Frequently Asked Questions

The Lincoln School Apartments (LSA) are a 60-unit affordable rental housing community for seniors and persons with disabilities.  They are located near downtown Hingham at 86 Central Street, at the corner of Elm Street. The original building served as a Hingham elementary school from 1912 until the 1970s.  In 1979, the Benedictine Fathers located at Glastonbury Abbey purchased and expanded the building to convert it to affordable housing.  The renovated building opened in 1982 and primarily includes one‑bedroom apartments and a small number of studios and two‑bedroom units.

In 2008, the Town, after a Town Meeting vote, repurchased the property from the Benedictine Fathers pursuant to a right of first refusal that the Town held as part of the original sale terms. Since that date, the Town has owned the building and leases it to a Limited Liability Corporation (Lincoln Apartments, LLC) whose sole member is the Hingham Affordable Housing Trust (HAHT). A volunteer five‑member Board of Managers, made up of Hingham residents, oversees the management company, Corcoran Management Co., which has managed the property and its finances since LSA opened in 1982.

It asks residents to authorize, but not require, the Hingham Select Board to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer the 86 Central Street property for continued use and potential expansion as affordable housing. If approved, the Select Board would have the authority to evaluate the Town’s options regarding Lincoln School, negotiate the terms of a transaction, and determine the most appropriate arrangement, if any, in the Town’s best interest.  

The article would serve three purposes:  (1) to move the Town out of the ownership role for this residential building, (2) to finance needed capital improvements to the building, and (3) potentially to expand the building.  It would require the Select Board in any such transfer to record deed restrictions that run with the property to ensure it remains affordable and restricted to occupancy by seniors and those with disabilities, as well as restricting the building’s footprint to no more than 30% of the property.  If the Select Board does decide to go ahead with a conveyance of the property, any proceeds would first be used to pay off any outstanding debt associated with the property.  Approval of the article would permit the Select Board to explore these options but would not require that the property be transferred.

The Lincoln School Apartments structure is aging and needs major repairs and upgrades expected to cost some $5 to $10 million, far exceeding its current replacement reserves of approximately $2 million. These repairs are needed for the safety and comfort of the residents and the structural integrity of the building.  Over the next five to ten years, the property will require repointing of the brick exterior, repairing and replacing portions of the roof, overhauling the HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) system throughout the building, and renovations to the common areas and individual units. The building also needs a second elevator to ensure the health and safety of the residents. The Board of Managers so far has an estimate on the building-exterior repointing project, which alone is expected to cost in excess of $2 million, and for roof repair and replacement in the range of $450,000.   The Board of Managers is in the process of obtaining a comprehensive Capital Needs Assessment that will further update the building’s capital needs with cost estimates.

Hingham is unique in Massachusetts, to our knowledge, in owning and overseeing a large housing development, a role typically filled by housing authorities or experienced private property developers in conjunction with managers.   Over the last 18 years of owning and managing the building, it has become clear to the Town that it lacks the resources and specialized expertise needed to manage such a large residential property.  The Town has been overseeing Corcoran’s management of the property and the finances of LSA through the volunteer Board of Managers and a portion of the time of one or two Town staff members.  The Town does not believe that this approach serves the needs of residents as well as they could and should be served.  Through a Request for Proposals process, the Select Board would seek to identify affordable housing developers with excellent track records of developing and running comparable developments here in Massachusetts.

In addition, it costs far more for the Town to operate and maintain LSA than it would cost a private owner, because the Town is subject to state prevailing wage and public bidding requirements that make every maintenance and renovation project materially more expensive and time-consuming.  In connection with any expansion of the building, private entities can access financing sources that the Town cannot access — especially low-income housing tax credits — that enable them to finance improvements and expansion beyond the capabilities of the Town.  

The demand for affordable housing in Hingham, and throughout Massachusetts, vastly exceeds the available supply.  The Town’s 2021 Master Plan prioritized the need for more affordable housing as one of the Town’s seven priority areas for the current decade, and since then the need has only increased. See 2021 Hingham Master Plan; see also 2021 Hingham Housing Plan. The Master Plan tasked the Hingham Affordable Housing Trust (HAHT) with creating 50 additional affordable housing units in the current decade, a goal that will not be met without additional multifamily units. Meanwhile, in the last five years, the LSA’s waitlist has doubled from 72 applicants to 146, resulting in a two-to-five year waiting list for units. The same is true at the Hingham Housing Authority’s Thaxter Park on Thaxter St., an affordable rental development that includes 92 rental apartments, 84 of which are reserved for seniors and persons with disabilities. Expanding a town‑owned property creates a rare opportunity to deliver 100% affordable housing. In contrast, multifamily housing built on privately-owned land typically includes a majority of market‑rate units, with only one affordable apartment for every four to ten market‑rate units. Thus, by using property sold by the Town with deed restrictions, the Town can achieve a far greater number of affordable homes than by a private developer building on private land purchased without similar deed restrictions.

In the HAHT’s discussions with the Town over the last several years, LSA is the only site that has been identified as being realistically available and ready for near-term development.    Further, the LSA location has unique advantages. Its proximity to downtown Hingham provides easy access to public transit, shopping, medical care, religious services, and other essential daily activities, allowing residents to remain connected and independent.  Importantly, the property is already fully functioning as a senior affordable development – it has an existing comprehensive permit and fully built-out utility access (sewer, water, electric, and gas), which makes expanding the existing building far more efficient and cost effective than commencing a development initiative at a new site. 

Yes, an expansion, if pursued, would assist the Town to retain as much control as possible over its multifamily development under the state’s affordable housing statute, Chapter 40B.  Part of the Master Plan’s rationale in urging additional affordable housing in the current decade is to enable Hingham to remain above the 10% Chapter 40B threshold.  Towns that remain above 10% retain greater control of whether they will permit additional multifamily developments – in other words, over their residential growth strategy with its impact on municipal resources. The Commonwealth tracks each town’s so-called Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) of affordable homes —and whether 10% of each municipality’s homes are eligible to be included on the list.  As of 2026, Hingham is at approximately 10.3% -- in other words, it currently meets the requirement, but by a narrow margin. See Executive Office Of Housing And Livable Communities Ch40B Subsidized Housing Inventory for Hingham -2026. Meeting the Master Plan’s goal for added affordable units in this decade will help the Town stay comfortably above that threshold as new market rate homes continue to be built. 

The Town has received a modest financial benefit from owning LSA – an average of $119,000 per year, or roughly one-tenth of one percent of the Town’s current tax levy.  To explain further, there are three elements of the financial arrangement between the Town and LSA pursuant to the terms of the applicable Ground Lease: 

• First, the LLC has been repaying the Town’s purchase price for the LSA out of LSA’s revenue, by paying the Town the debt payments owed on the 20-year bond through which the Town financed the purchase.  That bond will be paid off in 2028.  
• Second, the LLC also pays annual real estate taxes to the Town.  Those taxes have averaged $68,000 annually over the last 17 years.   
• Third, starting in 2014, the Town also has had the right to receive “cash flow rent,” which is set at 90% of the prior year’s net cash flow on the property after all expenses.   The Town has received an average of $51,000 annually in cash flow rents.  

However, the Town has had to make several further contributions over the last 18 years to the LLC because it has struggled to maintain adequate reserves to meet the capital needs as the LSA structure has aged.  In 2013, the Town advanced the LLC $200,000 to replenish its replacement reserves in anticipation of certain capital related projects; the LLC has been repaying that to the Town as additional rent over the term of the lease.  In 2021, the LLC borrowed an additional $1,009,000 from the Town pursuant to a prior Town Meeting vote to fund a comprehensive window replacement project.  That debt is scheduled to be repaid in ten payments starting in 2028, once the purchase bond is paid down. 

To further support the replacement reserve, the Select Board for the last three years has waived the annual cash flow rent payments noted above, returning those amounts to the LLC.  The LLC currently has approximately $2 million in its replacement reserve and has capital needs estimated at $5 - $10 million in the next several years.   It is therefore likely that it will need to continue to request that the Select Board waive the cash-flow rent payment over at least the next several years. 

In sum, to date the Town has received a total of approximately $2 million, or $119,000 per year, through tax and cash-flow rent payments.  Absent a transaction, it would likely continue to receive the tax payment only, which was $83,000 in 2025.  This represents less than one-tenth of one percent of Town’s 2025 tax levy of $114 million. 

Those figures appear to refer to the “cash flows from operating activities” line in the financial statements – before replacement reserves and certain other costs are accounted for.  As noted above, the LLC has under-funded those replacement reserves in the past, resulting in a) the Town having to step in and assist twice and contribute an added $1.2 million, and b) the Select Board voting to forego the cash-flow rent for the last three years given inadequate reserves.  If the Town decides to keep the property going forward, it is expected the Select Board will need to continue to waive the cash-flow rent for the foreseeable future to enable the LLC to address the millions of dollars of capital needs discussed above.   And even after those needs are met, the LLC will likely still need to devote most of the cash flow to rebuilding the capital reserve to avoid a future shortfall.  Thus, for the foreseeable future, the only annual payment the Town can reasonably expect is the tax payment ($83,000 in 2025) – not amounts in the $600K to $1 million range.

The Town doesn’t have an expected price at present.  In connection with a Request for Proposals process, the Town would obtain an appraisal of the property subject to the applicable deed restrictions to help guide its decision-making.  It expects that the bidders’ financial proposals will depend on several factors that the Town can’t  currently predict, including the number of proposed new units, the corresponding revenue projections, and expected renovation and build costs.   Relatedly, affordable housing projects must demonstrate local financial commitment to the project in order to qualify for competitive state and federal funding.  In this case, the expected contribution would likely include at least a portion of the value of the land and building, as reflected in either sale or long‑term ground lease terms.  This local investment would then enable a developer to secure most of the project’s financing from outside sources, such as Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits and state housing grants. The Select Board would obtain an independent appraisal of the property as well, to inform its decision-making on the financial aspect of any sale or lease transaction.

The Select Board and Affordable Housing Trust don’t have a specific number of units in mind, though they envision an addition that is roughly half the size of the current building (staying within the 30% building / lot coverage permanent deed restriction stated in the warrant article motion).  The goal is to enable a developer to add enough units to support the financial viability of the development, while keeping the development consistent with the character of the surrounding area.  Thus, the specific size of any addition will not be known until the Town completes the RFP process.  Applicants will propose a number of units based on the Town’s stated priorities, the lot size and configuration, financial models, and design goals. A developer may also submit a plan that adds no additional units, depending on its assessment of feasibility. 

Recent experience in Massachusetts has shown that developers are far more likely to participate in a Request for Proposals process if Town Meeting has first endorsed the development under consideration showing the Town’s support for added housing in the particular location.  For developers, preparing a proposal is expensive and time‑consuming.  Proposals include identifying a development team, preparing extensive site plans, financial modeling, and other planning, and can run to 100+ pages in length.  It is in the Town’s interest to solicit as many strong proposals as possible, and therefore the Select Board and HAHT request this delegation of authority to the Select Board.  As noted above, the grant of authority does not lock the Select Board into accepting any proposal — it simply allows the elected Select Board to fully develop the Town’s options before deciding whether to proceed.

No.  Once Town Meeting authorizes the Select Board to undertake a transaction, the Select Board would have authority to prepare and issue a Request for Proposals, decide which if any proposal that is presented meets the Town’s best interests, and proceed toward a disposition without returning to Town Meeting. That said, the Select Board’s decision whether to proceed with a proposal would take place only after public meetings and comment, the Town would follow a public procurement process, and any proposed addition would then need to obtain any necessary permits.

The Select Board would oversee an RFP process subject to all applicable laws and regulations seeking proposals from qualified developers to acquire or lease, renovate, and potentially expand the property.  The RFP would seek proposals for renovation and a potential addition, subject to deed restrictions that it be 100% affordable rental housing for seniors and people with disabilities and that the building footprint not exceed 30% of the two-acre parcel. The RFP would outline the Town’s goals and set evaluation criteria that any proposal must meet.  It would elicit plans for renovations, the size of any proposed addition, proposed affordability levels, energy efficiency and climate impact, landscaping and building design, parking and the preservation of green space, management and care for current residents during the building process, and other key considerations. Respondents typically must submit conceptual design plans, an initial financing structure, management plans, and an implementation timeline.  Respondents would also need to demonstrate a track record of delivering a high‑quality and financially viable development on time and on budget.  

If the Select Board selects a proposal as best meeting the Town’s goals, it would enter into a land disposition agreement or a long-term lease with the selected developer or development team. That entity would then be responsible for obtaining any necessary permits and approvals, as well as any required state and federal approvals. 

The building now operates under a Comprehensive Permit issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), and any purchaser or lessee would apply to the ZBA for a modification of that permit.  Towns like Hingham that exceed Chapter 40B’s 10% threshold for affordable homes typically use Comprehensive Permits to add affordable housing. A Comprehensive Permit streamlines the approval process by consolidating multiple local reviews into a single process before the ZBA, significantly reducing the time and cost to move a project forward. The Comprehensive Permit process can help control development costs, reduce local financial risk, and ensure long-term affordability through regulatory agreements. 

The Select Board has emphasized that it will use the RFP process to require bidders to demonstrate that they would protect current residents to the greatest extent possible during and after any renovation and/or expansion.  The Section 8 contract with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that sets current affordability levels has a 20-year term that will expire in 2030.  HUD has a very strong record of renewing those contracts on developments like the LSA that have operated successfully, and the Town’s sale or lease to private purchaser would not be expected to increase the historically low risk of non-renewal of the HUD contract.  Again, the Select Board would use the RFP process to address issues relating to HUD’s renewal of the existing contract.

The Select Board, in consultation with Town Counsel, can require the RFP criteria to include appropriate protections, such as: 

1. Requiring responding development teams to demonstrate track records of current ownership and development of high‑quality, on-time, and on-budget development, as well as strong management services;
2. Evaluation of ownership or lease structures that best protect the Town’s interest in continued affordability and management in the interests of residents and the Town;  
3. Affordability covenants imposed by issuers of tax credits or other means of affordable-development financing; and
4. Use of the permitting process to ensure that the developer designs and maintains the property appropriately.

Further, state oversight of affordable housing developments by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency and other agencies include annual compliance reviews and enforcement mechanisms that ensure affordability and sound management.

That is very unlikely; and an expansion would protect against that risk.  The proposed motion for the Warrant Article would require a deed restriction limiting the size of the total building footprint to 30% of the lot size.   This is the same limit that was voted at Town Meeting in 1979, when the Town initially voted to sell the property for conversion to affordable housing.  Nonetheless, some have raised a concern that if, hypothetically, the Town were at some point in the future to fall out of compliance with the 10% affordable-housing threshold under the Massachusetts affordable housing statute (known as Chapter 40B), a private owner might then be free to expand the building still further – by overcoming the Town’s permitting process through an appeal to the state appeals authority.  That concern is very unlikely to arise, for two reasons.  First, a 30% building-size deed restriction should remain binding on a future owner even if the Town were to fall below the 10% threshold, since Chapter 40B deals with zoning and not deed restrictions.  And the risk of falling below that 10% threshold is that much lower if the Town were to expand Lincoln School than if it doesn’t.  The Town’s current stock of affordable housing stands at approximately 10.3% of the Town’s total housing units.  Each new affordable unit created offsets ten market-rate units under Chapter 40B’s formula.   Thus, adding affordable units at Lincoln School Apartments will strengthen the Town’s control over future development, not weaken it. 

The Select Board can require every entity responding to the RFP to demonstrate a strong track record of successfully completing occupied renovations while mitigating resident impact.  Responding development teams can be required to submit detailed plans concerning how they will:

• Provide advance notice of all construction activities, including timelines, expected noise, and temporary access changes.
• Limit displacement by sequencing work so residents can remain in their homes whenever possible.
• Maintain safe and accessible living conditions, including clear pathways, lighting, and emergency access at all times.
• Ensure continuity of essential services, such as utilities, mail delivery, trash removal, and transportation access.
• Coordinate work hours to limit noise and inconvenience, particularly during early mornings, evenings, and weekends.
• Offer temporary accommodations or on‑site relocation, if needed for limited periods, at the developer’s expense.
• Communicate regularly with tenants and resolve concerns quickly.
• Implement dust, debris, and air‑quality controls to maintain a healthy environment throughout construction.

A process resulting in disposition and expansion of LSA – including an RFP, developer selection, document negotiation, permitting, arranging financing sources, and construction – could realistically take 5-7 years, based on experience to date on comparable developments.