image description
PERC Treasurer Barry Clairmont presented some 31 pages of documents supporting PERC's agreement with Westwood for land leases.

PERC Presents 31-Page Document Supporting Westwood Lease Agreements

By Andy McKeeveriBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Barry Clairmont on Monday dropped the mic, so to speak, ending uncertainty on the airport business park.
 
Clairmont essentially put a halt to an ongoing debate over land leases at the Westwood Business Park on Monday night when he delivered a 31-page packet of documents outlining the history and supporting the agreements as they exist to the Airport Study Group.
 
The study group was formed by Mayor Linda Tyer early this year and the land leases at Westwood have been an ongoing topic at every meeting since February. The entire matter centers on just $20,000 seven companies pay the city for the land on which their buildings sit.
 
The land leases are divvied up between the Airport Commission and the Pittsfield Economic Revitalization Corp. at an 85/15 percent split. The agreement was made in the mid-1980s and some members of the study group argued that a higher percentage of that funding should go to the Airport Commission while others support the existing agreement. There was also a concern that the city was not in compliance with federal regulations.
 
Clairmont is the treasurer of PERC and detailed all of the agreements that led to conclusions — no portion of the 85 percent going to PERC can go to the airport, all agencies involved have approved the agreements, and the leases can't be changed for another 50 or so years. 
 
The story starts in November 1983 when the city purchased five acres of land abutting the airport for $15,425, Clairmont said. On April 19, 1984, the minutes from an Airport Commission meeting show approvals to declare 25 acres of airport available for lease according to the plan presented by the Office of Economic Development for the "Barker Road Business Park." The Airport Commission also approved the plans, creating the business park.
 
In September of 1984, a letter from the Airport Commission shows that PERC was identified as the "sole and exclusive" developer of the park. A special piece of state legislation approved in November allowed for 40-year leases at the park.
 
Clairmont did find a letter dated December 1985 from the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (now the Aeronautics Division of the Transportation Department) warning airports not to develop or sell land with out its approval. However, Clairmont said that was sent to all airports and wasn't specifically for Pittsfield.
 
"They noticed some issues with airports selling or developing land without the commission's approval," he said.
 
On Feb. 23, 1986, the Airport Commission held a special meeting and approved the first lease with Leonard F. Gigliotti. That was one of two leases for $1 approved with the intention of spurring interest and development of the park.
 
Clairmont also found a March 13 letter from the city's Office of Economic Development outlining the restrictions on the properties including that no building be constructed to a total height greater than allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration or the state Aeronautics Commission, that no business could cause radio or electrical signals or frequencies that would interfere with air travel and that all lighting be shielded to avoid interference with the airport operations. Finally, the letter says all leases need to be approved by the FAA and Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission.
 
That July, state commission weighed in on the process calling on the city to "establish the value of fair market lease payments," an escalator clause tied to the consumer price index, that "fair market revenue must be returned to the Airport Commission's budget in some manner" and that money must be used for airport operations.
 
"They are basically laying down the ground rules," Clairmont said.
 
According to a memo between then Mayor Charles Smith and the Airport Commission in August 1986, that fair value was determined. Gigliotti Electric and Pittsfield News had both entered agreements for $1 but the agreement between the two city entities called for $1,000 lease per acre escalating every year.
 
"This is just an intercity memo but it lays out what went on in that particular meeting." Clairmont said.
 
On Sept. 3, 1986, the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission wrote the city, "the portion of the fair-market lease value paid to the airport commission should be based on the ratio of the investment put up by the airport commissions to the total investment put up by the city and the airport"
 
Six days later the FAA approved the leases for Gigliotti and Pittsfield News. 
 
The land was appraised twice at more than $90,000. Including the value of the 30 acres of land and the city's $400,000 and more to build the park out, the entire project was $504,189.
 
The city used federal Housing and Urban Development funds, via the Community Development Block Grant program, to build out the park. The value of the land at $90,000 was 17 percent of the entire project.
 
"This is laying out that initial split which the MAC and the FAA seemed to approve," Clairmont said.
 
In February 1987, the FAA wrote back, "we have also reviewed the appraisals and calculations you sent us regarding fair market values, return to the airport, etc. They are also acceptable."
 
The study group had been unsure of the FAA's opinion on the matter and that led to quite a debate this year in wondering if the airport was out of compliance with regulations. That February letter seems to be the first document showing the FAA did sign off on the agreements.
 
However, it also required additional leases to be approved individually and those separate documents haven't been found. Nonetheless, the letter Clairmont found shows that the FAA was aware of the split between the city and the airport.
 
In March 1987, the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission gave its approval of the project to that time.
 
Clairmont also pulled the federal government's definition of "program income" from the Community Development Block Grant that reads "when income is generated by an activity that is only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percent of CDBG funds used."
 
Later it was determined that the $90,000 value for the land included the $15,000 the city spent to acquire the five acres to add onto the park. Accordingly, the percent going to the Airport Commission was dropped to 15 percent. 
 
"It drops the airport's number from $90,000 to $75,000," Clairmont said. "If anything, the airport has been getting slightly more than it should be."
 
What does it all mean? It means that the city and the airport agreed to split the revenue generated by an 85/15 split, and the federal funding agencies both approved. That eliminates the study group's fears that the city has been operating out of compliance to grant assurances. Airport officials say all money generated from the airport needs to go back to aeronautical use and sending 85 percent of it to PERC wouldn't be compliant. 
 
PERC developed the park and has been handling the collections of rent. Last year it received $17,000 from the leases that is put back into programming. PERC was created for the business park so that the income generated stays locally. HUD requires that income generated go toward CDBG eligible projects, and PERC qualifies.
 
"The federal government owns the revenue stream," City Solicitor Richard Dohoney said. "It was a clever way in keeping HUD money local."
 
Dohoney said if the entire park was sold, the revenues from the sale would have to go to HUD. Should PERC dissolve, the lease money would go back to HUD. 
 
In order to raise revenues through the land leases for the airport, the entire leases would have to rise so that the 15 percent is of a larger pie. But, Clairmont found some of the leases that show not only are they for 40 years — which will start to expire in another decade — but there is also an option for the tenant to extend for another 40 years.
 
"The few that I found which were actual leases, the tenant has the sole option to renew," Clairmont said.
 
PERC President Jay Anderson added, "there is no ability for us to go back and re-negotiate that lease."
 
Councilor at Large Melissa Mazzeo, however, still questions the interpenetration of many of the documents — including the lease extensions. Mazzeo said she'd think the renewal would be the city's and not the tenants'. She also questioned the July 1986 document from the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission saying the money needs to be used for airport operations. She questioned whether the Airport Commission at the time knew that most of the money would go to another agency.
 
Ward 4 Councilor Christopher Connell said the $400,000 or so put in through CDBG funds have been repaid by now, so the money should go to the airport instead. 
 
But Dohoney said it wasn't a loan while Clairmont turned the statement around, saying the airport has been paid off.
 
"I could make the argument that the airport has been repaid," Clairmont said. "If you are trying to make an argument that someone has been repaid, I would argue that the airport has been repaid for its value."
 
Anderson added that PERC has been doing all of the billing and incurring the legal fees associated with changes to the leases while the Airport Commission has been hands-off, just receiving $3,000 a year for its contribution of 25 acres.
 
"If it wasn't for the city and PERC developing it then it would still be 25 acres generating no revenue for the airport," Anderson said. "The investment was completely made by the city of Pittsfield and PERC."
 
While Mazzeo and Connell still raised questions, overall the committee seemed to be done with the topic. The land leases have dominated every meeting of the group with a split among the members on where the money should be going, how much, the legality, etc. The lack of 30-year-old documents had kept the discussion from moving forward.
 
"I think we are beating a dead horse. People made deals, they were approved, there was a rational, it is consistent with what all of us know ... There is nothing here for this group to keep chasing." study group member Jeff Cook said. "To go back now and chase all this stuff, I don't think we are going to lead anything."

Westwood History by iBerkshires.com on Scribd

 

 

Tags: business park,   leasing,   pittsfield airport,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

MassDOT Project Will Affect Traffic Near BMC

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Prepare for traffic impacts around Berkshire Medical Center through May for a state Department of Transportation project to improve situations and intersections on North Street and First Street.

Because of this, traffic will be reduced to one lane of travel on First Street (U.S. Route 7) and North Street between Burbank Street and Abbott Street from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday through at least May 6.

BMC and Medical Arts Complex parking areas remain open and detours may be in place at certain times. The city will provide additional updates on changes to traffic patterns in the area as construction progresses.

The project has been a few years in the making, with a public hearing dating back to 2021. It aims to increase safety for all modes of transportation and improve intersection operation.

It consists of intersection widening and signalization improvements at First and Tyler streets, the conversion of North Street between Tyler and Stoddard Avenue to serve one-way southbound traffic only, intersection improvements at Charles Street and North Street, intersection improvements at Springside Avenue and North Street, and the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of First Street, North Street, Stoddard Avenue, and the Berkshire Medical Center entrance.

Work also includes the construction of 5-foot bike lanes and 5-foot sidewalks with ADA-compliant curb ramps.  

Last year, the City Council approved multiple orders for the state project: five orders of takings for intersection and signal improvements at First Street and North Street. 

The total amount identified for permanent and temporary takings is $397,200, with $200,000 allocated by the council and the additional monies coming from carryover Chapter 90 funding. The state Transportation Improvement Plan is paying for the project and the city is responsible for 20 percent of the design cost and rights-of-way takings.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories