The City of Lowell Affordable Housing Trust Fund met Aug. 20 and reviewed federal and local data showing a substantial gap between the metropolitan median income used in HUD calculations and Lowell’s census median, discussed using a one‑time $3.2 million ARPA allocation to seed the trust and considered funding models and sources for future awards.

Elliot Yafa, a guest from the Department of Planning and Development, said HUD uses metropolitan‑area median income that includes surrounding communities and that “the median income for this area is 136,900.” He told the committee that census data for the city of Lowell shows a much lower median income — about $73,083 — creating roughly a $60,000 difference between the metro figure and the city figure. Yafa also said HUD’s fair market rent for a two‑bedroom unit is $2,242 and that a household would need roughly $81,527 in gross income just to avoid being considered cost‑burdened for that rent level.

The numbers matter because HUD and other federal programs often use metropolitan median income when setting eligibility thresholds and computing fair market rents. Yafa said those thresholds and the fair market rent calculations drive measures such as the share of renters who are “cost burdened” — defined as paying more than 30 percent of income for housing.

Committee members discussed how to use the $3.2 million the trust received as a one‑time ARPA grant. George Colores, the trust administrator, reviewed models from the Massachusetts Housing Partnership guidebook and said the preferred approach for the City of Lowell is to operate the trust as a funding agent: solicit proposals through funding rounds or an RFP and award grants or low‑interest loans rather than directly acquiring and managing properties. “A funding agent allows us to have an application, the builders can come in, we can have one one‑time application and then pass the money out,” Colores said.

Members identified potential recurring funding sources to supplement the ARPA seed money, including Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds (Chapter 44B), the federal HOME program, linkage or development fees negotiated with developers, and other local revenue. Several members said they would explore Community Preservation Committee (CPC) options; speakers noted CPA rules commonly allocate funds among historic preservation, open space/parks and community housing and that communities can set a minimum allocation for housing (committee members discussed a 10 percent minimum as a baseline in some local practice).

City Manager Tom Golden said linkage fees have been considered but may be difficult to establish locally; he urged pursuing multiple revenue streams and said the trust should avoid committing all seed funds to a single project. Golden moved that committee members submit vision and goal statements by email to the trust administrator so the group can consolidate priorities at the next meeting; the motion was seconded by Ty Chow and passed with the ayes prevailing.

Committee member Valerie Opara emphasized the need for a needs assessment and community outreach, saying, “everyone has the right to affordable housing,” and urging the trust to determine whether the city needs single‑family, two‑family or multiunit production and to reach residents through festivals, senior centers and existing community organizations.

Kathy Mercado, a designee from the Mammoth Valley Housing Project, was announced as a new member who will join the board in September; Colores said he will contact her to solicit input ahead of her start. The board set its regular meeting schedule to continue on the third Wednesday of each month.

No formal awards, grants or contractual commitments were approved at the meeting; the committee confined its actions to reviewing data, discussing preferred program models and adopting the procedural motion to collect members’ vision statements for the next meeting.