WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Community Preservation Committee voted to recommend on Wednesday all four funding applications for approval at May's annual town meeting.

 

Two of the committee's votes were unanimous. The other two were opposed by at least one member of the panel, and one came down to a 4-3 decision.

 

Meeting no resistance were a $100,000 request from the town's Affordable Housing Trust and a $50,000 request from the Williamstown Meetinghouse Preservation Fund.

 

The largest request for the fiscal 2023 funding cycle, a $400,000 request from the developer of the Cable Mills housing complex on Water Street, passed by a vote of 6-1 after one member of the CPC argued repeatedly for an added layer of assurance on the affordability of eight income-restricted units in third and final phase of the complex.

 

A fourth application for $50,000 from the Store at Five Corners Stewardship Association, passed by just one vote.

 

Steven Stephen Dew, who occupies the CPC seat dedicated to a member of the Housing Authority, pressed Cable Mills developers David Traggorth and Bart Mitchell to commit to ensuring that eight of the 27 planned income-restricted units at the River Lofts will be open to holders of Section 8 vouchers, which the Housing Authority administers.

 

The developers replied that although the River Lofts will have eight units reserved for residents earning 30 percent or less than the area median income, they don't want to tie them to a separate federal program, Section 8, with its own rules that may change over time.

 

The eight units at 30 percent AMI and 19 units at 60 percent AMI (together, half of the River Lofts' planned 54 units) will be income-restricted in perpetuity, David Traggorth told the committee, just like the income-restricted units in Phase 1 of Cable Mills, which repurposed an existing mill building that fronts on Water Street (Route 43).

 

At Phase 1, three units are available to residents making up to 100 percent of AMI, and 10 are for residents making 80 percent or less than AMI.

 

The area median income, determined by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, is the number at which half of the households of an area are earning more and half are earning less.

 

According to the latest figures on the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development website, the Berkshire County AMI (excluding Pittsfield and other selected towns) ranges from $59,800 for a single person to $85,400 for a family of four up to $112,800 for a family of eight.

 

A family of four at 30 percent AMI would have a maximum of $25,620 in annual income.

 

Dew said that for FY23, the Section 8 program caps monthly rent on a one-bedroom apartment, including utilities, at $1,016.

 

"So if a unit that Cable Mills Phase 3 is building, including utilities, comes under that number, $1,016, set by the federal government, it is eligible for Section 8," Dew said.

 

Traggorth said that for residents at 60 percent AMI, the monthly rent would range from $950 for a one-bedroom to $1,300 for a three-bedroom. For families making 30 percent AMI, those rents would be about half, Traggorth said ($475 for a one bedroom and $650 for a three-bedroom).

 

"What I want to be careful about is should the Section 8 program change, should Congress change the eligibility, change the program, that we are tied to that program in perpetuity, which the town has no control over, we don't have any control over, it's really completely out of our hands," Traggorth said. "We are 100 percent these eight units at 30 percent AMI, the area median income, in perpetuity. We are applying for project-based [Section 8] vouchers … but that's my hesitation about making a promise to a program in perpetuity where we don't control what that program is and whether it will be around forever."

 

Mitchell agreed.

 

"Steve [Dew], I would just say that on a substantive level, we have a set-up that guarantees that very low income people get to live here forever," Mitchell said. "In perpetuity, these eight apartments are for people at 30 percent or below of median, period. Whether we have a Section 8 subsidy or not, we are required to stick with that.

 

"If the unit had, say, a 100 percent AMI requirement, it's rent could be higher than the Section 8 payment voucher."

 

Dew was unmoved.

 

When it came time to vote on the committee's recommendation, he moved that the article that goes to town meeting include a "clawback" provision that forces the developer to return the $400,000, with interest, "in the event the eight units they've promised will be low-income available – if they somehow become ineligible for Section 8 voucher holders."

 

Dew's motion to amend the article received no seconds, and the committee moved to a vote on the proposal, which ultimately passed, 6-1.

 

The committee Wednesday did not address how the town would meet the $400,000 commitment if passed by town meeting when it has about $268,000 available for all applications in the FY23 funding cycle. On Thursday, Chair Philip McKnight, who occupies the Conservation Commission's seat on the CPC, said that warrant article likely will mirror the 2007 article that committed $1.5 million for Phase 1 of Cable Mills, which read, in part, "to see if the town will vote to borrow and appropriate funds or transfer from available funds under the Community Preservation Act."

 

"I suspect we will do the same with [this year's] application, a combination of transferring from available CPA funds in the fiscal years ahead and then borrowing the balance when we have to, the later the better to reduce the bond carrying costs," McKnight wrote in reply to an email seeking clarification.

 

The Store at Five Corners group's CPA request was questioned both on the business plan for the historic South Williamstown property and on the basis that private fund-raising puts the stewardship association in a position where it does not need the $50,000 in CPA funds.

 

Jane Patton, who occupies the Select Board's seat on the CPC, asked the applicants about recent iterations of the Store at Five Corners and the challenge that future operators will have in making the venture successful.

 

Association directors Carolyn Umlauf and Alison Case emphasized that the Store at Five Corners Stewardship Association will not be operating a store but rather finding an experienced retailer to operate one. And the funds the association seeks are not for the commercial enterprise but to support immediate repairs and a long-term endowment to ensure the longevity of the 19th-century structure.

 

The applicants noted that past operators of the store have told their association that one of the problems with keeping the commercial operation viable has been the pressure of paying a mortgage. The Store at Five Corners Stewardship Association hopes to relieve that pressure by owning the building – recently purchased for $400,000 through private donations.

 

That strategy drew a second question from Patton.

 

"If you take the pressure off on the expense side … where's the skin in the game [for the operator]?" Patton asked.

 

Case said the non-profit's board recognizes that issue and has members with experience in business and non-profits who can select the right store operator from among the applicants it currently seeks.

 

"We're trying to split the difference," Case said. "That's our job. Are we giving away too much? Are we not giving away enough? … We need to find that line. How much do we need to effectively subsidize this business through reduced rent for it to be sustainable but not a giveaway? That's what we're here to do."

 

Later, Joseph Finnegan, a community representative on the CPC, and Dew, questioned the stewardship association's need for Community Preservation Act funds.

 

"I think it's a great project, but they have $400,000 [after the purchase] in the bank for a $100,000 fix, and they want to build an endowment, which is incredibly admirable," Finnegan said. "I don't think we've seen an application like that before us before, and I would hesitate to approve it."

 

Dew also expressed his support for the project but moved that its application be cut to $10,000 with the remaining $40,000 distributed to other FY23 applicants. That motion also did not receive a second before the committee voted, 4-3, to send the application to town meeting.