Needham CPC approves split funding for two housing projects, after debate over costs and tenant services

The Needham Community Preservation Committee voted March 19 to recommend funding two separate housing projects: $3,200,000 for the Needham Housing Authority's preservation of Seabeds Way and $2,840,223 for the Charles River Center's East Militia Heights development. The votes follow a detailed discussion about shifting budget items, a proposed $325,000 tenant-services increase from the Needham Housing Authority and options that might reduce the Charles River Center's requested CPA ask.

The committee is the town's body that recommends spending from the Community Preservation Act (CPA) fund. Dave Harrow, chair of the Needham Community Preservation Committee, opened discussion on the two housing proposals after consultant Emily Ackenberg reviewed a March 12 memo she had sent the committee about recent changes to the Needham Housing Authority (NHA) proposal. Emily Ackenberg said the NHA's most recent submission showed a higher tenant-services line and a proposed management-fee change from 2% to 3% "below the line," which reduced cash flow and required a smaller mortgage contribution from the housing authority. She told the committee that while the project's total cost had decreased she was not persuaded by the case for the additional $325,000 request given the committee's limited funds.

Committee discussion focused on two related points: the urgency of funding Seabeds Way because it is linked to the previously funded Linden Chambers project, and the Charles River Center project's greater flexibility to adjust its pro forma. Committee member Adam (liaison) presented a recommended split of the available housing balance (which he stated as $6,040,223) into $3,200,000 for the Needham Housing Authority and $2,840,223 for Charles River Center. Multiple committee members said they preferred that allocation because they viewed the NHA preservation project as less able to absorb reductions and more closely tied to the Linden Chambers timeline, while Charles River could pursue alternatives such as income averaging, concessions, or additional private or consortium funding.

Emily Ackenberg said the Charles River Center team had acknowledged the ideas discussed by the committee (income averaging and concessions) as reasonable but had not yet raised either with subsidy or investor partners, which created execution risk if the committee insisted on those changes. She also noted uncertainty about whether the Charles River Center missed any funding cycles for regional consortium funding.

Several committee members said they favored funding both projects in part; the motion that carried split the existing housing funds roughly along the lines proposed by Adam. The committee also discussed whether the CPC should make pre-closing disbursements to NHA and agreed that the committee's prior guidance (allowing pre-closing disbursements only after all project funds are committed and at the town's discretion) should guide any such request.

A committee member (Rich) stated a conflict of interest and recused themself from further discussion on the matter.

Formal recommendation motions and roll-call votes followed. The committee recommended funding of Charles River Center (Article 22) in the amount of $2,840,223 (split $741,180 from CPA free cash and $2,099,043 from CPA receipts) and recommended funding of Needham Housing Authority (Article 23) in the amount of $3,200,000 (with $872,545 transferred from the CPA housing reserve, $2,310,200 from CPA free cash and $17,255 from FY2025 general reserve). Both recommendations passed on recorded roll-call votes by the committee.

Why it matters: the two awards together use the majority of the committee's housing balance and will affect the timing and scale of other CPA-funded projects. Committee members repeatedly framed the choices as trade-offs between preserving existing affordable units (Seabeds Way) and supporting a new, larger Charles River Center development that serves people with intellectual disabilities and low-income households.

The committee indicated it would carry forward the conditions discussed during deliberations: (1) clarifying affordability or subsidy commitments (including project-based subsidy renewals and underlying affordability restrictions) and (2) limiting any pre-closing disbursement to situations where the project has all other funds committed and the town agrees.

The CPC will present its warrant articles and the committee's votes at Town Meeting in May; the committee also plans to provide the select board and town meeting members with FAQ material explaining the Seabeds Way'Linden Chambers connection and the reasons for the recommended split.

A note on process and uncertainty: committee members acknowledged Emily Ackenberg's point that certain requested cost adjustments (tenant services increases and management-fee changes) reduced available mortgage or other sources for NHA and that some of the proposed cost reductions for Charles River Center (income averaging, concessions) had not yet been tested with subsidy agencies or investors.

The committee's recommendation is advisory; final appropriation decisions will be made by Town Meeting when the warrant articles are considered in May.