Town council votes to place $2 million housing board bond on financial town meeting warrant

The New Shoreham Town Council voted on April 16 to place a $2,000,000 bond question submitted by the Block Island Housing Board on the Financial Town Meeting (FTM) warrant. The measure would authorize the town to provide capital to support a West Side Road housing development proposed by the housing board; final borrowing would still require a subsequent council resolution before any bond is issued.

Cindy Pappas, speaking for the Block Island Housing Board, urged council members to forward the bond question so voters at the financial town meeting can decide. She said the housing board has built seven homes on time and on budget, is debt free, and would use the town’s contribution to attract state and private funding. “Your affirmative vote to place this question on the Town Financial Warrant allows for the possibility that every Block Island voter can now add their name to that auspicious list,” she said.

Supporters argued the $2,000,000 town contribution—roughly $125,000 per unit if sixteen units are built—would leverage additional state and private funds and demonstrate local commitment that is often required by grantors. Several speakers, including former council members and community advocates, said housing is the most critical issue facing the island’s year‑round community and urged voters to decide.

Council members expressed a range of views. Some said they supported placing the question on the warrant, noting that a voter approval would not immediately obligate the town to issue bonds; the council would still need to pass a resolution to actually issue debt. Others urged caution given other capital demands on the town—possible school reconstruction, a new or renovated fire station, a planned fire truck purchase and Coast Guard station concerns—and suggested exploring additional funding alternatives before committing municipal borrowing authority.

Council discussion clarified process questions: if voters approved the warrant at the Financial Town Meeting, the council would still vote later on a resolution to issue the bond; that later council resolution would be the moment for the council to consider alternative funding or to decline to authorize the bond if circumstances had changed. Town staff said that, realistically, even if the warrant passes this year, project funding and construction would likely not be completed until 2026–2027 because additional gap funding would be needed.

On a recorded roll call the council approved forwarding the question to the FTM warrant; the meeting record includes a roll call listing (“Payne, Stover, O’Neil, yes. Dodge, Macomb, no.”) and the chair announced the ayes had it. Several council members said they supported the idea of letting town voters decide at the Financial Town Meeting rather than leaving the decision to the council alone.

Housing board members and residents urged the council to keep the town board informed during subsequent planning and grant‑seeking. Housing board representatives said the project has an estimated total cost in the $6.5–7 million range, and that the $2,000,000 town contribution would reduce the remaining financing gap and improve the board’s chances for state support.

The council approved the warrant language at the meeting; town staff said the bond question language had been drafted to keep the authorization flexible (for example, “approximately 16 units”) and to avoid narrow statutory definitions of “affordable,” leaving program parameters to be determined by the housing board and future implementing agreements.

The measure will appear on the Financial Town Meeting warrant for town voters to consider; if approved by voters, a subsequent council resolution would be required to issue the bond and appropriate funds.