2026-10-14 - Affordable Housing Trust Fund

00:00the October 2026

00:02City of Revere Affordable Housing Trust

00:04Fund Board meeting. My name is Joe

00:05Gravellese. I serve as Mayor Keefe's

00:07appointee

00:08as chair of the Affordable Housing Trust

00:10Fund Board.

00:11I will begin this meeting with a roll

00:14call of the members.

00:15So,

00:17Matt Wolfert.

00:18>> Here.

00:19>> Welcome back and congratulations on the

00:21nuptials.

00:22Anayo.

00:24>> Here.

00:25>> And Dean Harris is not here. Layla

00:28Piantri.

00:29>> Here.

00:30>> And Judy Goslin.

00:32>> Here.

00:33>> And Deb Frank, I see is not here.

00:37I do see that we have five members

00:39present, so we do have a quorum.

00:41So, we are able to

00:44complete votes and conduct business. So,

00:46we'll move forward. So, Anayo we'll

00:48start with your budget and finances

00:50update.

00:51>> Sure. Good evening everyone. This

00:53current account summary is provided to

00:55us kindly by Sutie Newton, our assistant

00:58budget director for the City of Revere.

01:00As of today, the total funds the total

01:03balance is $988,158.20.

01:09This figure already accounts for

01:10approximately 160 167,000

01:14that has been safely encumbered to cover

01:17our next two upcoming payments to the

01:19neighborhood developers.

01:20In terms of our recent activity, the

01:22fund has successfully deployed 31,000 to

01:26support essential home repairs for our

01:28senior citizens alongside a 12,000

01:3112,500 payment dedicated to our Elder

01:35Affairs Department. Finally, the

01:38the most recent interest gain interest

01:40earned is $3,765.30.

01:44Thank you.

01:45>> Thank you. And I will note as well that

01:48we are expecting

01:49I believe it's 53,000 to be deposited. I

01:53don't think that would have been

01:53reflected yet, Uh, but that was for the

01:56sale of one of the tax title properties,

01:57which we had put out. Uh, as you might

01:59recall, that was like kind of a lengthy

02:01process. We were hoping to see if

02:03someone might be interested in

02:04developing the properties

02:06um, directly.

02:07>> I can't talk.

02:08>> Oh.

02:09>> I can't talk.

02:10>> Oh, Judy, I'll mute you.

02:12>> Oh, I'm sorry.

02:12>> Yeah, that's okay.

02:14Um,

02:15we did ultimately get someone who, uh,

02:18you know, put in the high bid to

02:19purchase the property and we determined

02:21through the RFP process that the best

02:22use was to take the highest bid and

02:25deposit the funds in the affordable

02:26housing trust fund and be able to use

02:28them for other other things. So, that'll

02:30be added to our balance moving forward.

02:32So, thank you again for that update.

02:35Um, we'll move on to some ongoing

02:37business. So, so to start with, uh, the

02:39resale of the affordable housing unit at

02:41291 Revere Street. Uh, I'm very proud to

02:44report and grateful to share that we,

02:47um, that there was an offer accepted

02:49from a Revere resident uh, for the unit,

02:51which is fantastic. Um, we oversaw the

02:54sale, so it was sold at the max

02:57affordable sale price of about 305,000.

03:00Um, the gentleman has been pre-approved

03:02for $10,000 in down payment assistance,

03:05uh, through the program that we have.

03:07And then, we did already vote on this,

03:09so I just I don't think we have to vote

03:11again, but I just want to, um, see if

03:13anyone objects to, um, you know, we had

03:16stated that we would cover up to 15,000

03:18in closing costs, uh, for this

03:20affordable sale. And the way I've

03:22conveyed that to both the seller and the

03:24buyer is that they can submit

03:26reimbursement requests to our to my

03:27department, uh, like after they're

03:30they already made the expenditure for

03:32like a legal fee or filing fee or

03:33something, submit it for reimbursement,

03:35and then if it is a valid

03:37cost, we'll reimburse it up to a total

03:40of $15,000.

03:41Uh, so,

03:42that's how we're going to handle that,

03:44unless anyone has any objections to

03:45handling it that way, but, um, I think

03:48that's probably the best approach. And I

03:50just try to take it, you know, judicious

03:52and fair approach in ensuring that we're

03:54covering reasonable costs both on the

03:56seller side and the and the buyer side.

03:58So, like for instance, we're going to

04:00cover the filing fees at the registry,

04:03things like that. Um does anyone have

04:05any questions, concerns, you know,

04:06things they want to raise in terms of

04:08that process or does that sound

04:09reasonable?

04:13>> Good news.

04:14>> Yeah, it's great news. You know, this is

04:16exactly

04:17what we want to see happen, right? I

04:18mean, it's obviously

04:20we're we're happy to welcome new

04:22residents too that come into the

04:23affordable units, but it's great to see

04:24someone who's a Revere resident who's

04:26been renting here, working here, and now

04:28they have the opportunity to to purchase

04:29one of these affordable units. So, it's

04:31great news.

04:32Um

04:34we'll move on to the next item, which is

04:37going to have a few votes associated

04:38with it. So, I appreciate your patience

04:40here.

04:41Uh just an update on the affordable home

04:43ownership buy-down program.

04:45Uh so, a couple things. Uh as I

04:46mentioned to all of you via email, we

04:48have a program set up. Um

04:51it's going to be on Thursday, October

04:5329th at the Rumney Marsh Academy from

04:555:30 p.m. Uh I've already heard from

04:58several banks as well as community

05:00organizations like NOAH um that they're

05:03going to be present and have tables. Uh

05:05I'm going to give a presentation. We're

05:07going to invite banks to give a

05:08presentation. We're going to talk about

05:09the buy-down program. We're going to

05:11talk about down payment assistance

05:12program, 1 plus mortgage, and then other

05:15programs that banks may have to offer

05:17for first-time home buyers.

05:18Um

05:20So, first off, I just wanted to state

05:21for the record that we're having that.

05:22We'd love to have all of you come.

05:23Please spread the word.

05:24>> you before you go?

05:26>> Um

05:27any viewers, you know, you're welcome to

05:28join us. Uh this is going to be a great

05:30opportunity to ask questions about the

05:32buy-down program. Uh we've received a

05:34number of questions and inquiries via

05:36email. Um I've copied some of you guys

05:38on some of those.

05:40Um you talked to a lot of banks, a lot

05:42of realtors, so there's a lot of

05:43interest. So, we're we're excited about

05:45this. Um a few things that I do want to

05:48ask the board's approval for.

05:50Uh, so the cost of this event at Rooney

05:53Marsh Academy, just to um, pay for

05:56the custodians. Um, they waived the

05:59regular rental fee. We just have to pay

06:00the custodians overtime for the 3 hours.

06:02It's $165.

06:04Uh, and I'm asking if the board would

06:06approve that as an expenditure out of

06:07the fund.

06:08Um, I So, I just put that out um, for a

06:11vote. I'd ask for unanimous consent.

06:13Does anyone object?

06:16Okay. All right, seeing none.

06:19All right.

06:20Um, and then the next uh, couple things,

06:23uh, just little tweaks to the guidelines

06:25for the program that I wanted you guys

06:26to approve before I put out a new

06:28document. Uh, first off, um, we had put

06:31out in the guidelines that it can cover

06:34up to a three-family unit, um, which is

06:37based on how we've done it for some of

06:38the other programs, like the ADU loan

06:41and the down payment assistance. Uh,

06:43however, uh, a flaw in that was pointed

06:45out to me and then this is really my

06:47mistake for not noticing it sooner,

06:49which is that HUD does not designate um,

06:53an affordable price in their table for

06:55three families. They designate one for a

06:56duplex, they designate one for a

06:58two-family, they designate for a

07:00single-family and for a condo, but they

07:02don't have a designated um,

07:04three-family. And so, because of that, I

07:06think I'd want to exclude three families

07:08from the program and have it just be for

07:11a single-family, a condo, or a duplex,

07:13or two-family, rather than come up with

07:15our own calculation. I just think that

07:17it's best to be consistent. We're using

07:19the HUD numbers and so, I'd rather

07:22not make up another number. That being

07:23said, we can, if we want, take the

07:26two-family and maybe

07:27multiply it times a multiplier or

07:29something if that's what you'd rather

07:30do, but I'd be more comfortable just um,

07:33limiting it to what HUD um, covers. So,

07:36I'll put that out for discussion, but

07:37that was my thought.

07:44Yeah, and I don't really disagree and I

07:46think frankly one or two families

07:49limiting to that probably narrows kind

07:51of our pool of interested parties more

07:54towards the people we're trying to help

07:55in the first place. Kind of you know,

07:57once you get into three, four families

07:58you're opening up for a little more

08:00opportunity for someone to just kind of

08:02take advantage of the program and kind

08:04of make make more of an investment than

08:06um a housing decision. So, no no

08:09opposition here.

08:11>> I agree with you.

08:13It's a three family uh with our program

08:17is look like a more investment that a

08:19really a housing solution

08:22for the family.

08:24>> Okay. So, I'd like to ask for unanimous

08:26consent to to make that tweak to the

08:28guidelines. Um any objection?

08:31Uh seeing none.

08:33>> Nope.

08:33>> All right. Thank you.

08:34>> All good.

08:35>> Okay. Thank you, Judy. Um the other

08:38um guideline update and this one's a

08:41little bit more

08:43maybe not contentious, but something I

08:45want to make sure that we think through.

08:47Um I think what I would like to do

08:50and this is different from what we did

08:51with the senior program,

08:53um but I would like to create a one-week

08:57window where we keep the application

08:58window open and actually do have someone

09:01come in and do a lottery for any

09:03qualified applicants for the first week.

09:05Um

09:07I thought about it and there's a few

09:08reasons why I want to go this route even

09:10if it costs us a couple bucks to to run

09:12it professionally.

09:14Um first off, it's just much bigger

09:15dollar sums than with the senior

09:17program. You know, the senior program is

09:21$5,000, that's not nothing, but it's a

09:24smaller sum, right? I think when we're

09:26talking about a potential up to $200,000

09:29subsidy

09:30the kind of caveats and quirks of who

09:33got which form in at the right time, I'd

09:35want to just create a little bit of a

09:36more concrete kind of leeway there.

09:39Um and I think that it's worth

09:42even if we have to spend a little money

09:43to do a lot of reprocess, um probably

09:45worth that. The other thing is I want to

09:47make sure that like you know, everything

09:50is incredibly transparent and fair.

09:53Our process was incredibly transparent

09:54and fair for the senior program, too,

09:56and everything stamped and everything is

09:57clear and I we've got it, but I think

09:59like I want the extra step of making it

10:02televised, like having it recorded,

10:04being out in the open of who got what

10:06number and how it was assigned because

10:08again, just the size of the of the

10:09subsidy. It's such a large program.

10:12And we are encouraging and welcoming.

10:15So, you know, like members of our board

10:17can't apply and people that work in my

10:19department can't apply, but other city

10:21employees could or people with the

10:23police and fire or schools and that's

10:25great and we support it, but we also

10:27want to make sure that everything is

10:28incredibly above board and that there's

10:30no

10:31even appearance of

10:33well, this person got it and that person

10:35didn't and how do we know what time

10:36their application went in?

10:38Um so,

10:40I would like with the board's permission

10:42to A, um establish that we're going to

10:45have a 1-week window

10:47where anyone that applies in that first

10:49week, um

10:50who submits everything and I we verify

10:53and review that they're eligible, get

10:55entered in into a lottery where we will

10:56anonymize them, like give them an

10:58anonymous number and then pull those

11:00numbers.

11:01And then I'd also ask that you authorize

11:03my department, uh fighting in community

11:05development to create a process for that

11:08and we would have the lottery be

11:10recorded and for television and

11:11streaming purposes.

11:13Um

11:14so, I won't ask you to vote on that yet.

11:17I'll open it for discussion, uh but I

11:18just wanted to put that out there. And

11:20then what we would do is if we don't

11:22have enough qualified applicants in that

11:25first week, then it would be first come,

11:27first serve from there.

11:29Um

11:30and then if we do, you know, as you may

11:33recall, we're going to give people kind

11:35of assignment numbers including a wait

11:38list in the event that people above them

11:40either don't need the full subsidy or

11:44don't find a home or give up in like in

11:45the 3-month period or withdraw from the

11:47process. And so people would be able to

11:49apply after the lottery, but say nine

11:52people apply in the first week and they

11:54get numbered 1 through 9. And then we

11:56could get applicant number 10, 11, 12,

11:5913, but they behind the ones that were

12:00in that first week. It's just that

12:03people that apply in the first week

12:04would get a a number assigned randomly

12:06from a lottery. So

12:08I said a lot, so I just want to open

12:10that up for conversation, but I think

12:11that that upon reflection is probably

12:14the right approach for this

12:15program.

12:20>> Yeah, I really I really like the idea on

12:22its face. Seems like it levels the

12:24playing field a little bit for, you

12:26know, maybe someone who's older and does

12:28more physical kind of file keeping

12:30versus someone who's younger working in

12:32a professional services job.

12:35So really like that.

12:37I guess one thought like maybe

12:39maybe there's even a way to simplify it

12:41where we're not counting on

12:44getting enough applicants that first

12:45week where it's like priority one pool

12:48the first week, priority two pool the

12:50second week and we could potentially

12:51handle all of it with one lottery pool.

12:55That's kind of the only thing I thought

12:56about.

12:57Just listening to the to the kind of

13:00initial framework you put out there.

13:02But yeah, really like the idea of doing,

13:05you know, like a professional above

13:07board

13:08lottery process.

13:10>> And so just to be clear, your thought

13:12would be we could complete the lottery

13:13for the first week's applicants, but

13:15then have a second week and then a

13:16lottery for the second week's applicants

13:18or we would do them all at the same time

13:20and it would just be

13:22priority one would go to the people that

13:23applied in the first week.

13:25>> Yeah, or some version of that. Just just

13:27maybe not counting on getting enough

13:30applicants to run a lottery process in

13:32the first week. Just thinking through

13:34>> fair. I actually do think we will. Uh,

13:37I've received a lot of inquiries um, and

13:39I'm pretty confident that we're going to

13:41That's another reason why I I think I

13:42want to do this is I'm

13:45I would guess I would say that I've had

13:47conversations with like banks or

13:49realtors probably eight, nine, or 10

13:51like people that are really serious and

13:53getting ready to apply like right away

13:55on on day one. Um, you know, and at that

13:58point it's it be it it felt to me like

14:01it wouldn't quite be right to be like

14:038:16 a.m. versus someone came in the

14:05door at 8:18 a.m. and one person was

14:08applying online and the other person

14:09brought it in in person got stuck in the

14:10elevator on the way up.

14:12>> Yeah.

14:12>> And that's kind of why I wanted to do it

14:14that way. Like with the senior program,

14:17we ultimately, and I do I do want to

14:18report back on this, we were able to

14:21cover everyone who applied in the first

14:23couple days. There was no overrun, you

14:26know,

14:27it worked well this year having the

14:29hybrid approach of both the online

14:30applications and the in-person

14:32applications. Um, most of the

14:34applications we got were in person. We

14:36only had a few that applied online.

14:38But we didn't run out of the money until

14:41I think about eight days into the

14:43application process. So it ended up

14:44working out really well. It was very

14:46fair. I got no complaints about the

14:48process, which was great. Um,

14:51but kind of a different different

14:52process for this one. Um, and then I

14:55actually would I'm not opposed to

14:57expanding a lottery to include post week

15:00one applicants, but I actually do want

15:02to have the week one lottery as early as

15:05possible because um,

15:09for those that are kind of in position

15:10where they might have a an offer out,

15:13um, I'd like to move it along for them.

15:15Like I think we have I believe we have a

15:17few potential applicants who are kind of

15:19already like

15:21kicking the tires or looking into an

15:23offer or even made an offer, but they're

15:25more inclined to go for it if they're

15:28able to get, you know, the support. So,

15:30that's kind of I don't want to delay it

15:32too much.

15:33>> So, the pools will be capped not by

15:35amount, but by time.

15:37Meaning like it would change the

15:39probability of success depending on the

15:40size, right? So, if you have a a smaller

15:43pool, then it would be advantageous for

15:44people perhaps to go to one time of

15:47drawing than the other. Is that a part

15:50Is that fig- Does that figure into the

15:51statistics or the logistics? Meaning

15:54like if you have a bunch of folks that

15:56can are first assuming, right? You're

15:58not you're using the same people or same

16:01pool of applicants for one draw and

16:03you're you're also sort of pushing them

16:05those that did not win. Let's say Let's

16:08say there's 10 100 people and 10 of them

16:11were successful, then the 90 will they

16:14be pushed to the second pool so that

16:15will

16:16increase the the decrease the

16:18probability of success in the second

16:20pool.

16:20>> Now I understand. So,

16:23make sure let's hopefully you I'm clear.

16:26So, let me say I think the way I

16:27envision it is say we get 20

16:29applications in the first week.

16:31We do the lottery [clears throat] at the

16:32end of the first week and those people

16:34get numbered 1 to 20.

16:36So, we may run out of funds after number

16:39three or number four

16:41or it may be after number eight, right?

16:43If the people that are earlier don't use

16:45the don't use all the funds or they

16:47don't complete the program or they

16:49withdraw from it or decide to buy

16:51outside of Riviera or, you know,

16:52whatever it is that the case may be.

16:55Um but everyone gets a number in that

16:56first pool.

16:58Any applications that come in after

17:00that,

17:01their numbers would be behind those that

17:02already applied. Uh that's how I would

17:05envision doing it. Uh I'm open to other

17:07alternatives, but does that answer your

17:09question or Yeah.

17:12Yeah, you can.

17:13>> All information about the workshop is on

17:15in media or

17:18>> I've submitted it to the mayor's office

17:21and to the community liaison's office

17:22for the city. And so I'm not sure if

17:24that got posted yet, but hopefully it

17:26should be.

17:27It'll be in the journal

17:29today. I haven't had a chance to read it

17:31yet, so it should be in the journal

17:32today.

17:33Um and looking to get it translated into

17:36the four languages that we put all

17:37notices in, so Spanish and Portuguese

17:39and Arabic. I don't know if it's already

17:41up yet, but it should be shortly if it

17:43isn't.

17:46And then and I owe did that

17:47>> Did I understand your lottery question?

17:49I just want to make sure I'm not

17:50misunderstanding it. So

17:52will the lottery kick in

17:54for everyone or after a certain point?

17:57>> So the lottery would be for anyone that

17:59completes their application and is

18:01eligible in the first week.

18:03Does that make sense?

18:04>> Yeah. So if how many draws of the

18:07lottery?

18:09>> One.

18:09>> One draw.

18:10>> So we would do my my vision my my

18:12thought would be and I understand what

18:15what Matt's saying. I think that

18:18my thought would be assuming we have

18:20more entries in the first week than we

18:23have anticipated spots, which I do think

18:25that will happen.

18:27Um that we do that one poll for the

18:29lottery, which will probably at that

18:32point create both those who will get it

18:34and those will be on the wait list. Now,

18:36if we only get two qualified applicants

18:39say in the first week

18:41we'll do the drawing anyway cuz we'll

18:43have already paid for it and scheduled

18:45it and just someone will be one and

18:46someone will be two, but that won't

18:47really matter. You know, where it could

18:49really matter is if we get like four

18:51applicants and that's where we're kind

18:53of on the borderline where if numbers

18:55one, two, and three are all 80% AMI

18:58and all qualify for $200,000 in support,

19:01and then we're out of funds right there

19:03on number three. So then it would really

19:04matter if you're number three versus

19:06number four. Um and I would want that to

19:09be like a super transparent, you know

19:12out there in public on TV like

19:15touched and certified by by a a formal

19:18process um to to do that. So,

19:21um that's how I would envision doing it.

19:23Um

19:24and then making it kind of open uh um

19:28numerical order from there. I'm not

19:29opposed to doing like a second lottery

19:31pool um

19:33for a second week. Uh I'd have to look

19:35into like whether that would cost more

19:37money or like how that would work, what

19:38the cost-benefit would be. Um we'll have

19:41the opportunity to review this again um

19:44as a board because

19:46you know, actually I would

19:48I I I won't make us maybe

19:51wedded to this.

19:52Um

19:53Oh, actually this is probably something

19:55we have to discuss. Um our regularly

19:57scheduled next meeting

19:58would be the 11th, which is Veterans

20:00Day, so that's not going to happen. So,

20:02we're going to have to come up with an

20:03alternative date for our next meeting.

20:05Um so, I'd say that I'll send that

20:06around and we'll probably just make that

20:08correspond with when we do the lottery

20:10for the week one um applicants or the

20:13first wave applicants for the for the

20:15program, if that makes sense.

20:18Yeah.

20:21>> Cool. I'm I'm I'm good here. I think it

20:23sounds like a great plan. My my only

20:25concern was kind of what you just

20:26mentioned, like if we were only going to

20:28get three or four applicants that first

20:29week. Um the thought process being if

20:32we're going to do a lottery and pay for

20:34it and schedule it, like let's try and

20:35make sure we only do it once, but if we

20:37feel pretty strong that, you know, we've

20:39already gotten a response from the

20:40community that we are going to have

20:42plenty of applicants, then I'm not super

20:44concerned and you know, your point that

20:45we want people to be able to make quick

20:47decisions, you know, that stuff happens

20:49fast when you're putting offers on

20:50houses.

20:52Um

20:52It's probably a good idea to keep that

20:54window as short as possible.

20:56>> I I do think that if it turns out that

20:58I'm wrong and things go differently,

21:00we'll we'll figure it out, you know.

21:03Um but that's my that's my thinking at

21:05the moment.

21:07Any other questions, comments?

21:10All right. So, I'd ask unanimous consent

21:12to A,

21:14create a first week

21:16cut off. So, what we'll do is the

21:17application opens on Wednesday, November

21:204th at 8:15 a.m. And we'll say and we'll

21:22put in all materials that anyone who

21:25applies by

21:28let's say Thursday, the 12th,

21:30because the 11th is a holiday. Um so,

21:33let's say Thursday the 12th at 5:00 p.m.

21:35close of business. Anyone who applies

21:36between those two times uh will be

21:39entered into the initial lottery for

21:40initial poll. So, I'd ask unanimous

21:42consent for that.

21:43>> Second.

21:44>> Okay. Any objection?

21:46>> No.

21:47>> Okay. Seeing none.

21:48>> None.

21:49>> I would also ask unanimous consent that

21:52the Department of Planning and Community

21:53Development, so myself in conjunction

21:55with Tom Skerloski, uh be authorized to

21:58develop the procedure for the lottery

22:01and that we'll report it back to the

22:02board for your approval. Um

22:05and that um we will schedule the lottery

22:08to coincide with a rescheduled meeting

22:10of the trust,

22:12which will be at a TBD date uh because I

22:14have to check with the city clerk's

22:15office on when we have this room

22:16available or another room

22:19for the meeting. So, any objection to

22:21that?

22:22Okay. Seeing none.

22:26Excellent. Um so, those are the

22:28substantive votes I had on the um

22:30buy-down program. Uh does anyone have

22:32any questions about the program? You

22:34know, I I've got a lot of great

22:35questions from the community, so I just

22:37wanted to make sure this is a good

22:38opportunity. If you've heard questions

22:40from friends, neighbors, or yourself

22:42reviewing it

22:44um about the program, happy to kind of

22:45talk about it on record here on on TV.

22:52All right. Uh one thing I will clarify

22:54for any viewers uh for or you know, the

22:57Advocate or Journal that are writing an

22:59article about this. Um

23:01and I think what I'll do is I'll make

23:03this extra extra clear in the

23:04guidelines. We'll put out a new

23:05document. Uh but where we list the HUD

23:09maximum affordable price, that's not the

23:11maximum price of a home we'll cover

23:12under this program. That's the

23:15cost that we're trying to bridge the gap

23:16between that cost and what the market um

23:19cost of the unit is.

23:21Um I think that's been a source of

23:22confusion for some people, so I just

23:24wanted to clarify that. Um

23:27beyond that, you know, the other

23:28questions I've gotten have been pretty

23:29standard, things that I think are pretty

23:31clear in the guidelines. So, like what

23:32the income limits are,

23:35if you're also eligible for other

23:36programs, which the answer is

23:38not the 10,000 down payment assistance.

23:40You can't combine those, but you can

23:42combine it with something like the 1

23:43plus mortgage or a North Suburban

23:45Consortium assistance program. So,

23:48um

23:49if no one else has any questions, we'll

23:51we'll move forward.

23:52Based on our votes today, I'm going to

23:54create an updated guidelines document,

23:56which I'm going to get around to

23:57everyone by end of day tomorrow. Um and

24:00hold me to that if you don't hear from

24:02me. Um

24:03there's a lot going on always in the

24:06city and in the department, but this is

24:07an incredibly high priority. So, I want

24:09to make sure to to get those that

24:10information out to everybody.

24:12All right, so we'll move on to a few

24:14other quick updates. Um

24:17down payment assistance program, we've

24:18had three new applicants since the last

24:20meeting and one awarded. So, that's

24:22great. We're continuing to be I think a

24:24regional leader in awarding the down

24:26payment assistance program.

24:28Uh ADU loan program, we also have had

24:30one additional applicant since the last

24:32meeting, but they haven't uh completed

24:34the process yet, so we need to

24:36steer through that. Um if they are if

24:38they do complete it, that would be our

24:39fourth award. Um so, we'd have one more

24:42to give out. Um I think we already kind

24:44of discussed. I don't think we need to

24:46replenish that program. I think that can

24:48be a one-time

24:49um expenditure for us, but obviously we

24:51want to

24:52make it a success.

24:54Um I don't have

24:57any other, you know, major updates for

25:00you. If anyone has any questions about

25:02anything else going on, you know, in the

25:04city with the affordable housing or

25:05things you want to bring up, I'm happy

25:06to discuss it now.

25:08Um

25:10I think the quick update I would give is

25:12on the

25:1440R

25:15process for the Coolidge Street Revere

25:18Housing Authority property. So, we had

25:19the public hearing

25:21for the rezoning of the property to be

25:2440R Smart Growth Zoning District and we

25:26had incredibly positive feedback.

25:28Really, really grateful that both

25:30Councilor Marc Silvestri and Councilor

25:33Michelle Kelly both came to the

25:36virtual public hearing and both had

25:38great things to say

25:39about the idea about densifying the and

25:43rebuilding the affordable housing

25:45development at Revere Housing Authority

25:46to add more units, to add senior

25:48housing, to have modern, you know,

25:51accessible housing for all the residents

25:53that live there now with new units. So,

25:56great feedback, really positive, like

25:5995% positive public feedback from

26:01residents at the Revere Housing

26:03Authority. Um and good response from the

26:06City Council. So, that process is

26:08continuing. We're um

26:11it needs to go through a state process

26:12and get approved by the state. So, we're

26:13working on that and I'm hopeful that by

26:16the end of this calendar year I'll have

26:18a report back on kind of next steps on

26:20that from the city side. So, um

26:23that's probably the biggest news we've

26:24got going on. I'll let you know if other

26:26things come up, but that's top of mind

26:28for me.

26:29Uh so, with that, we'll go to any other

26:31late items that anyone has.

26:35No.

26:36And as always, we'll open for any public

26:38comment. If anyone else has any

26:40comments.

26:42And

26:43with none, I will see if we have a

26:45motion to adjourn.

26:47>> Yes.

26:47>> Second.

26:48>> All right.

26:49>> Any Any

26:50>> No.

26:51>> Seeing none, uh please be on the lookout

26:53for me for when we're going to schedule

26:55the next meeting because as I mentioned

26:57our normal time, we will not be doing

27:00that because it is Veterans Day, so the

27:02office will be closed. So, I will be in

27:03touch about scheduling the next meeting.

27:05And with that, this meeting is

27:06adjourned.