Nahant forum hears how municipal affordable housing trust would let the town collect and spend local housing funds

Shelley, a representative of the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, told Nahant residents that the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund is authorized by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 44, Section 55C and “is created by a majority vote of your local legislative body,” and that a town trust is intended to “provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing in municipalities for the benefit of low and moderate income households.”

The visit, delivered by Shelley and organized by town staff, laid out the statute’s basics and practical choices the town will face if it adopts a trust. MHP described the statute as short and enabling: it sets trustee minimums and public‑board obligations but leaves many operational details to local bylaws and trustee decisions.

Why it matters: a municipal trust gives Nahant a dedicated account and an appointed board that can accept donations, hold funds and, once money is in the trust account, make timely appropriations without repeatedly returning to town meeting—allowing faster responses to opportunities such as an affordable‑housing site that unexpectedly comes onto the market.

Shelley summarized key statutory and operational points: the trust requires at least five trustees (the statute mandates the chief executive officer or a select board member be among them), trustees serve two‑year terms, and municipal public‑meeting and conflict‑of‑interest laws govern the board. The statute enumerates 16 powers related to acquiring, holding and disposing of real property, and to making investments and grants; communities can accept or modify those powers in their local bylaw.

On funding, MHP advised Nahant to consider multiple sources rather than rely on a single revenue stream. Common sources include Community Preservation Act (CPA) allocations, in‑lieu payments from inclusionary zoning, cell‑tower lease revenues, transfers of tax‑title parcels, short‑term‑rental fees, developer contributions, and occasional use of municipal bonding or reserve transfers. Shelley noted some towns have even authorized modest municipal bonding or local ordinances that direct a recurring payment to a trust; Brewster was offered as a case study where the town moved $80,000 into a newly formed municipal trust and required select board sign‑off for allocations over $50,000.

Residents raised practical questions about how a Nahant trust would work. Deborah asked whether the trust can accept donated land or appropriate funds without town meeting. Shelley and town counsel clarified that gifts and donations may be accepted into a municipal trust under the statute, but transfers of town‑owned land typically must be declared surplus and approved by a town meeting vote before transfer; once funds are lawfully in a trust account, trustees can generally make appropriations without a separate town meeting appropriation unless the local bylaw restricts that authority.

Several residents asked about local preference for new units. Shelley said Massachusetts allows a limited local preference at initial lease‑up—up to about 70% in narrowly defined categories (for example, current residents, local workers, municipal employees or families of schoolchildren)—but that any such preference requires state approval and must be run through an open lottery process to comply with state and federal fair‑housing laws. “It has to be done through a lottery,” Shelley said, and warned communities to design policies that minimize disparate impacts on protected classes.

On zoning and donated property, Shelley was explicit: a trust does not override local zoning; any development on donated or trust‑owned land must comply with existing zoning rules.

Shelley also emphasized practical governance and capacity: new trustees should spend time learning local housing needs, set two or three measurable goals, and create simple guidelines (mission statement, selection criteria, application process) so applicants and the public understand the trust’s priorities. She cautioned that many trusts operate with limited staff and volunteer capacity, so realistic focus matters.

Audience members asked whether trusts are common and active; Shelley said MHP tracks roughly 152 municipal trusts in Massachusetts and that some trusts are inactive while others are very engaged. She said some communities adopt the enabling statute and then later seek CPA or other funding at subsequent town meetings; others adopt and fund the trust in the same meeting.

The forum closed with the moderator saying the session recording and Shelley’s slides will be posted on the town website and YouTube channel and inviting continued input before the town’s warrant takes up the article.

What’s next: the town will post the materials online, and residents may expect a warrant article proposing a local bylaw and trustee structure; any bylaw modifications (for example, limiting borrowing or requiring select‑board approval for large allocations) would be decided by town meeting vote and become part of the town’s local governance of the trust.