GREENFIELD — The Community Preservation Committee is recommending that City Council approve $243,330 in funding requests, including $60,000 for facade restoration at the former Wilson’s Department Store on Main Street.
After reviewing 10 requests, the committee recommended partially or fully funding all but two. Committee members said they were not in favor of funding a $65,000 request from Spike Segundo LLC for restoration and rehabilitation of buildings on Bank Row, and a $100,000 request from Greenfield Housing Associates to develop apartments on Deerfield Street, as other funding pools exist for these projects.
“I believe that this could be something that he could get a loan for, unlike some other places where a loan would not be part of the picture,” Community Preservation Committee Chair Susan Worgaftik said of the Bank Row proposal.
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.
Of the projects the committee agreed to recommend to City Council, the Franklin Community Co-op would receive the largest amount. The committee recommended fulfilling $60,000 of the co-op’s $120,000 request. Members said they were not in favor of funding the full amount, as they wished to save money for other projects, but they agreed to partially fund the restoration of the facade of the former Wilson’s building.
“The co-op serves people throughout the community, and what it will do for Main Street is pretty incredible,” member Wisty Rorabacher said. “Given the other projects, I’m not interested in the $120,000, but $75,000 to $80,000, I would be interested in.”
Community Development Administrator Anna Oltman said community members were surveyed on all the proposed projects, and the co-op’s proposal received the most support from the 49 respondents. The survey asked residents to rate projects on a scale of one to five based on how valuable they would be to the people of Greenfield and to themselves, as well as if they believed the projects would represent a good use of CPA funding. The Wilson’s proposal received an average score of 3.93.
Committee members also created their own ranking of projects on a scale from zero to 48 that looked at benefits to the community, whether the project had community support and whether other funding sources were available. The co-op received an average score of 38.67 from committee members.
Members agreed to recommend fully funding the city clerk’s request for $30,000 to buy a machine that would allow for digitalization and preservation of documents; the Museum of Our Industrial Heritage’s $24,600 request for the preservation of historic paintings; the Greenfield Housing Authority’s $30,000 request to support a Security Deposit and Rental Assistance Fund; the Conservation Commission and Planning Department’s joint request for $20,000 to support improving conservation and recreation opportunities at Millers Meadow; and the Recreation Department’s $8,730 ask for improvements to Beacon Field.
Community Preservation Committee member Garth Shaneyfelt said CPA funding has previously been used to support the Recreation Department, and member Victor Moschella said the request is in line with what CPA funding is designed to do.
“Rec Departments are rock stars of this legislation because they have an operating budget, so what they do is they show up with amazingly reasonable requests. They walk in, they say, ‘We’ve got the trucks, we’ve got the people, we’ve got the tools, we’ve got the experience, we’ve even got lunch. We just need a couple of bags of concrete,'” Moschella said. “That’s also clearly shining a light on a gap in funding. So I think it’s just an incredibly reasonable request.”
With a limited budget of $262,200 for the year, the committee could not fully fund all 10 requests that it reviewed, which totaled $666,456. The committee had also received an 11th funding request, however, the applicant, the Episcopal Church of Saints James and Andrew, rescinded its ask for $68,126 for restoration of the church’s exterior.
The Community Preservation Committee voted to partially fund requests from Rural Development Inc. at $50,000 of its $150,000 ask to support the development of 32 housing units on Main Street, and the Conservation Commission at $20,000 of its $50,000 ask to support the Greenfield Conservation Fund.
Members expressed hesitancy about giving the Conservation Commission funding that would ultimately sit in a separate account waiting to be used, but ultimately agreed to partially fund the request, saying the fund would allow the commission to take more immediate action after getting approval from state or federal agencies that regulate any conservation projects they are working on.
“These projects have to get so many layers of approval, from the state, from here and there. When somebody finally says, ‘OK, you get permission,’ you need to jump on it,” Community Preservation Committee member Donna DuSell said. “It gives them a start on really making this a priority and … knowing we have this little pot of money, how do we make it grow? How do we use it best? I think that can result in things happening that are positive.”
The recommendations will now move forward to City Council for final approval. Worgaftik said the council typically accepts the committee’s recommendations, but could opt to reduce or cut some of the requests. It would likely still be a few months before any of the applicants could sign their contracts and receive funding.
