2022-06-07-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 • Checks and balances on AHT activities • Proposed qualifications of AHT trustees • Process to set up an AHT • Next steps Following the presentation, Mr. Lamb polled the CEC for their questions and comments. Issues raised: - How could the AHT be dynamic in responding to proposals if CPC requires a Town Meeting vote (Ms. Beebee) (answer: issue short term debt; draw on AHT trust funds) - Why are there no committees (CEC, AC, CPC) to be represented on the AHT Board of Trustees (Ms. Beebee) (answer: the AHTSC is recommending that members be chosen for their expertise, not their committee membership) - How much money would initially be needed (Mr. Cole) (answer: $1,500,000 for acquisitions with extra funding for developing housing plans and other miscellaneous expenses) - How can the AHT borrow and not require a 2/3 vote of Town Meeting (Mr. Boudett, Mr. Lamb) (answer: because the debt would most likely be collateralized, it wouldn’t count against the Town’s borrowing limit, but this needs confirmation) - Why haven’t we used this mechanism in the past (Mr. Boudett) (answer: because although LexHAB was effective in developing housing, it was determined that as a quasi-town entity it would be subject to public bidding laws, thus making it impossible to compete with private developers) - Would the AHT, also a quasi-town entity, be subject to public bidding laws? (Mr. Boudett) (answer: yes, which is why it would only act as a financing agent, passing on the funds to developers and development corporations) - Why wasn’t an Affordable Housing Development Corporation – the second half of the Select Board’s charge to the AHTSC – discussed? (Mr. Kanter) (answer: although the Study Committee is working on it, it was deemed too much for today’s discussion) Mr. Lamb then asked Mr. Parker for any questions or comments; Mr. Parker was primarily interested in getting more details about the issuance of debt by the AHT. Mr. Lamb next asked the CPC for comments and questions. - Ms. Fenollosa asked if refunding any debt with CPA funds would be allowed, because of the CPA statute’s prohibition on refunding prior expenditures. She also noted that the use of CPA funds for affordable housing has primarily been project- specific, with the exception of a brief experiment to provide an acquisition fund for LexHAB in prior years (after three years, funding was no longer approved), and noted that Town Meeting in the past has wanted to know what, and where, any new housing would be built before they approved the CPA funding request.