Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board tables decision on $2.4 million commitment for 545 Main Street affordable‑housing project
Summary
After extended questioning about timing, lien priority and developer financing gaps, the Select Board voted 3–2 to table consideration of the town manager's $2.4 million funding recommendation for the 545 Main Street affordable‑housing project until its Oct. 7 meeting so staff and the applicant can seek alternatives and narrow the acquisition funding gap.
The Falmouth Select Board on Sept. 23 deferred a decision on a request that would commit the town to $2.4 million toward a 30‑unit deed‑restricted housing project at 545 Main Street, voting 3–2 to table the matter until the board’s Oct. 7 meeting.
Town staff recommended the full $2.4 million but proposed changing the timing of the award so less money is released for land acquisition and more is reserved for construction to reduce the town’s early‑stage risk. The developer’s representative, introduced in the packet as Michael Glasson, said the project faces an acquisition financing gap and asked the board to consider up to $850,000 for land purchase to meet an urgent deadline tied to a special‑permit timeline in June 2025.
“Having the $850,000 gives lenders and other people more confidence in the project,” the developer said, explaining that banks often provide only 50% of an acquisition loan and the balance must be filled by other sources. He added the project has nearly $5 million in historic‑tax‑credit equity and active conversations with state partners and lenders.
Town counsel and staff repeatedly cautioned that money used for land acquisition would likely leave the town lower on the lien priority than bank lenders. A town attorney summarized the legal risk: the town would be “at least second in priority, if not third,” in the event of foreclosure, which board members said heightened their concern about funding land purchases early in the process.
Select Board members split along risk‑tolerance lines. One member said the project is important and urged flexibility to help close the gap; another warned that committing taxpayer money for land acquisition could set an undesirable precedent and exposed the town to recovery risk.
After more than an hour of questions about sources and uses, loan terms, and the effect of a pending zoning Article 15 that could alter the developable density, a motion to table the funding request passed 3–2. The motion asked the town manager and assistant town manager to work with the developer to identify options to narrow the gap and report back at the Oct. 7 meeting.
What happens next: The developer said he will continue to pursue bank commitments, MassDevelopment loan guarantees and other sources to close the shortfall. The board’s Oct. 7 meeting will revisit the funding request if the parties report progress; otherwise staff said the town could consider alternative funding structures to reduce early‑stage risk.
