Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Revere trust examines Wellfleet-style ADU loan program and forms working group
Summary
Board members discussed a forgiving $10,000 ADU loan model based on Wellfleet’s program, raising questions about upfront funding, monitoring, owner-occupancy and term length; the board will form a working group to develop details.
At the June 11 meeting the Revere City Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board discussed a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) loan program modeled on Wellfleet’s approach: four $10,000, fully forgivable, 0%-interest loans for owner-occupants who create an ADU and rent it at an affordable rate for five years.
Joe Gravalese described key features of the Wellfleet model: the loans are forgiven at $2,000 per year over five years if the owner complies with rent and occupancy rules, an annual recertification is required, a monitoring agent verifies compliance, and units may not remain vacant for more than 30 days at turnover. If an owner leaves compliance, the remaining loan balance would become due.
Board members raised implementation questions and suggested modifications for Revere. Laurie Manza asked whether the forgivable period meant affordability obligations end after five years; Gravalese confirmed the model used a five-year forgiveness period but said the board could consider a longer term or require reimbursement if the owner lifts restrictions later. Members discussed giving preference to Revere residents, but were told that imposing tenant preference on a private owner’s choice of renter could raise fair housing concerns and would require further legal review.
Several members argued the $10,000 figure and a back-end reimbursement model could limit participation in Revere, where many ADU conversions are lower-cost basement work and owners may lack upfront capital. Members suggested structuring payments to fund work upfront and requiring owner-occupancy as a program condition to support neighborhood stability. The chair said he would form a working group (kept under quorum limits) to draft program rules and consult the building and inspection departments and possible nonprofit partners for monitoring.
No vote was taken; board members agreed to continue development of the ADU program and to study feasibility, funding mechanics and monitoring approaches.
