Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing committee asks CHT to submit formal loan‑forgiveness request, plans public review
Summary
Members said town staff and CHT should submit formal documentation for loan forgiveness and agreed to convene a public meeting with state and selectboard representatives to review financials and eligibility before any municipal sign‑off.
Members of the Richmond Housing Committee on an unspecific date pressed the Community Housing Trust (CHT) to submit a formal written request and supporting financial documentation if it seeks forgiveness of a decades‑old loan that some residents had understood as a grant. Committee members said the town and state must sign off on any forgiveness and that a public meeting should be convened to review the materials.
The matter arose after committee members reviewed documents and notes suggesting the transaction could be read either as a grant or a loan. “That block of loan, it turns over every five years,” said Committee member (S2), describing the financing structure: three mortgages tied to one loan, 30‑year mortgages with a separate loan that comes due in five‑year cycles and typically is refinanced. Committee members said refinancing decisions require municipal permission and choices about lenders.
Why it matters: members framed the issue as both legal and political. If the original funding is legally a loan rather than a grant, the town’s options and responsibilities change; if the state or federal program can cancel repayments, towns may be unable to recoup funds. “The original money, the so called grant, was a federal grant,” said Committee member (S3), adding that reclassification or federal cancellation could leave municipalities without repayment options.
The committee’s working next step is procedural. Committee member (S4) reported meeting with CHT representatives and recommended that CHT prepare and submit a formal forgiveness request, including financial disclosures and whatever state criteria apply. “So they would submit that to Josh,” S4 said, referring to town staff. S4 proposed that town staff, selectboard members and one or more housing‑committee members convene a public meeting with state representatives and CHT to review the request and discuss possible outcomes.
Committee members discussed alternatives if straightforward repayment is not possible, including in‑lieu compensation or other funding streams that could “make the town feel whole,” but said these options should be part of the public conversation once CHT’s formal submission is received. Several members emphasized the need to rebuild trust with residents who feel misled about the funding’s nature.
No formal vote was recorded at the meeting. Committee members agreed on the procedural direction: ask CHT for a written request and supporting data, then place the item on an upcoming public agenda where town and state officials can answer questions. The committee also noted that state approval is typically required for full forgiveness and that municipal recourse may be limited if the state and town disagree.
What’s next: the committee asked staff to accept CHT’s submission and to schedule a public meeting to review the materials. Members said the discussion may take months and could require additional documentation and state involvement before any municipal sign‑off.
