Selectman Tom Sheldon, left, and Chairwoman Jane Allen sign the warrant article for the Dec. 10 special town meeting.

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Selectmen on Monday unanimously voted to sign and recommend the passage of three special town meeting warrants related to the acquisition of the Spruces Mobile Home Park property.

 

The town will meet on Tuesday, Dec. 10, at 7 p.m. at Williamstown Elementary School to decide whether to authorize the Board of Selectmen to acquire the property under an agreement with park owner Morgan Management.

 

If the voters gives their approval, the way will be clear for the town to issue to Spruces residents a 24-month "notice of discontinuance," setting the ball rolling toward a December 2015 deadline for all park residents to vacate the premises.

Clearing the flood-prone park of housing is one of the conditions of the federal Hazard Mitigation Grant on which the town is partnered with Rochester, N.Y.,-based Morgan Management.

 

The warrant articles were recommended with little discussion from the board other than to compliment Town Manager Peter Fohlin, the prime architect of the agreement with Morgan, for drafting clear and concise explanations for the printed warrant.

 

The town will face three separate votes, each requiring a majority for passage.

 

The first would enable the Selectmen to accept the land at some future date — likely toward the end of the grant's 36-month performance period, which ends on March 28, 2016. The second article would allow the town to enter into lease agreement with Morgan Management for the interim, during which time the town would operate the park, charging residents the current rent (typically $250 per month). The third article will set up a revolving fund that will keep rental income partitioned from the rest of the town accounts and use it solely for the park's operating expenses.

 

The lengthiest discussion at Monday's meeting concerned a request from the town's Affordable Housing Committee related to the requests for proposals (RFPs) it is drafting to attract development on two town-owned brownfield sites: the former town garage site on Water Street and the former PhoTech mill on Cole Avenue.

 

The committee asked the Selectmen, which controls both properties, to OK language in the RFP that would make the parcels available to developers free of charge.

 

"We feel strongly it shows the sincerity of commitment on the part of the town to create affordable housing," AHC Vice Chairman Charles Bonenti said in explaining the request. "We are seeking maximum density of housing on those sites for the lowest income families. The lower we can make the cost of the development, the less he or she will have to recover in rent."

 

Bonenti noted that there is no apparent demand on the part of developers to build affordable housing in the town, so offering free land as an inducement makes sense.

 

Selectman Tom Sheldon agreed with Bonenti, saying, "Anything that is going to draw more [interest] in is a positive in my view."

 

But several of Sheldon's colleagues questioned why the town needed to give away the land in the RFP. Selectman David Rempell and Chairwoman Jane Allen suggested that instead, the town could draft an RFP that does not mention the cost of land one way or the other and let the developer come back with a proposal that either asks for the land as a gift or not.

 

"I don't see what the harm would be if we did what we did [on a prior RFP for] the Cole Avenue property," Selectman Ronald Turbin said. "We did not include a price. We just stated the assessed value was such-and-such without making that a condition."

 

"That may be one way to handle it," Fohlin said. "Include [the assessed value] in the property description ... and then a savvy developer will be clever enough to either offer the assessed value or not or more or less."

 

Affordable Housing Committee Vice Chairman Charles Bonenti addresses the Selectmen.

Sheldon suggested the RFP could include among its scoring criteria the income to the town from the development: income that could be derived from either a land purchase or, down the road, property taxes.

 

"If you explicitly offer it for free, you might get someone to come look who would not have even looked," Fohlin advised. "I have walked the PhoTech property with many developers and offered it for free, and they have not come back."

 

Fohlin noted that the Cole Avenue site faces challenges to a potential developer, in particular the proximity to the river and the presence of the former factory building that may need to be razed prior to development.

 

"I think Tom [Sheldon] has the best idea," Fohlin said. "If one of the criteria is not the selling price but the income to the town over a period of years, then somebody might ask for the land for free but build a bigger project that provides more tax revenue. At that point, whether they pay for the land or get it for free could become a moot point."

 

Speaking from the floor, resident Suzanne Kemple said her research on the Center for Housing Policy's website, housingpolicy.org, indicates that towns frequently engage in long-term leases with developers building affordable housing.

 

"I believe they're recommending this because it makes sure you can keep the units affordable in perpetuity," Kemple said. "That may be something to look at — instead of donating, looking at possibly long-term leasing may be something you want to consider."

 

Kemple agreed with Bonenti's point about the town needing to keep land acquisition cost low for the developer.

 

"In the guidelines for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits that fund these projects, you have to show town support," she said. "And that's not writing a letter that says, 'I support this.' That's putting your money where your mouth is."