GREENFIELD — The Community Preservation Committee heard funding proposals for three separate projects this week, including a $120,000 facade restoration for the former Wilson’s Department Store building on Main Street.
The state’s Community Preservation Act (CPA) allows municipalities to adopt a property tax surcharge of up to 3%, the revenues from which are matched by state funds. Greenfield joined the CPA in 2020 with a local surcharge, allowing the city to receive state-matched funding for projects and initiatives related to housing, historic preservation, open space conservation and outdoor recreation.
This year, the committee received $666,456 in requests across 11 separate project applications. With $262,200 in CPA funds at its disposal, the Community Preservation Committee expects to decide which of the proposed projects to fund before it recommends its selections to City Council in March.
Wilson’s facade renovation
Discussed alongside the Recreation Department’s $8,730 request to construct two sets of concrete cornhole boards, a concrete ladder ball setup and a concrete chess table at Beacon Field, and the Conservation Commission’s request for $50,000 for its Conservation Fund, the $120,000 Wilson’s building facade renovation stood as the most expensive project discussed Tuesday night.
The Franklin Community Co-op, in its CPA funding application, states that the requested funds would cover only a portion of the facade replacement, which is expected to cost a total of $628,176.
MassDevelopment acquired the Wilson’s property, which spans from 242 to 250 Main St., in 2022 with plans to expand and relocate Green Fields Market — which is operated by the cooperative — to the building’s first floor, while turning the upper floors into 65 mixed-income rental apartments.
When Community Preservation Committee member Victor Moschella asked David Russell, the co-op’s finance director, why the facade renovation funding request had been separated from the approximately $26 million revitalization project, Russell explained that the facade repair was a historical preservation project.
Russell also explained, in response to a question asked by committee member Garth Shaneyfelt, that the facade’s replacement and renovation is necessary for the project to move forward, as it is needed to accommodate apartments in the building and to qualify the project for state funding.
“There’s a variety of state and federal funding going into the building. It’s pulled out [of that funding pool] because it’s historical, and that’s what this grant is earmarked for,” Russell said. “The removal [of the current facade] is definitely a requirement. Whether the restoration is a requirement — I would say at this point, given the funding structure, which involves significant both state and federal historic tax credits, it is a project requirement.”
So far, Russell wrote in his CPA application, the project has received two Massachusetts
Underutilized Properties Program grants totaling $1.3 million as well as $300,000 in tax credits from the Massachusetts Economic Development Incentive Program.
The application also states that those involved in the project — Community Builders Inc., MassDevelopment and the co-op — are seeking additional state and federal funding to close an approximately $1.7 million gap for the larger redevelopment project.
Community Preservation Committee Chair Susan Worgaftik, bringing up the fact that federal funding has been cut significantly in recent months, asked how stable the project’s funding stream was amid “uncertain times.”
“We did have some concerns about the federal new market tax credits, not so much in terms of whether they would exist, but timing,” Russell responded. “We’re pretty confident the parties with whom we’ve been discussing receiving those allocations all received allocations, and we have a consultant speaking to them now. There’s quite significant federal historic tax credits in the capital stack, but I don’t believe that program is in any way threatened.”
Committee member Jack Redman, explaining that the committee has limited funds and received a large number of applications this year, asked whether the co-op would be able to fill its funding gap should the committee only fund half of the $120,000 request.
“At this point, I feel like we can probably close the gap,” Russell responded. “There’s some uncertainty about what our gap actually is, but I feel fairly confident that we can close that gap by some means.”
Contribution to Conservation Fund
The second-largest funding request shared with the committee was the Conservation Commission’s request for $50,000 for the Conservation Fund — a pool of money set aside for the purchase of conservation land or for open space projects.
If allocated, Conservation Agent Jessica Siegel noted in her application, the funds would mark the first-ever use of CPA for the Conservation Fund. Without the fund, the application states, the commission would be tasked with the lengthy process of seeking City Council approval for each of the projects it will fund.
In response to Moschella’s concerns that the CPA funds would be allocated to an undedicated pool of money, Redman clarified that the commission could only use the proposed funds for CPA-eligible activity.
Redman asked Conservation Commission member Emily Boss whether there are specific projects in the pipeline that the commission seeks to support with the funding. Boss explained that the commission often has to fund projects on a relatively short timeline.
“Many times, projects come up at the drop of a hat that have high priority, that have a critical nature and that have a very short timeline in terms of the people who might be able to conserve the land,” Boss said. “The CPA funds are really critical in order to be able to make sure that the larger funds needed for a project are available. … Having funds in a pool that can come into play quickly can make it possible to make that larger project.”
Boss added that the proposed funding could also bolster environmental conservation projects, assist with the process of accepting land donations and help to remediate natural emergencies, such as landslides.
Debate ensued among committee members over whether to provide the commission with the funds directly, or hold and designate the funding for the commission in the event that a more specific use emerges in the future.
“Once the funding is in the Conservation Fund, it’s already been allocated by City Council and approved, so once it’s in the Conservation Fund, it only requires a vote of the Conservation Commission to be used,” explained Travis Drury, who serves on both the Conservation Commission and the Community Preservation Committee. “The quickest we could do it, we still have to review the application, vote on it, then it has to go to City Council, they have to have a first reading, they have to vote on it.”
Drury also explained that while the Conservation Fund currently exists, it is close to empty, noting that the Conservation Commission has trouble securing City Council funding.
“It hasn’t been very well-funded,” Drury explained. “Previously, the Conservation Commission has asked City Council for funding and has received nothing, and so [the fund] basically just dwindled down.”
Beacon Field enhancements
Of the 11 submitted CPA project applications, the Recreation Department’s request for $8,730 is this year’s smallest request.
Drury, mentioning that the Recreation Department previously received funding for cornhole installations, asked Recreation Director Christy Moore whether the park’s current Beacon Field play equipment is being used often, to which Moore said it is particularly popular among middle school students attending after-school programs.
“We have two sets of cornhole boards at the swim area, which are heavily used throughout the active season; not so much right now. We also installed a ping-pong table, which is used a lot. We have extra bean bags, as well as ping-pong paddles and balls that people can borrow near the swim area,” Moore continued.
Moore went on to explain that aside from one minor repair to the foosball table, the Recreation Department has seldom had to spend heavily on maintenance for similar recreational equipment.
“These are all concrete, so they’re low-maintenance,” Moore said. “They’re heavy to unload and set up, but once they’re set up, knock on wood, nobody’s going to move them.”