2024-02-08-AC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2/8/2024 AC Minutes 3 the CPC to manage its capital budget more easily. Ms. Tung emphasized that the amounts in the 5- year plan should have been listed as to-be-determined. She does not believe the AHT funding re- quests can be limited to a steady amount each year because the real estate market is too volatile. In- stead, the AHT will base funding requests on its own projection of anticipated needs in the coming year. Ms. Kosnoff commented that while the CPC maintains a 5-year capital plan, it still responds to un- expected requests every year. She encouraged entities making regular requests for CPA funds to de- velop their own 5-year plans and to share details about large CPA requests in advance. Mr. Bartenstein added that it might be frustrating to see a very large balance of funds sitting unused in the AHT. He asked how the fund balance was invested. Ms. Kosnoff replied that the funds are limited to liquid, low-risk investments and are managed by the Town Treasurer. Mr. Bartenstein questioned whether the AHT was a municipal entity. Ms. Tung emphasized that the AHT is a Town financing entity, which is very different from LexHAB, which, upon approval of the home-rule petition, will become an independent nonprofit developer that will not be a part of Town government. Mr. Bartenstein commented that once town meeting appropriates funds to the AHT, it has no further say over how those funds are used. Ms. Tung responded that before the AHT was created, LexHAB was limited in the timing of its requests by the town meeting calendar, which made it very difficult for them to acquire property. The AHT now provides the necessary flexibility to fund housing-re- lated needs in a changing real estate market, but that means town meeting cannot vote on specific AHT financing decisions. Ms. Prosnitz added that recipients of AHT grants are bound by re- strictions on how the grants may be used, but these restrictions are not based on legal constraints the Town would face if it was using the money directly. Mr. Michelson asked whether funding, including CPA funds, for all affordable housing projects, in- cluding work by LexHAB and the Lexington Housing Authority (LHA), would flow through the AHT, or, alternatively, the AHT would serve more as a reserve fund for property acquisition while funding for long-term projects of LexHAB and LHA would be routed directly to those entities. Ms. Tung replied that the AHT coordinates its requests with the CPC, LexHAB, and LHA, and she ex- pects that LexHAB and LHA will continue to request support directly from the CPC based on their capital plans, while the AHT fills in the gaps for less predictable needs. Ms. Tung added that she had found one instance of a state grant to the AHT for $10,000 from One Stop for Growth. Mr. Michelson suggested that the AHT report on its activities to each annual town meeting. Ms. Tung agreed to bring this up with the AHT board. Article 33: Authorize the Select Board to Seek Affordable Housing Mr. Parker opened the discussion on Article 33 by noting that it was a complicated issue with many political aspects, but he asked the Committee to devote some time to the financial implications for the Town. Ms. Tung began by noting that there is no development proposal for parcel 68-44 at this time. The article requests that town meeting authorize the Select Board to use the parcel for affordable hous- ing and to dispose of the land as needed for that purpose, which is a necessary condition for explor- ing an all-affordable housing development on the site. If Article 33 is approved, the Town would issue an RFP for a development and the Select Board would decide which, if any, of the proposals