[Zac Bears]: 梅德福市议会全体委员会会议将于 2026 年 8 月 4 日开始。 我们只是等待技术赶上来。 一切都好。 秘书先生，请打电话。
[Rich Eliseo]: 议员卡拉汉。 莱明议员？ 礼物。 穆兰议员？ 礼物。 议员斯卡佩利？ 礼物。 曾参赞？ 礼物。 副总统拉萨罗？ 礼物。 还有熊总统？
[Zac Bears]: 出席，七人出席，无一人缺席。 会议宣布开幕。 就贝尔斯总统决议中提出的第 26134 项采取行动和讨论，以听取有关经济适用住房联系研究报告的介绍。 梅德福市议会决定邀请规划、发展和可持续发展办公室提交经济适用房联系研究报告的调查结果草案。 这里有凯瑟琳·白金汉 (Catherine Buckingham)，她是该市的住房规划师，我会把电话转给她。
[Katherine Buckingham]: 好吧，欢迎。 是的，我是凯瑟琳·白金汉，住宅规划师。 我只是想向大家介绍一下我们有关于保障性住房联动研究的报告。 今天与我们在一起的有 Carl F. Seidman 咨询服务公司的 Carl Seidman。 他是进行这项经济分析的人。 其目的是在非住宅开发与经济适用住房需求之间建立合理的联系。 我想事不宜迟，我会将其交给他，他可以引导您完成演示。 他准备解释我们在报告草稿中的内容。
[SPEAKER_00]: Great. Thank you, Catherine, and to the chair and members of the council. I'm pleased to be here and present the overview of the analysis we did. So let me share my screen and put the slide deck up here. Great. So let me just say, there's quite a bit of data and information somehow. My slides are not advancing here. Let me unmute. Looks like it's working. Yeah. Great. Okay. Sorry. So first I just want to mention I know there's a lot of data in this presentation and a lot of technical analysis. So if at any point you have questions or you need further clarification or explanation, you know, feel free to interrupt me and I'll stop and explain anything you have. So the purpose of this study is to establish a rational nexus between non-residential development in Medford and the need for affordable housing. And then also determine what is a proportional leakage fee to mitigate the impact of that development. And then lastly, to recommend appropriate fee levels for the city to implement a housing leakage fee if it chooses to do so. So the analysis we did sort of had four components. One was to forecast 10 years of development that would be subject to the linkage fee and the tenant industries and employment. That's really the foundation for the rational nexus. It's that development and employment growth that's going to generate demand for affordable housing. So based on that projection, we then estimated the impact of these new jobs on the demand for affordable housing. The next step was to calculate the funding gap to build that housing to meet demand and from that funding gap, what would be a minimum and alternative linkage fees that the city could implement. And then lastly, before making recommendations, I analyzed the impact of different fee options on Medford's economic competitiveness because the city wants to, you know, be cognizant of not establishing a fee so large that it might deter future development in the city. So the foundation for this, sorry about that, the foundation for this was market conditions in the city and the region. So this is a very high level overview of sort of the market conditions that informed our thinking about future development. First, in terms of the office market, as I think everyone's aware, the impact of the pandemic has really changed demand for office space with the growth of hybrid work and remote work. So there's been declining demand for office space and there's currently now over 45 million square feet, almost 24% of office space in the region is vacant and available for lease. And net absorption was slightly positive in 2025, but that's following very steep negative absorption, which is sort of the vacating of office space of millions of square feet in the last few years. The lab market is even in worse shape. There was a lot of overbuilding of lab space, you know, when demand was very high after the pandemic. So currently there's 34% of available lab space, almost 20 million square feet. And that's an increase of over 405 million just in 2025. So there's still speculative lab buildings that are still coming online and not being occupied. And this supply, you know, is sufficient to meet demand for 8 to 10 years if we even reach the peak absorption we hit from 2019 to 2023. So it's a very tough lab market and you probably are aware of that too for some of the lab projects that were proposed in Medford and have been canceled. The industrial market is healthier. The availability rate is a little over 12%. There's been positive net absorption in sort of the inner, the urban market, which Medford is part of. And one of the areas where we're seeing increased demand is for small flex R&D space to serve the growing advanced high-tech manufacturing firms in the region. And that's reflected, you'll see in a minute, on some of the projects that have been proposed in Medford. So the other thing we looked at in projecting future development is what is the current pipeline of projects in the city. And this lists those five projects that represent a little over 314,000 square feet of space. You know, two of them, two retail projects are already under construction. The two industrial projects, you know, both of which are serving some of that R&D market that I talked about, have been approved and are likely to go into development over the next 10 years. And lastly, there's a, 16,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space that's been proposed as part of the transom development on the city-owned lots in Medford Square. So the other part of our analysis was actually speaking to real estate developers active in Medford and real estate brokers to get their perspective and better understand their plans. So, you know, this slide kind of summarizes what we learned from that, which reinforced what the market data has told us, you know, very tough market for office space and lab space and developers. don't plan to nor do they expect to see new office or lab development over the next five to ten years. And they also noted the cost of construction and interest rates making projects harder to pencil out. The positive side for Medford is there's a very strong retail market, a lot of tenant demand for retail space in the city, and developers generally felt the strongest development opportunities were in mixed-use residential development and in hotel projects. And they also noted, as I said, this demand for industrial space for high-tech manufacturing. You know, the advantages they pointed out for Medford are its location, the ease of the commute. It has higher population density and higher income than some of the surrounding suburbs that, you know, fits into the real estate market demand. And the weaknesses developers cited were the limited available sites, site conditions that might require a lot of investment to get them ready for development, and site owners who aren't always supportive of development or interested in development. So based on this market analysis, the interviews, and the current pipeline, we've forecast a little over 409,000 square feet of new development. And that really has two pieces to it. One is the existing pipeline I just mentioned of 314,000 square feet. And then we're projecting two additional projects. One is a 75,000 square foot new hotel, and that reflects a hotel developer that's developed in Medford, you know, expecting to build another hotel in the city. The likelihood that there'll be another significant mixed-use project that will bring another 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail space, and we're projecting about 12,000 of that would be for restaurants and 8,000 of that. would be for retail stores. So this table kind of breaks down that development by different uses, which then we translated into specific industries and employment, which is the next slide. So here we provided more detail of the likely industries to occupy that development. Some of these industries were directly tied to the use, like a hotel and a grocery store and auto dealer. For the industrial projects, we sort of relied on the developer's expectations of what type of industries would occupy that space. you know, they indicated a mix, not just of manufacturing firms, but of some e-commerce firms, some contractors. And then for the retail space, we assume some mix of personal service businesses, medical offices, which reflects the type of uses we're seeing in a lot of ground floor development in the city. So overall, this resulted in a projection of 640 seven new jobs from that, you know, 400,000 square feet of new development. And we relied on, you know, data on the typical number of square feet per employee for various uses, as well as information from some of the developers as to what they expected to be the employment level. So our next step with these 647 jobs was to estimate how much demand for affordable housing would would be generated by that new development and employment. And we're projecting 31 new residential units would be necessary for people at low and moderate income levels. And this was based on a survey we did of employees to ask them whether they moved to Medford as a result of their job here or whether they looked for housing and didn't move because of the cost. And that indicated we had a little less than 10% of employees who were likely to move or demand housing in Medford. And then we also applied the occupations and earnings from the jobs, you know, we forecasted in different industries to figure out whether these, you know, workers and their households would be low or moderate income. So that's how we ended up with those 31. The 18 low income units we're assuming will all be rental housing, and the 13 moderate income units we're assuming will all be ownership housing. And that sort of reflects the city's policy of trying to promote affordable ownership as well as rental housing. So the next step was figuring out what subsidy would be needed, what we call the financing gap that would be needed to build these 30 million units of affordable housing. And then what we call the maximum warranted linkage fee. So that represents the total subsidy needed to build the affordable housing divided by the projected square feet of new residential development. And the subsidy was calculated a little differently for rental housing versus ownership housing. For rental housing, we took the total development costs, or TDC, to develop those housing units. And then we subtracted the amount that could be financed based on the occupants paying 30% of their rental. of their income towards rent and then making an adjustment for vacancy and operating costs. And the resulting, you know, funding could potentially provide some financing. For ownership subsidy, it was the total development cost minus the proceeds from the sale of the unit. And we based the sales price on the buyers providing 30% of their income for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance, and providing a 4% down payment, which is what a number of affordable housing projects or programs are based on. So some of the key assumptions we had to figure out, what will it cost to build an affordable housing unit in Medford? And the figure we came up with is just shy of $595,000. And this was based on, you know, primarily data we got from developers who have recently built in the city. So we've assumed acquisition at 75% a unit, $75,000 per unit, construction costs at $350 per square foot, and then the soft cost contingency at 35% of construction costs. So to calculate the subsidy for the affordable rental units, we took those 18 units, multiplied them by the development cost per unit to get a total development cost of $10.7 million. The gross income of those tenants based on the estimated income they would have was 254,000, we subtracted a 3% vacancy, and then we subtracted these estimated operating costs, which were 17,600 per unit. That was data based on the Mass Housing Partnerships portfolio. And as a result of that, there was really no net operating income available to finance any of those costs. You can see there's a negative 70,420 operating income. The full development costs would have to be subsidized for these rental units to be built, and they'd probably need some additional rental income subsidy, perhaps from Section 8 vouchers, to be feasible. So the funding gap for the rental housing is $10.7 million. For the ownership units, once again, we took those 13 units, multiplied them by the development costs per unit, to get total development cost of $7.7 million. The sales proceeds was able to provide $4.2 million, so we have a funding gap for the ownership units of $3.5 million. So to calculate the total subsidy and the warranted linkage fee, we added together both of those subsidy amounts, 10.7 and 3.5, to get to $14.2 million. That's the subsidy you need to build the 31 units. We divided that by the 409,100 square feet of expected development. So we get the maximum subsidy of $34.75. So that's what you would meet the sort of proportionality test under the law for establishing a fee. You could go as high as that, and you'd fall within the legal parameters. But in reality, Many affordable housing projects get funding from federal sources, low income housing, tax credit, state programs, so usually the local share doesn't have to cover the full funding gap or subsidy needed. And this data just shows some of that information from projects in the Boston area over the last decade or so, maybe a little longer, that we've collected from studies we've done and from Mass Housing Partnership. And you can see there's a lot of variation here. but they're all considerably less than 100%. The MassOwning Partnership portfolio between 8 and 10% of local funding. Cambridge seems to have the largest share at 39% for rental units and 57% for some ownership units done in the late 2000s. So this is a factor to take into consideration when setting the fee. So the last sort of part of our analysis was how the potential fee would potentially impact development economics and Medford's competitiveness. And there isn't, you know, a one certain pathway in which Introducing a new fee will impact development economics. There are sort of three possibilities. And some of these possibilities might vary based on the particular site, the particular developer, market conditions over time. But the first possibility is the new fee leads developers to pay less for land. And therefore, the person who really will bear the brunt of the fee will be the current landowner. Rents will stay the same. Total development costs will stay the same. Just land values will go down. And that's kind of what a classical economist would tell you will happen in the marketplace over time. But that might not happen in every project. The developer may already have acquired the land. It may take time for the development and land market to adjust. So another possibility is that the developers pass on the full cost of the new fee to tenants through increased rent. And this could happen in a market where there's strong demand for real estate and limited supply, such as happened in the early 2000s with the lab market. Companies would pretty much pay anything to get space because there was such short supply. But the impact of increased rents is that Medford's rent would go up, and it might be less competitive with surrounding communities. It might get way less tenants. So that's another, that's an avenue we looked at. And lastly, developers aren't able to pass on that fee to tenants because of market conditions, and they have to absorb that fee themselves. And therefore, the development cost will increase, they'll get the same rent, and their returns and their investment will go down. And the same thing will happen for the equity investors in the project. They'll have to put more equity in. They'll get the same return because rents are the same, but their return on capital will be less. So we did some scenario analysis to look at those potential impacts. But first, we sort of compared Medford's rents for office and lab, I mean, for retail and office projects to other communities. And if you look at the table on the left, Medford's asking rents typically are higher than your surrounding communities other than Somerville. That's indicative of Medford's desirability as a location for office and retail tenants. So if a fee was passed on to tenants, it would increase your rent differential somewhat with surrounding communities, although your rents are much lower than Somerville. So you'll still be very competitive with Somerville, even if you would adopt the full $35 fee. But as you can see on the table to the right, you know, a fee of $5 or $10, you know, has a very modest impact on rents advertised over a 10-year lease. It would increase it by, you know, 1 to 2%. And that's unlikely if a tenant, you know, thinks Medford's the best location, that increase in the rents unlikely, you know, to cause them to go to another community. So the next part of the analysis was the impact of the fee on developer and equity returns. And we looked at two hypothetical real estate projects. One is a 20,000 square foot retail project, and we looked at this under two development cost scenarios because we got different estimates for what it would cost to build these projects. So we did a low cost scenario at $450 a square feet and a higher cost one at $600. And then we did a hypothetical 75,000 square foot, 150 room high quality hotel with development costs at $300. thousand dollars per room. So for the developer's return, what we did was look at what the developer's return on cost would be without a fee. And the developer's return on cost is the standard that a lot of developers use when making the decision about whether to proceed with the project. and are calculated by dividing their net rental income over the development cost. And typically in Boston Bay, a lot of projects, certainly office lab projects, are looking for a return on cost. 7% to 8% is fairly typical. So the fee increase would increase the development cost, but not the income, and therefore, they're going to reduce the developer's return on cost. And our goal was to try and keep the impact close to 25 basis points, a basis point is a hundredth of a percentage point. So the return, we're hoping the return impact is less than a quarter of a percent. So the developer is still going to be very close to their objective. their goal in terms of return on cost and the project wouldn't be deemed infeasible. For investor, we're assuming here under the investor return scenario that the investor funds the entire fee, which seems plausible because if the rental income isn't increasing, they can't borrow more money. So if they have to come up with more money to pay the fee, they're going to likely go to their equity investors. So the equity investors are increasing their investment amount. They're getting the same income. So their return on investment is going to go down. So we worked at a scenario where they initial return without the fee would be 12% or 15% and then what the impact would be of adding the fee. And our standard here was to try and have an impact of less than 50 to 75 basis points to keep the equity investor once again close to their target return and likely to proceed with an investment. So this table summarizes the results for the two retail projects. And, you know, the second column from the left shows, you know, what the cost would be with no fee. And then you can see the increase in the fee for options of $5, $10, $20, and the 34.75 maximum fee. And then, you know, what the change in the developer return on cost is and the equity investor return is, you know, for those different fee increments. And, you know, in both of these scenarios, there's really a modest impact. on developers' return on cost. If the fee is 10% or less, you're well below the 25 basis point threshold here. And for the developer, for the equity investors, you know, once you get to a $10 fee, you're getting over that sort of threshold. So this seems to indicate that keeping the fee somewhat below $10 would be needed to reduce the risk that you might chill equity investments. And then this table shows the similar results for the hotel development. And once again, the impact on developer's term returns is quite modest, even up to a $20 fee. But once you get to a $10 fee, you're potentially at the risk of undermining the investor's ability to undertake the project. So our conclusion from this analysis is you probably want a fee that's somewhere between maybe five and nine, five or $8 to minimize its impact on development and investment. So the other issue we took into consideration, we thought it's important to be aware of is what the link affordable housing and job linkage fees are in other communities in the Boston area. In this table, you can see Boston, Cambridge, Somerville established these fees some time ago. They've had them for quite a while. But more recently, we've seen Everett, Lexington, and Watertown add these fees as well. And the amount of the fee varies quite a bit. Cambridge has the highest fee at almost $38. You know, Semerville and Boston have fees that are, when you combine the housing and jobs fees, they're between $20 and $30. And then, you know, Lexington and Watertown are in this $9 to $12 range. And then Everett has the smallest fee, which ranges from $2 to $4, depending on the size of the project. Project size thresholds vary somewhat from $15,000 in Everett and Somerville up to 50,000 in Boston. And, you know, communities also have varied somewhat as to whether or not they exempt some portion of the space from the fee. So just to conclude, what are my recommendations for the city as it goes forward? We recommend you set a fee level between $5 and $8 per square foot. And you set the project size threshold at $10,000. And that's lower than other surrounding communities. consistent with what your existing policy is in terms of other linkage fees you have for infrastructure and public services. So it seems to make sense to have this fee also consistent with that. And sort of because your threshold is kind of lower than other communities, we recommend you have a lower rate for projects between 10 and 30,000 square feet. Smaller projects tend to have tighter budgets. And given that and the thresholds in other communities, we think that would be a good policy. And then we also think it's wise to offer developers other options to satisfy this requirement. They could pay cash, but if they're willing to do something that has an equal value or greater value than the cash, but takes another form that helps the city develop affordable housing, you know, that option should be in the ordinance. let the Affordable Housing Trust kind of review it and judge that. So an example of that might be if a developer has a large site and they want to donate some land to the city that could be used for affordable housing, that might be an alternative to paying the cash fee. Or if it's a developer of a mixed-use project and they want to increase the number of affordable units beyond, you know, what's required under your inclusionary zoning ordinance, you know, that might be another option. And the benefit here is the developer has more flexibility and the city might get something that will actually allow it to build affordable housing units more quickly than collecting the cash, letting that cash accumulate until it's large enough to subsidize a project. In terms of payment options, we suggest either having full payment at the sit-in occupancy date, that's similar to what Cambridge does, or allow two payments with half at the sit-in occupancy date and half one year later. The advantage to that is it lessens the financial burden on developers because at least the second fee they're not paying until they've generated some income from the project. We also recommend that you adjust the housing linkage fee annually based either on the CPI or the RS means construction cost index since development costs are going to increase over time, construction costs are going to increase over time. collect the fee and it takes a few years of fees before you're dispersing it for a project, you've gained some increased over time. And then lastly, to sort of review and reset the rate every five years based on changed market conditions. You know, right now the market conditions are not very favorable but if, you know, ten years from now, five, ten years from now, things get better, the economics might be different. You might, it might be, wise for the city to adjust the fee. So thank you. It's been a long presentation. You've been a patient audience and happy to answer any questions you may have.
[Zac Bears]: 谢谢，卡尔。 如果我们能停止屏幕共享一分钟就好了。 我们可能必须重新开始，但这是一个技术演示，我很欣赏这些细节。 我只是想要 第一个有点奠定了基础。 我们进行这次对话是因为市议会努力让州批准一项地方自治请愿书，该请愿书将允许我们支付经济适用房债券费用，对吗？
[SPEAKER_00]: 据我了解，根据地方规则请愿书，您已经拥有此权力，该权力赋予您设定现有保释率的权力？
[Zac Bears]: 然后，我很抱歉，本地规则能够根据索引进行更改，而不是，是的，好吧，很酷。 该市几十年来一直拥有这种权力，但从未使用过。
[SPEAKER_00]: 正确的。
[Zac Bears]: 一切都好。 只需再澄清几个问题，我知道议员们向我们提出了问题。 我只是想确保我做的一切都是正确的。 根据这项研究，法律允许我们在 34 岁之前做任何事情吗？是 34.75 岁吗？ 正确的。 一切都好。 而建议降低的原因大多与竞争力类型以及成本对开发商和投资者的影响有关。
[SPEAKER_00]: 正确的。
[Zac Bears]: 好的，太好了。 话虽如此，我将与莱明议员交谈。
[Matt Leming]: 是的，非常感谢。 我对这次演讲和这项研究的结果感到特别兴奋。 因此，我要感谢塞德曼先生以及塞德曼女士。 白金汉在这方面的工作。 这确实花了很长时间才发生。 我记得上学期的时候 当我编辑草稿以在现行条例中添加第五个债券组以便我们可以将资金投资于经济适用住房信托时，我们必须进行这项研究，我很高兴听到演示的结果。 我只有几个 澄清有启发性的问题，我希望你能回答。 其中之一，你知道，非常非常简单，尤其是对于旁观者而言。 因此，目前我们收取的链接费用 例如，对于任何商业开发，供水、下水道、道路、公园、警察和消防，我认为最多每 1,000 平方英尺总面积约 1,700 美元，或每平方英尺开发 1.70 美元。 该标准于 1990 年采用，此后我们几乎没有对其进行更新。 这就是为什么它特别低。 他的建议是，我们至少应该对经济适用房领域的任何新开发项目收取每平方英尺 5 美元的费用。 这是正确的吗？ 这是正确的总结吗？
[SPEAKER_00]: 好吧，这就是我的建议，是的。
[Matt Leming]: 没关系，没关系。 谢谢。 谢谢。 我就是这么想的。 我只是想确保我们做到了这一点，因为我认为重要的是要认识到我们收取的费用是多么少，以及我们在过去 30 年中通过我们的债券计划收取的费用是多么少。 您是第一个真正对此进行经济分析并建议我们至少收费的人 我们对经济适用房的收费比现在对任何其他计划的收费高出三倍。 这就是为什么我认为公众必须认识到，在过去的几十年里，我们实际上还剩下多少钱。 所以谢谢你。 另一个技术性更强的问题是，当前的链接计划对工商企业和酒店办公室有不同的收费。 您的建议是我们根据开发类型调整经济适用房类别吗？ 或者我们应该采用统一费率吗？
[SPEAKER_00]: 是的，我的意思是，我的建议是拥有一个。 固定利率。 我认为这在行政上更容易。 它让开发商知道他们的费用是多少。 无论时间表如何随时间变化。 你知道，一些正在提议的混合用途项目有点复杂，因为他们正在考虑多种类型的租户。 您可以在一栋大楼内拥有零售店、工厂和办公室。 这变得非常复杂，你如何达到这个速度？ 所以我认为最简单的事情就是制定一个与波士顿地区其他社区的政策一致的费率。 这对他们中的任何一个人来说似乎都不是问题。 所以我认为这是最简单的方法。
[Matt Leming]: 好吧，谢谢。 非常感谢。 最后一个问题，这个问题比较主观，但是按照每平方英尺 5 到 8 美元的建议，您认为我们有多少回旋余地？ 看起来像是 5 美元，你知道，这是你说我们可以筹集的绝对基数。 从法律上讲，我们的价格上涨了 35 美元左右，但这可能会让市场降温。 因此，如果我们简单地接受8美元的建议，似乎不会对发展前景产生非常负面的影响。 我只是想了解5到8之间的范围，如果你能谈谈的话。
[SPEAKER_00]: 这是我基于目前发展经济学的判断：它可能会涨到 8 美元，而且我认为原本可行的项目不太可能变得不可行。
[Matt Leming]: 嗯，这些是我的问题。 我只想说，我对这方面所做的工作感到非常兴奋，对规划、发展和可持续发展局以及贵公司实现这一目标感到非常自豪。 我想，如果我没记错的话，接下来的步骤 因为，你知道，如果董事会投票接受这些建议，我们将采用上次转发给行政财务委员会的文件，以增加第五个联络小组，我们会将其移至三读，其中包含这项研究的建议，然后他们会这样做，然后 然后我们可以将它们归因于该日期之后的任何新进展。 这主要是对我的同事的评论。 我认为这就是我们将遵循的程序，但这就是我所拥有的。 非常感谢您抽出时间，先生。
[Zac Bears]: 谢谢斯卡佩利议员和曾议员。
[George Scarpelli]: 谢谢总统先生。 感谢您的介绍。 很多。 所以我认为有很多东西需要学习，但我认为我真正专注于确保我们能够推进这一选择并支持我们的经济适用住房基金，但同时，并使用该链接，但同时，我们看到邻近社区正在研究其中的一些内容。 我们看到了影响 由于不同的原因缺乏新的增长。 当我们推进新的增长并看到一些进展时，我只想确保我们的董事会真正共同努力，以确保我们达到这个数字。 我，你知道，你设置的数字在 5 到 8 之间，如果有人想拿到 34 美元，那就有点可怕了。 我认为这会极大地威胁我们可能的发展。 所以我认为 这个建议和未来的讨论。 我想我很欣赏了解各个层次，也了解社区因额外费用和新增长的额外规定而失败或停滞的地方。 所以我只想与我的议员们分享这一点。 我希望找到一种平衡，让我们共同努力，确保我们前进，但同时我们真正理解。 我们现在的处境是，不要因为担心失去新的增长而走得太高，然后找到平衡点，以维持我们的信心。 所以谢谢你。
[Justin Tseng]: 谢谢，我非常感谢斯卡佩利议员对此的评论。 平衡是根本。 重要的是我们要有新的增长，为这个社区带来更多的住房和发展。 不仅对于那些现在买不起住房的人来说，而且对于为市政服务提供资金的纳税人来说， 一次又一次面临2.5命题的冲击。 与此同时，来到梅德福的开发商必须为他们对这个社区的影响、为他们在这个社区需要住房的员工以及对道路和公共服务的影响支付公平的份额，这一点非常重要。 在这里，我们还必须公平对待那些已经居住在这座城市的人。 我非常感谢这份报告。 逐步了解如何得出这个数字非常有用。 正如委员莱明所说，我们得到如此详细的经济分析是很少见的，观察起来非常有用。 我只是对每平方英尺 5 至 8 美元建议的地基类型有一些疑问。 我认为，正如我今晚提到的，我相信建议的利率仅为最大保证利率范围的 10% 至 27%。 本研究提出了两种发生率假设。 首先，租户花费的租金类型。 然后是发起人投资者的收益吸收类型。 所以我认为我们同时进行了某种猜测。 我想哪种机制或者它们的哪种组合达到了每平方英尺 5 至 8 美元的建议范围？ 因为我意识到，在相同费用水平下，对投资者业绩的影响明显大于对开发商业绩的影响。 所以我想知道我们如何校准。
[SPEAKER_00]: 是的，不，这是一个好问题。 我认为这个 5 美元到 8 美元的范围是基于对投资者的潜在影响。 因为我认为，你知道，我必须说，不同的项目的融资方式不同，不同的发起人有不同的筹集资金的方式。 所以这是基于一个开发者他们通常主要依靠债务融资，但也可能从股权投资者那里获得 30-40% 的融资，这些投资者具有反映当前市场的此类回报目标。 如果利率在两三年内下降，那么这些回报限制也会降低，影响可能会更小。 所以，从某种程度上来说，这反映了目前的情况。 经济环境和当前市场环境。 但很大程度上是基于这种对投资者的影响。
[Justin Tseng]: 我懂了。 目前，作为 A 类开发项目的市场，我们看到梅德福和 B 可能会来到梅德福，那里的市场目前潜力更大，其中大部分是融资。 好的。
[SPEAKER_00]: 那样。 这就是我通常建议社区每五年重新审视一次的原因之一，因为经济状况会发生变化。 如果利率处于五年来的最低水平，如果经济发生变化，对办公室、实验室、工业空间或类似设施的需求增加，而供应短缺，该怎么办？ 租户愿意支付更多费用。 您知道，经济应该发生变化，10 美元或 12 美元的费用可能是可行的。 我明白。
[Justin Tseng]: 因此，我们主要关注供需、利率等因素。
[SPEAKER_00]: 是的。
[Justin Tseng]: 我明白。 然后我有一个关于收入结构和财产分配的问题。 我很好奇定义低收入和中等收入类别的收入门槛是多少。 您位于梅德福米德尔塞克斯县吗？ 那呢？
[SPEAKER_00]: 是的。 它基于 HUD 公布的波士顿地区收入中位数。 其实我早就预料到这个问题了，所以等等。 所以，你知道，它是基于 HUD 对波士顿、剑桥和昆西都市区的 25 财年地区收入限制。 通常，低收入家庭占该地区收入中位数的 50% 或更少。 对于一个单人家庭来说，这相当于 57,900 美元。 这相当于一个四口之家的 82,700 美元。 中等收入占该地区收入中位数的 50% 至 80%。 一个家庭的费用为 92,650 美元，四口之家的费用为 132,300 美元。 然后该模型还假设所有低收入需求都通过租赁来满足，所有中等收入需求都通过房产来满足。
[Justin Tseng]: 这是基于有关可能的任期选择的证据吗？
[SPEAKER_00]: 这实际上是基于城市政策的。 因此，当我们估算经济适用房的需求时，我们通常会询问与我们合作的城市，我们应该对您期望建造多少个这样的单元作为租金收入或收入做出什么假设？ 或财产收入，因此将所有中等收入单位视为财产的偏好实际上是城市官员所说的反映了城市政策。
[Justin Tseng]: 您能否向董事会解释一下，如果我们改变这些假设，还有什么其他的改变？
[SPEAKER_00]: 是的，我的意思是，正如你所看到的，租金收入所需的融资补贴高于财产收入。 现在，这部分反映了居住者收入水平的不同。 但我认为这也反映出经济适用房、租赁房的运营成本较高。 因此，由于基本上几乎所有收入都将用于支付运营成本，因此需要进一步补贴租赁单位。 现在，另一个因素是有更多的联邦和州资源可用。 弥补租赁住房的融资缺口。 您知道，可用于购房的来源并不多。 因此，该市通常必须将更多的自有资金投资于经济适用房。 谢谢。
[Zac Bears]: 谢谢曾参赞。 议员们还有其他问题吗？ 我似乎没有看到任何，至少就剑桥而言。 由于佣金较高，他们用当地资金资助更大比例的项目。 我们面临的问题之一是，自 20 世纪 90 年代以来，我们一直能够建立经济适用房连接费，但我们还没有这样做。 所以我们的保障性住房基金没有资金。 我们还没有建设基础设施。 我同意我的同事们的观点，即需要某种平衡，你知道， 我们可能不会立即达到 3,475，但我们也落后于八号球，而且时间在流逝。 而且，你知道，总的来说，我对联邦和州的资金来源没有太大信心来补充和补贴其他必要的建设部分。 所以我认为，总的来说，你会看到之间的关系， 保释率越高，收入越多，那么那些城市地方资金资助的项目比例就越高？
[SPEAKER_00]: 我不认为事情总是这样。 是的。 你知道，例如波士顿，你知道， 非常成功。 我的意思是，他们产生了大量不相关的收入，但他们也可以获得大量的国家项目融资。 所以很难说。 它也受到，你知道， 要知道，波士顿有很多经济适用房开发商。 许多开发商在获得低收入住房税收抵免、国家补贴计划等方面拥有丰富的经验。 所以我认为这也发挥了作用。 在剑桥， 因为我现在在剑桥的一个工作室工作，但是过去10年左右的时间里，链接费一直是一个非常重要的收入来源。 因为剑桥曾经有过巨大的发展热潮。 但该市也有大量《社区保护法案》资金投资于经济适用住房基金。 而且他们每年还会拨款。 我脑子里没有这些数据，但也许三分之二的资金都流向了该基金，而且他们还有其他较小的来源。 因此，进入该基金的剑桥基金中有三分之二或四分之三并非来自债券。 因此，尽管他们打了很多电话，但他们还是向自己的基金捐赠了很多其他资金。
[Zac Bears]: 我明白。 所以我们的关系并不完全是这样，是的，我的意思是，我们没有很多其他资金可以投入我们的信托。 所以我认为这是这里的问题之一。 我想这让我想到了另一个大问题，曾议员也提到过这个问题。 但不可行推定背后的假设是什么？ What do we assume in the analysis that will make a project unfeasible? 因为当我看到这些数字时，我发现，你知道， 你知道，投资者的资本回报率会减少 1% 到 2%，费用在 10 美元到 20 美元之间。
[SPEAKER_00]: 是的，不，你提出了一个很好的观点。 而且，你知道，我所做的假设是开发商有某种投资限制。 如果利率上涨导致他们没有达到投资限额，他们就不会执行项目。 所以，你知道，不同的开发人员在承担一个项目时可能会有或多或少的灵活性。 所以，你知道，随着时间的推移，一些开发人员会为了自己的利益而开发一个项目并维护它。 一些开发商建造一个项目，占用它并达到其投资目标，然后将其出售给投资者。 因此，打算将其出售给投资者的开发商更加意识到这种回报，因为他们必须获得养老基金或其他投资者购买该房产所需的回报。 这就是为什么他们往往更加严格。 如果我是一名开发人员，那就是 通过购买房产并自己持有，好吧，也许我现在会得到较低的回报，因为我实际上认为梅德福在未来 10 年会表现得更好，而且我的租金会随着时间的推移而增加。 所以，你知道，这不是一个硬性规定。 不同的开发人员会以不同的方式处理此问题并具有更大的灵活性。 正如我之前所说，不同的开发商为他们的项目提供不同的资金，这也会影响你。 所以，你知道，这是一个假设的场景。 你知道，它并没有反映所有的可能性。 所以，是的，你知道，当然有可能更高的费用，有些开发商认为更高的费用仍然会使项目对他们来说可行，你知道吗？
[Zac Bears]: 是的，我想我想知道， 您知道，为什么您的分析中有一些特定项目您认为 12 美元或 16 美元的费用不可行，而 8 美元的费用也不可行？ 因为看起来我们正在谈论为经济适用住房信托基金提供数百万美元的资金，而且，你知道，再说一遍，我没有，我没有做过分析，但看起来我会让你描述它的特征。 这些假设是否保守？
[SPEAKER_00]: 是的，我想说这些是有些保守的假设，是的。 你知道，没有硬性规定。 您必须做出一些假设并提出一些场景来执行分析。 我本来可以处理许多其他场景，但最终你会遇到很多不同的场景。 您希望以哪些为基础做出决定？ 但是，是的，这不是一个严格的规则。 而另一个因素则不同。 开发商可以通过其他方式调整成本来进行补偿。 他们也许能够协商降低建筑成本。 也许承包商确实需要工作，他会赚点小钱，省点钱。 或者他们有内部法律顾问，但聘请律师的费用却较低。 因此，开发预算有很多组成部分。 开发商可以通过其他一些成本来抵消费率的上涨。 而且，正如我提到的，如果他们还没有购买土地，他们也会考虑这笔费用。 他们购买土地的费用也会减少。 因此，土地所有者最终将不得不接受出售土地收益的减少。 影响使土地，你知道，关税使土地，你知道，变得不那么有价值。 所以，你知道，就是这些事情。 这就是为什么我从一开始就说关税影响经济有不同的可能途径，而且你知道，没有任何可能的途径。 许多情况决定了他们中的哪些人可以拥有它。 因此，我认为 5 到 8 美元的建议对我来说是一个保守的建议，以尽量减少对某些项目的潜在影响。 但我不能说 12 美元的费用将是灾难性的，而且你知道，如果收取 12 美元或 15 美元的费用，开发就不会发生。 我认为这不是真的。
[Zac Bears]: 非常好，谢谢。 我的最后一个问题，然后我们可以继续下一次会议，我看到房间已经满了。 我们会解决一切问题。 说到审查，你知道吗？我知道你提到了五年审查。 这听起来像是每五年重做一次整个分析，还是某种简化版本？
[SPEAKER_00]: 我的意思是，这就是其他社区通常所做的：每五年进行一次类似范围的新关系研究。
[Zac Bears]: 我明白。 例如，您认为可能对我们有用的某些经济指标是否存在限制，也许是说，也许我们应该看看这个？ 假设美联储在 18 个月内实行低于 2.5% 的利率。 我们是否应该尽早调查这个问题并提高利率，或者？
[SPEAKER_00]: 嗯，我不会仅仅根据利率来做这件事。 我还会关注经济中正在发生的事情。 如果办公室和实验室的空置率下降很多，你就会开始看到，你知道，就像，你知道， 突然间，所有的人工智能公司都开始搬到波士顿地区，他们开始寻找办公空间，突然间，空缺数量下降，人们急于建造更多的办公空间来容纳他们。 显然，情况有所不同，您可能需要重新考虑您的费率。 是的，好的。
[Zac Bears]: 出色的。 我很欣赏这一点。 董事会成员还有什么问题吗？ 凯瑟琳，在我们结束之前你还有什么要补充的吗？
[Katherine Buckingham]: 是的，我只想说，如果董事会成员还有任何其他问题我可以与卡尔·塞德曼分享，请随时与我们联系。 如果您现在想再看一下完整的报告，我可以再次分享完整的报告，因为我认为在查看完整的报告之前了解背景信息确实很有帮助。 所以我将与大家分享，回答问题，然后我可以提出你们的任何其他评论，卡尔也可以 我们将查明这是否属实，是否需要对报告进行更改等，然后在整合所有反馈后我们将分享最终报告。
[Zac Bears]: 出色的。 我认为其他顾问可以提供补充意见。 我的意见是，你知道，我认为 作为个人，我倾向于可能超过 8 美元，我不知道如果我们可以谈论一些为达到 5 至 8 美元范围而做出的假设，这是否会影响记者，并且可能，你知道， 我认为听听上下文会有帮助，对吗？这里有大量的猜测，您知道，30 美元可能是具有重大影响的费用，但是，您知道，10 美元或 12 美元可能不会产生重大影响。 我的意思不仅仅是，我认为我们需要产生经济适用房收入的背景很重要，看看其他社区如何处理这些费用，你知道。 如果我们是 10 岁或 12 岁，我们会更接近沃特敦，我们肯定会高于列克星敦和埃弗里特，但明显低于萨默维尔和剑桥。 因此，在我看来，从我的角度来看，包含其中一些因素会很有帮助，并且至少指出，如果我们略高于 8 美元的数字，情况也许不会那么糟糕。 公众对经济适用房关系研究草案有何意见？ Zoom 上有一个。 房间里有人想谈论这个吗？ 出色地。 等一下。 我要去变焦。 我想在这里花一点时间。 卡斯塔涅蒂先生，您有要登记的公寓名称和街区名称，您有三分钟的时间。
[Andrew Castagnetti]: 谢谢你，贝尔斯利议员。 安德鲁·卡斯塔涅蒂（Andrew Castagnetti），东方方法弥撒。 我有一个快速而简单的问题要问两位发言者：如果您建造这些 1,000 平方英尺的出租单元，租金成本是多少？ 对他们来说与当前的租金是多少。 谢谢。
[Zac Bears]: 谢谢。 凯瑟琳，您能谈谈这些单位的 AMI 情况以及租金情况吗？
[Katherine Buckingham]: 是的。 所以我认为所有这些都将是 80% AMI 或更少。
[SPEAKER_00]: 嗯，租赁单位的 AMI 为 50% 或更少。 哦，当然。 是的。
[Katherine Buckingham]: 好的。 是的。 所以我不知道你是否要添加它。
[SPEAKER_00]: 是的。 具体数字不记得了，但房租基本上定为家庭收入的30%。 所以，假设家庭收入，我必须在心里算一下，是家庭收入 50,000 美元，那么租金就是其中的 30%，即 15,000 美元除以 12，即每月 12.50 美元左右， 这可能是当前市场租金的一半或更少。
[Zac Bears]: 这大约占 AMI 租赁单位的 50%。
[SPEAKER_00]: 好，好。
[Zac Bears]: 出色地。 出色的。 一切都好。 没有看到更多公众评论或理事会成员提出的问题，还有任何动议吗？ 在我们结束之前您还有什么要补充的吗？ 有动静吗？ 副总统拉萨罗。
[Katherine Buckingham]: 关闭会议的动议。
[Zac Bears]: 副总统拉扎罗提出结束动议，附议？ 曾议员支持。 秘书先生，请打电话。
[Rich Eliseo]: 凯利参赞？ 是的。 莱明议员？ 是的。 马来西亚顾问？ 是的。 议员斯卡费利？ 是的。 曾参赞？ 是的。 副总统拉萨罗？
[Zac Bears]: 是的，7 个肯定，9 个否定。 运动过去了。 全体委员会休会，我们将在大约五分钟后开始例行会议。 谢谢。