Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sudbury petitioners ask FinCom to back $500,000 for repairs to four SHA units
Summary
Petitioners urged the Finance Committee to recommend $500,000 from free cash to repair four Sudbury Housing Authority units rather than demolish and replace them; Town Counsel warned the Town cannot force SHA to accept repairs if funds are appropriated.
Petitioners seeking to preserve existing affordable housing presented to the Sudbury Finance Committee on March 30, asking the committee to recommend that Town Meeting appropriate $500,000 from free cash to repair four Sudbury Housing Authority (SHA) units.
David Merrill, Matt Allen and C.J. Davis told the committee the funds would cover electrical, heating, plumbing and interior work to bring two vacant and two occupied units into code compliance. They said the repair plan is a fiscally responsible alternative to an earlier proposal — originally estimated at about $4.2 million — to demolish the units and build four duplexes.
Assistant Town Manager and Finance Director Victor Garofalo summarized the petition and explained the warrant article would include a three‑year sunset clause: appropriation would be disbursed only after repairs are complete and any unspent funds after three years would revert to the Town. Garofalo and petitioners also said the $500,000 figure was developed from publicly available information and reasonable market assumptions.
Garofalo reported petitioners had met with two SHA members and that SHA has indicated it intends to restart the request‑for‑proposal process that prompted the earlier demolition/rebuild estimate. Town Counsel, as described to the committee, advised the Town that while it may place conditions on an appropriation, it cannot require SHA to undertake repairs in exchange for receiving funds.
Several residents had spoken during the public‑comment period in support of the petition. Committee members asked clarifying questions about project oversight and noted clerical errors in the warrant language that will be corrected on the floor of Town Meeting.
The Finance Committee did not record a final recommendation on this warrant article at the March 30 meeting. The next procedural steps noted were to clarify the warrant language and continue coordination between the petitioners, SHA and Town staff prior to Town Meeting.
