GREENFIELD — The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) recently reviewed two funding applications — Rural Development, Inc’s (RDI) $150,000 request to build housing at 176 Main St. and the Church of Saints James & Andrew’s ask of $68,126 to renovate and repair its parish hall.
The state’s Community Preservation Act 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 through 11 applications. With $262,200 in CPA funds at its disposal, the committee will decide which projects to fund, and forward its recommendations to City Council in March.
176 Main St. housing
Of the 11 applications, RDI’s $150,000 request to create 32 new housing units for families of mixed income is the largest this year.
The proposal seeks to convert the existing single-story building into a new four-story building containing 24 units with residential community space on the first floor facing Main Street. In back of the building, RDI seeks to convert its parking lot into eight townhomes with landscaping and an outdoor play area, according to the application.
As the housing project comes at an estimated $24,096,892 total cost, Rural Development Housing Development Director Alyssa Larose explained at a presentation to the CPC last week that the project is likely to be awarded $850,000 in state grant funding through the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and has received letters of interest for loans from Greenfield Savings Bank, Greenfield Cooperative Bank and MassHousing Partnership.
Two years ago, the CPC awarded RDI $50,000 in funding for pre-development and feasibility work.
CPC Chair Susan Worgaftik, noting the particularly large financial ask for the proposal, asked Larose whether RDI would be able to continue with partial funding. In response, LaRose explained that the funding would go a long way toward showing the state that the city is supportive of the project.
“Bringing more people living directly downtown is going to be a real boost to the businesses downtown,” Larose said before the CPC. “We definitely have gaps that we’re trying to fill, so every little bit makes a difference … we’re committed to this project, we’ll try to make it work any way that we can, but we’re also trying to fill those funding gaps.”
With about 75% of the project’s design phase complete, LaRose said she hoped to find ways to cut costs in the remaining work. She noted that the additional funding requested by the CPA would mainly go toward completion of the pre-development planning.
Larose added that although some of the project’s largest funding sources have not fully committed funds yet, RDI remains confident that the state funding will be approved.
Peter Graham, who serves on RDI’s Real Estate Development Committee, echoed Larose’s remarks, explaining that the project’s primary source for pre-development funds has been the state’s Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation (CEDAC), which he said would likely not continue to finance the project’s planning unless it believed it would see a return on investment.
“CEDAC is essentially a big part of the state’s gatekeeper for projects. They literally wouldn’t keep giving us money if they weren’t going to get paid back by the state funding this,” Graham said. “By the time you get to where we are, the project has been vetted by all the powers that be at the state, and they basically look at it as having legs.”
The CPC application states that one of the project’s main priorities will be accessibility, as all 32 units will be visitable [wheelchair accessible], four units will be fully accessible to those with disabilities and one unit will be designed for residents with sensory impairments.
“These are required by the state for the funding. Some of the things that we’re doing are required by code, but more often than not, everything we do is six times what is required,” Graham said. “It’s also an opportunity — housing stock in our nation and in our community is very old, so there lacks, generally, visitable apartment buildings for those who wish to age in place or for those with any kind of mobility impairments.”
Church of Saints James & Andrew
The Episcopal Church of Saints James & Andrew located at 8 Church St. has requested $68,126 that, if approved, will be used to restore the structure’s exteriors, including repairing and repainting its stucco plaster, replacing trim, and replacing windows and doors.
Presenting the funding request before the CPC, St. Andrew’s Guild member Diane Kurkulonis explained that after learning it was in a historic district, the church leadership aimed to be a “good steward” to the building’s historic character.
Kurkulonis explained that when high winds damaged the church’s roof last year, the costly repairs revealed needed work to the building’s ceilings.
“As a result of the construction that had to be done, our beautiful horsehair plaster ceiling on the inside began to fall. We didn’t know that he had that historical ceiling, so that’s another expense that we’ve incurred as being a historic building of more than 200 years old,” Kurkulonis said. “This exterior repair funding would really help us … we’re faced with an elderly building [that] requires a lot of upkeep.”
When CPC member Jack Redman asked whether the church had alternative funding sources for the necessary renovations, should material costs increase after CPA funding is approved, Rev. Heather Blais explained that the church itself would fill the funding gap.
“We’ve been earmarking certain amounts aside for deferred maintenance and upkeep,” Blais said. “Part of why Diane moved forward with this application on our behalf was to help us supplement dipping into our own funds while we try to support a large campus.”
The CPC will meet to hear its final round of CPC presentations on Thursday, Feb. 26, before it meets again on March 19 to vote on which projects to recommend to City Council.