Fall River City CPC previews roughly $1.5M in available funds, weighs bonding for shovel‑ready projects

The Fall River City Community Preservation Committee on Jan. 14 was presented with a preliminary funding outlook and a draft score sheet staff asked members to use while they rank projects ahead of a final vote on Jan. 26.

Chair reported the city expects between $1.5 million and $1.8 million in CPC funds for the year, and noted older awarded amounts that return to the CPC could raise available dollars if the finance department reconciles them in time. "We're probably gonna have somewhere between 1.5, 1.8 come back from the state this year," the chair said during opening remarks. Committee staff warned that fixed obligations — two bond payments, bio‑reserve bond and administration costs — will reduce the discretionary pool.

Why it matters: Committee members must comply with the Community Preservation Act’s category rules, including the 10% housing set‑aside. Members emphasized that shortfalls or timing delays in returned funds could force the committee to either prioritize projects differently or use bonding to finance larger, shovel‑ready items while awaiting reimbursements.

Staff presentation and category constraints

Sandy, who provided the committee’s working cover sheet and score sheet, walked members through how returned funds were broken down by category and flagged that certain returned dollars are category‑restricted. "You have almost $1,000,000 extra dollars this year for historic preservation, and maybe $655,000 plus for open space and recreation," Sandy said, adding that those amounts can only be spent within those specific categories. Sandy also recommended funding deed‑restriction drafting for prior awards that have not yet recorded restrictions.

Members asked for clarity about timing and the role of the finance office in making returned funds available. The chair said staff will meet with Emily in the finance department to reconcile returns and that timelines depend on finance’s pace. Several members urged Sandy to provide a clear cover sheet showing fixed costs, reserves, and a handful of bonding and non‑bonding scenarios so the committee can deliberate with precise arithmetic.

Bonding vs. pay‑as‑you‑go

Committee debate focused on whether to bond large open‑space or land acquisition projects that are shovel‑ready this year. Supporters of bonding said it allows the CPC to preserve the opportunity to fund large acquisitions without waiting for returned funds; others warned the CPC has historically misused bonding when invoices were not yet incurred. One member summarized the tradeoff: bond to secure a time‑sensitive land purchase or wait and risk losing an acquisition.

Project priorities and phasing

Members discussed prioritizing project phasing to spread limited dollars — for example funding parking and basic infrastructure first for the Father Kelly Park application and delaying auxiliary elements such as benches or decorative lighting. Multiple members recommended that applications submit clear cost breakdowns so the committee can consider partial funding or phased award language in grant agreements.

Next steps

Sandy will reformat the draft score sheet and circulate a cover sheet showing multiple funding scenarios (1.2–1.7 million in available funds depending on returns and whether a project is reclassified into community housing). The committee will reconvene to vote on allocations on Jan. 26; members were asked to prepare any caveats or deed‑restriction language they want included in grant agreements.