At Brockton Redevelopment Authority, things fall apart

The agency leading Brockton’s revitalization is struggling. Operations ceased this fall.

The last executive director, Nathalie Jean, said staff learned in August “that we should be looking for jobs.” She said, “We’re under pressure and could go out of business at any time.”

Money is scarce. The Brockton Redevelopment Authority’s contract to manage federal grants expired. The BRA and city claim one another’s cash. Major projects are years away. A developer sued this summer.

The suit, since dismissed, followed three days after the city lawyer wrote, alleging “the Authority has not complied with applicable federal and state laws.” Brockton demanded the BRA transfer over all “federal funds on hand immediately.”

Months earlier, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had closed a series of findings — documented irregularities.

Jean’s predecessor, Patricia Jackson, said, “Findings are normal” and HUD audits the BRA.

However ordinary, formal findings demand diligence. “I worked on trying to close them,” Jean said. “All of a sudden, they’re like ‘Oh, we’re taking away the grants.’”

Jean started in May 2023. Scrutiny from HUD began her first week. “They were very nitpicky about the backup documentation,” she said.

Good standing with HUD, the primary funder, is mandatory.

Over three years, $1.6 million of Brockton’s CDBG allocation and $3.8 million of HOME funds went unspent. So much was rarely left on the table.

Federal grants require collaboration. At times, Brockton withheld a requisite cover sheet, she said.

While restoring HUD’s confidence, the BRA was selling 11-15 Frederick Douglass Ave. As the deal faltered, the buyer sued.

The developer, Tanetta Williams, works for HUD as a Senior Program Analyst. She owns a barbershop in Brockton.

Her lawsuit attempted to purchase the property for $260,000, though her contract omits the price. Only a secondary document had the agreed number.

Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on pre-construction designs, Williams raised $36,000 in grant funds from MassDevelopment.

In some applications, Williams claimed to own the building. The BRA remains the owner.

Public instrumentality strained

The BRA is the private sector’s intermediary, handling haggling public servants ought to avoid.

Government partnership is necessary. It sells city land. State law provides its eminent domain authority. MassDevelopment funds its projects. Political appointees — four mayoral and one gubernatorial — sit on the board. Brockton’s federal grants fund it.

However independent, the BRA cannot act unilaterally. Urban Renewal land transactions are approved by the state.

Municipal partnership was deteriorating. Jean said Brockton owes over half a million. The city claims “10 years of unpaid funds,” according to the board agenda.

“When problems came up,” Jean said she got “no support from the city.”

Selling 11-15 Frederick Douglass Ave. was a priority. Yet, needing cash, the BRA reappraised the property after negotiating its sale price.

In November 2022, Jackson told the board, “the state determines whether the sale price is reasonable, I will have it reappraised to show DHCD.”

In January 2024, the BRA board discussed another reappraisal. The authority owed $130,000 from relocating Brockton Furniture. They hoped to cover that cost.

When the BRA requested new developers last summer, no one responded.

Sale process not followed

11-15 Frederick Douglass Ave. was an “important catalyst” for Brockton’s 2016 Urban Revitalization Plan. A restaurant incubator was planned for the first of three phases.

Two years in, BRA Executive Director Robert Jenkins told the local newspaper demolition was possible. For the URP, rehabilitation and demolition decisions were key.

11-15 Frederick Douglass Ave. was borderline. Labeled “severe disrepair,” it required “extensive repair” with “major investment.”

Expensive preservation was by design. In 2015, city planner Rob May expressed a preference for rehabilitation.

The BRA issued a Request for Qualifications in 2019. Initially, only one developer bid for 11-15 Frederick Douglass Ave.: New Vision Enterprise. Proposing housing, it went nowhere.

By 2021, Restaurante Cesaria and Williams had expressed interest. The BRA worried about both. Cesaria’s timeline was long, but its presentation was “1st class.”

Williams was new to property development, as was her eventual partner, Steve Parham, a retired Boston Police officer. She won.

In September, the BRA’s board discussed her Exclusive Negotiating Agreement “with an acquisition price of $260,000.”Only a memo listed the price. Williams and Jenkins signed in January 2022. The court found it “doubtful” that the memo was “binding.”

The RFQ outlined an ENA, “which establishes a purchase price.” ENA’s would be a “fee acquisition or a fixed-term option to purchase agreement.”

That overstates BRA practices. An ENA from 2021 included a minimum and maximum acquisition price under the heading: Good Faith Negotiations.

ICD’s ENA is different, still. Noncommittal, it omits an acquisition price. It reads “negotiations regarding the” Land Disposition Agreement “shall commence after a purchase price has been agreed upon in writing.”

On June 4, 2021, the BRA applied for a grant from MassDevelopment. It won $140,000.

Bolstered by developers’ interest, the application anticipated the redeveloped property value would range from $2.5 to $4 million. Later, ICD estimated $7.85 million in costs.

That application said an LDA was planned for July 1, 2021. Three MassDevelopment reviewers questioned the timeline. Yet, all answered “yes” whether the timeline was realistic.

Roadblocks abound

The BRA conducted publicly funded site cleanup. A solicitation for roof repair was issued in August 2021. The next spring, New Vision Enterprise finished interior demolition.

Meanwhile, Williams’ ENA expired. In March 2022, Jackson conditioned an ENA extension on Williams winning a predevelopment loan from MassDevelopment.

Jenkins wrote two letters of support. He was headed out the door. Within months, MassDevelopment hired him as a senior vice president. He had no comment on this story.

Williams’ application was denied. The loan required first taking title or entering into a purchase and sale agreement. She had neither.

She wrote to MassDevelopment in May, frustrated about “a new application requirement regarding site control.” She wrote, “MassDevelopment previously noted that a form of site control would be considered, such as the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.”

Williams continued, “The BRA could not transfer the site because the building environmental clean-up was delayed.”

The BRA now acknowledges “developers may require legally recognizable site control as part of the development process.” That could include agreements before an LDA.

Even so, Dan Rivera, MassDevelopment’s then-president and CEO, reassured Williams, pledging “our team will work with you on getting to ‘yes’”

Thereafter, BRA drawdowns on a federal lead abatement grant halted, Jean said. “Put on administrative hold, it was definitely in danger of being taken away.”

“The last draw down that had been done was May 2022,” she said.

The next month, ICD and the BRA applied to MassDevelopment for funding. ICD sought $738,000, winning $36,000. The BRA won $250,000 for brownfield remediation.

ICD’s application read “Land Disposition Agreement prepared and signed.” The closing was planned for June. Whether ICD owned the property, Williams truthfully answered “no.”

ICD planned to contribute less than $550,000 of equity towards the total cost.

The LDA timeline was shifting. The BRA anticipated a draft by April 2023. In July 2022, Jackson emailed MassDevelopment estimating July 1, 2023. She said ICD was “on the right track.”

In November, Williams was deemed ineligible for the bulk of funding. The reason: lack of ownership. “Site control is primary,” MassDevelopment told her by email, “the applicant must own the building.”

In future applications, ICD was identified as the building owner. None were funded.

It was already too late. In February 2023, MassDevelopment’s vice president for business development, Jay Pateakos, wrote to Jackson with surprise: ICD was seeking new funding. “I remember you saying you wanted to kick them to the curb,” Pateakos wrote.

Afterwards, the BRA agreed to extend ICD’s ENA twice more. In court, Williams failed to prove the BRA’s negotiations lacked good faith.

“The city didn’t feel confident,” Jackson recalled in retrospect. “If we turn this over to her, [that] she would be able to develop this property.”

Over the next two years, ICD won $750,000 state historic rehabilitation tax credits. Williams’ name repeatedly appears under the field “owner.”

In March 2023, the first of HUD’s letters arrived. The BRA, HUD warned, was behind schedule and meeting none of the lead grant program benchmarks. Brockton’s $4.7 million grant was recommended for “high-risk designation.”