One notable matter discussed was the perk testing scheduled at Turkey Farm on August 22. Members were directed to contact Bartlett Harvey for details regarding attendance. A significant issue arose concerning the 12% Area Median Income (AMI) unit at Hager Homestead, where initial calculations by a lottery vendor were found to be problematic. This issue was resolved by adopting an alternative method.

Further complicating the Hager Homestead update, the lottery held on August 12th revealed four households vying for the 80% AMI unit, but no eligible applicants for the 60% AMI unit. Consequently, this unit will be marketed on a first-come, first-served basis, with CB Housing and EOHC conducting income screenings before potential candidates are referred to Diane with Hager. Concerns were raised about outreach, particularly for the senior demographic, and it was suggested that Liz should enhance visibility through the Council on Aging.

The board then discussed the collaboration with Habitat for Humanity on a project at How to Road. Members reflected on previous discussions and emphasized the necessity of including specific terms in the agreement to avoid indefinite delays. Concerns were expressed about the terrain’s impact on construction costs, particularly if ledge was encountered, which could prevent the installation of a basement. Discussions centered on potential contingencies related to the presence of ledge and how it might affect the project’s budget and design.

The board also debated adding stipulations requiring communication regarding changes to the project plan, particularly related to terrain issues. It was noted that identifying potential contingencies in the agreement could safeguard the board’s interests. Additionally, the importance of integrating Universal Design principles alongside ADA compliance was underscored, with suggestions to include elements such as level access, appropriate height for fixtures, and wider doorways in the design plan.

In another discussion, the board considered the planning and implementation of long-term affordable housing projects, focusing on a collaboration with Habitat for Humanity. A proposal was made to clarify the terms surrounding the reversion of land back to the town if the project is not completed within a specified time frame. Initially, a two-year timeline was proposed but later expanded to five years, recognizing the realistic construction timelines in the area.

Members highlighted the need for clear language in the agreement around maintaining the affordability of the homes over time, pegged to the area median income (AMI), specifically at 60%. Habitat for Humanity was proposed as a monitoring agent to assist in ensuring that subsequent homeowners also meet the income criteria when a homeowner decides to move. The necessity of including a one-year warranty for homeowners and providing first-time homebuyer classes before and after moving in was emphasized.

The conversation then shifted towards energy efficiency, with a focus on fully electric homes and the inclusion of solar panels. Members requested a detailed explanation of the associated costs and energy-efficient systems to avoid surprises during the construction process. The importance of adequate ventilation in tightly constructed homes was raised, along with potential costs for electric vehicle chargers. Additionally, discussions included whether to require the construction of a carport or garage, particularly for accessibility purposes.

Concerns about volunteer safety were addressed, with a request for clarification that Habitat’s insurance would cover any injuries sustained by volunteer builders, protecting the town from liability. The board emphasized the importance of tracking project progress with an estimated timeline and including the two housing units on the subsidized housing inventory (SHI).

The board also reviewed the proposed budget for the upcoming years, particularly regarding grants for the local program (LP) aimed at providing affordable housing. There is an established line item in the budget for a consistent annual request of $90,000 over the next five years. Members expressed the need to maintain this request even if the funding was not fully approved in some years.

In the closing discussions, the board acknowledged the importance of developing a strategic plan for the next five years, outlining specific projects and budget allocations. This comprehensive approach aims to address immediate housing needs and long-term sustainable solutions, fostering a stance towards affordable housing in Littleton.