of opportunity at that site and those buildings, they demand a lot of attention. Losa knows that, right Losa? Yeah, so but that's great. Kayleen was applauding you. Not only applauding you as a commissioner, I think she was applauding you as a housing professional.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: He's not moving to Lexington though, I know. But what we're doing here, what Medford is doing here with the repositioning and moving things around and changing funding streams is totally opening the doors to other ways of leveraging money and taking more, right? So these things that we're doing now are definitely opening the door for way more possibilities. Yeah, it's great.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: It really is great. So it's very good forward thinking. Thank you.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Thank you. Are you done?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Yes, I am. Are you done?
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Yes, please.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I'll second that.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: All in favor. Aye. Aye.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: I know I already closed the report, but what does FSS stand for?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Family self-sufficiency. And that's where the residents or the Section 8 participants will sign a contract with us to meet goals that may be related to employment, it may be related to education, and a portion of the rent is saved each month and put into an escrow account.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: When they receive it, they receive a check at the end.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: I think I've probably asked that question three times already. I'll ask it again. Hopefully, I give you the same answer.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: New business, please. Move along. Resolution number 2022-041. Consideration of request of the executive director to amend the reasonable accommodation policy. Jeff.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Yes. Madam Chair, I would ask that the motion be to approve the reasonable accommodation policy. It's not simply an amendment of it. DHCD had sent to us some language that they wanted incorporated into the policy. Jennifer and staff have, in essence, amended the policy that we had. We don't have a date as far as when that original policy was put forth, so I'd like for the board to recognize this as the policy that's in compliance both with what we had in the previous policy and what DHCD's required language was to incorporate in to this.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I'll make the motion to approve the Medford Housing Authority Reasonable Accommodation Policy. All in favor?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Thank you. I'm sorry.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: We've got a discussion on the language.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: B, resolution number 2022-042, consideration of request of the executive director to amend the admission and continued occupancy, ACOP.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: When I got here in 2017, the ACOP, as we call it, Admissions and Occupancy Policy, which is on the federal side. On the state side, we follow the regulations. But on the federal side, we have this policy that interprets the regulations for staff. And when I got here, it was probably, I'm going to guess, in, say, 50 pages long, maybe half inch. And we brought in a company about three months after I was here, and they rewrote our ACOP. And you'll see the reference here that Jennifer has put in this, 24 Code of Federal Regulations 966.4, and where it is within the ACOP. That ACOP now is four inches thick. Four inches thick. I don't know very many housing authorities that don't have something like that. And so basically what it is, is it's a rule book for us, for the staff to follow its procedures. But it is in a format of a policy, so that's why we bring it to the board. And you'll see that, I think the revisions are pretty self-explanatory. How we have individuals who, when they're on the transfer list for a smaller apartment, and the apartment comes up, They're in a three bedroom family unit, and we want to put them in a one bedroom unit, and they're the only one that's in it. And they all of a sudden have an additional household members and say, well, I need a three now. And oftentimes, those individuals are not added. If they're added to the lease, they don't end up being actual members of the household. So this would prevent that. And it also would prevent multiple families from living in a unit who then at some point in time later on will request a transfer. Back to what Paul had mentioned a few minutes ago, is the difficulty there is it limits our ability to provide housing to people. Because if they transfer, there's an ability for them to transfer before otherwise sitting on the wait list for six years. If it's a second family, if you may. And so we don't routinely separate families and provide one family with two subsidies. And that's what would happen if we did that. If they were a 21-year-old girl who has a baby, she now wants her own unit. She has to go through the application process, not a transfer. So this will reinforce that. She won't be moved out of her unit, but she would not be offered a separate unit unless she came up on the list.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I don't know if I'm just reading them wrong. I don't understand really what the difference is between the previously and the new. Households may not add a new member if they've been notified they're at the top of the transfer list unless the addition would not change bedroom size.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: That was what was previously on there. And the new is what was being replaced.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: I know, but how's it different?
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: It doesn't reference the list, right? Is that all it is?
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: Adam Chairman, if I may. How many people are living in apartments that shouldn't be there? In other words, an apartment is rented to a senior at Walking Court or any one of the senior developments and they have people living in there with them. They're not supposed to be living in there with them.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: How many?
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: I don't have an answer to that. That's not happening in any of our developments.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I didn't say that. You asked me if I knew how many, and I said I don't have an answer to that.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: You don't have an answer. No. There aren't any people living in apartments that shouldn't be there.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I didn't say that.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I think it would be hard for him to give you a number, because if they're not authorized, then why would the office know about it? He could probably say like 10, but it could be like 20.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: It could be 50. It could be 50.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: And there's no way of us finding out if that's happening?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I can tell you that right now. I have a number of families under eviction because of that. Thank you. But beyond that, When we find out that there are unauthorized occupants, we begin a process to evict them. The pandemic itself made it difficult in a number of instances. So it is happening? Oh, it does, yes.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: For sure, it happens everywhere.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: So when we find out, or when you find out, you move for an eviction?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: We attempt to. We build a case first.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Does somebody complain, the nominee of a complaint or something, and then you investigate?
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Yes. I'm sure some scenarios are more egregious than others. I'm sure you'll see them. And then some, you probably have a kid that might come and stay with the mother for a month, and then go somewhere, and then maybe whatever comes back here or there or something like that. But it'd be hard to, I'm sure it'd be hard to keep track of the number of people that are doing it, I'm sure.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: We work very closely with the police. We have increased security surveillance. at our sites and we utilize a number of resources.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: I have a grandmother on one bed and three uncles living in it. My family can't trust me.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: And I think Kaylene would agree with me, it's very, very difficult not only to ferret out that information but then to proceed forward.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, it's impossible.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: But you know the board has to be aware that in some instances We're in the process of, or we may be in the process of evicting folks who the board may be very sympathetic to. But the fact of the matter is that we don't evict anyone overnight. And folks are given an opportunity to address it, and in some cases they do, in some cases they don't. We're in the business to house people, not throw people out, but sometimes that's the only alternative that we have.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: One more question, Madam Chairman, if I may. We have a no smoking policy, and if a person is worn once, twice, three times, what happens?
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: So I'm sure it's similar. It's all about building a case, I would assume. Is that right?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: It is. It is. And there are instances where individuals have a lack of capacity because of mental illness. or because of age and we will attempt to get individual services. The process is though that once they and the board approve this policy, it's basically a four-step policy and that is it's not like any other breach of the lease where we can begin a process immediately. The four-step process is that the manager meets with the resident if they're smoking within 25 feet of the building which includes their unit and If they don't heed the warnings of the manager, then the second contact is made between the manager and the resident. And we have what's called a pre-termination conference, which spells out again the responsibilities of the individual. And in both instances, they're given information in order to stop smoking cessation programs. If they continue, We go into court, and we enter into what's called an agreement for judgment, which is very similar to the second stage, except that it becomes a court order, and it can be enforced. And when they breach that, through this process, we attempt to get them to, in particular with our elderly folk, to get services. And if they breach that, then a motion is filed, and we go into court. That is an elongated process. And in particular, from the time that we enter into the agreement for judgment and the time that we actually end up evicting someone could be an extensive period of time because we have some elderly folk who have been smoking for 70 years. and it's difficult for them to stop.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Madam Chairman, I know Kaylene had a question that still hasn't been answered. Can we stay on that question? I was just asking.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I couldn't tell the difference.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: I was going right back to her. I was going right back to her as well because I have a similar question to hers. No, it's quite all right.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: I'll let you take a minute.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: So my question is they're both saying that you can't add a household member so that you don't have to move. They're both saying that.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: It does not say that they have to be on the... Right, but in this instance the new one is dealing with extended families and multiple households. Okay. I see that as the difference.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: And there's no situation in which this would, like if somebody was having a child, like a media family member, like nothing, right?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: No, no, no, no, that wouldn't be, if that individual was not Extended families are multiple households. The extended families would be where we have an issue is with the uncles and the aunts and cousins and things such as that. One of our evictions right now is based upon unauthorized individuals at a unit, one of our family units. And the individual should have been downsized, but we didn't have the appropriate unit to provide to the individual. And then we ended up having an incident in that unit that brought our attention to the fact that there were unauthorized occupants there. So in answer to Michael's question, that's actually one of the cases that we have going forward right now. And I'm in court for the third or fourth time on that matter right now.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: To that, I want to ask, so say, for instance, if a mother has a teenage child who ends up having a baby, that wouldn't be the case. That's what I want to do. Yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you, though. The baby has to get his own apartment. The baby has to get his own apartment. Thank you.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I think you were saying that in jest. I was, yeah.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: So in the current scenario, if you have a family, if you have a mother and a daughter who is legally, an adult daughter, say 21 years old, who's living in the unit legally, if she gets pregnant and has a baby, as it currently states right now, she's entitled to get a unit.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: She would have to apply. She would have to apply. She would have to apply. And get on the list. Right, but in the meantime, if... She would get a preference for being a resident, correct? Right, but she would get a preference whether she was a public housing resident or not, just a resident of Medford. Yes. But if that caused the present unit that they're in to be overcrowded, then they would be eligible for transfer to a larger unit.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Like if the three of them wanted to stay together, they could go to a three-bedroom.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Okay. And that's still a scenario in this? Yeah.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Oh yeah, definitely. All right. Definitely.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah. What if the mother became pregnant? Same thing.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Same thing. I guess they're going to a four-bedroom.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: All right, let's move along, please.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Too much conversation.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 2022-42. All in favor?
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Aye. Thank you. All right. Resolution C. Resolution number 2022-043, consideration of request by Executive Director to approve small area fair market rents.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: In November of 2016, HUD processed a rule which expanded the use of a small area fair market rents, which set voucher amounts in neighborhoods rather than at the metro level. So that, for example, we in Medford, when they determine our fair market rents, it's done in the Boston metropolitan area. And so that by letting vouchers pay more in high rent neighborhoods and less in low rent neighborhoods, we're actually providing a greater assistance to our Section 8 participants. This has come forward at this point because of the the units that, the repositioning of units here and at Walkling. This will help us immensely and is affordable according to both Michael Ian and Teresa Ewald, our accountant. This is something that we would be able to not only help as far as the repositioning, but also possibly increase the number of vouchers that we have in Medford. Right now we have just under 40% of our vouchers are utilized in Medford, and that's in many cases based upon the fact that folks can't find affordable units. that fall under the FMR. So if we can raise that FMR, we might be able to help out more folks and have them stay in Medford. One of the reasons why we don't always have success with vouchers is because, in Medford, is because folks can't find that. They're reluctant to move out of the community because the kids are in school here. And sometimes they just give it up and they live in a situation that may not be as beneficial to them as they would if they were able to use our vouchers.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: We didn't get the small area, which is fine, but is this the same sheet or chart that Boston developed? It says all the different towns and neighborhoods in Boston, or is there a specific small FMR for Medford?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: We have to use it across. We can't just use it for the units that are in Medford. It's my understanding we have to use it across.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Right, but the FMR for Newton will be way higher than, I don't know, Dorchester or something.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Yeah, it's based on a zip code. It's based on a zip code. And actually, unfair question, but do you all know how many zip codes there are in Medford? What?
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Two.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I think there's two. Two? Five, six. Five, six.
[6zUtu0XZLH4_SPEAKER_05]: Who hit that? I thought it was five, four.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Is it five, four? I thought it was five, six.
[6zUtu0XZLH4_SPEAKER_05]: Could be five, four.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: What's meant for post office was five, six. Post office box. Post office boxes here in Medford are the different zip code. That's what I'm told. Otherwise it's five, five. It's either five, four or five, six. That's what I'm told.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: Google it.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Let's go. So the advantage here, like I said, it may open up more opportunities for people who live in Medford and it'll certainly help the housing authority with the FMRs for any of our repositioning efforts.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: So what's the FMR in Medford now then?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I'm sorry?
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: What's the FMR in Medford?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I don't know what the difference is. As far as the actual amount? Yeah. Good question. I can certainly get that for the next case.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: All right, can I get a motion to accept if no one has any? Do you want?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: I don't think you need to do that, and I really do want to try to move forward because we're trying to get the financing in place so that this will impact our numbers. I can tell you that regardless of whether it's $100 more or $20 more, Both Michael and Teresa indicated that it's certainly well within the authority and the reserve we have on the Section 8 side to pay for this.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: Oh, okay. The reserve?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: It's a hot-held reserve. It's different than what you see there. Okay.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I'll make the motion. Yeah, so like if you want to look at this chart.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: There you go. Thanks, Kaylee.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: You second it?
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: No, I haven't got a second yet.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: So go down to 02-155. Jim.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Thank you, Jim. All in favor? Aye.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Aye.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Aye. I have nothing to report for D, so just.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Can I give you something? I know we talked about it just briefly. Yeah. And I think if you look on page, some correspondence from Gabe. I think the very end.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Of your report? Yeah, on page 22, the first bullet.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Right. The authority submitted an eligibility determination for the Community Preservation Committee. Remember, you and I had spoken about this for CPA funding for Walkman Court. The submission is requesting $2.4 million from the Community Preservation Committee over a three-year period. The eligibility determination form, if it's approved, we will submit a full application to the Community Preservation Committee by September 30th of 22. So we're looking for $800,000 for a period of three years each for a walkway court as the city's contribution toward that. They've already provided us $350,000 in monies for the pre-development costs, along with Monies that we got from DHCD, the $15 million that we got from DHCD, $1 million of that is for pre-development costs. So that should, our estimated expense there for that was between $1.1 to $1.2 million. So we should be able to go forward with our expenses there. Yeah. Thanks, Melissa. You're welcome. For your assistance with getting that.
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: So one bedroom right now is $1986 and this will bring it up to $2220. So what's that? So we're going from 1986, this is for a one bedroom, 1986 to $2220.
[Unidentified]: So like $200, right? $230?
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: okay guys
[Unidentified]: We have to move to a decorative session to discuss so can I get a motion to
[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I didn't see the second page of this agenda. I was ready to make a motion to adjourn. I know.
[MCM00001408_SPEAKER_03]: I know. Madam Chairman, where are we right now? Eight. Executive session? Yeah. We are about to move on.
[cWHRmg4nTSM_SPEAKER_09]: She wants a motion to go into executive session. Did somebody make a motion? I'll make the motion to go into executive session. I'll second it.
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: For what purpose?
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: To discuss security. And we should adjourn from executive session, no? And we will not return. We will not return.
[6zUtu0XZLH4_SPEAKER_05]: Can we get a roll call vote?
[Jeffrey Driscoll]: Yes, roll call. Commissioner Genvieve? Yes. Commissioner Foley? Yes. Commissioner Herlin? Yes. Commissioner Liston? Yes. Commissioner Uwana? Yes.